Cyber bullying of science

cyberbullyingI am always amazed at how easily public discussion about scientific issues can degenerate into childish and nasty attacks on science, and scientists. This is especially true for internet discussion – this medium really does seem to bring out the worst in some people.

Over the last few years we have seen climate science, and climate scientists treated this way. I have always tried to support that science, and those scientists, from afar and never thought I would become a victim of such nastiness myself.

Then I got involved in the fluoridation issue.

I am not critical of everyone who opposes fluoridation – some of my best friends oppose it. I can understand why some people will advocate personal freedom over social good. I can even understand the chemophobia and other misunderstanding which can make the less scientifically literate person a bit wary of fluoridation.

Anti-fluoridationists – a strange social mixture

But the anti-fluoridationists are a strange social mixture. Amongst the well-meaning environmentalists and health advocates there are some really irrational people. Conspiracy theorists are common. Some are concerned about chemtrails, others about Agenda 21 and attempts by the UN to control birth rates! Then there are the right-wing extremists, supporters of the US Tea Party Republicans, absolutely opposed to any community measure for social good.

The anti-fluoridation movement is a strange mixture of left and right, concerned greenies and outright libertarians. One wonders what would happen to these groups if the fluoride issue disappeared and internal strife broke out.

Unfortunately, it seems that quite often in the current controversy the more extreme conspiracy theorists and anti-science elements seem to be making the running. Speaking and acting for the more genuine members of the anti-fluoridation groups.

Internet bullying

I thought this only happened with teenage schoolgirls, or young female celebrities, but now find that even someone my age can become a victim. This video demonstrates the sort of attacks people who speak out about the science underpinning fluoridation can be exposed to. It really does put into context the decisions by local Health Boards not to participate in political meetings on fluoridation because of threats to, and attacks on, their staff.

VINNY EASTWOOD ATTACKS PRO FLUORIDE SCUM 23Sep2013 

In a way, this sort of bullying is a bit of a compliment. Perhaps I have done something right to have upset these anti-science extremists. But it is not about me. This sort of thing illustrates the sort of nasty hysterical anti-science propoganda out there on the internet. The worrying thing is that this guy actually does have a following (about 9500 subscribers to his YouTube channel). When I expressed ignorance of who he is one commenter told me that “everyone” in Australia and New Zealand has heard of him!

Yeah, right. But he is obviously popular with a certian group of people.

Image credit: uknowkids 

See also:

Similar articles on fluoridation
Making sense of fluoride Facebook page
Fluoridate our water Facebook page
New Zealanders for fluoridation Facebook page

About these ads

600 responses to “Cyber bullying of science

  1. Why is he going on about fracking – surely that is another issue entirely.

    Like

  2. lol, he might gain more gravitas if he could keep the pitch of his voice within one octave, maybe it’s his trousers.

    Like

  3. I have to say if I did support the anti-floradation movement and I heard that it would make me pro-flouride right away.. how do we know this is not Ken undercover trying to discredit his enemies?

    Like

  4. Wow, that guy was not only abusive, lacking any rational argument, he also appeared to be really off his face.

    Does someone pay him to spew poison?
    Or is he just some random nutter?

    Btw, I disagree with putting flouride in our water supply. I don’t think it bad as much as unnecessary, flouridated toothpaste now being common, available to all, and the recognition that topical application of floiride toothpaste is effective in reducing caries.

    Debates around public health need to occur. Not only that, but these discussions need to be done in good faith with evidence at the forefront.

    I’ve found your recent posts on the subject well researched and informative.

    Thank you

    Like

  5. It’s classic conspiracy nuttery.
    Change the labels around and it works for any kook group out there. No need to change a thing.
    Here’s a random part of the rant. Spot the part where I changed something yet left the rest perfectly intact.
    It’s uncanny.

    “..And naturally, they’ve got a big, big bunch of people…scientists…ad nauseum…all signed on to this.
    Ok, so who’s paying your salary there?
    Oh the government?
    Ok. And does the government have a stance on vaccine safety? Yes they do. So what is their stance? They support it.
    And do they have any science to support that stance they support? Uh, no. But, but they keep repeating that they do. Without showing any of the frikkin evidence. And only actually showing a group of people, epidemiologists, who can’t frikken think for themselves who get paid by this organisation to say this otherwise they get probably fired.
    Bwahahahhaha. Ok, so here’s my problem.
    I can think.”

    Next.

    “…And naturally, they’ve got a big, big bunch of people…scientists…ad nauseum…all signed on to this.
    Ok, so who’s paying your salary there?
    Oh the government?
    Ok. And does the government have a stance on evolution? Yes they do. So what is their stance? They support it.
    And do they have any science to support that stance they support? Uh, no. But, but they keep repeating that they do. Without showing any of the frikkin evidence. And only actually showing a group of people, biologists, who can’t frikken think for themselves who get paid by this organisation to say this otherwise they get probably fired.
    Bwahahahhaha. Ok, so here’s my problem.
    I can think.”

    Next.

    …And naturally, they’ve got a big, big bunch of people…scientists…ad nauseum…all signed on to this.
    Ok, so who’s paying your salary there?
    Oh the government?
    Ok. And does the government have a stance on the moon landings? Yes they do. So what is their stance? They support it.
    And do they have any science to support that stance they support? Uh, no. But, but they keep repeating that they do. Without showing any of the frikkin evidence. And only actually showing a group of people, scientists, who can’t frikken think for themselves who get paid by this organisation to say this otherwise they get probably fired.
    Bwahahahhaha. Ok, so here’s my problem.
    I can think.”

    Next.

    “…And naturally, they’ve got a big, big bunch of people…scientists…ad nauseum…all signed on to this.
    Ok, so who’s paying your salary there?
    Oh the government?
    Ok. And does the government have a stance on climate change? Yes they do. So what is their stance? They support it.
    And do they have any science to support that stance they support? Uh, no. But, but they keep repeating that they do. Without showing any of the frikkin evidence. And only actually showing a group of people, climate scientists, who can’t frikken think for themselves who get paid by this organisation to say this otherwise they get probably fired.
    Bwahahahhaha. Ok, so here’s my problem.
    I can think.”

    Conspiracy theorists don’t get put in the same box.
    They get there all by themselves.

    http://www.pointofinquiry.org/stephan_lewandowsky_the_mind_of_the_conspiracy_theorist/

    Like

  6. Read the comments from Geoff Chambers on the link Cedric posted above.

    Like

  7. Mate of yours, is he Andy?

    >

    Like

  8. No Ken.
    However, I guess it is normal to defame members of the public when you are Steven Lewandowsky.

    Like

  9. Dr Paul Connett Wants to debate you in public Ken,
    Put up or shut up
    If you refuse
    It’s an admission that you don’t know what you’re talking about,
    At least not enough to front up to the public with it.

    The reason I’m so popular is because they’re sick of lies and misinformation from the mass media and government departments.
    If you want to get rid of me,
    it’s easy,
    start telling the truth and decent people will support you.
    I’ve been fully supported by my listeners for 3 years,
    How many people are willing to show up and pay your rent every week because they value what you do?
    – Vinny Eastwood MR NEWS
    NZ’s most subscribed youtube news channel, more that NZHeraldtv.
    http://www.youtube.com/mrnewsguerillamedia
    NZ’s only 5 day a week talk radio discussing everything the mainstream media won’t touch.
    http://www.thevinnyeastwoodshow.com

    Like

  10. So, we have another Walter Mitty pretending to act for Connett – is that the best you can do Vinny, if Connett wants to engage with me, he will. And he will approach me, not go through you.

    Why don’t you offer yourself as a discussion partner seeing you are so well informed? “Put up or shut up.” In my experience people offering Connett are running sacred of discussing the science themselves. They are OK among their own group who have the same mindset, but too scared to really challenge the science in a proper setting.

    >

    Like

  11. I think the better question here is… “What scientific evidence do you have to support the claimed benefits of longterm exposure to non-lethal doses of fluoride haveing any benefits at all?”

    And “Has any study been conducted that you can reference aswell that disproves the Anti-fluoridationists position of long term harm that you are aware of?”

    As your entire article seems to rest on the assumption that you agree the science is sound on this topic in fluoridations favor… So it should be perfectly reasonable for me to ask for you to provide peer-reviewed material to support this.

    Or is this just some random opinion based hype article?

    So please enlighten me.

    Regards,

    A curious commenter.

    Like

  12. Sure, Vincent, although this is an article about cyber bullying by conspiracy theorists, rather than fluoridation itself. Vinny is just a loopy about chemtrails, for example.

    However, have a look at my other articles on fluoridation (http://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoridation/) and perhaps we can discuss one of them, or issues you disagree with in them.

    I am happy to use peer reviewed material in this discussion. I am quite used to tht.

    Alternatively you could propose a peer reviewed article to launch the discussion.

    Look forward to an interesting discussion.

    >

    Like

  13. How is this cyber bullying? Vinny put up a show referring to you as a douche bag.

    Hardly bullying is it?

    Like

  14. Another one of your mates then, Andy?

    >

    Like

  15. I dont want to speculate on Vinny’s character here myself as I have no knowledge of how much he knows on this subject. So I think if we keep this to conclustions drafted from within linking to actual peer reviewed study’s we should be fine.

    I am no expert on this topic, I have a background in computer science/High School chem etc and am capable of following scientic method :) So I’ll try to keep the speculation to a minimum and stay well accredited to my derivations from these studys.

    I do note: that I would still like to see your specific counter study/research to the Anti-Fluoro’s arguementation specifily rather than a broad link to your articles.

    After alittle bit of my pokeing around our Ministry of Healths references by myself. I went over their links and attribution to both our domestic 2009 study(http://www.health.govt.nz/publication/our-oral-health-key-findings-2009-new-zealand-oral-health-survey) Which I find irksome plagued with their small sample size and region isolations.

    A well accredited UK study(http://www.bfsweb.org/onemillion/onemillion.htm) Which had a great sample size of Newcastle and Northumberland regions, which I believe to probably be the better of the two.

    And for a good rounding of sources, a rather damning example of worst case senario from the “New England Journal of Medicine”. (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199401133300203)

    I find these references credible, I’ll leave room to let you discredit or imply your own logic upon them in reply. Which may be counter to what our MoH obviously thinks.

    But points I find of interest are and would like to discuss regarding the first two study’s, and If I could get your thoughts regarding each :)

    – I find both studys use and lack of foresight of socio-economic relevance as damning when drawing comparisons in dental care. I saw attempts with a case of economicly seperated 5 year olds in some study(but am not entirely sure, off memory if it was in these studys…Its a insane complex topic, so forgive my memory).

    – And I note that neither study addressess new-borns/infants subjection to the regulated/allocated amounts in the water supply. Which by all accounts is at harmful levels by regulation. And to be honest, I must admit that is worrying by anyones standards.

    – I noticed both articles admitted issue with fluorosis even within the regulated norms(Which probably isnt the worst side effect in comparison to letting an entire population keep 1-2 teeth over their lifetime)

    – And lastly, as the wrost case scenario presents… Do you feel this catastrophic scenario is worth the risk to save 1-2 teeth over a life time? Knowing that if the mechanisims protecting us break down, we are looking at mass death and illness?. We are dealing with a toxin here natural or not none the less. Would you feel comfortable with the levels of regulation and safeguards imposed on our pump system?(I am a techy myself and know all things fail, maintained or not regardless of the safeguards)

    This isnt persay a pro-anti fluoride questionare: more a group-think session on well researched lapses in the supposid government handout research that call for concearn.

    I have no interest in doubting the benefits specific to decay ratios as i think history has well proven its limited improvements, I feel at this point we are discussing the side effects/long term. And I can sadly say I was unable to find any long term study of health effects of fluoride on general health, which is a shame for both sides of the discussion.

    Regards.

    Like

  16. There is a whole list of things there, Vincent. Could you at this stage pick one and state what you support in it or what specifically you disagree with in it. Or if you want to discuss side effects, long term effects – which ones specifically? (For example, I have recently posts an article pn the hip fracture myth and the papers referred to are pretty long term).

    By the way Vinny assures is he knows an incredible amount about this subject. Don’t you believe him?

    The “broad link to my articles” is not meant to be evidence in itself. But I do, in these, deal with specific aspects, such as the nature of the fluoridation chemicals, or bone fracture risk, and give specific references to support my points.

    >

    Like

  17. Just disposing of your reference to the Alaskan poisoning which I had read some time ago. That was an accident, accidents happen but we try to prevent them. Such F poisoning is extremely rare – I suggest that accidents with chlorine gas at water treatment plants may have been more common.

    I really don’t see that such extremely rare accidents (this one occurred at a small village and the automatic plant was obviously carelessly managed) are recent to the issue of fluoridation in NZ cities. If were allowed such rare events determine social policy we would never do anything.

    >

    Like

  18. I can’t see why you mention the first 2 citations. You don’t seem to be questioning the beneficial effects of fluoridation on oral health so I don’t see much point discussing the limitations of epidemiological research. I have dealt with your worst case scenario – – it is just not valid for our situation.

    So I think we are left with your side effects – you need to be specific on this. The anti-fluoridation people put up a long laundry list of negative effects. The only one that I can see is relevant at the concentrations used in water fluoridation is mild or very mild oral fluorosis – and this is most probably due to other forms of F intake by children, such as swallowing toothpaste and mouth rinse.

    So what about specific side effects that concern you?

    >

    Like

  19. Another mate of yours Ken?

    Like

  20. Who, Vinny? No – never heard of him until 2 says ago.

    He is up himself, isn’t he?

    >

    Like

  21. Vinny referred to you as a douche bag and a government propagandist.
    I couldn’t possibly comment of course.

    Like

  22. Unlike you not to comment!

    >

    Like

  23. I am not commenting by commenting, which is a kind of inverse non comment, fashionable now in the twitteratie who furiously tweet from their pink iPads in Kensington bed sits.

    Like

  24. I can understand your need for some sort of social contact, Andy. Must be a bit spooky alone in that silo with Richard Cummings.

    >

    Like

  25. You may call me a conspiracy theorist Ken, that’s name calling (ad-hominem logical fallacy) which you’re allegedly against.

    Have you seen the declassified CIA documents that reveal the term “conspiracy theorist” was one they made up to label anyone who was exposing their agendas?

    Have you seen Richard Millhouse Nixon say that Woodward and Bernstein are “just conspiracy theorists and I am not a crook!” just before he was exposed as being part of a conspiracy, and a crook?

    Have you read Jonathan Elinoffs article “33 conspiracy theories that turned out to be true” http://www.infowars.com/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/

    Conspiracy: “2 or more people causing harm on another person/s without them knowing about it.”

    Conspiracy Theorist: “A person who believes, ABSOLUTELY believes and you can’t convince them otherwise, that powerful people who have a lot of influence actually use their power to maintain or grow their influence.”

    Coincidence Theorist: “A person who believes that EVERYTHING on the entire planet happens by sheer coincidence, there’s no such thing as conspiracy, back room deals, lies or cover-ups.”

    I’ve contacted Mary Byrne from the Fluoride Action Network and she has assured me they will be contacting Paul Connett, as you’ve indicated you will do a public debate if he contacts you first.

    Here’s his lecture that I filmed and cut together for him so you can brush up on all the points he’s going to raise so you can be prepared to debunk them, it’s only had 30,000 views http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkuHo2xFJr0

    Like

  26. So you and Mary are mates, are you Vinny? interesting.

    Now don’t forget I offered to have a public discussion meeting with you on the fluoridation issue. What is your answer? Will you put up or shut up?

    >

    Like

  27. Yes, I am in touch with Mary. Seems every conspiracy theorist in New Zealand is pretending they have Connett’s ear and offering him up for debates left right and centre. I think they are just Walter Mittys.

    So I will await contact from Connett himself. We will have a lot to talk about as we have a similar background.

    >

    Like

  28. This looks like it could be fun.

    I am looking forward to a robust debate.

    Everything should be robust, I am a big fan of robustness

    Like

  29. Yes, I would also be desperate for robustness if trapped in a silo with Richard Cumming.

    >

    Like

  30. Haha, well I know its a bit of a list, but these are probably my key points of concearn with the science/studys at this time.

    Well personally(To me) if we are to be blunt and really just shrink this list to what I actualy want answers on specificly. As I dont dissagree with much of the acedemia to be honest but rather the approach and conclusions drawn from the results to support fluorides actual effectiveness.

    Can you provide links to the long term study’s on fluoride on the human body that you have said you had? I think you stated you did have some and that would interest me alot to further round off thoughts on the topic.

    I did mention that I would appreciate your thoughts and research(Or lack there of) on each point about the research I made and if you also find the inconsistencies troubling?.

    You missed these ones:(I will shape the questions into simpler form for you)

    What is the current response/finding you have regarding infant toxicology and the use of the Fluoride adult drug measure on them. Has any study been done on this topic yet you are aware of at this point?

    As from my understanding, we are talking about mild infant poisoning in the bluntest terminology through “bottled milk” etc…. And this appears to be brushed over in the studys.

    I referenced the Alaska case as it was primaraly the only real world example I could find on symptoms and probably the subject for further study considering those were the short term effects of exposure to large doses and my inability to find cases muddled up into the distortion that has been created in google for legitimate references that I feel would constitute valuable data… Yes, I will blame the coincidence theroists for this haha.

    The acquisition of data for this topic is difficult with such blurred discussion.

    I referenced the two first case studys as they appear to be the Ministry of Health and most other pro-flurides supporters end-all studys for fluoridations effectiveness.

    And from it I drew a potential lapse or should I say issue: with the testing parameters lack of considering the economic differences in the groups tested to support the improved decay statistics…

    Such as the UK example more specificly,

    Where both the economic and dental wellbeing of those in Newcastle far exceeded those of Northumberland aswell as being cheaper……yet they still draw conclustions from it as evidence for Fluorides tooth decay superiority to use against as a justifyiable conclusion.

    “Northumberland has a relatively weak economy amongst the counties and other local government areas of the United Kingdom. The county is ranked sixth lowest amongst these 63 council areas. In 2003 23% of males and 60% of females were earning less than the Council of Europe’s decency threshold. As of May 2005 unemployment is at 2.3%, in line with the national average. Between 1999 and 2003 businesses in the county grew 4.4% to 8,225, making 0.45% of registered businesses in Great Britain.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northumberland#Economy_and_industry

    Where as Newcastle is a economic giant.

    I am not trying to be the harbringer of bad science and study, but that is an appaling example for pro-fluride advocates…

    Do we really need to have a study to believe that higher socio-economic regions are going to have better dental care regardless of fluoridation?.

    I would hope not.

    And I suspect the same has happened for the NZ study aswell.

    So I am at a worrysome impass here Ken.

    And you are going to need to sort either my examples out for me, or atleast direct me to better research please.

    As at this moment, I am looking at a sham in fluorides favorability.

    If you can understand my concearn?

    Regards,

    P.S. It troubles me that you would feel no responsibility for a poison that is being endorsed for the sake of a few measly teeth, to even in the most unlikely situation horribly harm/kill people.

    That just comes off as complete apathy for the sake of science haha.(Which I can slightly understand)

    Like

  31. You seem quite keen on Richard, Ken, why don’t you ring him up and see if he’s free?

    Never know your luck, he might be keen to have a robust debate with you, about something interesting or not so interesting yet full of robustness that we all agree on.

    Needless to say 97% of interviewed respondents who were asked about the 99% of people that agree with the 95% of us all agree that we need to have a robust agreement before we can proceed towards a robust debate.

    Like

  32. I think that isolation is beginning to show, Andy.

    >

    Like

  33. Ken, we all accept that climate and weather are both real, happening now and we need to take action.

    Can we do it?

    yes we can!

    Just think of the children. And their poor teeth, all those cavities caused by the climate.

    Like

  34. I am starting to question that you have approached this issue in good faith, Vincent, with your PS comment.

    However, I did provide you with a list of links to my articles – the one on hip fractures is http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/fluoridation-the-hip-fracture-deception/

    I am finding you questions and comments rather garbled. The reference to infant formula feeding advice is I think pretty clear but often confused because it is misrepresented by anti-fluoridation activists. It comes out of the dietary intake study http://www.esr.cri.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/ESR/PDF/MOHReports/FW0651-Fluoride-intake-assessment-July2009.pdf

    No, this isn’t infant poisoning at all.

    I have no idea at all what your point is about the economy of Northumberland.

    So, no I cannot understand your concern. You seem to be opposed to fluoridation and have some mistaken ideas about toxicity but I really can’t sort through your apparent confusion.

    As I said why not just stick with one issue with your supporting citations?

    >

    Like

  35. Thanks.

    I’ll look over those links and see where they lead me,

    If I seem biased, I am just drawing conclustion from what is presented to me so far as fact, through all the distortion that is the interwebz.

    Like I said, I have no contention about the mild denatal benefit to fluoride. But am trying to weigh through the peer-reviewed studys and see what they really show for myself as a brutally honest critque for my own understanding to improve.

    “Do we really need to have a study to believe that higher socio-economic regions are going to have better dental care regardless of fluoridation?.

    I would hope not.”

    Ummm, I dont know how to make that example any simplier for you :(. Unless I devolved this into pre-school examples lol(Which I dont want todo). Please tell me specificly where you find issue in the “direct correlation between overall wealth and improved health/dental care”.

    Sorry, I prefer to clump this all togeather as “to me” this is all one topic/issue and I dont like makeing multiple posts.

    Regards.

    Like

  36. I did make reference to the fact I can understand it can come across that way lol.

    Chill. Was more a well placed mad scientist joke than anything.

    But on further note: I will refrain from the humor. :)

    Like

  37. Just be aware, Vincent, that conclusions are also influenced by beliefs as well as facts and I suspect there is a bit of confirmation bias going on with you.

    I really can’t see that commenting on the accepted role of sociology-economic condition on all sorts of things including dental care is an issue in this debate. What the studies do show, however, is that awhile everyone can benefit from fluoridation the measured effects are larger for groups which are economically or socially disadvantaged. This is of particular concern for those involved with social health policy.

    >

    Like

  38. Yes, maybe in the science community that is a lofty mute point best had in social policy and implimentation..

    +1 on that and well spotted.

    I’ll come back and chat after I read through the above articles you linked and research.

    Regards.

    Like

  39. Dr Paul Connett Wants to debate you in public Ken,
    Put up or shut up
    If you refuse
    It’s an admission that you don’t know what you’re talking about,
    At least not enough to front up to the public with it.

    “Dr Dembski Wants to debate you in public Ken,
    Put up or shut up
    If you refuse
    It’s an admission that you don’t know what you’re talking about,
    At least not enough to front up to the public with it.”

    The scientific “debate” behind intelligent design

    Like

  40. I’ve been fully supported by my listeners for 3 years,
    How many people are willing to show up and pay your rent every week because they value what you do?

    Alex Jones could say the same thing only much more so.
    As of September 2013, his YouTube channel had received over 300 million views. The Alex Jones Show syndicated radio program is broadcast to more than 70 AM and FM radio stations in the United States, and to WWCR Radio shortwave.
    As of 2010, he was estimated to have an audience of over 2 million listeners, with a demographic heavier in younger viewers than other conservative pundits. In 2011, he had a larger on-line audience than Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh combined.

    Alex Jones Disrupts BBC’s Sunday Politics Show 2013

    Like

  41. Be careful Cedric, don’t excite him, Alex Jones is one of Vinny’s role models ;-)

    Like

  42. Be careful Cedric, don’t excite him, Alex Jones is one of Vinny’s role models

    Ah, I see.
    That explains a lot. Well, everything really. :)

    Like

  43. I am still waiting to hear from Ken why this is an example of “cyber bullying” and not just name calling

    Like

  44. I don’t sanction bullying of any kind but I recommend people watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TwwNZyRVOA about horses that were poisoned by artificially fluoridated water at Pagosa Springs in Colorado.

    Like

  45. Sounds shocking. What did you do to verify the story?

    Like

  46. Just thought I’d peek into the septic tank and get a few samples…
    (I’ll never be able to use that Hazmat suit again)

    “We Need To Acknowledge The Satanic Agenda”
    “Demons Aliens Psychopaths and Reptilians, Same Thing?”
    “Smart Dust, Chem Trails & Robotized Humans”
    “Did Aliens Custom Make Our Solar System?”
    “The Djinn Of Ancient Lore Are Still Alive!”
    “How Do You Know If You’re MInd Controlled?”
    “Why Are Aliens Abducting Humans?”
    “New World Order NOT A Conspiracy Theory!”
    “The Socialist Agenda Against New Zealand”
    “”Freemasons Tried To Assassinate Me!”
    “Did Ancient Cultures Use Stargates?”
    “Reptilians, David Icke & Making Money Off Truth”

    As an added bonus, here’s his begging letter….

    Vinny needs about 500 people to donate $5 a month so he can deliver quality news and information and even travel around New Zealand to cover important events and stories that neither the alternative media or mainstream media are able to cover.

    A bargain!

    Like

  47. Vinny needs about 500 people to donate $5 a month so he can deliver quality news and information and even travel around New Zealand to cover important events and stories that neither the alternative media or mainstream media are able to cover.

    Donate?
    Is Vinny is a charity case? That would figure.
    Or maybe he’s started his own religion. I wonder if he’s smart enough to have registered for tax exemption. I wonder if these donations are even declared to the IRD? Over $600p/w tax free.

    Questions, questions.

    Like

  48. I listened to vinnys podcast again, just for the pleasure of hearing him refer to Ken as a douche bag twice.

    I also related to quite a bit vinny said about this blog, especially the bit where he said it made you want to tear out your eyes with salted spoons.

    Very funny, thanks for sharing this Ken.

    Like

  49. Richard Christie needs to be a good citizen and report Vinny to the IRD.
    No time to waste!

    be a good honest citizen and report people for tax evasion, especially those nasty cyber bullies that call Ken horrid names!

    When you are done with that, strut around your neighbourhood and look out for expired car registrations, dogs not on leads, and people dropping litter

    Like

  50. So you support tax evasion Andy?
    From whom did you get that ideal? Ayn Rand? your Tea Party heroes? the Act party? Chris Monckton?

    Like

  51. I support tax minimisation, rather than avoidance, i.e withing the legal framework

    It is completely legal and ethical to reduce your tax footprint.
    If you disagree, why don’t you make voluntary donations to the IRD so that the government can piss it away on IT projects that are doomed to fail, for example?

    Like

  52. Of course, if you want to support the parasite class known as “climate science”, then you can make voluntary donations to that too.
    You could even give money to Greenpeace as well, I think they are looking to leverage the Arctic 30 at the moment. Paypal, Visa and Mastercard all taken.

    Like

  53. By the way Richard Christie, why do you think that the Tea Party are my “heroes”? Why do you think that Christopher Monckton has any influence on my life? Why do you think that I am a follower of Ayn Rand or have even read any of her books?

    After all, I don’t assume that you are a follower of Karl Marx or Lenin, or that you were a supporter of Pol Pot, or that you think gassing of Jews is a good thing.

    Do I?

    Just because you are a supporter of douche bag Ken doesn’t mean you have to think exactly like him, does it?

    Like

  54. Andy – please stop the personal attacks on me. You are just lining up with the bullys.

    I am seriously thinking of instituting a moderation policy for comments which will remove such abusive commenting, and perhaps ban the commenters.

    It has little effect on me but it does intimidate other prospective commenters. I would prefer everyone feels free to make comments in the knowledge they will not be bullied like this.

    Like

  55. What personal attacks Ken? I was only repeating the comments made in the post that you linked to
    You seem quite happy to refer to me as a denier/pseudosceptic/contrarian etc.

    Can’t take a bit of your own medicine? Oh dear poor old Ken.

    Like

  56. why do you think that the Tea Party are my “heroes”? Why do you think that Christopher Monckton has any influence on my life? Why do you think that I am a follower of Ayn Rand or have even read any of her books?

    Because your expressed viewpoints have been remarkably similar to those expressed by all three. Conspiracy theories, government agencies and scientific processes hijacked by “eco-facsists” etc out to destroy western civilisation etc.

    Don’t you agree? or are you going to treat us to implausible denial.

    Like

  57. It is actually just as Vinny put it so well in his podcast, you merely invert the truth and project yourself onto those that “attack” you

    Like

  58. Yes, I won’t be surprised if you are the first person weeded out by a new moderation policy, Sandy. The you will only have Richard Cummings to talk to in your silo.

    Like

  59. The world is full of eco-fascists. The kind of vermin that hover around sites like Hot Topic and The Standard, for example, both sites that I have been banned from and both sites that have posted threats against me.

    I have already posted incontrovertible evidence that the IPCC has published the political summary before the scientific report, and has massaged the data to fit the political summary, but you just ignore it.

    Parasitic vermin, all of you

    Like

  60. Yes, I won’t be surprised if you are the first person weeded out by a new moderation policy, Sandy

    Great news Ken, then I can add your anti-science blog to all the others that I have been banned from, and you can happily drone on about deniers in your little echo-chamber

    Like

  61. by the way Ken, I believe you ran a hit piece against me and in this, claimed that I had “extreme political views” and that I “didn’t understand expertise”

    Of course, this isn’t cyber-bullying is it Ken?
    Naturally, as a member of the untermenchen class, I am inferior to you and can be treated like this.
    My “extreme political views” are presumably deduced as such because they are to the right of Lenin, and my misunderstanding of “expertise” is perhaps because of my well-tuned BS meter, but don’t feel afraid to run hit pieces against me that contain unsubstantiated allegations.

    That’s not bullying, really

    Like

  62. Anyway, I’ll leave you to it

    Like

  63. Four posts in a row?
    Hmm.

    The world is full of eco-fascists.

    That would be NASA. NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.

    I can add your anti-science blog.

    NASA isn’t an “anti-science blog”, Andy. Nor are all the other scientific communities on the planet.

    ….and has massaged the data to fit the political summary….

    How?
    If the IPCC is “massaging” data, then how are they doing it?
    Is it just one person within the IPCC?
    More?
    Maybe all of them?
    That would be an impressive feat to organise.
    Impressive because there doesn’t seem to be even a possible way to make it happen.

    Then there’s still the small problem of all the planet’s scientific communties and their original data.

    So how?
    If the IPCC is “massaging” data, then how are they doing it?

    Global conspiracies don’t work. It’s an oxymoron. The bigger a conspiracy gets, the more unwieldly it becomes.

    Jesse Ventura’s “Conspiracy Theory” – Global Warming (FULL)

    Like

  64. Oh NASA boy is back. Great

    How did you make the intellectual leap from
    (a) There are eco- fascists

    to
    (b) NASA are eco-fascists

    I am really interested in the logical reasoning here

    Like

  65. If the IPCC is “massaging” data, then how are they doing it?
    Is it just one person within the IPCC?

    I don’t know, but it is clear they did it. I guess it was the lead author for the particular chapter McIntyre has an entire blog post about it that shows the graph in the draft and the graph after,
    It doesn’t require a conspiracy theory to explain something that actually happened

    The IPCC is a political organization. It was set up to present the political result.
    This is not controversial.

    it is a bit like saying that the EU was set up to form a supra-national government that had powers over member states that would eventually supercede the power of member states

    This is not a conspiracy, it is fact, backed up by documents
    This is not some nutty 9/11 conspiracy, or some wacko chemtrails stuff

    The evidence is there right in front of your face

    If you chose to deny facts then that is your problem, not mine.

    Like

  66. I don’t know, but it is clear they did it.

    So you mean it’s more than just one person?
    It’s a small group of people?
    Or the whole of the IPCC?

    I guess it was the lead author for the particular chapter…

    Hang on.
    So you have a gripe with just one chapter of one report and you think is was just one person?
    Otherwise, everything else is good?

    It doesn’t require a conspiracy theory to explain something that actually happened.

    You are talking about massaging data.
    I’m asking you…how.
    It’s not a trick question.
    Surely, you must have thought seriously about this yourself, right?

    You don’t have to provide evidence. I’m letting you off the hook on that one.

    Yet, if you are going to make an accusation like that, you have to at least explain how it could be physically possible.

    Moon landing deniers run into the same problem.
    You can either make the conspiracy very, very small or you make it very, very big.
    Both approaches have serious drawbacks and ultimately collapes in on themselves.

    Like

  67. Here’s a hint Andy, McIntyre won’t provide the mechanism Cedric asks for, even McIntyre he has written an entire blog post about it. (gasp)

    Like

  68. Cedric, it really is quite simple.
    The data was changed. You don’t believe me?
    Do I actually have to show the before and after?

    IIt’s not that hard.
    Maybe there was a genuine reason to adjust the data. Did they explain why?
    No, of course not because none of this part of the IPCC work is actually subject to peer review.

    Do I deny the moon landings happened?
    Of course not. You can look through a telescope and see the evidence

    Same here. Look at the evidence

    It’s not that hard, really

    Like

  69. Here’s a hint Andy, McIntyre won’t provide the mechanism Cedric asks for, even McIntyre he has written an entire blog post about it. (gasp)

    for the cretins here, I will copy and paste McIntyres entire blog post here shortly.

    Just for the propaganda trolls here. just for you, just for the useful idiots that hover around this blog.

    I know how hard it is to accept any information that goes against the brochures that you receive in the post via your glorious leaders.

    I will just have some food and then post the entire blog here, OK?

    Like

  70. http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/

    PCC: Fixing the Facts
    Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft clearly showed the discrepancy between models and observations, though IPCC’s covering text reported otherwise. I discussed this in a post leading up to the IPCC Report, citing Ross McKitrick’s article in National Post and Reiner Grundmann’s post at Klimazweiberl. Needless to say, this diagram did not survive. Instead, IPCC replaced the damning (but accurate) diagram with a new diagram in which the inconsistency has been disappeared.

    Here is Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft, showing post-AR4 observations outside the envelope of projections from the earlier IPCC assessment reports (see previous discussion here).

    Figure 1. Second Order Draft Figure 1.4. Yellow arrows show digitization of cited Figure 10.26 of AR4.

    Now here is the replacement graphic in the Approved Draft: this time, observed values are no longer outside the projection envelopes from the earlier reports. IPCC described it as follows:

    Even though the projections from the models were never intended to be predictions over such a short time scale, the observations through 2012 generally fall within the projections made in all past assessments.

    Figure 2. Approved Version Figure 1.4

    So how’d the observations move from outside the envelope to insider the envelope? It will take a little time to reconstruct the movements of the pea.

    In the next figure, I’ve shown a blow-up of the new Figure 1.4 to a comparable timescale (1990-2015) as the Second Draft version. The scale of the Second Draft showed the discrepancy between models and observations much more clearly. I do not believe that IPCC’s decision to use a more obscure scale was accidental.

    Figure 3. Detail of Figure 1.4 with annotation. Yellow dots- HadCRUT4 annual (including YTD 2013.)

    First and most obviously, the envelope of AR4 projections is completely different in the new graphic. The Second Draft had described the source of the envelopes as follows:

    The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings), and AR4 (A1B and A1T). ,,,

    The [AR4] data used was obtained from Figure 10.26 in Chapter 10 of AR4 (provided by Malte Meinshausen). Annual means are used. The upper bound is given by the A1T scenario, the lower bound by the A1B scenario.

    The envelope in the Second Draft figure can indeed be derived from AR4 Figure 10.26. In the next figure, I’ve shown the original panel of Figure 10.26 with observations overplotted, clearly showing the discrepancy. I’ve also shown the 2005, 2010 and 2015 envelope with red arrows (which I’ve transposed to other diagrams for reference). That observations fall outside the projection envelope of the AR4 figure is obvious.
    Figure 4. AR4 Figure 10.26

    The new IPCC graphic no longer cites an AR4 figure. Instead of the envelope presented in AR4, they now show a spaghetti graph of CMIP3 runs, of which they state:

    For the AR4 results are presented as single model runs of the CMIP3 ensemble for the historical period from 1950 to 2000 (light grey lines) and for three scenarios (A2, A1B and B1) from 2001 to 2035. The bars at the right hand side of the graph show the full range given for 2035 for each assessment report. For the three SRES scenarios the bars show the CMIP3 ensemble mean and the likely range given by -40% to +60% of the mean as assessed in Meehl et al. (2007). The publication years of the assessment reports are shown. See Appendix 1. A for details on the data and calculations used to create this figure…

    The temperature projections of the AR4 are presented for three SRES scenarios: B1, A1B and A2.
    Annual mean anomalies relative to 1961–1990 of the individual CMIP3 ensemble simulations (as used in
    AR4 SPM Figure SPM5) are shown. One outlier has been eliminated based on the advice of the model developers because of the model drift that leads to an unrealistic temperature evolution. As assessed by Meehl et al. (2007), the likely-range for the temperature change is given by the ensemble mean temperature
    change +60% and –40% of the ensemble mean temperature change. Note that in the AR4 the uncertainty range was explicitly estimated for the end of the 21st century results. Here, it is shown for 2035. The time dependence of this range has been assessed in Knutti et al. (2008). The relative uncertainty is approximately constant over time in all estimates from different sources, except for the very early decades when natural
    variability is being considered (see Figure 3 in Knutti et al., 2008).

    For the envelopes from the first three assessments, although they cite the same sources as the predecessor Second Draft Figure 1.4, the earlier projections have been shifted downwards relative to observations, so that the observations are now within the earlier projection envelopes. You can see this relatively clearly with the Second Assessment Report envelope: compare the two versions. At present, I have no idea how they purport to justify this.

    None of this portion of the IPCC assessment is drawn from peer-reviewed material. Nor is it consistent with the documents sent to external reviewers.

    OK got it now?

    Apologies for not including the original images. You can find those at

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/

    Climate Audit

    Like

  71. The data was changed. You don’t believe me?

    No, Andy.
    I’m sure numbers get changed all the time in organisations. Especially when there’s a draft.

    Yet you are talking about massaging data.
    That’s quite different.
    How did you describe it last time? Fiddling the numbers?
    That’s not supposed to happen.
    If it did actually happen, then both you and I and the organisations whose original data was massaged would want to see heads roll.

    However, if you are going to convince me that skullduggery is afoot, then you have to give a plausible scenario as to how “they” could have done it.
    (Plus some info on the “they” part would be nice too. One person? A team? The whole IPCC?)

    Maybe there was a genuine reason to adjust the data.

    That seems to be the most reasonable (and boring) way of looking at it.
    You don’t have to reach for some nefarious underhandedness.
    Once you do that, things get complicated very quickly.

    No, of course not because none of this part of the IPCC work is actually subject to peer review.

    You need to be clear about what you are talking about.
    If you’ve really thought about this carefully and you really believe that something bad is going on, then spell it out.
    Let the rest of us in on what’s “really” going on.

    Again, you don’t have to provide evidence.
    Yet you do, at a bare minimum, have to provide a mechanism as to how it could even possibly happen.
    I can’t be fairer than that.

    Like


  72. Again, you don’t have to provide evidence.
    Yet you do, at a bare minimum, have to provide a mechanism as to how it could even possibly happen.

    Man walks into office, turns on computer, makes changes, hits “save”

    It is quite simple really. All the parasitic vermin agree with him
    You agree with him

    All the vermin agree

    Simple

    Like

  73. All the parasitic vermin agree with him.

    So it’s just one, solitary person massaging data all by themselves inside the IPCC?
    Wouldn’t work.
    What about the rest of the IPCC?

    Like

  74. I don’t know about the rest of the IPCC
    You can check out the Kindle version of The Delinquent Teenager. If you follow the links you will find my name in the “citizen audit” bit

    On the whole, WG1 is OK, but WG2 and 3 are terrible, but after this last effort I think this might be the last IPCC report we ever see.

    At least we can get on and start to channel our efforts into more pressing concerns

    Like

  75. I don’t know about the rest of the IPCC

    Agreed, you don’t.

    Which fits your scenario the closest?:

    the rest of the IPCC…

    i) are complicit in the act of fiddling with data
    ii) do not notice that data was fraudulently altered
    iii) do notice, but subsequently conceal fact that data is fraudulently altered.
    iv) hide this fraud from others. including the scientific teams that supplied data.

    Like

  76. I don’t know about the rest of the IPCC.

    Then what do you honestly think is going on?
    Is the IPCC “in on it” or aren’t they?
    What of all the scientific establishments on the planet that provided the data in the first place? Are they “in on it” too or not?

    On the whole, WG1 is OK, but WG2 and 3 are terrible…

    Terrible because…?
    The same person (or a different person) massaged the date back then too?

    Like

  77. *the date
    the data

    Like

  78. I am referring to one diagram in one chapter. If you actually bothered to read the links I give you then you’d know that.

    It is however a key diagram, because it covers up the fact that there has been no surface warming for over 15 years and that the data is on the edge of the models predictions

    Not that this should be of any interest to you whatsoever.

    NASA, they have a website…..

    Like

  79. So we’re back to a conspiracy then.

    Like

  80. How?
    One person changes one diagram.
    It is hardly a conspiracy is it?

    It is a bit like Mike’s Nature Trick to Hide the Decline

    Which, I am told, is standard scientific procedure, so presumably this is also standard scientific procedure, and I am waiting for your friends at Skeptical Science to provide one

    Like

  81. Brilliant.
    Andy’s deduced that one person in the IPCC is behind the global warming swindle that is fraudulently claimed in their report. Nobody else notices.

    Who was it?

    Like

  82. It never ceases to amaze me how you jump from one person fiddling one diagram to a giant global conspiracy

    Anyway the IPCC – in the SPM, now say that equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 lies somewhere between 1.5 degrees and 4.5 degrees, and there is no central estimate

    Previously the lower bound was 2 degrees, and the central estimate was 3 degrees.

    So, despite being “more certain”, they have no idea about the key metric for “global warming” which if it is at the lower end (which looks likely because all the empirical evidence points that way) then “global warming is a massive non-problem that we have wasted billions on.

    The “you can’t say that” brigade will be earnestly strutting around, tut-tutting, prattling on about their solar panels and their Prius cars and their cheeky little organic Pinots, furiously tweeting about #denial and #otherbollocks

    Like

  83. It never ceases to amaze me how you jump from one person fiddling one diagram to a giant global conspiracy

    But I don’t Andy.

    Not anymore.

    Or at least, not in your case.

    In your case I’ll take your word for it that you believe that one person in the IPCC is fiddling with graphs/data and so fraudulently manufacturing the IPCC’s conclusions.

    You are not a conspiracy theorist.

    You go for the Dr Evil scenario.

    Like

  84. In your case I’ll take your word for it that you believe that one person in the IPCC is fiddling with graphs/data and so fraudulently manufacturing the IPCC’s conclusions.

    That is great then, you agree with Steve McIntyre’s excellent analysis.
    At least we agree on that then.

    As for the general infestation of NGOs and environmental activist groups within IPCC WG2 and WG3, I recommend the excellent “Delinquent Teenager” by Donna Laframboise.

    Richard Lindzen has a rather good summary of the IPCC non-alarmism here:

    http://www.thegwpf.org/richard-lindzen-understanding-ipcc-climate-assessment/

    Like

  85. At least we agree on that then.

    Not at all, we don’t agree on that.

    Read what I wrote (it’s in your quote).

    Tell me, how does your Dr Evil keep others in the IPCC scientific community oblivious to the manipulation? mind control? fluoride in their water?

    Like

  86. Oh really, they don’t give a sh*t what anyone else writes as long at it is “on message”

    You you really think that the IPCC is patronised by impartial, non-biased, apolitical people?

    You you really think that I am that dumb?
    The IPCC was set up as a political organisation with a political agenda, and I can’t be bothered arguing with people who are either too thick or too dishonest to realise that

    Like

  87. I see, there is one Dr Evil and all the others, yes all of them, are secretly rooting for Dr Evil and ignoring his/her manipulation of the data.

    Like

  88. It’s not a conspiracy within the but a sort of ‘we all know what is going on here’.

    A nod, nod, wink, wink set up.

    This is what you are telling us?

    Like

  89. You brainless tosser.

    Like

  90. How are those Greenpeace activists Richard? Surely you must support the Russians stand on the eco-terrorists, being a fanboy of big authoritarian government.

    You must be pulsating with excitement at the thought of the suffering that these poor yoghurt knitters are going through.

    Imagine that, 15 years in a freezing Russian jail.
    How amusing!

    Like

  91. Now, now, temper, temper.

    (wags finger)

    Let’s keep to the IPCC.

    One Dr Evil and everybody else is smirking and going nod, nod, wink, wink.

    Cause it’s not a conspiracy, right?

    Like

  92. No, just plain fraud, I would call it

    Like

  93. But how? you are saying it’s fraud by one Dr Evil and a host of equally dishonest (well all of them) non-conspirators.

    What do they ask in job interviews for the IPCC to ensure all employees will just nod and wink?

    Like

  94. Are you basing your theory on the well-known non-publication

    EXPOSE, how the IPCC change the data – an insiders story

    Like

  95. What do they ask in job interviews for the IPCC to ensure all employees will just nod and wink?

    Since they all come from a part of society known generally as the “liberals”, (in the USA anyway) we don’t need any special winks. These people have no morals or ethics, so this kind of behaviour comes naturally
    ,

    Like

  96. they all come from a part of society known generally as the “liberals”

    Must be the result of a political interrogation in the job interview then?

    Is the interviewer the same Dr Evil? Or is it one of the non-conspirators who just happens to frame the appropriate questions?

    How many unsuccessful candidates have complained about the process?

    Like

  97. What’s it like in La-la land, Andy?

    Like

  98. You tell me, you clearly live in la-la land

    Maybe you actually believe in santa claus, the tooth fairy, and the sunshine that comes out of Obama’s asshole

    Like

  99. By the way, we haven’t heard much from Peter Gleick recently. He is on the AGU ethics board.
    He is the guy that forged the identity of one of Heartland’s members, stole various documents, and likely forged one of them.

    He is a prime example of the slime that crawls across the environmental science movement

    Like

  100. When I get my commenting guidelines together, Andy, such abusive labelling of people will be something I will control. At least by moderation, if not deletion or automatic sending to spam for the commenter.

    As for Gleick – I often see him on twitter with useful links to articles.

    >

    Like

  101. Great Ken, get it together. After all, all you parasites can do is ban people and shut them down.

    History will not treat you kindly Ken. You are the dregs of society and that is how you will be remembered

    Like

  102. Laughing at you Andy.

    Like

  103. By the way, here is one for your scrapbook, Mr Christie. The Kenly wind farm at St Andrews, Scotland, has been given the go ahead, despite unanimous opposition from the Fife Council and great opposition from the local residents who will have the noise and shadow flicker to deal wit hfor the rest of their lives

    The area is a low wind site but the government subsidies will keep the University in cash. This money will, of course come from peoples pockets

    This will no doubt delight you, as a supporter of wind energy. a useless pile of garbage in an area of outstanding natural beauty, that has no economic value other than to take money from poor people and transfer it to the wealthy.

    All in the name of “carbon neutrality”

    This is why I despise you and the slime that hover around blogs like this, Hot Topic and The Standard

    Sanctimonious, sneering, pompous arrogant vermin

    You are all totally rotten to the core. You have no redeeming values as human beings whatsoever.

    Like

  104. Am I making myself clear?

    Like

  105. I don’t much follow the wind farm issues but I am in broad support of the industry.

    Surprisingly, I am in total agreement with you over the noise issues. Noise can be a health hazard and proper compensation for those affected, combined with care when siting generation near human habitation is required. I cringe at Peter Sinclair’s dismissal of noise issues.

    I’m not much in agreement with anythingelse emanating from your la la thought processes.

    Still laughing.

    Like

  106. I have no interest in your views on anything Richard Christie

    Like

  107. I have no interest in your views on anything Richard Christie

    Sigh.
    I know, I know.

    Nor the world’s scientific community, nor the Royal Society, nor NASA.

    It is quite clear.

    Like

  108. Ken, this has probably gone on long enough? I’m out
    Maybe Cedric can wrap it up later.

    Like

  109. NASA. Oh I am interested in NASA

    NASA are a primary source of information. They have a website

    Primary sources of information, everytime.

    By the way, I read Karl Popper’s Conjectures and Refuations when I was at school. I have 3 technical degrees, and I get lectured by pompous arseholes who claim that I don’t understand science

    Like

  110. Maybe Cedric can wrap it up later

    Yes I am sure Cedric will “wrap it up” with one of his standard cut and paste screeds about NASA, Primary Sources, libraries, and other banalities

    I can hardly wait

    Like

  111. Oooo, that was masterful. I’d hate to be on your bad side, Richard.
    A delight to read.
    I’m going to keep this thread for next time.
    I’m sure it will come in very handy.

    “I am referring to one diagram in one chapter. If you actually bothered to read the links I give you then you’d know that. It is however a key diagram, because it covers up the fact that there…

    So, you are referring to just one diagram in just one chapter.
    Hmm.
    But it’s a super special “key” diagam.
    It’s covering up facts.
    Double hmm.

    Um, how?
    A diagram is just a visual representation of data.
    The data itself has not magically vanished. It’s still around.
    It exists in various forms entirely separate from any “Johnny-come-lately” diagram.
    The people that collected that data? Presumeably still around.
    DIfferent scientific communities, different branches of science etc.
    Same diff with the reviews of the original papers.

    One key diagram, eh? It all hinges on that? Must be very, very special.

    “One Ring to rule them all, One ring to find them; One ring to bring them all. and in the darkness bind them.”

    Like

  112. Yes keep this thread Cedric. I posted all the links but you haven’t read them.
    You prefer to play your stupid games

    You are not interested in science.
    You are not interested in the environment
    You are not interested in humanity.

    All you care about is “winning” your stupid “debates” by a process of mental attrition

    I have given you the inks. Go away and read them and come back when you have

    Like

  113. I have given you the inks.

    Links cannot save you. Nor can insults.
    Nothing to hide behind. No distractions.

    It’s just you and your thinking. You’re in the spotlight.
    I’ve given you every chance and I clearly spelt out what I wanted to hear from you.

    “You need to be clear about what you are talking about.
    If you’ve really thought about this carefully and you really believe that something bad is going on, then spell it out.
    Let the rest of us in on what’s “really” going on.”

    You have this golden opportunity to show us what you really think about what’s happening behind the scenes.
    A free pass.
    No interruptions. No censorship.
    Heck, you don’t even have to provide evidence!

    It’s just you walking us, slowly and reasonably, through the mechanisms of the operation.
    Doesn’t have to be plausible. (Nothing so strenuous).
    I’m sure Richard and myself would settle for something at least vaguely possible.

    In your own words, numbers are being fiddled.
    Data is being massaged.
    Plain fraud.

    We’re asking you…how.
    You’re treating it like it’s some sort of trick question.
    It’s not.
    Yet it’s giving you huge difficulty.
    You are much more comfortable trying to raise the dust and hope someone will give you an “out” so that you don’t have to flesh our your theory.
    Not happening.
    No distractions.
    If you want to make accusations of fraud, then make them.
    Make them good and hard. Make them stick…if you can.
    You can start with the “how” part.

    Like

  114. You can start with the “how” part.

    Man goes to computer. Turns on.
    Opens word doc
    Deletes old image
    Places new image in its place
    Saves doc

    Release in new draft.

    Like

  115. So we’re back to Dr Evil.

    Yes Andy, now how does Dr Evil ensure no one calls him out?

    Like

  116. Well, no one did call him out since this is what actually happened

    Like

  117. Yes Andy, now how does Dr Evil ensure no one calls him out?

    (…waits with eager anticipation…)

    Like

  118. Well, no one did call him out since this is what actually happened

    Ok, but how did Dr Evil get away with it?
    What was the mechanism he used?

    Like

  119. What was the mechanism he used?

    Man goes to computer. Turns on.
    Opens word doc
    Deletes old image
    Places new image in its place
    Saves doc

    Release in new draft.

    Like

  120. Mechanism, hello?
    How does Dr Evil ensure that no one calls him out?

    Like

  121. There are several scenarios
    1 the changes are legit
    2 the changes are not legit. No one notices
    3 the changes are not legit. No one cares

    Like

  122. Whatever, so there might be several scenarios.
    How does Dr Evil ensure that no one calls him out?

    Like

  123. Who is this Dr Evil that you speak of?

    Like

  124. The person you allege has altered the graphs and data without being called to account.
    Call him/her something else if you wish, The Hood, Sauron, The Dark Lord, Darth Vader.

    Like

  125. The person I allege? You mean the author of the latest draft of AR5 Wg1?

    I guess I could look it up, or you could too.

    My guess is that the person has a more mundane name than Dr Evil

    Like

  126. Christ you are a tiresome boor.
    You made the allegation, you name them.
    Then answer the questions you’ve been avoiding all afternoon.

    Like

  127. Tiresome bore? I haven’t made any “allegations” . I stated some facts.
    If you can’t accept basic facts then you have issues that I can’t deal with

    The fact is that a graph was changed between draft copies of ar5 wg1

    This is not controversial, you can check for yourself.Was the change justified? I don’t know, McIntyre thinks not.
    Who did it? Who cares ?

    Have I wasted your time? So sorry for being a bore.
    Get a life, play gta5 and club some hookers to death with a baseball bat.

    Virtually, of course

    Like

  128. There are several scenarios
    1 the changes are legit

    Not applicable.
    If they’re legit then it’s not fraud. There’s no massaging. There’s no fiddling.

    2 the changes are not legit. No one notices
    3 the changes are not legit. No one cares

    So let’s go through this carefully…
    You are referring to one diagram in one chapter.
    It’s a “key” diagram.
    Dr Evil goes to some computer. Deletes the old image of this key diagram.
    Places a fraudulent new image in its place and thereby covers up certain (as yet unknown) fact or facts.
    This fraudulent image ( a key diagram, mind you!) is then released in the new draft….for all to see.

    But no one cares or notices.
    (..awkward silence…)
    How?
    How does Dr Evil ensure that no one calls him out?
    This is fraud that we are supposedly dealing with here.

    Like

  129. Person x (who you refer to as Dr Evil) deletes document A from the Draft A1 , replaces with document B in draft B1 .

    I will provide images in due course to support these basic premises going forward in a strategic manner

    Like

  130. No need.
    You don’t have to provide any evidence, remember?
    All you have to do is tell us your thinking.
    You.
    Your thinking.

    How does Dr Evil ensure that no one calls him out?
    How?

    Like

  131. I will provide images in due course to support these basic premises going forward in a strategic manner

    You utterly gutless wimp. That won’t do any good.
    Grow a spine and lay a fraud complaint with the police.
    Or sue him/her.

    Like

  132. Oops, forgot you guys tried that route, when you sued NIWA.
    After answering the question you can remind us how that worked out.

    Like

  133. Imagine Andy actually revealing a genuine case of fraud?
    Getting the police on it.
    Instant fame and claim to hero status.
    Interviewed by the blogosphere and the various media outlets.
    I’m sure Treadgold would give him some airplay too.

    The person I allege? You mean the author of the latest draft of AR5 Wg1?
    I guess I could look it up…

    Yep. A real case of fraud. Out of all the Kabuki theater failures that the climate deniers have done with court cases, repetitious investigations and dull, rumblings about lawsuits etc.
    Finally someone catches a live one and makes it stick.

    But..well… I’m sure he’s got more important things to do than to expose fraud in the IPCC. Besides, who needs fame anyway? Andy is no doubt above such things.

    Let’s go back to those heady days of 2009. Ah, the excitement. The anticipation. The sheer giddy delight that slowly, slowly, slowly faded away.

    Climategate Investigated!

    Like

  134. No need? Of course not. Fiddling with numbers is in the climate science establishments DNA .
    You were correct to bring up Climategate and the whitewash enquiries.

    I showed how rotten to the core the whole establishment is.

    You are not interested in seeing the graphs or looking at the arguments? How surprising,

    You call me a gutless wimp? Fuck you
    I worked on the IPCC citizen audit, and do what I can within the law to oppose windfarms etc.

    It is a bit hard when the establishment operates outside the law, lining its pockets with other people’s money.

    Don’t listen to my arguments. Sneer and laugh, you shallow minded pro government drones, lacking in any thought, empathy

    Fuck you all and everyone who looks like you
    Have a nice day

    Like

  135. No need.
    You don’t have to provide any evidence, remember?
    All you have to do is tell us your thinking.
    You.
    Your thinking.

    How does Dr Evil ensure that no one calls him out?
    How?

    Man goes to computer. Turns on.
    Opens word doc
    Deletes old image
    Places new image in its place
    Saves doc

    Release in new draft.

    Given that this is what actually happened, speculation on how no one else noticed or commented is irrelevant

    Do you require further clarification?

    Like

  136. You utterly gutless wimp. That won’t do any good.
    Grow a spine and lay a fraud complaint with the police.
    Or sue him/her.

    That’s a great idea Richard.
    I should immediately fly to Geneva and file a complaint against the IPCC. I should hire some $1000 an hour lawyers to sue him/her.

    I should take a little time off from my job, jet half way around the world. and take out a multi-million dollar law suit.

    Such a great idea!

    Can we do it!
    Yes we can!

    Like

  137. From McIntyre’s conclusions

    For the envelopes from the first three assessments, although they cite the same sources as the predecessor Second Draft Figure 1.4, the earlier projections have been shifted downwards relative to observations, so that the observations are now within the earlier projection envelopes. You can see this relatively clearly with the Second Assessment Report envelope: compare the two versions. At present, I have no idea how they purport to justify this.

    None of this portion of the IPCC assessment is drawn from peer-reviewed material. Nor is it consistent with the documents sent to external reviewers.

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/

    None of this portion of the IPCC assessment is drawn from peer-reviewed material. Nor is it consistent with the documents sent to external reviewers.

    Get it? Do I need to make myself clearer?

    (* awkward silence *)

    Like

  138. Andy, did your mother drop you on your head when you were a baby?

    Like

  139. So the climate skindheads have finally got out of bed.

    Like

  140. Nothing to add then NASA boy?

    Like

  141. So the climate skindheads have finally got out of bed.

    Andy Scrase, do you not think that my question was valid?

    It is obvious that I regard you as deranged. For good reason.
    If you really want play the offended victim card in this exchange consider that I may simply link to a few of the of the more offensive examples of your past behaviour on this blog and on the internet.

    Like

  142. Yes go ahead Christie. This is a post about bullying and you are the ulltimate cyber bully, so go ahead and link as much as you want to little creep.

    You get your kicks out of this don’t you? You sad, fucking pathetic little cocksucker

    Go ahead, make my fucking day

    Like

  143. There you go, another post for you to be “offended” about.
    And I have only just started you little turd-eater

    Like

  144. None of you actually address any o fthe issues I raise. All you do is defend your patch. You are just like the rest of the slime on the warmist blogospehere – Hot Topic, The Standard, Skeptical Sceince

    All the same –

    The utter dregs of humanity

    Total, complete utter vermn.

    Is that clear or do you require further clarification?
    I’d be happy to meet you in person and I can express this directly to your face, using this kind of language

    Like

  145. Well thanks, you are saving me the trouble of having to collate the mentioned links.
    What really sets you off seems to be the mention of your name, (or Michael Mann’s).

    Like

  146. How does Dr Evil ensure that no one calls him out?
    How?

    Man goes to computer. Turns on.
    Opens word doc
    Deletes old image
    Places new image in its place
    Saves doc

    Release in new draft.

    Does this require further clarification?

    Like

  147. I should immediately fly to Geneva and file a complaint against the IPCC.

    I was wondering what the self-sealing excuse would be.
    Evidently, to file a complaint against the IPCC, you have to physically fly to Geneva.
    Who knew?

    I should hire some $1000 an hour lawyers to sue him/her.

    Oh darn it. You were this close to bringing it all down and showing how rotten to the core the whole establishment is but, sadly, you’d have to personally hire lawyers and fly to Geneva.
    The opportunity of a lifetime slips past you again, Andy Scrase.

    But….half a mo’!
    Perhaps (…drum roll please…) THAT’S the mechanism?

    Man goes to computer. Turns on.
    Opens word doc
    Deletes old image
    Places new image in its place
    Saves doc
    Release in new draft.
    However, Dr Evil is safe from a vist from the police because the internet doesn’t work in some parts of the world. You’d have to buy a plane ticket to Geneva and lawyers cost a $1000 dollars an hour.
    Cunning.
    The perfect crime.

    Like

  148. In fact, I could fly up to Wellington tomorrow and ask Dr Thomas Stocker of the IPCC, who will be making a guest appearance at an “outreach” meeting, why they fiddled the numbers.

    He probably won’t know – these guys are pretty thick really.

    That’s why they work in “climate science”.
    It doesn’t require much intelligence

    You just need to find some numbers that fit the pre-defined narrative and your job is done!

    Like

  149. Oh I see Cedric, you think I can bring a law suit against the IPCC from NZ!

    How amusing!
    How delightful!!
    I can personally take on a UN body, all by myself!
    The world’s police, interpol etc are all waiting, at my beck and call!

    Of course, why didn’t I think of that!

    Actually, some guys did bring the wind “industry” to the UN and now they claim it is illegal under the Arhus convention, or similar, so maybe you are onto something here……

    A cunning plan indeed!

    Like

  150. Nothing to add then NASA boy?

    If I’m “NASA’s boy” then doesn’t that make you McIntyre’s boy or perhaps Treadgold’s boy?
    I’d be careful with the homophobic insults if I were you.
    Glass houses and all that.

    Man goes to computer. Turns on.
    Opens word doc
    Deletes old image
    Places new image in its place
    Saves doc
    Release in new draft.

    Don’t listen to my arguments.

    Oh Andy, it’s you that’s not listening to your own arguments. We’ve given you plenty of opportunity for you to state clearly what you think is going on.
    You just haven’t thought it through properly. There’s this “not getting arrested for fraud” bit.

    A crime has been committed. (According to you)
    A “key” element of a report has be massaged to cover up facts. (according to you.)
    It’s released to the general public.
    Yet nobody calls the police.
    Nobody seems to notice or care.

    So how did this happen? How did Dr Evil ensure that he’d get away with it scott-free?

    I showed how rotten to the core the whole establishment is.

    Ah, so Dr Evil didn’t have to worry about committing fraud in public because the “whole establishment” had him covered?
    Gosh.
    The conspiracy just got bigger. Fancy that.

    Like

  151. “I’d be careful with the homophobic insults ”

    which homophobic insults?

    Is “NASA boy” a codeword in the Gay scene that I don’t know about?

    “A crime has been committed. (According to you)”

    No, I never said a crime has been committed.
    I just said data had been “fiddled”, adjusted, or whatever.
    This is not a crime.

    It is standard practice in science to adjust the data to fit the per-determined political narrative

    Why should we concern ourselves with the modern scientific process?

    Like

  152. Andy | October 9, 2013 at 11:27 am |
    No, just plain fraud, I would call it

    Fraud is a crime, Andy Scrase.
    Really.

    I just said data had been “fiddled”, adjusted, or whatever.
    This is not a crime.

    Oh but you said more than that. This is the internet. Your words have not magically vanished. There’s no need to act all coy now.

    …Fiddling with numbers is in the climate science establishments DNA ….

    …I showed how rotten to the core the whole establishment is….

    …It is a bit hard when the establishment operates outside the law, lining its pockets with other people’s money….

    Like

  153. Oh gosh, you have got all those words that I said, that’s scary.
    Are you going to report me to the “authorities” for calling the IPCC bad names?

    Golly gosh, we wouldn’t want honest scientists being called names would we?

    Call the police Cedric, do it now.
    They will come round and take me to the jail where those nice Greenpeace hippies are rotting, maybe?

    Like

  154. Micheal Mann, he really doesn’t want those emails of his released does he? What is going on there? Do you think he was buying pizza and hookers on his university credit card?

    Like

  155. Fraud is a crime, Andy Scrase.
    It really is.
    No tickets to Geneva or thousand-dollar lawyers needed.

    No, I never said a crime has been committed.
    I just said data had been “fiddled”, adjusted, or whatever.
    This is not a crime.

    Hmm.

    Like

  156. Cedric, fraud is a crime

    So what do I do? Who do I contact?

    Please tell me Cedric? Where do a I report the crime to?
    Which plolice station?

    Should I also inlude Ken Perrott as an accessory to to the crime?
    Should I include the vermin at Hot Topic and The Standard too?

    Like

  157. Cedric, fraud is a crime.
    So what do I do? Who do I contact?

    What would Andy Scrase do if he’s sure that fraud is going on?
    Hmm.

    Andy | October 9, 2013 at 11:27 am |
    No, just plain fraud, I would call it

    What are you going to do about it, Andy?

    Like

  158. I am not going to do anything about it. There is nothing I can do about it.
    I actually don’t care anymore. Mother nature will eventually decide how reality pans out, regardless of what the IPCC or NASA or all the Primary Sources of Information say about it.

    So my recommendation is to sit back, enjoy life, and watch the whole lot collapse in a big heap

    Like

  159. I am not going to do anything about it. There is nothing I can do about it.

    So you are convinced that it’s plain fraud.
    But you never said a crime has been committed.
    (??)
    But you’re not actually going to do anything about it such as contact the authorities or something.
    And anyway, you don’t really care.
    Hmm.

    So my recommendation is to sit back, enjoy life, and watch the whole lot collapse in a big heap.

    Crystal ball gazing? Again?

    .. when this great “Berlin Wall” of pseudo-science finally collapses…

    Claim CA110:
    Evolution is a theory in crisis; it will soon be widely rejected.

    Like

  160. Correct at every point. Why don’t we check back in 15 years time? The Greenpeace Arctic 30 might have been released from jail by then

    In the meantime, I can prattle on about my low carbon lifestyle (being a home worker) and drone on about “deniers” and all that stuff

    Such fun!

    Like

  161. Correct at every point.

    So….you are comfortable with this? I’m not misrepresenting you in any way?
    This is how you really think?

    Like

  162. Would it be fair to say that this sums up the whole Climategate thing from 2009 for you as well?

    Like

  163. Can you be more specific?

    Like

  164. Well, is the way you think about what really happened with the IPCC diagram pretty much the same as the way you think what went down with Climategate?

    A man goes to a computer. Turns it on.
    Fiddles the numbers. Massages the data. Plain fraud etc.
    Key documents, diagrams whatever.
    But nobody notices or cares somehow.
    So Dr Evil gets away with it again.

    Like

  165. That is correct.
    No one cares.
    No one is interested

    It fits the pre-deternined narrative
    (Stamp as APPROVED)

    Like

  166. Was it one person that time or more than one, do you think?

    Like

  167. If you are referring to Climategate (I actually have no idea what you are referring to), then “Climategate” seems to be down to one person who has released the password to the 7 zipfile that was released a while back

    Please feel free to ask for further clarification

    Like

  168. Wait. You don’t know about Climategate? Surely not.

    A man goes to a computer. Turns it on.
    Fiddles the numbers. Massages the data. Plain fraud etc.
    Key documents, diagrams whatever.
    But nobody notices or cares somehow.
    So Dr Evil gets away with it again.

    That is correct.
    No one cares.
    No one is interested
    t fits the pre-deternined narrative

    Ok. So was it one person that time or more than one, do you think?

    Like

  169. Correct at every point. Every action requires input from a human,

    Several humans are involved in this thing we call “life”

    I suggest you Google it.

    “Life” -> “Humans”

    Not that hard really

    Like

  170. Correct at every point.

    So was it one person that time or more than one, do you think?

    Like

  171. These issues need not concern us though
    We all agree that we need to tackle the climate

    em>The climateis the biggest threat to humans and the planet and The Guardian and all really cool things like Polie Bears and The Arctic and stuff.

    We all agree that em>The climate is caused by our evil SUV and iPad addiction and that we need to Take Action Now!

    Yes We Can!

    Hooray!
    Hooray!
    Hooray!
    Hooray!

    Like

  172. We just need to think of the children.

    Please,think of the children….

    etc

    Like

  173. We’ve given you plenty of opportunity for you to state clearly what you think is going on.
    You just haven’t thought it through properly.
    You need to be clear about what you are talking about.
    You have this golden opportunity to show us what you really think about what’s happening behind the scenes.
    A free pass.
    No interruptions. No censorship.
    Heck, you don’t even have to provide evidence!

    Yet you can’t do it.
    Asking you how it could even be possible to make it work causes you to spin in circles.

    It’s not that we are ignoring you.
    Heavens no.
    You just can’t do it.

    Your own position stated in your own words falls apart.

    Like

  174. We’ve given you plenty of opportunity for you to state clearly what you think is going on.”
    —–
    Person turns on computer
    Person edits word doc
    Person changes image
    Person saves word doc
    Person releases,new rev,

    Please ask if you require further clarification.

    Best, etc….

    Like

  175. Yep, you can’t do it.
    How did this happen? How did Dr Evil ensure that he’d get away with it scott-free?
    You’ve got nothing.

    Like

  176. Person turns on computer
    Person edits word doc
    Person changes image
    Person saves word doc
    Person releases,new rev,

    Like

  177. It did happen, so questioning how it happened is of no relevance.

    Like

  178. Yawn.
    One draft supersedes another. That’s why they are called draft documents.

    Get a life Andy Scrase.

    Like

  179. So you agree that it happened. Why are you asking me how it was done then Richard Christie?

    You brought up the Dr Evil scenario, not me.

    We all accept that adjusting data to fit the pre-canned political outcome is a standard part of science these days. What’s the problem?

    Like

  180. So you agree that it happened. Why are you asking me how it was done then Richard Christie?

    Agree what happened?

    Like

  181. Agreed that the figures were changed between drafts of the report.

    Remember?
    It was outlined in Climate Audit

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/

    Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft clearly showed the discrepancy between models and observations, though IPCC’s covering text reported otherwise. I discussed this in a post leading up to the IPCC Report, citing Ross McKitrick’s article in National Post and Reiner Grundmann’s post at Klimazweiberl. Needless to say, this diagram did not survive. Instead, IPCC replaced the damning (but accurate) diagram with a new diagram in which the inconsistency has been disappeared

    Like

  182. I feel a lecture about creationists coming along soon. I can feel it in my bones…..

    Like

  183. (shrug)
    Drafts are drafts.
    Science denier fantasists who see fraud boogeymen under every bed are science denier fantasists who see fraud boogeymen under every bed.

    Like

  184. Science denier?
    So someone who looks at a graph that shows model vs reality discrepancy, which then disappears without justification in the next draft, is a “science denier”?

    It gets better

    Although I do understand the modern definition of science is to produce the pre-canned response to fit the political narrative, therefore we expect low quality work like this from the IPCC

    Mind you, it is not all bad. We can’t all be nuclear physicists so the divs and retards have to go somewhere

    Climate science is the perfect venue for them!

    Like

  185. Mind you, we shouldn’t really concern ourselves with the IPCC. They are not a Primary Source of Information

    We have higher standards, we use Primary Sources of Information, like NASA for example.

    If I want to find out about global warming, I don’t go to the iPCC, I go to the Primary Source of Information

    NASA, (they have a website) have lots of useful information about the climate.

    Why do governments and the media bother with the IPCC when they could go straight to the source, straight to the Primary Source of Information?

    Like

  186. So someone who looks at a graph that shows model vs reality discrepancy, which then disappears without justification in the next draft, is a “science denier”?

    Someone who claims the change is fraudulent without seeking clarification from IPCC as to the reason for the change is.

    Like

  187. Ah! Thanks for the clarification Richard!

    So now that I am officially a science denier (along with Steve McIntyre) maybe I can grovel to the IPCC, and apologise to them for questioning their wisdom.

    Dear IPCC.
    I am very sorry for suggesting that your graph is fraudulent. I am sure there is some perfectly rational explanation for the change.
    Please can you tell me?

    Tbanks

    Best Regards
    A Science Denier

    Like

  188. Why Andy! every sentence accurate for a change.

    Like

  189. yes and I think it is an important message for all young people everywhere, never to question authority.
    If you want to get on in science, just produce the results that your paymasters want, never question, never ask,
    just publish papers that conform.

    We all agree, everyone agrees with everyone else that 97% of people agree that 99% of scientists think that 51% of the warming is 95% likely cause by humans.

    Yes we can!

    Like

  190. yes and I think it is an important message for all young people everywhere, never to question authority.

    Andy ,your ability to call up as down and see black as white would amaze a stage hypnotist, but alas, not anbody familiar with science denier zombies and their PRATTS.

    No, go to the primary source, remember.
    In this case, the IPCC.
    DO question them.
    Don’t claim motive or intent until having first done so.

    That’s half of why why you guys were humiliatingly laughed out of court when you made similar accusations against NIWA.

    (btw has the Climate Education Trust – or whatever- settled court costs yet?)

    Like

  191. I don’t know anything about NIWA or the NZCET, it hasn’t got anything to do with me.

    Just because I have the effrontery to question the great scriptures of Lord Mann, Lord Hansen and the Holy IPCC, doesn’t mean i am involved with those guys

    Now, Richard, since you are obviously au fait with the IPCC process, perhaps you could explain the apparent discrepancy in the graphs?

    By now I would have expected to see multiple debunkings of McIntyre’s post from SkS.

    Not to mention expungement of memes (via multiple orifices)

    Perhaps Ken would like tto write a blog post about it.
    I will make a start here:

    denier denier denier blah blah drone denier denier…

    Like

  192. Where’s NASA boy?

    Like

  193. Now, Richard, since you are obviously au fait with the IPCC process, perhaps you could explain the apparent discrepancy in the graphs?

    No, go to the primary source, remember.
    In this case, the IPCC.
    DO question them.
    Don’t claim motive or intent until having first done so.

    Like

  194. The IPCC are not a primary source of information. The work is not peer reviewed.

    NASA are a primary source of information, they have a website

    Like

  195. No, go to the primary source, remember.
    In this case, the IPCC.
    DO question them.
    Don’t claim motive or intent until having first done so.

    Like

  196. What is the procedure for questioning the IPCC? IS there a formal channel?
    The IPCC has “expert reviewers” who make comments. The reviewers then finish their work and then the authors make any changes they want after that, with no peer review process.

    So what is the process in which inquiries, complaints or change requests can be made to the IPCC?

    Like

  197. Let me guess, 0800 TALKTOTHEHAND

    Like

  198. Yep, the word “draft” covers it.
    Instantly, the conspiracy vanishes.

    Every time the deniers try to make something stick legally, they end up with egg on their face. Climategate was a bust. NIWA was a bust. And accusations of fraud are going to go the same way. It’s just shit-stirring.

    Like

  199. But can you explain how the divergence of the models from real world data was magically disappeared? Can you provide a rational and logical explanation?

    (crickets chirping……)

    Like

  200. But can you explain how the divergence of the models from real world data was magically disappeared?

    You can’t explain how such a thing could have happened.
    That’s why it’s not possible to take you seriously.

    If you want to say that it’s a fraud, then do so.
    But you have to demonstrate how did Dr Evil ensure that he’d get away with it scott-free.

    Otherwise it’s vapourware just like all the other times.

    Like

  201. You can’t explain how such a thing could have happened.

    Man turns on PC.
    Man edits Word doc
    Man inserts new image
    Man saves Word doc
    Man releases new draft

    Please let me know if your require further info

    Like

  202. Vapourware.
    If you want to say that it’s a fraud, then do so.
    But you have to demonstrate how did Dr Evil ensure that he’d get away with it scott-free.
    You can’t.

    Like

  203. He did get away with it, so I don’t need to demonstrate how

    Like

  204. You are a peculiar one Andy Scrase.
    if you were not dropped on your head as a baby there must be some other explanation for your irrational hatred of environmental and/or conservation groups.
    Perhaps someone from Greenpeace once stole your sweetheart?
    or maybe your family was forcefully relocated to make way for a motorway bypass woodland park.
    Is your apoplexy over wind power down to our pet budgie flying into the blades of an electric desk fan?

    Like

  205. He did get away with it, so I don’t need to demonstrate how.

    Extraordinary.
    Behold the mentality of a science denier.

    Like

  206. You can ask why I hate environmentalists

    That is because they hate the environment, they hate humanity and they hate themselves

    But that is not germaine to the current question, which is why was the graph changed?

    Like

  207. He did get away with it, so I don’t need to demonstrate how.

    Extraordinary.
    Behold the mentality of a science denier
    ————
    How exactly is stating a fact that the graph was changed (an indisputable fact) make me a “science denier”?

    Like

  208. What I find extraordinary is peering into your “minds”.
    It is a most fascinating journey

    Like

  209. Your Honour,
    A crime has been committed. A case of fraud.
    The moon landings were faked.
    They got away with it, so I don’t need to demonstrate how.

    That Mitchell and Webb Look – Moon Landing Sketch

    Like

  210. The moon landing weren’t faked. You can look through a telescope and see the evidence

    Same here, look at the evidence
    I said “fraud” in response to your accusation of a “conspiracy”.
    Perhaps “fraud” is a little strong.

    Maybe “buffing off the rough edges” might be a more politically correct way of describing the process.

    Buffing off those irritating irregularities to give the public a nice clean easy to digest message

    After all, we don’t want the public to think that we might actually be wrong do we?

    Like

  211. And congratulations on reaching over 200 comments in possibly the most pointless thread ever on the internet

    Time for a beer I think

    Like

  212. I said “fraud” in response to your accusation of a “conspiracy”.
    Perhaps “fraud” is a little strong.

    Andy, say what you mean and mean what you say.
    Put up or shut up.
    Either you think there’s fraud going on or you don’t.
    You can’t have it both ways by playing word games.
    Otherwise, as Richard put it, that’s numberwang.

    Like

  213. No it’s not fraud. It is just modern “post-normal” science

    Thanks I don’t work in this industry, it would drive me nuts

    (even more, that is)

    Like

  214. (* awkward silence *)

    Like

  215. Andy, you rotated the board and have been wangernumbed.

    There is no going back.

    Like

  216. hello?

    The board is still the same

    The IPCC changes a graph between drafts

    (1)Showed a discrepancy between models and real world measurements

    (2)Showed no discrepancy

    How did this happen?
    is it a valid scientific approach?
    Did anyone ask?

    The questions remain the same. There is no moving of goalposts

    Can you answer the questions?

    (* tumbleweed blows across the screen …..*)

    Like

  217. By the way, Richard, I see on the telly that Meridian is flogging off its birdchopper fleet.

    Will you be investing, as a “fan” of wind energy? ( Pun intended)

    We all agree that wind energy is total waste of time and money, kills millions of birds and bats, does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions (and might actually increasing them), but we all agree that is is good for our “clean green image”

    Even though these basic facts are self-evident, the “authorities” all agree, that we need to build more birdchoppers

    Please would someone please think of the children

    (* awkward silence *)

    Like

  218. Where is NASA boy?

    Like

  219. By the way, Richard, I see on the telly that Meridian is flogging off its birdchopper fleet.

    Will you be investing, as a “fan” of wind energy?

    No, I’m not a supporter of current government’s programme of asset stripping theft.

    Like

  220. That’s great to hear!
    I agree that we should socialize the costs of birdchoppers so that poor and rich people pay equally for these useless pieces of junk.

    I particularly enjoy watching old people suffer and die in lonely agony supported by caring left wing environmentalists who can prattle on about their Clean Clean Image whilst quaffing a trim soy latte, and comparing their cheeky organic Pinots

    How amusing!

    How delightful!!!!!

    We all agree that killing people is good for our Clean Green Image

    Yes we do!

    Can we do it?
    Yes we can!

    Like


  221. Man turns on PC.
    Man edits Word doc
    Man inserts new image
    Man saves Word doc
    Man releases new draft

    Simple.
    We all know how…..

    Like

  222. Andy | October 9, 2013 at 11:27 am |
    No, just plain fraud, I would call it.

    (….later in the same thread…)

    Andy | October 11, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
    No it’s not fraud. It is just modern “post-normal” science

    Your not saying it was aliens…but it was aliens.

    Like

  223. I am being flippant. In any other part of industry we would call it fraud, but because nice climate scientists do it it gets called something else.

    Perhaps noble cause corruption?

    Like

  224. But you are right, I should take out an international law suit against the IPCC. I am looking for funds, about 10 million dollars should do it. I’ll run a sausage sizzle outside Bunnings and see how I go.

    Like

  225. In any other part of industry we would call it fraud, but because nice climate scientists do it it gets called something else.

    It’s not just “climate scientists”.
    It’s all the Earth Sciences.

    Like

  226. So this is standard practice across all Earth Sciences?

    Funny, I never learned that when I did my masters in geophysics.

    Like

  227. Climate scientists don’t work in isolation.
    It’s not them versus other scientists.
    They need the support and help from all the Earth Sciences in order to get the data they need to do their job.
    Geophysics? Yep, that’s important too.

    Anybody can get their Masters in geophysics if they do the work.
    Presumably, if you wanted to, you could have gone on to do post-grad work and make it your career, right?
    Well, that’s how it usually works.
    There’s no special political “test” to weed out the “unbelievers”.
    It wouldn’t work.
    If “they” tried to find out your political belief, you could have told then to get lost in very short order.
    Or you could have been sneaky and simply pretended to be a team player.
    Or you may have , during the test that wouldn’t work anyway, told the truth about your beliefs only to have a change of heart 5 minutes or five years later.
    Geophysicists, as a community, have no way of getting inside your head or keeping you on the straight and narrow.

    No scientific community on the planet rejects the science of climate change.
    That includes all the ones on the planet that are to do with geophysics.

    30 September 2013
    AGU Science Policy Alert 13-42

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Working Group I Report, released Friday, 27 September 2013, states “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal… The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.” Working Group I assessed the physical science pertaining to climate change including its impact on the atmosphere and oceans, particularly changes in CO2 concentrations, air and water temperatures, sea ice quantity, sea level rise, and ocean acidification.

    The report confirms that humans influence the climate system and that it is “extremely likely” that anthropogenic forces play a dominant role in observed warming. This is an increased level of certainty from the previous report, published in 2007, which stated…
    (Link to theAGU)

    Like

  228. No you misunderstand. I was assuming that the practice of fiddling graphs to get the outcome you wanted was standard practice across all earth sciences, was what you were intimating.

    Like

  229. It does seem that I am correct that the political report gets written first and then the science adjusted to fit the political report, as confirmed by email from the IPCC to Dave Burton here

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/12/tail-wagging-the-dog-ipcc-to-rework-ar5-to-be-consistent-with-the-spm/

    Like

  230. No, I was making the point that climate scientists do not work in isolation.
    They couldn’t work that way.
    All the Earth Sciences are involved.
    A global scientific conspiracy to commit fraud wouldn’t work.
    You yourself claim to have earned a Masters in Geophysics.
    Nobody stopped you.
    There was no mechanism to weed you out.
    Had you decided to continue, it could well be your data used.
    If someone fiddled with your numbers, then presumably you’d raise a stink over it. You and your entire department.

    Like

  231. Well, I worked in Applied Geophyics, which gets used to do subsea surveys for things like oil and gas. Generally we don’t make stuff up because you get found out pretty quickly

    However, the IPCC are a political organisation, Their job is one of propaganda. so no one really minds if they make stuff up, as long as it fits the political narrative

    Obviously, they do include a lot of science papers in their reports that no one reads, but it is to lend the SPM some credibility

    The SPM has already been dutifully regurgitated by the world’s media, who uncritically repeat the mantras, without actually bothering to look at the underlying science

    Like

  232. “Generally we don’t make stuff up because you get found out pretty quickly”

    Exactly.
    So if someone accuses you of massaging figures or fraud, you’d be able to say with honesty that it’s not really possible due to the nature of the work.

    Perhaps you’d like to make something up.
    Let’s assume you really want to for some unknown reason.
    Ok.
    You could just delete and replace a file.
    Yet there’d be consequences.
    You’d be found out pretty quickly.
    You don’t have a mechanism to ensure that you won’t be found out.

    However, the IPCC are a political organisation, Their job is one of propaganda.

    Yet you cannot explain the mechanism.
    How does Dr Evil ensure that the minions in the IPCC obey orders and don’t stray from the party line?
    How do they aid and abet each other without accidently stepping on each others toes?
    How do the minions get recruited in the first place?
    It wouldn’t work.
    It’s not possible to organise.

    However, the IPCC are a political organisation…

    Who decides the “politics”?
    Is it “the government”? Ok, which one?
    Is it the Jews?
    Or some shadowly cabal of business men in smoke-filled rooms?
    Governments do change over the decades.
    But the scientific consensus has not changed in sync with the new government from where ever.

    Again, it wouldn’t work. That’s the nature of conspiracies. The larger they are, the more porous they become.
    The smaller they are, the more limited is their scope.

    You can have Dr Evi change one document but he’s got no way to make it end there.
    If Dr Evil massaged data that came from you and your department, you’d find out about it the minute you read it and you’d be able to do something about it.

    Like

  233. I already explained how the graph was changed.
    Turn on pc,
    Makes changes to word doc
    Save
    Release doc

    Steve McIntyre has already showed that the graph covers up the discrepancy between the models and real world data. The revision was not peer reviewed and was done after the expert reviewers has finished their work.

    It doesn’t require a global conspiracy. This is what happened.
    The only question is whether the changes were justified or were supported by the science.

    Like

  234. “However, the IPCC are a political organisation…
    Who decides the “politics”?”

    The politics of the IPCC were decided by the attendees at the rio earth summit.

    Again, this is not a conspiracy, this is fact. It is written into their charter.

    Like

  235. It doesn’t require a global conspiracy. This is what happened.

    Yes it does.
    You can have Dr Evi change one document but he’s got no way to make it end there.
    If Dr Evil massaged data that came from you and your department, you’d find out about it the minute you read it and you’d be able to do something about it.
    Unless they get to you somehow, there’s no way to keep you quiet.

    “The politics of the IPCC were decided by the attendees at the rio earth summit.”

    There’s no way to make it work.

    What “politics”?
    Governments do change over the decades.
    But the scientific consensus has not changed in sync with the new government from where ever.

    How do “the attendees of the Rio Earth Summit” ensure that the minions in the IPCC obey orders and don’t stray from the party line?
    How do they aid and abet each other without accidently stepping on each others toes?
    How do the minions get recruited in the first place?
    Do the “attendees of the Rio Earth Summit” recruit them?
    It wouldn’t work.
    It’s not possible to organise.

    “172 governments participated, with 108 sending their heads of state or government.[1] Some 2,400 representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) attended, with 17,000 people at the parallel NGO “Global Forum” (a.k.a. Forum Global), who had Consultative Status.”

    See? It’s too big. There’s no way to make it work.
    What are the “politics” of 172 governments?
    What happens if there is an election?
    Doesn’t work.

    Like

  236. This Dr Evil character that you invented changed the graph, this is not in dispute.

    The IPCC is a political,organization. They decided on the “consensus” a priori.

    It is very easy to make people fall into line, don’t give funding to the ones that don’t. This is largely what has happened.
    So a combination of a political agenda, group think, and an ill defined problem have created this so called consensus.
    It will be interesting to see what happens in a few years if the real world data continues to stay flat. The IPCC have already downgraded the lower limit of climate sensitivity to 1.5 degrees from 2, and no longer have any confidence in the central estimate, which used to be 3 degrees.

    This rather crucial piece of information was rather lost on the worlds media who were falling over themselves to tell us it’s worse than we thout.

    Like

  237. It is very easy to make people fall into line, don’t give funding to the ones that don’t. This is largely what has happened.

    The mechanism doesn’t work.
    Governments change. Elections occur.
    What are the “politics” of 172 governments?
    It’s too big.
    If Dr Evil cuts funding to those who don’t fall into line, that would create a pattern that is easily recognisable.
    There would be a paper trail.
    There’s no way to get inside the head of a geophysicist (for example) to ensure they will fall into line before you give them funding.

    You can cut funding after they have failed to “fall into line” but then the damage is done. The data is alreadly gathered and published.
    It doesn’t work.

    It is very easy to make people fall into line, don’t give funding to the ones that don’t. This is largely what has happened.

    Claim CA321.1:
    “The conclusions of scientists are motivated by scientists’ pay; they cannot be considered objective.”

    So a combination of a political agenda, group think…

    Claim CA320:
    “Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.”
    Source:
    Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life–How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 182.

    …and an ill defined problem have created this so called consensus.

    Claim CA212:
    “Evolution is defined ambiguously, and claims that it is fact are based on the ambiguity. It is usually defined as “change in heritable characteristics in a population over time” (often expressed as “change in allele frequencies”), which everyone accepts as fact, but that does not mean that macroevolution or common descent are fact.”
    Source:
    POSH (Parents for Objective Science and History), n.d. Biology text review. http://posh.roundearth.net/biology.htm

    You are trying to rationalize away the global scientific consensus on a scientific issue. In doing so, you are forced to copy the creationist playbook. They have the same problem that you do and they reach for the same thinking that you do. Only they did it first.

    It doesn’t work.

    Like

  238. It does work. Tony Abbott’s government in Australia has dumped its climate commissioner Tim Flannery

    I’m sure he’d like to cut funding to IPCC-centric climate science too, given the chance

    You are trying to rationalize away the global scientific consensus on a scientific issue

    There isn’t a global scientific consensus on climate change. You are just reading the PR spin from various scientific bodies. If you look at the actual science there is a lot of uncertainty

    Like

  239. By the way Ken and others interested, the NZ CSC are appealing the NIWA court decision tomorrow. I just heard this at RT’s blog

    Like

  240. By the way Ken and others interested, the NZ CSC are appealing the NIWA court decision tomorrow.

    Woo hoo. The comedy that writes itself and just keeps on giving.

    Like

  241. It does work. Tony Abbott’s government in Australia has dumped its climate commissioner Tim Flannery

    Tony Abbott can’t read Tim’s mind. He can fire him…after he doesn’t get the results he wants but you can’t stop scientific publications that way. Once they are published, they cannot be unpublished.
    The horse has already bolted.
    Other scientists can now try to replicate the results and build on them.
    You need to stop the results from getting out in the first place.
    There’s no mechanism for that.
    Abbot can’t fire all the geophysicists, for example.
    He can’t secretly threaten the “boss” geophysicist and then somehow control all the geophysicists.
    Wouldn’t work.
    There’s not even a “boss” geophysicist to start with.

    Presumably, Abbott is not part of the corruption and data massaging that seems to be all-powerful and everywhere…but he can’t give orders to the scientific community to produce politically acceptable numbers.
    There’s no mechanism.

    For example, if he sents an email telling them the numbers he wants, then all the scientists have to do is release the email.
    There’d be hell to pay.

    The same nuts-and-bolts problems Tony Abbot would have in making things go his way is the same problem that Rudd would have if he had won the election.
    Now multiply that problem by 172 times!
    There’s no way to make it work.

    George Bush didn’t get NASA to switch.
    Nor Reagan. Nor Bush Jnr.
    Thatcher was hardly a communist but…(shrug). Harper’s another to add to the pile.

    I’m sure he’d like to cut funding to IPCC-centric climate science too, given the chance…

    Governments do change over the decades.
    But the scientific consensus has not changed in sync with the new government from where ever.
    There’s no mechanism.

    There isn’t a global scientific consensus on climate change. You are just reading the PR spin from various scientific bodies. If you look at the actual science there is a lot of uncertainty.

    No, not “various” scientific bodies, Andy.
    All of them.
    Not a single scientific communtiy on the planet rejects the scientific consensus.
    “PR spin” doesn’t just happen. It has to be organised. Only there’s no mechanism to make it work. Automatically, despite yourself, you are forced to trot out shop-worn rationisations from the creationists of yesteryear.
    It wasnt’ convincing back then and it’s not convincing now.

    If you look at the actual science there is a lot of uncertainty

    A creationist can say exactly the same thing.
    As can an anti-fluoride nutter.
    I’m not being unfair when I ask you to behave differently from them.
    Examine your methodology. Explain it to us.
    Do it in such a way so that it’s easy to see that you’re not doing the same thing as the other nutters that you and I both reject.

    Dr. Eugenie Scott on Evolution and Global Warming Denialism: How

    Like

  242. Margaret Thatcher become something of a sceptic in her later years. This is documented in her autobiography

    As far as Tim Flannery is concerned, I’m not sure he is a published climate scientist – that is not his discipline

    He did make some rather rash recommendations about DeSal plants that haven’t worked out too well

    Like

  243. I’m not quite sure why these people keep comparing evolution “denial” with climate change “denial”.

    Even the IPCC now state in their Summary for Policymakers that climate sensitivity may be as low as 1.5 degrees or as high as 4.5 degrees. This covers a very wide range of scenarios from which to be sceptical about.

    I haven’t heard a similar argument about evolution. e.g 15 of nature is “God” and 85% evolution.

    Like

  244. ““PR spin” doesn’t just happen. It has to be organised. Only there’s no mechanism”

    It’s called the IPCC summary for policy makers,

    Remember, the political summary that got released before the scientific one?

    Like

  245. It’s called the IPCC summary for policy makers
    (….earlier…)
    The politics of the IPCC were decided by the attendees at the rio earth summit.

    Doesn’t work.
    What are the “politics” of 172 governments?
    What happens if there is an election?
    It doesn’t matter who’s in charge of what government. There’s no mechanism.

    Margaret Thatcher become something…

    It doesn’t matter. There’s no mechanism that would work. That’s the point.

    As far as Tim Flannery is concerned, I’m not sure he is a published climate scientist – that is not his discipline

    Which is part of the reason why it doesn’t work. Tony Abbott can’t read Tim’s mind. He can fire him…after he doesn’t get the results he wants but you can’t stop scientific publications that way. Once they are published, they cannot be unpublished.
    The horse has already bolted.
    Other scientists can now try to replicate the results and build on them.
    You need to stop the results from getting out in the first place.
    There’s no mechanism for that.

    Firing Tim Flannery doesn’t magically make it all go away. The man could drop dead tomorrow and it wouldn’t help Abbott at all. Science isn’t about personalities.
    There is no “boss”.

    I’m not quite sure why these people keep comparing evolution “denial” with climate change “denial”.

    It’s because climate deniers say and do the same things as the creationists and the rest of ‘em.

    It is very easy to make people fall into line, don’t give funding to the ones that don’t. This is largely what has happened.
    Claim CA321.1
    So a combination of a political agenda, group think…
    Claim CA320:
    …and an ill defined problem have created this so called consensus.
    Claim CA212

    Like

  246. It’s not the politics a of 172 governments. It’s the politics of the UN and the WMO that set up the IPCC
    Do you think that they did a quick survey of the 172 countries and asked them if it is ok to form.a predetermined consensus on climate change?

    Climate deniers are like creationists
    What is a climate denier? Someone that denies that climate exists?
    I don’t deny that climate exists. Weather exists, therefore climate exists.
    What is a climate change denier? I don’t deny that climate changes. Climate has changed for billions of years.
    What is an anthropogenic climate change denier?
    I don’t deny the humans have some effect on the climate, they have been since we started cutting down trees and planting crops thousands of years ago.
    Is it someone that denies that co2 has a measurable effect on the climate?
    What is the evidence for this? Oh I forgot, it’s a consensus. A group of scientists and politicians had some meetings and all agreed that co2 has a large effect on our climate

    We know this because we have seen some small changes to our climate, and because we can’t explain the late 20th century warming that lasted for about 22 years, we extrapolate this into a theory that we are dangerously changing the climate, even though we can’t explain the lack of warming for the last 17 years which everyone also agrees on.

    That is how science works. We have a meeting, and all agree that we agree.97% of scientists agree that it is 95% likely that the 22 years of warming in the late 20th c was caused by us, and even though we have no idea why the world didn’t warm for the last 17 years, we still all agree.

    Everybody agrees with everybody else.we just need to keep agreeing and everything wil be fine.

    Like

  247. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body,[1][2] set up at the request of member governments.[3] It was first established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution 43/53. Its mission is to provide comprehensive scientific assessments of current scientific, technical and socio-economic information worldwide about the risk of climate change caused by human activity, its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences, and possible options for adapting to these consequences or mitigating the effects

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

    Like

  248. It’s not the politics a of 172 governments. It’s the politics of the UN and the WMO that set up the IPCC…

    That’s not what you said.

    It’s called the IPCC summary for policy makers
    (….earlier…)
    The politics of the IPCC were decided by the attendees at the rio earth summit.

    “172 governments participated, with 108 sending their heads of state or government.[1] Some 2,400 representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) attended, with 17,000 people at the parallel NGO “Global Forum” (a.k.a. Forum Global), who had Consultative Status.”

    I pointed out several times that it’s too big and that there’s no way to make it work.
    So now you are changing the narrative.
    This is why it’s a good idea to walk yourself through how it could all possible work, even at a hypotheticial level.
    Once you get down to the nuts and bolts of it all, it becomes clear very quickly that it would collapse under it’s own weight.
    Global scientific conspiracies don’t work.
    They all suffer from the same basic, logistical problems.

    It’s the politics of the UN and the WMO that set up the IPCC

    So it’s not the attendees of the Rio Earth summit at all?
    I see.
    Even you recognise that you can’t do a quick survey of 172 countries and ask them if it is ok to form.a predetermined consensus on climate change.
    It’s too big.
    Besides, a simple survey would not help managing the IPCC and decide all the important things such as which numbers to massage or what PR would be acceptable.

    So it’s really the UN and the WMO?
    They’re behind it all?
    Ok.
    How.
    You need a mechanism. Perhaps there’s a small, managable, super-secret committee…within the UN and the WMO at the same time…that tells the IPCC what to do?

    What is the evidence for this? Oh I forgot, it’s a consensus. A group of scientists and politicians had some meetings and all agreed that co2 has a large effect on our climate.

    Nope. These meetings never happened.
    They didn’t happen for the moon landings either nor for evolution.
    The consensus on climate change was created the boring, old-fashioned way.
    No short cuts.

    It’s the politics of the UN and the WMO that set up the IPCC

    So you’re going for version 1.1.

    Like

  249. The meetings never happened. It was not the WMO and the UN. It was 172 countries all getting together, having a big meeting somewhere and all agreeing.
    It is all about agreements and we all agree that we need agreement

    Resolution 43/53

    Protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind

    The General Assembly,

    Welcoming with appreciation the initiative taken by the Government of
    Malta in proposing for consideration by the Assembly the item entitled
    “Conservation of climate as part of the common heritage of mankind”,

    Concerned that certain human activities could change global climate
    patterns, threatening present and future generations with potentially severe
    economic and social consequences,

    Noting with concern that the emerging evidence indicates that continued
    growth in atmospheric concentrations of “greenhouse” gases could produce
    global warming with an eventual rise in sea levels, the effects of which could
    be disastrous for mankind if timely steps are not taken at all levels,

    http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r053.htm

    So they were concerned that greenhouse gas emissions <b.could produce global warming with an eventual rise in sea levels, the effects of which could be disastrous for mankind if timely steps are not taken at all levels,

    So we are all concerned that disastrous things could happen.

    We all agree on that, at least

    And we all agree that timely steps should be taken, on things that could happen

    Like

  250. By the way, I am not forming a conspiracy theory. I am merely stating historical facts backed up by links from the UN etc

    I am not even saying that AGW is a hoax, or not happening to some degree either.
    I am merely making the claim that the whole thing was driven by a political rather than a scientific force. Therefore, by definition, the science will tend to be biased towards the agenda being promoted, even if the individual papers and researchers are by and large correct.

    Other manifestations of this phenomenon are seen in medical research where the motives of the researchers are entirely honorable (mostly) but the work gets biased by the funding or the outcome desired.

    Like

  251. The meetings never happened. It was not the WMO and the UN. It was 172 countries all getting together…

    You have to be clear in your own mind what’s “really” going on.

    “However, the IPCC are a political organisation…

    Who decides the “politics”?”

    The politics of the IPCC were decided by the attendees at the rio earth summit. Again, this is not a conspiracy, this is fact.

    Which brings us to the problem of the attendees being 172 governments and the whole thing starts to look messy.

    It’s not the politics a of 172 governments. It’s the politics of the UN and the WMO that set up the IPCC…

    So then I ask you how that is supposed to work.

    The meetings never happened. It was not the WMO and the UN. It was 172 countries all getting together…

    A rare, old, addled mix up.

    By the way, I am not forming a conspiracy theory. I am merely stating historical facts backed up…

    It’s version 1.1. I can understand you being leerly about the word “conspiracy”. I’d shy away from it too.

    I am not even saying that AGW is a hoax, or not happening to some degree either.
    I am merely making the claim that the whole thing was driven by a political rather than a scientific force.

    Sure. We get it. You’re not saying it was aliens but…it was aliens.

    Yet you can’t explain the mechanism.
    The ‘how” part.
    Again, I’m not demanding evidence from you.
    You don’t have to give me links or cut-and-paste anything at all.
    Nothing so strenuous.
    Just you.
    You and your thinking about what’s “really” going on.

    All you have to to is walk us through how it could even possibly work…maybe.

    Other manifestations of this phenomenon are seen in medical research where the motives of the researchers are entirely honorable (mostly) but the work gets biased by the funding or the outcome desired.

    Feel free to use any real-life instances from the world of medicine as a model for what you think is really going on. You have no restrictions except your imagination.
    You can either make it all very, very small or as big as you like…but it’s got to be at least physically possible.

    I am not even saying that AGW is a hoax, or not happening to some degree either.

    That’s fine. I’m sure there’s a lot that you are not saying. I’m more interested in what you are actually saying.
    That’s why I’m carefully quoting you.
    That’s why I’m not interested in creating strawmen.
    Spell what you actually are saying clearly and reasonably. Walk us through it. Consider any logistical problems and deal with them.

    Jesse Ventura’s “Conspiracy Theory” – Global Warming (FULL)

    Like

  252. Tell me Cedric, why don’t we hear your side of the story?
    Obviously, you think my links to the UN are some kind of hoax, and that 172 countries randomly got together and thought “oh gosh, this global warming thing might happen one day, we’d better set up an international bureaucracy to look into it and fund lots of honest scientists to look for evidence to fit our pre-determined narrative”.

    Because you know, it’s not like some exaggerated scare hasn’t happened before.

    I am reading “Scared to Death” by Booker and North which describes in excruciating detail all the scares of the late 20th C.

    But no, “global warming” is different. We all agree, the 0.8 degrees of which maybe 0.4 degrees of warming that was caused by humans is the biggest crisis facing humanity (other than tooth decay in infants of course)

    We have computer models to prove it!
    They aren’t right, but never mind

    Like

  253. Tell me Cedric, why don’t we hear your side of the story?
    Obviously, you think my links to the UN are some kind of hoax…

    Not at all.
    You don’t have to give any links. They’re not important.
    Again, I’m not demanding evidence from you.
    You don’t have to give me links or cut-and-paste anything at all.
    Nothing so strenuous.
    Just you.
    You and your thinking about what’s “really” going on.

    All you have to to is walk us through how it could even possibly work…maybe.
    And again, feel free to use any real-life instances from the world of medicine as a model for what you think is really going on. You have no restrictions except your imagination.
    Spell what you actually are saying clearly and reasonably. Walk us through it. Consider any logistical problems and deal with them.

    Climate Change conspiracy “theory” becomes conspiracy fact.

    Like

  254. Because you know, it’s not like some exaggerated scare hasn’t happened before.

    No problem.
    Feel free to use whatever exaggerated scare from history that you like as a model for what you think is “really” going on now.
    It’s all good.
    Go for it.

    Like

  255. There isn’t a single scare that is a “model”
    the book I mention is this:

    covers “scares” in much detail,;

    I have only got through the “food scares” bit, including Listeria etc

    The media generally play a big part in it, uncritically beating up a story, the politicians then respond, and a positive feedback loop of semi-hysteria seems to evolve

    It’s an interesting social and political phenomenon.

    Like

  256. Incidentally, I enjoy these tactic Cedric. You obviously are trying to get me angry (easy I admit) and then start acting like some Alex Jones nut job.

    Softly softly, we can take this thread to a thousand comments, no problem.

    Like

  257. The “scare” phenomenon is one way of looking at this, but it doesn’t really cover the concept of politically motivated junk science, or just wrong science.

    Examples of these are:
    Lysenko-ism
    Eugenics
    Phlogiston theory

    Like

  258. You obviously are trying to get me angry (easy I admit) and then start acting like some Alex Jones nut job.

    Sure, Andy.
    Whatever.
    All you have to to is walk us through how it could even possibly work…maybe.

    The “scare” phenomenon is one way of looking at this, but it doesn’t really cover the concept of politically motivated junk science, or just wrong science.

    Fine. No problem.
    Use whichever one does cover it, in your mind.
    Feel free to use whatever exaggerated scare from history that you like as a model for what you think is “really” going on now.
    It’s all good.
    Go for it.

    Like

  259. I already did

    Like

  260. What is *really* going on now is a bunch of scientists writing papers, many of them rubber-stamping the “consensus” without actually challenging it.

    Very few people are working on the key metrics of transient and equilibrium climate sensitivity (to a doubling of CO2)

    Since AR4, the lower bound of this has come down to 1.5 degrees. This is primarily due to recent papers that conclude a low sensitivity based on recent empirical observations. Since this is below the “official two degrees” limit for “dangerous” warming, it appears that the mainstream science is heading towards a conclusion that any anthropogenic warming is going to be minor and possibly net beneficial. This may change if “warming resumes” (and is rapid ) but we’ll have to wait and see

    Like

  261. Still a way to go. We are not done yet

    Like

  262. What is *really* going on now is a bunch of scientists writing papers, many of them rubber-stamping the “consensus” without actually challenging it.

    Ok, how.
    You’ve got all the Earth Sciences in on this, remember.

    Like

  263. It is very simple. We say “in the context of climate change” on their paper about lichen growth in Spitzbergen, or “in the context of a warming climate” in their paper about mosquitoes in central Africa

    No one is challenging the fundamental premise. It is taken as a given.
    Furthermore, if they include the magic words “climate change” in their papers, they will be really cool people that people will want to talk to at conferences etc.

    “Hey dude I am *concerned* about climate change and have written this really cool paper about edible tree fungus in Tibet in the context of a warming world which just got published in Nature Geoscience”

    “Oh dude that is so cool, I just got a paper published on prostitution in Japan in the context of climate change”

    Oh wow, and double wow, this is like so totally awesome dudes

    Like

  264. No one is challenging the fundamental premise.

    The same can be said about the Earth being flat.
    There are plenty of things out there that have achieved a scientific consensus.
    Evolution, the safety of vaccines, the cancer risks of smoking, plate tectonics, prions, the cause of peptic ulcers, the link between HIV and AIDS, the Heliocentric Theory, etc.

    Not too many challanges to the fundamental premise there nor would anyone expect them to be.

    What is *really* going on now is a bunch of scientists writing papers, many of them rubber-stamping the “consensus”

    When you say a “bunch of scientists”, it’s not really a bunch.
    It’s all the scientific communities on the planet covering all the Earth Sciences.
    “A bunch” doesn’t quite cover it somehow.

    Plus there’s the problem of the consensus being already there in the first place. It didn’t just happen by magic.

    What is *really* going on now is a bunch of scientists writing papers, many of them rubber-stamping the “consensus” without actually challenging it.

    Claim CA310:
    “Scientists find what they expect to find.”

    Like

  265. What is the fundamental premise, by the way?

    Like

  266. Oh, yes I remember know. Greenhouse gases cause warming and adding more will cause a bit more warming.

    We’re not really sure how much warming; in fact it might be quite small, or very big.

    Sort of gravity for divs

    Like

  267. What is the fundamental premise, by the way?

    I don’t mind, Andy.
    This is your thinking after all.
    You’re the one that brought up “fundamental premise” in the first place.

    No one is challenging the fundamental premise. It is taken as a given.

    Did you want to mention it?

    Oh, yes I remember know. Greenhouse gases cause warming…

    Ok. So there we have it to your satisfaction.

    According to you, what is *really* going on now is a bunch of scientists writing papers, many of them rubber-stamping the “consensus” without actually challenging the theory that greenhouse gasses cause warming.
    Right?

    We’re not really sure…

    Who is this “we” you speak of?
    It’s just some vague “bunch” of scientists or are you referring to all the scientific communities on the planet covering all the Earth Science?

    Like

  268. Who is this “we” you speak of?
    It’s just some vague “bunch” of scientists or are you referring to all the scientific communities on the planet covering all the Earth Science?

    I am referring to the authors of the IPCC AR5 Summary for Policymakers, who write (page 11, footnote 16)

    No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

    We have lack of agreement, but we all,,,,

    .. agree

    Like

  269. Who is this “we” you speak of?

    I am referring to the authors of the IPCC…

    Ok, the IPCC.
    It’s all good.
    You don’t have to give any links. They’re not important.
    Again, I’m not demanding evidence from you.
    You don’t have to give me links or cut-and-paste anything at all.
    Just you.
    You and your thinking about what’s “really” going on.

    So, according to you, what is *really* going on now is a bunch of scientists writing papers, many of them rubber-stamping the “consensus” without actually challenging the theory that greenhouse gasses cause warming.
    Right?

    Like

  270. Wrong.
    Try again

    Like

  271. Andy, it’s your thinking.
    Say what you mean and mean what you say….if you can.

    I’m not demanding evidence from you.
    You don’t have to give me links or cut-and-paste anything at all.
    Just you.
    You and your thinking about what’s “really” going on.
    That’s about as easy as it gets.

    Like

  272. The “consensus” insn’t that GHG cause warming. Most people agree with that, including Christopher Monckton

    What is the consensus? That is the question.

    Like

  273. Would you like some clues?

    Like

  274. Anyone home?

    Coo-eeee….

    Like

  275. Andy, it’s your thinking. Share.
    It can’t be that hard for you.

    Like

  276. What is this consensus that everyone agrees to? It can’t be that hard.
    Anyone?

    Is there anyone out there……

    (* crickets chirping in the night …*)

    Like

  277. You have nothing.
    Even when you don’t even have to provide any evidence at all.
    You just can’t do it.

    Like

  278. Nice projection Cedric.
    Actually, it is I that holds the cards, not you
    You have been trying to defend this so called consensus yet you can’t even define it.

    There have been multiple criticisms of the Cook 97 % paper. It doesn’t stack up

    Most people agree that humans change the climate and that there is or should be some warming. That is not the point

    The issue is whether co2 is a major driver of climate and whether this’ll a big problem, a small problem, or a non problem.

    Like

  279. Actually, it is I that holds the cards, not you

    Indeed you do. I’ve freely given them to you. You’ve got the entire deck. That’s about as easy as it gets.
    I’m not demanding evidence from you.
    You don’t have to give me links or cut-and-paste anything at all.
    Just you.
    You and your thinking about what’s “really” going on.

    Do you have a book that helps you?
    Fine.
    Be inspired by it. Use it as a model.
    Feel free to use whatever exaggerated scare from history that you like as a model for what you think is “really” going on now.
    It’s all good.
    A medical scare? Sure, whatever.
    Spell out what you actually are saying clearly and reasonably. Walk us through it. Consider any logistical problems and deal with them.

    You hold all the cards. Let’s see them. How does it all work?

    Like

  280. You hold all the cards. Let’s see them. How does it all work?

    Just asking a question.
    This is a trolling technique known as JAQing off

    JAQing off is the act of spouting accusations while hiding behind the claim that one is “Just Asking Questions.” The strategy is to keep asking leading questions in an attempt to influence listeners’ views; the term is derived from the frequent claim by the questioner that they are “just asking questions,” albeit in a manner much the same as political push polls.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JAQing_off

    A good way of diverting attention from the fact that you don’t have any arguments.

    Like

  281. Walk us through it. Consider any logistical problems and deal with them.

    If you read the latest IPCC report, there really is very little of interest left. All the catastrophic scenarios involving extreme weather etc have been marked as “very unlikely” (with the exception of Arctic Sea Ice)

    Warming could be low and net beneficial

    The only ones shrieking are the activists

    Like

  282. I’m not spouting accusations. Nor am I asking questions.
    I’m asking one question and I’ve been very consistent about it.
    How?
    You evaded at every turn.
    All you have to do is tell us what you think is really going on.
    You want to sling off accusations of massaging data or fiddling numbers or politics?
    Come up with a feasible way to make it work.
    The most basic question anyone can ask is “how”?
    You can’t answer it.

    What is *really* going on now is a bunch of scientists writing papers, many of them rubber-stamping the “consensus” without actually challenging it.

    It’s physically impossible. It doesn’t work. There’s no mechanism.

    The “scare” phenomenon is one way of looking at this, but it doesn’t really cover the concept of politically motivated junk science, or just wrong science.

    Yet you shy away completely from telling us how this is all supposed to work.

    I am merely making the claim that the whole thing was driven by a political rather than a scientific force.

    Then substantiate the claim. Tell us how it works. The “how” bit.

    There isn’t a global scientific consensus on climate change. You are just reading the PR spin from various scientific bodies.

    Great. Fine. Wonderful.
    Something nefarious is going on. “They” are up to no good.
    Frame it however you want.
    Only spit it out.

    Like

  283. You want to sling off accusations of massaging data or fiddling numbers or politics?
    Come up with a feasible way to make it work.
    The most basic question anyone can ask is “how”?
    You can’t answer it.

    Man goes into office
    Man turns on PC
    Man opens Word doc
    Man inserts new image
    Man saves word doc
    Man releases new draft

    Feel free to ask if you require further clarification

    Like

  284. Feel free to ask if you require further clarification.

    Ok.
    Clarify.
    Go for it. If you can.

    Like

  285. What would you like clarification about? Can you be more specific with your question?

    Like

  286. I’d like you to clarify about what you wrote.
    If Dr Evil just went ahead and inserts a new image, he’d be found out.
    There’s no mechanism.

    Like

  287. He was found out. By Steve McIntyre

    Like

  288. It doesn’t work, Andy. Think about it.
    One person can’t just change diagrams to suit themselves without other people noticing. Steve is spouting bullshit. He has found nothing.
    That’s why your narrative has changed.

    Climategate went nowhere. The NIWA court case went nowhere. The appeal went nowhere and this latest claim is going nowhere as well.
    Even you should be able to spot a pattern.

    Like

  289. That’s why your narrative has changed.
    My narrative hasn’t changed

    Like

  290. Andy | October 9, 2013 at 11:27 am |
    No, just plain fraud, I would call it.

    (….later in the same thread…)

    Andy | October 11, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
    No it’s not fraud. It is just modern “post-normal” science

    Like

  291. As I pointed out later, I was being ironic.
    I realise that rhetorical techniques such as irony, reductio ad absurdum, etc are usually lost in translation.

    Shrugs …

    Like

  292. In case anyone is offended, the term “lost in translation” might be lost in translation. It doesn’t imply any slur against anyone whose first language is not English.

    Like

  293. As I pointed out later, I was being ironic.

    When?
    Where you being ironic on October 9, 2013 at 11:27 am or were you being ironic on October 11, 2013 at 5:16 pm?

    Like

  294. Both, irony is a long story

    Like

  295. Then (without irony) what is actually going on, according to you?

    Like

  296. What is going on?
    Scientists do research, publish papers.
    Some of them get into the IPCC report.
    Most of that is pretty mundane

    Writers of Summary for Policymakers write their report before main report is written, and “sex it up” a bit.

    Like

  297. congratulations on the 300th comment on this thread!

    Like

  298. Writers of Summary for Policymakers write their report before main report is written, and “sex it up” a bit.

    What are you referring to? Specifics?

    Like

  299. The bit about more certainty, when there is less, for starters.

    Like

  300. I don’t follow. What is your claim?
    Stop beating about the bush. What do you think is going on?

    Like

  301. I thought we had covered this about 200 comments ago.
    Anyway, the IPCC say that they are more certain than ever (95%) that most of the warming (>50%) of the warming post 1950 is human caused, yet at the same time they say

    Equilibrium climate sensitivity** is likely in the range 1.5 deg. C to 4.5 deg. C …” (SPM-11) and “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies” (SPM-11, fottnote 16).

    Climate sensitivity of CO2 is now as uncertain as it was in 1979 when a National Academy of Sciences report first established the same range of 1.5 to 4.5 deg. C (Charney et al., 1979). In other words, no refinement has been made in 34 years in determining how much warming is likely to result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

    So we are more certain that ever before, but the science on the key metric of global warming – climate sensitivity, hasn’t moved on for 34 years.

    Impressive, eh?

    Like

  302. So what?
    Again, what is it that you are claiming? What do you think is going on?

    Like

  303. What is going on? They are “sexing up” the report to make it look more “scary”, when in fact the opposite is the case, if you read the actual scientific report.

    There may be many reasons for this. It is a “governmental” report, hence they want to keep the thing going as long as possible, so that governments and other organisations like Green energy companies can extract money out of people.

    Not difficult to understand, really

    Like

  304. Are we bored yet?

    Like

  305. What is going on? They are “sexing up” the report…

    Andy, there’s no way to make it work.

    …governments and other organisations like Green energy companies can extract money out of people.

    (…facepalm…)

    Andy, I’ve asked you multiple times for you to tell me what’s really going on.
    This is what we finally get.
    Can you see how silly it sounds?
    Even with the best will in the world, there’s no way to make something like this work.

    How do mystery “governments” and even more mysterious “other organisations” do this without every single scientific community on the planet (including the ones that represent the geophysicists) not finding out about it?

    Like

  306. What makes you think they don’t know about it? Of course they know about it. It is in your face crime

    This is completely normal in the modern world.
    Government is basically an organised crime network, bleeding money out of the productive classes like a parasitic disease

    It is in the interests of the “scientists” (I use the term loosely when referring to “climate scientists (*)” to keep the alarm going. Without alarm, there would be no work

    (*) I heard that putting “climate” in front of “scientist” is a bit like putting “witch” in front of “doctor”

    Like

  307. As we saw with the Len Brown “scandal” this week in NZ, no one cares anymore.
    No one has any morals or cares about anyone else

    It is all about taking whatever you can get, and if it involves stealing off other people via “legitimate” means, then so be it.

    Might as well join them really

    Like

  308. Government is basically an organised crime network, bleeding money out of the productive classes like a parasitic disease

    According to you, are there any governments that are not doing this?

    It is in the interests of the “scientists” (I use the term loosely when referring to “climate scientists (*)” to keep the alarm going. Without alarm, there would be no work

    Are there any scientific communities out there (geophycisists, oceanographers, geologists etc) that are not not doing this?

    Like

  309. I don’t imply that all scientists are like this. If you read the actual IPCC report, it is fairly dull, mundane and unalarming.
    However, that is not what governments and the media report on, they report on the SPM,

    The SPM is not a scientific report, it is a political report supposedly reflecting a scientific position ‘

    My general contempt for government is fairly universal, yes.

    Like

  310. By the way, I am more than happy to take this pointless thread to 1000 comments and beyond.

    Like

  311. I don’t imply that all scientists are like this.

    I’m interested in what you are saying as opposed to what you are not saying.

    It is in the interests of the “scientists” (I use the term loosely when referring to “climate scientists (*)” to keep the alarm going. Without alarm, there would be no work

    Are there any scientific communities out there (geophycisists, oceanographers, geologists etc) that are not not doing this?

    My general contempt for government is fairly universal, yes

    Whatever.

    Government is basically an organised crime network, bleeding money out of the productive classes like a parasitic disease

    According to you, are there any governments that are not doing this?

    Like

  312. Doing what?

    Like

  313. Obviously, all governments tax their citizens. (Well, most of them)
    Some of this tax goes to ventures that we generally agree are worthwhile, via some kind of “social contract”

    Some, however, cross the line and tax for benefits that are not seen, and seem to be for the benefit of the political class and their cronies alone

    Like

  314. It is a “governmental” report, hence they want to keep the thing going as long as possible, so that governments and other organisations like Green energy companies can extract money out of people.

    How do mystery “governments” and even more mysterious “other organisations” do this without every single scientific community on the planet (including the ones that represent the geophysicists) not finding out about it?

    Government is basically an organised crime network, bleeding money out of the productive classes like a parasitic disease

    According to you, are there any governments that are not doing this?

    Like

  315. Obviously, all governments tax their citizens.

    Yes but surely you are not talking about ordinary taxation, right?
    Say what you mean and mean what you say.

    Like

  316. How do mystery “governments” and even more mysterious “other organisations” do this without every single scientific community on the planet (including the ones that represent the geophysicists) not finding out about it?

    How do they stop them finding out about it? Why do they need to stop anyone finding out about it? I just read out the key points of the SPM to you, which are self-contradictory. It is self-evident, it is not a secret or a conspiracy or some backroom deal. It is all done in plain view

    This works in 2 ways.
    (1) People/governments read what they want to read
    (2) People are thick. They are too stupid to see the internal contractions.

    Like

  317. Yes but surely you are not talking about ordinary taxation, right?
    Say what you mean and mean what you say.

    I am referring to “carbon” taxes and ETS schemes.
    For example, in NZ we give money to the Chinese so they can manufacture HFC-23 and then destroy it to get carbon credits. This is what is commonly known as a “scam”

    We also have wind-energy subsidies, one of the greatest scams on the planet

    Like

  318. I just read out the key points of the SPM to you….

    I still don’t know why you did that.

    What is going on? They are “sexing up” the report to make it look more “scary”,…

    Ok. But how? What’s going on? You never seem to come to grips with any possible mechanism.

    How do mystery “governments” and even more mysterious “other organisations” do this without every single scientific community on the planet (including the ones that represent the geophysicists) not finding out about it?

    How do they stop them finding out about it? Why do they need to stop anyone finding out about it?

    Andy, you need to explain the “they” bit for a start.
    You’ve mentioned governments, organisations and scientists with spooky scare quotes.
    I still have no idea who you’re actually talking about.

    Is it all governments or only just some governments?

    It is in the interests of the “scientists” (I use the term loosely when referring to “climate scientists (*)” to keep the alarm going. Without alarm, there would be no work

    Are there any scientific communities out there (geophycisists, oceanographers, geologists etc) that are not not doing this.

    Like

  319. It is really not that difficult.
    Except for you, apparently

    Like

  320. I still have no idea who you’re actually talking about.

    Likewise

    Like

  321. Then explain yourself. This is your thinking after all.

    Like

  322. What would you like me to explain? I thought we had been through it all; after all this thread has more than 300 comments.

    Like

  323. No you haven’t. All you are doing is handwaving. There’s nothing tangible.
    I have asked to tell me what you think is really is going on.
    You don’t even seem to be able to describe it at all.

    What is going on? They are “sexing up” the report to make it look more “scary”…

    Vague, meaningless nonsense.

    …governments and other organisations like Green energy companies can extract money out of people.

    “Governments”? “Other organisations”
    It’s just filler.

    It is in the interests of the “scientists” (I use the term loosely when referring to “climate scientists (*)” to keep the alarm going. Without alarm, there would be no work

    Claim CA321.1:
    The conclusions of scientists are motivated by scientists’ pay; they cannot be considered objective.

    Like

  324. Here is an example

    The German power company RWE hopes to spend £4 billion on its “Atlantic Array”, covering 125 square miles of sea between Devon and South Wales with 240 vast 5MW turbines, more than 600ft high. Owing to the wind’s intermittency, these will generate, on average, just 400MW of electricity – but will earn RWE £525 million a year, of which £350 million will be from subsidies we all pay through our electricity bills.
    Meanwhile, dominating the views from Dorset’s Jurassic Coast, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, the £3.6 billion “Navitus Bay” scheme, proposed by the French state-owned firm EDF and a Dutch partner, will cover 76 square miles of sea with 218 5MW turbines generating an average of 350MW.

    It will be worth £450 million a year to its owners, £270 million of it in subsidies. In addition, locals are horrified to learn that to connect these turbines to the grid will involve 22 miles of cabling, in a trench up to 140ft wide across the New Forest and Dorset.

    The combined contribution of these two gigantic wind farms, at a capital cost of £7.6 billion and earning subsidies of £620 million a year, will average 750MW – less than that of the single unsubsidised gas-fired power station recently built in Plymouth at a capital cost of £1 billion.

    There is a concrete example of government “green” policy, ripping people off, forcing people into fuel poverty, killing old people, all supported by the IPCC, governments, and the kind of vermin that hover around NZ anti-science blogs like this

    Like

  325. Claim CA321.1:
    The conclusions of scientists are motivated by scientists’ pay; they cannot be considered objective.

    I never made that claim

    Like

  326. It all seems to fall into J Walker’s 3rd category, the enemy within

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Walker.27s_five_kinds

    Like

  327. There is a concrete example of government “green” policy…

    I’m not asking you for an example of goverment policy.
    It’s a waste of your time and mine to post one.

    This is about your thinking, Andy.
    The “scientists”, remember?
    The “sexing up” or whatever.
    The mystery “they”.

    What do you think is really going on? Explain it in a coherent manner.

    Like

  328. Claim CA321.1:
    The conclusions of scientists are motivated by scientists’ pay; they cannot be considered objective.

    I never made that claim

    Andy | October 21, 2013 at 12:40 pm |
    “It is in the interests of the “scientists” (I use the term loosely when referring to “climate scientists (*)” to keep the alarm going. Without alarm, there would be no work”

    Like

  329. It all seems to fall into J Walker’s 3rd category, the enemy within..

    Sorry, did you mean the enemy within or the enemy above?

    Like

  330. I am referring to the writers of the Summary for Policymakers that does not match up with the science
    I am not referring to all the world’s scientists

    It is really not that hard, unless you are a member of the Warmist Cult, in which case your brain has been shriveled to the size of a dried prune

    Like

  331. by the way, it is the Warmist Creed that are the crazy conspiracy theorists, with their ridiculous notion that there is a a global conspiracy by “Big Oil” to attack climate science.

    The same cretins also think the world can be powered by renewables and it is only subsidies to fossil fuels that is stopping us

    The sad thing is that this level of cretinism extends all the way to the top of governments, where ministers with “degrees” in PPE from Oxford make policy decisions based on a fantasy world

    Like

  332. I am referring to the writers of the Summary for Policymakers that does not match up with the science
    I am not referring to all the world’s scientists

    Can you name a single scientific community that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change?

    The sad thing is that this level of cretinism extends all the way to the top of governments…

    Mystery “governments” again, Andy?
    Is it all governments or only just some governments?

    Like

  333. Can you name a single scientific community that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change?

    We have been here before, several times on this thread, and you cannot answer the question.
    What is the scientific consensus on climate change?

    Mystery “governments” again, Andy?
    Is it all governments or only just some governments?

    Some governments are opting out. For example, Australia and Canada.
    China and India have never bought into this claptrap, or pay lip service to it.

    Like

  334. In the light of this statement, explain to me what the scientific consensus on climate change is

    Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5 deg. C to 4.5 deg. C …” (SPM-11) and “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies” (SPM-11, fottnote 16).

    Like

  335. What is the scientific consensus on climate change?

    Newsflash Andy: the current state of scientific knowledge on Earth’s climate (i.e. consensus) is periodically surveyed and summarised by the IPCC. That is one of its primary functions.

    Where have you been for the past two decades?

    Like

  336. This wouldn’t be the same IPCC that I have been quoting would it? (shock horror)
    Not the Independent Police Complaints Commission?

    The Same IPCC that made this statement in the Summary for Policymakers

    Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5 deg. C to 4.5 deg. C …” (SPM-11) and “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies” (SPM-11, fottnote 16).

    Like

  337. We have been here before, several times on this thread, and you cannot answer the question.
    What is the scientific consensus on climate change?

    I don’t mind, Andy.
    This is your thinking after all.

    Andy | October 14, 2013 at 6:57 am |
    “The IPCC is a political,organization. They decided on the “consensus” a priori.
    (…)
    So a combination of a political agenda, group think, and an ill defined problem have created this so called consensus”

    Andy | October 14, 2013 at 3:03 pm |
    There isn’t a global scientific consensus on climate change. You are just reading the PR spin from various scientific bodies.

    Andy | October 15, 2013 at 7:24 am |
    Oh I forgot, it’s a consensus. A group of scientists and politicians had some meetings and all agreed that co2 has a large effect on our climate.

    Andy | October 16, 2013 at 2:07 pm |
    What is *really* going on now is a bunch of scientists writing papers, many of them rubber-stamping the “consensus” without actually challenging it.

    Like

  338. Speaking of consensus, NASA seems to be very clear and direct about it.

    “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
    (..)
    The Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.”

    “Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”
    – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

    “The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.
    Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.

    Certain facts about Earth’s climate are not in dispute:
    ■ The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
    ■ Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.

    The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling”

    (NASA)

    Like

  339. NASA blah blah blah
    Another “rubber stamp piece of PR fluff. I would be nice to get some actual scientific citations. The chances of that on an NZ “science” blog are about zero.

    What about the IPCC?

    Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5 deg. C to 4.5 deg. C …” (SPM-11) and “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies” (SPM-11, fottnote 16).

    At the lower end of the scale, 1.5 ECS is a small/non problem. 4.5 degrees is a big problem.
    So what is the consensus?

    What is the consensus?

    Like

  340. Andy, it’s your thinking. If you don’t think that there’s a scientific consensus, then say so in plain English.
    If you do think there’s a scientific consensus, then say so.
    Say what you mean and mean what you say.

    Like

  341. There is a shallow consensus, and no deep consensus

    There is a basic consensus that GHGs are increasing, and will contribute in some way to warming.
    That’s about it.

    There is no consensus on whether this warming will be major and a problem, or minor and lost in the noise of natural variability
    If you dispute this, find a robust study that suggests otherwise

    Like

  342. There is a shallow consensus, and no deep consensus.

    What does that even mean?

    There is no consensus on whether…

    Andy, I gave you the scientific consensus as it was spelt out by NASA in plain English.
    You rejected it.

    Can you name a single scientific community that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change?

    Say what you mean and mean what you say.

    Like

  343. Can you name a single scientific community that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change?

    What is the scientific consensus on climate change?

    Like

  344. I will keep repeating this question until you either answer it or Ken’s blog shuts down.

    Like

  345. What is the scientific consensus on climate change?

    will keep repeating this question until you either answer it or Ken’s blog shuts down.

    Are you are expecting a single sentence or even a single paragraph answer?

    Like

  346. I am expecting some kind of answer. After all, Cwdric has al his climate badges, he should know.

    Like

  347. There is a shallow consensus, and no deep consensus.

    What does that even mean?

    There is a basic consensus that GHGs are increasing, and will contribute in some way to warming. That’s about it.

    Not according to NASA.

    NASA blah blah blah
    Another “rubber stamp piece of PR fluff.

    Can you name a single scientific community that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change?
    Say what you mean and mean what you say.

    What is the scientific consensus on climate change?

    Andy, it’s your thinking.
    Say what you mean and mean what you say….if you can.

    I’m not demanding evidence from you.
    You don’t have to give me links or cut-and-paste anything at all.
    Just you.
    You and your thinking about what’s “really” going on.
    That’s about as easy as it gets.

    Like

  348. I’d just repeat that which I implied earlier. The IPCC assessments contain a distillation of current state and findings related to earth’s climate. Climate is a diverse subject involving study by many scientific disciplines. The IPCC findings and summaries amount to what is the current scientific consensus on most areas of climate science.
    There is no single sentence answer to your question, if you require the best up to date consensus on any particular aspect of the Earth’s climate, consult the latest IPCC assessment. Be aware the consensus is constantly evolving as aspects are better understood through ongoing research.

    Like


  349. More politely known as “a pile of poo”, the term “a crock of shit” derives from an ancient Roman custom that coincidentally took place in Roman times. It referred literally to a pot into which people would excrete if they were particularly bored by whichever freelance philosoper happened to be talking rubbish at the time. The Roman empire employed crock-monitors who were each assigned to a philosopher, and it was their job to monitor the pot (or crock). Should the crock become full, it would be presented to the philospher, who was obliged, by law, to announce that it bore a remarkable resemblance to himself, thus proclaiming he was full of crap and was, in fact, talking a crock of shit.
    “I am talking a crock of shit”, Socrates 429 BC

    Like

  350. Andy, If shit upsets you, stop filling the thread with it.

    Like

  351. This entire blog is shit. 100% pure unadulterated faecal matter. Completely devoid of any intellectual or scientific value.

    There has been nothing of substance written here, ever.

    Like

  352. “Andy, it’s your thinking.
    Say what you mean and mean what you say….if you can.

    Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5 deg. C to 4.5 deg. C …” (SPM-11) and “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies” (SPM-11, fottnote 16).

    Like

  353. “You and your thinking about what’s “really” going on.
    That’s about as easy as it gets.”

    See previous 355 comments on this thread for details

    Like

  354. Let’s see if we are clear on your viewpoint.

    AWG consensus outlined in IPCC reports does not represent the result of a conspiracy.

    Hell no.

    But entire Governments and globally spread teams of scientists and reams of support staff are in on “sexing up” global warming talk. Well not quite, cause it’s not a conspiracy, it is just every individual within such groups that are doing so, approx 97% of them. Cause it’s not the organisations or each team’s official policy, per se. And it’s not a conspiracy,

    No one has a rule book, but they are all at it and no one blows the whistle.
    Everybody makes their own mind up.

    Literally thousands of Dr Evils.

    “cause there is no conspiracy.

    Like

  355. AGW not AWG, I must have been thinking of the gauge of wire inserted by the lizard men into the brains of climate scientists to ensure compliance.

    Like

  356. Andy has provided the how, well, according to him. Man turns on computer blah blah

    It was very cunning.

    Now Andy has to provide a mechanism for the existence of thousands of identically motivated Dr Evils.

    Like

  357. It can’t work. No mechanism.
    As for Andy’s methodology? Well, it’s anybody’s guess.

    Nobody’s censoring him. Nobody is asking for evidence. No need for links or cut-and-pastes. Just his thinking about what’s really going on.
    He can’t do it and goes for a dummy-spit.

    Like

  358. It must be hard being this thick

    Like

  359. Interestingly, I read a chapter from “Scared to Death” on passive smoking, last night.

    There are interesting parallels with the GW scare, in that there is very little scientific evidence that passive smoking causes serious harm.
    However, an over zealous anti-smoking lobby forced their view on the rest of the world, bullying scientists to toe the line

    I don’t like smoking and I am generally in support of removing smoking in society, but I thought the parallels between science/advocacy in the passive smoking and GW scares are interesting.

    Like

  360. Richard Christie | October 21, 2013 at 9:10 pm |
    Let’s see if we are clear on your viewpoint.

    AWG (sic )consensus outlined in IPCC reports does not represent the result of a conspiracy.

    Correct


    But entire Governments and globally spread teams of scientists and reams of support staff are in on “sexing up” global warming talk

    I never said that

    Like

  361. He can’t do it and goes for a dummy-spit.
    Actually, I went to bed. But I am back now!

    Like

  362. I never said that

    Of course not, I wrote it in an attempt to summarise your position.
    You are invited to identify which part/s of the statement you disagree with and why.

    Please, do make your position clear.

    Like

  363. See above 360+ comments for my “position”

    I was stating that the Summary for Policymakers seems to stress that scientists are “more certain” that humans caused the warming of the late 20th C, and at the same time say that they are less certain than anytime in 34 years about how the climate will respond to an increase in Co2.
    They fail to explain how they are “more certain” other than that they are confident because they are confident (I think they actually said that)

    The media and all the usual suspects regurgitate the “more certain” bit only.

    The rest of the IPCC report including the SPM is spectacularly unspectacular.

    Like

  364. Actually, I went to bed. But I am back now!

    No. Your conversation in general is a dummy spit.
    You can’t engage at all.

    Interestingly, I read a chapter from “Scared to Death” on passive smoking, last night.

    Then feel free to use it as a model…if you can.
    You can draw upon whatever resources you like.
    Be inspired by whatever.
    It’s all good.
    I’m not demanding evidence from you.
    You don’t have to give me links or cut-and-paste anything at all.
    Just you.
    You and your thinking about what’s “really” going on.
    That’s about as easy as it gets.

    Like

  365. You and your thinking about what’s “really” going on.
    That’s about as easy as it gets.

    I just did

    Like

  366. I was stating that the Summary for Policymakers seems to…

    And once again, the narrrative changes.

    Like

  367. Maybe English isn’t your first language. Maybe you have educational difficulties

    Let me know and I will try to assist

    Like

  368. I was stating that the Summary for Policymakers seems to…

    And once again, the narrrative changes.

    The narrative hasn’t changed.

    Like

  369. Feel free to quote yourself where you said the same thing.

    Like

  370. Feel free to quote yourself where you said the same thing.

    That makes no sense at all.

    Like

  371. I have been discussion the Summary for Policymakers ever since this rather long and tedious thread started, back in the days of yore when I was referring to the “fiddled” graph.
    Remember that?

    Like

  372. I have been discussion the Summary for Policymakers…

    Andy, you’ve changed the narrative.
    Quote yourself.
    This is the internet.
    None of your words have disappeared.
    Quote yourself where you said the same thing.
    Give the time stamp too.

    Like

  373. Cedric is right.
    Andy has nothing.
    Nothing at all, nothing to dent the current summary of findings in climate science as presented in the IPCC reports.

    Like

  374. Nothing at all, nothing to dent the current summary of findings in climate science as presented in the IPCC reports.

    Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5 deg. C to 4.5 deg. C …” (SPM-11) and “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies” (SPM-11, footnote 16).

    Like

  375. Andy?

    (…awkward silence…)

    Andy?

    Quote yourself where you said the same thing.
    You’ve changed the narrative.

    Like

  376. Quote yourself where you said the same thing.

    I just did
    I did a Ctrl+F for “Summary for Policymakers” and cut and pasted the URLs where I mentioned that phrase

    What else do you want?

    Like

  377. Quote
    /kwəʊt/
    verb
    verb: quote; 3rd person present: quotes; past tense: quoted; past participle: quoted; gerund or present participle: quoting
    1. repeat or copy out (words from a text or speech written or spoken by another person).
    “I realized she was quoting passages from Shakespeare”
    synonyms: recite, repeat, say again, reproduce, restate, retell, echo, iterate, parrot;

    Like

  378. So you want me to cut and paste the actual quotes rather than the links to the comments in this thread?
    You can also do a Ctrl+F for “Summary for Policymakers” too, to save you the effort.

    However, if you want me to cut and paste every single comment again, then I can do that too.
    I do have other stuff to do, but just let me know

    Like

  379. I was stating the Summary for Policymakers seems to stress that scientists are “more certain” that humans caused the warming of the late 20th C, and at the same time say that they are less certain than anytime in 34 years about how the climate will respond to an increase in Co2.
    They fail to explain how they are “more certain” other than that they are confident because they are confident (I think they actually said that)

    The media and all the usual suspects regurgitate the “more certain” bit only.

    The rest of the IPCC report including the SPM is spectacularly unspectacular.

    And once again, the narrrative changes.

    The narrative hasn’t changed.

    Feel free to quote yourself where you said the same thing.
    Quote yourself.
    This is the internet.
    None of your words have disappeared.
    Quote yourself where you said the same thing.
    Give the time stamp too.

    You.
    Your words.
    Quoting yourself.
    The same thing.
    Are we clear now?

    Like

  380. Are we clear now?

    Clear as mud

    Like

  381. Quote
    /kwəʊt/
    verb
    verb: quote; 3rd person present: quotes; past tense: quoted; past participle: quoted; gerund or present participle: quoting
    1. repeat or copy out (words from a text or speech written or spoken by another person).
    “I realized she was quoting passages from Shakespeare”
    synonyms: recite, repeat, say again, reproduce, restate, retell, echo, iterate, parrot;

    Quote yourself.
    Scroll back up over your own words and…quote yourself where you said the same thing.

    You’ve changed the narrative.

    Like

  382. Er, no

    Like

  383. Not a problem, I can Ctrl C + Ctrl V as good as the next guy, but Ctrl+F is more effective

    Like

  384. Still waiting here.
    Less talky-talky and more worky-worky.

    Like

  385. Starting at (1)
    Andy | October 14, 2013 at 6:09 pm |

    I’m not quite sure why these people keep comparing evolution “denial” with climate change “denial”.

    Even the IPCC now state in their Summary for Policymakers that climate sensitivity may be as low as 1.5 degrees or as high as 4.5 degrees. This covers a very wide range of scenarios from which to be sceptical about.

    I haven’t heard a similar argument about evolution. e.g 15 of nature is “God” and 85% evolution.
    Andy | October 14, 2013 at 6:48 pm |

    ““PR spin” doesn’t just happen. It has to be organised. Only there’s no mechanism”

    It’s called the IPCC summary for policy makers,

    Remember, the political summary that got released before the scientific one?

    Like

  386. Quote
    /kwəʊt/
    verb
    verb: quote; 3rd person present: quotes; past tense: quoted; past participle: quoted; gerund or present participle: quoting
    1. repeat or copy out (words from a text or speech written or spoken by another person).
    “I realized she was quoting passages from Shakespeare”
    synonyms: recite, repeat, say again, reproduce, restate, retell, echo, iterate, parrot;

    Poor Andy.
    Suddenly doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “quote”.

    Like

  387. (2)
    Andy | October 20, 2013 at 5:13 pm |

    What is going on?
    Scientists do research, publish papers.
    Some of them get into the IPCC report.
    Most of that is pretty mundane

    Writers of Summary for Policymakers write their report before main report is written, and “sex it up” a bit.

    Like

  388. (3)
    Andy | October 21, 2013 at 3:40 pm |

    I am referring to the writers of the Summary for Policymakers that does not match up with the science
    I am not referring to all the world’s scientists

    It is really not that hard, unless you are a member of the Warmist Cult, in which case your brain has been shriveled to the size of a dried prune

    Like

  389. (4)
    Andy | October 21, 2013 at 5:20 pm |

    This wouldn’t be the same IPCC that I have been quoting would it? (shock horror)
    Not the Independent Police Complaints Commission?

    The Same IPCC that made this statement in the Summary for Policymakers

    Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5 deg. C to 4.5 deg. C …” (SPM-11) and “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies” (SPM-11, fottnote 16).

    Like

  390. (5)
    Andy | October 16, 2013 at 6:27 pm |

    Who is this “we” you speak of?
    It’s just some vague “bunch” of scientists or are you referring to all the scientific communities on the planet covering all the Earth Science?

    I am referring to the authors of the IPCC AR5 Summary for Policymakers, who write (page 11, footnote 16)

    No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

    We have lack of agreement, but we all,,,,

    .. agree

    Like

  391. You’ve changed the narrative.

    Like

  392. The narrative has not changed

    Like

  393. Feel free to quote yourself where you said the same thing.
    Quote yourself.
    This is the internet.
    None of your words have disappeared.
    Quote yourself where you said the same thing.
    Give the time stamp too.

    What seems to be the hold-up?

    Like

  394. I just quoted myself
    I gave the links, and I cut and pasted the comments.
    What more do you want, translations into Urdu?
    I can arrange that too.

    Just ask.

    Like

  395. Congratulations on 400 comments on this thread!
    Almost half way

    Like

  396. I just quoted myself

    Not random quotes, Andy.
    The idea is to quote yourself where you said the same thing.
    The whole changing the narrative thing.

    I was stating the Summary for Policymakers seems to stress that scientists are “more certain” that humans caused the warming of the late 20th C, and at the same time say that they are less certain than anytime in 34 years about how the climate will respond to an increase in Co2.
    They fail to explain how they are “more certain” other than that they are confident because they are confident (I think they actually said that)

    The media and all the usual suspects regurgitate the “more certain” bit only.

    The rest of the IPCC report including the SPM is spectacularly unspectacular.

    Like

  397. The idea is to quote yourself where you said the same thing

    I have cut and pasted several comments. Therefore, by definition, I said the same thing in the duplicate comment as the original

    If comments differ by some words, they may be syntactically different but semantically the same

    Would you like me to parse each of the 400 comments in this thread for some canonical view?

    It can be done…

    .. with time

    Like

  398. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5 deg. C to 4.5 deg. C …” (SPM-11) and “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies” (SPM-11, footnote 16).

    (Hugely underwhelmed.)

    Tell us Andy why are you sooo excited by this footnote? for example

    Does it, in your mind, undermine three decades of intense scientific research into climate?
    Does it, in your mind, undermine the information the IPCC has been providing in their assessments.
    Does it, in your mind, prove scientists and IPCC have been engaged in fraud?

    Like

  399. Recycling is good. Recycling comments is good too

    http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/cyber-bullying-of-science/#comment-45869


    I thought we had covered this about 200 comments ago.
    Anyway, the IPCC say that they are more certain than ever (95%) that most of the warming (>50%) of the warming post 1950 is human caused, yet at the same time they say

    Equilibrium climate sensitivity** is likely in the range 1.5 deg. C to 4.5 deg. C …” (SPM-11) and “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies” (SPM-11, fottnote 16).

    Climate sensitivity of CO2 is now as uncertain as it was in 1979 when a National Academy of Sciences report first established the same range of 1.5 to 4.5 deg. C (Charney et al., 1979). In other words, no refinement has been made in 34 years in determining how much warming is likely to result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

    So we are more certain that ever before, but the science on the key metric of global warming – climate sensitivity, hasn’t moved on for 34 years.

    Impressive, eh?

    Like

  400. DIal back 34 years (if you are old enough).
    Think of the cars people drove.
    Think of the computers.
    Think of the TVs and electrical appliances

    Climate science hasn’t advanced at all in that time, on this key issue (according to the IPCC)

    Like

  401. I have cut and pasted several comments.

    I don’t care. Read English.

    If comments differ by some words, they may be syntactically different but semantically the same.

    Yes , you changed the narrative.
    You’ve emasculated yourself.
    It’s there for all to see.

    FIrst the denial.
    The narrative hasn’t changed.

    Then the helpless confusion.
    That makes no sense at all.

    Then Andy decides tp explain what he’s been discussing
    I have been discussion the Summary for Policymakers ever since blah, blah..

    Perhaps quoting the IPCC? Maybe that will work?
    (Andy decided to quote the IPCC)

    Well, how about some links? How about that then, eh?
    (Andy gives some links)

    Wait! He’s got it now. Maybe he needs to explain the contol keys?
    I just did
    “I did a Ctrl+F for “Summary for Policymakers” and cut and pasted the URLs where I mentioned that phrase”

    Perhaps talk about quotes in the plural rather than just that one specifically mentioned?

    “So you want me to cut and paste the actual quotes rather than the links to the comments in this thread?”

    And on and on it goes.

    Yet the quote where he said the same thing doesn’t magically appear.
    The narrative has changed.
    It’s all so very tame and flabby now.
    Completely declawed.

    I told you repeatedly.
    Say what you mean and mean what you say.
    This is your thinking.
    You.

    Like

  402. The narrative has changed.
    It’s all so very tame and flabby now.
    Completely declawed.

    The narrative has not changed

    Like

  403. while (true)
    {
    Console.WriteLine(“The narrative has not changed”);
    }

    Like

  404. while (true)
    {
    Console.WriteLine(“The narrative has not changed”);
    }
    while (true)
    {
    Console.WriteLine(“The narrative has not changed”);
    }

    Like

  405. I told you repeatedly.
    Say what you mean and mean what you say.
    This is your thinking.
    You.

    I just did.
    See the above 400+ comments for explanation.

    Like

  406. Cedric, your second block of code will never execute.

    Like

  407. You’ve done nothing.
    You’re not capable.

    Like

  408. (* puzzled look *)

    Like

  409. It doesn’t take 400+ comments for someone to explain their thinking.
    You can’t do it.
    I gave you every opportunity to spell it out.

    Like

  410. I did, several times.
    I imagine in the unlikely event that someone else is reading this thread, they got it, a long time ago.

    Like

  411. No, you didn’t.
    Mystery governments.
    Other organisations.
    Fiddling, massaging, sexing up, fraud (But na, you’re just being ironic)
    It’s all political but what politics and where this politics is from is all so very vague.
    You’re happy to talk about a consensus until you’re not.
    Then it’s all a big mystery.

    How does it work? No idea.
    What exactly is going on according to you? No idea.
    What’s the big woop about some footnote? Go fish.
    You’re all over the place like a mad woman’s custard.

    Like

  412. I imagine in the unlikely event that someone else is reading this thread, they got it, a long time ago.

    And yet, still no one knows how all the Dr Evils cover their tracks.

    Like

  413. .still no one knows how all the Dr Evils cover their tracks.

    And yet further, why do they include footnotes that in one sentence destroy the achievements of 3 decades of their scullduggery.

    Like

  414. They haven’t made any acheivements
    It has been a total failure

    Like

  415. And yet further, why do they include footnotes that in one sentence destroy the achievements of 3 decades of their scullduggery.

    Dunno, ask them. I didn’t write it.

    Like

  416. Caught out by the footnote!

    Like

  417. …and the graph!

    Andy was never fooled.

    Like

  418. looks like Ken is back in town

    Like

  419. Anomoly hunting. That’s all Andy is doing.

    “That tricksy graph. That super-tricksy footnote. AHAH!!
    Now it’s all out in the open.”

    Batshit krazy.

    Like

  420. I am reading the summary for policymakers and finding the internal contradictions using a form of thought known as “logical thinking”.

    Obviously, this is not well known in current circles, and they confuse this with insanity.

    This is a general by-product of the dumbing down of education and society, producing a form of semi-conscious drone that exists only in pro-climate change blogs and other libtard avenues.

    Like

  421. Maybe Ken could offer some insight into this vexatious issue?

    Like

  422. I am reading the summary for policymakers and finding the internal contradictions…

    Yes, a tricksy footnote and a tricksy graph.
    All is revealed to you.
    It’s so very, very stupid.

    It’s the glass jars all over again.

    Like

  423. speaking of Ken, a dutiful supporter of Michael Mann, might be interested in climate scientist Rob Wilson who described Mann’s work as a “crock of xxxx” in a recent presentation, which brought out a rash of furious #hashtags about #deniers

    Like

  424. It’s so very, very stupid

    Why is it stupid? Climate sensitivity to CO2 is the crux of the entire CO2-AGW hypothesis.

    Like

  425. What is the scientific consensus on climate change?

    Like

  426. No, Andy Scrase..
    You’re stupid.
    You fixate on a graph and a footnote and think you’ve finding something special.
    Good for you. You’re a joke.

    (…insert slow hand clap here..)

    Like

  427. What is the scientific consensus on climate change?

    What’s the scientific consensus on evolution?
    Or the safety of vaccines?
    Or the risks of smoking?

    You find out about them the same way.
    The cranks reject them the same way too.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

    Like

  428. Previous IPCC reports had a more tightly constrained climate sensitivity (2-4.5) with a central estimate of 3 degrees.

    Now they say that the range is 1.5-4.5 with no central estimate

    This is mainly because they have recent papers that show a low sensitivity to CO2 and these are based on empirical observations (i.e science) rather than models or poorly constrained paleo reconstructions.

    Ergo., if climate sensitivity to CO2 is low, AGW is a small or non-problem, and in fact may be net beneficial to the planet (this is the economic consensus)

    Of course, there are people who disagree, the activists and the pseudo-scientists and others with a vested interest.

    Have a nice day

    Like


  429. What’s the scientific consensus on evolution?
    Or the safety of vaccines?
    Or the risks of smoking?

    Just asking a question…

    Like

  430. Good for you. You’re a joke.

    I am glad you find me amusing.

    What is the scientific consensus on climate change?

    Like

  431. Had a quick look at the NASA “consensus” page

    97% of scientists agree

    Gosh, really?
    Who’d have thought?
    I see that the American Medical Association agree.
    Fantastic!
    It must be great having doctors who understand the concept of climate sensitivity of CO2

    I’ll ask my doctor next time I see him, if he agrees with everyone else that we all agree that we all agree with everyone else

    Like

  432. Of course, there are people who disagree, the activists and the pseudo-scientists and others with a vested interest.

    Andy, it’s really easy.
    Name a single scientific community that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.

    It’s the same question that I put to the anti-fluoride nutters.

    Had a quick look at the NASA “consensus” page

    No, Andy.
    It’s just the NASA consensus page.
    Reality is not your friend.
    Nothing magically changes by using scare quotes.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

    Like

  433. Name a single scientific community that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.

    What is the scientific consensus on climate change?

    Like

  434. Playing dumb won’t help you, Andy.
    It’s not a winning strategy. It just makes you look like the rest of them.

    What is the scientific consensus on climate change?
    What is the scientific consensus on evolution?
    What is the scientific consensus on vaccines?
    What is the scientific consensus on Germ Theory?
    What is the scientific consensus on the risks of smoking?

    You find out about them the same way.
    The cranks reject them the same way too

    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

    Like

  435. According to the NASA page:

    “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming rends over the past century are very likely due to human activities”

    Is that it?
    Is that really all they have to offer?

    Like

  436. The NASA consensus doesn’t even match up with the IPCC consensus.
    They need better marketing people

    Like

  437. What is the scientific consensus on vaccines?

    Good question.

    Like

  438. Shame that no one can actually answer the question “what is the scientific consensus on climate change”

    All you do is point me to some marketing page

    After 400+ comments asking me to “explain stuff in my own words”, all you do is fob me off with a link

    Useless

    Do you all work for government departments by any chance?

    Like

  439. Andy, what is it that you think you are doing?
    There are scientific consensuses about all sorts of things.
    Some of them quite simple. Others more complicated.

    I treat them all the same.
    People usually do.
    I might not know much about chemistry but I’m comfortable deferring to all the scientific communities of chemists on the planet on some issue or other concerning chemistry.
    In the case of climate science, I go to NASA….and every single scientific community on the planet.
    That’s a pretty big net.
    I feel quite secure that I’m doing the right thing. Doesn’t seem to be a better methodology coming along anytime soon.

    Anonymous people on the internet- not so much.
    ‘ Cause that would be irrational and it’s what the nutters do all the time.
    So no. Bad idea.
    Comically bad.

    Is that it? Is that really all they have to offer?

    It’s NASA, Andy. They do the work. Anyone can see that.
    Your personal grouchy feelings doesn’t enter into it.

    The NASA consensus doesn’t even match up….

    There’s no need to be cryptic. Say what you mean and mean what you say.
    What is your beef with NASA (and every single scientific community on the planet)?
    What could it possibly be?
    Again, what do you think is actually going on?

    If you think they’re up to no good.
    Then:
    a) figure out who the “they” are.
    b) Figure out the actual crime as opposed to vague, hand-waving allusions.
    c) GIve us a step by step possible account of how (they?it? them?) are doing whatever it is you suspect.

    It can’t be that hard. You, at least, should be able to figure out what you yourself really believe is going on.

    Like

  440. It is quite simple really. The NASA consensus page makes no mention of the fact that the IPCC only attribute human caused warming to post-1950. The previous part of the 20th Century is thought to be mostly natural variability, according to the IPCC.
    Furthermore, the IPCC only attribute “most” (>50%?) of the post 1950s warming to humans.
    Also, they can’t explain the 15+ year hiatus in warming in the 20th century

    Nowhere on the NASA page does it mention what might happen in the future, which is what we are most interested in.
    There is a good reason for this.

    They don’t know

    Like

  441. What is all this crap about “crime”?

    Like

  442. So?
    Why are you focusing on what they “don’t” mention?

    “…makes no mention…
    …they can’t explain…
    …. Nowhere on the NASA page does it mention…

    What is it that think you are you doing?

    What is all this crap about “crime”?

    So you don’t believe that NASA (and every single scientific community on the planet) are doing anything wrong?
    Say what you mean and mean what you say. Enough with the “I’m not saying it was aliens….but it was aliens” routine.

    Again, what do you think is actually going on?

    If you think they’re up to no good.
    Then:
    a) figure out who the “they” are.
    b) Figure out the actual crime as opposed to vague, hand-waving allusions.
    c) GIve us a step by step possible account of how (they?it? them?) are doing whatever it is you suspect.

    It can’t be that hard. You, at least, should be able to figure out what you yourself really believe is going on.

    Like

  443. You appear to think that I am a conspiracy theorist.
    Incorrect.
    I just think that these people that put together this marketing fluff for NASA are really stupid

    They don’t even know what their own scientists are saying.

    Like

  444. I just think that these people that put together this marketing fluff for NASA are really stupid.

    “These people”?
    Wha..?

    They don’t even know what their own scientists are saying.

    Andy, what do you think is really going on?
    Stop beating about the bush.
    Say what you mean and mean what you say.

    Like


  445. Stop beating about the bush.
    Say what you mean and mean what you say.

    The marketing people who put together the NASA consensus web page don’t know what the science says.
    I said that 2 comments ago.

    Would you like me to repeat it again, in case you forgot?

    Like

  446. It’s conspiracy thinking, Andy Scrase. There’s no way to make it work.
    Think!

    Like

  447. No it’s not. The statement that the early 20th Century warming is thought to be largely due to natural variability is stated in the IPCC reports.
    The NASA page makes no mention of this.
    It is just sloppy work, by useless government employees

    No conspiracy
    Just mediocrity

    Like

  448. The marketing people who put together the NASA consensus web page don’t know what the science says.

    Andy, NASA knows what the science says.
    They do the science, remember?

    Like

  449. So NASA disagree with the IPCC position then?

    Like

  450. Whoa, hold on, it’s the marketing people do the switchity doo with the graphs.

    That’s where the man who turns on the computer and edits the word documents with sexed up data and then saves it works.

    OK, glad we’ve cleared that up.

    All the scientists at NASA don’t notice.

    Like

  451. Eh?
    The nasa marketing dudes make the web pages.

    This has nothing to do with the IPCC summary for Policymakers that I mentioned several times in the previous 450 comments on this thread.

    Like

  452. So NASA disagree with the IPCC position then?

    You, at least, should be able to figure out what you yourself really believe is going on. I can’t do it for you. Figure it out and then…tell us.

    They don’t even know what their own scientists are saying.

    Maybe NASA scientists don’t have access to the Internet?
    The wonderful workings of Andy’s mind.
    It’s not a conspiracy, though.

    No Andy. There’s no way to make it work.

    Like

  453. Oh sorry, the switchity hokus pokus goes on at the IPCC and is due to random evil doers because there is no conspiracy. But no one corrects it at any stage because they are all greenie eco fascists anyway, happy to see old people die as a result, so long as they continue to ride a funding gravy train.
    But at NASA it’s the marketing dept that’s misrepresenting NASA’s science and the scientists don’t notice. Or maybe they do but don’t think it important or they are afraid they might lose their jobs if they are difficult about integrity etc. All of them.

    Like

  454. (I made up the reasons in the penultimate sentence , but what the hell, it seems to fit with your mindset)

    Like

  455. They don’t think it is important because they don’t read the marketing fluff.
    Who reads that rubbish anyway?

    I guess it is a country of mediocrity, the USA.
    You should see the Obamacare website. It is utter garbage, and cost $500 million.

    Like

  456. Climate science is a good career choice for science graduates with no talent and low grades

    Like

  457. They don’t think it is important because they don’t read the marketing fluff.

    So NASA doesn’t read their own website.
    No.
    It doesn’t work.
    You have no idea what you are talking about.

    It’s you versus NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    Batshit Krazy.

    Like

  458. So NASA doesn’t read their own website.

    Correct, NASA doesn’t read anything. It is an organisation based in NY City

    Do they have proof readers? I doubt it.
    Look at the crap Obamacare website

    Rubbish,and it cost $500 million

    .

    Like

  459. So I am interested, do you dispute my claim that the pre-1950s warming is not largely attributed to humans, according to the IPCC?

    Google is your friend, try a domain search within ipcc.ch

    Like

  460. “So NASA doesn’t read their own website.”

    Correct, NASA doesn’t read anything.

    This is your thinking, Andy Scrase. Nobody is making you say this, remember.
    This is why you get treated like all the other kooks on the internet.
    No wonder you evaded like crazy to not tell us what you really think is going on.
    Alex Jones territory. Only without the money.

    Like

  461. NASA can’t read. It is an organsisation
    The people that work for NASA can read, at least the literate ones can.

    Maybe some of the guys that clean the bathrooms have some difficulties.

    Like

  462. Nobody is making you say this, remember.

    Is there anything I have said that you disagree with?
    Can you point these out?

    Like

  463. That’s nice, Andy.

    Like

  464. Yes yes and yes.
    Very interesting.

    Ok, where do you want to start?

    Like

  465. Good question.
    How about….

    Like

  466. Andy, NASA reads it’s own website.
    Honest.
    There’s no way around that.

    Like

  467. Andy, NASA reads it’s own website.
    So why is it inconsistent with the IPCC?

    Like

  468. Andy, only you know your own thinking. You, at least, should be able to figure out what you yourself really believe is going on. I can’t do it for you. Figure it out and then…tell us.

    Like

  469. Sigh.

    Time for bed, said Zebedee.

    Like

  470. No wonder you evaded like crazy to not tell us what you really think is going on.
    Alex Jones territory. Only without the money

    So quoting the IPCC makes me a batshit crazy conspiracy theorist?

    Oh, interesting. Please take a seat, I’ll be with you shortly

    Like

  471. “…not tell us what you really think is going on.”

    So quoting the IPCC makes me a batshit crazy conspiracy theorist?

    No. It’s when you yourself tell us what you really think is going on that it makes you sopund batshit krazy. Cutting and pasting from the IPCC is a waste of your time.

    Like

  472. sound*.
    Not sure why but there’s a problem with the text viewing. It runs into and gets hidden by the “details” info below the text box.

    Like

  473. No. It’s when you yourself tell us what you really think is going on that it makes you sopund batshit krazy.

    What have I told you that is going on that makes me sound batshit crazy?

    Have I told you anything at all about what is going on?

    After all, Auckland NZ has a mayor that masturbates at his desk during office hours, has sex with co-workers in public meeting rooms. Pretty much anything “goes on” these days, and is considered normal

    What does telling you (or not) what is going on make me sound “batshit crazy”?

    Be more specific.

    Like

  474. Andy, NASA reads it’s own website.
    There’s no way around that.

    Like

  475. The NASA “consensus”

    Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities

    Yet the IPCC only attribute post 1950s warming to humans

    97% of scientists agree…

    97% of cats prefer..

    97% of homeopaths agree..

    97% of priests believe in God

    Pathetic

    Like

  476. One thing that I have always wondered is this:

    If 97% of scientists agree, who are the 3% that don’t?
    After all, the 97% encompasses the so-called “denier-scientists” like Lindzen, Christie and Spencer

    So if “denier scientists” are part of the “consensus” on climate change, who the hell is the 3%?

    Like

  477. The NASA “consensus”…

    It’s not just NASA, Andy Scrase. It’s NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    They have websites too.
    Honest.
    It’s not really going out on much of a limb to expect all of the scientific communities on the planet to be able to read their own websites.
    Hence the batshit krazy part.

    Yet the IPCC only attribute…

    So what? You, at least, should be able to figure out what you yourself really believe is going on. I can’t do it for you. Figure it out and then…tell us.
    You have found, to your own personal satisfaction, an anomoly.
    OK. Great. More power to you.

    So now that you’ve found it, take that one tiny step further and explain what you really think is going on.
    You don’t need to quote the IPCC. It’s a waste of your time.
    No links needed.
    No cutting-and-pasting.
    No evidence required at all. It’s not even that helpful.
    Just you and your thinking.
    The “how” bit. The mechanism, yes?
    Stop doing an endless series of dummy-spits and get on with it.

    Like

  478. Stop doing an endless series of dummy-spits and get on with it.

    I haven’t spat the dummy. I am just expressing my utter contempt for what “science” has become, how it has been debased for political ends, and how pseudo-scientists that run pseudo-science blogs like Closed Mind Closed Parachute use it as a vehicle for their anti-human, anti-intellectual anti-science agenda

    Like

  479. I haven’t spat the dummy. I am just expressing my utter contempt…

    Well, it comes across a lot like an endless series of dummy spits and it makes you look batshit krazy when you say that NASA doesn’t read it’s own website.

    They do, Andy.
    NASA really does read it’s own website.
    And yes, (before you start) that includes the page especially devoted to the scientific consensus.
    All written in plain English.

    There’s no getting around that.

    It’s you versus NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.

    Like

  480. it is a one line “consensus” It is pathetic
    This sums up 30+ years of climate science research that cost over $100 billion

    A 5 year old probably wrote this.

    Like

  481. It’s you versus NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.

    It’s me and the IPCC versus NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.

    Like

  482. it is a one line “consensus” It is pathetic.

    Andy, it’s a consensus. Not a “consensus”.
    It doesn’t magically go away just because some kook on the internet adds scare quotes.

    It’s me and the IPCC…

    Andy, NASA has a website. They mention the IPCC quite favourably.
    You? Not so much.

    Deal with reality.

    Like

  483. That is it. A consensus (quotes or not) that consists of one line

    $100 billion of research money, 30+ years of work, with no progress of the key metric of climate sensitivity in 34 years, and we have a consensus that is completely meaningless

    A consensus of scientists agree that water is wet.
    That is about as good as it gets.

    Useless, utterly useless

    These are America’s finest minds?

    Like

  484. Andy is your behaviour on the internet good advertising for your business, or, do you think it might just encourage people think you are a bit unhinged and so avoid engaging your services? After all software design involves, or should involve clear, rational analysis.

    Like

  485. Yes I do clear rational analysis.
    And I have concluded that you and the other parasitic vermin that hover around this blog are incapable of any rational thought whatsoever.

    I couldn’t give a flying fuck what anyone thinks of me or my business because I don’t give a toss

    Go back to your desk and continue masturbating in the fashion that our glorious leader Len Brown has told us is OK.

    Like

  486. By the way Richard Christie, I get a bit sick of you making these threats (veiled or otherwise) against me.,

    If you wish to continue along these lines, then I will make sure that you regret it.

    Like

  487. As Vinny said at the beginning of this long and tedious thread a long time ago, you pro-government propaganda trolls are not nice people.

    Not nice at all.

    Like

  488. I find it remarkable that “Cedric Katesby” can keep repeating this “It’s just you versus NASA” schtick over and over again, like some kind of semi-robotic automaton.

    Have any of you actually ever looked at any science at all?
    Are you even interested?

    I very much doubt it

    Like

  489. That is it. A consensus (quotes or not) that consists of one line
    $100 billion blah, blah, blah…

    Yes, of course.
    Again you have discovered an anomoly.
    Something terrible and shocking.
    So now that you’ve found it, take that one tiny step further and explain what you really think is going on.
    No links needed.
    No cutting-and-pasting.
    No evidence required at all. It’s not even that helpful.
    Just you and your thinking.
    The “how” bit. The mechanism, yes?

    I find it remarkable that “Cedric Katesby” can keep repeating this “It’s just you versus NASA” schtick over….

    I do it because…I can.
    It’s incredibly easy.
    NASA does indeed have a website.
    It’s very clear about the scientific consensus.
    Anyone can google the NASA website and see it for themselves.
    I’m just the messenger.

    Yet your version of events comes from you.
    Magically, a consensus becomes a “consensus”.
    Somehow, NASA doen’t read it’s own website.
    There’s all this key stuff worth billions yet doesn’t meet your private standards ….and on and on it goes.
    So many anomolies you have found.

    Yet a casual observer can just check everything I’m saying just by checking out the NASA website.
    Independently.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

    These are America’s finest minds?

    Plenty of people would agree. NASA is quite famous. They lead the field.
    Of course, (and you seem to continously leave this bit out) it’s not just NASA.
    It’s NASA….and….every single scientific community on the planet.
    All of them.
    On the other hand. the state of your mind is anybody’s guess, Andy Scrase.

    Like

  490. It’s NASA….and….every single scientific community on the planet.
    All of them.

    There he goes again!

    Like

  491. Andy, you are at your most hilarious when you try to play the victim card.

    Really, I am interested if the possibility has crossed your mind.

    You see, I can’t see it as a positive for you or your business. Your use of sockpuppets, your insults and foul language, the childish repetition of truly inane arguments, the outright lies about scientists and institutions (thinking about IPCC, the UEA email hack and attacks on Trenberth, Mann, Jones etc) and politicians honestly engaging in the public arena, such as Al Gore. The endless repetition of climate PRATTS.

    And then are the unhinged conspiracy theories. Most of all, the conspiracy theories.

    I’ve almost grown accustomed to you here as the house troll, much as a dog must learn to live with its fleas. Although many might think Cedric and me are foolish to engage with you the engagements serve a purpose to enable those interested a glimpse into the science denier’s world.

    Like

  492. There’s nothing to hide behind, Andy.
    We’ve been very fair to you.
    All the cards are carefully placed in your hands.
    No censorship. No interruptions. No strawmen.
    No unreasonable standards of evidence. No links or cut-and-pastes.

    It’s just you and what’s going on inside your head.
    What you really think in your own words.
    The complete and unabridged version.

    And the batshit krazy slowly bubbles to the surface for all to see.

    Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) – Climate change is a Weather Channel

    Like

  493. I am not denying any science
    I am not even disagreeing with the “consensus”

    You just don’t get it do you?

    What I am saying is that the consensus is meaningless
    The IPCC give a range to ECS from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C

    This covers the range from a very small problem (or even net beneficial) to a somewhat big problem.

    As for these PRATTs, which ones have you come across on this thread? Have I brought up any arguments about the Sun? Have I brought up arguments about the MWP?
    Have I linked to “denier” sites?

    All I have done i repeatedly bring up the IPCCs central statement about climate sensitivity,

    and for that you call me a “science denier”

    Like

  494. I am not even disagreeing with the “consensus”

    Andy, there’s nothing magical about scare quotes.
    It doesn’t help you at all.
    It’s a plain, old-fashioned scientific consensus.

    What I am saying is that the consensus is meaningless.

    Andy, again you have discovered some huge problem.
    OMG!OMG!! The consensus is meaningless.
    Fine. Great. Whatever.
    Only you have to tell us what’s really going on, according to you.

    Anyone can (by themselves) go to the NASA website and read about the scientific consensus in plain English.
    Whatever it is that you think is going on with your OMG!OMG!!! moment has to factor that awkward fact in.
    Of course, it’s not just NASA.
    It’s every single scientific community on the planet.

    All I have done i repeatedly bring up the IPCCs central statement about climate sensitivity….

    Which doesn’t help you at all.
    We’ve told you that you don’t have to cut-and-paste anything many times.
    I even mentioned the IPCC specifically.

    You don’t need to quote the IPCC. It’s a waste of your time.

    See that?
    That’s me telling you not to do that.

    …and for that you call me a “science denier”

    No, Andy. That’s not it. You are embracing your martyrdom from some alternate universe.

    I ask all science deniers the same question…

    Name a single scientific community that rejects the scientific consensus on “X”.

    It could be flouride or evolution or germ theory etc.
    In your case, it just happens to be climate change.

    They all react pretty much the same way.

    Like

  495. Oh please God spare me this torment

    Like

  496. I have explained myself quite clearly. See the above 500 comments for details

    It’s not my problem that you can’t follow a very simple argument,

    “Case in point”
    What exactly does that mean?

    Like

  497. Oh I see it is the expression Dear God that you object to, presumably implying that I am a bible thumping God botherer
    Actually, it is just a turn of phrase, no need to fear, I won’t be casting any spells on you.

    I gave up believing in God and I gave up hope in humans a long time ago.

    Like

  498. You see, I can’t see it as a positive for you or your business. Your use of sockpuppets, your insults and foul language, the childish repetition of truly inane arguments, the outright lies about scientists and institutions (thinking about IPCC, the UEA email hack and attacks on Trenberth, Mann, Jones etc) and politicians honestly engaging in the public arena, such as Al Gore. The endless repetition of climate PRATTS.

    What the hell are you talking about Richard Christie?

    attacks on Trenberth, Mann, Jones etc

    I have “attacked” Mann Trenberth and Jones?
    Where? I don’t go around “attacking” scientists. I may express strong opinions on them, like fellow paleoclimatologist Rob Wilson described Mann’s work as a Crock of S**t

    politicians honestly engaging in the public arena, such as Al Gore.
    Al Gore, honest? Are you serious? The guy is a weapon grade hypocrite.

    The endless repetition of climate PRATTS
    Which ones? Name them.

    You see, I can’t see it as a positive for you or your business.

    Why not? Are you threatening me? I know you love to keep your little “links” so that you can spray them over the internet.
    `
    No one is remotely interested in this blog. The only way that it would affect me or my business is if you or one of your vindictive friends at the Sub Standard or wherever made it their business to do so.

    Like

  499. No Andy, I’m not going to waste an hour dreading through the volumes of hate filled garbage you have written on this and other blogs over the past 3 or 4 years in order to satisfy your strangely selective amnesia.

    Rant and fulminate as you will but I’m done with you. As happens to most clowns, your boorish routine defines you with repeated exposure.

    Like

  500. Rant and fulminate as you will but I’m done with you

    Yes I am sure you are done with me. You don’t have any arguments. You cannot answer any of my points.

    Enjoy your echo chamber of group think.

    Like

  501. You don’t have any arguments. You cannot answer any of my points.

    No, Andy.
    He doesn’t have to. Neither do I.
    It’s all about you and your thinking.

    Oh I see it is the expression.

    No, Andy. Again your embrace your martyrdom from some alternate universe.

    I have explained myself quite clearly. See the above 500 comments…

    Nobody takes 500 comments to “explain themselves quite clearly”.
    You babble and evade and suffer from selective amnesia.

    Say what you mean and mean what you say.

    NASA really does read it’s own website.
    There’s no getting around that.

    Like

  502. Andy: “I accuse X and Y of V and W. They are @$#^$&*”
    World: “Please explain”
    Andy: “Well explain this….”
    World: “What’s to explain. You explain how it works, you made the claim ”
    Andy: (much evasion)
    World: (patiently) “What’s to explain. You explain how it works, you made the claim ”
    Andy: “See you can’t answer my questions therefore you are all stupid #^$&* and it proves X and Y did V and W.

    Like

  503. It is not my problem if you can’t understand a simple logical train of thought.

    The IPCC Summary for Policymakers is a political report (fact)
    The IPCC Summary for Policymakers was written before the technical report (fact)
    The IPCC “fudged” some stuff in the SPM and made some unsubstantiated claims about confidence (my claim, based on Steve McIntyre)
    The IPCC put the major part of the whole issue (climate sensitivity) in a footnote (fact)
    The IPCC have down-graded almost all the alarm from the main report (fact)
    The media and all the usual suspects completely ignored this footnote (fact)

    Then you go off on a tangent about Dr Evil and conspiracies

    Since these things actually happened, I hardly need explain how it happened
    I have repeated this ad nauseam on this thread.

    Like

  504. Since these things actually happened, I hardly need explain how it happened.

    Andy, you don’t because you can’t.
    You’re just anomoly hunting.
    It’s conspiracy thinking.

    There’s no mechanic that you can explain that would allow the IPPC to fudge “some stuff”.
    It doen’t help you to keep things deliberately vague and watery or to use scare quotes.
    They don’t help your case one tiny bit.

    NASA really does read it’s own website, Andy.
    There’s no getting around that.

    Like

  505. It did happen so I don’t need to invent anything.

    No getting around that

    Like

  506. I am not keeping things deliberately vague. I can’t see how I can be more precise.

    I have given you all the relevant links and quotes.
    What more do you want?

    Like

  507. “NASA really does read it’s own website, Andy.
    There’s no getting around that.”

    The consensus page is not a primary source of information
    It is not written by scientists. It is written by copy people, probably ly junior.
    It is only one sentence, it is just padding.

    The real meat lies in the scientific papers. These can be found in journals that can be found online or in university libraries

    You can also find the primary sources of information referenced in the IPCC reports. These don’t match up with the simplistic NASA consensus page, written by junior staff.

    We prefer Primary Sources of Information,

    Like

  508. I have given you all the relevant links and quotes.

    Nobody asked you to. It’s a waste of your time and ours.
    How many times do we have to spell it out for you in plain English?

    We’ve told you that you don’t have to cut-and-paste anything many times.
    I even mentioned the IPCC specifically.

    You don’t need to quote the IPCC. It’s a waste of your time.

    See that?
    That’s me telling you not to do that.

    What more do you want?

    You have discovered an anomoly.
    Something terrible and shocking.
    The rest of the planet is distinctly underwhelmed by your coy allusions to fudging/massaging/sexing up etc.
    So now that you’ve found “it”, take that one tiny step further and explain what you really think is going on.
    No links needed.
    No cutting-and-pasting.
    No evidence required at all. It’s not even that helpful.
    Just you and your thinking.
    The “how” bit. The mechanism, yes?

    Like

  509. The consensus page is not a primary source of information.

    Andy, it’s NASA.
    They really do read their own webpage.

    It is only one sentence, it is just padding.

    Andy, it doesn’t work. You can’t just wave your hands in the air and make NASA and the rest of the scientific communities consensus on climate change magically vanish.
    Anyone can read the website for themselves.
    Your input doesn’t help.

    In the contest between you and NASA, NASA is going to win without even trying.
    Conspiracy thinking does not work.

    Like

  510. I am not conspiracy thinking

    Like

  511. Your input doesn’t help.

    Why not? Am I not providing some interesting discussion points?

    Why does my input not help and yours does?

    Like

  512. Andy, it’s NASA.
    They really do read their own webpage

    Great. That is really interesting, thanks for sharing.

    Like

  513. You can’t just wave your hands in the air and make NASA and the rest of the scientific communities consensus on climate change magically vanish.

    I’m not. I am just saying it is not very good. Low quality, not a very “robust” statement about The Consensus.

    I prefer things to be Robust. A Robust statement about The Consensus, about the 97% of scientists who agree with The Consensus, (including the Denier Scientists who agree with The Consensus) and also I am interested in the 3%.

    Who are they? Who are the 3% that disagree with The Consensus and why do they disagree with The Consensus when we have Denier Scientists that agree with The Consensus.

    So many questions, so few answers

    Like

  514. I am just saying it is not very good.

    Then quote yourself saying it. You’ve changed the narrative again.
    Somehow what you said before doesn’t quite match up with what you are saying now.
    “Not very good”?
    Hmm.

    Anyone can (by themselves) go to the NASA website and read about the scientific consensus in plain English.
    Whatever it is that you think is going on with your OMG!OMG!!! moment has to factor that awkward fact in.
    Of course, it’s not just NASA.
    It’s every single scientific community on the planet

    So many questions, so few answers

    Hadwaving will get you nowhere, Andy.
    You can’t hide behind questions.
    It won’t help you.
    We’ve been very fair to you.
    All the cards are carefully placed in your hands.
    No censorship. No interruptions. No strawmen.
    No unreasonable standards of evidence. No links or cut-and-pastes.

    It’s just you and what’s going on inside your head.
    What you really think in your own words.
    The complete and unabridged version.

    Like

  515. “It’s just you and what’s going on inside your head.
    What you really think in your own words.
    The complete and unabridged version ”

    You want a complete brain dump of me?
    That could take a while

    I might start tomorrow if that’s ok, I’ll get someone to take notes

    Like

  516. “Of course, it’s not just NASA.
    It’s every single scientific community on the planet”

    Yes I know that. Everyone agrees with them, including the Denier Scientists that are part of the Consensus.

    But who are the 3%?

    That is the really puzzling question.
    Everyone’s talks about the 97% of scientists that agree with each other. I agree with them too Agreement is agreeable

    But who are the three percent who don’t agree?

    Like

  517. Andy Scrase, only you know your own thinking. You, at least, should be able to figure out what you yourself really believe is going on. I can’t do it for you. Figure it out and then…tell us.

    Like

  518. What is going on?

    Where exactly? Outside the bus station ? Down the pub?
    In the park?

    On the Telly?

    What is going on?

    That is a very general question. Quite hard to be specific.

    However, when I do an entire brain dump tomorrow it might be clearer.

    Like

  519. Oh, Andy. Your selective amnesia is playing up again.
    It won’t help you.

    Like

  520. What is going on Cedric?
    You must know

    Stop JAQing off and just tell us what is going on.

    Put on your little Neil Armstrong Onesie and get furiously typing away, what is going on?
    You don’t want technical detail?
    You don’t want quotes from the IPCC?
    Fine

    To much for little Cedric

    Lets talk bollocks then
    What is going on?

    I know science is not something you are interested in.
    If you were interested in science you’d be on a science blog

    Lets talk drivel instead.

    Tell us The Bigger Picture

    Like

  521. Andy, you sound upset.

    Like

  522. Not at all. I can talk drivel as good as the next guy
    Obviously, I am a disappointment to you. You are expecting some mouth-foamig rant about “liberal conspiracies” “New World Orders” and the like, but reality is much more mundane, I fear.

    Like

  523. I can talk drivel as good as the next guy.

    Sure. Only you don’t have too. You could be more productive with your time.
    If you are serious about what you believe, if you think you actually know what’s going on…then share.
    The only person that can make you sound batshit krazy is yourself.

    Give a coherent mechanism and you will suddenly sound eminently rational.
    It’s not like it’s hard or anything.
    Just come up with something better than NASA not reading it’s own website.
    That’s not mundane at all. That’s just addled.

    Like

  524. I already have explained myself several times. You seem to think I am a “science denier”, which is curious because you haven’t explained what science I am denying

    But hey, I just saw that Al Gore invested $200million in a fracking company. Rats leaving sinking ships springs to mind

    Like

  525. It is probably true anyway. He sold his cable company to an oil rich Arab country.

    Since he has about 5 houses, an executive jet, and is (or was) a stakeholder in a carbon trading company (along with Rajendra Paucahuri), only the terminally stupid would imagine that this snake oil salesman was an honest operator.

    Then we are dealing with the terminally stupid here, residents of NZ, where the mayor of the biggest city can have sex in public meeting rooms, and give his girlfriend job references, and the citizens still think he is a good guy.

    Like

  526. There must be something about the citizens of Hamilton that turn them into such unpleasant people. Maybe its what they put in the water, or the terminally depressing building style

    I see that the local council just took a local shopkeeper to court for using the word “smoko” in his branding.
    I expect the lemon lipped fascists must be pulsating with joy at this decision

    Like

  527. Oh that’s very meticulous of you Richard. I don’t go round checking everything in great detail

    As a supporter of Al Gore, presumably you support his lavish lifestyle and his millions that he makes out of carbon trading at the expense of poor people

    Being an eco-fascist, I expect that you enjoy the thought of poor people freezing to death in winter because of slime that Al Gore that push up power prices and line their pockets in the process

    Like

  528. We are at 539 comments now.
    Plenty more to go before NASA boy finally throws in the towel

    Like

  529. Hey, Andy – please don’t equate the Hamilton City Council with the people of Hamilton. I would have thought that fallacy has bern well debunked byvrecent experience wherevthe council decided to slign themselves with anti-fluoridation extremists whereas Hamiltonians instead accepted expert findings on that issue.

    Like

  530. The Daily Currant is an American satirical news blog that focuses on politics, technology, and entertainment.

    Bwahahahahaha.
    Oh Andy, you’ve done it again.
    I’d never make a daft mistake like that.
    Fact-checking is an alien concept to you.
    They dangled the Al Gore bait in front of you and you took it instantly. Hook, line and sinker.

    (…thoughtful pause…)

    I wonder if anyone at climateconverstations will even notice?

    Like

  531. Andy | October 25, 2013 at 9:22 am |

    I don’t go round checking everything in great detail

    Behold.

    This is how the science denier/conspiracy-theory echo chamber works.
    Little or zero fact checking, echoing and amplifying anything that fits its confirmatory bias.

    Like

  532. So fucking what? You haven’t answered any of my genuine questions about the IPCC or their claims
    This is so typical of the sneering, pompous little turd-eaters that hover around anti-science blogs like Closed Parachute

    I read quite a lot of science literature, I post some stuff that I occasionally get wrong, and you latch onto it and then call me a “science denier”

    I will say this again, in case you didn’t get it first time
    You are the dregs of humanity. Pompous arrogant, no nothing little shit-eaters.

    Is that clear?

    Like

  533. By the way “Richard Christie”, I thought you said you were done with me. yesterday, yet you are back for more

    Can’t get enough eh?

    The more you come back, the more I will insult you. Because I fucking despise you.

    Like

  534. Ken | October 25, 2013 at 9:32 am |

    Hey, Andy – please don’t equate the Hamilton City Council with the people of Hamilton.

    Why not, you voted for them.
    Actually I am not equating the council with the people. I am equating the authoritarian bully attitude that I see in this decision with the authoritarian bully attitude that comes across on this blog

    As Vinny said at the very beginning of this thread, you are pro-government trolls and you are not nice people. You hate life, you hate humanity, and you hate yourselves

    The only thing you like is latching onto trivialities and then falling over in a heap and braying like a bunch of intoxicated baboons

    Like

  535. Andy has found a friend in Vinny.

    Like

  536. Anyone who hates you and Ken as much as I do is a friend of mine, whatever their views

    Like

  537. Hey NASA boy, do you have any scientific training?

    Like

  538. If Al Gore isn’t getting into fracking, he should. That is where all the smart money is going in the USA

    T Boone Pickens has got out of wind (after losing his shirt) and got into natural gas.

    Plus, USA CO2 emissions have dropped to 1990 levels partly as a result.

    Like

  539. “Anyone who hates you and Ken as much as I do is a friend of mine, whatever their views.”

    And that, I think, says it all.

    I mean, seriously, Andy. You have, in this thread alone, spent going on three weeks now pouring out your hatred of Ken, Cedric, the IPCC, climate scientists, Al Gore and probably a bunch of other people as well.

    Now, at some point, you need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself “have I become an internet troll?” The swearing, the constant attacks on people, and the drive to push this rather senseless argument up to 1,000 posts certainly seem to support that idea. Indeed, you seem bound and determined to twist any conversation you participate in into yet another opportunity to hate on anybody who doesn’t share your views on global warming.

    If you had a point, it’s been lost and buried long since.

    Like

  540. If you had a point, it’s been lost and buried long since.

    I seem to recall trying to discuss stuff with you and that received no traction.
    You are right, there is no point in discussing anything with the anti-science dogmatists on this or any other “science” blog in NZ

    Like

  541. Well, considering that my recollection of the discussion was that getting you to actually express a viewpoint was like pulling teeth, and that I eventually just gave up and let you have the last word, I quite agree that any conversation between us is a senseless waste of both our time. Hence why I haven’t engaged with you in a while now.

    Which, frankly, makes participation in any topic on this blog a tad difficult, since all too many topics seem to devolve into you and Cedric spamming each other.

    Like

  542. actually express a viewpoint was like pulling teeth,

    I seem to recall that getting me to express a viewpoint was getting my “position” on climate change, a political view not a scientific one.
    Just as Cedric tries to do when he asks me for the “”bigger picture” schtick

    I don’t do this BS. I look at data for a job. I don’t take”positions” on that data.

    But you know, it is kinda cathartic to vent my hatred over here.
    My contempt really does run deep you know

    Like

  543. Well then, Andy, you can hardly blame people for viewing you as a stirrer. After all, it’s very difficult to convince people of something if you refuse to state what you’re trying to convince them of. Instead, you’ve gone down the road of trolling your fellow commenters, constantly hating on people, and generally lowering the tone of discussion.

    Now, personally, I would say that it is not the function of this blog to give you a forum to vent your hatred. However, this would be something for Ken to address, not myself. In his position though, I would be inclined to take your open expression of hatred for all concerned and willingness to vent that hatred at length as a cue to simply ban you and have done with it.

    But then, Ken seems to have a rather more reluctance to ban people than I might in his position.

    Like

  544. No, you are right, this is not a platform to express my hatred.
    It is a platform for Cedric and Richard to get their jollies taunting anyone who visits with their inane NASA spiel

    Like

  545. And what have you done to improve the situation, Andy? I would certainly support any code of conduct which put an end to the endless back and forth about NASA, but calling people “rent-seeking parasites” and “scum” (among other things) whilst refusing to lay out what it is you’re trying to argue isn’t exactly an invitation to engage with you in serious discussion.

    Again, if you hate us all and regard this as an opportunity to vent that hatred, is it any wonder if responses to your posts have become formulaic? Especially if you always try to twist the topic of conversation around to your pet bugbear of global warming.

    Perhaps we should open up the floor to discussion of what a code of conduct should look like. It could only help, and plainly things have gotten out of hand if this kind of senseless argumentation can run for weeks on end.

    Like

  546. Well put, Chris. Thank you.

    Like

  547. A code of conduct might actually consist of writing something other than
    it’s just you versus NASA and every single scientific community on the planet

    But anyway, I can’t be bothered.
    If someone wants to remain in ignorance of what is actually happening in science and just defend PR spin, then that’s their problem not mine

    Like

  548. Oh and one other thing. I get a little tired of this “denier” label.
    I realise it is fashionable in “liberal” circles to use this name against anyone who questions any aspect of current dogma. I get particularly irked when people call me a “science denier”

    Since I have science degrees and spend my day studying data, I find this irritating to say the least.

    Of course, since the “liberals” have decided that anyone who doesn’t accept their dogma is sub-human, then any label will do.

    I naturally like to respond in the most virulent way possible.

    Like

  549. I wonder if anyone at climateconverstations will even notice?

    (…Andy quickly goes into damage control mode…)

    Andy says:
    October 25, 2013 at 12:35 pm
    “..and is a spoof, although it is fairly believable.
    Being a “liberal” spoof, it is not very funny.
    Besides, even Michael Mann has tweeted that SQUIRREL!”

    Like

  550. Andy quickly goes into damage control mode

    (Roll eyes), comedy gold.

    Like

  551. Since I have science degrees and spend my day studying data, I find this irritating to say the least.

    Duesberg, Wakefield, Dembski, Corrnett, Kaysing, etc could all say the same thing.

    Science denialism is real. People deny science all the time.

    People deny the science on Evolution, vaccines, germ theory, cancer treatments, the risks of smoking, the Heliocentric Theory, the age of the Earth.
    In your case, it just happens to be climate denial.
    If the shoe fits, wear it.

    Like

  552. (Roll eyes), comedy gold.

    I am sure it is very amusing and a lot of people were duped by some of the other stuff.

    In your case, it just happens to be climate denial.
    Once again, the little shithead Cedric Katesby starts the abuse.

    Which science am I denying?
    Where did I say that I disagreed?

    Every time you come back and call me a “denier”, I will respond in kind.
    What scientific background do you have?
    Actually, who are you?

    You are not even a real person, just some irritating twat from South Korea

    Like

  553. So, basically, your defence is “other people are doing it too.” Except, of course, nobody has at any point referred to you as “sub-human.”

    Which means you’re attributing all manner of nasty motives to anybody who doesn’t agree with you (liberals, it would seem. Today at least). And then using these attributed motives to justify virulent responses.

    But of course you “can’t be bothered” contributing to a code of conduct which might actually rein in some of these things you’re supposedly so unhappy about.

    Like

  554. By the way, since you are trawling though my comments at CCG, you’ll see my link to Hot Topic where one of the resident eco-fascist greentards expresses his view that he’d rather see people die in the bushfires than alter the vegetation in any way.

    Like

  555. Chris,

    Do you think it is acceptable to call someone a “science denier”?

    I respond in kind because I am sick to the back teeth of these sanctimonious semi-literates who seem to think that they are morally and intellectually superior.

    Like

  556. Which means you’re attributing all manner of nasty motives to anybody who doesn’t agree with you (liberals, it would seem. Today at least)

    It is not a question of not agreeing with me. They are not even interested in even entertaining any thoughts outside their little bubble of ignorance and dogma.

    This is Ken’s blog
    Closed Parachute, Closed Minds

    Like

  557. Now, at some point, you need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself “have I become an internet troll?”

    Chris, *The* Andy enjoys having the crap kicked out of him on the web.
    It is serial behaviour, on other blogs the trolling has continued until he was banned.

    Masochists exist.

    Like

  558. Calling somebody a “denier” does not equate to calling them “sub-human,” Andy. It also does not merit swearing at them. If you would like to propose an alternative term, you are of course free to do so. But do not expect anybody to call you a “sceptic,” for instance.

    Like

  559. No body has actually explained to me which science I am “denying”

    Like

  560. It is serial behaviour, on other blogs the trolling has continued until he was banned.

    The seeking of martyrdom. Actually getting banned provides some sort of perverse justification. A validation of sorts.
    Andy’s even bragged about being banned by other blogs in the past.

    Then there’s the mutiple sockpuppets, of course.

    Like

  561. I think I’ll go ahead and lay out my own wishlist for a code of conduct.

    1) No swearing.
    Pretty self-explanatory, really.

    2) No personal attacks on anybody.
    Debatably, this might also be extended to public figures who come up during the course of conversation. Might be a decent start in cutting down on ad hominem attacks.

    3) Enough with the NASA stuff.
    And, indeed, anything else which looks as if it’s been copied and pasted from innumerable earlier conversations. Comparisons of climate deniers to creationists might fall under this category.

    Like

  562. Calling somebody a “denier” does not equate to calling them “sub-human,” Andy. It also does not merit swearing at them. If you would like to propose an alternative term, you are of course free to do so. But do not expect anybody to call you a “sceptic,” for instance

    Here’s a thought Chris.
    How about “climate nigger”.
    Or “climate Jew”.
    Or “Climate Queer”
    Or “Climate Fag”
    etc.

    Actually, I don’t really see why I need a special name. I just look at data and observations and make up my mind about stuff.
    I don’t feel the need to be shepherded into a pen

    You, obviously feel differently

    Like

  563. No body (sic) has actually explained to me which science I am “denying”

    Sigh, science denial is not simply denying a specific data sets or hypotheses or scientific interpretations, although that may be part of the process, science denial is denial of the the methodology (such as the peer review processes and consensus) or the application of inferior methodology.

    Guess what Andy does.

    Like

  564. Sigh, science denial is not simply denying a specific data sets or hypotheses or scientific interpretations….

    So what science am I denying?
    Answer the question

    Like

  565. I think we can agree that the conversation has degenerated into senseless trolling again. Accordingly, I’m calling it quits.

    Like

  566. Oh, the “consensus”. I forgot.
    The meaningless one-liner on the NASA website

    Oh yeah I get that
    The one liner that doesn’t match up with the IPCC
    Never mind, good enough for government work

    Like

  567. Accordingly, I’m calling it quits

    Have a nice life

    Like

  568. So what science am I denying? Answer the question
    The international consensus on the state and change of Earth’s climate as established by international climate research and summarised in each of the IPCC reports.

    Like

  569. This is my interpretation of what these here refer to as “science denial”

    It is essentially a variant on Political Correctness, a term that was coined by Stalin I believe

    In other words, a state sanctioned form of thought that is unacceptable to stray outside of.

    It doesn’t matter if a report or a graph is wrong, as long as it is “on message” then it is correct, and woe betide anyone who criticizes it.

    Like

  570. So what science am I denying? Answer the question
    The international consensus on the state and change of Earth’s climate as established by international climate research and summarised in each of the IPCC reports.

    This would be the IPCC report that I have been quoting for the last 500 comments of so?

    Like

  571. So given that I have been quoting the report (at least the SPM), how can I be denying the contents of it?
    I made specifically a comment about climate sensitivity. So by quoting the IPCC on their figures, I am denying the science

    It gets weirder by the day

    Like

  572. 3) Enough with the NASA stuff.
    (..)
    Comparisons of climate deniers to creationists might fall under this category.

    Two very bad ideas.
    I don’t mean to be rude but that plays right into the denialist’s hand.
    It’s not between two, anonymous people on the internet.
    That creates a false balance.

    “Oh gosh, there’s this opinion and that opinion and he’s mentioning a doctor and now the other guy’s mentioning a doctor.
    Gosh, it’s such a controversy. Hey, look at all those links!”

    No.
    It’s between all the scientific communities on the planet and the work they do versus a tiny group of nay-sayers and their going “Nu-Uh” to confuse and manipulate an uninformed public.

    Smoking is dangerous. In an argument on smoking, it’s pefectly reasonable to defer to the medical community and mention the “Cliff notes” from the Surgeon General or the CDC or the Lancet etc.

    We really did go to the moon. In an argument on the faking of the moon landings, it’s perfectly reasonable to refer to the various world’s space agencies. That includes NASA.

    Comparisons of climate deniers to creationists might fall under this category.

    No. Science deniers are comparable. Andy’s arguments are routinely cribbed from the creationist collection of hoary chestnuts. Further, it’s important that they be openly compared. It’s the same, dangerously flawed methodology.
    The term “denier” is not a perjorative. It’s an objectively demonstrable observation.
    You need to be able to call a spade a spade.

    Like

  573. Andy’s arguments are routinely cribbed from the creationist collection of hoary chestnuts.

    You mean my statements about Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity that I took from the IPCC SPM?

    Have you been having a conversation with another Andy?
    Maybe a voice in your head?

    Like

  574. Anyway, you have made you point. People like me need to be silenced

    Too bad you didn’t live in Lysenko’s era, you would have loved that. They used to take them to the gulag and execute them.

    Like

  575. In all honesty, Cedric, I find that any power in the comparison is greatly diminished by the fact that, in your hands, it has become something that is simply trotted out on an incredibly regular basis in response to the latest nonsense Andy has bombarded us all with. It is, at this point, indistinguishable from repetitive spam. Which, I will freely admit, is probably a consequence of engaging with the troll.

    Like

  576. But, in all honesty, I may have lost perspective here. I mean seriously, we have somebody who is swearing at us, comparing us to Stalinists, engaging in constant attacks, and whining about how he’s the one being victimised.

    Now, code of conduct or not, at what point did this become remotely acceptable behaviour in a civilised forum for discussion?

    Like

  577. The creationist comparisons and NASA references are apt, repetition ensures new readers of the blog are aware.
    The Andy is an obnoxious and persistent troll impervious to civilised argument.
    My suggested solution to the Andy problem is reasonably standard, not to engage in future but to automatically stamp any and every comment with

    “Above comment identified as from Open Parachute’s serial troll Andy Scrase. Readers are advised to ignore him.”

    Like

  578. None of you cretins have even bothered to try to understand the issues that I have been talking about.

    “Do not engage with the troll”

    Good idea.
    And do not question any aspect of climate science
    In fact, remain in complete ignorance of climate science.
    Do not read any papers.
    Do not try to understand the issues
    Do not look at the data

    Just “accept” the science

    Be good little citizens.
    That’s what it is all about really

    Oh, and don’t read any history either. Don’t read about Lysenko and Eugenics and all that other government promoted junk science that ended up killing millions of people.

    Stick you fingers in your ears and go “la la la la”

    Like

  579. If the policy is to only mention NASA once then, again, that plays into the deniers’ hands.
    All they have to do is keep coming back after NASA has already been mentioned.
    Then they get to pretend it was never mentioned at all and carry on regardless.

    A casual observer unfamiliar with the context is not going to see the reality-based juxtapostion between the nutter and the consensus from the scientific community.
    They are not going to go back through those hundreds of inane comments by the troll just to read the original reply.
    Deniers do the Gish Gallop. It’s a tried and true tactic.
    The PRATT’s are labelled PRATT’s for a very good reason.

    There’s no need to re-invent the wheel. It’s actually counter-productive. There’s never anything new coming from these people.
    To always have to come up with a novel reply creates the the false impression that something new and different is happening.
    There’s not. It’s a ritual dance.
    It’s important to be aware of that and be able to routinely demonstrate the next dozen steps in advance for anyone to see.

    I appreciate that from your perspective that you see me mentioning NASA again and again and again and again.
    I’m sure it’s not that interesting for you and I wish it were otherwise.
    (It’s not even that interesting for me.)
    Yet without it, the troll gets to move from one talking point to the next and then casually double back at whim.

    I don’t repeat NASA again and again with people in general.
    I don’t normally have to.
    It’s only in specific “special” cases.

    My classic…”Name a single scientific community that rejects the scientific consensus on “X” is a standard.
    It works very well.
    Not original at all. But then again, neither is the carbon-copy howling it generates from the deniers of all stripes.

    NASA is to climate deniers as sunlight is to vampires.

    Gish Gallop in 72 seconds

    Like

  580. Hey NASA boy, have you actually ever done any science or read any science papers?

    The howling comes from cretins like you trotting out the same line over and over and over again

    It’s just you versus NASA and every single science academy..

    I have asked you before which science am I denying?

    Too hard for NASA boy though.

    Involves thought, not his strong point

    Like

  581. See what I mean? It’s devastating. Sane people are not very comfortable reading someone talking about NASA like that and they pick up on what’s really happening very quickly.

    Works very well for other topics too. Just switch the labels.

    “Hey NIH boy, have you actually ever done any science or read any science papers?
    The howling comes from cretins like you trotting out the same line over and over and over again
    It’s just you versus the NIH and every single medical academy..
    I have asked you before which science am I denying?
    Too hard for NIH boy though.
    Involves thought, not his strong point”

    Like

  582. Typical of the Cedric-bot. Just repeats back what you have just written with some words changed.

    Test. Test Testing the Cedric-bot

    Like

  583. “Andy” by The Front Lawn. (Don McGlashan, Harry Sinclair)

    Like

  584. More kiwi music – “Anchor Me” for Greenpeace

    Like

  585. “For Greenpeace”. Yes Greenpeace are a great fit for the mentality on this blog. Founding member Patrick Moore describes them (these days)as “anti-science, anti-intellectual, and ultimately anti-human”

    Shame that they have 30 of their useful idiots rotting in jails in Russia for the next few years, but I am sure that there will be plenty more cannon fodder to replace them.

    Like

  586. Pingback: The fluoride debate – introduction | Open Parachute

  587. Pingback: Fluoride debate Part 1a – response to Connet’s response: Perrott | Open Parachute

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s