Lynch mob mentality

We have seen a wave of anti-climate change hysteria in the last few months – coinciding with the stealing of emails from the East Anglia Climate Centre  and the UN Copenhagen Conference. Posts and comments on internet blogs and forums have been particularly extreme. And for many scientists, who usually don’t have to involve themselves in such irrational debates, the hostility, even hatred, towards scientists and scientific finding has been somewhat of a shock.

We are so used to debating, even emotionally debating, evidence – not personalities. But in this global debate personalities have been demonised and defamed. Mud is being thrown – and of course mud has the problem that it sometimes sticks. While most of this hysteria has been coming from the usual conspiracy theorists and conservative political activists many of the non-aligned public may be left with the feeling that there is something wrong in the scientific community. Or that scientific findings should not be easily accepted, perhaps they should even be rejected because they are scientific. Science itself is being demonised.

It’s an ongoing battle, I guess. These sorts of conflicts are inevitable and just have to be fought out.

Local conspiracy theorists

Our local conspiracy theorist, conservative Christian activist Ian Wishart, is again promoting personal attacks on a New Zealand scientist. In his article NZ scientist at centre of Pachauri allegations refuses to talk, Wishart, together with a UK conspiracy theorist group, EU Referendum, is accusing Andy Reisinger* of involvement in money laundering (see Pachauri: money laundering? Part II – by Richard…). Wisharts links with overseas conservative groups are enabling this story to be spread more widely. For example American Thinker (sic) and UD/RK Samhälls Debatt are  repeating it in their posts When it comes to the IPCC, follow the money – if you can and Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 219 . (For some strange reason EU Referendum and UD/RK Samhälls Debatt attribute an Open Parachute post to Andy Reisinger – I would love to get hold of the emails between Ian Wishart and these groups).

This, of course, parallels the articles Ian Wishart ran last November/December attacking our scientists at NIWA. This started with his peddling of the discredited (see New Zealand’s denier-gate and New Zealand’s climate change deniers’ distortions exposed) report (Are we feeling warmer yet?) written by Richard Treadgold for local climate change denial groups. Overseas conservative blogs and newspapers repeated Wishart’s biased reporting, further demonising our local scientists. Despite the basic flaws in the report Wishart and local conservative bloggers persisted with their attacks and displayed some of the lynch mob mentality towards science and scientists locally. See for example:

I confess I now believe in manmade Global Warming; Three Questions for NIWA; Auckland Public Meeting: Climategate, NIWA and the ETS; NIWA, Climategate and Evasive Fallacious Answers; The NIWA Emails; NIWA ClimateGate link hits MSM in NZ [Update 3]; Climategate – How the scientific community is responding; Climate scientists caught lying; New Zealand not warming?; CLIMATEGATE – A better study than NIWA, by an 11 year old! and Kid and his dad: 1, Global Warming: 0.

Fighting back

Micheal Mann

There have been a number of good blog articles internationally putting the whole UK email issue into its correct perspective. I think this does demonstrate the importance of science blogging because only good science communicators can really do this job. Particularly as science journalism is a dying profession.

Its worth reading a couple of articles written by scientists who have been targets for the internet lynch mob. Micheal Mann, particularly vilified for his working on global temperature changes over time, was one of the email writers. His article Climate expert in the eye of an integrity storm from the Philadelphia Inquirer explains the phrases used in the emails and his opinion of the attack. And another email author Kevin Trenberth makes some brief comments in The truth about carbon dioxide, climate and the weather.

Kevin Trenberth

*By the way Andy Reisinger is a senior research fellow with the New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute at Victoria University of Wellington. He has worked in climate change science and policy as a research scientist and senior policy adviser on climate change to the New Zealand government. From 2006 to 2008, he was responsible for managing the production of the Synthesis Report of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He is author of  the book Climate Change 101 (see A good climate change book) and blogs at Sciblogs NZ (Degrees of Change).

Permalink

Similar articles

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Share

49 responses to “Lynch mob mentality

  1. There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it.

    There are a host of porkies and not very much truth barraging us everyday so its difficult to know what to believe.

    I think I have simplified the issue in an entertaining way on my blog which includes discussion on the CO2 issue.

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.

    Cheers

    Roger

    PS In my country a porky is not a fat person but refers to a statement or assertion of gross falsehood or extreme exaggeration.

    Like

  2. Rogerthesurf – what is your position? Can humanity do anything about our current climate change problems?

    Well – there are porkies and I have tried to deal with these in several of my posts on these issues. I think the most reliable source of information is that in the IPCC reports. The is factually based, well reviewed, and originates from the peer reviewed scientific literature.

    My reading of it indicates that it is well balanced, careful in its conclusions, very credible.

    It is, in short, authoritative.

    In contrast the stuff coming from the deniers – the groups like the NZ Climate Science Coalition, The NZ Climate Discussion group, Ian Wishart (local conspiracy theorist) and local conservative christian bloggers is full of porkies. Shocking stuff.

    And what concerns me is their stuff is blatantly anti-science – to the extent of being hysterical and hostile towards science and scientists. hence the lynch mob mentality I referred to.

    By the way – if you are willing to put a sitemeter on your blog and allow public access I can include it in my regular blog ranking exercise (see NZ blogs sitemeter ranking – December ‘09).

    Like

  3. Ken,
    My problem is well illustrated in my blog.

    Frankly for me, IPCC claims simply don’t add up and I believe it does not take a great scientist to figure that out.

    However you don’t have to agree with me, but if you have time to read my blog, you will find it well referenced, logical and at least a little entertaining.

    I would be pleased to receive any well balanced and referenced comments.

    I also have a degree in economics and I shudder at the so called solutions proposed for global warming which frankly will be worse than the disease.

    Cheers

    Roger

    Like

  4. Specifically, which IPCC conclusions “don’t add up”?

    I really don’t think vague statements have any value.

    Sent from my iPod

    Like

  5. There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it.

    That doesn’t make any sense.
    Either there is global warming or..there isn’t.

    There’s no point in discussing policy on how to fix a problem if you can’t even agree that there is a problem in the first place.

    Cart. Horse.

    Like

  6. Ah then neither of you have bothered to read my blog:)

    Like

  7. OK you are not interested in discussing any specifics. Can’t force you to but I am not at all interested in invalidated vague assertions.

    So that is that.

    Meanwhile, are you interested I’m having a sitemeter on your blog and making it available for my blog rating exercise?

    Like

  8. Ken I am most certainly not interested in vagued assertions, but I am definitely interested in a properly referenced discussion.

    If thats what you are also interested in, you could start by reading my blog, preferably from top to bottom which is well referenced and logical.

    You have already made some vague assertions in your comments which already betrays your attempts at remaining scientific.

    I wont be drawn into that.

    Cheers

    Roger

    Like

  9. Well, I have asked for your respose to specific questions. It’s up to you. Do you want to move beyond vague assertions or take the effort to give them some substance.

    Incidentally, what are your thoughts about including your blog in my ranking exercise?

    Sent from my iPod

    Like

  10. Roger, I had a look at your blog.

    “My problem is well illustrated in my blog.”

    Indeed.

    The only point you raised that had any relevance to the science was the claim that the 2 valley’s in Southern Greenland that were settled by the Viking were warmer then than now, but even if they had been warmer then, this is not evidence that the average global temperature was warmer then, this is demonstrated by the graph you refer to which shows different temperature trends across different regions.

    Your claim that land with permafrost under the surface cannot be farmed is wrong, vast tracts of wheat are grown in Canada on land that has permafrost a few inches below the surface. Incidentally, for some reason that graph fails to show the temperature rise that has been observed over the last 50 years, also though it’s obviously news to you, it’s not news to other people familiar with this debate that there was a period known as the holocene maximum. Present projections are that temperatures this century will far exceed those experienced in that period.

    Like

  11. Andrew,

    Thankyou for reading my blog.

    However first of all you have fallen into the trap of making unsubstantiated statements.
    1.I used to live in Canada and in my experience farming attempts where there was permafrost was always a disaster. However I will look at any evidence to refute that if you can find some to support your statement. Also bear in mind the vikings were dairy farmers not wheat farmers.
    2.The whole point of my blog, which you seem to have missed is about the connection between CO2 and Global warming.
    If the planet has been as warm or warmer than the present previously when there was no anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere then a reasonable person would demand a better hypotheisis and proof about the relationship between CO2 and Global Warming before ruining the world economy in a vain attempt to chase CO2 for climate purposes.
    Are you then questioning that the world has been warmer than before in spite of my references? I can supply much more evidence of that as well if you are interested.
    I can also supply you with references and peer reviews of M.E. Mann’s efforts if you are interested but as the world has already been warm before, M.E. Mann is actually irrelevant. The world has been warmer at least once in historical times, as is referenced in my blog but actually three times of which I can supply references if you wish.

    However if you make further assertions without references it would be pointless for me to reply.

    Cheers

    Roger

    Like

  12. Ken the answer to your “specific question” is in my blog with proper references.

    Cheers

    Roger

    I am still thinking about the ranking exercise thing.

    Like

  13. Well Roger, what about giving the specific response here? After all, your vague statement was a response to my comment and all I ask is elaborations so we can discuss it.

    Your comments about previous global temperatures are surely irrelevant to the contribution of human sourced CO2 to current global warming.

    Global temperature is the result of a number of factors. Many of these have caused climate change in the past (eg changes in earth’s orbit/orientation and incoming energy from the sun. Today we can see all these factors having some influence – but these just don’t completely explain the current temperature changes. Only when we also incorporate the influence of human activity can we explain the total.

    The fact that there are a number of “natural” influences on global temperature, and these have contributed to climate change in the past, does not in any way negate the fundamental properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Nor does it negate the actual measurements of their changes over time.

    The IPCC, on the basis of thorough reviews of the published scientific evidence came to the following conclusions:

    1: The evidence for global warming is now unequivocal;

    2: Current warming is almost certainly mainly the result of human activity via greenhouse gas emissions.

    These statements are very considered and careful.

    You say they don’t add up. Please provide your arguments for that claim and the evidence.

    Re Manns graph – I may do a post on that because the denier groups have completely misrepresented this, its review and its current position. (There are some interesting mistakes made by Mockton in comments of his on this which surfaced in the climategate emails).

    Mann’s data is still included in the latest IPCC summary, his findings were not rejected by review, despite some criticisms of some of the statistical analyses and paucityof data for some times. He has recently published a new graph in which these comments have been accommodated and a whole lot of new data added.

    The new graph shows essentially the same situation. (And is, of course, supported by evidence from other directions).

    Re ranking – if you do install a sitemeter, statcounter, or whatever – just let me know and I will add your blog to the spreadsheet (which currently has about 140 blogs).

    Like

  14. Sorry Ken,

    Didn’t see one reference in your statements.

    I wont enter into any discussion until you see fit to quote some specific authorities for your assertions.

    example
    “(And is, of course, supported by evidence from other directions).”

    This is not a reference.

    Like

  15. OK – here’s an easily accessible and authoritative book (referred to in my post A good climate change book). This actually covers all the points I made. You could of course go to the IPCC reports – but while of course very authoritative they are huge. Andy Reisenger’s book is a good summary.

    Mann’s paper is Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia.

    Like

  16. …Southern Greenland that were settled by the Viking were warmer then than now,…

    What?
    AGAIN?
    Wow.
    (It’s like a bloody broken record.)
    Ah, the Vikings. It’s always the Vikings.
    Deniers just can’t get enough of the Viking PRATT.

    Like

  17. Roger, this site has photos of the Viking settlements as they are now, you can draw your own conclusions about whether farming is now possible there.

    http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

    As to the balance of your beliefs, if you’re interested in being objective I’m sure you’re capable of using the net to find other opinions, if you’re not interested in being objective you’ll just visit sites that support your already held beliefs.

    Like

  18. “local conservative bloggers persisted with their attacks and displayed some of the lynch mob mentality towards science and scientists locally.”

    Please. You linked to MandM after babbling this nonsense and we did no such thing.

    Like

  19. Ken,

    If you ever take the trouble to read my blog which you steadfastly refused to do, you will realise that global warming or cooling is irrelevant. What I discuss is, if we as a human race can do anything about it. If the answer is NO then we better drop the IPCC pretty quickly dont you think?

    Andrew, the very site you sent me talks about the need to dig through permafrost to get to the archaeological site.
    Are you denying that the medieval warm period never existed then? If so and you are interested I can send you some references.

    Cheers

    Roger

    Like

  20. If you ever take the trouble to read my blog…

    Instead of trying to boost your blog traffic, why don’t you try to explain it to us?
    🙂

    I get it that you personally don’t think that what’s happening to the Earth’s climate is important, though that seems to be an insane position to take.
    Changes in the Earth’s climate will affect our drinking water, the safety of our cities, our wealth, our ability to grow food etc.
    That’s sounds very relevant to me.

    Answer a basic question for us.
    Do you agree with the scientific community’s assessment that the planet’s climate is warming and that humanity is responsible and that there will be serious consequences because of this?
    Yes or no?

    Yeah, we get it that you don’t think it’s “relevant” but, well……do you?
    Hmm?

    Like

  21. I don’t see anything in your blog to support your claim. If there were you would make specific mention of it – and you consistently refuse to.

    Really, are you going to set your opinion against the conclusions coming out of a thorough review of the scientific literature?

    And there is no denying that the best scientific evidence, with which most governments agree, is that we can and should do something to adapt to, and mitigate against global warming.

    Like

  22. Come off it Madeliene – “we did no such thing.”

    Yours is a conservative Christian blog.
    Your blog did pick up and repeat the attack on our NIWA scientists made in the report from the Climate Science Coalition.

    This report has been discredited.

    Even Vincent Gray has admitted the mistake (although Treadgold refuses to).

    the fact that you made a one sided attack on NIWA, and continued with the “when are going to stop beating your wife” approach, without making any critical assessment of the deniers report (in fact refusing to even concede the mistakes) does suggest to me a “lynch mob mentality” on your part.

    If not – why not admit your mistake and apologise for defaming our scientists in this manner on your blog?

    Like

  23. Roger, no one is denying the existence of the MWP.

    “Andrew, the very site you sent me talks about the need to dig through permafrost to get to the archaeological site.”

    I’m not denying that there’s permafrost there Roger, I’ve already made that clear, the point I’m making is that you deny that the place can be farmed given the presence permafrost, when in fact it is being farmed.

    Roger I’m finding you a bit of a link whoring trolling bore with little substance behind your views. If you’re interested in serious discussion on Ken’s site you should go and learn a little about AGW and the science involved.

    Like

  24. Andrew,

    So don’t you think if the world was once warmer than now for 400 years between 950 AD and 1350 AD, and before that in the Roman Warm Period and before that in the Holocene Maximum (with corresponding very cold periods in between) and the only anthropogenic CO2 was from sword sharpening by a small minority, that the premise that CO2 is causing our current warming (which may have already ended) is very shaky indeed?
    Do you think the premise is worth breaking our economies over?

    Cheers
    Roger

    Like

  25. A premise! We undestand well the fundamental nature of CO2 and similar gases. We are pretty definite (more than 90%) that current warming is partly due to human activity. We have projections for future T increases and the effects they will have on us and our accompanying ecosystems.

    It is surely the intelligent and humane thing to do to take steps to adapt to future climate and, where we can, reduce emissions of greehouse gases.

    It’s a point that most responsible governments agree about – even if you don’t.

    Sent from my iPod

    Like

  26. …the only anthropogenic CO2 was from sword sharpening by a small minority, that the premise that CO2 is causing our current warming (which may have already ended) is very shaky indeed?

    Wow.
    I’ve read about this argument from the Deniers but until now I always thought it was a kind of Poe argument.
    (…pause….)
    Read through what you just wrote.
    Can you not see how painfully flawed this line of reasoning is?
    Let me give you a hint.

    Like

  27. Ken and Cedric,

    The relationship between CO2 and Global Warming is only a hypothesis and will remain one until some definitive repeatable test can be carried out.

    The hypothesis is basically disproved by the fact that the earth has warmed up before many times when the co2 levels are low and the earth has remained cool when the co2 levels were high and coolings occurred when the CO2 level was also low etc. ref Montanez and others ” Co2 forced climate change and vegetation instability during late Paleozic deglaciation.”
    Royer D.L. “CO2 forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic”.
    Berner R A “A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time”.
    Lunt D J and others “Late Pliocene Greenland Glaciation controlled by a decline in atmosheric CO2 levels”

    Now as scientists, (which you claim to be), now is the time for YOU to show me and other readers some definitive proof that supports the CO2 causes Global Warming hypothesis. Computer programs and modeling are most certainly not definitive proof, in fact all they do is illustrate the hypothesis.
    Descriptions of the process in which CO2 effects the climate are simply further hypothesis.

    So after you have shown me some definitive proof then ponder if you are prepared to ruin the world economy, an economic action which, as an economist, will in my opinion, let you see people around you die of starvation and preventable diseases, (including possibly your children), in an attempt to follow a mere hypothesis that has no definitive proof?

    My advice to you is to sit back enjoy the warmer weather (while it is here) and watch the world enjoy the increased agricultural yield caused by the warmer weather(once again we read this in history) and the increased CO2 levels.

    Cheers

    Like

  28. Of course you could put your collective minds toward cleaning up the planet of its real pollution, erosion, real poisonous emissions and other problems instead of running after the friendly gas CO2.

    Like

  29. The IR absorption properties of CO2 and similar gases are well understood. The “greenhouse gas” mechanism contribution to planetary temperatrure was proposed long ago and is well established. Without it how do you explain why the temperature is not a lot lower based on all the inputs and outputs?

    Just because there are other contributions to temperature does not negate the fundamental properrties of CO2, H2O and similar gases. You are really desperate (and extremely close minded) to suggest that it does.

    You claim to be worried about destroying the world economy. I have more confidence on humanity. These sort of challenges also provide huge opportunities. I am sure we will make huge advances in the process.

    In the end our adaption to this problem, and attempts to mitigate it, will be successful provided we invest in the best science, technology, and education.

    My only concern is that the anti-science approach taken by current deniers, and religious conservatives, will undermine human possibilities.this goes also for problems of pollution and resource depletion.

    Knowledge and reason us the answer. Not dogma, religion and silly anti- science hysteria.

    Sent from my iPod

    Like

  30. I think you can add poneke (http://poneke.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/gate/) to the list of local denialists.

    It’s a shame when an otherwise (mostly) fine journalist would join in this nonsense.

    If you’re reading there, my second comment there is still under moderation at this time. The link under my name to my blog article was stripped out of my first comment. I hope that’s wasn’t an attempt to prevent people from reading the basis of my remark (which was the reason I put the link in). My article can be found in the link to my name above this comment.

    (My article takes on just the first claim he makes, that a “cabal” controls the world’s climate science research, which a little thought and a simple check of the numbers involved would show can’t be possible. I haven’t looked at the rest of his post. Start at the beginning, etc.)

    Like

  31. Ken,

    Disappointingly for someone who claims to be scientific, you have been unable to provide a shred of evidence that supports the hypothesis of Antropogenic CO2 causing Global Warming.

    Now you are the ones who are supporting the hypotheisis, let us see the proof!

    And I think you should be VERY worried about the world economy being ruined (unless you are one of the very few who will gain from it).

    On our current downturn which is about 5% how would you cope with a 40 to 60 percent downturn?

    Cheers

    Like

  32. Grant – I agree about Poneke. He is a denier and shows a very bad example of lynch mob mentality against science.

    The conspiracy theory approach seems to be an inevitable accompaniement of the anti-science approach. After all, if you refuse to accept scientific findings you probably have to invent a conspiracy to justify your rejection. After all, the honest approach to scientific evidence is to recognise that it I’d not a matter of opinion – it is verified against reality.

    This should isolate one from a rational discussion – unless you can mobilize a similar irrationality in others.

    I guess that is why there often seems to be links between climate change denial and creationism.

    I think Lord Monckton’s recent article which in effect demands that scientists should not be acceptable unless they ate certified religious, preferably Christian, reveals some underlying commonality in the philophicsl/epistemological approach of the two.

    Sent from my iPod

    Like

  33. “ate certified religious, preferably Christian”

    You’re close to advocating cannibalism, there 😉

    Like

  34. The hypothesis is basically disproved by the fact that the earth has warmed up before many times when the co2 levels are low and the earth has remained cool when the co2 levels were high and coolings occurred when the CO2 level was also low etc.

    Ah, the “temp leads carbon” PRATT.
    Been there, done that.

    Computer programs and modeling are most certainly not definitive proof, in fact all they do is illustrate the hypothesis.

    Ah, the “Can’t trust those durned computer models” PRATT.
    Yep. Been there. Done that. Bought the T-shirt.
    (yawn)

    Now as scientists, (which you claim to be), now is the time for YOU to show me and other readers some definitive proof that supports the CO2 causes Global Warming hypothesis.

    Two points here:
    First, scientists don’t deal in “proof”, they deal in evidence.
    Read a high school level science text book. It reveals all.

    Second, what kind of a tool would ask about the existence of global warming when you can just ask the scientific community directly?
    You do have internet access, right?
    Do you know how google works?
    What is your problem?
    Sheesh.

    Forget total strangers on the Internet.
    Ask the professionals.
    Ask NASA. They’re good at their job.
    There’s also the Royal Society.
    In fact, you could ask any scientific community of working scientists on the planet and they will tell you the same thing.
    Link.

    My advice to you is to sit back enjoy the warmer weather…

    My advice to you is stop embarrassing yourself on the Internet by displaying your scientific illiteracy.
    The only way you can prop up your Denialism is to garner your talking points exclusively from the Denialosphere. The instant you leave your comfort zone and actually check out the working scientific community, you’ll find that reality is not your friend.
    Stop playing their game.
    Figure out how science works before you try and comment on it.

    Like

  35. Roger – “how would you cope with a 40 to 60 percent downturn?”

    Now how do you justify that alarmist statement? Computer models? Off the top of your head? Out of thin air?

    You are so busy trying to discredit well established science – and here you are pretending to be authoritative about economics.

    Pull the other one!

    Like

  36. Cedric,

    Please dont try and tell me what is scientific because your comment shows that you have little idea. If you you think that that guy in the paper hat on your last link is an authority and what you rely on well its just somewhat pathetic on your part.

    I am not playing any game, I have examined the available evidence and followed the reasoning with my own mind and sought for scientific proof which is lacking.

    If you want an analysis on the relationship of climate with CO2 well it is in my blog. Here is the graph :- http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/holocene_delta_t_and_delta_co2_full2.jpg

    and if you go to my blog :- http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com
    you will see all the references supporting the research which I suggest you start reading AND understanding.

    Now take a look at the graph carefully. Look in the legend and note the red line is the basis for the graph on the IPCC 1990 REPORT report Fig 7.1 c which was later replaced by Al Gores “Hockey Stick” graph. http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/hockystickgraph-ipcc20011.jpg

    Note the pale green line which is the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

    Now scientifically a correlation between these lines would suggest but not prove an association.

    So why dont you show me and the readers the correlation for a start.

    Now go to http://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/porky-no-3-ipcc-attempts-to-change-history/
    and read it carefully, including the emails from Climategate.

    Now why are the “scientists” from Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia discussing in a very unscientific manner ways to explain away IPCC 1990 REPORT report Fig 7.1 c which I mention above?

    Cedric one thing you do have is “Faith” Now I am very familliar with the dogmas of “faith” and I believe it means “belief in something at all odds even if your reason tells you it is not true”
    So Cedric I suggest you forget your religeous “faith” and in spite of the pain, use that wonderful brain of yours (given to you by your maker) to seek out the actual truth.

    Like

  37. As I thought, Roger. You profound statement: “how would you cope with a 40 to 60 percent downturn?”

    Definitely out of thin air.

    You are not even quoting yourself as an “authority” on that one!

    Like

  38. If you you think that that guy in the paper hat on your last link is an authority and what you rely on well its just somewhat pathetic on your part.

    “That guy” is a science teacher who has created a very popular series of videos to examine the issue of global warming.
    His efforts to popularise and explain AGW have been very successful.
    If you don’t like him then…well…opinions vary.
    😉

    Do I think he is an authority?
    No.
    It’s stupid of you to imply that I do.

    I think NASA is an authority.
    The AGU is an authority.
    The British Antarctic Survey is an authority.
    In fact, I think ALL the scientific communities on the planet dealing with any of the Earth sciences are good authorities.
    All of those communities agree with “that guy” because “that guy” gets his information from the scientists.
    Deal with it.

    I have examined the available evidence and followed the reasoning with my own mind…

    Well, to be blunt, it’s your mind that worries me.

    In all honesty, you sound erratic and unstable.
    You seem incapable of having a coherent, focused converation. You are just ramble on and throw around disjointed Denialist talking points.
    In fact, you sound so bad and so clueless that you sound very similar to a Creationist or an anti-vacc denier.
    Every time I address a point you make, you either blindy ignore my comments and mindlessly repeat yourself or you just abandon the point and move on to another unrelated talking point.
    It makes you sound unstable and unable to focus.
    What you are doing is a Gish Gallop spread over several postings.
    (Seriously, it’s uncanny how your comments mirror Creationists.)

    …and sought for scientific proof which is lacking.

    Here’s a perfect example of what I mean about your erratic behaviour.
    Scientists don’t deal in proof.
    They deal in evidence.
    I told you this in my previous comment.
    I told you this in plain English.

    Why does this not compute with you?

    If you want an analysis on the relationship of climate with CO2 well it is in my blog.

    Thanks but no thanks.
    If I want to know anything about science then I go ask the experts.
    NASA? Hello?

    …and if you go to my blog…

    No. I don’t give a damn about your worthless blog. I’m not going to increase your site traffic just to stroke your own ego. Go masturbate somewhere else.

    Andrew said it very well with…

    Roger I’m finding you a bit of a link whoring trolling bore with little substance behind your views.

    Now we go on to yet another example of your erratic nature. By magic a new Denialist talking point pops up out of nowhere.

    Now why are the “scientists” from Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia discussing…

    Still continuing the Gish Gallop, I see.
    Bouncing randomly from one talking point to another hoping that something or anything will stick?
    That’s very sad.

    It doesn’t matter what they were “discussing”.
    Nobody gives a damn what they were “discussing”.
    They can “discuss” and “rant” and indulge in “idle chit-chat” about anything they want on their own personal emails that were stolen.

    The real trick is to identify a scientific research paper that was debunked by the stolen CRU emails.
    Be specific.
    Actually name one.

    Before you answer, you should do yourself a favour and get informed first.
    See here and ….here.

    …one thing you do have is “Faith”.

    Faith is not the same as reason.
    They operate differently.
    (shrug)

    Like

  39. Well Cedric,

    You are not much of a scientist if the best excuse not to look at the evidence is that you don’t want to increase the traffic on my blog.

    All the readers of these comments will recognise that you are refusing to confront some uncomfortable truths.

    I think I have discussed things with you reasonably supported by evidence and facts which you refuse to even consider.

    In return you have not returned with any evidence whatsoever which supports the relationship of CO2 with global warming. (This does not actually surprise me because there is none.)

    So I will now leave you to your faith in the IPCC and their “scientists”.

    I could point you to some very authoritive critics of Mann, his results and his methods but that would further threaten your faith.

    It is true that faith is not the same as reason, but you are definitely exhibiting faith without reason.

    I think it would be in your interest to get your moderator to delete these comments because with your attitude and ignorance you are doing your cause more harm than good.

    Ken
    As for my assertions about 40-60% downturn in order to meet IPCC emission targets, I take that on my own authority as an economist.
    If you were receptive I would be quite happy to lead you through the reasoning that leads me to that hypothesis, but I feel that would be pointless.
    However that is a subject for another page on my blog.
    http:\\www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    I wont be commenting again.

    Cheers

    Like

  40. You are not much of a scientist…

    When exactly did I claim to be a scientist?
    Are you on drugs or something?

    …if the best excuse not to look at the evidence is that you don’t want to increase the traffic on my blog.

    If I want scientific evidence, then why would I go to some no-name blog run by a tool?
    I don’t bottom feed.
    I am perfectly content to get my science from actual science sources.
    NASA? Hello?

    All the readers of these comments will recognise that you are refusing to confront…

    I love to confront.
    You are living proof.
    🙂

    I think I have discussed…

    Don’t strain yourself by patting yourself on the back too much.

    In return you have not returned with any evidence whatsoever which supports the relationship of CO2 with global warming.

    We’ve covered this already.
    Why do you feel this irrational need to repeat yourself and just ignore other people’s answers?
    (Maybe it makes you feel good but to the rest of us it just comes across as being…wierd.)

    It’s not my responsiblity to present evidence for anything.
    I’m just some anonymous guy on the Internet.
    Nobody cares what evidence I have or don’t have . That’s not how sane, reasonable, educated people get their science information.

    If you want to understand CO2 and global warming then…ask the scientific community. Go straight to the top. Accept no substitutes.
    NASA? Hello?

    So I will now leave you to your faith in the IPCC and their “scientists”.

    Once again you bring up this “faith” trope.
    It doesn’t work.
    Nobody needs to have “faith” to accept the findings of the IPCC. The global scientific community is not some mysterious cult.
    (Hint: Putting scare-quotes around the word “scientists” is just a little bit retarded.)

    I could point you to some very authoritive critics of Mann, his results and his methods but that would further threaten your faith.

    I don’t give a rat’s ass about Mann.
    I never once mentioned him.
    This is not about any individual scientist or small group of scientists or any single research paper or any single scientific community.

    It’s much, much, much, MUCH bigger than that.
    It covers the entire globe and crosses multiple, independent lines of evidence and involves all of the Earth Sciences.
    Every single last one.
    No exceptions.
    All of the scientific communities on the planet (ALL OF THEM) are on board with global warming.
    They have a mountain range of peer-reviewed scientific literature carefully documenting active, original research going back decades that backs them up.

    You, on the other hand, have bugger all.
    All you have is the Denialosphere and a few commenters on FoxNews.

    …but you are definitely exhibiting faith without reason.

    The “faith” thing again, yeah?
    Hmm.
    Imagine how effective your assessment would be if only you could back it up with evidence instead of just waving your hands and bleating.

    I think it would be…

    Nobody cares that much what you think.
    Get a life.
    Hope that helps.
    Kthxbai.
    🙂

    Like

  41. (Apologies if this is a double post)

    You are not much of a scientist…

    When exactly did I claim to be a scientist?
    Are you on drugs or something?

    …if the best excuse not to look at the evidence is that you don’t want to increase the traffic on my blog.

    If I want scientific evidence, then why would I go to some no-name blog run by a tool?
    I don’t bottom feed.
    I am perfectly content to get my science from actual science sources.
    NASA? Hello?

    All the readers of these comments will recognise that you are refusing to confront…

    I love to confront.
    You are living proof.
    🙂

    I think I have discussed…

    Don’t strain yourself by patting yourself on the back too much.

    In return you have not returned with any evidence whatsoever which supports the relationship of CO2 with global warming.

    We’ve covered this already.
    Why do you feel this irrational need to repeat yourself and just ignore other people’s answers?
    (Maybe it makes you feel good but to the rest of us it just comes across as being…wierd.)

    It’s not my responsiblity to present evidence for anything.
    I’m just some anonymous guy on the Internet.
    Nobody cares what evidence I have or don’t have . That’s not how sane, reasonable, educated people get their science information.

    If you want to understand CO2 and global warming then…ask the scientific community. Go straight to the top. Accept no substitutes.
    NASA? Hello?

    So I will now leave you to your faith in the IPCC and their “scientists”.

    Once again you bring up this “faith” trope.
    It doesn’t work.
    Nobody needs to have “faith” to accept the findings of the IPCC. The global scientific community is not some mysterious cult.
    (Hint: Putting scare-quotes around the word “scientists” is just a little bit retarded.)

    I could point you to some very authoritive critics of Mann, his results and his methods but that would further threaten your faith.

    I don’t give a rat’s ass about Mann.
    I never once mentioned him.
    This is not about any individual scientist or small group of scientists or any single research paper or any single scientific community.

    It’s much, much, much, MUCH bigger than that.
    It covers the entire globe and crosses multiple, independent lines of evidence and involves all of the Earth Sciences.
    Every single last one.
    No exceptions.
    All of the scientific communities on the planet (ALL OF THEM) are on board with global warming.
    They have a mountain range of peer-reviewed scientific literature carefully documenting active, original research going back decades that backs them up.

    You, on the other hand, have bugger all.
    All you have is the Denialosphere and a few commenters on FoxNews.

    …but you are definitely exhibiting faith without reason.

    The “faith” thing again, yeah?
    Hmm.
    Imagine how effective your assessment would be if only you could back it up with evidence instead of just waving your hands and bleating.

    I think it would be…

    Nobody cares that much what you think.
    Get a life.
    Hope that helps.
    Kthxbai.
    🙂

    Like

  42. Roger, you have been quick to demy well known chemicall, physical and climate science facts. You have childishly poured if we have not provided references. And you ask us to take a wild alarmist economic projection on your own authority!

    Well, tough- you don’t convince me. I think you are all
    piss & wind on this subject.

    However, you are welcome to present an argued case for your alarmist statement. I’ll catch up with it once it’s posted.

    Don’t forget- if you put a sitemeter on your blog and I can include it in my surveys this will provide a link which could provide extra traffic.

    Like

  43. Pingback: Monckton requires religious certification for scientists? « Open Parachute

  44. “Well, tough- you don’t convince me. I think you are all
    piss & wind on this subject”

    He says that and he didn’t even make an attempt to provide references or a reasonable discussion of any points raised in my blog.

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    Like

  45. He says that and he didn’t even make an attempt to provide references or a reasonable discussion of any points raised in my blog.

    Aw, diddums.
    🙂
    Roger, nobody gives a rat’s arse about your crappy blog.
    We all understand that you want to increase your site traffic.
    When educated people want to find out about science they go straight to science sources.
    No-name blogs don’t cut it.

    Like

  46. Actually, Roger – I was the one who provided references and you moved on. Gish gallop I think it’s called.

    Some comments on your desire to drive traffic to your blog.

    1: The very least effective way to do this is to put opportunist comments on others blogs, providing a link to your blog and obviously just touting for business. It’s a turnoff.

    2: If you register at other blogs the link to your blog will be in your name – no need to keep repeating it so obviously and aggresively.

    3: Traffic builds up if you do the hard work. This means regular postings (I recommend a plan of about 3/week. (I notice you actually have only 1 post – that’s not going to get you anywhere – it doesn’t look credible). Regularly commenting on other blogs – in a non-opportunist salesman way. And writing posts of value that other people will appreciate.

    4: Persistent reliable work like this – producing your own content and participating in blogging communities – gets you noticed. Slowly your traffic will build up.

    If you look at the sitemeter stats for the NZ blogs I have found (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r7QHzRhQHjUaGUuXLMDAkyw&single=true&gid=2&output=html) you can get an idea of what stats one could hope for. My stats are not out of the ordinary – for someone posting regularly for over 2 and half years.

    Like

  47. I notice you actually have only 1 post – that’s not going to get you anywhere – it doesn’t look credible.

    One post?
    He’s flapping his arms and singing his own praises for the sake of one (1) post?

    Oops.
    (chuckle)

    Like

  48. Roger if you spend some time coming to grips with what science is then that may be time well spent.
    To expect that education to come to you by blogging is not realistic.
    You have raised a question about economy reduction. Do you mean the present economy which is a large part of the problem or an alternative economy. How flexible is your stance and what is it you hold so dearly to drive you down the path you appear to be heading.
    Global warming is only a part of the problems presenting with human activity. Remove that from the argument ( if that were possible ) or just deny it and then look at the other resource and population problems. Deny those if that seems difficult and watch inevitable developments happen anyway.
    Nothing is definite and you appear to want things all laid out.
    Your ideas on what changes in the economy may help with future sustainability and dwindling resources, may be interesting as it is your area of stated expertise.
    I will read with interest.

    Like

  49. rogerthesurf

    Woody,

    I have never denied that the planet has problems, I have just pointed out that “global warming” is not one of them.
    It is of some concern to me that the AGW panic will only serve to divert resources away from the real problems we have on earth today.

    Cheers

    Roger

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s