Not Evil Just Wrong
That is the name of a film being released in just under six days. It is about the costs of “global warming hysteria”.
The film compares the consequences of the ban on DDT, with the cost of trying to ban carbon emissions. They talk about how Al Gore would have you believe the sea level will rise by 20 feet in the near future, when in fact the IPCC say this would be over millennia.
You can host your own première of the film.
As I have said in the past, I tend to accept the IPCC consensus as to the effect of greenhouse gases on the climate, and what this may mean in the future. However what many people do not realise is that environmentalists and politicians often greatly exaggerate what the IPCC actually has said, and what the effect of warming might be.
And the BBC reported a few days ago:
To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.
Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world’s top climate modellers.
But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.
And again I agree the long-term trend is for warming, but the hysteria over how it is urgent to have cut emissions by 40% by 2020 or the planet is doomed, is just that. In fact by 2020 the planet may still be in a cooling phase.
As we get better technology, and gradually transition to energy sources that produce fewer emissions, our carbon emissions will reduce. But 2020 is not some date of no return.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
DDT isn’t actually banned – it’s still used here and there in malarial areas.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
I will ask it again.
If evolution is real why is global warming a problem?
October 13th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
So what are you actually saying DPF?
We become incresingly aware that the cat is truly out of the bag, theoretically speaking increased CO2 may cause warming but there’s no empirical proof for it. The earth is actually cooling for the foreseeable future, and we have at least some decades to see whether the increased levels of CO2 will actually continue to increase, we don’t know how that actually correlates with human activity, and in any event who knows what two decades of technological advance can do. Yet, for the sake of already having started a political process, we should carry on with it regardless?
Are you really proposing to continue the political process on that basis only? That’s exchanging political geekiness for common sense in my view.
It’s about time we simply ditch the nonsense until say 2030 and have another look then, while in the mean time trying to get some real science on the issue instead of hockey stick effects based on computer models based on 10 or 20 fossilized tree trunks, about which the ‘scientists’ have refused to produce their real data.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Just can’t bear to admit to the truth. Global Warming has been well discredited and even Al Gormless is going down.
Plenty if info about and its time the Nats and their gormless minister accepted that fact.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Two good articles in the Dom Post on October 10th
1) Global warming: does the data work: Ross McKitrick prof enviromental economics
2) The climate of change; Lawrence Solomon Canadian Enviromentaist…energyprobe.org
Both articles worth a read.
It’s refreshing to see an oposing view in the MSM
October 13th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
1080 kills native birds but the cocksucker global warming wankers say nothing about that. Here Ally G have a 1080 burger you deranged lefty twisted creep.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
I believe the IPCC are just as corrupt as Al Gore and all the neo-scientists who push the AGW lie.
If you want to see an example of ‘evil’, then take a close look at all these crims.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Evil + Helen = UN Job. Bingo Heather’s got another wet global warming spot.
Al + Bore = Fat Liar Gore.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
radvad 5:56 pm,
A very good point.
If AGW is real, and man is just another animal improving his chances of survival, then isn’t AGW just the next evolutionary response as the ecosystem adjusts to accomodate mankind; and therefore is to be encouraged rather than discouraged?
October 13th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
“..But 2020 is not some date of no return..”
gee..!..dpf..wish i shared your insouciance ..
what if you are wrong..?
aren’t the implications of that rather scary..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 13th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
“rather scary..?” = phools stoned up head.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Any bets that this will get as much media fawning as The Age of Stupid?
Anyone?
Hello?
October 13th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
What you seem to have miss is that the evidence of the last 2 years suggests that the IPCC AR4 has underestimated the effects of global warming.
The consequences of banning DDT for agriculture were fewer deaths from malaria. Mosquitoes were becoming resistant to DDT because of overuse and it was becoming ineffective for malaria control.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
dimmocrazy>It’s about time we simply ditch the nonsense until say 2030 and have another look then, while in the mean time trying to get some real science on the issue instead of hockey stick effects based on computer models based on 10 or 20 fossilized tree trunks, about which the ’scientists’ have refused to produce their real data.
Coincidentally, the hockey stick people have recently had to release the tree trunk “data” that they’ve been fighting to keep secret for years. It shows serious experimental irregularities… it appears that the “researchers” have been selecting trunks that fit their theory and ignoring ones that don’t.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100011716/how-the-global-warming-industry-is-based-on-one-massive-lie/
Basically, the members of this global warming cult have been telling lies and now they’ve been found out.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
I was just looking at their site again today actually!
I hope as many people get to see it as possible. Looking at the global screening map, it doesn’t seem like anyone in NZ is screening it (heaps in Australia though).
The BBC seem to be coming around as well, with a new article from the Climate Change reporter called What Happened To Global Warming?
I see that the Greenpeace idiots are now raising money to send John Key to Copenhagen because he was talking about not going. They’re also excited that Norway has taken up the 40% reduction target, although, looking at the Nobels, I’d say the guys in Norway aren’t the sharpest tools in the drawer.
Links: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
October 13th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Source: OCEAN TEMPERATURES: THE NEW BLUFF IN CLIMATE ALARMISM
Also, follow the money: Climate Money. Just love that title-page cartoon!
October 13th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
davidp – More on those tree trunks is here:-
October 13th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Operation Noah – the first Christian campaign focused exclusively on climate change. Trying to prevent a modern day flood. Some interesting biblical comparisons. Unicorns can ignore.
http://www.operationnoah.org/
October 13th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
If you agree with the IPCC’s overall assertion that global warming is real and human induced, why do you reject their assertion, in the very same report, that we need to reduce our emissions 20-40% by 2020? It’s the same scientists, no?
While I concur that many overblow the IPCC’s recommendations, they are the ones calling for 20-40% reductions. Since the climate is tracking at the worst end of their forecasts, should we not adopt the remedial action that is at the worst end of their spectrum as well?
You seem to be conveniently contradicting your own logic!
October 13th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Ha – “Operation Noah: In urgent need for funding to stay afloat”. There was I thinking that 40 days and 40 nights of rain was required. Perhaps they could shift their campaign HQ to Westport
October 13th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
You MUST be kidding me, the absurd hyperbole in the trailer alone makes it clear how pointless this film will be. “They want to send us back to the Dark Ages” “They want to close our factories”…
October 13th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
DPF said: But 2020 is not some date of no return.
I agree. Modelling can’t exactly predict the date of no return. But 2020 is a good precautionary principle estimate. It could be 2050. We really don’t know, as it is dependent on climate influencing factors other than anthropogenic emissions.
The date of no return is when the temperatures at the polar caps warm to the extent that there is massive release of methane currently contained as hydromethane under the permafrost. When that starts to happen big time, we are in very serious shit indeed.
So I’m not stuck on 2020 as a date – I’d just say we need to do it as soon as practicable – whether that be before or after 2020. The risk of deferring is real and deeply serious, and a “business as usual” approach will have economically devastating consequences of the likes humanity has never known since the time of the Plague.
Small economic sacrifices now can mitigate against huge economic sacrifices for the generations to come.
I know “sustainability through austerity” is not a popular message. But the longer we defer addressing this issue, the greater the potential austerity will be.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
“I tend to accept the IPCC consensus”
That sounds like a really soft position David. What if it hasn’t warmed for 11 years? What if that continues for decades more? What if it gets cooler? Would you then tend to accept the IPCC consensus?
For global warming to be real, doesn’t it actually have to get warmer?
[DPF: The data I have seen show 1998 as an exceptionally hot year or an outlier. The post 1998 temperatures have not reached 1998 levels but are consistently higher than pre-1998 years and show a clear warming trend.
However the issue for me is not so much warming (Earth has had this before) but the rate of warming, and this is what could cause significant problems. And having some IPCC panelists concede the 1998 temperature may not be beaten for 20+ years suggests to me the rate may be less than expected (which is good - doesn't mean we should not reduce carbon emissions over time but does mean this can be done more gradually with a reduced economic impact]
October 13th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
You hang in there Pete. perhaps you should be building yourself a huge sunshade, make Noah proud. Meanwhile two bobs like Bore are on the back foot trying to peddle their lies. Did anyone see the Irish reporter, how dare he, grilling the great charlatan. I see George Sorous is going to put a billion dollars into the “green” industry, I don’t think George will be paying many carbon taxes. The whole thing is the biggest con the world has seen and I bet nothing will ever come of it, the people are slowly seeing this for the total crap that it is. It’s a pity so much money has been flushed down the toilet pandering to these crooks.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
For global warming to be real, doesn’t it actually have to get warmer?
Not if you are using a post-modernist “narrative”, in which case it is the narrative that is the important thing – with data and facts to be accepted or rejected according to how they fit the narrative.
Here the narrative is that human beings are messing up the weather systems of the planet and the high priesthood – as ordained by the United Nations are the only ones who can save us from ourselves.
This will be accomplished by them taking a piece of the action from every useful human economic activity, a tithe if you will.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
“If evolution is real why is global warming a problem?”
Not a problem for Life, just potentially a problem for current species.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Because evolution is slow.
If the real doomsayers are correct and in 50-100 years the sea level has risen a couple of feet, how would evolution be of assistance to the millions and millions who’ll die?
October 13th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Re evolution, many species have been wiped out at times of sudden changes in climate. They can’t adapt quickly enough, or food supplies dry up.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Operation Noah – the first Christian campaign focused exclusively on climate change. Trying to prevent a modern day flood. Some interesting biblical comparisons. Unicorns can ignore.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Lawrence Hakiwai said: What if it hasn’t warmed for 11 years? What if that continues for decades more? What if it gets cooler?
That doesn’t change anything, Lawrence. If that were to happen, it would just mean there were other non-anthropogenic factors mitigating the greenhouse effect of carbon-dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other gases that quantum physics shows us emit heat into the surrounding atmosphere when subjected to infra-red radiation.
The scientific evidence is that anthropogenic emissions of gases with dipole moments that emit heat will inevitably warm the atmosphere. The only uncertainty is how quickly that will happen, because other natural influences can either accelerate or decelerate the impact of the greenhouse effect.
I would rather be safe, rather than rely on that which could mitigate the greenhouse effect but is not predicatable, and be sorry.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
“They want to send us back to the Dark Ages” “They want to close our factories”…
But, they do.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Cooling detected on global warming fears
Rowan Callick, Asia-Pacific editor | October 13, 2009
Article from: The Australian
AUSTRALIANS’ anxiety about climate change is falling substantially, even as the issue dominates political debate in Canberra.
The latest Lowy Institute poll shows that tackling climate change is viewed as only the seventh-most important of 10 foreign policy goals, and global warming the fourth of a dozen “threats to Australia’s vital interests”, just a point or two above other threats.
In 2007, tackling climate change was perceived as the joint top foreign policy goal, together with protecting the jobs of Australian workers.
In 2007, 75 per cent of those surveyed said climate change was a very important issue. Last year, this fell to 66 per cent, and this year to 56 per cent.
Global warming was viewed as “a critical threat” by 68 per cent in 2007, 66 per cent last year and 52 per cent this year.
The Lowy Institute’s new director, Michael Wesley, said Australians seemed to be moderating their views on climate change just as world leaders were preparing for the summit on the issue in Copenhagen.
“When Australians were presented with a choice among three positions for dealing with global warming, the most popular was still for the most pro-climate position — that we should begin taking steps now, even if this involves significant costs,” he said. “But support for
this option was down 12 percentage points since 2008, and 20 points since 2006.”
Backing for this position has fallen, for the first time, below half, to 48 per cent. Two years ago, Lowy director Allan Gyngell — who has recently become head of the Office of National Assessments, which advises the Prime Minister — said in presenting the poll results: “Of all goals, international and domestic, tackling climate change is as important to Australians as improving standards in education, and more so than improving the delivery of healthcare, ensuring economic growth and fighting international terrorism.”
It now appears as if in that year such concerns reached their peak, and they have been steadily falling.
The latest poll results came from 1003 telephone interviews conducted from July 13-25 among Australians deemed to be nationally representative of those more than 18 years old.
The full details of this year’s poll will be released today.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
“Warming not required for Global Warming to be real”
That’s a headline I would love to see.
However only the most courageous of politicians would be brave enough to try to sell that one.
Can I ask how long temperatures would have to remain stable or decline before an iota of doubt emerged?
October 13th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Lawrence, wash your mouth out, and get to the climate change altar with your credit card at the ready.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
When do we start paying the comrades in Russia our carbon crap dollars? FFS the world is beyond hope.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
FFS, Lawrence, getstaffed, andrei & SSB. Argue the response to climate change, and I’m with you. I’ll argue back.
But you guys seem to be cranks who deny there is a problem that needs addressing. If you want to argue the science, put up some science to refute the consensus of scientific opinion.
Or put your noses up Rodney Hide’s, Bryan Leyland’s and Owen McShane’s respective arseholes.
Oops, they seem to be there already! Sorry.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
I disagree. The people leading the Warmist charge are both. They’re using flimsy, easily manipulated data to make us change the way we live and work. Some are making money out of it. Fraud. Others are getting long term jobs based on a lie. Fraud. It’s a means to an end. Power. All this from the same people who brought you the ‘population bomb’, and ‘global cooling’. Same agenda, same junk science. Both wrong and evil.
cheers
David Prosser
October 13th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
“Can I ask how long temperatures would have to remain stable or decline before an iota of doubt emerged?”
Here’s Tamino’s answer.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/
October 13th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
toad – We’re being sold a lie. That in no way detracts from the theme that it’s wise to care for the environment that supports us.
The climate is changing. That much is obvious to anyone who looks out the window from one day to the next. The question is “are we humans causing permanent, life-threatening damage to our world?”.
I contend that we are not. And an increasing number of scientists are finding their voice to provide evidence of the scam that is Climate Change … renamed from Global Warming when it became clear that the Globe wasn’t warming, and also clear that the old definition was too easily critiqued be folks who should just open their wallets and shut their mouths
October 13th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
d4j said: When do we start paying the comrades in Russia our carbon crap dollars?
I don’t usually respond to your posts because you usuaally talk shit with no evidential basis d4j. But in this case, you asked a sensible question.
My personal view is that the ETS proposed by your mates in National (and that proposed by someone else’s mates in Labour) is crap and will do exactly what you suggest – subsidise the Russian and Ukrainian economies without actually reducing emissions in those countries at all.
That is why I have always taken a position in favour of a carbon tax that is substantial in quantum, rather than an ETS.
But, although I am a Green Party member, I can’t find any party in Parliament that will back that – even the Greens. They all seem to want a weak ETS, other than ACT, who want an excuse for a carbon tax that would be completely ineffective.
Yeah, sometimes, dj, I feel as politically poweless as you. But I don’t spit the dummy and abuse people, as you do.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
getstaffed said: The question is “are we humans causing permanent, life-threatening damage to our world?”. I contend that we are not.
And please cite the evidence upon which that contention is based. All the scientific evidence I have read relates to “when”, rather than “if”. Or do you have a scientific theory to surpass quantum mechanics?
If we just put it off till we are all dead and it is the responsibility of those who succeed it to deal with, I think that’s a pretty irresponsible approach.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
And please cite the evidence upon which that contention is based. All the scientific evidence I have read relates to “when”, rather than “if”. Or do you have a scientific theory to surpass quantum mechanics?
Excuse me Toad but in Science it is contingent upon those who propose a theory to demonstrate its validity not upon those who question it to prove otherwise.
And my friend what does “Quantum Mechanics” have to do with the earth sciences as the relate to climate change and how the future climatic systems will develop.
It would be non linear dynamics that would be the key theoretical construct that would be more useful and the results from this are unequivocal – they say the future is to all intents and purposes unpredictable.
And common experience bears this out on a daily basis.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
sorry toad, the onus is on the alarmist to prove that arthrogenic climate change is a fact. So far, despite faked ‘test’ results, lost or withheld source data, non-peer reviewed analysis and downright shonky science, this has not been done. Refutation currently involves pointing out the lack of evidence and/or holes in the alarmist’s claims.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
So Toad, you’re the local scientist on the topic here? Got a few questions for you:
1) Can one burn hydro-methane in an engine? (In which case we can do with a bit of it if it becomes available under the permafrost, unfortunately most of that is Siberia so your Russian mates will run off with the profits)
2) What is the increased intake of CO2 into vegetation at higher average temperatures, and what is the effect of this on CO2 levels?
3) What is the status of current research into CO2 binding with lime (NZ research)
4) What is the potential capacity of generating electricity with South Island Coal and combining the CO2 emission with sea water to produce cement as by-product of clean energy production, while also using iron ore sands to produce steel at the same time (the resulting slack also being a principal ingredient for cement production).
More questions to follow
October 13th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Why are the loud voices in the alarmist camp (people like Al Gore), completely unwilling to debate the science? If they have the irrefutable evidence, there is no reason why they should not be able to convince us through rational debate.
Why does the alarmist camp resort to exaggeration and obfuscation?
Why the denigration of science professionals who dare to challenge the science?
Finally, where is the proof that rising CO2 levels will cause irrecoverable harm to the planet (when CO2 levels have been up to 20x higher than present concentrations before)?
October 13th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
The film is incorrectly titled, of course.
It should be called “Insidiously Evil and Wrong”
Perhaps the authors didn’t want to offend the culprits?
October 13th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
For fucks sake there is no such thing as global warming/climate change/pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.So bullshit artists like al gore,the greens and ear wax candle maker eaters who think the sky is falling……go fuck yourselfs………….and this movie was made by a so called kiwi
October 13th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Toad, if temperatures are rising you might have a case.
IF they aren’t – find another cause – this one will be a dead duck.
I’m sure a scientist looking for a research grant and a journalist looking for a scary headline will combine to cook up another environmental crisis.
Like it or not the global warming debate isn’t over and the science isn’t settled.
Just saying it is won’t make it so.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Lawrence – Global termeratures have risen and fallen in various cycles and sub-cycles. So even if temperatures are rising, the onus is on the alarmist’s to prove that humans are causing this, as opposed to simply monitoring part of the natural changes in our habitat. Like you say – the science isn’t settled. Far from it.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
The science involved in the measurement of climate change is not considered to be opinion by scientists, they call it theory.
a wise motto; hope for the best prepare for the worst.
You lot seem to get your science from each other, you call it; the way things really are.
dumb motto; nah thats just bullshit
October 13th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
A comprehensive rebuttal of the IPCC, for anyone who is interested.
http://www.climatechangereconsidered.org
October 13th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
toad, hmmm..
I think that perhaps if the recent earthquakes and tsunamis have shown us anything it is that nations need funds locally to help with disasters in their own neighbourhoods. I’d rather we had the money here in order to send relief and supplies to those islands near us rather than fork it over to the UN to do …what…with?
I don’t believe that paying the UN is going to help. Keep the money where it’s needed and out of the greedy hands who would create a fictional problem to create fear and then exploit that fear to take money; and it’s not only the fear of climate change – it is the fear that no one will trade with countries that don’t fall into line: that is the REAL sword they are holding over our heads.
It’s extortion. We’re being blackmailed; simple as that (apart from misguided fanatics like Greenpeace who actually buy into the lie)
October 13th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
toad, I think your lot are the ones who need to put up if you won’t shut up:
1. Provide evidence that CO2 in the 300-500 ppm range in an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere like Earth’s is a dominant forcer of temperature (Mars and especially Venus are two extremes that don’t count)
2. Provide evidence that prehistorically temperatures rises have almost always followed increases in CO2 in tandem to suggest some kind of causation (ice cores show the opposite)
3. Provide evidence that an Earth warmer than today is abnormal and a disaster for most species, including humans (for 80-90% of its existence, the planet has been warmer than today with NO ice caps, with a richer biosphere almost always coinciding with a warmer climate; while existing for at least several hundred thousand years, modern humans only developed agriculture, writing, cities etc. after the last ice age ended)
4. Suggest just one single way that AGW theory could be falsified, as any sound scientific theory should be
October 14th, 2009 at 12:21 am
No wonder no-one has solved the problem of climate change. All the experts are on here quoting the fucking Bible at each other.
October 14th, 2009 at 6:45 am
Climate change controversies: a simple guide
The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science.
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229
October 14th, 2009 at 6:49 am
October 14th, 2009 at 7:09 am
Scientific evidence and opinion (as opposed to blog opinion) is heavily weighted towards suggesting we could be fucking up our planet. There are a lot of unknowns and uncertainties about the degree of FU. And there is valid debate over what if anything we can and should do about reducing the fucking up. There are a few people with their heads fixed in the sand, if they get their way they will probably end up with more sand to use. That’s about it.
October 14th, 2009 at 7:31 am
Pete, I’d be ashamed to be a member of the Royal Society. Their document you link to is riddled with SCIENTIFIC errors, and looks like something written by Team Gore.
For example “eleven of the last twelve years have been the hottest since records started in 1850″. Utterly untrue. And never true, even in 1999 — especially after NASA revised their figures after they were shown to be wrong.
If they were sportspeople, they would be thrown out of their own organisation for bringing it into disrepute!
October 14th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Toad has already made foolish statements on evolution (….cockroaches will inherit the planet….), on the best way to deal with disease pandemics (…trains would be useful in shifting the population around…..), that left me wondering how much science Toad had ever actually studied.
So it does not come as a surprise to find Toad throwing around the term “Quantum Mechanics” in a Ferris Buellerish way (but without the charm), as would be expected of someone who was busy destroying broadcasting systems while others were actually studying science.
Here’s the deal on quantum mechanics. As accurate and solid a theory as it is (and I think we should actually refer to it as facts + laws), the key thing about it is …….. it does not scale to the macro. If it did a lot of people much smarter than Toad would have developed the Grand Unified Theory long before now.
Even so, I’m glad you raised this little discussed piece of science because, as it happens, it’s very germane to this subject, just not in the way Toad thought. QM lies at the heart of nuclear power, which environmentalists have fought against tooth and nail for decades. People like James Gustave Speth, who recently boasted in his new book Red Sky at Morning: America and the Global Environmental Crisis:
Of course he’s moved on:
As Reason acidly noted:
I think you should just put your feet up, relax, and continue to enjoy watching this.
Just remember – it’s science fiction!
October 14th, 2009 at 8:20 am
“Lawrence Hakiwai said: What if it hasn’t warmed for 11 years? What if that continues for decades more? What if it gets cooler?
That doesn’t change anything, Lawrence. ”
Classic.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:28 am
What Nasa figures are you referring to Major? Not these ones: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
And they explain 1998-present here: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html
October 14th, 2009 at 8:31 am
If you take the human effect out of the equation, the climate change has assumed a character and come into being. It has decided to shake the areas where the poor are living, swamp with waves and flood it with hurricanes. And that is not only wrong of the climate change but it is extremely evil. Evil is the effect it is having on human lives whether it has a life of its own or a consequence of capitalist greed.
It is clear that when the earth’s resources are used up and the planet dead, the capitalist virus moves on to another planet. Is Titan next on target?
My suggestion is for the Capitalists to gather its technology and leave now and let natural inhabitants restore their home. Bye bye!
October 14th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Here is an up to date summary (and examples) of what non-politicised scientists say about the IPCC and ‘climate change’.
http://is.gd/4hZOY
October 14th, 2009 at 9:04 am
“For fucks sake there is no such thing as global warming/climate change/pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.So bullshit artists like al gore,the greens and ear wax candle maker eaters who think the sky is falling……go fuck yourselfs………….and this movie was made by a so called kiwi”
Outstanding. Label me convinced.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Technology will fix global warming?
Technology is what caused it in the first place!
October 14th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Global warming… probably exists
Man made global warming… well maybe
Scientific consensus of man made global warming… well its more of a consensus among scientists who belive that its man made global warming
The scary thing is that if you are sceptical of man made global warming then you are considered a pariah or conservative right wing loon. The governments and press throughout the world need to listen to both sides of the scientific divide which doesn’t appear to be happening. The press tends to focus on doom and gloom and the end of the world via global warming is just that, which makes the dumb uninformed public believe it which makes dumb populist politicians act accordingly, and corporates have to appear to be making an effort.
Europe and the democrats are going to use global warming as a way to prvent free trade so unfortunately we have to take steps to keep in line with them, even though the net effect is neglegible. Don’t get me wrong, we need to proceed with precaution but not to the extremes that the IPCC recommends. I’ve said this before but I think the best step towards man made global warming (if it exists) is absolute Free trade within universal climate change rules, IE, a global ETS (or other alternative) with the same excemptions in every country. This way the most efficient and environmentally friendly countries can do what they do best.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Robinson 666 – The best technology we have can’t prove that arthrogenic climate change is real.
Any ‘proof’ that exists today is distributed across the spectrum from well intentioned but misinformed environmental care, right through to deliberately manipulated shonky science from the global high-rollers.
So how can technology be to blame?
October 14th, 2009 at 9:30 am
True to form, Ross Nixon’s link to Climate Depot – run by a Republican hit man.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Pete – play the man, denigrate the source blah blah.
Who cares if the author is Yoda or Uncle Bulgeria the Womble?
Is there weight behind the claim that intellectually dishonest ‘science’ has been used in the biggest global scam known to mankind?
I think there is increasing evidence of this, and there’s still time for most to save face by claiming that their overriding concern was (and remains) care for our planet, while distancing themselves from the global economic engineering that is being incubated inside the Climate Change trogan horse.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:48 am
I always enjoy reading Tamino, just the right touch of superiority. Just love the fact that he’s using 1950-1980 as his zero-point reference in setting his sting. Yes, yes, I know the models focus on increased CO2 in this age, not history, but that should rather obviate all this fighting over long-term temperature reconstructions.
The fact that it does not is because the warmenists are trapped between models that are not modeling the long-term climate but one simple question about it – what happens when CO2 increases – and the need to prove to the public that the temperature changes now are different from those of the past.
But it was this comment that really caught my eye:
He just wants everybody else to bet money on it.
That’s really the rim shot of this whole tragedy-as-farce: nobody else is very interested in doing so either.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Why should we believe anything AGW supporters say?
* The hockey stick graphs are shown to be the result of scientific fraud
* There has been no sea level rise at Tokelau and the Maldives
October 14th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Ross said “Here is an up to date summary (and examples) of what non-politicised scientists say about the IPCC and ‘climate change’.”
On what do you base your claim that these people are “non-politicised”? are you yourself “non-politicised” Ross?
October 14th, 2009 at 10:08 am
getstaffed, I had a read of the linked website and was obvioulsy agenda baswed rather than scientific so I checked for it’s source.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:11 am
The Hockey stick controversy (from wiki)
There is an ongoing debate about the details of the temperature record and the means of its reconstruction, centered on the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998), “hockey stick” graph. Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick claimed various errors in the methodology of Mann et al. (1998) and that the MBH method when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component. In turn, Michael E. Mann (supported by Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa and Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit) has disputed the claims made by McIntyre and McKitrick The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report says that M&M may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Ammann (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude of the final reconstruction is very small.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:12 am
There is an integrity and personal brand problem for many of today’s climate change passengers. Not only have they been convinced (hoodwinked?) about arthrogenic climate change, but they’ve also been cleverly convinced that the ‘denialists’ are crazy uber right-wing nutcases. Such is the power of ‘good’ marketing!
So anyone on the left who is now doubting the ‘science’, is faced with the option of soldiering on despite mounting evidence of the scam, or rejecting the notion of arthrogenic climate change, only to be viewed as having moved to the right politically – sadly regarded as unthinkable ideological treachery.
Put another way, the cost of scientific honesty is ostracization by political/ideological fellow travers. I’d suggest that a good number of Climate Change supporters are in this unenviable position right now.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:13 am
It’s politically-proven science. Whether it’s real science or not is a very secondary issue.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:28 am
“they’ve also been cleverly convinced that the ‘denialists’ are crazy uber right-wing nutcases.”
Sadly many of them are, as evidenced by phrases like: “the biggest global scam known to mankind”.
Even if the degree of anthropogenic climate change that’s occurring does not warrant reducing CO2 emissions, that doesn’t justify the use of terms like “scam”, unless you believe that the belief in catastrophic climate change is not genuine?
October 14th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Judging by the preview this film is nonsense, garethw mentions the claims “They want to send us back to the Dark Ages” “They want to close our factories”, these are as stupid as lefties claiming of the right “They want to re-introduce slavery” “they want to destroy our planet”.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Some probably view the film as missing a trick by not putting the words ‘communist agenda’ in the trailer.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Well has it been proven?
We’re facing a huge upheaval in the economic structure of our societies, the creation of an international, but selectively subscribed to, wealth-transfer tax … and it’s based on what? Shonky science, deliberate mis-information and millions of uninformed, but slightly guilty-about-using-their-car citizens who just believe what they’re told, and agree to open their wallets.
By most definitions that’s a scam that would make Nigerian lawyers blush.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Some capitalists feel threatened and want to keep using up resources, some capitalists see opportunities in working towards a sustainable future. Some businesses will move forward , voluntarily or “encouraged”. The “we’re fine, don’t change anything” ones will have to change anyway. The choice is reactive or proactive.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Unlike you DPF I’ve suspected for a long time that the UN has been milking this climate change idea for years, both to redistribute wealth and to get an income for themselves separate from their member countries contributions (or not as the case maybe).
After all it was ENRON who first saw the income possibilities in the 70′s!
http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2009/09/co2-is-not-melting-arctic.html is but one of many articles that address CO2.
I don’t know if you’re flying a kite for National or running interference
but if the so called “father of climatology” says the UN IPCC is full of shit that must say that we should look at what they are saying very carefully.
The UK High Court found there were errors of fact in Al Gore’s presentation into UK schools when it was brought before them.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
AGW – the second greatest bad-science theory foisted upon a gullible, non thinking global population.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Many people keep talking about climate change in New Zealand and say things like “just look out the window”. (although they prefer not too lately.) But here is the reality of global warming for the last century.
Vincent Grey has been pointing out for a while that the warming trend in New Zealand reported by NIWA is due to the changing number of stations. E M Smith has undertaken an analysis of the station lifetimes of the entire GISS
dataset. The results are at
http://tinyurl.com/yjqdwuf
It shows that the warming trend is largely due to the influx of short-lived stations in the 1950-1980s that recorded higher winter temperatures.
They have analysed the different trends obtained by using subsets of stations with different record lengths.
In short, the longer the station record the less warming, with the longest 10% of stations showing around 0.1 degree variation over a century or more.
Should we be getting into a lather over 0.1 degrees over a period of 100 years or more?
And why are we worrying about methane from our cows when methane concentrations in the atmosphere have been stable for many years and are probably about to fall. What methane problem are we trying to fix – and also be the only ones in the world trying to fix it. Of course if we were serious we would be telling the farmers to fill in all their wetlands because these are the world’s greatest source of methane.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
You go Owen. The AGW believers are becoming more hysterical by the day, their dreams of unbridled power and wealth are coming under increased pressure and they become desperate to seal the deal. I’m convince the whole ponzi scheme will fall over in December when the loony left meet at Copenhagen. But one must feel sorry for the naive fools that brought these lies, I would except Global cooling or something equally stupid to be the next big rallying cry to arms
October 14th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
side show bob 1:04 pm,
My personal ‘feeling’ regarding those that foisted these lies upon us, is that they should all be gathered together in the local town square, and then summarily be hung, drawn, and quartered. These are crims of the very worst kind IMHO!
October 14th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
You’re right Kris K – shall we start the slaughter of these people…friday?
October 14th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
stephen 1:34 pm,
How about Saturday? I’ve got the Muslim terrorists lined up for Friday.
October 14th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
There you go getstaffed, a few more nutcases for your cause.
October 14th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I was taking the piss massively if it wasn’t clear. I might stay inside on saturday though…
October 14th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
It was clear, I wasn’t referring to you stephen.
October 14th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Given the fact that real world data with real world results we already know – ie – climate and temperatures of recent times – when plugged into the IPCC’s much vaunted “models”, doesn’t even produce the results that have already happened.
October 14th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
stephen 2:37 pm,
As long as you’re not on the IPCC, and don’t promote their lies, you should be ok.
Glad you have no concerns regarding the ‘Friday round-up’.
But tell your friends; there’s a free bbq for all spectators. Byo salad.
October 14th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Glad you have no concerns regarding the ‘Friday round-up’.
I don’t consider it worth seriously addressing every point I find on blogs, else I’d never get any work done. At best i’ll humour some – who else do you want to murder?
October 14th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Satire, Stephen, satire.
Some of my best friends are IPCC members and Islamic terrorists.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:00 am
Well allright, who were you satirising?
October 15th, 2009 at 9:33 am
And again I agree the long-term trend is for warming, but the hysteria over how it is urgent to have cut emissions by 40% by 2020 or the planet is doomed, is just that. In fact by 2020 the planet may still be in a cooling phase.
Actually 40% by 2020 is almost certainly an underestimate of what is required to avoid a major worldwide extinction event.
You don’t follow New Scientist do you DPF? Your ignorance shows.
The world also might be hit by a massive meteorite which destroys most of the biosphere by 2020. But is it likely, or does that change long-term warming trends? No.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:49 am
And the BBC reported a few days ago:
See the Crock of the Week Video showing what Latif really said in context. The real message is that 20 years of level temperatures or modest cooling would not undermine the AGW hypothesis.
They talk about how Al Gore would have you believe the sea level will rise by 20 feet in the near future, when in fact the IPCC say this would be over millennia.
These were conservative estimates based on what was provable and documented without a doubt at the time.
They explicitly noted that they barred non-linear responses to warming (ie, positive feedbacks, such as Methane in permafrost being released) as well as effects which were not well understood such as glaciers speeding up as they melt.
I attended a lecture by Tim Naish, a Victoria University professor, where he showed the geological evidence for past periods where the sea level has risen much faster than that, and showed how in a couple of hundred years the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could melt, raising sea level alone by 2-3 meters (on average). And that’s just one sheet – if the rest of Antarctica loses significant mass, Greenland keeps increasing its speed of melt, you’re looking at much more than 20 feet by 2200, say. A metre of rise by 2100 is now considered by some an overly conservative estimate.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Actually Samv, I’ve nailed Renowden’s truffly little tail to the wall again over this and his criticisms of Farrar.
See http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/10/gareth-renowden-not-clever-just-wrongyet-again.html
October 16th, 2009 at 7:42 am
I read your link Ian, “nailed Renowden’s truffly little tail to the wall”? No, you’ve just exposed how deluded you are, 6 metres is far in the future (ie. not this century), SL rise greater than this is, as Gore states, far, far, in the future (ie. not this century or next century).
October 16th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Is that right Ian. btw I still haven’t received a court summons for the libel case that you promised to raise against me for calling you on your inaccuracies.
Andrew W, as noted above I don’t think it’s safe to rule out 6 metres by 2200. Unfortunately accelerating glacier retreat is proving to be very non-linear – if current acceleration trends continue for much longer, it could be a reality.
October 16th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Andrew W, or may I call you ‘Goosey’, if you’ve “read” that link and genuinely reached the conclusion you claim, then either you can’t read or you don’t understand the English language. It’s all there in Gore’s own words, inside the quote marks and/or indents.
SamV, you’ll have pleasure in knowing you form part of the evidence by which Hot Topic will be tested. Wouldn’t it be a terrible ignominy if something you said on his site formed part of the legal noose? To paraphrase Gareth, “Patience”.
October 17th, 2009 at 1:43 am
avoid a major worldwide extinction event.
Yeah, fuck only knows how our ancestors managed to survive climate fluctuations.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:18 am
“may I call you ‘Goosey’”. It doesn’t worry me a heck of a lot what you call me Ian, your name-calling is a reflection of your own immaturity, it’s not a reflection on me (or others you target in this way).
When I watched Gore’s movie it was clear he gave an impression of immediacy about the effects of AGW that was misleading, but he was careful not to actually give a time frame as to when these changes would occur, he never said “this century” or before “2100 AD” etc for a SLR of 6 metres.
You claim Gore said a 140 feet rise in sea level was “far into the future”, and so claimed that this implied he was suggesting that a rise of 20 feet was “quite close”, but as I pointed out above but you apparently didn’t (or couldn’t) read, what Gore actually said which is “The worst-case scenario is 140 feet, although that would be far, far into the future.” That’s two (2) “far”s now please try and count them. It is only by dropping one of the words that he used that you can justify your claim that he implied “six metres could be “quite close”.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Hurf Durf, well, we’re already in a major extinction event caused by human activity, mainly the expansion of agriculture, our ancestors survived other climate fluctuations, and as a species we’ll survive AGW, but in the past natural climate fluctuations have caused major worldwide extinction events, so there’s no doubt that such an event could happen again if major AGW occurs.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Samv: “as noted above I don’t think it’s safe to rule out 6 metres by 2200.” (perhaps you meant 2100?) 6 metres by 2200 seems realistic to me, but in my view that’s too far into the future to claim such an effect would be “catastrophic” in and of itself, a lot of other things could happen by then that could make such a SLR immaterial.
October 17th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Fletch, Greenland’s icecap is millions of years old, the Antarctic icecap even older.
Samv, I should have read your earlier comment, silly me.
October 17th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Andrew, if you want to call me ‘deluded’ I’m simply returning the favour. If you read what Gore asked, in his own words he speculated on the disappearance of the Greenland ice cap by the turn of this century, with catastrophic consequences. We all know that the disappearance of the cap would rise sea levels around 7 metres, so why do you continue trying to defend Gore on this point? It’s obvious from what he told the Smithsonian that although he hasn’t put a time frame on it, he believes it could happen by 2100.
More to the point, it has already been well established (and cited in Air Con), that there is no way of moving that much water into the ocean from melting ice, that fast.
So Gore is in lala land, as are those who cling to this half-baked defence.
October 17th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
hey..!..read/catch-up..!..wishart..!
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/bye-bye-arctic-ice-cap/
so..he was ‘out’ by a few years..
your point..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 17th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Here’s the section you’re refering to:
Gore: “When I ask off the record, “Give me some time frames here, how realistic is it that we could see a catastrophic breakup and melting in Greenland in this century?” they cannot rule that out and privately will not.”
Smithsonian: “Are the scientists being overly cautious?”
Gore: “No. They just do what scientists do and be very circumspect. If you have a curve of possibilities and the evidence points toward the more extreme end of the curve, if you’re a scientist you’re going to want extra levels of confidence before you go out and say, “This is more likely than I thought.” I do not say in either the movie or the book what time frame ought to be placed on [glacial melting]. But it is not impossible that that could happen in a much shorter time frame than they are now saying. And I’ve excluded from my presentation a lot of more extreme predictions.”
It raises many questions and answers none. It’s political speak.
“a catastrophic breakup” can mean almost anything.
“…breakup and melting in Greenland in this century” doesn’t to my mind refer to the loss of the entire ice sheet this century, I’d only interpret it that way if he’d said melting “of” Greenland, rather than “in”.
The whole AGW debate has turned into one politically motivated side re-interpreting what the other side has said, two armies of strawmen. Gore’s built strawmen by spinning the science, so you build strawman by spinning what Gore’s said.
Why not, instead of exaggerating what Gore has said, pick it to pieces and point out that he’s not actually saying that there’s any great likelihood of a catastrophe involving the break-up of the entire Greenland icecap.
Is it because doing so wouldn’t be as much fun? Is it more fun to portray Gore as a lunatic rather than an illusory speaker, ie a typical politician?
In the end probably both extremes are going to be shown to have been deluded, but being the people they are, they’ll quietly put their bullshit behind them and move onto the next politically hot subject to spin.
October 17th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Ian, do you still argue that mice have more genetic commonality with Man than the apes do, or have you quietly put that bullshit behind you?
October 17th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Andrew W – You lambast by Ian suggesting that he tries to portray Gore as a lunatic.. and then, minutes later, you do your very best to portray Ian as a lunatic over an off-topic subject. Can you see any hypocrisy there?
October 17th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
“You lambast by Ian suggesting that he tries to portray Gore as a lunatic..”
I think that is exactly what Ian is trying to do, if I’ve misinterpreted he’ll correct me.
getstaffed, do you know of the claim by Ian that I’m referring to? Are you claiming he did no such thing? I’m not suggesting or portraying Ian as a lunatic on that issue, but I am interested if he learned why he was wrong in his claim and if he’s capable of putting his hand up and saying “I was wrong”.
October 17th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Andrew W – No idea of the claim, and it’s not really that important. If you’re going go after Ian for apparently trying to show Gore to be a lunatic, then I submit that it’s a bit hypocritical for you to attempt to depict Ian as a lunatic. That’s all.
October 17th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
You’re right, in the great scheme of things it’s not important, it was some time ago but as it was one of the first times I heard Ian say something I knew was complete BS it sorta made an impression on me.
I’d like to know if Ian was being deliberately misleading or if he’d simply been mislead by his religiously based enthusiasm.
He was arguing that while Man and ape genes may be 97% identical, Man and mice have 99% equivalent function genes, and therefore mice are genetically closer to man than apes are, this (he claimed) disproved evolution.
October 17th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
“.. 5 Subtract rating 2 Says:
October 14th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Pete – play the man, denigrate the source blah blah.
Who cares if the author is Yoda or Uncle Bulgeria the Womble?..”
maybe because it proves he is a (paid) climate-change denialist fuck..?
peddling the lies of the oil industry..?
cd that be areason to doubt any claims made..?
d’yareckon..?
duh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 18th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Andrew…as I recall, the mouse/chimp genome comparison was topical in the science papers at the time (around 2002) and made headlines around the world, so I was merely requoting an ongoing debate (mostly, I might add, to make a humorous point). My point was not that this magically disproved ‘evolution’ per se, but that the degree of commonality between mouse and man, or chimp and man, or in fact daffodil and man (60% genetically shared IIRC), illustrated that claims of common ancestry because of similarities in morphology were flawed arguments prima facie.
As a point of logic, while one line of reasoning is that common genetic code implies descent, another possible explanation is that a designer who has developed a code for certain functions would be likely to replicate that code to achieve the same functions across a range of model lines.
Houses are built of bricks all over the world, because designers recognise the usefulness of bricks, not because one house begat another.
There are enormous difficulties within the sciences in coming up with plausible explanations for the origin of life and the origin of the genetic code. I deal with these issues in much greater detail in The Divinity Code.
None of which is relevant to the global warming debate.
As for which, the purpose of my original post at TBR was to deflate Hot Topic’s kneejerk defence of Gore, as if to suggest he had never even implied catastrophic melting. Their claim is a load of old hooey, and I pulled them up on it. The passages I quoted proved my point.
You can quibble about precisely what Gore meant if you choose to debate the meaning of each word in an isolated fashion (“what does ‘catastrophic breakup’ mean?), but an ordinary and reasonable reader (the test applied in any courtroom) will interpret Gore’s words the same way I have.
Did you just take a tilt at this because it was me, or was there some other method to your madness here?
October 18th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
I would add, just to save time, that Google can still find articles saying the same thing about mice that I was:
“Scientists think that the mouse genome will be even important than the human genome to medicine and human welfare. That seems bizarre: why is that? The reason is that, because of the relatively ‘recent’ divergence of the mouse and human lineages from our common ancestor (about 75 million years ago), an astonishing 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans. Not only that, but great tracts of code are syntenic – that means the genes appear in the same order in the two genomes.
“Since we can experiment on the mouse genome (we obviously cannot do that with people), the mouse will be a hugely valuable model to understand the function and operation of the genetic machinery in people. We already have incredibly precise tools to modify the mouse genome including the ability to delete or duplicate extensive tracts of code, the ability to knockout or knock-in single genes and even the ability to make single base substitutions.
“The astonishingly close homology that has been revealed in the code between mouse and human genome extends to functionality. Many homologous genes have identical functions in the two species, anatomy, physiology and metabolism are similar and genetic disease pathology can be very similar. So the fact that we can study the mouse empirically, means that we can identify the functions of genes in people and both understand human disease pathology and create ways to treat it.
“One example, given in the accompanying News and Views article in the same edition of Nature, is that the same genetic defect causes cystic fibrosis in humans and a similar disease in the mouse, except that in the mouse it does not lead to the most debilitating aspect of human cystic fibrosis which is lung disease. By understanding how the mouse avoids contracting lung disease in the presence of this genetic lesion, we could well find a way to prevent the development of lung disease in human cystic fibrosis sufferers.” SOURCE: http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mouse%20genome%20home.htm
I think the similarities have now been downgraded (as of studies in late 2008) to between 75 and 90%, but even so that’s a lot of shared code, cheeselovers.
October 18th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Ian Wishart [October 18th, 2009 at 3:38 pm],
As a design engineer I can appreciate the “common genetic code implies … a designer” argument. Being a Christian helps as well!
Keep up the good work Ian; I appreciate much of your written works and have several of them on my library shelves.
October 19th, 2009 at 9:22 am
“Did you just take a tilt at this because it was me, or was there some other method to your madness here?”
Don’t feel you’re being singled out Ian, I’ll critique deception whatever the origin, I have criticized Gore on his creating a false impression of imminent catastrophe.
I’m certain you made the claim at the time that mice are genetically closer to man than apes are. obviously if I’m wrong, or if you no longer hold that view, we’re now in agreement. Mice are not genetically as close to man as apes are.
If you’ve got time have a look at this video, unless the video leaves important info out (and if it does, but from the opposite side) it’s a pretty spectacular example of the deception that the politically minded bring to the AGW debate.
http://gravityloss.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/lies-lies-lies/
October 19th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Andrew, I don’t have the exact words I used back then on the mouse issue, although as I said it was based on the scientific debate at the time…one study I recall had the chimp at 96.7% and the mouse one had it around 99% as above. I know it raised a few laughs when I threw up a mouse as man’s closest living relative and then a daffodil at 60%,, but in the context of the wider presentation I was making the point that suppositions about descent based on morphology (which dominated Darwin’s thinking) have been turned on their heads by the genome projects.
And the significance of the genome projects and DNA’s implications for design were then touched on, as I’ve already alluded to above.
As I recall a couple of media interviews looking for yuks at my expense removed the subtelties and context from my position – so if they were the base of your interpretation of my belief I have no control over that. As I said, my position is spelt out more clearly in both Eve’s Bite and The Divinity Code.
And again, none of this is relevant to Gore. I wasn’t being deceptive about what Gore said, Hot Topic was. End of story.
October 19th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
I wasn’t being deceptive about what Gore said, Hot Topic was. End of story.
Only in your imaginary world, Ian.
October 19th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
“an astonishing 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans” vs Humans and chimps having 96 – 97% of their DNA in common. Apples and oranges.
You say “but an ordinary and reasonable reader (the test applied in any courtroom) will interpret Gore’s words the same way I have.”
I disagree with that opinion.
October 19th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
I did say “ordinary and reasonable” reader.
October 19th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
You boys are so polite, smackdown with a smile
I’ve so enjoyed reading your writes.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:22 am
What’s the problem with such interpretation anyway? Gore said that privately scientists wouldn’t rule out rises greater than the conservative estimates issued by the IPCC. Of course they wouldn’t. Perhaps this is because, you know, the scientists had a clearer picture about the limitations of the 0.59m figure, what it didn’t include. That’s why they didn’t rule it out privately, but didn’t want to officially predict it without solid science.
So what Gore said there was true. And with the Copenhagen report predicting 1.3±0.7m or so by 2100, even prescient.
October 20th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Nice fudge, Sam, except Chief Priest Truffle has been telling his flock Gore didn’t say it. Now you’re saying he did say it?
October 20th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
No, you old fool.
Here’s what HT quoted (emphasis mine):
Claims that Al Gore said sea levels will rise catastrophically, “in the very near future.” Not in his movie, not in his writings or speeches. Not true. That’s a simple misstatement of what Gore said, and Gore had the science right.
Note the will there. It implies certainty
In your own clumsy collection of words you write (emphasis added):
Just in case you missed it, Gore quotes his own question to experts: “Give me some time frames here, how realistic is it that we could see a catastrophic breakup and melting in Greenland in this century?” He then quotes their responses: “They cannot rule that out and privately will not”.
So what are poor innocent gullible readers supposed to think? …[Gore] goes onto say in the very next paragraph that the scientists may actually be conservative in their outlook
You see how both positions could be true?
Did Gore say there will be a break-up? No. Did Gore say or imply there may be a break-up? Yes. Was this based on an informed opinion? Yes. Is it now happening? Yes.
It’s like arguing with a schoolchild with you, Ian. Except with children you tend to believe they can learn.