Climate Craziness of the Week – Bizarre Appellation

Tom Nelson reports on some disturbed thinking – From an epic rant by warmist David Appell:

“Are Anthony Watts and Marc Morano and Tom Nelson and Steve Goddard smart enough to be guilty of climate crimes? I think so”

Quark Soup by David Appell: The CharlesH Problem

But CharlesH, this idiot, this — I’m sorry — this fucking idiot who sits home and probably watches America’s [sic] Idol in the evening, who has probably never read a science paper in his life, really, truly, somehow honestly thinks he knows better than all the professional, study-deep-into-the-night, sweat-the-data, devote-their-lives scientists about all this.

What can you possibly say about such a person? This person — CharlesH — now threatens civilization.

Think about that — ignorance from Tea Party types in rural Utah threatens the well-being of the entire human race.

I don’t know. Donald Brown, the philosopher at Penn State who has been writing about the ethics of climate change for well over a decade — I interviewed him in the early 2000s — thinks they are perhaps guilty of crimes against humanity.

Are they? Are Anthony Watts and Marc Morano and Tom Nelson and Steve Goddard smart enough to be guilty of climate crimes?

I think so. You can simply claim that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas.

I think they’re crimes will be obvious in about a decade.

When I profiled Michael Mann for Scientific American, he said he thought it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change. I had doubts about that, but maybe.
It’s obvious (barely) they’re not smart enough to be so evil

None of them has much of a science background, if any. I mean, please.

And CharlesH, who clearly knows no science either.

But on the shoulders of these idiots, fools, and incoherent minds our future seems to turn, if only just a bit, if only in the blogosphere. And they are probably proud of this, somehow.

But them, still, I think: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 5 molecules per 10,000 trap more heat than 4 per 10,000, or even three.

On that small divide, our future lies. One molecule out of 10,000.

I’ll be flying home tomorrow…
I just hope I can get my WiFi to work again. It always seems like a crapshoot, and frankly, I don’t even know if I remember the password.

Apparently Mr. Appell doesn’t note that I’ve stated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas on national television and said it has an effect.
 

There’s also a transcript here

I think the real crime Mr. Appell thinks I’m guilty of is existing, having an opinion, and daring to write about it.

If anyone is a neighbor of David Appell, this might be fun:

About these ads

223 thoughts on “Climate Craziness of the Week – Bizarre Appellation

  1. Good, now we’re really getting close. When their reaction becomes this vile, you know a corner has been turned. The fear in the rant almost made me feel a little pity…almost.

  2. That is some serious hate right there, he would be welcomed by the Westboro Baptist Church with open arms.
    Keep fighting the good fight Mr.Watts.

  3. “I’ll be flying home tomorrow…”

    So he does occasionally acknowledge the existence of the real world in his ramblings.

  4. You can pretty much put any argument that has been made in the past into his whine and it fits perfectly… Me he sounds like a classic eugenics nutter. End of the world blah blah blah.

  5. honestly thinks he knows better than all the professional, study-deep-into-the-night, sweat-the-data, devote-their-lives scientists about all this.

    Obviously doesn’t believe in thinking for oneself, thinks Scientists are gods, or at least part of the Heavenly Chorus who hath neither sins nor weakness of the spirit.

    Wonder if he could do any of the elementary back-checking the average skeptic does?

  6. Yeah, there’s a reason these guys study deep into the night: they’re trying to figure out how to get something “significant” out of junk, with limited skills to draw from, leading to an inability to understand where it all went wrong. Sigh…

    Mark

  7. These guys are now on the defensive.  They never expected to have to play defense, so they didn’t write a defense play book.  All they seem to be able to do is run around yelling and screaming at anyone who isn’t on their side.  Pretty soon, they will be yelling and screaming at each other, as they point the finger of blame at their own team mates.

  8. Another clueless authoritarian a** h*** calls for criminalizing speech. Sadly, we must grant DA the freedom to mouth his offensive idiocy, even though he would deny the same to others.

    Although, by condemning, indeed advocating the criminalization, of the free expression of ideas, DA devalues his own ideas to less than zero.

  9. You need to broadcast your Wifi name, too. I keep mine hidden so my neighbors don’t get any wise ideas and attempt to hack in (I live in an apartment for the time being, lots of neighbors). I wonder if broadcasting “FBI Surveillance Van” would invite curiosity seekeers, or just idiots?

    Mark

  10. I just hope I can get my WiFi to work again. It always seems like a crapshoot, and frankly, I don’t even know if I remember the password.

    Not exactly instilling confidence in the average reader that this guy has what it takes to make credulous claims such as he has.

    Mark

  11. I am sorry but if someone is going to rant about the ignorance of another they should not close the argument with a statement about not remembering their own WiFi password….

    Between work and personal life I have multiple (10+) usernames/passwords I have to remember and I am a published researcher (not climate though), so it is possible to do both…

  12. “When I profiled Michael Mann for Scientific American, he said he thought it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change.”

    Oho! So the courts will put all those who doubt the great Mann’s work in jail for him, will they? Again, whether quoted by sceptics or alarmists, Mann comes across as a maniac with a one-track mind – “I’m going to get everyone who’s ever questioned my work. I shall do such things – what they are yet I know not, but they shall be the terrors of the Earth”.

    PS: h/t Shakespeare.
    PPS: Er, can I say that without being sued? :-)

  13. There is no chance the theory is partly wrong then?

    So far, the climate model forecasts are off by quite a bit (on “everything” that is except for perhaps the Arctic sea ice). One would have to be very bought into the theory to ignore that fact.

    And one would have to be “something – I’m not quite sure what that description would be – to try to suppress others from knowing about that fact, let alone trying to charge people with a crime for letting others know about that fact.

  14. ‘…I just hope I can get my WiFi to work again. It always seems like a crapshoot, and frankly, I don’t even know if I remember the password.’

    Hm. ‘Fucking idiot’ (Mod: quote from above!) doesn’t ‘even know’ if he can remember a password. I think it is fair to call that an ‘Ouch’.

  15. Did ya notice all those grammatical errors?

    Did he end with “I’ll be flying home tomorrow.”? Do jets not emit CO2?

    Who’s the criminal: the person who says CO2 emissions are not a problem and drives an electric car, or the person who claims CO2 emissions are destroying the climate and yet contributes to those emissions by flying on planes?

  16. So many people are drawn to the terror and ecstasy of contemplation of an apocalypse…it has always been so and will always be so. Whether from the Book of Revelations, Carl Sagan’s Nuclear Winter, or Micheal Mann’s Hockey Stick, somehow they find the home of their particular apocalyptic fantasy and dwell therein.

    The apocalypse always follows a pattern. There is always a way out (“If only the fools would listen to me!”) and always of some axis of good and evil (“How big is your eco-footprint?”). The endgame is always conveniently just over the horizon, near enough to excite fear, yet far enough to be unseeable, hence un-disprovable (“the missing heat must be somewhere…by the time we see it, we’ll be beyond the tipping point and all hope lost.”).

    We need to recognize when we are dealing with the psychopathologic, like this fellow, or the corrupt and mendacious, like Algore. There is no rational discussion to to be had with either type.

    Fortunately, the great mass of people just want to live in safety and prosperity and are responsive to reasonable argument—–hence, every poll shows the “lukewarmer, non-apocalyptic” argument is winning out over the hysterics.

  17. I know the usual thing about Godwin’s Law, and I’m not going to say anything overt. But are there any groups in history that we might think of who talk like this? I can think of quite a few in the last century, and several right now around the world.

  18. In other news: UK Met Office scientists labelled as (no prize to guess it) WILFUL DENIERS!. Their crime? For once, they have not jumped on the “it’s worse than we thought” bandwagon:

    It’s hard to read the MET Office evidence as other than scientists blindly following a poorly-performing model and willfully denying carefully accrued physical observations

  19. One wonders if Mr. Appell is familiar with the terms “ad hominem” and “argumentum ad verecundiam”? That’s all I see in his rant. Sounds like he was, as they say in Spanish, “echando chispas.” [literally …giving off sparks]

  20. Fascinating stuff.

    I am pretty sure people like David Appell will in future be the subjects of studies on a whole new definition of insanity.

    This is as bad as any religious zealot ever got. Perhaps it is the vision of being saviors of civilization?

  21. At least he didn’t invoke the, “Think of the future generations of starving children boiling in the ocean beaches of Boise”, meme. He’s starting to come around, slowly.

    /sarc

  22. I bet Appell burned witches or heretics in a former life. At least then he could say he was doing it for God but who is he praying to now.

  23. Shouldn’t it be a crime in America to deny other citizens of their free speech rights?

    It is a short step from, you think differently to me so you can not speak, to, you think differently from me so you can not live.

    That is a step taken in history by many dictators…

  24. “When I profiled Michael Mann for Scientific American, he said he thought it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change.”

    As someone that has studied history and political science, this statement is abhorrent to me. Not only un-American, the educated mind that truly believes that is a dangerous one and an enemy of all free thinking people of the world. Above, temp called him a “classic eugenics nutter”, and while I agree with that statement, it understates (even trivializes – no offense temp, not meant as a knock on you) the evil thoughts of those who believe it. Thoughts become words, words become belief and belief become actions.

    Don’t make the knee-jerk reaction that people like this are just sad – they can be deadly dangerous too if they collect in large enough groups, and it seems that a type of polarization of people is gaining speed in America. It is also an outstanding example of why the Bill of Rights is essential to people remaining free to speak their minds and avoid persecution at the hands of the “mob”.

    As my disclaimer, I would like to say that while I do not believe that Mann will lead the anarcho-progressives against us in the streets, I do believe that most things don’t start big – they start very small and snowball until out of control.

  25. “I think they’re [sic] crimes will be obvious in about a decade.”

    Only 3652 days away Anthony! I think you should put up a countdown calendar on the sidebar. I hope many of us will be around to have a good laugh.

  26. If anyone is a neighbor of David Appell, this might be fun:

    Want to freak out your neighbors?

    Name you Wifi…

    “FBI Surveillance Van”

    Hehehe, that’s funny right there. ;-)

  27. Appell’s drivel sounded a lot like that stuff that came out of the mouth of the Iraqi propaganda twerp as the American troops entered Baghdad or the sort of vicious ravings of Ahmedinejad in Iran. The ravings of a nut.

  28. bikermailman says:
    September 20, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    I know the usual thing about Godwin’s Law, and I’m not going to say anything overt. But are there any groups in history that we might think of who talk like this?

    How about the Hutus calling the Tutsis cockroaches on public radio? “A cockroach has no friend and is of no use to you – know who the cockroaches are in your village.” Less than a year later, 800,000 less Tutsis on this earth. While that may seem a big leap on this topic, I would paraphrase a quote that war may be started at a whim but never stopped at one.

  29. He will keep eating that Quark Soup – he should know that hallucinogenics are bad for your mental status as well as your kidneys.

  30. I would paraphrase a quote that war may be started at a whim

    Helen of Troy comes to mind in support of at least this part of the quote.

    Mark

  31. “You can simply claim that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas.”

    He means “You can’t…”

    This is a common goalpost moving, and redefining of opposition. It is a self-defense mechanism on their part. They claim the “deniers” are merely “denying” CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or denying that the climate “changes.” That is what they are arguing. They know they lose on positive feedbacks. They also sound like those old groupies for Stalin show trials.

  32. It’s not nice to make fun of raving lunatics.

    David appears to be suffering the mental health effects of having been bitten by his black cat, which must have been infected with rabies from the burgeoning squirrel population of Salem, OR.

    Come to think of it, he’d have fit right in in Salem, MA, c. 1692. He would no doubt approve of hanging climate witches rather than burning them, to cut down on CO2 emissions.

  33. Appell says he’s ready to suffer:
    “Perhaps we need a decade of true suffering — I mean REAL hardship — to break them of their idiocy. I’m just barely old enough to perhaps die in such a decade, but if that’s what it really takes….”
    Developing world people ready anytime to take his team’s non-green electricity/internal combustion engines/food distribution network/consumer goods & suffer along in solidarity.

  34. Yes, this is a religion and Mr. Appell has fallen under its spell. I believe the marketing effort for global warming was packaged with other popular causes e.g. gay marriage, clean water, clean air, environmental justice, social justice, etc. When someone criticizes global warming alarmism, the religious believers feel that all causes in the marketing basket are being attacked. As we continue to dissemble the web of lies surrounding climate it will be helpful for us to make positive statements about the other causes in the basket. Statements like “global warming alarmism is a big business and should be looked at with a skeptical lens but I believe in gay marriage.” Many of the people under the spell of the religion will do a double take and may begin to realize that catastrophic global warming “skeptics” are not all that bad, maybe they might have a point worth considering.

  35. “But CharlesH, this idiot … What can you possibly say about such a person? This person — CharlesH — now threatens civilization. Think about that — ignorance from Tea Party types in rural Utah threatens the well-being of the entire human race …”
    Hello – just read something very similar to that …

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8536385/swan-stands-by-tea-party-comments

    “[Australian] Treasurer Wayne Swan is standing by his attack on the US Tea Party, saying “cranks and crazies” are putting the global economic recovery at risk.”
    Not that I am implying any orchestration of course (/sarc)
    ” … 5 molecules per 10,000 … On that small divide, our future lies. One molecule out of 10,000 …”
    The word ‘lies’ in this context can be taken more than one way.
    Around here, 5 molecules per 10,000 happens every day.
    Between sunset and sunrise.
    It is our past, present and (hopefully) our future.

  36. Sorry, but I only skimmed most of Mr. Appell’s “epic rant”, while searching for the identity of CharlesH.
    Anyone care to clue me in ?
    It kind of ruins the whole rant, when you don’t know what its about.

  37. I’m going with

    David “Knight of the Temple of Doom” Arpell is envious of the attention Dana “Scooter” Nuccitelli is getting from his rant and has decided to take action.

    Personally, I think he’s up against tough competition, but if anyone can pull it off, David can.

  38. It’s funny when Appell sanctimoniously moans that our future hangs on “one molecule out of 10,000″ but then has no qualms about riding home on a jet plane, leaving tons of pure, undiluted CO2 in his wake. And this guy wants to imprison/execute anyone who disagrees with him??! Typical eco-hypocrite.

    Also, anyone who uses terms like “climate crimes” and “climate criminals” is obviously a climate idiot (yes, that includes you Lisa Jackson!) I mean, seriously, how exactly does that work anyway? How does one call a cumulonimbus cloud to the witness stand or subpoena a high pressure system?

  39. Donna makes a good point. A crisis seems to fulfil a void in some lives and what better way to feel good about yourself than “saving the world”?

    “In the 21st century, with all our education and all our technology, are we really just children who get a perverse thrill from telling ourselves scary stories around campfires? Are we really so emotionally and spiritually immature that we need to invent one crisis after another in order to imbue our lives with meaning and purpose?” ___Donna Laframboise 9/20/12 No Frakking Consensus

  40. Identity of CharlesH, from Appell’s soupy blog:

    charlesH said…

    “And CharlesH, who clearly knows no science either.”

    I have been published in AIP which I believe is a peer reviewed journal is it not? How about you? Have you been published in a peer reviewed journal?

    Education: physics/business, BYU/Harvard. Sorry, no physics PhD (you got me there). I wanted to make more money (which I did).

    High School: ACT 31/32. AP math 5. I’m pretty intelligent. 2nd in my class.

    “ignorance from Tea Party types in rural Utah”

    Retired (at 55) now in Utah (cheaper). I spent my 25yr professional career semiconductor in ***Oregon***/California. Does that help?

    So I’m not going to win the Nobel prize but you are making a big mistake if you think CAGW skeptics are all country bumpkins. Here is one of my favorite CAGW skeptics and I bet he can run circles around you and your readers on the science intelligence scale.

    http://motls.blogspot.com/

  41. u.k.(us) says:
    September 20, 2012 at 5:44 pm
    It kind of ruins the whole rant, when you don’t know what its about.
    ================================================================
    Doesn’t matter
    Probably rants like that at the squirrels in his bird feeders too.

  42. David Appell says: “Are Anthony Watts and Marc Morano and Tom Nelson and Steve Goddard smart enough to be guilty of climate crimes? I think so. You can simply claim that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. I think they’re crimes will be obvious in about a decade.”
    Anthony Watts says: “Apparently Mr. Appell doesn’t note that I’ve stated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas on national television and said it has an effect.”
    ============================================================

    Anthony, let me tell you something.

    If they come to power, they will kill you despite that you said it had an effect, because they will have enough reasons to do that. They will not spare Christopher Monckton either, who also said it had an effect.

    So the only way is to do everything possible so that they would not come to power. In this regard under circumstances your saying it has an effect might be, well, not a quite right thing, I mean, in terms of decreasing the probability of them coming to power.

  43. mortis88 says:
    September 20, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    Thank you for reminding me of the Hutus and Tutsis. I was thinking of several current situations, but I’d forgotten them, regrettably. In all the cases, once one dehumanizes another group, any actions are possible. Whether calling a group cockroaches, or ‘sons of apes and pigs’, all sorts of horrific things can happen. Good men everywhere need to stand up when these things rise up.

  44. Mann comes across as a maniac with a one-track mind – “I’m going to get everyone who’s ever questioned my work. I shall do such things”

    Narcissistic revenge fantasy.

  45. I knew David Appell in the mid to late 90’s when he was planning to hike the Appalachian Trail. He wasn’t smart enough to learn what he needed to learn to do that. Nor was he smart enough to accomplish what he intended to do. Apparently he hasn’t gotten any smarter.

  46. Mark T:
    “You need to broadcast your Wifi name, too. I keep mine hidden so my neighbors don’t get any wise ideas and attempt to hack in (I live in an apartment for the time being, lots of neighbors).”
    Had a problem once, car parked out the front, passenger with a laptop. Standing at the window with a pick-axe handle solved that one.
    “I wonder if broadcasting “FBI Surveillance Van” would invite curiosity seekers, or just idiots?”
    Or a visit from a neighbor like Korben had in “The Fifth Element” ?
    I have to turn Wifi on again shortly so was thinking of doing something similar … maybe just hiding it is preferable.

  47. Actually, who’s the IDIOT here? “Greenhouse Gas”…according to one of my classic meteorology texts, in light of Dr. Robert Wood’s 1909 experiements with “collector boxes”, GREENHOUSES do NOT work because of standard Silicate Glass acting as a one way valve for longwave IR. Plass, et.al., 1957…work out the UPFLUX value for CO2, above 30,000’…. Miskiolski, in accounting for the “view angle” of the CO2 emission and absorbtion, the variation from Lorentz broadening at the surface to Doppler Broadening above 25,000′, works out CO2 as a “net exchange” agent, not an agent causing “the Atmospheric effect”, which is due COMPLETELY to water.

    What’s fascinating about this is that very few people are aware of the SIMPLIFICATIONS in Walter Elsasser’s 1942, “On the IR Heat Balance of the Atmosphere”, and the fact that when these simplifications are MAINTAINED in an IR balance for the Atmosphere, CO2 becomes a “net downflux” agent. Whereas a proper analysis (see above) CO2 becomes a NET EXCHANGE AGENT.

    SO, yes, DENYING CO2 AS A “GREENHOUSE GAS” is something I will do from the GET GO, noting at the same time…the people using the term, “GREENHOUSE GAS” by USING THAT TERM indicate their complete oblivious approach to reality, which is available to anyone with a brain to read and research.

    Max

  48. “I’ll be flying home tomorrow…

    I just hope I can get my WiFi to work again. It always seems like a crapshoot, and frankly, I don’t even know if I remember the password…”

    Wait a second…I think we’ve been HAD. This is like when in the 1979 Mel Brook’s “The Producers”, someone points to the stage at the hippie playing Hitler and says, “I GET IT! IT’S A SATIRE!”.

    Thank you Mr. Apple, you’re a PEACH…IT’S SATIRE!

  49. Appell seems happy enough to condemn anyone outside of band of brothers in the AGW camp who, in his words, “And CharlesH, who clearly knows no science either” . I also see that Appell is a freelance science journalist. I wasn’t aware that media studies was a branch of physical science.
    Dave Sivyer, Narrogin Western Australia.

  50. mortis88 says:
    September 20, 2012 at 5:05 pm
    “(even trivializes – no offense temp, not meant as a knock on you)”

    None taken and in some respects your right it that some comment because I made it so short does trivialize the damages/dangers both then and now. I agree with your post and have posted many times warning that these people are far to similar to eugenics and the many spawned ideologies of eugenics then normal and rational should be comfortable with.

  51. Americans are shocked at the violence perpetrated for our supposed insult to the prophet Mohammed, but it looks like we have the equivalent here for insults to the prophets of CAGW.

  52. My WiFi’s name is “Virus Delivery”

    But I may change it to something scarier, inspired by the “FBI” posting. I think “IRS Surveillance Team” would be just thing!

  53. Au contraire, it is questionable whether the “climate scientists” that tout global warming by man have any real, tangible knowledge or experience in the sciences. I can only detect the ability to fabricate and obfuscate, neither of which require any understanding of science. They are simply not scientists irregardless of whether they legally obtained a doctorate as they have clearly demonstrated that they were faking their efforts and knowledge.

  54. RE: David Appell. Ah, another idiot so consumed by his own brilliance because he knows all the answers and can’t think of any more questions to ask.

    PS – pseudo-scientist hate engineers. Engineers have to make the dang thing work no matter how cleaver they think the idea. Engineers recognize trash when they see it.

  55. Did the CAGW crowd read 1984 and assume it was the model for good governance?

    I think those who try to medicalize or criminalize dissent are dangerous, and should be kept away from power or sharp objects. If they are in the United States, they need a good course on the first amendment, because as much as they try to deny it, we are free to think what we want, but when they try to impose their “beliefs” on the rest of us by extra-constitutional means, that is what the second amendment to the US Constitution was for! Threats to life and liberty should be taken seriously by all.

  56. Charles H – you simply rock. Thanks for being you.

    Anthony – I owe you an apology since though-out this latest silliness starting with the idiotic responses from the NPR ladies after your interview and now this mindless, pointless, and utterly ineffectual assault on your fine character by this no body I have stood by the sidelines and not offered you my support on your blog. I have been going through my own tough times here lately and haven’t had time to blog or even get on the internet.

    When you allude to the hate speech you receive simply for voicing your well-informed positions on weather and climate that is one thing; but to see it on display like this is just appalling and shocking not to mention disturbing.

    Keep up the excellent work. I certainly can’t know this for a fact, but I have a sense that you will go down in history for your integrity and instance on the truth.

  57. Let’s just put this in perspective folks.
    David is at the more moderate part of the warmist spectrum.
    Some of them are seriously deranged!

  58. We only need to FINALLY (after 20 + years of of IPCC AR teams manipulating what science is assessed and included) open the scientific debate on the correctness of all publically funded research by being totally transparent with every detail; all pubically funded research means to include research that is fundamentally critical of alarming AGW research. We need to do that in public and in uncensored forums, not in the secret forums of the IPCC AR5 team members nor in the closed (to their own members) leadership committees of science institutes and societies.

    I am proposing the real scientific process, not the biased myopically corrupted process of those ideology informed alarmist researchers who are embraced by the core of activist leadership in the IPCC.

    John

  59. ursus augustus says (September 20, 2012 at 5:11 pm): “Appell’s drivel sounded a lot like that stuff that came out of the mouth of the Iraqi propaganda twerp as the American troops entered Baghdad”

    “Baghdad Bob”, the patron saint of CAGW alarmists:

  60. “Oh but its hard to be humble when your perfect in every way!” (thanks for this wonderful quote Mac Davis) the remainder of my thought would not make it past the moderator.

  61. Twenty years ago “We had little time.” Now:

    I think they’re (sic) crimes will be obvious in about a decade.

    When the predictions by these people fail over and over do they admit that they are wrong? No. Like all end-of-days types they just move the goal posts into the future.

    No amount of evidence to the contrary will dissuade them from their beliefs. After all it’s their religion. The best thing to do to them is to make them irrelevant so they can be ignored.

  62. LOL … Forgive me in advance but Appell’s rant reminded me of something: “opinions are like a-holes, everybody has one, and some stink more than others.”

  63. “Think about that — ignorance from Tea Party types in rural Utah threatens the well-being of the entire human race.”

    I will have such revenges on you ….,
    That all the world shall–I will do such things,–
    What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be
    The terrors of the earth.
    BWAH-HA-HA-HA
    King Lear

  64. “On that small divide, our future lies. One molecule out of 10,000.”

    I have that molecule in a sealed Mason jar on the shelf. Don’t cross me.

  65. Bill Illis says:
    September 20, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    So far, the climate model forecasts are off by quite a bit (on “everything” that is except for perhaps the Arctic sea ice).

    The models originally predicted polar amplification. As there is no evidence of polar amplification in Antarctic sea ice, that prediction has failed, irrespective of what has happened in the Arctic.

    No amount of evidence proves a theory, but one piece of evidence falsifies it.

  66. In Germany it is illegal to deny the Holocaust. Now we see more evidence that the use of denier is deliberately to make comparisons to Holocaust deniers.

  67. Just wanted to send a big shout out to my friend David Appell. How ya doin’ buddy? Life got you down? Human life, I mean. This would be a great planet to live on if it wasn’t for all these people, eh? It must be hard carrying enough hatred for all humanity.

  68. “honestly thinks he knows better than all the professional, study-deep-into-the-night, sweat-the-data, devote-their-lives scientists about all this.”

    Would that study include time spent in jail after being arrested at various environmental protests, a la Hansen? Or is that simply considered healthy fun?

  69. cui bono says:
    September 20, 2012 at 4:42 pm
    “When I profiled Michael Mann for Scientific American, he said he thought it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change.”
    ===========================

    Which is weird to the extreme, since his hockey stick denies climate change for about 700 years.

  70. Anthony, don’t bend to Mr. Appell’s accusations. It makes him feel big to pick on other people. ‘Papa Zu’ comment at Appell’s blog was right on the spot.

    Let’s face it, a psychoanalysis of David’s state of mind, portrayed strictly by his words spoken publically to the world on his blog, would be quite interesting (but I do feel rather sad for this guy, his cheese has definitely slide off his cracker, I think led by this AGW ‘religion’ that we see every day). Isn’t it amazing what ~0.4°C of actual temperature rise over a century can do to a man, it’s almost as if he and his preachers equate co2 to the ring of power in Tolkien’s trilogy.

    It anything, most of blame of the crime against David’s mind lies in the laps of IPCC, NOAA, GISS, Hadley CRU for not removing, or clearly stating the need to remove, that ~0.7-1.0°C of the apparent global temperature rise in the last century being clearly an Urban Heat Island trend error, making this seem as a much scarier scenario to humanity than is actually present. Yes, this lies in their laps, not in the laps of the many skeptical scientists who have ended up correct all along. Thanks Papa Zu, the rest of blame, David can bear himself.

    CO2 is not the problem, many climate ‘scientists’ and their holy ‘consensus’ are. They may have letters behind their names but many of them are not scientists to me.

  71. Um, I’m missing something here. If one more molecule of carbon dioxide is the tipping point, isn’t the fact that David is getting on an airplane tomorrow making him the criminal that is creating that molecule? Just saying.

  72. Attn all people accusing people like us against Crimes, I ACCUSE YOU, BASED ON THE FACTS

    You are the ones destroying freedom and shackling society, not us

  73. “But them, still, I think: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 5 molecules per 10,000 *TRAP* more heat than 4 per 10,000, or even three.”

    FAIL!

  74. John F. Hultquist says:
    September 20, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    Bless his little heart!
    ###
    Best comment of this thread! Thanks for putting things in their proper perspective.

  75. Well.

    The molecule CO2 is rightly a constituent of the Earth’s atmosphere, many places in the solar system and interstellar regions many million light years hence.

    ‘Greenhouse gas’ is an interpretation … from some very badly written literature … starting from the mid-1800’s .. in particular those of Arrhenius.

    A very sad and inconvenient truth rears its gnarled and ugly head.

    Yet, the ‘Believers’ believe and beyond simple reason and way beyond any principle of logic or even common Law.

    What a Circus, these ‘Believers’, each a talking and walking Piltdown Man … in the flesh … and
    ready for a put down … by a 308.

    8D

  76. Southern Man says
    Sept 20 4:38pm

    Pretty soon they will be yelling and screaming at each other as they point the finger of blame at their own team mates.

    I suggest we start a pool as to which of the Hockey Team will be the first to stab Michael Mann in the back.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  77. David Appel says on Quark Soup;
    Perhaps we need a decade of true suffering — I mean REAL hardship — to break them of their idiocy. I’m just barely old enough to perhaps die in such a decade, but if that’s what it really takes….
    >>>>>>>>>

    Well David, most rational people, when confronted with a prophesy of doom, think to themselves “gosh I hope that doesn’t happen”. You however, would wish death and misery to billions rather than be wrong.

    What, exactly, is wrong with you?

  78. Hey David, let me guess where you were a decade ago:

    “I think they’re (sic) crimes will be obvious in about a decade.”

    Yes ….. no …. ?

  79. “On that small divide, our future lies. One molecule out of 10,000.”

    I gots me an industrial party time mega fun maximum capacity Cylinder of Co2, and unless the UN gives me a Million Nigerian Pounds, Tenure at Mann U, and a Prius, i’m gonna open up that valve baby – see if I don’t!….

    ….pssssssssssssssshhhhhhh.

    Hear that? Do ya? do ya? That Molecule not so lonely now is it?, is it?…

    pssssssssshhhhhhhhhhh….

    Mu Ha Ha Ha Ha.

    Next on list, ah hem,….

    I gots me a cooler bin chock full of honesty and common sense, and unless I get a weekend hanging out with the HOFF, knocking back brewskies, shooting pool, and skeet shooting from a li-loo inna pool, i’m gonna release it at the IPCC – yeah you heard me,….COMMON SENSE BABY!

  80. The extreme warming paradigm pushers have not acknowledged that the “skeptics” refute extreme AGW, not benign, beneficial AGW. The science (observations and analysis in published papers) does not support extreme AGW. That is the reason why there has been no public debate of the scientific evidence which unequivocally refutes extreme AGW.
    A doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which will cause the biosphere to expand. Spending trillions of dollars on “green” scams (an example if the conversion of food to biofuel which results in higher food prices and massive loss in virgin forest as there is a limited amount of agricultural land and competing expanding population that require food) which will not significantly reduce CO2 emissions which is not a problem.

    The planet is not warming in accordance with the IPCC predictions. The IPCC extreme AGW warming, general circulation models amplify CO2 warming (positive feedback). Analysis of top of the atmosphere radiation from satellite vs ocean surface temperature indicates the planet resists warming or cooling changes (negative feedback) by increasing or decreasing cloud cover in the tropics. The extreme warming IPCC predictions of 1.5C to 5C warming for a doubling of CO2 require that the planet amplifies the CO2 warming which is positive feedback. If the planet’s feedback response to a change in force is negative a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitude regions of the planet which will cause the biosphere to expand.

    There is no extreme AGW warming problem to solve.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2012-0-34-deg-c/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/uah-global-temperature-up-06c-not-much-change/

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
    We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-2008) satellite instruments. … ….We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity…. ….However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of wellmixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007)…. …This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth….

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/04/11/a-new-global-warming-alarmist-tactic-real-temperature-measurements-dont-matter/

    A New Global Warming Alarmist Tactic: Real Temperature Measurements Don’t Matter
    What do you do if you are a global warming alarmist and real-world temperatures do not warm as much as your climate model predicted? Here’s one answer: you claim that your model’s propensity to predict more warming than has actually occurred shouldn’t prejudice your faith in the same model’s future predictions. Thus, anyone who points out the truth that your climate model has failed its real-world test remains a “science denier.”… ….This, clearly, is the difference between “climate science” and “science deniers.” Those who adhere to “climate science” wisely realize that defining a set of real-world parameters or observations by which we can test and potentially falsify a global warming theory is irrelevant and so nineteenth century. Modern climate science has gloriously progressed far beyond such irrelevant annoyances as the Scientific Method.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html

    http://gigaom.com/cleantech/chart-the-death-spiral-of-solar-bankruptcies-counting/

  81. The Enviro-Statist declares his allegiance to science and knowledge when, in fact, his only faith is to his ideology.
    — Mark R. Levin

    Science must not impose any philosophy, any more than the telephone must tell us what to say.
    — G. K. Chesterton

    In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.
    — Galileo Galilei

  82. I must respect the alarmists right to practice their religion. Just sad they want me to pay for their church. And as time goes on, as this post shows, their religion grows more and more cultish as more facts must be ignored.

  83. “I think they’re crimes will be obvious in about a decade.”

    It’s really hard to lend credence to anyone who doesn’t know the difference between “they’re” and “their.”

    I had a student once who mixed up those words and managed to use “there” incorrectly in same paper. I gave him a D.

  84. “I just hope I can get my WiFi to work again. It always seems like a crapshoot, and frankly, I don’t even know if I remember the password.”

    try this one: ********

  85. Appell shows exactly why I’m on the skeptic side of this. He apparently doesn’t think the “unwashed masses” should have a voice in the future of the planet. Only the “great” scientific minds, I.e., the ones who think like him. And he’s all in favor of banning free speech. Ya know, even if everything the warmists say about climate change is correct, even if the planet continues to warm at 2 degrees C per century, even if mankind is responsible, even if the results will be catastrophic (none of which I believe by the way, but even if I did, …) I would STILL stand FIRMLY on this side of the debate, just because of the FREEDOMS that “this fucking idiot” and his ilk are willing to take away from humanity in the name of “saving the planet”. As far as I’m concerned, the planet isn’t worth saving if freedom doesn’t ring on some small part of it.

  86. And you created all of that ruckus, with a feather duster attack like that Anthony ?

    I think you’ve made your point here Anthony; the people vested in this global warming hullaballoo, are a lot more wedded to their financial interest than they let on.

    By the way; the soup strainer looks very nice on you.

  87. My wifi SSID is named “Mordor” and only accepts WPA2 security. After all “You can’t expect to simply WEP into Mordor” … (rimshot).

    It’s a sad truth that most people’s “tolerance” wears out at the point where others stubbornly and irrationally refuse to accept their unquestionably brilliant ideas. After all, the definitive test of a person’s intelligence is how well their opinions match one’s own.

    /sarc, for the humor impaired.

  88. How does a ‘climate crime’ work anyways? Is that assault & battery with a deadly weapon every time you exhale? Or is it that disagreeing with the former that’s assault & battery with a deadly weapon since you have to exhale between spoken sentences?

  89. “””””…..Dick of Utah says:

    September 20, 2012 at 6:43 pm

    “Think about that — ignorance from Tea Party types in rural Utah threatens the well-being of the entire human race.”…..”””””

    I think Mr Appell fell too far from the tree; and evidently, on his head.

    He’d have a hard time selling his nano vision view of the TEA Party here in silicon valley, where every possible species of mankind shows up at TEA party gatherings (in public). I’ve been to several, and I’d be hard pressed to name any category of person that is absent from such get togethers.

  90. “I’ll be flying home tomorrow…”

    Ya mean goin’ by sailboat don’t ya Dave? Or are you okay with destroying the planet? Or don’t you believe it?

  91. Actually, when I read pronouncements like Mr. Appell’s the spectre of Jonestown comes to mind. I used to think of CO2 alarmists as the Carbon Cult but I think a more accurate description is the Doomsday Carbon Cult. When a significant number of them come to believe that anything is justified to “save” the Earth, violence will not be far behind.

    In this regard I find it somewhat cheering that Mr. Appell admits navigating WiFi configuration and remembering a password are both a serious challenge for him. If he is equally inept with implements of violence he is more likely to be a danger to himself than others.

  92. Appell:

    “When I profiled Michael Mann for Scientific American, he said he thought it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change.”

    Ban Ki-Moon:

    “Freedoms of expression should be and must be guaranteed and protected, when they are used for common justice, common purpose,” Ban told a news conference.

    “When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way.” —–U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

    David Appell just aligns himself with the rest of the leftist movement.

  93. Follow the Money says: “…They also sound like those old groupies for Stalin show trials.”

    Jawohl! Er, I mean, DA!

  94. One doesn’t need to violate “Godwin’s Law” to understand what these anti-freedom bozos are all about…. just read “The Gulag Archipelago” (a little light reading about what people who want to outlaw “thought crime” can do).

  95. “When I profiled Michael Mann for Scientific American, he said he thought it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change. I had doubts about that, but maybe.”
    =======================================================================
    Wow. Does anyone know if Mann really said that?
    Does he know what county he lives in?
    Does this university professor know anything about rights of the individual the government of this nation was formed to protect? (I know it’s not doing a very good job of it. Perhaps students being taught by people like this has something to do with that.)
    I think the good Dr. Mann was born to late. He would have been much happier during the Inquisition.

  96. i must say these are some interesting people. I followed Donald Brown to see what he has written. Honestly I tired of it a bit after reading an entry on a group blog…and the entry was from yet another philosophy professor having been submitted by Prof Brown:

    sorry for the long post, and long excerpt…but here you go:

    http://rockblogs.psu.edu/rockethics/

    Disinformation, Social Stability and Moral Outrage

    We must bring to light the corrupting influences. We must compel the media to make clear that there is only as much debate about the science behind climate change as there is debate about the science behind the existence of the dinosaurs (for while in both cases we may doubt the details, there is little doubt about the overall picture). We must compel our political agents to make clear, in the starkest moral terms, why they are making, or failing to make, the decisions they make. This should motivate a movement at least as ferocious as the Occupy Wallstreet movement. The Occupy Wallstreet movement was focused on the very real and morally potent concern that our economy is shifting us toward a society not in line with the basic moral principles on which our nation was founded and on which our hopes and expectations are based. To some extent that economy is reversible. The concern that motivates moral outrage at inaction and obstruction regarding climate change should be focused on the very conditions that make possible a stable society for us, and for our children. Our influence on these background conditions is not so reversible, at least on time scales that matter to our children. For the sake of our children, and for the sake of our own moral decency, this disinformation campaign should inspire moral outrage.

  97. anthony, the lewandowsky/cook paper u mentioned in the thread:

    5 Sept: Stephan Lewandowsky’s slow motion Psychological Science train wreck
    It as been discovered that Cook is a co-author with Levandowsky on a similar paper:
    Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C., Schwarz, N. & Cook, J. (in press). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest…

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/stephan-lewandowskys-slow-motion-social-science-train-wreck/

    has now been published by Sage:

    Misinformation and Its Correction
    Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
    Psychological Science in the Public Interest December 2012 vol. 13 no. 3

    http://psi.sagepub.com/content/13/3/106.full?ijkey=FNCpLYuivUOHE&keytype=ref&siteid=sppsi

    and is already reported on here:

    19 Sept: Health Canal: Misinformation: why it sticks and how to fix it

    http://www.healthcanal.com/cancers/32346-Misinformation-why-sticks-and-how-fix.html

    20 Sept Washington: NewstrackIndia: ANI: Why misinformation sticks

    http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/09/20/237-Why-misinformation-sticks-.html

  98. Thanks David Appell, for your comic relief. It is much appreciated. Please know that every time your rants reach a level of being noticed that I find them quite uplifting. To realize that there are people that actually think like you confirms that my position as a skeptic is grounded in reality.

  99. Who is David Appell? Is he just another blogger or journalist? Apparently, in an excited burst of word-smithing, the poor fool said, ” he knows better than all the professional, study-deep-into-the-night, sweat-the-data, devote-their-lives scientists about all this.

    The problem with experts and professionals is that studies have shown expert opinion to be unreliable, and a professional is simply someone who makes money at a job, not necessarily being good at that profession. Money is the key, here. Nothing more.

  100. “When I profiled Michael Mann for Scientific American, he said he thought it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change.”

    AHA!!! NO ONE EXPECTS THE CLIMATE INQUISITION!!!!! (H/T Michael Palin)

  101. bikermailman says:

    I know the usual thing about Godwin’s Law, and I’m not going to say anything overt.

    “Godwin’s law” is assinine. It is a logical fallacy. Worse, it denies the need to balance the refusal to trivialize against admonition to never forget. When people start talking about criminalizing dissenting opinion, that spade needs to be identified as such. The next totalitarian political movement, whatever that may be, does not deserve a free pass from people trained to reflexively deny that anything could ever be that bad again.

  102. It’s not like the ideas were so different in character at the first Earth Day. The only real change is the angry, idealistic kids who wanted most people gone so they could live in tents and grow their own food are now politicians, bureaucrats and scientists – who are still angry and idealistic.

    And I don’t use “idealistic” in a positive sense here.

  103. Anthony, Be encouraged and KNOW… “they” actually listen to you! Understanding, however, may take some patience, which remains a steadfast virtue.

  104. I couldn’t help but wonder. Who is this CharlesH who has gotten under Appell’s skin big time? I think this may be the thread that got Appell so worked up:

    http://davidappell.blogspot.ca/2012/09/an-idea-unique-to-climate-change.html

    Long story short, Appell got spanked. I don’t know if CharlesH reads this blog, but my hat is off to him. I gave up debating the alarmists on their home turf long ago. The only thing that shocks me is that his comments don’t seem to have been snipped or disappeared. In fact, he’s entered the debate on the very thread in which Appell identified him as a problem.

    Wow CharlesH! No way could I keep my cool in the face of that much invective and still make one good point about the science after another. I burst out laughing when you called him on the Bangladesh elevation issue. Priceless!

  105. “But them, still, I think: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 5 molecules per 10,000 trap more heat than 4 per 10,000, or even three.

    On that small divide, our future lies. One molecule out of 10,000.”
    ====================================================================
    We’re doomed. Where I work we currently have over 350,000 lbs of liquid CO2 on hand. That’s more than 3,000,000 cubic feet of CO2 gas. That’s a big bunch of molecules. We’ve already released more than 1 molecule today. I think we put the globe past the tipping point. Sorry. 8-(
    (Then again, maybe only Appell has gone past the tipping point.)

  106. @David Appell, Your WiFi Username and Password can be found on a sticker under your router, press and hold in the reset button to restore the default Username and password. I hope this helps.

  107. Come between true believers and their mission to save the planet from humanity and humanity from themselves and rage filled hatred is what you get. Its quite a normal reaction from a person who has been infected by the age old illness that has dogged us from the first mud huts to today. Believe and trust and obey and we will take you to the promised land/save you from yourselves/guide you to heaven on earth/lead you into the desert of hardships to find the promised land/etc etc.

    He truly believes he can save the world, he has the answers to save humanity if only we would all listen to the holy scriptures, put aside any scepticism and just believe. In his mind the stakes are high and the aim is noble, he truly believes he can save us if only we would put aside doubts and obey the sacred theology.

    Saving the planet is a very important mission, nothing and no one can be allowed to stand in the way, those who do are effectively destroying humanity and murdering the planet in the mind of the believer at least. As the fabricated cover of science is stripped away we start to see the real face of the CAGW cult beneath, its nothing new folks. There have been such cults of belief and they have been very busy over the millennia.

    If only others would believe and listen and obey and put aside such things as doubts and scepticism and independent rational thought, the group does not like individuals, the group cannot tolerate those who cast doubt on the theology, the group consensus must not be polluted with facts and evidence that contradicts that consensus, the stakes are far too high to introduce doubt, this causes hesitation and hesitation is the brake on immediate action. For thousands of years the war against sceptics and doubters and unbelievers has raged, different theology same methods.

  108. Recently I bought the Stargate SG-1 box, as I got tired of episodes being showed in the wrong order on Swedish television.

    A very interesting SciFi TV series based on different religions and social systems. Initially and primarily covering the Egyptian and further on many other well-known including Maya, Norse, Greek, Roman, Zen and Buddism. It also covers the more modern “ideologies” like National Socialism, Communism and even in some episodes they make use of the AGW religion …

    Recommended viewing!

  109. this sounds like fun!!!

    21 Sept: SMH: Peter Spinks: Climate change: the inside story
    To discuss these and related matters, the Royal Society of Victoria is hosting a climate change symposium that opened last night in Melbourne with a free public lecture entitled “Addressing the myths of climate change”…
    “The symposium aims to provide a forum where experts can engage with the community about issues without the need for overly technical language or political hype,” says co-organiser Associate Professor Gleadow…
    NASA satellite measurements show that coastal regions of the East Antarctic ice sheet, including long stretches of the Australian Antarctic Territory, have been losing about 57 billion tonnes of ice each year for the past three years. The complete loss of the sheet, the world’s biggest expanse of frozen water, would raise sea levels by roughly 50 metres, polar scientists believe.
    The West Antarctic ice sheet, in particular, is losing about 132 billion tonnes of ice a year. Global ice losses now contribute an estimated 1.8 millimetres a year to rises in sea level.
    Such calculations have given rise to reports suggesting that more than 250,000 homes in Australia could be damaged or lost due to storm surge and sea level rise in coming decades.
    Claims that up to 45,000 homes in Victoria alone – worth more than $10 billion – would be threatened by rising sea levels by 2100, were followed by two CSIRO reports that suggest sea levels during storms are likely to be about 15 centimetres higher in 2030 than today.
    Another report will consider four sea-level scenarios by 2100, including two based on rises of 80 centimetres, one of 110 centimetres and one of 140 centimetres. Victorian planning regulations currently forecast a rise in sea level of 80centimetres by the end of the century…

    http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/climate-change-the-inside-story-20120921-26ahf.html

  110. How fortunate we are in these times to have the internet, with all of mankind so blatantly on display.
    There is nothing new to see.

    The way my neighborhood is changing, it might be more fun to label my WiFi: Immigration Surveillance van.

  111. The Global Warming Industry pays big dividends to huge numbers of people.

    They live off these dividends, so whenever anyone demonstrates:

    1. There is little, or no need, for the Global Warming Industry and therefore it no longer needs feeding with grants and government largesse, and/or

    2. The Global Warming Industry is increasingly damaging the world economy by diverting funds from more worthy causes, such as subsidies on expensive, unreliable, ‘renewable energy’ instead of infrastructure or public health, then:

    The dividend receivers of the Global Warming Industry become alarmed – maybe less dividends in the fututre? Maybe one day, no more dividends?

    Hence the hate and hysteria.

    At the end of the day, it does not really matter whether the Global Warming/CAGW movement is best described as a cult or an industry. Either way, the many gullible are asked/made to pay to support the lifestyles of a relative few. And the benefit to the ‘many gullible': Absolutely nothing.

  112. It’s the same mind set in a different context as that currently driving mobs to storm embassies. There’s no rational engagement with religious fervor.

  113. I’m with bikermailman: Godwin’s Law precludes comment. My parents’ generation died in their millions fighting this sort of thing, and seventy years later its acolytes are taking over the world under their blanket of Newspeak and disinformation. And education has been replaced with indoctrination, so (almost) nobody notices.

    “But of course, we have always been at war with climate change.”

  114. “A.Scott says:
    September 20, 2012 at 11:57 pm”

    As long as he had some sort of carbon (CO2) capture device fitted as humans typically exhale CO2 at rates of ~40,000ppm/v even at rest.

  115. “argumentum ad verecundiam”

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Is that “Get off my porch”?

  116. [snip . . ad homs are frowned upon here, even when they are funny and accurate . . mod]

    If you ever need security advice Anthony I’d be more than happy to do a little pro bono work.

  117. Mann’s view is interesting. [snip . . ad homs are frowned upon here . . mod] Most of the rest are just talkers. When the history of this is finally written, we may very well find he was a busy bee indeed.

  118. If only we had listened to the experts. Here is a comment from David Appell’s Quark Soup which should make people tread very carefully before accusing people of crimes against humanity.

    Papa Zu said…
    I’m sure Paul Ehrlich felt the same way when he was so much more knowledgeable than everyone else on population matters. Paul knew disaster was eminent and tens of millions would die prior to the year 2000. We should have put everyone that disagreed with Paul Ehrlich in prison because they were too stupid to understand the consequences that the expert Paul Ehrlich warned about.

    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-charlesh-problem.html?showComment=1347976245398#c6190801271081039115

    A crime might well have happened in the past had governments acted in the face of ‘evidence’ of an impending ice age. The key is to resist the panickers.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/01/time-magazine-and-global-warming/#comment-563520

  119. rk says:
    September 20, 2012 at 9:35 pm
    “i must say these are some interesting people. I followed Donald Brown to see what he has written. Honestly I tired of it a bit after reading an entry on a group blog…and the entry was from yet another philosophy professor having been submitted by Prof Brown:
    “there is little doubt about the overall picture). We must compel our political agents to make clear, in the starkest moral terms, why they are making, or failing to make, the decisions they make. This should motivate a movement at least as ferocious as the Occupy Wallstreet movement. “”

    Well, actually there WAS, 10,000 greenshirt youth carted to Copenhagen 2009, at COP15, with all the ugly pictures you expect from unruly uniformed hordes of brainwashed kids. These NGO kids are controlled by the EU comission via financial support for the NGOs directly from the European taxpayer (up to 70% of the income of a worthy NGO). They came there to raise hell, encouraged by the EU comission and its ugly spokesperson Connie Heedegard to whip resistance into submission.

    Didn’t help. And the EU is too weak now to pull another one like that, fighting for its own survival, inflating its currency, circling the drain of ever increasing debt, a zombie, a shadow of its former self-importance, barely able to keep the protectorates under control.

    So there you have it, American college professors, your ferocious movement, it’s already been done and utterly failed, no matter how much you obamafy America – which just means emasculating it – you’lll never even approach this failed first attempt. Go sleep in parks, see if anyone cares.

  120. Appell thinks you have to be smart to commit a climate crime? Stupid people can’t commit a climate crime. So Mr Appell, you’re safe.

  121. [snip] If not for the eloquence of his outbursts I may have been more perplexed by the statements! Alas, another [snip] escapes the Asylum. Well provoked AW, please keep it up.

    Col Kirk

  122. “None of them has any science background?” They’ve actually done experiments using the scientific method. It is Mann and Appell who have no science background. On paper maybe, but what they do isn’t science per the scientific method.

  123. View from Europe:

    David Appell , if the attributed comments are correct, is a nutjob who doesn’t even begin to understand the level of intelligence and absence of fanaticism required to carry out effective scientific work. He exposes his own ignorance, bias stupidity and aggression. Such people are danger to all around them. and contribute nothing.
    .

  124. Look around you. Look at your ‘leaders’. What do you see??
    Intelligent people??
    Honest people??
    Visionaries??
    People of Integrity??
    I doubt it !!
    The worthless, vile, rioting Marxist Hippie trash of my era now run most Western Governments with their own special brand of hypocrisy.
    They rioted over VietNam, then sent in troops to any country that did not bend over for them.
    They rioted over legalising ‘weed’ and now want to govern what you eat and what you smoke.
    They rioted over freedom of speech, profane language, and now have the most invasive, sophisticated surveillance system in world history.
    Do not be suprised with what is coming at you, these vile, worthless creatures have standards of behaviour that a decent person cannot reconcile against their own.

    The western civilisation was lost on the cumpuses of our cities 40 years ago.
    regards

  125. From a discussion I had with him over at Steve Goddard’s blog, I’ve gotten the impression that Appell lacks the most basic math skills. Now I know very smart people who have similar problems with math, but they’re at least smart enough to stay away from subjects that require a minimum of math…

  126. PBS would do the nation a favor if they presented a segment on nothing but the rants of Warmists like these and then let the public decide which side has the intellectual high ground.

  127. The rant about stay at home American Idol watching Utah tea party types daring to challenge real scientists being guilty of climate crimes doesn’t sound particularly scientific. In fact it is somewhat less convincing than data supporting the theorem and accurate predictions based on that theorem.

  128. Does it matter?
    Hanlons razor tells us: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence .”
    But in the end, the result of the [snip . . site policy . . mod] manufactured doubt campaign will be the same, regardless.
    Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

  129. David Appel says on Quark Soup;
    Perhaps we need a decade of true suffering — I mean REAL hardship — to break them of their idiocy. I’m just barely old enough to perhaps die in such a decade, but if that’s what it really takes….

    and:
    I’ll be flying home tomorrow…

    Prepared to die for the cause during the next decade but not travel in more carbon friendly manner now. He really takes this “problem” seriously, doesn’t he.

  130. From David Appell’s blog, quoted above by Jimbo.

    Papa Zu said…
    I’m sure Paul Ehrlich felt the same way when he was so much more knowledgeable than everyone else on population matters. Paul knew disaster was eminent and tens of millions would die prior to the year 2000. We should have put everyone that disagreed with Paul Ehrlich in prison because they were too stupid to understand the consequences that the expert Paul Ehrlich warned about.

    I refrain from being pedantic here on proper English as many posters are not native English speakers, despite which their English is vastly superior to my meagre knowledge of any other language. However, I will indulge in this case because the offending mis-speaker is David Appell.

    The snippet “Paul knew disaster was eminent …” is a rather common blunder. There are three words pronounced essentially alike but with different meanings:

    eminent: famous, respected; possessing some special positive quality: “Samuel Elliot Morrison was an eminet naval historian”. See here .

    immanent: inherent within or naturally part of something, for example “cognition is an immanent act of mind”. See here .

    imminent: about to happen, immediately pending. “With no federal budget passed, the US faces an imminent fiscal crisis”. See here .

    The snippet above should read “Paul knew disaster was imminent …”. Or maybe Paul was just basking in his own self of importance. For if a disaster could ever be said to be eminent, Paul Erlich would fit the description.

    Yours for English pedantry.

  131. Please don’t give these idiots any more publicity. To claim that climate change is not happening flies in the face of everything science and common sense is telling us. However, repeating his words just makes it twice as hard to convince people because some people will read it, go check him out, and then have doubts about what the real truth is.

  132. @Appell
    > …they are perhaps guilty of crimes against humanity.

    He sounds like the autocrats in the past who advocated prison for those who dared to speak out against “accepted” beliefs:

    “In 1940, he [Lysenko] became director of the Institute of Genetics within the USSR’s Academy of Sciences, and Lysenko’s anti-Mendelian doctrines were further secured in Soviet science and education by the exercise of political influence and power. Scientific dissent from Lysenko’s theories of environmentally acquired inheritance was formally outlawed in 1948, and for the next several years, opponents were purged from held positions, and many imprisoned.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko

  133. The question I have is who here has denied the climate is changing? A show of hands, anyone?

    To Mr. Appell, please find one quote on this blog from any poster that says they don’t think the climate is changing!

    We do however question as to why and what is causing it.

    Please, do yourself and all of us a favor and watch Anthony’s PBS interview, but this time, do it sober!!

  134. I enjoyed some of the comments over there and felt compelled to join in with this (posted here in case it’s snipped from there).

    “David, would you be able to clarify what you mean by “the nearly unprecedented rate of change…”?

    Seems to fall under the same broad category as ‘nearly pregnant’. The rate of change either in unprecedented, or, as appears to be the case, is not unprecedented.

    Thanks in advance.”

  135. David Appell says: “Are Anthony Watts and Marc Morano and Tom Nelson and Steve Goddard smart enough to be guilty of climate crimes? I think so. You can simply claim that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. I think they’re crimes will be obvious in about a decade.”

    So part of the predicate for being guilty of a climate crime is what, … intelligence, wisdom, knowledge. Just how would such laws be constructed and enforced? How would a jury (or perhaps merely an inquisition) determine how to interprete such a law and what would the necessary evidence be to support a conviction.

    XX USC XXXX It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly state that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

    Isn’t this all just a little bit too much like blaspheming by drawing naked pictures of Mohammed and publishing them? I think there are some real First Amendement issues with Mr. Appell’s diatribe.

  136. I think this letter well illustrates how misinformed some members of the warmist camp are about what the sceptics are really saying or questioning in the area of global warming. The sceptics have never denied that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas , only that it is not a pollutant . It is ssential for life to exist on our planet. It was the same case with Muller as well when he claimed that he now believes in global warming . The issue was not that sceptics denied the existence of global warming but what is the prime cause of the warming , what impact if did humans have on climate and how the temperatures were being measured . If it is a crime to speak up about obvious errors in climate science as this letter writer wrongly suggests , then it can be argued by his logic that is also a crime to present false ,unreliable and misleading science and climate predictions to the public especially when using public money.. Since supposedly 97% of climate scientists support global warming claiming man to be the prime or exclusive cause and since temperatures have not risen the last 15 years as predicted by them and many other science predictions that never materialized, it could be a very large and well suported class action case on behalf of the people of this globe against bad climate science .

  137. It’s a beat up. Both sides are throwing out accusations and casting aspersions on the other.

    For example, Joanne Nova published an epic rant at http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/david-archibald-global-warming-is-a-litmus-test-for-our-politicians/. Excerpts include:

    Dante said that the darkest recesses of hell are reserved for those who remain neutral at a time of great moral crisis. That time is now, and most of our major companies have condemned themselves to the darkest recesses by their inaction and silence. Then there are those who do worse than that, and actively connive against the Australian people.

    “On the 24th of March, the Prime Minister herself provided us with a list of the names of these companies. These are companies who, instead of contributing to greater wealth for all, would rather feed on the shrunken carcass of an enfeebled Australian economy. I will now read the Prime Minister’s list of conniving companies.”
    “These are the companies that wish ill on you and your children. They would sell the Australian people into the slavery and oppression of the carbon tax so that they can get their own snouts deeper into the trough. It is your patriotic duty to avoid these companies as much as you can. Withhold the blessing of your custom. If you need petrol, and it is a choice between Shell and some other brand, for Australia’s sake, for your children’s sake, for God’s sake, choose the other brand.

    If any of these companies don’t actually support a carbon-constrained economy, they have yet to make the effort to correct that misperception. By their silence, they are complicit. Make no mistake, the carbon tax they wish upon us will devastate the Australian economy. A couple of months ago, a minister of the Federal Government visited the steelworks in Port Kembla and cheerfully, tearlessly considered its closure.

    This government is quite happy to sacrifice our greatest industrial enterprise on the altar of this bizarre cult of carbon. These people are remorseless killers of whole industries, and whole communities. Once industries like steel and cement are gone from our shores, no amount of wishing or hoping or endless tears will bring them back again. Skills that have been passed down generations will be lost forever. And in a few short years, Sydney will start having blackouts because nobody will build a new power station while the carbon tax stalks the land.”

    So we have the realist side talking about:
    Remorseless killers
    Complicit…will devastate
    darkest recess of hell
    connive against people
    feed on the shrunken carcass
    darkest recess of hell

    Both sides should stop publishing this tripe. By rebroadcasting it, WUWT is giving it air. Joanne Nova never should have published that other diatribe, but she is a notorious David Archibald, bootlicker.

  138. The Australian treasurer has said that the greatest danger to world prosperity is elements of the Republican party in the US.

    REPLY: And many people in the United States think that that the greatest danger to world prosperity is academics that don’t have a clue how the world works (or have done work) outside the University, telling us how to live – Anthony

  139. Actual screen shot I took in January, ’11 ….. made for a funny wall post anyway.
    I’ll admit it made me jump when I saw it. Took about two seconds to realize what was going on.

  140. This is what’s great about freedom of speech! We get to hear rants like this from the self anointed experts who claim to walk a higher moral plane, thus crushing their own credibility.

    (Oh, and my WiFi SSD names come from “The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy”)

  141. Bec Abbott says:
    September 21, 2012 at 6:02 am
    “So we have the realist side talking about:
    Remorseless killers”

    Respect! Do you work for MSNBC? That was a masterpiece in ripping stuff out of context; but you have one thing to learn, stop citing the source, then you’re perfect. She said
    “These people are remorseless killers of whole industries, and whole communities. ”

    So… Killers… not of people, but of industries, which makes a little bit of a difference, dont you think so. And given the coal mine closures in Virginia etc., perfectly fine description.

    Furthermore, you, on your high pedestal, finish your own diatribe with
    ” she is a notorious David Archibald, bootlicker.”.

    MAYBE it is a little too telling of your own intentions that you stoop to such verbal lows yourself, Mr. Judge. Your pretence of objectivity starts to fall apart there.

  142. Owen sez:

    “I think those who try to medicalize or criminalize dissent ae dangerous, and should be kept away from power or sharp objects. If they are in the United States, they need a good course on the first amendment, because as much as they try to deny it, we are free to think what we want, but when they try to impose their “beliefs” on the rest of us by extra-constitutional means, that is what the second amendment to the US Constitution was for! Threats to life and liberty should be taken seriously by all.”

    Having been involved in democratic party politics for decades, I know these people. That is why I recognize that they have gone off the rails.

    Harvard professor Cass Sunstein recently concluded his stint as Regulatory Czar. He published a paper in 2008 on “Conspiracy Theories.” You can go look this up. In this paper, he considers various avenues the govt might take to combat “conspiracy theories,” such as there is no AGW.
    People, we need to realize that this is total “1984:” the govt decides what is OK for you to think.

    And speaking of the Constitution, Sunstein has also written a book called “The Partial Consitution.” Go order a used copy – they are cheap.
    In this, he argues that the Constitution needs to be significantly re-written.
    You think I am kidding.
    He is not the only one with this idea. The elitist totalitarians are really worried that it is a problem to allow people to think for themselves.
    Here is a prominent, undisguised website, based on book of same name, where their concerns over the Constitution are aired:

    http://constitution2020.org/

    Here is another:

    http://www.acslaw.org/publications/books/keeping-faith-with-the-constitution

    Liu is on California’s Supreme Court, and may be short-list for U.S. Supreme Court, depending on whether we decide to vote for these tyrants or not.
    Here is their rhetoric: they somehow discern what the original authors of the Constitution believed; they note that times have changed; they note that the Constitution fits the old days but not the current day; they decide that a group of lawyers from elitist liberal law school need to get together to rewrite the Constitution to get it back to what the Founding Fathers believed, according to their interpretation.
    They note that since society has changed, the Constitution has ended up favoring extreme right wing people who want to cling to their guns and religion.

    Yes, the enemy is everyday people.
    In the U.S., how many people hold a believe in a recognized, organized religion? A lot.
    How many people own guns?
    A lot.
    In the rarified world, those people are the enemy.
    This is the mythological BAD GUY against whom Appel rants.
    The apocalyptic cult needs a good/evil bad guy.

    Wha? the bad guy is my neighbor? My whole neighborhood? The tea Party?
    Coulda fooled me.
    I am not a Tea Partier, but my vision of America can accomodate them, I am not ready for the jackboots to lock them up.
    My America can handle marxists and those who want to rewrite the Constitution.
    Let’s just be up-front about it.

    If you are unaware that there is a major political movement to rewrite the Constitution, go check out these noted sources.

  143. IMHO, David Appell is appallingly rude and completely out of touch with reality.
    The only reason he deserves his comments and views published is to show up his incompetence and his desperation.
    “Crimes against humanity” “Climate Crimes” !!!!!! Geeeeez!
    ” idiots, fools, and incoherent minds” ???? Maybe the shoe is on the other foot?

  144. You can tell a lot about someone from the friends they keep. You can sometimes tell even more from the enemies they make. I hope to have enemies like Appel some day.

  145. Bec Abbott says:
    September 21, 2012 at 6:02 am

    . . . Both sides should stop publishing this tripe.

    Jonova’s rant is obviously a political tract, perfectly within the bounds and traditions of impassioned political discourse, and beautifully done.

    This is in stark contrast to the reflexive, dogmatic, blind lashing-out by ideological Warmists against anyone who would dare question the sacred catechism of “Climate Change,” [née “Global Warming”], which is the topic of this thread.

    One is an argument over policy. The other is fanatical intolerance of heresy. One is the healthy exercise of free speech. The other is exactly the opposite. “Guilty of climate crimes”? Remember the Witch Trials. The Climate ideologues would return us to pre-Enlightenment days, turning the word ‘science’ on its head, establishing a priesthood promulgating unassailable doctrine.

    When you are asked, “Do you believe in climate change?” be afraid. Science is not about belief; religion is.

    /Mr Lynn

  146. thecomfortablynumb says:
    September 21, 2012 at 4:45 am:
    “To claim that climate change is not happening flies in the face of everything science and common sense is telling us.”
    ========================================================

    Thecomfortablynumb, maybe your common sense needs some enhancement. Because not everything scientists say is science. It is, probably, in most cases, but there have been some exceptions throughout the history, and “climate science” is one of them.

  147. There is zero difference between the rioting in the Muslim lands – ostensibly due to a laughably bad film clip, and the verbal riot caused by Anthony’s appearance on PBS. The same ill-informed, intolerant zealotry is behind both, just wearing a different facade.

    Out of the line of fire, it’s amusing. One side knows they broker no criticism, the other side is “pure” and works out of concern for the human race… In the line of fire, not so much difference if either gets in real power positions.

  148. “John Brookes says:
    September 21, 2012 at 6:26 am”

    And our besterest Aussie economist Swannie…is voted WORLD besterest economist by the EU. I mean, isn’t that funny?

  149. Poor man… oh, the agony. His utopian social dream, where the elite call all the shots (and funding), is crumbling before his eyes, despite all his desperate manipulations. How can his destiny be so thwarted by the unwashed and un-sainted. Gaia is truly a bitch, to abandon such a devotee. GK

  150. Can someone explain how exactly 5 CO2 molecules in 10,000 (other molecules in air) “traps” more heat than 4 in 10,000. What is the physics in this statement??

    I would appreciate knowing…

  151. Patrick says:
    September 21, 2012 at 1:26 am
    “A.Scott says:
    September 20, 2012 at 11:57 pm”

    As long as he had some sort of carbon (CO2) capture device fitted as humans typically exhale CO2 at rates of ~40,000ppm/v even at rest.

    ==========================================================
    If you’ve ever considered wearing a gas mask to capture your own CO2 emissions, you might be a Green-neck.

  152. I don’t regard this as funny.
    It is a serious allegation for which Appell is trying to get traction.
    To speak against the Global Warming Money Redistribution Scheme WILL be a crime in some locals and Watts is in their sites without any question.

  153. Nietzsche had these guys’ figured out in the 1800s:
    “It is not their love of humanity but the impotence of their love of humanity that prevents today’s Christians—from burning us.” – Nietzsche, Aphorism 104, Beyond Good and Evil.

    Just replace “today’s Christians” with “today’s climate catastrophists”…

  154. Doug S says:
    September 20, 2012 at 5:36 pm
    …..Statements like “global warming alarmism is a big business and should be looked at with a skeptical lens but I believe in gay marriage.”
    ————————————-
    I believe in ‘free choice’ and I chose to believe it’s normal for climate to change.

  155. David Appell is typically inventing a claim that does not exist in order to slate someone with different views. Some people typically only retort to this nonsense when it is obvious he/she knows the argument is being lost. Clearly is implementing a person with no idea what the issues and debates of climate science even are or so incompetent in the topic has the cheek to call others.

  156. “I think the real crime Mr. Appell thinks I’m guilty of is existing, having an opinion, and daring to write about it.”
    ———————————
    I think you’re right sir – it’s basically a thought crime. Having an opinion about certain things is becoming increasingly dangerous these days – skepticism of any official story is not encouraged by the establishment, let’s say.

    Freedom of speech on the internet and social media is under threat, IMO, and the front line is moving closer to you. Watch out for smears, dirty tricks and all the rest. They simply don’t like the idea of ordinary citizens getting clued up on a few simple facts which blow away the official story – for exampled the Stern report – because, well, there’s an awful lot of money involved in the ‘greening of econnomies’ BS. It’s a business to these people and they are not going to let anybody intefere with their business or their business plans. Period (as you Americans say).

    Existing as well – there’s a lot of propaganda out there just now (in the last several years) telling us how overpopulated the world is. So yeah, you’re guilty on all counts Mr. Watts – you exist, you have an opinion and you write about it on the internet. You’re a real bad guy!

  157. Looks like David is ripe for a computer Hacking !
    He doesn’t seem to be able to handle basic WiFi setup or even be smart enough to write down his password. He’s a climate expert ?

  158. This is not craziness as in silliness. It is the dogmatic craziness of somebody whose insecure beliefs depend on caricaturing opponents as intellectual inferiors. David Appell has made no effort to understand the ideas of those he disagrees with, nor their moral values, nor their beliefs about the philosophy of science.
    At present Prof Stephen Lewandowsky is in a hole and he keeps on digging. He is similarly unable to attribute anything in what others say. So when he proclaims he superiority in statistical analysis over the excel pivot table “analysts” he uses a misleading graph cooked up by his best mate.

    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskySEM.html

  159. These guys are panicking as the elections in the US comes closer. They see control slipping away and funding disappearing down the toilet. They’ll start collapsing when (hopefully) the extremists are out of power and more rational minds start looking for other answers to the supposed “crisis”.

  160. Please pardon my intemperate comment earlier of not knowing about David Appell. I committed the unpardonable crime of not Googling objects and subjects. Well, let me rectify that right now.

    From David Appell’s personal web site in his very own words.

    I’m a freelance writer living in Salem, Oregon, specializing in the physical sciences, technology, and the environment. My work has appeared in Scientific American, Physics World, Audubon, New Scientist, Wired, Salon, Popular Science, Nature, Discover, The Boston Globe, The San Francisco Chronicle, Physical Review Focus, Discovery Channel Online, Science, and many other publications, and on the syndicated radio program The Weather Notebook .

    I have a B.S. in mathematics and physics from the University of New Mexico, and an M.A. and Ph.D. in physics from the State University of New York at Stony Brook. I’ve also done graduate work in the creative writing department at Arizona State University.

    Please accept my apology for not knowing that Mr Appell is a little known scientist masquerading as a writer. It appears he doesn’t know what he is. Is he a scientist? Given a PhD, certainly he has a career in physics, or should have. What happened on the road to his scientific perdition?

    Is he a writer? Isaac Asimov he is not.

    He kind of looks like Chum-Lee on the television series “Pawn Stars”. Maybe he is a Hollywood star?

  161. To:
    davidmhoffer:

    Thanks for the link to the interchange between CharlesH and Appell. It is funny.
    Long story short, Appell got spanked.
    Appell got spanked because he is short on scientific knowledge missed critical thinking class. He jumps from item to item in a vain effort to confuse his opponent, and offers easily refuted evidence. He doesn’t even understand his own position.

    Wow CharlesH! No way could I keep my cool in the face of that much invective and still make one good point about the science after another. I burst out laughing when you called him on the Bangladesh elevation issue. Priceless!”

    Here, Appell is going with the “Stupid People” hypothesis. I know some Bangladeshi’s, and they are not so stupid that they would stick around for sea levels to get up to their knees. Plus, the Ganges River washes incredible amounts of silt out of the Himalayas and is constantly building the Ganges River deltas at a prodigious rate. There was an article about that on WUWT.

    See article : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/03/bangladesh-the-poster-child/

  162. Gunga Din says: September 21, 2012 at 8:03 am
    If you’ve ever considered wearing a gas mask to capture your own CO2 emissions, you might be a Green-neck.

    And if you’ve ever considered putting a plastic bag over your head to capture your own CO2 emissions, you might be a Green-neck MENSA member.

  163. Mark in Seattle says:
    September 21, 2012 at 8:02 am
    “Can someone explain how exactly 5 CO2 molecules in 10,000 (other molecules in air) “traps” more heat than 4 in 10,000. What is the physics in this statement??

    I would appreciate knowing…”

    They don’t trap heat but absorb and re-emit IR photons. So on frequencies where this happens photons can’t directly move from surface to space but will be captured and re-emitted, so half of them will be radiated downwards again.

    This dampens cooling somewhat.

    When more molecules of these gases are present, the partial pressure of the greenhouse gas rises, and pressure broadening happens: At the margins of the absorption/re-emission bands, where the absorption was somewhere between 0 and 100%, the greenhouse gas fog becomes slightly more opaque; some photons that were able to make it to space before now find themselves absorbed and re-emitted.

    That’s why more CO2 leads to a slightly higher greenhouse effect.

  164. From a comment by JohnB to Appell’s rant:

    ‘David also suggests considering the effect of an extra 1 part in 10,000 of CO2. Yes, it must make a difference. But also David, the tropic are contracting at about 1 mile per year, Cancer is moving South and Capricorn is moving north, thus concentrating the Suns rays on a smaller and smaller part of the Earths surface each year.

    Now the tropics are only 1,600 odd miles from the Equator so this intensification is 1 part in 1,600, almost an order of magnitude larger. Obviously since the angle of incidence is getting smaller then more energy is reaching the surface each year and must also cause warming. ‘

    Don’t fully grasp this, but sounds potentially quite interesting. Can anyone here simplify this, make the concept more easily understandable? Don’t recall this being considered as a source of warming……..

  165. Appell, and people like him, are the reason that there is a Tea Party. My father thought that I would never amount to anything, how proud he would be to learn that I had managed to become a threat to the entire human race!

  166. Anthony, you’ve become a high profile enemy who made a solid hit at the heart of their temperature database. Expect further attacks, both direct and of the type made on PBS to intimidate it.

    I presume risk of physical attack is low, but instruct your family to be careful. There’s much violent rhetoric about, environmentalists have targetted people in the past.

  167. Not only is CO2 not a climate driver, through the GHG theory, the GHG theory is complete rubbish and not required to cause the extra heat calculated to be needed for out ”normal” temperature.

Comments are closed.