Climate Wars Roundup

Several climate change news items have crossed the radar screen lately, and even though at the moment I’m more obsessed with the influence of leprechauns on the outcome of the women’s Laser Radial class in Weymouth, I wanted to note them in passing.

  • Muller knows BEST that Watts is wrong – Martin Lack blogs about Richard Muller’s recent (continuing) movement in the direction of acknowledging that global warming is real and (this is the new-for-Muller part) demonstrably caused by humans. Lack also discusses Anthony Watts’ apparent attempt to lessen the impact of former-AGW-skeptic Muller’s apostasy by publicizing his (Watt’s) own as-yet-unpublished counter-study, claiming that half the observed global warming can be explained by inappropriate siting of ground measurement stations, or something like that. For myself, I’ll just observe that: 1) Muller is an actual scientist, while Watts is a former TV weatherman and blogger who apparently prefers not to provide his actual academic credentials, so this is a bit of an apples-vs.-oranges contest; and 2) people who sound very much like they know what they’re talking about point out that we’re not reliant on ground stations alone for much of the recent data being analyzed by folks like Muller; we have these things called satellites.
  • Apparently the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee had hearings today on climate change and extreme weather events. Judith Curry likes what she heard from this guy: John Christy’s EPW testimony. And Roger Pielke, Jr., did not like what he heard from this guy: IPCC Lead Author Misleads US Congress. Suzanne Goldenberg, whom I consider an unreliable witness, even while I agree in broad terms with her concerns about bequeathing an impoverished planet to the next, oh, 50 or 100 human generations, offers this ideologically congenial take on the proceedings: Scientists Warn Congress About Disastrous Effects of Climate Change.
  • Just over five months after his previous HuffPo blog entry (in which he took credit for releasing the Heartland documents, while possibly lying about how he came by the infamous “strategy memo”), Peter Gleick has posted again: The Real Story Behind the Fracking Debate. To which I can only say: And I should trust that you are telling me the truth about this issue exactly why?

Apropos of all that, I wanted to close with the following quote that Martin Lack highlighted in his piece above. It’s by James Hoggan, and apparently is part of the marketing materials for Hoggan’s book, Climate Cover-Up:

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed… There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

I think that’s really important. But I suspect I’m thinking about different people than Hoggan was when he wrote it.

70 Responses to “Climate Wars Roundup”

  1. shcb Says:

    You missed a few things from Watts’ blog, although it is good to see you are reading it so thoroughly. You didn’t mention Ross McKitrick’s piece where he takes Muller to task for going public with his paper when it failed to pass the peer review process, oh well, so much for the vaunted scientific method in the age of instant information.

    As far as ground vs satellite measurements, I’ve long used the UAH data here only to be po poed because it shows a far different level of warming from the alarmists ground based reading which is the data policy makers are being fed. The other thing about satellite data is it only goes back about 30 years or so, so it doesn’t work very well to show the 1930’s being warmer than today.

    It seems JBC is now a regular at Watts’ site, the rest of you should visit it, you can read probably 20 articles in a row right now, that if nothing else, will have you shaking your head as to if anyone really knows what the hell is going on, the are all adjusting numbers up and down, giving this data point more weight than that. Oops! Lost that whole section, oh well we’ll just make this adjustment over here, there we go.

    For someone like Muller to say we are definitively causing all the warming, all of it, ah, well, if he has a bunch of degrees on the wall with the word scientist on them, I fear he may have spent his money unwisely in their acquisition.

  2. knarlyknight Says:

    New angles, if you haven’t seen this yet…

    The science in Hansen’s study is excellent “and reframes the question,” said Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia who was a member of the Nobel Prize-winning international panel of climate scientists that issued a series of reports on global warming.

    “Rather than say, ‘Is this because of climate change?’ That’s the wrong question. What you can say is, ‘How likely is this to have occurred with the absence of global warming?’ It’s so extraordinarily unlikely that it has to be due to global warming,” Weaver said.


    In a landmark 1988 study, Hansen predicted that if greenhouse gas emissions continue, which they have, Washington, D.C., would have about nine days each year of 35 C or warmer in the decade of the 2010s. So far this year, with about four more weeks of summer, the city has had 23 days with the temperature reaching at least 35 C.

    Droughts show global warming is ‘scientific fact’

  3. enkidu Says:

    The last 12 months were the hottest on record in the USA. But in the Wingnutoverse, temps are down! Flat! Flibertygibbit! hurf durf! 2+2=#$&$^#@$ Up is down! The sky is colored gazornimplatz! El Nino! La Nina! Look shiny object! wwnjs will cling to any bullsh!t as long as it reinforces their extreme bias.

    I’m sure there is some taxamagical bullsh!t reason for it all (sunspots? tides? evil Libs?) But when one of your biggest skeptics (literally funded by oil and coal money no less) looks at the actual data using (you know) actual science instead of wwnj ‘thinking’ he finds that the data is pretty unequivocal: Anthropogenic Climate Change is happening. If wwnjs would pause to actually look up the word “Anthropogenic” this would be helpful. Go on lil ricky, we’ll wait… let us know if you need help with any growd up words… (checks watch) go on, we’re here to help (checks calendar)

    But no, wwnjs believe (note intentional use of non-science word here) that there is an airtight international cabal of Evil Lib Mad Scientists who simply want to destroy the world for some reason which defies logical explanation (or something, it is difficult to pin down the clown team and actually get a straight answer). Instead of the much simpler explanation that there are now 7 Billion human beings, with about half the world’s arable landmass given over to agriculture, we’re spewing gigatons of GHGs into the atmosphere and there appears to be a worrying trend that may affect us all. Nope, tides, sunspots, volcanos and Evil Libs is your current argument.

    But no, homey anecdotes about beating your dog (twice!) so badly it soils itself are wwnj’s way of ‘extending the metaphor’ and furthering ‘debate’. Fuck it. Debate is for rational people who live in the real world. You don’t. Sit down, shut the fuck up for the next couple decades and let us try to get a handle on fixing this thing.

  4. shcb Says:

    I thought we weren’t suposed to use one year trends when discussing climate.

  5. enkidu Says:

    I don’t know, maybe if you actually looked at what a reputable source like the NOAA has to say about the ‘trend’ by clicking on the link I provided, reading and comprehending the very short, very simple contents (look it even has a very simple graph!) Maybe that would alleviate your lack of reality-based information.

    July 2011 — June 2012*

    2nd Warmest
    June 2011 — May 2012*

    3rd Warmest
    May 2011 – April 2012*

    4th Warmest
    November 1999 – October 2000

    5th Warmest
    October 1999 – September 2000

    6th Warmest
    April 2011 – March 2012*

    7th Warmest
    September 2005 – August 2006

    8th Warmest
    August 2005 – July 2006

    8th Warmest
    September 1999 – August 2000

    10th Warmest
    July 1999 – June 2000

    11th Warmest
    June 1999 – May 2000

    11th Warmest
    August 1999 – July 2000

    I dunno, maybe they added an extra “a” to add more of the Socialism.

  6. knarlyknight Says:

    Try to keep up shcb. One year anomalies in weather are not relevant, but what we see now is an increasing frequency of anomalies that are so incredibly unlikely under normal circumstances that it is clear to all but the idiots and wwnj’s that the world has entered a new “normal” – that in which Anthropogenic Climate Change is reality.

    Enk, I liked your last post but the one before was what I was going to say – except your said it much better, especially this part directled at wwnj’s: “Fuck it. Debate is for rational people who live in the real world. You don’t. Sit down, shut the fuck up for the next couple decades and let us try to get a handle on fixing this thing.”

  7. shcb Says:

    But I’m still confused, when I make the point that temps have leveled off in the last 10 years I’m told a decade is too short of a period but in all your examples you are within a decade or so, and Knarly and Hansen are talking about events a tenth of that time? Odd.

  8. enkidu Says:

    thx knarls

    wwnj – no. I can’t recall ever saying a decade is too short a period… I’ve said that temps are not down as you’ve claimed. Over and over and over… Temps are not down, flat, or taxamagical. Temps are up. Up is up. It isn’t some gibberish you’ve soaked up from stormfront or fox (basically the same thing).

    btw – congrats to NASA (stoopid gubermint dweebs!) for the astoundingly over-the-top Rube Goldberg landing on Mars! Also, congrats to Elon Musk and SpaceX for landing that $440B contract to develop a crewed Dragon capsule. Let’s hear it for entrepeneurial chutzpa! Oh and Mr Musk’s other two companies? Tesla Motors (electric car co.) and Solar City (solar power co.) Guy must be a total loser not to have all his money in coal futures.

  9. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, the problem must be within your head if you’re still confused after having it spelled out so succinctly in the links above by the likes of Andrew Weaver

    “That’s the wrong question. What you can say is, ‘How likely is this to have occurred with the absence of global warming?’ It’s so extraordinarily unlikely that it has to be due to global warming,”

    and by my paraphrasing “what we see now is an increasing frequency of anomalies that are so incredibly unlikely under normal circumstances that it is clear to all but the idiots and wwnj’s that the world has entered a new “normal” – that in which Anthropogenic Climate Change is a reality.”

    A freak weather has never been a big deal, statistically speaking. What’s new is that these ACC freak weather events continue to pile up year after year with freakishly increasing frequency, well they you can hardly call them freak weather events any more, they have become part of the new normal. Not saying you should put away your winter boots; but having extra water resevoirs and a safe place from mega storms might be wise,.

  10. enkidu Says:

    The Real Deal on US Subsidies: Fossil’s $72B, Renewable Energy’s $12B
    if accurate, this an interesting graphic

  11. shcb Says:

    So let’s see, the according to wiki, fossil fuel produces 70% of our electricity and renewables produce 3.6%. According to your article fossil gets 72b and renewables 12. So, fossil fuel makes 20 times the power but only gets 6 times the subsidies.

    Now that is what subsidies are supposed to do, produce something that doesn’t exist but is somehow worthwhile beyond what the market rate will bear, at some point though it should start to pay for itself and the subsidies end. I’m not defending the fossil fuel subsidies, they should have been ended decades age, same with ethanol. But this is how statistics can be used to twist anything into anything.

    I read some of the comments of an article on Hansen’s paper, don’t remember which, they said he had compared the number of events now to the number in the 1950’s which were abnormally low, don’t know how true that is but it would fit the mold.

  12. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, I’d agree with you that a lot more analysis is required to evaluate the efficacy of subsidies to fossil fuel vs. renewables, I’d think that the traditional measure would be comparing the marginal benefit, i.e what’s the return on $1 invested in each. I think Enk might want to expand that to include net benefits, i.e. after taking away even a conservative measure of the cost of pollution and climate change from fossil fuels, I’d support that because excluding the negatives is just dumb. (Feel free to add in the impact to migratory birds from windmills, should you feel the need Yuk yuk.) Enk’s example is’t a case of using statistics to twist anything, it’s just a simplist comparison to make a point for public consumption that any self respecting policy expert would see through. By the way, you got the point: “…fossil fule subsidies, they should have ended decades ago,…”

    As for where you get your comments on Hansen’s paper, once again you are drinking from a poisoned well. Here’s a more accurate comment:

    Between 1981 and 2010, extreme heatwaves covered 10 percent of the world, according to the paper, which is 50 to 100 times greater than the 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent of the Earth’s surface covered by extreme heat from 1951-1980.

    Read more:

  13. shcb Says:

    right, I think that is what the commenter was talking about, if you take two distinct periods it can, repeat can be the same as trying to make a trend line of two data points. I havn’t really researched it a lot, but I have some, but it seems the 1930’s were pretty nasty, my side seems to use them alot and your side seems to work around them or ignore them, again, not good analysis to just pick a couple points, unless that is the purpose of your research.

  14. knarlyknight Says:

    “pretty nasty” was of course your understatement, as periods in the 1930’s were unimaginably severe and of a duration also not previously within tthe realm of experience. So you think the 1930’s should be included in the realm of “normal” weather/climate that should be considered part of the historical and future routine, rather than as a once in a hundred year or 500 year freak event?

    Whatever… I’ll defer to the experts (not you or your “side”) about that.

  15. enkidu Says:

    July hottest month on record in the US (yes, it’s just one month, amongst the hottest 12 years on record)

    Of course, as it begins to snow this winter, Al Gore will once again be fat and ACC will be a huge profit sapping hoax by evil mad scientists bent on destroying life as we know it… rinse, repeat, debate.

  16. knarlyknight Says:

    Hottest July on record, hmmm, if there had been El Nino conditions would it have been even hotter?

  17. shcb Says:

    I don’t know, there is more and taller mountain cabbage in our swamp than I have seen in years, looks like we’re going to have a lot of snow this winter.

  18. enkidu Says:

    So wwnj, to get back to your number twiddling: so if the US were to research and implement Thorium nuclear reactors, we should only do so as a 100% profit cash and carry proposition? Since Thorium reactors (and fusion reactors) currently generate 0.00000% of our nation’s energy needs (in fact they use up lots of energy right now) they should get $0 of subsidy or research funding?

    Hell of a way to invent the future: we’ll just watch every *other* country pass us by while we shovel more money offshore. Brilliant.

    Oil, coal and gas are some of the highest profit industries on the planet, but we need to sweeten it with taxpayer/debt dollars?
    Son of BOSS criminality too? Oh Mittens!
    So when will we see those tax returns? (crickets)

  19. shcb Says:

    Read what I say. Not what you wish I had said

    “Now that is what subsidies are supposed to do, produce something that doesn’t exist but is somehow worthwhile beyond what the market rate will bear, at some point though it should start to pay for itself and the subsidies end.”

  20. shcb Says:

    Actually, let me restate that, the technologies you cite are still in the grant stage, they aren’t mature enough to be subsidized, but at some point they should be…for a while. At some point they need to carry their own water

  21. knarlyknight Says:

    It’s a fools game to bet on whether this winter will have more snow or not. (Everyone knows that the Farmer’s Almanac is the real authority on that.) The issue is that global warming induced weather, e.g. the “norm” for hot summers in the northern hemisphere or the contiguous US, has become increasingly and alarmingly more frequent – especially in terms of the percentage of land area affected by the excessive heat.

    Also, when I looked at the 1930’s, I was surprised that even though there were much hotter months, the avg. temps returned to normal or below normal sort of randomly in intervening periods. In the 1990’s and 2000’s up to 2012 there are far fewer periods of normal/below normal temps.

  22. shcb Says:

    Sure that is because it cooled, then warmed again. Now we are at a flat just as we were at a flat in the 50’s we are just at a warm flat instead of a cool flat. No one is questioning the warming, just the cause. But it is good to see you looking at the data instead of what someone says the data says.

  23. shcb Says:

    I tend to believe old Indian legends like reading mountain cabbage more than the farmer’s almanac for predicting weather months in advance, much more scientific. :)

  24. knarlyknight Says:

    We can agree that farmer’s almanac sucks. But: “Now we are at a flat just as we were at a flat in the 50′s…” is plain wrong, the slope continues upward:

    “The January-July 2012 period was the warmest first seven months of any year on record for the contiguous United States. ”

    “•The August 2011-July 2012 period was the warmest 12-month period of any 12-months on record for the contiguous U.S., narrowly surpassing the record broken last month for the July 2011-June 2012 period by 0.07°F. … Every state across the contiguous U.S. had warmer than average temperatures for the period, except Washington…”

  25. shcb Says:

    I, I, I just don’t know, I don’t know what to do here, I guess I just need to give up, all the this month is the hottest, bla bla bla is just platitudes when used as a rebuttal to temps leveling off, those two statements can coexist. I don’t know how many times I have said that and it just falls on deaf ears (eyes?) look at your chart! It was flat (relatively) in the 50’s and it has been flat (relatively) in the last 10 or twelve years. You give me a chart that proves my point and then somehow see it as disproving my point, it is really frustrating.

    I didn’t mention anything when you or Enky, don’t remember which, had a link or made the statement that some ridiculous number like 4000 temperature records had been broken in some period of time because it seemed silly that anyone would take that serious, but maybe I was wrong. Stats like that or Enky’s list of hot months above are just silly exaggerations (not the right word but I’m too tired to think of the right one) to titillate the feeble minded. Were 4000 records broken? Sure, but what does that mean, does that mean a particular time frame and geographic area was warmer (or colder) because 4000 records were broken instead of 400 or 40 or 4? No, it just means there were more stations reporting. If we used all the backyard Weather Underground stations it might have been 400,000 records broken! But it wouldn’t have been any warmer or cooler. But at the water cooler at the local university or wherever libs hang out is all abuzz, 4000 records were broken, oh my!

  26. knarlyknight Says:

    The graph is very clear.

    The 1950’s trend might be flattish, but the rest of your statements are crap. Any serious look at the graph shows that for the last 50 years, the El Nino years inexoriably get hotter, the La Nina lows inexoriably get hotter too, which maps out a clear rising band. For the last 50 years the non-Nino/Nina years fluctuate within that rising band but as time goes on they continue to push higher into the upper end of that rising band.

    Your second paragraph is crap too, you might wish that the number of stations reporting are not considered in the scientific studies, but you are wrong. Again, you drink knowledge from poisoned wells. Here’s an antidote:

    Between 1981 and 2010, extreme heatwaves covered 10 percent of the world, according to the paper, which is 50 to 100 times greater than the 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent of the Earth’s surface covered by extreme heat from 1951-1980.

  27. enkidu Says:

    There is no convincing the zealot. It wasn’t 4,000 temperature records broken in Q1 2012: it was 16,000 high temperature records broken. From what I’ve read Q2 was just as hot or nearly so. My previous post wasn’t about individual months, those are 12 month stretches where they are the hottest on record in the US.

    Pretending it away by saying something as redonkulous as “But at the water cooler at the local university or wherever libs hang out is all abuzz, 4000 records were broken, oh my!” …your bias is showing. Again. It would be great if you could put some pants on.

    Real scientists are looking at this and finding out it’s real. Sorry wwnj but once again reality isn’t matching up with your bias.

  28. knarlyknight Says:

    “During the June 2011-June 2012 period, each of the 13 months ranked among the warmest third of their historical distribution for the first time in the 1895-present record. The odds of this occurring randomly are 1 in 1,594,323.

  29. enkidu Says:

    Temps are not down or flat. They are up.
    Up is up.

    But you are fine subsidizing one of the most profitable enterprises on the planet because it reinforces your side’s bias. Just bleat ‘Solyndra’! Birth certificate! Chicago-style pizza! errrr I mean politics!

  30. knarlyknight Says:

  31. shcb Says:

    there’s nothing random about it, it’s a natural cycle.

  32. knarlyknight Says:

    And so if it is just part of a natural cycle please cite when exactly did this supposed natural cycle last produce 13 continuous months of being within the warmest third of historical known monthly temperatures ?

  33. shcb Says:

    never, history started in the 1850s, at the bottom of a cool cycle, we had nowhere to go but up. Before that is was “boy it sure is hot out there!”

  34. knarlyknight Says:

    Unsubstantiated drivel.

  35. enkidu Says:

    I too would love to see wwnj’s ‘source’ for this claim. I’m sure it’ll be another avalanche of bullshit, lightly spiced with some homey anecdotes about beating his bitch (twice! har har!) so badly she soiled herself.

    btw – did you know that snow is *not* a measure of temperature? True! Well at least here in reality that is the case, over in the Wingnutoverse, it means whatever wwnj currently wants it to mean (ie anything to ‘win’ the ‘debate’)

    Congratulations to Rmoney/Rand (errr Ryan?) you might have put Wisconsin in play, but you just lost OH, a huge chunk of Independents and a sizable chunk of seniors (hello FL!) Thanks for wrapping up the election early! Hey when do we get to see Rmoney’s tax returns? He promised to look into it for ABC (crickets)

  36. shcb Says:

    I guess I don’t understand your confusion. Do you not understand that when someone says historical temperature records they start in the 1850’s or so? They simply didn’t keep records before that, now consistently anyway.

  37. enkidu Says:

    Where is your reference that “history started in the 1850s” (perhaps you mean ‘accurate US temperature record keeping?’) or that this was some 150 year cycle? You’ve claimed this before.

    There is a lot of mixed up gibberish in that post, but at the bottom you make the same sort of claims about some 150 year cycle. Please elaborate, with references.

  38. shcb Says:

    No, it’s pretty common knowledge, you can look it up yourself. If you guys don’t even know such rudimentary information I can see how you are so easily bamboozled.

  39. enkidu Says:

    source or it’s bullshit

    (ps – I know this 150 yr stuff is bullshit, but it’s fun to watch you wave your hands, blather on, run to the sidelines and spike the ball in the gatorade, filibbertygibbit!)

    If you can’t back up your ‘knowledge’ with some sort of coherent source (ie not wwnj garbage) then you shouldn’t be allowed to bleet out wwnj talking points without being laughed off stage.

  40. shcb Says:

    Thant’s fine

  41. shcb Says:

    Oh and by the way the subject at hand has nothing to do with cycles

  42. enkidu Says:

    so, again I’ll politely ask: source or it’s the same old toxic wwnj blather

    ps – I’m betting your sources are going to be crap because I’ve looked into it (very briefly, so I could be convinced by contrary evidence/facts). You obviously have just swallowed some bullshit, said it tasted great and are busy regurgitating the bullshit ad nauseum. So either you *know* your source is garbage and can’t admit it without losing what little face (covered in clown makeup) you have or you are scared to actually examine the underpinnings of the bullshit you believe in. The Wingnutoverse is a strange place.

    If the last 12 of 13 years weren’t the hottest (in the US) on the historical record, if there were 16,000 cold temp records broken, do you really think it would have passed unremarked? I’m not a climate scientist, but if each quarter in turn continues to break heat records, these are data points on the line plot of reality. I’m more in line with ‘it loads the dice for freak weather events’ you can’t point to any one event and say with absolute certainty that it was a direct result of ACC. But wwnj is certain that ACC is a evil lib plot to destroy the planet, science and facts be damned.

    I’m sure we’re in for more hand waving and condescending glibberish (yes, i just coined that word)

  43. shcb Says:

    “The period for which reasonably reliable instrumental records of near-surface temperature exist with quasi-global coverage is generally considered to begin around 1850. Earlier records exist, but with sparser coverage and less standardized instrumentation.”

    took less than a minute

  44. enkidu Says:

    that’s some pretty weak tea – where is your 150 year cycle of temp fluctuation?

  45. shcb Says:

    “Oh and by the way the subject at hand has nothing to do with cycles”

  46. knarlyknight Says:

    (wwnj in clown makeup runs to sidelines, slams ball to ground, yells “Touchdown!”)

    If the subject has nothing to do with cycles according to shcb, then he has disavowed his objection to this fact:
    “During the June 2011-June 2012 period, each of the 13 months ranked among the warmest third of their historical distribution for the first time in the 1895-present record. The odds of this occurring randomly are 1 in 1,594,323.“

    Objecting to facts, such a clever boy.

  47. shcb Says:

    Several problems here, you guys aren’t keeping up on your own conversations, we are discussing natural cycles, and we are also discussing the selective use of timeframes and the use of slight variations of terminology that make a big difference in the meaning of points being made.

    In other words we are talking around each other as JBC has linked to in his most recent post.

    In your Aug 10 16:18 post the odds are probably correct in some way, there is probably some justification. But, it is a convenient use of time lines since we were coming out of the little ice age about then. So it was going to get warmer no matter what. The cycle I am referring to is much longer than the recorded history, at least twice as long. So when you made your 22:09 post the subject changed, we were now talking about the wording of “historical”. It has been warmer in the past, much warmer, there have most certainly been 13 continuous months of being within the warmest third of “historical known monthly temperatures”. It was just before “history”.

    Now I don’t know if you understand those nuances, you probably didn’t even know you changed the subject. That is the frustrating part from my standpoint.

  48. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb – Like everything else, your references to the times when comments were posted do not align with anything, maybe what you see is different than what others see because we’re in different time zones or something, but at least you are consistent in being virtually unintelligable.

    So you have no legitimate reference for claiming that 13 months continuous months of hot average temperatures is all part of some natural cycle you have in your mind. No surprise there.

    The trend to a dramatically warmer earth is very serious for a host of reasons, excessive droughts, freak storms and rising sea levels being notable; but the crisis is that the rate at which global temperatures are increasing (over decades) is much more challenging to adapt to than any other previous warming periods (over centuries and millenia.)

  49. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb recent quotes:

    “there’s nothing random about it, it’s a natural cycle.”

    then soon after…

    “Oh and by the way the subject at hand has nothing to do with cycles”

    and then again…

    ““Oh and by the way the subject at hand has nothing to do with cycles””

    then soon after that…

    “Several problems here, you guys aren’t keeping up on your own conversations, we are discussing natural cycles, …”


    “The cycle I am referring to is much longer than the recorded history, at least twice as long.”

    Stay tuned, if the pattern continues shcb will now claim once again that this topic has nothing to do with cycles.

  50. shcb Says:

    Why the ellipsis on the “several problems here” line? I think that pretty well sums up trying to have a discussion here. You know, you’re probably better off just believing Hansen and Mann, you’ll be happier.

  51. knarlyknight Says:

    No I’d be happier in a fantasy where humans are not causing catastrophic environmental damages to our planet, but I can’t just close my eyes and ignore reality the way you do.

  52. shcb Says:

    I know, that is why you should just listen to Hansen, Mann, Jones et al, you will be much happier in your misery. Finding out they are using similar tactics to what you used in the above post will just confuse you and make you unhappy that they may be making this problem a crisis.

  53. knarlyknight Says:

    Saying “you will be much happier in your misery” makes no sense. You are an oxymoron.

  54. shcb Says:

    It is a play on a stereotype of liberals that they feel the need to feel guilty, if they make too much money they feel guilty that they made more, even if they did it by working harder and smarter than the next guy. Conservatives don’t have this affliction, they feel it’s mine, I built it, leave me alone.

    It is a sort of masochism, the theory goes that one of the reasons liberals are so on board with the AGW is the supposed only solution is for us to all change our lifestyles to one not so elegant. Now it is fine if you want to wear hair shirts, but not so when you want me too, and even more so to want government to force me. Hence; you will be much happier in your misery.

    I’ve asked JBC a few times, and Enky, although I never expect an answer from Enky, why the solution has to be government intervention and collectivism… never got an answer. The concept is just foreign that a non collectivist solution can be found because a) one of the main objectives of solving AGW is collectivism and b) liberals just want to feel like they are doing something important by suffering.

  55. knarlyknight Says:

    I do not buy into the suffering argument. It might apply to a miniscule proportion of progressive thinkers, but on the whole it is wrong. I’m open to a non-collectivist solution, let’s hear it – and it better be quick. We’re already past the point of no return for extreme consequences for our children – they will inheret a planet that is only about half as healthy as my grandparents was.

  56. shcb Says:

    Nuclear, that’s all we have right now…if we really have a crisis.

  57. knarlyknight Says:

    OK then. Just don’t put a nuclear plant anywhere near where I live, we have big earthquakes. For simplicity, let’s make Boulder Colorado the epicentre and radiate transmission lines from there to every corner of North America.

  58. shcb Says:

    Ha Ha, the Boulderites are rolling over in their sushi bars right now. “there is a disturbance in the force Buffy, someone wants to build a nuke plant down the street”.

    “I felt it too Todd!”

  59. shcb Says:

    You know Boulder is a nuke free zone don’t you, I’m being serious here, there is city ordinance that bans nuclear warfare in the city limits.

  60. knarlyknight Says:

    Sounds like a higher priority to me than laws against jaywalking.

    Our region’s bid to ban nuclear reactors and weapons failed due to the perceived economic benefit of sailers visiting our nightclubs in their nuclear powered aircraft carriers. Or something like that.

    Oh well, I suppose we’ll just have to use carbon taxes and cap and trade systems until you can figure out a better solution to the crisis.

  61. shcb Says:

    Oh that’s funny, I have this vision of the captain of a big boomer surfacing in the bay to catch a quick pint before he takes the boat back out to sea.

  62. enkidu Says:

    We just got back from a kayak camping adventure, so I’ve been missing out on ‘the debate’. This seemed pretty laughable:

    …why the solution has to be government intervention and collectivism… never got an answer

    Perhaps because you frame the questions using wwnj gibberish? You put up a straw man that doesn’t conform to any actual reality, and then wonder why people dismiss you, ignore you or mock you to your face?

    Here, I can play that game too: I’ve asked over and over why wwnjs are jackbooted neonazi thugs who only believe in nonsense and violence… never got an answer.

  63. shcb Says:

    The difference is when I have asked the question of why it has to be a government solution it is direct response to someone here or a link someone here where the person has said it needs to be a government solution.

    now Knarly answered in a rational manner. To his credit I don’t believe he has ever said there needs to be a govenrnment/colectivist solution, I don’t think he has ever linked to an article where the author was promoting such, I believe him when he says he is fine with a private solution. Good, we can agree with that.

    I also think it is fine for government to have a hand in the process, subsodies, grants, regulations etc. if they make sense and make a difference and the difference is based on the appropriate level of problem vs crisis.

  64. enkidu Says:

    wow! That was… actually coherent. Perhaps a first.

    Folks who think ACC is a real threat aren’t insisting that government do it all. Far from it. But the government sets the rules, polices the commons and makes the markets work towards the greater good. Completely free markets are inhumanly cruel and often inefficient or outright harmful to human health, welfare and happiness. Not just on a individual basis, but on a civilization scale. Boom and bust, corruption and greed are not good (obvious to most, but probably a foreign concept for some).

    Anyone who thinks ACC is a credible threat isn’t doing it for some bizarre need to feel bad (strawman much?), impose socialism or destroy western civilization. The best science available says we have a real problem on the horizon, we need to deal with it. See CFCs and SO2.

    Besides, everyone is always talking about ‘getting tough on China’… here is a perfect opportunity to level the playing field a bit: countries that rape their environment (legitimate rape, of course) can see individuals, groups, communities, states and countries, blocs and trading partners can impose sanctions or simply refuse to by their crap (which is what we try to do, don’t buy Chinese Plastic Crap as we call it in our family). See, individual action, not sociamalism.

    Finally, just because you don’t want something done doesn’t mean the government to listen to you (see Iraq War neocons vs everyone with a brain). The difference is that ACC is a real threat, Saddam’s WMDs were not.

    ps – Obama got Osama. You wwnjs can try to swift boat that all you want, but facts is facts. Must really chap your hide.

    So since I feel I’ve answered your question (no, no one thinks the goobermint should do it all) perhaps you could answer mine? How can you look at this chart and say Obama is a failure? We’ve got steady (if tepid) growth and stability (need more job growth, note not in China) after a brush with a Greater Depression (thx dumbya).

  65. shcb Says:

    Heading to Europe tomorrow, don’t have time to respond but when I get back maybe.

  66. enkidu Says:

    hey that’s great, we are – perhaps – actually communicating

    On the whole Obama is a failure question, perhaps this might also add to the discussion?

    So we’ve had a faster recovery and fewer gov jobs as compared to the first four years of the dumbya administration.

    Now I realize that many of the gov jobs that have been shed are at the state and local level, but I wonder how you process a chart like this and still come up with some (I’ll use wwnj vocabulary here) taxamagical sociamalism? This second chart is from ThinkProgress (sounds lefty, huh?) with a source reference of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but I’ve seen similar charts with Bloomberg referenced, so there must be some kernel of truth there.

    Maybe, just maybe if 35% of the country weren’t actively trying to destroy the country so they could blame it on the black guy things might be going even better. I mean just four years ago you guys damn near completely wrecked the global economy and now you want another chance to drive? No. Just sit back and stfu while we try to fix this thing. Sounds.. familiar…

    Aww heck, elect Rmoney and we’ll invade Iran, since they obviously have lots of WMDs and stuff (it worked so well in Iraq too!)

  67. shcb Says:

    It will be fun to look into, first thing I wonder is the wording “change in payroll employment” I wonder what that means? dollars? number of jobs? something else?

    see you in a couple weeks

  68. enkidu Says:


    hey wwnj, reality calling, care to comment on the charts like you said you would?


  69. enkidu Says:




  70. enkidu Says:

    I had a feeling you wouldn’t answer wwnj. I even tried to get you to explain how these graphs can be interpreted as anything other than a significant economic recovery in the face of daunting odds and partisan opposition.

    ah well, off to the next topic


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.