Looks like the local climate change deniers/sceptics/contrarians have painted themselves into a corner. Their bluff has been called and any honest person would now acknowledge their error, apologise and move on.
This all started with the local “Climate Science Coalition” and their blog site “Climate Conversation Group” releasing a report, “Are we getting warmer yet?” last year to coincide with all the media hype over “climategate”. This report was shoddy – the author Richard Treadgold first denied any scientific input or review and then claimed he had a team of scientists who “wished to remain anonymous.” One of the Coalition’s members, Vincent Gray, acknowledged reviewing the document but admitted that he had missed the basic error in the report – the claim that no adjustments were required for site and other changes.
The report basically took a figure used by NIWA showing temperature changes in New Zealand based on records from seven different sites. It claimed that the adjustments used in combining the data were unjustfied – even intentionally false. For example the “paper” claimed that scientists “created a warming effect where none existed.” That “the shocking truth is that the oldest readings were cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming.” And “we have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emission of CO2 – it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.”
As I said in New Zealand’s denier-gate: “strong claims indeed. And damaging, even slanderous, ones.”
Because of the public interest in climate data, the NIWA Board and the Minister of Research, Science & Technology, Dr Wayne Mapp, asked that a full review of each of the seven sites be undertaken by NIWA.
Now NIWA reports “That review has been completed, independently peer reviewed, and the report released today represents the results of that work.” (see 7 station series review).
It’s just what I expected – some differences in details because of subjective elements in determining adjustments but no change in overall pattern or conclusions.
As NIWA says:
“The key result of the re-analysis is that the New Zealand-wide warming trend from the seven-station series is almost the same in the 2010 revised series as in the previous series. That is, the previous NIWA result is robust. In terms of the detail for individual sites, the 100-year trend has increased at some sites, and decreased at others, but it is still within the margin of error, and confirms the temperature rise of about 0.9 degrees over the last 100 years.”
And their comments on the need to adjust the raw data:
“Long time series of climate data often have artificial discontinuities – caused, for example, by station relocations, changes in instrumentation, or changes in observing practice – which can distort, or even hide, the true climatic signal. Therefore, all climatic studies and data sets should be based on homogeneity-adjusted data.
That is what NIWA climatologists have done in the seven station series, and the seven individual station review documents outline the adjustments.
The raw (original) climate station data have not been changed and are freely available on the NIWA climate database, which means that the NIWA seven station series can be easily reproduced.”
NIWA describes how their report was prepared and reviewed:
“The documents were written by highly qualified NIWA scientists, internally reviewed by other similarly qualified NIWA scientists, and the revised documents were then externally reviewed by Australian Bureau of Meteorology scientists. The external review examined the ideas, methods, and conclusions for scientific accuracy, clarity, and logic.
The NIWA authors then addressed the comments made by the reviewers at the Bureau of Meteorology, and the subsequently revised documents have now been published on the NIWA website.”
So come on Richard Treadgold, the “Climate Science Coalition” and the “Climate Conversation Group.” Where is your apology for the slander in your report?
And what about withdrawing that shoddy report (really just a press release) and admitting your “errors?”
Careful what you ask for. Someone might call your bluff and make you live to regret the request.
Now all they need to do is produce scientific evidence linking man’s minuscule CO2 emissions with the temperature rise, and a computer model that accurately predicts future temperature to prove that their forcings are correct. To date the IPCC has failed to produce either, in effect they have no evidence whatsoever. After years of scanning the skies for the tell-tale hot spot the greenhouse signature is still missing, and the Earth hasn’t warmed since 2001. There are no observations that show that CO2 causes significant warming at its current levels.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I always thought science was based on observable evidence backed up by replicable experiments, not religious cult faith in a baseless hypothesis.
So, you are attempting to divert attention away from the lies the local denier groups are telling about the NIWA report? And doing so by making unsubstantiated assertions?
I’m not trying to do anything except show that the hypothesis for AGW is groundless. If you think my assertions are unsubstantiated, prove me wrong – where’s the proven CO2/anthropogenic link, the accurate computer model, the missing predicted greenhouse signature, the warming, & the CO2/warming observations?
It would seem that until the above are established the only unsubstantiated assertions made are by those who promote AGW. Ask NIWA or the IPCC and see if they can produce them for you.
Come on Ken, where’s your proof, or have you painted yourself into a corner?
But why do it here? This post is specifically about the attempt by local deniers to divert attention away from the fact they have painted themselves into a corner by telling lies about the NIWA report. You don’t refer to anything in that post at all.
Oh dear
shock horror
An anonymous guy on the internet has just destroyed the world wide scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming.
They’ve all been lying to you folks, all those evil scientists.
Thank FSM for Fox News, where would we be without them!
Ken AGC ‘s avatar thingy has only one eye.
I kid you not, I’ve often thought those things are eerily accurate, do you choose them?, it’s hard to believe that they are randomly assigned.
You have seen through the lies and deception.
You know there’s no evidence.
Those tricksy scientists at NASA can’t fool you.
I’m not trying to do anything except show that the hypothesis for AGW is groundless. If you think my assertions are unsubstantiated, prove me wrong…
and later…
Maybe I’m wrong, but I always thought science was based on observable evidence backed up by replicable experiments…
Spot the disconnect here.
“I’m not trying to do anything except show that the hypothesis for Evolution is groundless. If you think my assertions are unsubstantiated, prove me wrong…”
‘Cause that’s how science is done.
“I’m not trying to do anything except show that the hypothesis for vaccines is groundless. If you think my assertions are unsubstantiated, prove me wrong…”
‘Cause that’s how science is done.
Wow.
I guess the only question we all have is when do you think you’ll be claiming your Nobel Prize?
Still no evidence? Consensus isn’t evidence, it’s usually used as justification in the absence of evidence. Where’s this robust, overwhelming evidence, surely it must exist?
I’d like to believe like all of you but I need evidence, prove it to me. Getting defensive or hostile proves nothing, where’s the proof?
Where’s the peer-reviewed paper on the isotope ratios?
The one I really want to see is the tell-tale hot spot of the greenhouse signature. After all, that’s what the IPCC stated was definitive proof of AGW. Where is it?
I think I’ll just have to stick to my view that there is no evidence, & that those who believe do so purely on faith as it’s all they have. Evidence is never offered up when asked for – a definitive conclusion to a scientific experiment that is replicable and robust. Try it yourselves.
AGC try Figure 2.3 (p 138) in the IPCC 2007 report vol 1. WG1. or Andres et al (2000) “CO2 emissions from fossil fuel and cement manufacture and an estimation of their isotopic composition and latitudinal distribution” in The Carbon Cycle, eds Wigley and Schnidt, Cambridge Uni Press op 53 – 62.
Or Keeling et al (2005) “Monthly atmospheric 13C:12C isotope ratios for 10 SIO stations” in Trends. A Comorndium of data on global change, Oak Ridge Rnergy National Lab
Now please report back to us on your impressions of these peer revised studies.
Consensus isn’t evidence, it’s usually used as justification in the absence of evidence.
This is a boiler-plate comment taken from creationist talking points.
Where’s this robust, overwhelming evidence, surely it must exist?
Where would you expect to find it, dummy? In the comments section of a blog?
Talk about willing to go that extra mile in search of the truth.
There’s just no stopping you.
Fail.
I’d like to believe like all of you but I need evidence…
And so you’ve decided to spare no effort and go to a blog.
(…insert slow handclap here…)
Your family must be so proud of you.
…prove it to me.
More creationist talking points. Science does not deal in “proof”.
Well Cedric, if you can point me to the following I’d be grateful…
Have you tried the scientific literature, oh-slow-witted one?
This is not hard to figure out.
What sort of intellectual deficit do you have to have to ask total strangers on the Internet to provide you with an education?
Fail.
The one I really want to see…
If you “really want to see” then you’ve already looked, right?
Ok, where have you looked?
(…awkward silence…)
I think I’ll just have to stick to my view…
Wow, that was fast. One moment, you really want to see something and then the next, you are content to go back to your ignorance.
…& that those who believe do so purely on faith…
Don’t confuse your ignorace with evidence.
Evidence is never offered up when asked for …
The same is true for money or good sex.
In real life, you are expected to do a little leg-work yourself to get the good stuff.
You want an education?
Work for it.
Apart from begging strangers on the Internet, what have you done?
After reading the IPCC report there is much talk of radiative forcing, anthropogenic CO2 output, but no definitive proof of a link between the two. A link might seem obvious until you consider that the forcings are proven wrong by the continued failure of the computer models, which leaves the suggested forcings as nothing more than erroneous, educated speculation.
I’m aware of what the IPCC says, but they fail to back it up practically when put to the test. The question was, were is the evidence linking man’s CO2 output to the temperature rise. RF’s that fail in computer models are disproven & not evidence, and the fact that both CO2 and temperature are rising simultaneously means nothing without a proven link. To prove the link you’ll need a correct computer model, but unfortunately (for you) they all fail.
After reading the IPCC report there is much talk of radiative forcing, anthropogenic CO2 output, but no definitive proof of a link between the two.
Science does not deal in proof. This is a common creationist talking point mistake. If you actually knew anything about science, you’d know that.
…by the continued failure of the computer models…
What? All of them?
Which specific computer models have you found wanting?
Or are you just waving your hands in the air, parroting a meme that you picked up on the Internet?
Which specific models do you object to and why?
Name some names.
You are in denial aren’t you?
He can’t hear you above the noise of his hands flapping around in the air.
The thing that you’re both missing is that the IPCC predicted there would be certain results of AGW that would verify it’s existence, namely the atmospheric hot spot and the climate model predictions.
To date they’ve failed on all fronts, and as a result has disproved their theory.
Ken – CO2 isotope ratios: As I said, if they fail to correspond to reality they’re wrong. Isotope ratios whose exaggerated forcings cause computer models to fail are not evidence.
Cedric – The models in the propaganda movie you’ve provided conveniently stop about the time the warming stopped. You only need one accurate model, surely there must be one. Show me one that predicted the failure of the planet to warm. Of all the models, Hansen’s are the most inaccurate.
The funniest thing about the whole AGW thing is that those who adhere to it accuse those who don’t of being ‘deniers’, but the reality is the opposite appears to be true. The more you cling to the denial of the FACT that there is no evidence, especially of the kind predicted by the IPCC such as the hot spot, the more you paint yourself into a corner. WHERE is your evidence, do you have any?
Of all the models, Hansen’s are the most inaccurate.
Which one’s are those?
What’s wrong with the others?
(…awkward silence…)
You have no idea what you are talking about.
You are a wind-up toy who has been told to mention “models” like some mantra.
It’s not a magic word, really.
Repeating it won’t make something special happen.
Wattsupmybutt has wound you up with this meme and set you loose to make an idiot of yourself.
They rest easy knowing you will never read any scientific literature yourself without them pre-digesting it for you.
Dullards like you keep them in business.
the continued failure of the computer models…
What? All of them?
Which specific computer models have you found wanting?
Helloooooo?
Evidence and peer reviewed literature for current consensus is all well referenced in AR4 and supporting documents.
Not that you will ever bother to read it, you’ve already written off the citations using the moronic ” consensus isn’t evidence” retort.
All of which says more about you than you have the smarts to realise.
Think about it and stop being an embarrassment to your family.
(You show your comments to your friends and family, don’t you? I always do. Whenever a cretin like you plays science denial on the Internet, it’s just nuts to me. Fun for the whole family.)
So, you don’t like those “models”, right?
(AGL nods his head vigourously. He know dat part well.)
Ok.
What models?
(AGL confused. Hed hurt. What does the bad man mean by “what models”? The climate models, of cour…)
No, AGL.
Think.
Focus.
What specific climate models do you object to and why?
Name them. Name the actual names of the specific climate models you object to…and tell us how the models are flawed.
(…AGL furrows his brow. They didn’t teach him this part of the mantra…)
The models, AGL. The models.
Which ones?
There’s more than one, really. Also they have names. Honest.
… and the climate model predictions.
Which ones dummy?
…the continued failure of the computer models…
What? All of them?
Which specific computer models have you found wanting?
Helloooooo?
Perhaps you should take a little time to ask yourself the question – if I can’t find any evidence, does any exist?
I can save you some time though, if you’d like. The answer to that question is no, especially regarding the IPCC’s definitive atmospheric hot spot.
Having established the answer to the first question, logic dictates the next question should be – if no evidence exists to justify the theory of AGW, why do you adhere to it?
Cedric – calling people names is still not evidence. Come on Cedric, where is your proof? You can convert me to your belief if you simply supply some evidence, surely it must exist? Surely you have grounds for your belief in AGW? Hmmm? Take your time, no rush.
(…The record’s stuck, the record’s stuck, the record’s stuck, the record’s stuck…)
Science does not deal in “proof”. This is a common creationist talking point mistake. If you actually knew anything about science, you’d understand that.
You can convert me to your belief if you simply supply some evidence, surely it must exist?
Denialist talking point.
Religion is not science and science is not religion.
Science is not about “belief” or “conversion” or even “faith”.
They operate differently.
Since the ideas proposed by deniers do not meet rigorous scientific standards, they cannot hope to compete against the mainstream theories. They cannot raise the level of their beliefs up to the standards of mainstream science; therefore they attempt to lower the status of the denied science down to the level of religious faith, characterizing scientific consensus as scientific dogma . As one HIV denier quoted in Maggiore’s book remarked,
“There is classical science, the way it’s supposed to work, and then there’s religion. I regained my sanity when I realized that AIDS science was a religious discourse. The one thing I will go to my grave not understanding is why everyone was so quick to accept everything the government said as truth. Especially the central myth: the cause of AIDS is known.”
Others suggest that the entire spectrum of modern medicine is a religion.
Deniers also paint themselves as skeptics working to break down a misguided and deeply rooted belief. They argue that when mainstream scientists speak out against the scientific “orthodoxy,” they are persecuted and dismissed. For example, HIV deniers make much of the demise of Peter Duesberg’s career, claiming that when he began speaking out against HIV as the cause of AIDS, he was “ignored and discredited” because of his dissidence . South African President Mbeki went even further, stating: “In an earlier period in human history, these [dissidents] would be heretics that would be burnt at the stake!” HIV Denial in the Internet Era
So about those models…
What specific climate models do you object to and why?
Name them. Name the actual names of the specific climate models you object to…and tell us how the models are flawed.
This is not a trick question.
You are stumped by it because you don’t do much thinking by yourself.
Go ahead and look ’em up.
Which ones specifically do you object to and why?
(…pained silence…)
The models.
Which ones?
There’s more than one, really. Also they have names. Honest.
… and the climate model predictions…
Which ones dummy?
…the continued failure of the computer models…
What? All of them?
Which specific computer models have you found wanting?
Helloooooo?
You brought up “the models” talking point.
Yet you don’t know what you mean yourself when you talk about “the models”.
Dumb.
Rather childish of John to continue to claim no evidence, isn’t it?
It’s all he has to cling to. He doesn’t know anything about isotope rates either.
Behold your typical climate denier.
Modern climatology, tremble in fear.
😉
Cedric – All of the models, yes all of them, every single one of them from all quarters without exception, have failed to predict the end of warming from 2001/02 until the present. If you find one that does then it’s been scientifically adjusted after the fact & should state so. Like I said before, if you disagree then prove it.
Ken – The isotope ratios, although they exist in the IPCC report, are incorrect as evidenced by the observable facts of the failed computer models. The models failed as a result of their exaggerated CO2 forcings. It is not evidence, but a failed educated guess.
I’ve given the answers to both of these questions previously, but you both choose to ignore the inconvenient truth rather than face reality. Personal attacks & asking me to produce evidence are NOT evidence of AGW.
Time’s up guys, I won’t be asking you for evidence any longer. The fact that neither of you can front up with the evidence that the IPCC insisted would surely exist as a result of AGW proves to me that you can’t find it. This is not at all surprising as the IPCC have failed just as badly.
There is no proof, it doesn’t exist, & nothing anyone does or says changes this scientific fact. None of this is my fault so if you want someone or something to blame look to the IPCC, or more importantly, the hypothesis itself. Abusing people is no substitute for plugging the gaping holes in the flawed hypothesis, all it does is smack of desperation. The only thing that will plug the holes is evidence, evidence that the IPCC stated should exist – it’s not my fault it can’t be found.
‘Most people are surprised to hear that no one has uncovered any empirical real-world evidence that humans are causing dangerous global warming. Finding this evidence is crucial, since scientific issues are resolved by observations that support a theory or hypothesis. They are not resolved by ballot.’ – Climate scientist Chris de Freitas.
John – you specifically asked for evidence of human inputs to atmospheric CO2 – I provided it. You avoided, asking for references. I provided them.
You are a fool to say “The isotope ratios, although they exist in the IPCC report, are incorrect” – you deny facts because you don’t like them! No-one of any intelligence in this area agrees with you on this.
Facts are facts no matter how firmly you stick your fingers in your ears.
In terms of trends – you are also a fool to think that any statistically significant trend can be shown in 8 or 9 years. Although of course you ignore the fact that there is statistically significant evidence of record high annual temperatures in this time.
You are a blustering fool. Just making aggressive unsupported statements doesn’t achieve anything. No-one takes such fools seriously – go ahead and talk to the government (you know they think your ACT friends are idiots on this subject).
A silly little man, with extremist friends, yelling out that climate change is a hoax. No data, no evidence, no sense, no qualifications. Of course people will laugh at you – as they do at de Freitas.
Cedric – All of the models, yes all of them, every single one of them from all quarters without exception, have failed to predict the end of warming from 2001/02 until the present.
What are you talking about?
Which models tried to do this?
Or are you “doing a Palin”?
Like I said before, if you disagree then prove it.
Science does not deal in “proof”. This is a creationist talking point.
What is your problem?
Why can’t you understand this?
Personal attacks & asking me to produce evidence are NOT evidence of AGW.
Strawman.
Ignore the voices in your head and focus on what real people are trying to tell you.
You are making a claim.
It’s not up to us to “prove you wrong”.
If YOU make a claim then the onus is on YOU to back up your claim.
YOU are the one responsible to do YOUR own legwork.
There is no proof, it doesn’t exist, & nothing anyone does or says changes this scientific fact.
Are you talking about global warming or are you now talking about Evolution?
Your ignorance is not evidence.
You get your science from newspapers.
Bad idea.
(No, scratch that. It’s too generous)
Getting your science information is just pig-ignorant.
You have rocks in your head if you think that educated people get their science that way.
Stop being part of the problem.
John – you specifically asked for evidence of human inputs to atmospheric CO2 – I provided it. You avoided, asking for references. I provided them.
Is his name John?
Well, John…you come across as a loser.
Maybe in the real world you are a nice guy but here on the Internet…you are a loser.
Show this to your family.
Do it.
Maybe they are as dumb as you are and will be proud of you…or perhaps they will be embarrassed by your goings on.
Show them and find out for sure.
Sarah Palin can’t name one magazine or newspaper she read
Ken, you name AGC as “John” and imply that he might have an association with the ACT political party.
Not withstanding any internet blog etiquette I urge fully publishing his name should you happen to know it.
I appreciate your point Richard. It is annoying how certain trolls hide behind aliases. We have had at least one person here who actually used a real person’s name and was caught out because somebody took him seriously and sent a private email.
That troll was also a climate change denier and it seems to be really common amongst that breed.
However, people can be easy to track down and in John’s case I am aware he has used his actual name commenting elsewhere. And yes his internet record shows he certainly fits into the ACT crowd and the extreme right wing political sphere.
However, I would prefer if he took the initiative himself and gave up the pretense of AGW. After all if he uses his name elsewhere why not here? Or is he really ashamed of his lack of confidence in the silly assertions he makes here.
So come on John – give up the silly facade. Use you own name and stand behind the claims you are making. You have probably noticed that the people you are criticizing do not hide like that.
Why on Earth would you want to publish my name, when by using an alias it should be more than clear that I wish to remain anonymous? The reason I wish to remain anonymous is that I don’t trust those who promote AGW, & your threats to leak my name because you can’t produce proof of AGW prove that I am correct in believing so. Throughout my blogs I’ve remained civil except for using a certain discourteous comment by Cedric against him. I didn’t realise that asking for evidence of AGW was grounds for some form of revenge, what is wrong with you people? As I’ve said before, it’s not my fault the IPCC can’t stump up with the evidence, and shooting the messenger won’t remedy the situation.
John – why are you unafraid to use your own name amongst your ACT friends, for example, but don’t here?
I suggest that if you did you would actually pay more attention to the comments you make. It’s one thing to throw around stupid accusations when you are hiding. Another to stand behind your statements in an honourable way.
Come on – don’t you feel somehat of a coward? It’s not as if you face any danger.
I personally wonder if I should introduce a policy requiring names on comments. It’s very noticeable that trolls who simple snipe or make silly accusations as John does always hide behind an alias. By there nature they are not I interested in honest discussion. And it is simply childish to throw around cherry picked links like this without being prepared to discuss them.
And, John, you have not been civil here. Accusing people of not being able to support the science of climate change and declaring yourself victorious is simply childish. And is meant to be offensive.
So come on John. Be prepared to stand behind your claims.
John – why are you unafraid to use your own name amongst your ACT friends, for example, but don’t here?
I suggest that if you did you would actually pay more attention to the comments you make.
Readers might take the comments more seriously too.
Or they would if the comments contained anything of real substance over and above bluster and fabrications.
But that’s hardly the point, is it, John?
The tactic is guerrilla style ambush and spoil, to buzz around the internet like a blowfly, laying your eggs and then to disappear. There is always the chance that someone new to the debate, your targets, hasn’t the background or training and will fail recognize your tactic for the sham that it is.
The reason I wish to remain anonymous is that I don’t trust those who promote AGW…
NASA “promotes” AGW. So do you fear NASA?
(ooh, spooky NASA. The black helicopters are coming for you in the night)
(giggle)
How about the Royal Society? They “promote” AGW too.
The NAS, NOAA, the USGS, the AAAS, the CSIRO. NIWA, the AGU, The American Chemical Society, the American Physical society, the RMET etc ,etc , etc…
In fact, without any exceptions at all, every scientific community on the planet “promotes” AGW.
Every single one.
Count ’em.
Covering all the physical sciences.
All of them.
Think about that for a moment.
EVERY SINGLE SCIENCE COMMUNITY ON THE PLANET.
Yet you don’t trust them because…you subscribe to conspiracy theories you found on the Internet.
NASA lied to you about the moon-landings, so now they are lying to you about Global Warming, right?
Is that how you think?
Sad.
I’ve remained civil except for using a certain discourteous comment by Cedric against him.
Oh I’m a big boy.
Your “discourteous comment” is nothing to me.
Is says much more about your character than it does mine.
It’s all good.
Yet, even ignoring that part, you haven’t been civil here.
Far from it.
You are behaving as a classically boring troll.
It’s not about nasty names; it’s about you trashing science, being proud of your ignorance and trying to stir people up for no good reason.
I didn’t realise that asking for evidence of AGW…
You are NOT doing so and you have NO logical reason for doing so on a blog.
There is no proof, it doesn’t exist, & nothing anyone does or says changes this scientific fact.
See?
There you are.
You KNOW that there’s no “proof”.
You knew that before you started trolling here.
You KNOW that AGW doesn’t exist.
You knew that before you started trolling here.
NOTHING anybody does can change that for you.
You knew that before you started trolling here.
NOTHING anybody says can change your mind.
Shameful close-minded ignorance.
You are here to rehearse your preconceptions and reinforce your doubts.
You only pretend that you want to talk about science.
You are a fake.
I asked you about which models you were complaining about.
That’s a fairly sane and basic and reasonable starting point for a conversation on climate models.
Yet it completely freaked you out.
You were flabbergasted by it.
You weren’t prepared for it because you had no idea what to talk about with regards to climate models.
To you it’s just “the models”, it’s just a meme.
“The models” baaaaaaaaad.
Bleat, bleat.
“The models” baaaaaaaaad.
Bleat, bleat.
That’s what you have learned on the Internet and that is what you faithfully and mindlessly repeat.
Stupid.
Cedric – All of the models, yes all of them, every single one of them from all quarters without exception, have failed to predict the end of warming from 2001/02 until the present.
WHAT are you talking about?
WHICH models tried to do this?
My questions are real questions. They make sense. Your claims are just wierd. They are not grounded in reality.
Come on Cedric, where is your proof?
Come on Cedric, where is your proof?
Come on Cedric, where is your proof?
Come on Cedric, where is your proof?
Come on Cedric, where is your proof?
Does this sound like “civil” behaviour to you?
Really?
Are you proud of sounding like a broken record?
Focus.
Science does not deal in “proof”.
There is no “proof”.
Asking for “proof” is what creationists do because they don’t “get” how science is done.
How many times do I have to explain this?
What is your problem?
AGW is established science.
Has been now for at least forty years.
There is no “controversy”. There is no nail-biting “debate”.
Forget what you read in newspapers and blogs and in the comics section of magazines.
That’s a futile waste of your time and ours.
Focus on the scientific literature.
That’s the only thing that counts.
That’s how educated people do it.
Try and find any “controversy” there.
Good bloody luck with that.
The basic physics and chemistry of the Greenhouse Effect and global warming are well understood.
For you to come prancing in and demanding we ” prove” to you that AGW is real is as doltish as you demanding we “prove” to you that Evolution is real or that man really went to the Moon.
You come across as a total whack-job.
As I’ve said before, it’s not my fault the IPCC can’t stump up with the evidence….
You don’t really know anything about the IPCC.
This is just you doing your “models” thing again.
It’s a meme.
Short.
Easy to remember.
Leaves no bitter aftertaste.
The only reason why you mention the IPCC, is because that’s what you’ve been taught to say by others on the Internet.
…and shooting the messenger won’t remedy the situation.
You are not a “messenger”. You are a cheap Chinese doll with a pull-string.
Every time somebody pulls your string, you say…
IPCC baaaaaaad.
Models baaaaaaaad.
(…pulls string again…)
IPCC baaaaaaad.
Models baaaaaaaad.
(…pulls string again…)
IPCC baaaaaaad.
Models baaaaaaaad.
(…pulls string again…)
IPCC baaaaaaad.
Models baaaaaaaad.
Come on – don’t you feel somehat of a coward? It’s not as if you face any danger.
Well, that’s not quite true. What if we use subliminal UN mind-control techniques to brainwash him as he stares at his monitor? Then we could sell him to the Cuban mafia for a tidy sum and….
(Oops, darn it. Let the cat out of the bag. Foiled again.)
Well, so much for my sleuthing skills.
(sigh)
Would’ve been fun though.
There were some interesting links there.
Dare I ask, how interesting?
Better yet…
Hey John, what were the links you had on your facebook? Say ’em out loud and proud to your audience.
This could be good.
What are we talking about here?
Stormfront?
Prisonplanet?
TeaPartyExpress?
NAMBLA?
(Somehow I doubt you link to any science journals like Nature or reality-based web-sites like NASA.)
So I looked at ACT Facebook page where John likes to hang out.
I wanted to get the feel of the place.
As it turns out, I found a new chew-toy.
Sally O’BrienACT
Congratulations to ACT for expressing doubt on man made global warming. Are you all well versed on the issue that is perhaps the biggest threat to our prosperity and liberty? Try this test and see.
How else are you going to learn about good science if you don’t take “tests” created by anonymous people on the internet?
No, really.
Take the test.
It’s really…creative in a deceptive, selective and manipulative way.
It targets those who can’t be bothered to fact-check anything much at all.
Might make a good subject for an in-depth article.
HA, HA, HA!! LOL.You guys really do believe anything you’re told don’t you. What a pack of blundering imbeciles. Did you know that they’ve removed the word gullible from the english dictionary? HA, HA, HA!! Playing detective by randomly & incorrectly picking people from Google is still not evidence, and Ken’s pathetic actions show just how weak his grounds for believing in AGW really are. It seems he just couldn’t control his frustration of denial any longer.
As far as claiming victory goes, I’d say that Ken’s actions prove beyond all doubt his inability to justify himself. Ken, you’ve painted yourself into a corner beyond recovery, and the really funny thing is you did it as a direct result of your own actions by trying to play dirty – you should go back to researching dirt, it seems to be what you’re really good at. HA, HA, HA!!! Really, how idiotic can you get, what an egg. But the really funny thing is there’s still STILL no evidence, just a useless & failed attempt at personal attack.
Interestingly, I probably move in the same circles as Mr John Wakelin. I must ask around a bit more.
Completed similar university courses, i.e. performance in Classical Guitar at School of Music, University of Auckland , only I completed it 7 years, or thereabouts, earlier than him, and later moved away. We even had same teachers I imagine.
Heck, we probably appear as winners on the same cups – you have won CGSA competition cups, haven’t you John?
I’ll tell you one thing though, we don’t share the same disdain for science.
Completed similar university courses, i.e. performance in Classical Guitar at School of Music, University of Auckland , only I completed it 7 years, or thereabouts, earlier than him, and later moved away. We even had same teachers I imagine.
And now he’s reduced to laughing at strangers on the Internet in all-caps.
It’s a shame when good kids go bad.
randomly & incorrectly picking people from Google is still not evidence,
This is true. My comments relate only to the John Wakelin of the Facebook page, I’m quite sure of his background as given above. However the only thing lnking that page to AGC is Ken’s sleuthing. Nevertheless, I suspect privileges that are bundled in a blog ownership should it provide Ken with a few more tools than mere google searches.
Planification of World Depopulation: Reasons; know-how; know-why;
In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.
My comments relate only to the John Wakelin of the Facebook page…
Yep, mine too.
So, since clearly you are a totally different John altogether, you won’t have a problem with us having a quick peek at this cretin, right?
‘Cause you are a totally different cretin, right?
It won’t bother you at all, right?
Eeeeexcelllent, Smithers.
(…looks at link…)
It’s…so….pretty.
It’s like a big, fat pinata of stupid.
Filled with nutty goodness in a warm syrup of paranoia just begging to be hit with stick.
Oh, what flavoursome goodies lie within?
Why, hello there “Mr link to Prisonplanet”.
Fancy seeing you ’round here.
🙂
And there’s you old companions on the short bus…
Whatsupmybutt and Monckton’s blog (oh sorry, his “Institute”) and Minnesotansforglobalwarming.
Damn, I was right on the money. I amaze even me sometimes.
A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.
Oooo, yeah baby!
Drink that kool-aid.
The walls are closing in and the UN is out to getcha.
It’s all a conspiracy, man!
Ooh, spooky NASA. The black helicopters are coming for you in the night.
It’s comedy that writes itself.
In case you were sleepy, they ditched the term ‘Global Warming’ and now call it ‘Climate Change’ because as many of us now know, the un-altered data indicates a cooling trend.
Wow.
Adults actually believe this.
Functioning members of society swallow this fantasy wholesale without even the tiniest shadow of doubt. They don’t pick up a history book or go try and fact-check anything or ask themselves how such a thing could even be physically possible in the real world.
Conspiracies under the bed.
Looks like the local climate change deniers/sceptics/contrarians have painted themselves into a corner. Their bluff has been called and any honest person would now acknowledge their error, apologise and move on.
Open Parachute 
You should share this news on the David Mcloughlin’s blog: “Poneke”
LikeLike
Now all they need to do is produce scientific evidence linking man’s minuscule CO2 emissions with the temperature rise, and a computer model that accurately predicts future temperature to prove that their forcings are correct. To date the IPCC has failed to produce either, in effect they have no evidence whatsoever. After years of scanning the skies for the tell-tale hot spot the greenhouse signature is still missing, and the Earth hasn’t warmed since 2001. There are no observations that show that CO2 causes significant warming at its current levels.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I always thought science was based on observable evidence backed up by replicable experiments, not religious cult faith in a baseless hypothesis.
LikeLike
So, you are attempting to divert attention away from the lies the local denier groups are telling about the NIWA report? And doing so by making unsubstantiated assertions?
LikeLike
I’m not trying to do anything except show that the hypothesis for AGW is groundless. If you think my assertions are unsubstantiated, prove me wrong – where’s the proven CO2/anthropogenic link, the accurate computer model, the missing predicted greenhouse signature, the warming, & the CO2/warming observations?
It would seem that until the above are established the only unsubstantiated assertions made are by those who promote AGW. Ask NIWA or the IPCC and see if they can produce them for you.
Come on Ken, where’s your proof, or have you painted yourself into a corner?
LikeLike
But why do it here? This post is specifically about the attempt by local deniers to divert attention away from the fact they have painted themselves into a corner by telling lies about the NIWA report. You don’t refer to anything in that post at all.
If you really are interested in debating the points you raise I have plenty of othyer posts on this blog which are relevant.
I can only assume this post has put your nose out of joint and you wish to divert attention away from the issues it discusses.
LikeLike
Oh dear
shock horror
An anonymous guy on the internet has just destroyed the world wide scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming.
They’ve all been lying to you folks, all those evil scientists.
Thank FSM for Fox News, where would we be without them!
LikeLike
Still no evidence? I’ll tell you a little secret – it’s because there is none.
Some people are so gullible they’ll believe anything they’re told, they’re called suckers.
Take your time guys, I’ll still be waiting.
LikeLike
The arrogance of ignorance! “where’s the proven CO2/anthropogenic link” – try isotope ratios.
What about commenting on one of my posts where the evidence is discussed. Or don’t you have the balls, or information?
Or commenting on the content of this post here? Does it not worry you that your mates have been caught telling porkies?
LikeLike
Ken AGC ‘s avatar thingy has only one eye.
I kid you not, I’ve often thought those things are eerily accurate, do you choose them?, it’s hard to believe that they are randomly assigned.
LikeLike
Still no evidence? Now wonder you’re getting nasty.
LikeLike
Still no evidence?
Here’s the consensus, available to all, even to a zombie troll like you .
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1
LikeLike
You have seen through the lies and deception.
You know there’s no evidence.
Those tricksy scientists at NASA can’t fool you.
I’m not trying to do anything except show that the hypothesis for AGW is groundless. If you think my assertions are unsubstantiated, prove me wrong…
and later…
Maybe I’m wrong, but I always thought science was based on observable evidence backed up by replicable experiments…
Spot the disconnect here.
“I’m not trying to do anything except show that the hypothesis for Evolution is groundless. If you think my assertions are unsubstantiated, prove me wrong…”
‘Cause that’s how science is done.
“I’m not trying to do anything except show that the hypothesis for vaccines is groundless. If you think my assertions are unsubstantiated, prove me wrong…”
‘Cause that’s how science is done.
Wow.
I guess the only question we all have is when do you think you’ll be claiming your Nobel Prize?
All science, all the time.
LikeLike
AGC what is your comment on the isotope ratios of atmospheric CO2?
LikeLike
Still no evidence? Consensus isn’t evidence, it’s usually used as justification in the absence of evidence. Where’s this robust, overwhelming evidence, surely it must exist?
I’d like to believe like all of you but I need evidence, prove it to me. Getting defensive or hostile proves nothing, where’s the proof?
Where’s the peer-reviewed paper on the isotope ratios?
LikeLike
@Cedric
Well Cedric, if you can point me to the following I’d be grateful:
Scientific evidence linking man’s CO2 emissions with the temperature rise.
A computer model that accurately predicted future temperature.
The tell-tale hot spot of the greenhouse signature.
Observations that show that CO2 causes significant warming at its current levels.
Good luck.
LikeLike
OK APG:
1: Are you denying the evidence of isotope ratios shows human contribution to atmospheric CO2?
2: What will be your response when shown the papers references – acceptance or rejection?
LikeLike
Still no evidence, just more talk.
The one I really want to see is the tell-tale hot spot of the greenhouse signature. After all, that’s what the IPCC stated was definitive proof of AGW. Where is it?
I think I’ll just have to stick to my view that there is no evidence, & that those who believe do so purely on faith as it’s all they have. Evidence is never offered up when asked for – a definitive conclusion to a scientific experiment that is replicable and robust. Try it yourselves.
LikeLike
AGC try Figure 2.3 (p 138) in the IPCC 2007 report vol 1. WG1. or Andres et al (2000) “CO2 emissions from fossil fuel and cement manufacture and an estimation of their isotopic composition and latitudinal distribution” in The Carbon Cycle, eds Wigley and Schnidt, Cambridge Uni Press op 53 – 62.
Or Keeling et al (2005) “Monthly atmospheric 13C:12C isotope ratios for 10 SIO stations” in Trends. A Comorndium of data on global change, Oak Ridge Rnergy National Lab
Now please report back to us on your impressions of these peer revised studies.
LikeLike
Consensus isn’t evidence, it’s usually used as justification in the absence of evidence.
This is a boiler-plate comment taken from creationist talking points.
Where’s this robust, overwhelming evidence, surely it must exist?
Where would you expect to find it, dummy? In the comments section of a blog?
Talk about willing to go that extra mile in search of the truth.
There’s just no stopping you.
Fail.
I’d like to believe like all of you but I need evidence…
And so you’ve decided to spare no effort and go to a blog.
(…insert slow handclap here…)
Your family must be so proud of you.
…prove it to me.
More creationist talking points. Science does not deal in “proof”.
Well Cedric, if you can point me to the following I’d be grateful…
Have you tried the scientific literature, oh-slow-witted one?
This is not hard to figure out.
What sort of intellectual deficit do you have to have to ask total strangers on the Internet to provide you with an education?
Fail.
The one I really want to see…
If you “really want to see” then you’ve already looked, right?
Ok, where have you looked?
(…awkward silence…)
I think I’ll just have to stick to my view…
Wow, that was fast. One moment, you really want to see something and then the next, you are content to go back to your ignorance.
…& that those who believe do so purely on faith…
Don’t confuse your ignorace with evidence.
Evidence is never offered up when asked for …
The same is true for money or good sex.
In real life, you are expected to do a little leg-work yourself to get the good stuff.
You want an education?
Work for it.
Apart from begging strangers on the Internet, what have you done?
LikeLike
After reading the IPCC report there is much talk of radiative forcing, anthropogenic CO2 output, but no definitive proof of a link between the two. A link might seem obvious until you consider that the forcings are proven wrong by the continued failure of the computer models, which leaves the suggested forcings as nothing more than erroneous, educated speculation.
I’m aware of what the IPCC says, but they fail to back it up practically when put to the test. The question was, were is the evidence linking man’s CO2 output to the temperature rise. RF’s that fail in computer models are disproven & not evidence, and the fact that both CO2 and temperature are rising simultaneously means nothing without a proven link. To prove the link you’ll need a correct computer model, but unfortunately (for you) they all fail.
Don’t forget my other points. Good Luck.
LikeLike
AGC you asked for references on the isotope ratios. You have been given them. You are ignoring them.
You are in denial aren’t you?
LikeLike
After reading the IPCC report there is much talk of radiative forcing, anthropogenic CO2 output, but no definitive proof of a link between the two.
Science does not deal in proof. This is a common creationist talking point mistake. If you actually knew anything about science, you’d know that.
…by the continued failure of the computer models…
What? All of them?
Which specific computer models have you found wanting?
Or are you just waving your hands in the air, parroting a meme that you picked up on the Internet?
Which specific models do you object to and why?
Name some names.
You are in denial aren’t you?
He can’t hear you above the noise of his hands flapping around in the air.
This Year’s Model
LikeLike
The thing that you’re both missing is that the IPCC predicted there would be certain results of AGW that would verify it’s existence, namely the atmospheric hot spot and the climate model predictions.
To date they’ve failed on all fronts, and as a result has disproved their theory.
Ken – CO2 isotope ratios: As I said, if they fail to correspond to reality they’re wrong. Isotope ratios whose exaggerated forcings cause computer models to fail are not evidence.
Cedric – The models in the propaganda movie you’ve provided conveniently stop about the time the warming stopped. You only need one accurate model, surely there must be one. Show me one that predicted the failure of the planet to warm. Of all the models, Hansen’s are the most inaccurate.
The funniest thing about the whole AGW thing is that those who adhere to it accuse those who don’t of being ‘deniers’, but the reality is the opposite appears to be true. The more you cling to the denial of the FACT that there is no evidence, especially of the kind predicted by the IPCC such as the hot spot, the more you paint yourself into a corner. WHERE is your evidence, do you have any?
LikeLike
So AGC you are not interested in evidence or peer reviewed literature. You will stick by your prejudices whatever.
Who are you to declare that the measured isotope ratios “fail to correspond to reality.?”
LikeLike
… and the climate model predictions.
Which ones dummy?
Of all the models, Hansen’s are the most inaccurate.
Which one’s are those?
What’s wrong with the others?
(…awkward silence…)
You have no idea what you are talking about.
You are a wind-up toy who has been told to mention “models” like some mantra.
It’s not a magic word, really.
Repeating it won’t make something special happen.
Wattsupmybutt has wound you up with this meme and set you loose to make an idiot of yourself.
They rest easy knowing you will never read any scientific literature yourself without them pre-digesting it for you.
Dullards like you keep them in business.
the continued failure of the computer models…
What? All of them?
Which specific computer models have you found wanting?
Helloooooo?
LikeLike
You’ve got something up your butt Cedric, as well as no evidence?
LikeLike
Evidence and peer reviewed literature for current consensus is all well referenced in AR4 and supporting documents.
Not that you will ever bother to read it, you’ve already written off the citations using the moronic ” consensus isn’t evidence” retort.
All of which says more about you than you have the smarts to realise.
LikeLike
You have nothing except lame retorts.
I win.
🙂
Think about it and stop being an embarrassment to your family.
(You show your comments to your friends and family, don’t you? I always do. Whenever a cretin like you plays science denial on the Internet, it’s just nuts to me. Fun for the whole family.)
So, you don’t like those “models”, right?
(AGL nods his head vigourously. He know dat part well.)
Ok.
What models?
(AGL confused. Hed hurt. What does the bad man mean by “what models”? The climate models, of cour…)
No, AGL.
Think.
Focus.
What specific climate models do you object to and why?
Name them. Name the actual names of the specific climate models you object to…and tell us how the models are flawed.
(…AGL furrows his brow. They didn’t teach him this part of the mantra…)
The models, AGL. The models.
Which ones?
There’s more than one, really. Also they have names. Honest.
… and the climate model predictions.
Which ones dummy?
…the continued failure of the computer models…
What? All of them?
Which specific computer models have you found wanting?
Helloooooo?
LikeLike
Jeez guys, still no evidence?
Perhaps you should take a little time to ask yourself the question – if I can’t find any evidence, does any exist?
I can save you some time though, if you’d like. The answer to that question is no, especially regarding the IPCC’s definitive atmospheric hot spot.
Having established the answer to the first question, logic dictates the next question should be – if no evidence exists to justify the theory of AGW, why do you adhere to it?
Cedric – calling people names is still not evidence. Come on Cedric, where is your proof? You can convert me to your belief if you simply supply some evidence, surely it must exist? Surely you have grounds for your belief in AGW? Hmmm? Take your time, no rush.
LikeLike
I will just repeat a former comment of mine:
“AGC you asked for references on the isotope ratios. You have been given them. You are ignoring them.
You are in denial aren’t you?”
Rather childish of John to continue to claim no evidence, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Come on Cedric, where is your proof?
You are just repeating yourself.
(…The record’s stuck, the record’s stuck, the record’s stuck, the record’s stuck…)
Science does not deal in “proof”. This is a common creationist talking point mistake. If you actually knew anything about science, you’d understand that.
You can convert me to your belief if you simply supply some evidence, surely it must exist?
Denialist talking point.
Religion is not science and science is not religion.
Science is not about “belief” or “conversion” or even “faith”.
They operate differently.
Since the ideas proposed by deniers do not meet rigorous scientific standards, they cannot hope to compete against the mainstream theories. They cannot raise the level of their beliefs up to the standards of mainstream science; therefore they attempt to lower the status of the denied science down to the level of religious faith, characterizing scientific consensus as scientific dogma . As one HIV denier quoted in Maggiore’s book remarked,
“There is classical science, the way it’s supposed to work, and then there’s religion. I regained my sanity when I realized that AIDS science was a religious discourse. The one thing I will go to my grave not understanding is why everyone was so quick to accept everything the government said as truth. Especially the central myth: the cause of AIDS is known.”
Others suggest that the entire spectrum of modern medicine is a religion.
Deniers also paint themselves as skeptics working to break down a misguided and deeply rooted belief. They argue that when mainstream scientists speak out against the scientific “orthodoxy,” they are persecuted and dismissed. For example, HIV deniers make much of the demise of Peter Duesberg’s career, claiming that when he began speaking out against HIV as the cause of AIDS, he was “ignored and discredited” because of his dissidence . South African President Mbeki went even further, stating: “In an earlier period in human history, these [dissidents] would be heretics that would be burnt at the stake!”
HIV Denial in the Internet Era
So about those models…
What specific climate models do you object to and why?
Name them. Name the actual names of the specific climate models you object to…and tell us how the models are flawed.
This is not a trick question.
You are stumped by it because you don’t do much thinking by yourself.
Go ahead and look ’em up.
Which ones specifically do you object to and why?
(…pained silence…)
The models.
Which ones?
There’s more than one, really. Also they have names. Honest.
… and the climate model predictions…
Which ones dummy?
…the continued failure of the computer models…
What? All of them?
Which specific computer models have you found wanting?
Helloooooo?
You brought up “the models” talking point.
Yet you don’t know what you mean yourself when you talk about “the models”.
Dumb.
Rather childish of John to continue to claim no evidence, isn’t it?
It’s all he has to cling to. He doesn’t know anything about isotope rates either.
Behold your typical climate denier.
Modern climatology, tremble in fear.
😉
LikeLike
Cedric – All of the models, yes all of them, every single one of them from all quarters without exception, have failed to predict the end of warming from 2001/02 until the present. If you find one that does then it’s been scientifically adjusted after the fact & should state so. Like I said before, if you disagree then prove it.
Ken – The isotope ratios, although they exist in the IPCC report, are incorrect as evidenced by the observable facts of the failed computer models. The models failed as a result of their exaggerated CO2 forcings. It is not evidence, but a failed educated guess.
I’ve given the answers to both of these questions previously, but you both choose to ignore the inconvenient truth rather than face reality. Personal attacks & asking me to produce evidence are NOT evidence of AGW.
Time’s up guys, I won’t be asking you for evidence any longer. The fact that neither of you can front up with the evidence that the IPCC insisted would surely exist as a result of AGW proves to me that you can’t find it. This is not at all surprising as the IPCC have failed just as badly.
There is no proof, it doesn’t exist, & nothing anyone does or says changes this scientific fact. None of this is my fault so if you want someone or something to blame look to the IPCC, or more importantly, the hypothesis itself. Abusing people is no substitute for plugging the gaping holes in the flawed hypothesis, all it does is smack of desperation. The only thing that will plug the holes is evidence, evidence that the IPCC stated should exist – it’s not my fault it can’t be found.
LikeLike
‘Most people are surprised to hear that no one has uncovered any empirical real-world evidence that humans are causing dangerous global warming. Finding this evidence is crucial, since scientific issues are resolved by observations that support a theory or hypothesis. They are not resolved by ballot.’ – Climate scientist Chris de Freitas.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10697845
LikeLike
Chris de Freitas is one of the fewer than 2% of climate scientists who still dispute AGW, right?
Just so we know where you get your “science”.
LikeLike
2%? Now that’s funny:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/
If you can prove him wrong Richard go ahead.
LikeLike
John – you specifically asked for evidence of human inputs to atmospheric CO2 – I provided it. You avoided, asking for references. I provided them.
You are a fool to say “The isotope ratios, although they exist in the IPCC report, are incorrect” – you deny facts because you don’t like them! No-one of any intelligence in this area agrees with you on this.
Facts are facts no matter how firmly you stick your fingers in your ears.
In terms of trends – you are also a fool to think that any statistically significant trend can be shown in 8 or 9 years. Although of course you ignore the fact that there is statistically significant evidence of record high annual temperatures in this time.
You are a blustering fool. Just making aggressive unsupported statements doesn’t achieve anything. No-one takes such fools seriously – go ahead and talk to the government (you know they think your ACT friends are idiots on this subject).
A silly little man, with extremist friends, yelling out that climate change is a hoax. No data, no evidence, no sense, no qualifications. Of course people will laugh at you – as they do at de Freitas.
LikeLike
If you can prove him wrong Richard go ahead.
Naomi Orestes has already done so, and conclusively.
LikeLike
Cedric – All of the models, yes all of them, every single one of them from all quarters without exception, have failed to predict the end of warming from 2001/02 until the present.
What are you talking about?
Which models tried to do this?
Or are you “doing a Palin”?
Like I said before, if you disagree then prove it.
Science does not deal in “proof”. This is a creationist talking point.
What is your problem?
Why can’t you understand this?
Personal attacks & asking me to produce evidence are NOT evidence of AGW.
Strawman.
Ignore the voices in your head and focus on what real people are trying to tell you.
You are making a claim.
It’s not up to us to “prove you wrong”.
If YOU make a claim then the onus is on YOU to back up your claim.
YOU are the one responsible to do YOUR own legwork.
There is no proof, it doesn’t exist, & nothing anyone does or says changes this scientific fact.
Are you talking about global warming or are you now talking about Evolution?
Your ignorance is not evidence.
You get your science from newspapers.
Bad idea.
(No, scratch that. It’s too generous)
Getting your science information is just pig-ignorant.
You have rocks in your head if you think that educated people get their science that way.
Stop being part of the problem.
John – you specifically asked for evidence of human inputs to atmospheric CO2 – I provided it. You avoided, asking for references. I provided them.
Is his name John?
Well, John…you come across as a loser.
Maybe in the real world you are a nice guy but here on the Internet…you are a loser.
Show this to your family.
Do it.
Maybe they are as dumb as you are and will be proud of you…or perhaps they will be embarrassed by your goings on.
Show them and find out for sure.
Sarah Palin can’t name one magazine or newspaper she read
LikeLike
Ken, you name AGC as “John” and imply that he might have an association with the ACT political party.
Not withstanding any internet blog etiquette I urge fully publishing his name should you happen to know it.
LikeLike
I appreciate your point Richard. It is annoying how certain trolls hide behind aliases. We have had at least one person here who actually used a real person’s name and was caught out because somebody took him seriously and sent a private email.
That troll was also a climate change denier and it seems to be really common amongst that breed.
However, people can be easy to track down and in John’s case I am aware he has used his actual name commenting elsewhere. And yes his internet record shows he certainly fits into the ACT crowd and the extreme right wing political sphere.
However, I would prefer if he took the initiative himself and gave up the pretense of AGW. After all if he uses his name elsewhere why not here? Or is he really ashamed of his lack of confidence in the silly assertions he makes here.
So come on John – give up the silly facade. Use you own name and stand behind the claims you are making. You have probably noticed that the people you are criticizing do not hide like that.
LikeLike
(…does quick internet search…)
This is just a total and utter shot in the dark here but I’m going to say a word.
The word is “Lamington”.
Any takers?
LikeLike
Ken,
Why on Earth would you want to publish my name, when by using an alias it should be more than clear that I wish to remain anonymous? The reason I wish to remain anonymous is that I don’t trust those who promote AGW, & your threats to leak my name because you can’t produce proof of AGW prove that I am correct in believing so. Throughout my blogs I’ve remained civil except for using a certain discourteous comment by Cedric against him. I didn’t realise that asking for evidence of AGW was grounds for some form of revenge, what is wrong with you people? As I’ve said before, it’s not my fault the IPCC can’t stump up with the evidence, and shooting the messenger won’t remedy the situation.
LikeLike
John – why are you unafraid to use your own name amongst your ACT friends, for example, but don’t here?
I suggest that if you did you would actually pay more attention to the comments you make. It’s one thing to throw around stupid accusations when you are hiding. Another to stand behind your statements in an honourable way.
Come on – don’t you feel somehat of a coward? It’s not as if you face any danger.
I personally wonder if I should introduce a policy requiring names on comments. It’s very noticeable that trolls who simple snipe or make silly accusations as John does always hide behind an alias. By there nature they are not I interested in honest discussion. And it is simply childish to throw around cherry picked links like this without being prepared to discuss them.
And, John, you have not been civil here. Accusing people of not being able to support the science of climate change and declaring yourself victorious is simply childish. And is meant to be offensive.
So come on John. Be prepared to stand behind your claims.
Or should I just treat your comments as scam?
LikeLike
John – why are you unafraid to use your own name amongst your ACT friends, for example, but don’t here?
I suggest that if you did you would actually pay more attention to the comments you make.
Readers might take the comments more seriously too.
Or they would if the comments contained anything of real substance over and above bluster and fabrications.
But that’s hardly the point, is it, John?
The tactic is guerrilla style ambush and spoil, to buzz around the internet like a blowfly, laying your eggs and then to disappear. There is always the chance that someone new to the debate, your targets, hasn’t the background or training and will fail recognize your tactic for the sham that it is.
LikeLike
The word is “Lamington”.
Any takers?
I initially thought that too.
More than a casual association with ACT.
LikeLike
The reason I wish to remain anonymous is that I don’t trust those who promote AGW…
NASA “promotes” AGW. So do you fear NASA?
(ooh, spooky NASA. The black helicopters are coming for you in the night)
(giggle)
How about the Royal Society? They “promote” AGW too.
The NAS, NOAA, the USGS, the AAAS, the CSIRO. NIWA, the AGU, The American Chemical Society, the American Physical society, the RMET etc ,etc , etc…
In fact, without any exceptions at all, every scientific community on the planet “promotes” AGW.
Every single one.
Count ’em.
Covering all the physical sciences.
All of them.
Think about that for a moment.
EVERY SINGLE SCIENCE COMMUNITY ON THE PLANET.
Yet you don’t trust them because…you subscribe to conspiracy theories you found on the Internet.
NASA lied to you about the moon-landings, so now they are lying to you about Global Warming, right?
Is that how you think?
Sad.
I’ve remained civil except for using a certain discourteous comment by Cedric against him.
Oh I’m a big boy.
Your “discourteous comment” is nothing to me.
Is says much more about your character than it does mine.
It’s all good.
Yet, even ignoring that part, you haven’t been civil here.
Far from it.
You are behaving as a classically boring troll.
It’s not about nasty names; it’s about you trashing science, being proud of your ignorance and trying to stir people up for no good reason.
I didn’t realise that asking for evidence of AGW…
You are NOT doing so and you have NO logical reason for doing so on a blog.
There is no proof, it doesn’t exist, & nothing anyone does or says changes this scientific fact.
See?
There you are.
You KNOW that there’s no “proof”.
You knew that before you started trolling here.
You KNOW that AGW doesn’t exist.
You knew that before you started trolling here.
NOTHING anybody does can change that for you.
You knew that before you started trolling here.
NOTHING anybody says can change your mind.
Shameful close-minded ignorance.
You are here to rehearse your preconceptions and reinforce your doubts.
You only pretend that you want to talk about science.
You are a fake.
I asked you about which models you were complaining about.
That’s a fairly sane and basic and reasonable starting point for a conversation on climate models.
Yet it completely freaked you out.
You were flabbergasted by it.
You weren’t prepared for it because you had no idea what to talk about with regards to climate models.
To you it’s just “the models”, it’s just a meme.
“The models” baaaaaaaaad.
Bleat, bleat.
“The models” baaaaaaaaad.
Bleat, bleat.
That’s what you have learned on the Internet and that is what you faithfully and mindlessly repeat.
Stupid.
Cedric – All of the models, yes all of them, every single one of them from all quarters without exception, have failed to predict the end of warming from 2001/02 until the present.
WHAT are you talking about?
WHICH models tried to do this?
My questions are real questions. They make sense. Your claims are just wierd. They are not grounded in reality.
Come on Cedric, where is your proof?
Come on Cedric, where is your proof?
Come on Cedric, where is your proof?
Come on Cedric, where is your proof?
Come on Cedric, where is your proof?
Does this sound like “civil” behaviour to you?
Really?
Are you proud of sounding like a broken record?
Focus.
Science does not deal in “proof”.
There is no “proof”.
Asking for “proof” is what creationists do because they don’t “get” how science is done.
How many times do I have to explain this?
What is your problem?
AGW is established science.
Has been now for at least forty years.
There is no “controversy”. There is no nail-biting “debate”.
Forget what you read in newspapers and blogs and in the comics section of magazines.
That’s a futile waste of your time and ours.
Focus on the scientific literature.
That’s the only thing that counts.
That’s how educated people do it.
Try and find any “controversy” there.
Good bloody luck with that.
The basic physics and chemistry of the Greenhouse Effect and global warming are well understood.
For you to come prancing in and demanding we ” prove” to you that AGW is real is as doltish as you demanding we “prove” to you that Evolution is real or that man really went to the Moon.
You come across as a total whack-job.
As I’ve said before, it’s not my fault the IPCC can’t stump up with the evidence….
You don’t really know anything about the IPCC.
This is just you doing your “models” thing again.
It’s a meme.
Short.
Easy to remember.
Leaves no bitter aftertaste.
The only reason why you mention the IPCC, is because that’s what you’ve been taught to say by others on the Internet.
…and shooting the messenger won’t remedy the situation.
You are not a “messenger”. You are a cheap Chinese doll with a pull-string.
Every time somebody pulls your string, you say…
IPCC baaaaaaad.
Models baaaaaaaad.
(…pulls string again…)
IPCC baaaaaaad.
Models baaaaaaaad.
(…pulls string again…)
IPCC baaaaaaad.
Models baaaaaaaad.
(…pulls string again…)
IPCC baaaaaaad.
Models baaaaaaaad.
Come on – don’t you feel somehat of a coward? It’s not as if you face any danger.
Well, that’s not quite true. What if we use subliminal UN mind-control techniques to brainwash him as he stares at his monitor? Then we could sell him to the Cuban mafia for a tidy sum and….
(Oops, darn it. Let the cat out of the bag. Foiled again.)
🙂
Skewed views of science
LikeLike
No – it’s not Lamington. But he has cut off access to his facebook page in the last few days. There were some interesting links there.
LikeLike
He should stick to playing Villa Lobos and not make a fool of himself in here.
LikeLike
Well, so much for my sleuthing skills.
(sigh)
Would’ve been fun though.
There were some interesting links there.
Dare I ask, how interesting?
Better yet…
Hey John, what were the links you had on your facebook? Say ’em out loud and proud to your audience.
This could be good.
What are we talking about here?
Stormfront?
Prisonplanet?
TeaPartyExpress?
NAMBLA?
(Somehow I doubt you link to any science journals like Nature or reality-based web-sites like NASA.)
😉
Yet what do you link to?
The mind boggles.
LikeLike
So I looked at ACT Facebook page where John likes to hang out.
I wanted to get the feel of the place.
As it turns out, I found a new chew-toy.
Sally O’BrienACT
Congratulations to ACT for expressing doubt on man made global warming. Are you all well versed on the issue that is perhaps the biggest threat to our prosperity and liberty? Try this test and see.
The Global Warming Test: Question 1
http://www.geocraft.com..
September 13, 2009 at 1:51pm · Like · Comment.
Oh by all means, take the test.
Take it.
How else are you going to learn about good science if you don’t take “tests” created by anonymous people on the internet?
No, really.
Take the test.
It’s really…creative in a deceptive, selective and manipulative way.
It targets those who can’t be bothered to fact-check anything much at all.
Might make a good subject for an in-depth article.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/Q1.html
I especially love how they bring up the Oregon Petition.
32000 Scientists
LikeLike
HA, HA, HA!! LOL.You guys really do believe anything you’re told don’t you. What a pack of blundering imbeciles. Did you know that they’ve removed the word gullible from the english dictionary? HA, HA, HA!! Playing detective by randomly & incorrectly picking people from Google is still not evidence, and Ken’s pathetic actions show just how weak his grounds for believing in AGW really are. It seems he just couldn’t control his frustration of denial any longer.
As far as claiming victory goes, I’d say that Ken’s actions prove beyond all doubt his inability to justify himself. Ken, you’ve painted yourself into a corner beyond recovery, and the really funny thing is you did it as a direct result of your own actions by trying to play dirty – you should go back to researching dirt, it seems to be what you’re really good at. HA, HA, HA!!! Really, how idiotic can you get, what an egg. But the really funny thing is there’s still STILL no evidence, just a useless & failed attempt at personal attack.
LikeLike
HA, HA, HA – you have to laugh, don’t you?
Bit of a nervous reaction though, John, to change your facebook status so rapidly. What’s the problem?
LikeLike
“HA, HA, HA!! LOL.
HA, HA, HA!!
HA, HA, HA!!!”
This would be more effective if you put it in bold font rather than just limit yourself to all-caps and a few dozen exclamation marks.
“HA, HA, HA!! LOL.
HA, HA, HA!!
HA, HA, HA!!!”
See?
It really ramps up the troll effect and brings out teh full krazy.
Bit of a nervous reaction though, John, to change your facebook status so rapidly. What’s the problem?
I’m still waiting to find out what links he had on his facebook.
Come John Wakelin, reveal all.
LikeLike
Can’t one go back with google cache?
If I gave a stuff I would probably hunt that out. I do recollect references to Palin and Reagan.
LikeLike
I do recollect references to Palin and Reagan.
Dang.
🙂
Cliches abound with this one.
Even knowing nothing about him, the Palinspeak comparison was right on the money.
Sarah Palin can’t name one Supreme Court case
LikeLike
Interestingly, I probably move in the same circles as Mr John Wakelin. I must ask around a bit more.
Completed similar university courses, i.e. performance in Classical Guitar at School of Music, University of Auckland , only I completed it 7 years, or thereabouts, earlier than him, and later moved away. We even had same teachers I imagine.
Heck, we probably appear as winners on the same cups – you have won CGSA competition cups, haven’t you John?
I’ll tell you one thing though, we don’t share the same disdain for science.
LikeLike
Completed similar university courses, i.e. performance in Classical Guitar at School of Music, University of Auckland , only I completed it 7 years, or thereabouts, earlier than him, and later moved away. We even had same teachers I imagine.
And now he’s reduced to laughing at strangers on the Internet in all-caps.
It’s a shame when good kids go bad.
LikeLike
randomly & incorrectly picking people from Google is still not evidence,
This is true. My comments relate only to the John Wakelin of the Facebook page, I’m quite sure of his background as given above. However the only thing lnking that page to AGC is Ken’s sleuthing. Nevertheless, I suspect privileges that are bundled in a blog ownership should it provide Ken with a few more tools than mere google searches.
LikeLike
I’m still waiting to find out what links he had on his facebook.
yes, Palin, Reagan and John likes…
http://en-gb.facebook.com/ClimateGate
wherein, amongst other goodies we find a link to “lord” Monkton’s website and this (warning contains traces of nuts):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22480029/Ecoscience-Population-Resources-Environment-1649-Pgs-John-holdren
In Book:
Planification of World Depopulation: Reasons; know-how; know-why;
In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.
LikeLike
My comments relate only to the John Wakelin of the Facebook page…
Yep, mine too.
So, since clearly you are a totally different John altogether, you won’t have a problem with us having a quick peek at this cretin, right?
‘Cause you are a totally different cretin, right?
It won’t bother you at all, right?
Eeeeexcelllent, Smithers.
(…looks at link…)
It’s…so….pretty.
It’s like a big, fat pinata of stupid.
Filled with nutty goodness in a warm syrup of paranoia just begging to be hit with stick.
Oh, what flavoursome goodies lie within?
Why, hello there “Mr link to Prisonplanet”.
Fancy seeing you ’round here.
🙂
And there’s you old companions on the short bus…
Whatsupmybutt and Monckton’s blog (oh sorry, his “Institute”) and Minnesotansforglobalwarming.
Damn, I was right on the money. I amaze even me sometimes.
A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.
Oooo, yeah baby!
Drink that kool-aid.
The walls are closing in and the UN is out to getcha.
It’s all a conspiracy, man!
Ooh, spooky NASA. The black helicopters are coming for you in the night.
It’s comedy that writes itself.
In case you were sleepy, they ditched the term ‘Global Warming’ and now call it ‘Climate Change’ because as many of us now know, the un-altered data indicates a cooling trend.
Wow.
Adults actually believe this.
Functioning members of society swallow this fantasy wholesale without even the tiniest shadow of doubt. They don’t pick up a history book or go try and fact-check anything or ask themselves how such a thing could even be physically possible in the real world.
Conspiracies under the bed.
They’re not skeptics; they’re suckers.
LikeLike
And that folks, is how you play deconstruct the denier.
CK, you are a master .
LikeLike
Pingback: High Court ruled on integrity – not science | Open Parachute
Pingback: Climate change denier’s false “deep distress” fools no-one | Open Parachute
Pingback: A New Zealand climate change pseudosceptic apologises! | Open Parachute