It seems the debate is getting a bit testy in the land of watercress sandwiches and doilies*.
“Man-made global-warming hypothesis is dead in the water” says Godfrey Bloom MEP, but it gets better, he points a finger at the chairman and shouts “denier”.
Watch.
h/t to Tom Nelson
* Some people thought I was referring to Belgium. No, I was referring to the EU Parliament in Brussels. I had lunch service there in a roomful of skeptics while Climategate raged in my mind, and I couldn’t say anything until it was verified. I recall the lunch service because it seemed to heighten the surreal situation I found myself in. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@ur momisugly Moe
Your capacities are limited. I understand that.
You have shown above that you have the ability to return to this site and this thread and cause text to appear here in reaction to other comments being made. That you fail to deal with the substance of them, and provide only an imitation of forms that are designed to carry intelligence is of course expected.
This is, being further example at least, not unhelpful.
You were however asked to respond directly to me in the manner described below. As said, the words used do not in and of themselves matter. That they are used in the specific situation is what is required. The reality of your fundamental constitution has been narrowed to a few possibilities.
To not respond, as you clearly have avoided doing, is in human terms described as cowardice: you will understand it as hiding, or perhaps returning or defaulting to occupancy of your natural place of existence.
And certainly this says a lot in itself.
But more is required, so respond.
———————————————————————————————————————–
jc says:
April 17, 2013 at 5:50 am
@ur momisugly Moe says:
April 17, 2013 at 5:03 am
Thankyou for confirming that you are evasive.
Since no person, or word-machine, can fail to register what a “question” is, and the appearance of them in my response directed to you, whatever your intellectual capacity is, these cannot have passed unnoticed.
Your apparent failure to grasp the meaning of any point at all in my comment is disconcerting.
Is this – no polite way of putting this – a “brain problem”? You seem capable of constructing sentences, which while not actually carrying meaning relevant to any point they claim to seek to deal with, are more or less intelligible.
An interesting point. Is this a sign of what can be described as autonomous intelligence? Or does it have the nature of a reflexive condition? Is form without substance anything more than a pattern? Which may well have simply been imposed by imprinting?
The NATURE of your responses certainly indicates imprinting. Sufficient form to carry a limited expression. But no more!
Is this why you were evasive of absolutely everything in my comment? Because the form could not carry such a variation in requirements? Is it even fair to call it evasion? If the form is incapable of carrying a response, does that also imply it is incapable of registering things it is not fit to incorporate? Is that the basis of what – for a normally functional human – can only be called a “brain problem”?
Or is it instead, a fundamental dishonesty? So ingrained, so absolute, that to ignore the unignorable, is a compulsion that cannot be resisted, even though it is blindingly obvious to all who see it? But this in itself a “brain problem” of an almost unfathomable profundity!
So is it possible you incorporate BOTH? A “brain problem” at a level to invoke gasps from a functional human AND a basic, organic, dishonesty at a level which when perceived by a human, requires your ejection from society?
If you are able, I would greatly appreciate a further response to allow a comprehensive judgement. Please do not be concerned with attempting to explain your condition. This cannot be expected regardless of the reason, and can only be the cause of stress.
Just say whatever you feel you are able to. No need to try, or pretend, to be relevant. Any sequence of words at all will do, and will allow a definitive decision on your condition.
Few more comments Moe, it’s pretty obvious to me that whether individuals believe or disbelieve the science, something is happening and we need to adapt..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19890250
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/food-prices-to-rise-on-poor-harvest-due-to-wet-summer-8204772.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/04/world/asia/food-price-impact
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/10/food-prices-rise-wettest-summer
icarus 62
You failed to respond to my questions below. You should do so now. Refer to my just posted comment to Moe, your close associate in nature and function, above for details relating to a consideration of your non-responsiveness.
There have been a paucity of comments from you subsequent to my comment below being posted. Now you have returned, giving the clear message of being in a support role.
That you lack vigor is understood. You do have sufficient to address this however. Whilst your contributions up-thread are indicative, more is required.
You should supply that now.
———————————————————————————————————————–
jc says:
April 16, 2013 at 11:31 am
@ur momisugly icarus62 says:
April 16, 2013 at 8:45 am
Thanks for responding but you didn’t really directly answer my questions. I suppose I can infer something but that leaves things pretty vague.
You say:
“Yes, anyone who has a reasonable physical understanding of Earth’s climate system thinks the same way as I do.”
For me, that is a fairly astonishing statement. Is there no-one who has “a reasonable understanding” whose opinions differ from yours at all? Even a bit? What about people who actually are employed to research in this area – who are committed to AGW – who have recently said things along the lines that it hasn’t warmed this century, its stalled etc? Are they just wrong? Don’t they know whats going on?
Can I ask – how is it that you know better? But mainly, how is it that you KNOW that everyone who has “a reasonable understanding” thinks exactly like you. You must understand, its difficult to know where this comes from: it is very very unusual for intelligent people to have EXACTLY the same thoughts about anything. Actually, I think it is probably unheard of.
So, I repeat, are such people with a “reasonable understanding” those who are part of your social circle? Are they ALL like you, who think exactly as you do? Or are you a bit of a loner – or maybe a leader in this?
Please answer these questions directly, and I would add, do you have employment, or do you perform actions, in a role where the results pf those actions can be seen? Where your abilities in a practical way can be judged? And also, you refer to self-delusion, do you have reason to be
aware of this condition?
@ur momisugly Gareth Phillips
A comment directed to you, reproduced below, was not responded to. No questions were posed, and so obligation to do so was implicit, however the point made was unambiguous and directly addressed the issue you had been pretending to deal with with sincerity.
You continue to maintain this with other people who post. This is evasive. Observably and undeniably so, a technique not so readily apparent, or presented in such a way for this hopefully to be the result, in your – intentionally and required – verbosity elsewhere.
So explain. Be aware that to try to rely on maintaining an illusion of sincere intent will fail.
———————————————————————————————————————
jc says:
April 17, 2013 at 9:19 am
@ur momisuglyGareth Phillips says:
April 17, 2013 at 8:30 am
Frankly your position is idiotic.
Some people might say that it is warmer than 150 years ago and so it is still warming. So what.
The claim is that it should have warmed over the past 15 years. It hasn’t.
It has not got warmer for 15 years. Fact.
So warming has stopped. Fact.
Models require warming through that period. Fact.
Models reflect claimed understanding of climate. Fact.
Claimed understanding is incorrect. Fact.
Those claiming understanding do not know what they are talking about. Fact.
There is nothing more to it.
Moe says:
April 18, 2013 at 5:32 am
No.
Droughts are NOT more severe now than ever before. Drought indexes are the same now (worldwide, US-wide, and Australian-wide) and are as stable as they have been since the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Medes, Mayans, and US southwestern Indians were felled by regional drought in the past 6000+ years.
The envri-terrorists, in the religious-level crusades against energy and human life, HAVE createdd that food shortage you “claim and blame” on CAGW – Yet the CAGW has NOT YET HAPPENED! How can any so-called “climate change” of 0.2 degrees 20 twenty years ago (1975 – 1995 was time frame when temperatures actually changed!) but stable for 16 years be “affecting” crops now? Further, the change was WARMER -> thus, more growing season and more time to grow and plant crops in more areas of the world.
Also, the increase in CO2 INCREASED crop productin for food, fodder, foliage and forest products! That ANY decrease in produciton happened BECAUSE your enivro-theists deliberately
INCREASED crop and land areas devoted to ethanol,
INCREASED fuel prices that hurt farmers and producers and shippers,
DEMANDED an end to genetically more productive crops and animals,
DEMANDED a loss of fertilizers and higer prices for manufacturing fertilizers,
DEMANDED reduced farmlands because of encvironmental restrictions,
DEMANDED higher risk forest management practices that increased burn rates and damage,
DEMANDED dams and irrigation projects be stopped or destroyed,
DEMANDED that millions of acres of productive farmland in California be destroyed by drought (because of the “potential” harm to fish in the Sacramento delta that had been living for years unencumbered),
DEMANDED the higher energy prices that destroyed nations’ economies such as Australia,
DEMANDED the destruction dam management policies that flooded YOUR cities …
Yes. Go ahead. Blame your enviro policies and your socialist government policies for EVERY change that has hurt farmers and farm productivity worldwide since the CAGW religion was promoted ….
@JC: Do you have any view on the apparent contradiction between accelerating global warming according to OHC studies and the levelling off of the net climate forcing according to GISS?
@ur momisugly Icarus62 says:
April 18, 2013 at 7:07 am
Simple reflexive responses will not work.
Answer the questions. As directly as you are able. The simplicity or clarity, or absence of them, will in itself be telling.
@JC: So you’re just trolling then, no interest in the science. I understand.
@ur momisugly icarus62 says:
April 18, 2013 at 7:18 am
Your techniques do not work.
It is obvious that by instinct, habit, and training this what you are.
The interest now is in how comprehensively these form your being, the precise balance between instinct and training, and whether any reference points within your nature exist as a counterbalance. This is what is being documented.
Absence of response and nature of response are salient. Evasion in such a crude fashion most certainly does not help you.
Icarus62
“Do you have any view on the apparent contradiction between accelerating global warming according to OHC studies and the levelling off of the net climate forcing according to GISS?”
When you say global warming is accelerating you must be more precise. Global warming is clearly not like a car, which can have an instantaneous acceleration – d2s/dt2.
Suppose we take the slope of the global temperature anomalies at various points to compare them. Obviously, since monthly or annual global temperatures go up and down from one year to the next, you have to trend them. You can take a smoothing curve, averaged over so many years, or make a linear fit. If you do the latter, then there can be no accelaration because a straight line, by definition, has a constant slope.
To compare accelerations in straight lines – ie to compare their slopes – you would need 2 sets of start and end points. In the case of smoothing, then yes, you can measure the slopes at different points along the same curve, but to be meaningful, you need to give the number of years of averaging. This may be 20 year moving average, 30 year or more.
My point is, I have no idea from your statement whether it is true to assert that global warming is accelerating. To help, could you please say whether you are basing this on comparing 2 linear fits and give their start and end points, or whether you are using a moving average, in which case could you please give the number of years of averaging. Otherwise, I’m sure you will agree, the statement is meaningless.
@Vince Causey:
I mentioned the basis above –
Also Balmaseda et al 2013 finds that:
So I would say that the acceleration is based on a comparison of the last decade with previous decades.
@ur momisugly icarus62
@ur momisuglymoe
@ur momisuglyGareth Phillips
I’m waiting.
@ur momisugly Icarus62 says:
April 18, 2013 at 8:15 am
You are here. It is on record.
Staying silent is not appropriate. That is not the nature of this forum. The right to silence applicable in many countries where no inference can theoretically be drawn from exercising that right does not apply here. This is not yet a Court of Law. Inferences can and will be drawn, and will be based on other available evidence, of which this forms part.
At issue is intent. Whilst when having reached the point of adjudication in a Court, this is often problematic to establish, this issue and those involved in it, revealed and recorded as it is on the internet, has the huge advantage of potentially nullifying claims to innocence based on sincere intent, ie not being of dishonest intent.
This is the position you are now in. Of course you will understand that this is not a theoretical exercise. Whilst you assume a security of positioning, in this you are wrong.
This is your opportunity to either compound or ameliorate – possibly – your position.
Icarus62,
thanks for answering my query. Although your quotes sound convincing, I believe they are controversial. I have read numerous statements by Roger Pielke snr only a year or 2 ago, who is adamant that there has not been such a rise in ohc, and has said that ohc is now of the order of 10^23 joules below what would be expected according to Hansens description of radiative imbalance (around 0.8 w/m2).
Although Levitus is comparing this decade with the last, I’m not sure if he is comparing Argo with ship based measurements. Before Argo, I don’t think we can have much confidence in the data.
Sorry to be so picky, but I just don’t think we have any reliable data to describe ohc. Although adequate for gross changes such as Enso, for the purpose of AGW induced ohc anomalies, I just think the sampling is too sparse for the volumes involved and more importantly the signals of temperature anomolies are way too small – much smaller than land based measurements.
@Vince Causey: I don’t think you’re being picky – it’s not impossible that the acceleration is an artefact rather than real. We’ll have to see what future studies conclude.
JC, sorry for not responding, but I was exercising my right to silence without inference (see your statement above: ‘The right to silence applicable in many countries where no inference can theoretically be drawn from exercising that right does not apply here.’)
However, let me assure you I am human. Funny how anytime someone points out uncomfortable ideas they are accused of being a bot. Well I’m not a bot.
Icarus, in Australia we have been seeing agricultural practices move both in space and time. Hay harvesting when I was a child happened during December and January. Which was handy as it coincided with the school summer holidays when teenage labour was available to help. Now hay harvesting occurs a whole two months earlier. Luckily it is more mechanised (large round bayles handled by tractors) and the teenage labour is no longer required.
Also, instead of growing potatoes, I am seeing cereal crops being planted. This has never been done before in this area. Previously they were planted further north where it was drier.
RACookPE1978, I googled drought index and couldn’t confirm you statement that droughts have been the same for some time. Could you please provid a reference.
I suppose it depends where the drought is. If it is in agricultural areas, then there is a problem.
I love the way people parrot that co2 is a plant food. With the increase of co2 we should have an abundance of food as co2 is imcreasing all the time. I suggest you talk to a farmer and ask them how much their production has been effected by the increase in co2, then ask them how unseasonal weather has affected them. See the comments above over the cool wet summers in England and what effect the droughts in USA and Russia had on food production.
Thankyou for finding the capacity to respond. Even if this is merely a compulsion you have little control over.
OK. Your response is indeed rich in information. Your first two paragraphs are exemplary.
In the first, your stated defense of previous reticence quotes as its foundation a statement from me – not to you, but to another, which is understandable even as it communicates a grasping for any justification from any source – that you exercised a “right to silence” even as the very words you quote incorporate the phrase “do not apply here”. Very remarkable.
To be able to absorb and retain for sufficient time to reproduce a part of a sentence as being suitable to your purpose, but not to be able to rise to the complexity needed to understand the implication of another part of the same sentence – even as you show a hapless servitude to the progression of words until liberated by a full stop, which compels you reproduce that too! – draws a sharp line as to your functional intelligence.
Your second paragraph is interesting. For you, this is quite complex. It has an existential element that might in its revelation across three full (but very short) sentences demonstrate a confusion, or possibly even an incipient despair, so powerful it has created a continuity of attention that has not previously been evident as being possible given your established level of intelligence (probably better described as “brain function” since intelligence does, in common usage, carry an implication of a certain level of performance which, to be realistic, you do not have).
Your conviction – or trepidation – that I might consider you an artifact of technology seems to have been triggered by one mention of how both humans and machines – at a certain level – can normally be expected to recognize a “question”. That this has triggered such a response – maintained over three actual sentences as I have said – is very suggestive and does pose something of a conundrum.
I haven’t thought of you previously as being likely to be an artifact of this sort, and on balance I don’t now. Your responses lack the precision of discernible process, expressed in a barren way which differs to the emptiness of your production. But your concerns that you can be perceived to be such demand some consideration.
As a product of coding you cannot be expected to be able to express such things: certainly this can be incorporated as part of programming, but not with you. This would require a capacity for function you indisputably do not have. So that can be discounted as a possibility.
Rather, this concern is organic to a living entity. It seems based on a fear that you may in fact have the functionality of a smartphone. Or less. Perhaps a generic redundant mobile phone. This is, it has to be said, consistent with your actual performance. But I would like to express to you the confidence I have that you are a living being and that your concerns to the contrary are unfounded, if understandable.
All the above amply demonstrates that you do have a “brain problem” A very severe one at that. Although not in general use, certain terms have specific demarcations in categorizing function as measured by IQ, as well as more vernacular application. These include “moron” and “imbecile”. It is not necessary to be precise for these purposes, in determining your level of culpability, it is sufficient to have established the fact that in normal human terms, you are intellectually deficient to the degree that makes you “unfit”.
This does not preclude the possibility that you are also fundamentally dishonest. That your urges and desires are expressed through deceit. This is common in very low functioning organisms, that exist through presenting themselves to the world as something they are not.
The middle sentence of your highly complex – for you – second paragraph will suffice to establish this. Along with, of course, the requisite poverty of intelligence in not understanding what an “idea” is, and not registering that I have not raised something you would like to allude to, is the “instinct” for doing so: seeking advantage by any means, which overrides any other consideration. This very feeble mechanism is definitively dishonest and so you confirm your nature in this way.
Your last two paragraphs, reaching out for help from the entity icarus62, and further elaborated in your following post to RACookPE1978, show the scope of your perceptual (I’m afraid I can’t call it intellectual) landscape.
I recall that further up-thread you claimed a background in agriculture. I take it that this background is fully shown by reference to your childhood. And that this experience is limited to manual assistance in lifting hay bales. Certainly any lack of subsequent involvement cannot have been by choice. You cannot possibly have maintained an existence in that sphere.
To think that farmers are pondering the effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions when discussing the nature of the season puts you so far outside the limits of reality it is hardly believable. You will find this difficult to believe but such interests even preceeded the knowledge of the existence of CO2!
Your general focus on the weather as evidence and nostalgia for the sunny – but not too sunny – days of childhood suggests you may be in the last gasps of senility. But even there, some clarity and coherence in recall is often present, so perhaps not.
It is important to establish exactly what the nature of the active Affirmers of AGW is. Obviously, those such as you, Icarus62 and Gareth Phillips are nothing in the scheme of things. But such things require support from those like you.
Where there has been manipulation, deceit, and lies, there is culpability. There are no excuses.
Many, many thousands are dead. They have been killed by the application of policies enacted on the basis of the position you hold, seek to advance, and to have further imposed. They have been slaughtered.
Anyone who has engaged in this issue and has promoted such policies through lies, misrepresentations, and deceit has killed people as surely as creeping up to them in the night and cutting their throats.
There are no excuses. No one can say “I didn’t know”. Those responsible are going to be held fully to account.
You, and all those of similar inclination, should consider how far you might be implicated in this.
And whether under the guise and abuse of sincere involvement in discussion you continue to compound that.
Everyday, more die.
Every deceit kills.
How do you stand in this light?
@ur momisugly Icarus62
You have plainly calculated what you consider to be the most effective response.
You should refer to the later part of my comment to your comrade Moe at 7.30am to see the full weight of the implications of any dishonest behavior in promoting the AGW dogma or agenda.
As should any of like mind who read this.
@ur momisugly Gareth Phillips
Continued evasion does not render invisible. It highlights and confirms.
If and when you are encountered at other times, repeating such techniques, expect the above to be shown.
You, like Icarus62, should refer to the later part of my comment to Moe above.
Which comment to me was that Mc?