Oh, Mann, that's gotta hurt!

Well played

Jay Hope — Good one — Eugene WR Gallun

Anti-human, anti-African, anti-poor, anti-capitalist, trough-feeding bureaucrat, Lesbian (not that there’s anything wrong with that!), mass murderess of global proportions, so Mikey Mann is in good company.

Also anti-Asian, of course, but anti-human most of all.
http://www.cfact.org/2013/08/11/ddt-ban-linked-to-population-control/

Her sexuality is neither relevant nor well-defined.
Stick to criticisms of her work. It is well-defined and has had a net negative effect on the world.

@sturgishopper
Agreed above, you wouldn’t use the label if you weren’t trying to infer suspicion and negativity with it. Doing that is degrading to everyone. As sceptics of AGW we should be familiar with the unfairness of narrow minded, lazy broad-brush stigmatisation and ‘poisoned wells’ and you should know better.
Can’t seem to get the book in the UK yet – anyone have any idea of a release date?

Oh yeah? Well, I have a suspicion that you are hetero! Ha! Yup, I outed you. 8D

M Courtney
June 10, 2015 at 1:09 am

[…] Stick to criticisms of her work. It is well-defined and has had a net negative effect on the world.

I haven’t read Silent Spring in its entirety, but my recollection is that she did not call for an outright ban on DDT, but rather recommended its wise use.

In regards to the pesticide DDT, Carson never actually called for an outright ban. Part of the argument she made in Silent Spring was that even if DDT and other insecticides had no environmental side effects, their indiscriminate overuse was counter-productive because it would create insect resistance to the pesticide(s), making the pesticides useless in eliminating the target insect populations:

No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored. The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it is either wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are rapidly making it worse. The world has heard much of the triumphant war against disease through the control of insect vectors of infection, but it has heard little of the other side of the story—the defeats, the short-lived triumphs that now strongly support the alarming view that the insect enemy has been made actually stronger by our efforts. Even worse, we may have destroyed our very means of fighting.

[…]
Many critics repeatedly asserted that she was calling for the elimination of all pesticides. Yet Carson had made it clear she was not advocating the banning or complete withdrawal of helpful pesticides, but was instead encouraging responsible and carefully managed use with an awareness of the chemicals’ impact on the entire ecosystem. In fact, she concludes her section on DDT in Silent Spring not by urging a total ban, but with advice for spraying as little as possible to limit the development of resistance.

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

“Carson concluded that DDT and other pesticides had irrevocably harmed birds and animals and had contaminated the entire world food supply. The book’s most haunting and famous chapter, “A Fable for Tomorrow,” depicted a nameless American town where all life — from fish to birds to apple blossoms to human children — had been “silenced” by the insidious effects of DDT.
“http://www.nrdc.org/health/pesticides/hcarson.asp

With words like “irrevocably” and “contaminated the entire world,” Carson reminds me of climate alarmists. It would be hard for me to believe that a person who believed such things did not want to ban DDT outright.

Ah, Wikipedia as a source of verity. And I assume that the ban on DDT was just another example of implementation of the precautionary principle.

Louis Hunt
June 10, 2015 at 8:55 am

With words like “irrevocably” and “contaminated the entire world,” Carson reminds me of climate alarmists. It would be hard for me to believe that a person who believed such things did not want to ban DDT outright.

If you are going to quote Rachel Carson, please use her words, and not the words of the reviewer.
As it happens, The chapter you mentioned “A Fable for Tomorrow” is available online, although with a couple typos, errant pastes, and such, but I could not find the word “irrevocably” in there, nor the phrase “contaminated the entire world,” even though the first part of the chapter is an acknowledged “fable,”
http://core.ecu.edu/soci/juskaa/SOCI3222/carson.html
Rachel Carson did write this, in the referenced chapter:

Since the mid-1940’s over 200 basic chemicals have been created for use in killing insects, weeds, rodents, and other organisms described in the modem vernacular as “pests”; and they are sold under several thousand different brand names.
These sprays, dusts, and aerosols are now applied almost universally to farms, gardens, forests, and homes nonselective chemicals that have the power to kill every insect, the “good” and the “bad,” to still the song of birds and the leaping of fish in the streams, to coat the leaves with a deadly film, and to linger on in soil all this though the intended target may be only a few weeds or insects. Can anyone believe it is possible to lay down such a barrage of poisons on the surface of the earth without making it unfit for all life? They should not be called “insecticides,” but “biocides.”
The whole process of spraying seems caught up in an endless spiral. Since DDT was released for civilian use, a process of escalation has been going on in which ever more toxic materials must be found. This has happened because insects, in a triumphant vindication of Darwin’s principle of the survival of the fittest, have evolved super races immune to the particular insecticide used, hence a deadlier one has always to be developed and then a deadlier one than that. It has happened also because, for reasons to be described later, destructive insects often undergo a “flareback,” or resurgence, after spraying, in numbers greater than before. Thus the chemical war is never won, and all life is caught in its violent crossfire.

M Courtney
June 10, 2015 at 1:09 am
Carson’s sexuality is not irrelevant. As a non-breeder, it was arguably easier for her to accept the deaths of tens of millions or more people if that disaster would, as she imagined it, save the planet’s other life forms which she loved more than her fellow humans.

sturgishooper, that’s a long stretch.
It’s not clear she ever knew she was a non-breeder or that she wanted to be.
Or that, if she did, she would have any more empathy for birds than her friends’ babies.
Psychoanalysis is hard to do on someone in front of you. This is asking for too much faith in our ability to know the woman.
I’m sceptical. Stick to what we know.

MC,
When she wrote Silent Spring toward the end of her life, she knew she was a non-breeder and had already adopted the attitude toward humanity which her book helped spawn more widely.
She and her last lover burnt most of their letters, a la Eleanor Roosevelt and hers, but enough of them survive to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt what her sexual orientation was.

not sure how people are saying she’s not calling for a ban… Steve P wiki post is pretty clear she wants an outright ban but doesn’t think she could be successful… thus crouch the language to still ban it but make it seem a reasonable ban.
If blacks were banned from votes except as little as possible people would say its a bad and racist… but yet she’s not calling for a ban…. yeah right its clear she wants a complete ban.

2 million a year, just in Sri Lanka? Multiply that by X years and then chuck in untold millions in countries impacted by malaria in the rest of the world to reach an unimaginably high total: is there a case for saying Rachel Carson is responsible for more human deaths than any other single person who ever lived?

Wikipedia states population of Sri Lanka is approx. 20 million. The quoted figure of two million deaths per year is clearly wrong (P J O’Rourke being his usual and delightful provocative self) as Sri Lanka would be entirely depopulated in eleven years

P.J. O’Rourke cites zoology professor Dixy Lee Ray’s book “Trashing the Planet” for a figure of about 1,000,000. The UN puts the figure at 500,000 for the worst year. Back in the 1990s the maximum was about 210,000. The death rate has been decreasing since then. Sri Lanka is on the path to totally eliminating malaria.
The population of Sri Lanka is about twenty million. Two million malaria deaths would be ten percent of the population. If that were the real rate, Sri Lanka would be almost completely depopulated by now.
Notwithstanding the above, the folks responsible for the DDT ban do have the death of millions of children to account for.

imho, not “malaria deaths” but “malaria cases” …
I found these numbers so spectacular that I looked a bit furher … this is also part of the human sciences, and numbers don’t mean the same thing as in the exact sciences …
see e.g. also http://www.malariajournal.com/content/13/1/59 with different numbers …

In Sri Lanka, malaria deaths went from 2.8 million in 1948 down to 17 in 1964 due to the use of DDT.
Following the ban DDT by 1969, death rates were back up to 2.5 million. In addition DDT was replaced by pesticides that are often much more toxic to humans. Many environmentalists dismiss or minimize these concerns. For example, Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, was asked if the DDT ban led to loss of human life. His reply was “Probably … so what? People are the causes of all the problems; we have too many of them.” He has since retracted his statement.

“Silent Spring” got me interested in pollution and pesticide control 50 years ago. One of the first term papers I wrote was on “organophosphate” issues rather than “organochlorines” (eg. DDT). Many people worried about the “persistence” of organochlorines rather than the toxicity of organophosphates (eg. Sarin).
The positive aspect of “Silent Spring” , in spite of much of its incorrect information, is that it made people aware of the need for careful use of pesticides and herbicides. I believe almost all of the compounds are still being used though generally restricted to agriculture and professional use as it generally should be. (I am not against the use of these products by the way. I have several types in my farm shed along with proper personal protective equipment.)

Hmmnn…….
WHO figures, which are a bit rubbery, estimate total world wide deaths from malaria at between 470,000 and 790,000 in 2012. 90% of deaths were in Sub-Saharan Africa
http://www.who.int/gho/malaria/epidemic/deaths/en/
Official deaths from malaria in Sri Lanka in 2011 …….none
http://globalhealthsciences.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/content/ghg/country-briefings/sri-lanka.pdf
It’s a bit more complicated than use, or not, of DDT
Note – morbidity means ill or diseased, not death

AFAIK, DDT is not even an insecticide, but a repellant which operates by disabling the scent-localizing circuitry of the antennae, such that insects avoid its influence (by departing). It is thus not actually a poison.

Thank you for the info.
Since you seem keen on numbers… how do you get your head around the fact that this website is so popular and yet we are told it runs on a shoestring budget? I mean, shouldn’t ads be bringing in thousands of dollars?
I’ve been wondering for a while about this and would appreciate some light on the issue.

Brute
You say

how do you get your head around the fact that this website is so popular and yet we are told it runs on a shoestring budget? I mean, shouldn’t ads be bringing in thousands of dollars?

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain how this website can bring in “thousands of dollars” from advertising.
Many would like to know and I am certain that the host of this website would appreciate the information.
Of course, I am asking for practical information that anyone can understand, and I am NOT asking for more arm-waving assertions about what some anonymous idiot on the web cannot get his/her/their head around.
Richard

@richardscourtney
Please don’t flip out. There is already enough paranoia going around. I am asking a question.
There are ads on this site and there are supposed to be more than a million visitors per month. It has to bring revenue. A lot of revenue. I don’t know how much. That’s why I’m asking. My guess is based on my experience with much less popular sites and thousands of dollars is a low figure. I could be wrong, of course. Please feel free to provide a better figure.

Brute, no-one knows that answer except those for whom it is personal information, so I googled it.
It seems that you can make $100,000 a year from ads if you have 100,000 distinct visitors a day.
I doubt there are near that many distinct visitors each day – from the distinct number of commenters I see. But the earnings per ad may be higher than average as this is a distinctive site catering to those who are well educated.
So my guess is that this site takes in about $100k per annum (less costs to run it).
Being the biggest means that it probably does provide a nice little earner.
But not enough to change your lifestyle unless you were on the breadline in the first place.

@M Courtney
Thank you.
[ based on the URL in the email, you might ask if “Brute” would like to share his earnings info from the “tens of thousands” of users that have downloaded his software -mod]

Brute – Try clicking on “About these ads” up on the top right. The explanation there might enlighten you.

TMLutas, good spot.
I feel stupid.

Brute
You say to me

Please don’t flip out. There is already enough paranoia going around. I am asking a question.

You provided a smear and not a question. Others have refuted that smear.
I did ask a question of you; viz.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain how this website can bring in “thousands of dollars” from advertising.
Many would like to know and I am certain that the host of this website would appreciate the information.
Of course, I am asking for practical information that anyone can understand, and I am NOT asking for more arm-waving assertions about what some anonymous idiot on the web cannot get his/her/their head around.

As anticipated, you responded with arm-waving assertions.
Please answer my question or apologise for having presented an unfounded smear.
Richard

So if Anthony chose a WordPress “paid” plan for $300 he could eliminate these offensive ads? I’ll chip in… But does this also mean Anthony doesn’t receive dollars for these ads, just free space?

carbon, I believe it is based on volume. For low volume sites, accepting the ads just gives you free service.
As your volume increases, you get a cut of ad revenue, the greater the volume, the greater the cut.

Rachel Carson’s book has been around since 1967 or so- 47 years.
As far as ads go I see one on this page for the book announced in the headline.
The real point is that people are obviously visiting this site and buying the book to learn something. With Climate Change: the Facts at #1 in category and Mann’s book down around 82.000 it tells me that facts are much more sought after than paying for propaganda- I get that everyday from the news media and the government. Shades of George Orwel’s book Animal Farm. It still does quite well on Amazon considering its age and subject. It’s pretty to the point on the current political climate.

September 1962

Actually “justification by faith alone” is at the center of Protestant theology, as per Luther’s reference to blinding your reason. Calvin carried it even further.
Protestantism was founded in the moment of Luther’s “blinding” insight into passages in Romans, which led him to formulate the doctrine of “sola fide” (by faith alone), which still distinguishes most Protestant denominations from the beliefs of Roman and Orthodox Catholicism, which emphasize “works”, as per your belief.
Although sola fide is arguably less central to Mormonism than to Protestant denominations, it nevertheless is an LDS doctrine:
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/55881-is-sola-fide-consistent-with-mormonism/

I have a feeling that being an approved intellectual and marxist, Naomi’s book is being purchased by students that are forced to read it.

I’m sure the Mann book has several “peer reviewed” syllables.

Nevermind that comment. I somehow forgot this post talks about Mann’s newest book which came out recently, not the far more popular one that came out a few years ago. I haven’t even looked at the newer one.

Brandon Shollenberger
You say

Nevermind that comment. I somehow forgot this post talks about Mann’s newest book which came out recently, not the far more popular one that came out a few years ago. I haven’t even looked at the newer one.

Congratulations! On WUWT you have long last admitted to have done something sensible; i.e. you have not bothered to read a book by the ludicrous Michael Mann.
Richard

Brandon,
You said; “I somehow forgot this post talks about Mann’s newest book which came out recently, not the far more popular one that came out a few years ago.”
I’d like to reassure you as regards your apparently terrible memory.
You didn’t forget that it was about his new book, you never took in that detail in the first place.
Possibly, haste caused by zeal.

I couldn’t find the comment leader for this so I’ll hang it here…
Context: discussion of who “we” are than can know with certainty the Earth will warm by 2030 (if it does anything that is, a separate discussion).
Brandon says “there are plenty of people who could count as ‘we.’ For instance, there is myself and everyone else who agrees we have no reason to believe the planet will cool by 2030.”
I am fascinated by this phenomenon. A we-ist cannot help himself. He’s a drone in a hive-mind. Even while explaining “we” he uses “we”. We are Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. You have no idea how many people, if any besides yourself, are in any instance of “we” nor does it matter. I am corresponding with Brandon and you are corresponding with me. Whether anyone else on Earth believes exactly as you do, or as I do, is irrelevant. Stay focused — right here, right now, just you and me.
Brandon writes “we have no reason to believe the planet will cool by 2030″
Then let me give all of you a few reasons:
1. Asteroid collision — could make Earth a LOT cooler!
2. Nuclear winter
3. Sufficient volcanic activity; but the added CO2 competes with SO2 so its hard to say the net effect.
4. Solar variation.
5. Running out of fuel so the whole idea of “business as usual” is absurd on its face.
And so on. Doubtless more exist. Now you have some reasons to allow for the possibility of the Earth cooling in 2030. Unlikely; but possible.
Brandon continues: “As for whether or not we can know this to be true, there is no such thing as absolute knowledge”
There is no “we”. I know some things with absolute certainty. Cogito ergo sum for starters. The word “know” has meaning and it is silly to suggest that what it means cannot exist. But it is probably true that what has not yet happened also cannot be known; for it does not exist, and only that which exists can be known. I do not know that you exist. I know that I exist. I cannot say “we exist” because at least one member of the set “we” is not known for sure to exist. I can say “I exist” and then I can say “we probably exist”.
Brandon continues: “…and more than we can ‘know’ the sun will rise tomorrow. But aside from semantics like that, yes, we can know it will not cool by 2030.”
Are you deliberatly using “we” in every sentence or is that just dronish?
“We” cannot know anything that has not happened. “Know” is for things that (1) have happened and are observed or (2) are defined and thus instantiated in the instant of definition. In that sense you can know as many things as you wish to know, the moment you think it into existence.
It is possible the sun won’t “rise” tomorrow; although for that to happen the Earth must stop rotating or the sun exploded or some such thing. Highly unlikely and in either case we won’t argue about it.
The probability the Earth will be cooler, on average, over a ten year moving average centered on 2030 as compared to a similar thing centered on 2010, exists but I do not know what is that probability. My own sense or “wag” is about 5 percent probability.

IMO the odds that the 20 years 2016-35 will be cooler than 1996-15 are pretty good.

Whats wrong with Ben Bova?
Granted i don’t read him these days, but he was one of the early writers (along with Heinlein and Andre Norton) that got me interested in SF in the first place.

Everyone has their own tastes, and it’s easy to forget that just because you don’t care for a particular author, others don’t agree.
I was never able to get into Turtledove, but he’s counted as one of the greats. Don’t understand it myself, but it doesn’t bother me.

Don’t forget to divide the # sold by the sqrt of all books sold to reduce the error bars.

I am reminded of the old Soviet-era joke. An American athlete and a Soviet athlete have a race. The American wins. Pravda reports “Soviet runner comes in second! American finishes next to last!”

And infill the number of books that would have been sold in the areas of the world lacking Internet access.

>>I am reminded of the old Soviet-era joke.
‘Tis no joke. The BBC is doing the very same thing as we speak. When the Wall came down, PRAVDA simply moved its offices to London…….. /sarc

Humour! WUWT?

^^^ Mann’s book that is, not the one in the main subject — Just thought I had better clarify before getting dismembered 🙂

Man Bearpig — This seems a corallary to Godwin’s Law –Talk about books long enough and someone is sure to mention toilet paper — Eugene WR Gallun

AFAIK, DDT is not even an insecticide, but a repellant which operates by disabling the scent-localizing circuitry of the antennae, such that insects avoid its influence (by departing). It is thus not actually a poison.

Excellent choice of punctuation + several thousand

googolplex, is that a google site that shows movies?

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

Using the term “alarmist” is insulting also.

Joel D. Jackson
Please don’t post ridiculous nonsense.
“Deni a r” has the connotation of holocaust deni a l and is unspecific about what is deni e d.
“Alarmist” has no unpleasant and untrue connotation and it accurately applies to people who assert an alarm without comment on whether such alarm is justified.
Richard

Mr Courtney
…
Your “opinion” is noted, but the label “alarmist” is insulting to those of us that accept the science of AGW, but do not think it is problematic.

What a savage reply, pit. Did you invent the “I’m not one but you are” retort?

the label “alarmist” is insulting to those of us that accept the science of AGW, but do not think it is problematic.

If you do not think it is problematic, then you are not an alarmist. Depending on HOW MUCH warming you think is coming you would be either a warmist or a lukewarmer. Which to an actual alarmist would make you a denier, since that includes everyone that doesn’t agree with 5hereb on every last point.
Heck, Lomberg agrees with all their ‘science’, yet is still branded a denier because he disagreed with their economics.

Dbstealey writes, “I cannot help the feelings that come from within you.”
…
Dbstealy doesn’t have a clue about any of my “feelings”
..
He then writes, “:If the rise in CO2 is harmless, which it is” of course he offers no evidence if it is harmless. The fact is WE DON’T know either way. It may be harmless, it may not be harmless. The only way we’ll know if it is….is to wait and see. The true skeptic will not say it is harmful, nor will he say it is harmless. Why? because nobody can predict the future reliably. Additionally you seem to forget that science makes no value judgement. If you wish to determine if it is “harmless” or “harmful” study the branch of Philosophy labeled “Ethics.” Science will not answer the question of harm.
…
Then he writes “It’s clear that you agree with the alarmist crowd” no, you are wrong with that assertion. When one lives in a very cold climate, warming can be a good thing.
…
Now DB writes ” There is nothing either unusual, or unprecedented happening.”
…
That is not true. Look at the ice cores. CO2 levels have not been at 400 ppm for at least 800,000 years if not more. That is “unusual” considering that in the time span of 800,000 years, we’ve had several glaciations happen. There is no doubt that human activity has had an “unprecedented” effect on the global carbon cycle. Carbon that has been sequestered for MILLIONS of years is being reintroduced into the environment.
…
To answer your question ” What, exactly, are skeptics ‘**enying’? ” …. They(you) are *enying the findings of science, you are *enying the fact that the global warming continues and is caused by humans.
..
Lastly, you write, ” unthinking people (like your guy Mears) ” Mears provides you with the RSS data. He’s responsible for it. You are the one that constantly provides examples using data from Mears. You are tactfully approving of him each and every time you cite the RSS data in a graph, or in your relentless pushing the meme of “no warming in 18 years” …..
..
If you continue to label people as “alarmists” don’t complain when they label you something you don’t like either.

Joel, the evidence that rising CO2 will be harmless is rampant, if you would just stop reading the alarmist propaganda.
1) The earth has been much warmer than today several times in the last 10K years and life not only survived, it thrived. Therefore, even if the alarmists are right and temperatures go up by 3 or 4C, no big deal.
2) Up until a couple million years ago, CO2 levels well north of 1000ppm was the norm. In fact for most of the last 200 million years CO2 levels have been above 5000ppm. And life thrived.
Therefore your fear that if CO2 were to increase, something bad might happen is completely unfounded based on facts.

MarkW
June 10, 2015 at 7:58 pm
While your general point of course is valid, CO2 probably hasn’t been above 5000 ppm since the Ordovician Period, if then:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

MarkW: “the evidence that rising CO2 will be harmless is rampant” Evidence for something that will happen in the future can only be obtained via time travel. Good luck with that.
..
Dbstealey: “Sure I do. We all do” You’re wrong as usual. You are projecting. Does using the “d” word upset you? It must, because you seem to be attaching connotations to it that are not in the dictonary.
…
Secondly, I apologize to you for being unable the predict the future. You cannot tell if rising CO2 will or will not be harmful. If you can, can you please tell me the make and model of the crystal ball you are using that enables you to predict the future with such clarity? I could use it for adjusting my investment strategies. I’m not asking you to prove a negative,
..
“Falsify that, if you think you can” What a silly challenge. Everyone knows you cannot falsify a PREDICTION
“there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening” You need to learn to read. The release of UNPRECEDENTED amounts of carbon into the biosphere is ……unprecedented. You seemed to have not read what I posted.
…
“despite your obvious craving for a climate catastrophe ” Craving? please….clue us all in on what “craving” I have. I told you before the value judgement is not a part of science. You have made the mistake of putting a “C” into the AGW science. There is none, and you are playing the game of moving the goal posts.
…
“Mears is not responsible for anything” Wrong again. He’s responsible for the RSS data. He’s the senior scientist there, and the vice president. He’s the top dog at that outfit when it comes to the science. Being a VP outranks all the other members of the scientific staff at that organization. Even the president of RSS has lesser credentials than Mears.
…
Mears knows more about satellite data than you do. His exact words are, ” surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets” He knows the details, and I trust his opinion over yours or some British viscount.
…
Thank you for posting a graph of RSS data. See what Mears says about that data.

Joel, why do insist on digging this hole of yours deeper.
If 5000ppm did not cause harm in the past, then 500ppm will not cause harm in the future.
No need of time machines, just a mind that is capable of actually thinking.
Please let me know when you acquire one of those.

MarW
..
First of all, your quote of “5000 ppm” is the output of a MODEL
..
You trust model output? (GEOCARB?) Do you have physical evidence of 5000 ppm?
..
Secondly, I suggest you refresh your understanding of the evolution of stars. The output of the sun many millions of years ago was less than today’s output, and in the future the sun’s output will rise. So no, you are wrong when you say ” will not cause harm in the future” because conditions today are unlike conditions in the past.

Here you go again db….“You are determined to believe that the rise in CO2 will cause big problems ” ……you are wrong as usual. I make no claim about CO2 being good or bad. You seem dead set on projecting that onto me, and it is laughable that you do.
You cannot predict the effect of the increased CO2. Nobody can. Don’t label me an “alarmist” because I maintain the position that neither you, nor I nor anyone else can accurately predict what is going to happen as far as the climate goes. If you think you can predict the future, can you tell me if there will be rain in Chicago on August 12th of this year?
If this is a site about science, can you please tell me why there was no mention of the recent heat wave in India that claimed over 2000 lives? That is a significant “science” story that seems to have been overlooked by this site. This is a “news and commentary” blog about science. It apparently has a distinctive bias in its selection of authors and point of view.
…
Now in typical Stealey fashion, you resort to calling Mears names. Does it make you feel good to call a successful chief scientists and vice president of RSS names? You say, “he has zero credibility” yet you reference his data all the time. How can his data be credible if he is not credible?
So Stealey, you don’t like it when the term “*enialist” is used, but then you turn around and call the bloke a “jamoke”………You know, it is so funny to watch someone complain about name calling and then watch that very same person call someone names.

PS….. “Alarmist predictions have been totally wrong. All of them”
…
Here are a few predictions that were correct.
..
1) 120 years ago, Svante Arrhenius made predictions of the amount of warming that were amazingly accurate
2) It was predicted that t the arctic would warm faster than the equatorial regions, and that’s what happened.
3) It was predicted that night time temperatures would rise faster than day time temperatures, and that’s what happened.
…
So much for your claim that “all of them” were wrong.

Michael 2, the reason I went back 120 years is because that is when the AGW hypothesis was first made. And Svante Arrhenius made his prediction based on it. We are all still waiting for someone to falsify it.

DB,
Good, simple graph, from which it should be obvious that Hansen’s fantasy of the Venus Express is simply pysically impossible.

sturgishooper The “Good, simple graph” is the output of the GEOCARB model. No physical measurements, just good old fashioned model output. You ever hear of GIGO ?
…
RACookPE1978….revising one’s numbers is not a falsification. If you think that is the case, isn’t the recent “revision” of the UAH models the same thing?

“That’s scary!”
…
Too funny Stealey…..if you find that scary, please do not ride on a roller coaster.
..
“you believe that the rise in CO2 will cause big problems”
…
Nope don’t know what it will do.
…
“Chicken Little comments what a gross misrepresentation. Project much there buddy?
..
“TWENTY TIMES higher in the past” Well, wasn’t that when solar output was lower than today?…..Oh….and can you post a citation for that claim?
..
I picked 800K years because that is the only direct measurement we have of atmospheric concentrations. If you want to trust GEOCARB model output….you can, but I’ll stick with measurable quantities.
..
“That is far from alarming; that would, in fact, be entirely beneficial.” Stealey, science does not judge anything harmful or beneficial. Can you stick to science instead of injecting your value judgements?
..
“That has been known since far before you even became aware of the climate issue” Another one of your “assertions” …..got a citation for that?
..
“Once again, you are deflecting” Nope….you said ALL predictions, and when you say ALL you were wrong
..
“Your pal Mears is part of that hoax. ”
…
Mears is the VP and chief scientist at RSS. Be real Stealey, if he was “in on the hoax” do you think the RSS numbers would be as they are? You are funny.
…
“And why is he your HE-RO?” He’s your hero, every time you cite the RSS data.

Comparing a belief in catastrophism with Pascals’ wager is invalid. Under the terms of Pascal’s wager, belief in God had no cost. Can’t say that about the Global Warming scam.

In answer to MarkW
June 10, 2015 at 10:22 am
Pascal’s wager is in itself invalid. The idea that the pretense of belief in an omnipotent being would fool said omnipotent being into believing that the pretender actually believed in said omnipotent being takes some believing. There would be more reason to not believe, then when brought up before said omnipotent being argue that said omnipotent being made things far too obscure and complicated that deciding which specific belief was the true and valid one was impossible for a relatively impotent creature such as a human being. Therefore to prevent believing in any of the incorrect omnipotent being or belief systems which would be the same as not believing in the correct omnipotent being and belief system, one decided to not make the choice and argue the toss at the correct time.
Better to not make any decision than to make the wrong one.

Richard, let me see if I have this right. You are arguing that it is the creator’s fault that you choose not to believe in him? That it is up to the creator to provide sufficient proof that anyone even the uninterested would have no choice but to accept it?
BTW, next time you go before a judge, try that line of reasoning and see how far it gets you.

Protestant theology values the act of faith. If the existence of God and divinity of His Son were obvious based upon reason and evidence, belief would have no value. As Luther said, “To be a Christian, you must tear the eyes out of your reason>” Calvin went even farther.
This was also the attitude of the Early Church Fathers: “I believe precisely because it is absurd.”
Therefore, God must remain hidden, and it’s theologically incorrect to search for proofs of His existence, as pursued by the Scholastics. Unfortunately, modern fundamentalists who feel compelled to believe everything in the Bible is “true” misunderstand the concept of faith, so are thus both theologically and scientifically incorrect.
Fundamentalism is misunderstood by many if not most fundamentalists. It isn’t biblical literalism, but belief in biblical inerrancy, when properly interpreted. It’s akin to Catholic faith in papal infallibility when speaking ex cathedra.

MarkW,
There are very few instances in real life where one’s judge also purports to be one’s creator, so that might be a silly analogy.

mebbe, you don’t have a lot of experience with this analogy thingy, do you.

In other words, a Gish Gallop is when you’ve so fallen for your own propaganda about the other sides arguments (anti-science, ignorance, reactionary, whatever) that you don’t even learn what those arguments ARE, and thus have no rebutle ready when faced with them.

You can be sure, though, that Mann’s masterpiece of nightwork was bought up by all government-financed libraries.

jorgekafkazar — Will people remember and get your joke? — Eugene WR Gallun

Some do indeed remember. And laugh!

“sally forth with some short, sharp, blunt, brutal language”
Such as: “Go outside right now and see if you feel any global warming. Think about the past ten years, maybe even 20. See any global warming? Think about your last trip to the beach or to the ferry — did you notice any sea level rise?”
Scientifically it is unlikely anyone would notice a change the thickness of a dime when the daily change is 12 feet anyway (Seattle) but as you say it is a good tactic.

M Courtney, climate scientists say there is no way we will see global cooling by 2030. This book turns around and says (paraphrased), “We don’t know if we’ll see cooling or warming by 2030.” That’s a clear contradiction of the mainstream position, one which promotes the possibility of global cooling.
Promoting an idea doesn’t require saying the idea is true. You can promote an idea just by saying it is possible, which is exactly what this book did.

I see Brandon Shollenberger, you missed the point about “with credible probability”.
Climate scientists know that they can only make projections not predictions.
They know that the models are diverging from reality and so cannot be used to make predictions.
They know that the future is uncertain.
If you know that the warming will restart or accelerate then you know the magnitude of the natural variation that caused the slowdown. Which climate scientists didn’t – see the models.
But even if you disagree with the IPCC and think that climate scientists can make predictions, it still doesn’t mean that the book promotes the idea of global cooling by 2030.
The book promotes the idea that we don’t know if it will cool by 2030.
Your own quote proves that.

M Courtney:

If you know that the warming will restart or accelerate then you know the magnitude of the natural variation that caused the slowdown. Which climate scientists didn’t – see the models.

This isn’t true. All you need to know to know warming will resume is natural variability cannot possibly overwhelm the anthropogenic influence forever. Even if it doesn’t happen by 2030, warming will happen.

it still doesn’t mean that the book promotes the idea of global cooling by 2030.
The book promotes the idea that we don’t know if it will cool by 2030.
Your own quote proves that.

That’s a false dichotomy. If a prosecutor tells a jury, “That man is guilty” and the defendant’s lawyer says, “You don’t know he’s guilty,” the defendant’s lawyer is promoting the idea his client is innocent. Discussing uncertainty is a common way of promoting alternative ideas.
But even if you continue to disagree with that, the best you can say is the book seriously considers global cooling by 2030 a legitimate possibility. It isn’t.

Brandon Shollenberger, we will have to agree to disagree
Clearly you believe that saying “no scientist on the planet can tell you with credible probability whether the climate in 2030 will be cooler or warmer than today” means “the book seriously considers global cooling by 2030 a legitimate possibility”.
That is obviously illogical. So there’s not much more to say.
Except that your assertion that the Pause will definitely be overwhelmed by anthropogenic forcing within the next 15 years is speculative to say the least.
I wonder how many times were you sure that the Pause was going to be over (statistically significantly), After 5 years, 10 or did you go with Trenberth’s 15? You were wrong every time so why double down on that bet? Nether you, I nor anyone else knows the size of the natural forcing relative to the anthropogenic forcing.
The logical approach is to agree that “no scientist on the planet can tell you with credible probability whether the climate in 2030 will be cooler or warmer than today”.

M Courtney, describing things as being illogical would work a lot better for you if you if you didn’t so obviously misrepresent things. For instance, you say:

Except that your assertion that the Pause will definitely be overwhelmed by anthropogenic forcing within the next 15 years is speculative to say the least.

I have never asserted “that the Pause will definitely be overwhelmed by anthropogenic forcing within the next 15 years.” Saying the planet will not cool in the next 15 years is not the same as saying the planet will definitely warm in the next 15 years. It could also just turn out that the pause keeps going for another 15 years.

I wonder how many times were you sure that the Pause was going to be over (statistically significantly), After 5 years, 10 or did you go with Trenberth’s 15? You were wrong every time so why double down on that bet?

I was never wrong about when the pause would end because I’ve never said a word about when it would end. You can be as derisive as you want based upon assuming I held views that are nothing like anything I’ve ever held, but it’s pretty incredible you’d then say, “You were wrong every time.”
Saying people you disagree with have been “wrong every time” on an issue because of things they’ve never said or even thought is pretty bizarre.

Brandon, that’s an interesting position you take.
Are you really trying to claim that we can only say things that are 100% proven?
Are you really that desperate?

Brandon Shollenberger, You said

But even if you continue to disagree with that, the best you can say is the book seriously considers global cooling by 2030 a legitimate possibility. It isn’t.

I said,

Nether you, I nor anyone else knows the size of the natural forcing relative to the anthropogenic forcing.

I meant “Neither you, I nor anyone else knows the size of the natural forcing relative to the anthropogenic forcing.” Typo.
Now you say

I have never asserted “that the Pause will definitely be overwhelmed by anthropogenic forcing within the next 15 years.”

But you did assert that the natural forcing cannot overwhelm the anthropogenic forcing in the next 15 years. You said it wasn’t even a “legitimate possibility”.
If you’re get out is that they will perfectly balance then you had better give a plausible mechanism. Because that’s just calling ‘edge’ instead of ‘heads’ or ‘tails’ on a coin toss.
Otherwise you have asserted that the natural forcing cannot overwhelm the anthropogenic forcing in the next 15 years – and that means you claim to know the size of the natural forcing relative to the anthropogenic forcing and that it will not be the larger.
Reread what you said. You did make the call. I understand if you wish to withdraw it. I would too.
But that means that global cooling by 2030 is a legitimate possibility.

MarkW:

Brandon, that’s an interesting position you take.
Are you really trying to claim that we can only say things that are 100% proven?Are you really that desperate?

I have never, in my life, said anything of the sort. I have no idea what makes you think I have.
M Courtney:

But you did assert that the natural forcing cannot overwhelm the anthropogenic forcing in the next 15 years. You said it wasn’t even a “legitimate possibility”.

I’m curious at the fact you simply ignored the entire part about you making ridiculous remarks about me and my views based upon absolutely nothing. The one where you said I was “wrong every time” on the issue of the pause. It’s difficult to see how you’d expect to have a reasonable discussion if you’re going to make derisive remarks about what I’ve said/believed even though I’ve never said/believed anything like what you describe, much less if you then refuse to correct the record.
Regardless, your question is off-base as you say:

If you’re get out is that they will perfectly balance then you had better give a plausible mechanism. Because that’s just calling ‘edge’ instead of ‘heads’ or ‘tails’ on a coin toss.

I didn’t say the two would be perfectly balanced. You referred to when “the Pause was going to be over (statistically significantly).” I have no idea when that will be. Statistical significance is a very tricky thing to calculate. Even if the planet started warming tomorrow, I don’t know how long it’d take for that warming to be “statistically significant.”
In fact, as far as I know, the planet could be warming right now. As long as we’re stuck relying on tests of “statistical significance,” tests whose power is incredibly weak, it’s impossible to actually know if the planet is warming or not.
That’s not saying there will be a perfect balance between anything. It’s just saying it’s hard to tell how long a “pause” has lasted/will last because the tests for it are very weak.

In fact, as far as I know, the planet could be warming right now. As long as we’re stuck relying on tests of “statistical significance,” tests whose power is incredibly weak, it’s impossible to actually know if the planet is warming or not.

And therefore;
In fact, as far as you know, the planet could be cooling right now. As long as we’re stuck relying on tests of “statistical significance,” tests whose power is incredibly weak, it’s impossible to actually know if the planet is cooling or not.
But you still claim:

the book seriously considers global cooling by 2030 a legitimate possibility. It isn’t.

I still recommend withdrawing from that claim and conceding that cooling is a possibility.
If not on logical grounds how about on the grounds of the Precautionary Principle?

M Courtney:

And therefore;
In fact, as far as you know, the planet could be cooling right now. As long as we’re stuck relying on tests of “statistical significance,” tests whose power is incredibly weak, it’s impossible to actually know if the planet is cooling or not.

Sure. There could be some temporary cooling swing so small the tests used to argue about the “pause” could never detect. But since it’s been decided warming doesn’t count unless it is statistically significant, statistically insignificant cooling doesn’t count either.

I still recommend withdrawing from that claim and conceding that cooling is a possibility.

I have said it is a possibility on more than one occasion. What I said, however, is we have no reason to believe it will happen. It’s not impossible, but we don’t have anything which would justify predicting it.
So uh, yeah. Not sure why you’re asking me to concede something I’ve always said is true.

richardscourtney, there is nothing to suggest we will see global cooling by 2030. You may disagree, and I am sure some people here do, but that doesn’t make it true. Rather than worry about that though, let’s focus on the simpler issue. One of the supposedly “factually accurate statements” I quoted was:

Though global average temperature may have warmed during the twentieth century, no direct instrumental records exist that demonstrate any such warming within an acceptable degree of probability.

Do you agree with that statement? Even if you think global cooling by 2030 is a serious possibility, I’d like to think we could all agree we know the planet warmed throughout the 1900s.

Brandon Shollenberger
We know it was worse in the 1930s, there were worldwide droughts and oodles of news about melting glaciers , heatwaves in the Arctic and on and on and on.

So Brandon, are you justifying your guess that earth’s temperature will be warmer a century from now just because it kept warming from the LIA during the 1900’s?
That’s a dangerous assumption.
What you’re doing is extrapolating, and where I work, you can get fired for that. Interpolation, on the other hand, is generally acceptable, but putting yourself out on a limb by projecting into the unknown is simply a guess.
And if you have nothing to justify your guess other than warming in the 1900’s, you’ll just as likely be wrong as anything else. Earth’s temperature can’t continue to rise forever.

richard, I’m not sure what you mean when you say:

Brandon Shollenberger
We know it was worse in the 1930s, there were worldwide droughts and oodles of news about melting glaciers , heatwaves in the Arctic and on and on and on.

There were heatwaves in the Arctic in the 1930s…? I think I must be misunderstanding you. Are you just saying things were worse in the 1930s, or that they were actually warmer? The two aren’t the same.
RockyRoad:

So Brandon, are you justifying your guess that earth’s temperature will be warmer a century from now just because it kept warming from the LIA during the 1900’s?

Um, no? I didn’t say a thing about earth’s temperatures “a century from now.” The only things I’ve said is the planet warmed in the 1900s, and it’s not going to cool by 2030. Those are points everybody should be able to agree on.
I wouldn’t even dream of saying what temperatures will do 100 years out. Not only would it be dependent upon what humans do, which I couldn’t hope to predict, but I don’t care to make predictions I won’t be alive to verify.

Brandon Shollenberger
It is no wonder that you get so much wrong: clearly, you cannot read.
I wrote the factual and accurate statement

the present “pause” will end with global warming or global cooling and nobody can know which until it happens.

You have replied

there is nothing to suggest we will see global cooling by 2030. You may disagree, and I am sure some people here do, but that doesn’t make it true.

Yes, dear boy, THAT IS WHAT I SAID and I also said the equally true statement that there is nothing to suggest we will see global warming by 2030. But we will see either global warming or global cooling at the cessation of the “pause” whenever that occurs.
Having made that mistake, you compound your foolishness by demanding of me

Though global average temperature may have warmed during the twentieth century, no direct instrumental records exist that demonstrate any such warming within an acceptable degree of probability.

Do you agree with that statement? Even if you think global cooling by 2030 is a serious possibility, I’d like to think we could all agree we know the planet warmed throughout the 1900s.

Of course I agree with that factually accurate statement. Anybody who knows anything about the subject agrees with that factually accurate statement.
Unfortunately, you don’t understand it because – you again say – you lack ability to read.
The statement says, there are no instrumental records that demonstrate the warming.
BUT
You assert the statement says we don’t know if the planet warmed: IT DOESN’T SAY THAT.
In the unlikely event that you can read it, I commend this explanation of the issues especially its Appendix B.
Richard

Brandon:

Um, no? I didn’t say a thing about earth’s temperatures “a century from now.” The only things I’ve said is the planet warmed in the 1900s, and it’s not going to cool by 2030. Those are points everybody should be able to agree on.

No, we shouldn’t agree that it is not going to cool by 2030. I personally don’t think it will cool, but this doesn’t mean that I consider that outcome impossible. We should agree that the strengthening of the green house effect should make it more likely to see an increase in temperatures than some cooling, from now till 2030. But saying “it will not cool” means saying “I know that all the other factors in play won’t be able to counter the increase of the greenhouse effect”. Which implies knowing in detail all other factors, which we don’t. We have way more assumptions than certainties about it.