This is really a thing of beauty: climate pseudoscientist Willis Eschenbach whines at the inadvertent comedy blog Watt’s Up With That that Bora Zivkovic has been moderating comments on his SciAm blog.
Eschenbach, who’s also a Mass Extinction denialist, objects to Bora’s having instituted some basic anti-troll measures at A Blog Around The Clock that relegate comments with certain field marks of the climate denialist loon to the spam bin. Says Bora, in a passage that apparently made Eschenbach’s cranial temperature spike like a Warmist hockey-stick graph:
If I write about a wonderful weekend mountain trek, and note I saw some flowers blooming earlier than they used to bloom years ago, then a comment denying climate change is trolling. I am a biologist, so I don’t write specifically about climate science as I do not feel I am expert enough for that. So, I am gradually teaching my spam filter to automatically send to spam any and every comment that contains the words “warmist”, “alarmist”, “Al Gore” or a link to Watts. A comment that contains any of those is, by definition, not posted in good faith. By definition, it does not provide additional information relevant to the post. By definition, it is off-topic. By definition, it contains erroneous information. By definition, it is ideologically motivated, thus not scientific. By definition, it is polarizing to the silent audience. It will go to spam as fast I can make it happen.
What Eschenbach doesn’t mention, and a basic point of Bora’s post on how trolls derail substantive conversation, is that climate denialism is just the most pernicious and prevalent of a number of kinds of pseudoscience that have afflicted some of the sites on SciAm of late:
I know that I used the example of Global Warming Denialism here the most – mainly because it is currently the most acute problem on our site – but the same goes for people harboring other anti-scientific ideas: creationists, anti-vaxxers, knee-jerk anti-GMO activists, and others.
This post is not about climate denial, it is about commenting and comment moderation. It is about the fact that eliminating trolls opens the commenting threads to more reasonable people who can actually provide constructive comments, thus starting the build-up of your own vigorous commenting community.
There are seven billion people on the planet, many of them potentially useful commenters on your site. Don’t scare them away by keeping a dozen trolls around – you can live without those, they are replaceable.
Eschenbach’s month-late response to Bora’s post is as pure and canonical a paean to the hallowed practice of JAQing off as I have seen. A sample:
I can only bow my head in awe. I mean, what better way is there to keep you from answering people from WUWT and other sites who might want answers to actual scientific questions, than not allowing them to speak at all?… See, Bora, the beauty of your plan is, you don’t even have to think about censorship once you do that. The computer does the hard work for you, rooting out and destroying evil thoughtcrimes coming from … from … well, from anyone associated with Watts Up With That, or with Steven McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit, or anyone that you might disagree with, or who is concerned about “alarmists”, you just put them on the list and Presto!
No more inconvenient questions!
I probably ought to feel sorry for Eschenbach: anyone who would proudly link to a piece like this alleged debunking of extinctions — as opposed to deleting it, salting the earth of the server on which it once resided, and denying under oath that you’d ever heard of the thing — is definitely more properly pitied than mocked. “No continental forest bird or mammal is recorded as having gone extinct from any cause,” Eschenbach says. That’s some Time-Cube-level obliviousness.
But I can’t help snickering, and feeling slyly jealous that Bora was able to elicit a response like that just by mentioning idly that he’s keeping his own comment threads on topic despite a massive campaign by a few fanciers of metallic haberdashery to disrupt them. Well done, my friend. Well done.
Time Cube levels of obliviousness?
Watts Up With That? is connected enough with reality that they are able to make their lies and distortions sound plausible to the uninformed sort of a Bayesian Mimicry in reverse …..hmmm…..I guess that Time Cube is a more honest website than Watts Up With That?
(Also, there is no ‘www’ preceding the Time Cube address – that way lies madness!)
Oh, I dunno. Eschenbach at least provides ideal raw material for Tamino to do some of his terrific dismembering of ludicrous mathturbation. Like these pieces. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/death-by-chartsmanship/ http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/fake-forcing/
Of course, these examples of Eschenbach’s regurgitations were posted at his home site. In SciAm’s place, I’d do whatever it took to keep this kind of nonsense out of the comments.
This made me laugh :) fantastic phrase.
I do not understand Warming deniers. All the evidence shows that average global temperatures are going up; this is undeniable. You could feasibly have a debate as to whether or not humans have contributed to it, though from the evidence I’ve seen anyone denying that would lose. You could certainly have a debate as to the extent to which humans have contributed to it. But to deny that it is happening, full stop? That is a position which simply does not match reality. I cannot wrap my head around the thought processes involved in looking at a graph which clearly shows an upward trend and going “Nope. Doesn’t exist”. It’s mind boggling.
thumper 1990,
The problem with climate change denialists is that after they admit that climate change is happening, then what? They have to accept that major socioeconomic changes are necessary to slow down if not halt global warming. These changes will have effects on their lifestyles. Like most conservatives the denialists dislike change, especially if it effects their privileges. It’s easier to stick their heads in the sand and claim climate change isn’t happening than to forgo their dependency on oil.
the subject of “astroturfing” comes up a lot on the climate change blogs.
If anyone is interested, Naomi Oreske makes a career of tracking the history of this, and the people that have been involved with the science denial movement going back to even before Big Tobacco.
example
or read her book: Merchants of Doubt
this shit goes back a long ways, and everyone should know the players involved.
thumper1990:
In my experience, the kind of ‘hardcore’ ones take a layered approach – they first deny that warming is happening. If and when they’re forced to admit it’s happening, they say it’s not as bad as claimed. If and when they’re forced to admit it is as bad as claimed, they say humans aren’t causing it. If and when they’re forced to admit that humans are causing it, they say the effect of human-caused global warming is minimal. Then it becomes a whole series of them arguing about how, OK, it’s slightly worse than [insert previous admission here], but it’s still not as bad as claimed, so the whole climate change ‘alarmism’ is totally overblown. Most people arguing against them have better things to do than actually go through the whole process, so they just give up somewhere along the line.
What I find really odd is when they say that the graph is a fraud, then discard the graph as being ‘controversial’ (you know, due to the controversy created by them claiming it’s a fraud), and then say that, discounting ‘controversial’ evidence, there is no evidence of climate change.
I’m way ahead of Bora. When the spammers for lunacy start hitting this place hard, I’ll put some of their pet phrases temporarily in the filter list: “warmist” was one of them, and also various racist/sexist terms.
I have found that it is sometimes useful to classify climate denialists (or evolution denialists or what have you) based on the logical fallacy or the mental pathology they suffer from.
By far, the most common fallacy is Argument from Consequences. Glibertarians argue that climate change means the end of capitalism and freedom, so it must be false. They seem utterly unaware of how feeble it makes their ersatz philosophy that they prefer to argue against reality than propose solutions consistent with their philosophy. The Ad Hominem fallacy is also quite popular–with the role of bete noir being played by Al Gore, Mike Mann, or just “The Team” (the Climate Fraudit short hand for the climate science community). Among actual scientists, the tendency is to argue that “the models” are inadequate–conveniently forgetting that 1)the models actually reproduce most global trends quite well, and 2)that even if they did not, this would not invalidate the mountains (literal and figurative) of evidence showing that it is warming and that the signature is that of a greenhouse gas.
On the pathology side, the most amusing development of late is the recursive conspiracy theory research by Stephan Lewandowsky:
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyRecFury.html
…There’s so much wrong at that link that, I’m ashamed to say, I had to flee in terror, knowing that otherwise I’d spend the rest of the day there, fisking it.
Seconded.
And then they suddenly go full circle, point at some graph and say there hasn’t been any warming in the last 15 years! … … Or at least not any warming that’s statistically significant at the 95 % level.
Well, it’s only climate if it’s 30 years or more, and 1998 was an El Niño year, so if you start drawing your line from that point, it’s easy to not make it go farther up.
Note “the graph”: they’re talking about Mann et al. (1998 and/or 1999) and flat-out ignore everything that’s been published since if they can’t twist it to their advantage. The hockey stick has been replicated several times by different people using different datasets…
This fixation on Mann (1998, 1999) is a bit like creationists trying to find mistakes in Darwin (1859).
Did you know he’s fat??? And did you know that the general public in the whole wide world had no idea of global warming before Fatal Gore got his movie out??? Also, he’s fat.
In particular, they reproduce the ENSO and other such oscillations. None of them was programmed into them, they just come out of running the models.
:-)
Aren’t the climate change deniers basically using the same playbook Big Tobacco used back in the’90’s? Back when I lived in Flagstaff I’d tell any deniers I dealt with online I didn’t give a fuck ‘cuz I lived 7,000 feet above sea level. After moving back to Milwaukee a few years ago and seeing how far Lake Michigan had dropped, I can’t even fake a devil-may-care attitude about it anymore. Even more disturbing to me is that the states with the most to lose have a shitload of climate change deniers, James Inhofe, Bobby Jindal to name a couple.
David Marjanović
I’ve taken to asking the guys who say climate change is a plot by Al Gore when Gore invented a time machine to travel back to 1896 and give Svante Arrhenius the idea for his famous paper. I mean 1896 was 11 years before Al Gore’s father was born.
That isn’t due to climate change, that is a result of our rapacious demand for water.
We are going to hit peak water and suffer the catastrophic consequences long before climate change catches up with us and spanks our ass.
http://www.blacklistednews.com/30_Facts_About_The_Coming_Water_Crisis_That_Will_Change_The_Lives_Of_Every_Person_On_The_Planet/24578/0/38/38/Y/M.html
When triaging human caused environmental problems, I would put water first, energy second, ocean health third and atmospheric CO2 concentration way down the list. Unfortunately, funding agencies don’t agree with said priorities.
Maybe it is because there are technological alternatives to many CO2 belching systems we rely on while the freshwater cycle is pretty much fixed. Or maybe it is because we live in such a prosperous society that we can have clean water piped into our homes that we no longer think about where said water comes from; if we had to walk five miles to get dirty water from a polluted river for all our household needs you can be damn sure our relationship with water would be different.
Then again, I’m a Californian hydrologist descended from the dust bowl diaspora so my relationship with water might skew my view. But data is data and the data says our water use worldwide is unsustainable….
Some of them are the same people that tried to defend Big Tobacco!
Ocean + atmospheric CO2 = carbonic acid. Ocean acidification is already becoming a serious problem.
Much of the US is much drier than most of Europe. There’s nothing comparable to Las Vegas or… most of southern California over here. El Desierto in Spain is just big enough to shoot spaghetti westerns in.
Christopher,
What makes you think the problems you listed are independent? We know that climate change makes dry areas drier and wet areas wetter–sounds like a problem for hydrology to me. David has pointed out the dangers of ocean acidification. I would just add that the closest analog to the present warming epoch was the Paleocen-Eocene Thermal Maximum, and that wasn’t a good time for the oceans. Of course things are different now–it’s warming 10 times as fast.
Perhaps the reason why you rank anthropogenic CO2 so far down the list is that you haven’t bothered to understand the consequences.
Watch out for getting too smug:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/percent-of-groundwater-bodies-in
http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/european-water-shortages-coming/1630
One “good” thing Europe has going for it is that you guys are pretty inefficient in your water use (domestic and agriculture). By instituting proven reforms pioneered in places like California and Israel, you can increase your water supply even if your precip inputs remain the same or decrease. Those places that have already implemented the most obvious reforms don’t have much more room for supply growth through efficiency and thus will be the first to really feel the pain of peak water.
Zivkovic’s filter seems a bit too fine-meshed.
Al Gore currently has a book on the NY Times bestseller list, and remains relevant as a case study in character assassination, election theft, and other issues (as all computer nerds know, he’s got that Al-Gore-Rhythm!). Are all of these topics beyond the pale at SciAm?
I understand the consequences quite well, but said consequences will only really start ramping up long after the more immediate supply issues thoroughly fuck us over. Climate change will kick us while we are down. Furthermore, our responses to a fresh water shortage will only exacerbate the CO2 problem: energy use for desalination or even just water movement is huge, and war over resources (the usual human response to shortages) will produce immense quantities of greenhouse gasses. Addressing our unsustainable use of water and energy will go a long way to reducing our carbon footprint. If we ignore these problems, we will never get our greenhouse gas problem in check. Hence the reason for my triage ordering.
We should all arm ourselves now.
Fun fact, half the total electricity used in California is used to move water.
You cannot solve our CO2 problem without solving our energy and water problems.
Christopher: “I understand the consequences quite well, but said consequences will only really start ramping up long after the more immediate supply issues thoroughly fuck us over. Climate change will kick us while we are down.”
Really. Well, then I guess that fact that the hurricane with the highest cyclonic energy ever measured happened to hit New York and not Florida and not during September, but in late October, we should just forget about that, huh?
And the fact that we came close to having to close the Missisippi to barge traffic? Nothing to see, there, right?
And the fact that the grain harvest in nuclear armed Pakistan has failed due to flooding two years running? No worries, mate?
And the fact that Oz just about melted this Summer? Hell, just crank up the air con.
Dude, you really don’t get it. This isn’t a bunch of different problems. It’s one big, hairy, ginormous threat. Climate change and energy are part of the same issue. Up to now, the planet has been a sink for about half the CO2 we produce–and yet, we know there are huge reservoirs of methane and CO2 in permafrost and clathrate deposits near the poles, and they are starting to see km wide plumes of methane bubbling up in the Arctic.
We don’t have the luxury of solving energy and water first and then worrying about climate change, because when mother nature starts sourcing rather than sinking CO2, we are fucked!
I’d say if you can solve energy first (in an environmentally friendly way), water could be resolved using water purification technologies. There is the whole issue with waste water (like in Desalinization), but if we had theoretical unlimited green energy, I think (IMHO) that could be resolved as well.
So personally I put energy as #1 (being green energy), which I feel could lead to fixing both the water and climate issues.
I’m also highly concerned about the ocean health, but I see that as a much broader issue – C02 and warming is a problem, for multiple reasons, but there is so much more involved there (ocean acidification primarily – there are other potential issues with our warming oceans) . I am biased on that one, having been a undergraduate Marine Biology major (although I do not work in the field), living in the Monterrey Bay.
The people who really have serious water problems, as you perhaps imply, are the women who walk miles every day to fetch it, the children who die of diarrhoearal disease contracted from dirty water, the small-scale farmers whose crops die because the rains fail. Many of the same people are already suffering as a direct result of climate change.
BTW, the increasing exploitation of unconventional oil and gas sources (through fracking etc.) mean that we’re a long way off peak oil or peak gas; and we have enough coal for a couple of centuries. Energy is not in short supply – we have quite enough fossil fuels to destroy our civilization; low GHG energy is, mostly because the fossil fuels corporations want it that way.
I am totally with Bora on filtering out the garbage from the comment section. I might read some interesting articles on SciAm only to facepalm at some of the stupidest waffle in the comments section ranging from Al Gore is fat to whining that their tax dollars is going towards research. I make it a priority never to look at the comments now at SciAm (ESPECIALLY articles on climate change). The only exception there is Darren Naish’s Tetrapod Zoology which has fantastic, enlightening discussions in the comments. And if I remember, Darren has very little tolerance for creationists and will get the banhammer out if they keep repeating the same arguments ad nauseam.
A point these OMG CENSORSHIP tools never acknowledge. Moderating a comments section can make discussion more relevant and on topic and will encourage other people to join in. It vastly increases free speech by not having every discussion turn into answering the same PRATT over and over and instead asking new questions.
The name “Bora” keeps reminding me of the climate-altering robot in Pluto. It was supposed to turn a desert country into a lush garden, but (thanks to an untimely war) it was ultimately rigged with a massive bomb and set to cover the world in dust and ash.
Make of that what you will.
Reading the comments on Eschenbach’s post was very enlightening. The vast majority amount to “I used to like SciAm until they started disagreeing with me too much”, an imminently reasonable position given the touted scientific accomplishments of the posters /snark.
They also, to a person, missed Bora’s point that it consittutes trolling to start denying climate science in an article about something else. They act like he banned anyone who asked questions about AGW in any context on any post. Histrionics seems to be their strong suit, irony incarnate.
Oh, and on the subject of water conservation, how much water would we save if we stopped wasting drinkable water in our toilets and started designing houses to filter bathtub/shower/sink runoff there instead? Or does that just make too damned much sense?
David Marjanović:
You’re not really thinking like a denialist. If you were, you’d say that any graph that shows the same thing as the Mann graph is obviously just as fraudulent as the Mann graph, otherwise it wouldn’t show the same thing, so each and every one of those can also be discarded, despite such minor details as being drawn up by completely different people, using completely different data.
@3. thumper1990 :
Yes, me too but ..but .. Inadvertant splash damage – Viking, Roman and medieval era re-enactors plus World War I & II ones!
Remember they once used to have metal helmets that really were protective of your noggin?
StevoR, I have asked you politely to go away. Do not force my hand in this passive-aggressive manner.
Global Overheating deniers have been plaguing this slate thread :
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2013/03/climate_change_flow_chart_how_to_win_any_global_warming_argument.html?wpisrc=most_viral
lately too in case anyone’s interested in helping out there.
At least one of the trolls there provided a laugh by claiming Global Overheating on Earth is caused by a dust cloud around Jupiter!
Not so funny is the pathetic fool who thinks anyone (correctly) calling him a Denier deserves their eyes gouged out, their teeth bashed in and a kick in the groin.
PS. #28 intneded humeourously.
@29. Chris Clarke : Hadn’t read that before posting #30. Sorry. I’d like to stay, not sure what your problem with me is – I like this blog and actually agree with you on most issues.
Please give me a fair chance. I’m not the villain I’ve been painted as by some here I think.
@Ulysses and zmidpok
Hello, sorry for the drive-by yesterday. I was distracted by something a commenter linked to on another thread; ended up reading the backstory for the creation of Space Marines all day. Warhammer the game bores the fuck out of me, but the backstory really is fascinating. I shall have to make another effort to read all the books.
Anyway, /derail.
Yeah I’ve come to the conclusion that the entire Global Warming Denialist position is based on nothing more than Argument from Consequences. They don’t want to go to all the effort that Global Warming prevention would require of them, so GW isn’t true. It’s like the “X is desireable therefore X is true” thinking that we see in religious people, except in reverse. “X is undesireable, therefore X is not true”. Enter confirmation bias and they can go on arguing against it forever. I understand the mechanism, but I still don’t get it. I physically cannot look at empirical evidence that proves something is happening, and then go on denying it because I don’t want it to be true. I don’t like the fact I have to do stuff to combat it, but I cannot deny that it’s true so I try to do my bit. Even if they admitted it was true and just said they couldn’t be arsed, I’d understand. But I literally don’t get how you can fool yourself into believing something isn’t true when all the evidence says it is. How do they do it?
@SteveoR
Yeah, I got that #28 was a joke, but the only way I can see it making sense is if you intended to take the mickey out of PZ’s comment policy about racial/abelist/misogynistic/ageist slurs or the general argument against them; that they are innappropriate because they are aimed at a group rather than an individual and thus have a splashback effect on all members of that group rather than just insulting the person you intended to. If I’ve got that wrong then my apologies, but I can’t see any other way that comment would make sense and, if I’m right, then fuck you.
Hahaha wow. Pointing out your distortions and lies now counts as vile abuse comparable to the rape/death threats and constant harassment that skeptics like Rebecca, Ophelia and Stephanie get? This is why you are piss poor excuses for skeptics. If they rebut your arguments you rebut them back with evidence not cry about what meanies they are. If you want to talk about abuse and harassment in relation to climate change then you only have to look at the death threats and harassment many climate scientists get for just doing their jobs. If you guys were truly on the right side of this issue why do you have to resort to death threats?
Jesus Stevor, yes you are. Even when you think you aren’t you are.
It’s pitiful
ftfy
What evidence to you have to show climate change isn’t happening? Zip, zilch, zero, nada, nil. Your OPINION isn’t and never will be evidence. Lies:
Climate change is defined as a minimum of 30 years. Your seventeen years is a category error, and is meaningless, ignorant, and pathetic drive. Thirty years nails that climate change is happening. Show otherwise with 30 year minimum data…..
Scuse me while I shoot fish in a barrell:
@25 “Seventeen years of no warming has really got you guys running scared.”
Seventeen? Really? And why do you suppose that was the number chosen? Why not 18, or 16? Because it doesn’t give you the answer you want, that’s why. The term “cherry picking” mean anything to you?
thinking makes too much sense!
besides your wrong!
and fat and ugly and your Mama dresses you funny and and nand nand nor or …………………..
uncle frogy
<>Svntn? Rlly? nd why d y spps tht ws th nmbr chsn? Why nt 18, r 16? Bcs t dsn’t gv y th nswr y wnt, tht’s why. Th trm “chrry pckng” mn nythng t y?
Ys, tht nmbr s dfntly chrry-pckd. Bt tht dsn’t mn t sn’t sgnfcnt. t’s th nswr t th qstn, “Hw fr bck cn y g, nd stll fnd n sgnfcnt wrmng trnd?” (nd nt jst stppng nd strtng pnt, bt th sttstcl trnd frm ll dt n btwn). t’s wy f nlyzng th trnd, t s hw sttstclly nsl tht wld b, n sppsd rsng (r fllng) trndln.
Fr xmpl, n rnnng th vrs GCM mdls grt nmbr f tms, t trns t tht t’s xtrmly nsl t fnd vn chrry-pckd stllng f tht mgntd. t’s nt cnclsv t sy tht th rsng trnd hs ths bn ntrrptd, bt t ds mk t mr nd mr lkly. nd ths sn’t jst cncrn mng dnlsts. Th clmt scnc cmmnty s vry mch hrd t wrk tryng t ddrss ths, nd cm p wth xplntns, sch s th pssblty tht ncrsd rsls r pssbl. Why wld thy bthr wth dng tht, f th trndln brk ws nsgnfcnt? Y cn’t hv t bth wys, y knw. thr th stss dsn’t xst, r t hs t b xplnd. Y cn’t cm p wth n xplntn fr smthng tht dsn’t xst.
Actually yes, if you are talking climate, not weather. Climate requires 30 years. As anybody who actually has read the literature knows. 17 YEARS IS WEATHER, 30 YEARS IS CLIMATE.
Citation needed. Why do the denialists keep making uncited claims, like we will accept their word for anything other than lies and bullshit?
<>Clmt chng s dfnd s mnmm f 30 yrs. Yr svntn yrs s ctgry rrr, nd s mnnglss, gnrnt, nd pthtc drv. Thrty yrs nls tht clmt chng s hppnng. Shw thrws wth 30 yr mnmm dt…..
Gd pnt, thgh y r ndvrtntly shtng yrslf n th ft thr. Th ctl rcnt wrmng trnd pntd t s th dfntv sgn f GW dsn’t bgn ntl bt 1977, nd nds t rghly 2000, ftr whch t gs flt (thgh n cld xtnd thr trnd thr wy n vrlppng fshn). S t’s nt clr tht th wrmng trnd w’v jst gn thrgh ctlly mks th 30 yr mrk thr. (th lngr mdrn wrmng trnd bgnnng n bt 1860-1910 dsn’t cnt, n tht GW ffcts dn’t kck n ntl ftr 1950 ccrdng t th ldng clmt scntsts (wh r nt n th “dnlst” cmp). f crs, n cld rg tht 30 yrs s n rbtrry nmbr, bt thr wy, t’s srprsng hw brf nd rcnt th GW trnd s vn llgd t b. Whch mks th rcnt plt bt mr dscncrtng, jst whn GW s sppsd t b kckng n bg tm. Sm skptcsm crtnly sms n rdr.
um, no, they aren’t.
clearly you’re way to preoccupied with the blood gushing from your own foot. you should stop projecting and get that seen to, because…
the data goes back thousands of years in comparison, and the warming trends are noticed far before 1977.
so tired of self-claimed skeptics not even having the slightest clue what they’re talking about… just repeat tired and rote talking points from someone they think knows better.
No better than a creationist.
pathetic.
Nrd,
<>Cttn ndd. Why d th dnlsts kp mkng nctd clms, lk w wll ccpt thr wrd fr nythng thr thn ls nd bllsht?
Myb bcs xpct y t hv sm bsc knwldg f th sbjct ndr dscssn, whch y sm t thnk y knw bt? mn, hnstly, y’r nt vn wr tht clmt scntsts hv bn wrkng hrd tryng t xpln ths wrmng ps? Bt sng s y rn’t vn tht wr f th rcnt scnc, hr gs:
http://www.nws.nt/pblc/Grnwr/2011/10/25/1
Tw cn ply t ths gm.
<>17 YRS S WTHR, 30 YRS S CLMT.
Cttn, pls?
Try rdng, r vn jst gglng, s jst dd, t fnd ths rtcl n bt 20 scnds. mn rlly.
your projecting the actual consensus of climate scientists onto your own, disjointed, group.
sorry, but your tent contains far more division on this than you want to admit to yourself.
LOL
says the pot to the kettle.
run along and play.
Still no citation. But try this, as one of many such articles calling you a liar and bullshitter.
chthyc,
<>th dt gs bck thsnds f yrs n cmprsn, nd th wrmng trnds r ntcd fr bfr 1977.
nd wht bt tht dt? Wht ds t shw? f y dn’t hv n ctl pnt, why s p spc hr?
Lk, n f th ldng rgmnts f th GW clmt scnc s tht, whn thy rn th mdls wth, nd wtht GHG frcngs, thy gt chng n th tcms frm bt 1950 nwrd. Thr mdls sggst tmps wld hv lvld ff, r vn dclnd, wtht tht ncrs n GHGs. Whch mns tht th wrmng whch ccrrd bfr 1950 wld hv hppnd nywy, wth r wtht ncrsd GHG frcng d t hmn ctvty. t ws ntrl wrmng. nd tht wrmng trnd bgn n 1750 pprxmtly, th lw pnt f th L. S tmps hd lrdy bn n th rs fr 200 yrs bfr 1950, nd s t hppns, tmps bgn fllng n 1940 r s, ntl bt 1977. T xpln tht dcln, clmt scntsts prpsd tht rsls frm drty cl plnts nd crs hd cld th tmsphr, cntrng th GHG frcng, ntl th lt 1970s, whn plltn cntrls clnd tht p. Hwvr, rcnt stds hv shwn tht rsl clng s mch lwr thn th fctrs sd n th clmt mdls, s tht bcm lss sbl s n xplntn. Stll, sm r tryng t brng t t gn nw, t xpln ths rcnt stss, clmng tht t’s cl plnts n Chn tht r rspnsbl. nd yt, th nmbrs dn’t dd p.
nd pls, stp rsrtng t rgng by nslt, rthr thn ctl vdnc? D y vn hv ny? r r y smply gnrnt f th fcts? D y wnt m t rg yr cs fr y, bcs cld prbbly d bttr jb f t?
Why? Where is your EVIDENCE? Your OPINION isn’t and never will be evidence. This is evidence: NASA 130 years of global warming. Something other than your words, OPINION, and fuckwittery.
Nrd,
<>Stll n cttn.
D rlly hv t wp yr ss fr y n smthng tht bsc? Shsh, dlng wth tddlrs rqrs sch ptnc.
http://www.ncdc.n.gv/stc/srvc/glbl/glbl-lnd-cn-mntp-nm/201101-201112.png
<>Bt try ths, s n f mny sch rtcls cllng y lr nd bllshttr.
s t rlly ncssry t rsrt t sch tddlr-spk? Cn’t y jst tlk fcts?
Yr rtcl t ls ds nt dny th xstnc f th ps, t mrly trs t mnmz ts sgnfcnc. ‘m qt fmlr wth Rhmstrfs dsprt ttmpt t xpln wy th ps, bt t lst h cknwldgs t xsts. s sd bfr, why wld nyn try t xpln smthng tht dsn’t xst? Th fct tht Rhmstrff trs t xpln th ps, mns tht t xsts, nd tht t’s sgnfcnt ngh fr hm t cm p wth n xplntn fr t.
S yh, y jst sht yrslf n th ft gn. Tht mst hrt.
s fr th cntnt f Rhmstrff’s xplntn, n, t’s nt vry gd n, whch s why mst clmt scntsts r stll lkng nd tryng t cm p wth xplntns. Whch s gd. t lst thy cr bt fndng n nswr, nlk y, wh prtnds thr’s n qstn.
Hnt: n rsn Rhmstrff’s xplntn sn’t vry gd s tht n n ctlly ndrstnds th fll mchncs nd cstn f th NS cycl n th frst plc. Thy cn’t mdl t, r s t n thr mdls, s hs “djstmnts” r jst gsss.
Th thr prblm s tht n f th prmry xplntns mny skptcs gv fr th wrmng s ntrl n, nvlvng NS nd vrs cn crrnt cycls. S lmntng NS ffcts wtht xplnng why thy dn’t mttr, s crclr rgmnt gnst ths wh fvr ntrl wrmng xplntn. f n xmns th ctl “stry” f r rcnt wrmng, t shws tht mst f th wrmng ws th rslt f strng NS vnts tht pshd th glbl clmt (nd cn ht cntnt) pwrd n tw lrg jmps n th 1990s nd rly 2000s, whch shldn’t b hw wrmng ccrs f GHG frcng s th src. NS wrmng s tslf n f th gv-wys th ctl wrmng f th cns, nd hnc th tmsphr, hs nt bn prmrly drvn by GHG frcng.
NASA sustained long term warming trends. Berkeley long term warming study. Global warming predictions too conservative.
Care to show me your evidence with links borkenyogi? That don’t go straight to denialists web sites?
When will you speak facts by citations not your words? Only your words make it lies and bullshit…like your link…
Broken yogi, beat me on links, not verbiage. In other words, shut the fuck up and point like a true scientist would…
chthyc,
Fc t, y’r jst nt p t n ntllgnt dscssn. Y dn’t ctlly knw wht y’r tlkng bt, nd cn’t tll wht’s wht. Nthng wrng wth tht, nlss y hvn’t gt th crg t dmt t.
You aren’t without citationS. NASA showing global warming isn’t uniform. Shut the fuck up and point…
Nrd,
Ths sn’t lnk wr. t’s smpl dscssn bt th clm tht skptcl rgmnts mnt t “dnlsm”. Y hvn’t prvdd m ny lnks t sngl scntfc ppr n ny cs.
Why nt jst clm dwn nd sk m wht y rlly wnt t knw. wn’t bt. Why r y s cmmttd t ths ntn tht ll skptcs r crzy ppl wh jst l? Th fcts r sffcnt t rlz tht th scnc n ths ss smply s nt sttld. cld mk dcnt cs fr thr sd, bt thnk th mst lkly tcm f th scnc wll b mch rdcd GW ffct, nd lwrd C2 snstvty stmts. nd, cntntn f ths ps, prhps vn nt dcln, fr t lst th nxt tn yrs r mr. Hw lng ntl th ps bcms sgnfcnt ngh t rthnk r ssmptns bt th mprtnc f mnmd GHG frcngs?
Nrd,
<>Y rn’t wtht cttnS. NS shwng glbl wrmng sn’t nfrm.
f crs wrmng sn’t nfrm. Wht s tht sppsd t prv? D y vn knw?
<>Sht th fck p nd pnt…
Whr ds ths ntns lck f scntfc crsty cm frm? Y wnt t slnc nyn wh chllngs yr blfs? thght scnc ws ll bt rgrs dbt wth dssntrs wh rg frm vdnc.
No, it’s a link war. There is no discussion. The facts exist, and you must back up everything you assert. That is a factual discussion. Anything less means you can lie and bullshit.
Melting of polar/Greenland ice.
Dang, borked link in #60
Melting of polar/Greenland ice.
<>NS sstnd lng trm wrmng trnds
W’r nt rgng bt th lng trm trnds, bt th shrt trm ns. Lng trm wrmng s nt n dspt, Whthr tht wrmng hs stppd, psd, gn nt hts, stss, whtvr y wnt t cll t, s th ss
Ths s frm th K Mt ffc (Hdly CR)
http://.dlyml.c.k//px/2012/10/14/rtcl-2217286-1573DF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg
dn’t hv th BST grph frm tht prd, bt ‘v sn t, nd t’s cmptbl. s r th thrs frm N, GSS, H, tc.
Y mght stp wstng yr tm dnyng th smpl fcts. tmsphrc tmps hv wrmd vr th lng trm, ys, ccpt tht. t’s nt bn cntnng t wrm fr nywhr frm 12-17 yrs, dpndng n whr y wnt t drw th ln f th trnd-chng. t’s stppd wrmng t n hstrclly hgh lvl, bt t hs ndd stppd, s msr f wrldwd tmsphrc tmps.
Nthr f ths tw fcts r n dspt mng ntllgnt, nfrmd ppl. Mk yrslf nt n f ths ppl, s my dvc. Thn y cn prhps bgn t cnsdr wht th css f bth th wrmng nd ts ps r. Strng t cll thr ppl dnlsts, whn y cn’t vn fc smpl fcts tht shldn’t b cntrvrsl.
why bother?
you’re lying to yourself if you claim to understand even basic climatology.
happy to repeat your projection for you.
No, we’re talking climate. You’re talking weather. Category error, typical of somebody who doesn’t understand basic definitions. Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get. Variability in weather is a hallmark of climate change….
<>Mltng f plr/Grnlnd c.
Ys, ‘v rd bt tht stdy. t’s fr frm dfntv, s thr hv bn nmbr f stds wth cnflctng rslts, ncldng ns f Grnlnd c tht shw t’s mltng t lssr rt thn hd bn prsmd., Bt vn ssmng ths n s crrct, t’s crtnly nt vry wrrsm. S lvls rs lmst ft vr th lst cntry, nd ths shws rt f nly 1 cm n 20 yrs, r 5cm pr cntry. Trpl tht, fr sfty’s sk, nd w gt bt 6 nchs f s lvl rs n cntry. Hrdly smthng t fr.
Lkws, mst f th trbl s hppnng n th Wst ntrctc pnnslr, nt th mn bdy f ntrtc. nd tht ht spt sn’t ndctv f sm glbl vnt, bt f lcl vnt, whs cs s nt clr.
Grnlnd, fr xmpl, s nt vn s wrm s t ws n th 1930s. nd Grnlnd ws fr wrmr fr thsnds f yrs drng r prsnt ntrglcl thn t s nw, s ths grph shws:
http://www.lf.rg/S/2011GL049444.pdf
G dwn t pg thr, nd y’ll s th lng-trm tmprtr grphs fr Grnlnd. ls, hr’s th rcrd fr th ntr hlcn:
http://jnv.s3.mznws.cm/grphs/lpp/gsp-lst-10000-nw.png
nthr mprtnt ss fr c lss s blck crbn. Hr’s n rtcl frm yr fvrt wbst bt rcnt ppr n ths tpc:
http://wttspwththt.cm/2013/03/07/stdy-blck-crbn-rsl-frcng-my-b-n-mprtnt-fctr-ffctng-th-snw-c-cvr-n-th-nrthrn-hmsphr/
no, you’re trying to claim short term trends are relevant to the long term ones.
IOW, you’re misrepresenting what the data set actually is saying.
The dataset is so clear that AGW is real, and what is causing it, that I have NEVER seen such consensus within related fields of endeavor before.
what’s very clear indeed is that not only do you not know what you’re talking about, but you’re happy to lie to present an untenable position.
some of us actually HAVE examined all the relevant data, read the papers, and actually understand the science involved.
you, however, clearly do not.
you’re quite transparent.
run along.
It is, since the definition of climate is 30 years. Why are you still lying about that? Oh, that’s right, long term shows you lie and bullshit….
Notice dears lurkers, the lack of evidence cited, the category error of calling weather “climate”, and inability to understand the real concepts except to attempt to sow doubt. Classic denialist, same as any creobot, MRAbot, godbot, or any other presuppositionalist. Just can’t/won’t talk bout the science, found here with well established definitions, like 30 years minimum is climatae. Boring, but noisy critters.
<>Th dtst s s clr tht GW s rl, nd wht s csng t, tht hv NVR sn sch cnsnss wthn rltd flds f ndvr bfr.
Jz, tlk bt vrsttng yr cs. mn, vn thnk GW s rl, jst dspt hw strng t s. Th dt jst sn’t s strng s y sy. Thr’s cs t b md, t b sr, bt t’s hrdly nythng lk “slm dnk”, nlss y’r Grg Tnt.
Bt t’s shr nnsns t sy tht y’v nvr sn sch “cnsnss” wthn rltd flds bfr, nlss y’r jst gnrnt f scnc. Th clmt cnsnss nly hlds p (nrly) nvrslly n sm vry bsc qstns, lk “s thr sgnfcnt hmn ffct n clmt nd rcnt wrmng?” vn fms skptcs lk Lndzn nd Spncr nd s n nswr ys t tht. Hw mch tht ffct s, s vry mch p n th r. vn th PCC hs pt C2 snstvty t smwhr btwn 1.5-4.5C/ Tht’s rng f 3:1. f tld y tht physcsts wr tht nsr f th frc f grvty, wld y rlly thnk thy’d nld th scnc dwn yt, vn t thrtcl lvl? f crs nt. Th cs s hgly vrsttd, nd t scrms t t m tht t’s vry lkly thy jst hv btchd t n ths n, nd cn’t dmt hw bdly yt. W’ll hv t wtch tht tmprtr rcrd t s jst hw bdly, bcs nthng ls s gng t d th trck t ths pnt.
Actually, I’ve made it difficult to notice. But this particular strain of science denialism has a death toll already, and I won’t have it in my threads.
And since borkenyorgi was far too prolific a drive-by troll and I don’t have 13 bunny videos at hand at the moment, into the bin he goes.
Nrd,
ddn’t cll 17 yrs clmt, clld t sgnfcnt t clmt scntsts stdyng th rcnt wrmng trnd.
kp skng y fr ct n ths clm tht thrty yrs s “clmt”, bt y rfs t ffr nythng. Frm wht knw, ths 30 yr thng s mrly th bsln prd th N nd GSS ss fr clcltng nmls. Thr’s n sch dfntn t “cmt”. n fct, thr r mny, mny clmt cycls tht tk mch mr thn thrty yrs, nd s wld b mssd n thrty yr prd. Clmt, rlly, s bst msrd n prds f hndrds nd vn mny thsnds f yrs. thrws, y cnfs shrt trm ntrl vrblty wth rl chng n clmt.
Thr hv bn mny ntrl wrmng trnds smlr t th prsnt n n th hstrcl rcrd n bth sz nd drtn. Clmt bncs rnd qt lt. n ctl prmnnt chng n th clmt tks mr thn thrty yrs t stblsh nd dfn. t’s nly th thry f GHG s th prmry drvr f clmt tht gvs ny crdblty t ll t th ntn tht r clmt s ctlly bng rrvrsbly chngd. Th dt tslf dsn’t stblsh tht t ll.
Yawn, disemvoweled troll still thinks it has the authority to redefine weather versus climate, without a citation in site. Typical denialist. Proper statistics require a large sample size. Lower the size, and the value of the statistics go down. Which is why 30 years is the lower limit. Just like trending at my work. 20 lots, or don’t bother. Funny how they just don’t get basic science.
I’ve seen these denialists run their spiel a thousand times.
never anything new, never anything more than talking points that make them personally feel better about themselves, but aren’t coincident with any actual data whatsoever.
Whenever someone makes the claim climate science is a religion, it always comes from someone who is exhibiting this behavior. IOW, they are people who invent lies for themselves to feel better about their behavior, and that IS a big part of the appeal of religion to begin with.
nothing but authoritarian dimwits, looking for a group to belong to that makes them feel better.
guess what?
I have news for you:
The world doesn’t give a shit if you feel better about why you behave the way you do; it doesn’t change reality, despite what Oprah might tell you.
get a grip and join us in working to fix the problems, or just shut the hell up and get out of the way.
And as for StevoR;
I have given you a fair chance. My decision hasn’t been influenced by other people complaining about you: it’s entirely based on what I have seen of the way you behave, not only in threads, but in your wheedling, whining emails to the bloggers here.
Well, and also on the fact that many of the people I love are — what was the phrase you used? “Melanin-enhanced.”
I’m not banning you. I’m merely telling you you have worn out your welcome in my threads. And don’t fucking email me again lest I invoice you for my time spent clicking “delete.”
dammit
this would have been fun to participate in
this would have been fun in which to participate
meh
bye-bye yogi
—
ooh and a thread with and StevoR, too.
—-
[and a demonstration of the power of the blogmeister]
you know, I liked posting on Jerry Coyne’s blog; often made contributions in support of many of his posts, in fact.
and yet…
I never once emailed Jerry to complain about him banning me for calling some numpty a jerk, or whinged about being banned (or even mentioned it until there was a discussion about it on this blog).
I do recall Ben Goren going on for at least 3 months on Jerry’s blog though, whinging about the “treatment” he received here, and basically playing “poison the well” any time the letters “FTB” appeared.
I don’t understand… when you get bounced from a blog, and there are thousands of others around…. why do people take it so personally?
if Chris banned me from Pharyngula, right now, all that would mean to me is that I would be spending a day finding another place to hang my hat. It’s like complaining about being kicked out of a bar, when there are 30 bars on the same street.
I never did get the whole theme behind “Cheers” either. How long does it take to tell people your name, so “everyone knows it”? a few minutes?
spaces are dynamic; things change. don’t get too attached…
any other cliches on offer?
:)
By now, being in denial of AGW is akin to being a flat-earther.
(But more profitable for some)
Chris, Chris, Chris, I am so disappointed in you. Sloppy work, man.
Where are our bunny videos?
WE DEMAND BUNNY VIDEOS!
*where by WE, I mean I, and by DEMAND, I mean want.
I agree with Alethea.
bunny
bunny
bunny
[hey, it worked last time ;) ]
Ouch, Disemvoweling
Painful
I’m off in 90 minutes to lobby my MP about the Energy Bill currently going through the UK Parliament – the most important point being to get annual targets for decarbonisation of electricity generation into it. Fortunately this looks quite hopeful, as it’s been amended in that way at the Committee Stage, with support even from some Tories – now it comes back to the whole House of Commons. In the larger scheme of things, this bill is a minor matter, but we can’t let denialist liars and fools discourage us.
Thank you, Nick. We all do what we can. Well, except for those of us who don’t.
Now look at that, disenvowelling and bunny videos. Miles better than “but climate is always changing! Al Gore!!!!”. They are boring as fuck. Same old shit and Chris’ moderation has not deprived us of any ground breaking insights whatsoever.
Thanks, Chris.
可愛い、ね！
Ichthyic:
That dichotomy misses a very large third group – those who acknowledge that the climate is changing, but don’t consider it a good choice to do anything about it. I suspect that the majority of people fit into that group.
Kitty Genovese might have had something to say about those people.
If I just ignore it, it might go away.
Somebody else will probably do something about it.
It’s probably not that bad, anyway.
Disemvoweler IV, the game where climate denialists dig at each other with rusty graphs.