Now we know who pays our trolls

[TerryM]

He's probably proud of it.........

One thing about people who lack personal integrity: not only do they have no respect for the truth, but they can't recognize real integrity when they see it.

This is actually a political weakness when combined with extreme arrogance......

I think that there is some kind of criminal / carny mentality that can boast about deceiving the locals.

Wonder if anyone will post addresses - like the other side did so recently.

[dabize]

I think that there is some kind of criminal / carny mentality that can boast about deceiving the locals.

Wonder if anyone will post addresses - like the other side did so recently.

I hope they have the sense not to.

That's ceding the high ground for no gain at all.

I can tell you that these guys don't rely on anonymity for protection.

They don't need to.

[OSUmetstud]

The cost would be huge Nick, obviously.

BUT, depending upon the timeframe required, the economic condition at the time, and the overall state the global political scene at the time as well as other factors, the impact such a cost would be on any one individual would vary greatly....from insignificant to very significant.

This is my take. I actually am in somewhat agreement with you the AGW predicitions are not a theory per say...they are a forecast. A forecast like any other forecast...it could be right or it could be wrong. We are using our best science at the time to make a prediction for the future instead of a couple days in advance it's a couple decades, centuries, or millenia in advance. However, even if it is a forecast there is a cost-benefit here to consider. Let's just say hypothetically, there is a 25% chance the ocean rises 10 m over the next 500 years. Would be it better economically to attempt and prevent this from happening by reducing emissions, or would be it better to let it pay out and have to pay much more if that scenario did indeed happen?

[dabize]

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/scientist-accepts-cash-for-climate-20120215-1t7ho.html

The story reaches the antipodes.

I think that someone should tell Skeptical Science that "Cash for Climate" is a much better name for a scandal than "Denialgate".....

[LakeEffectKing]

LEK,

Climate sensitivity is all about the feedbacks. I can't believe that after all we've been through together you don't understand that much.

Climate sensitivity is a measure of how the total system will respond to a given forcing, usually stated as that produced by a doubling of CO2. Climate sensitivity is best estimated to reside within 2C and 4.5C.

This includes the Planck temperature response (black body) (1.2C) due to the radiative forcing (3.7W/m^2) of CO2 X 2. That's the equivalent of increasing solar output by 1%.

Equilibrium Climate sensitivity to the WARMING thus induced is a measure of the total feedback process including the Planck response. So lets say climate sensitivity is 3C or about 0.75C/watt. In that case of the 3C, 1.2C is directly a consequence of 3.7W/m^2 of additional energy retained by the system. 1.8C would be the net feedback given in response to the initial 1.2C warming.

EDIT:

And yes the second point about entropy or the Second Law of Thermodynamics is broadly stated, as it should be. It's one of the fundamental laws of the Universe which applies everywhere and at all times given an open system. Overcoming it is temporary and implies that nothing can grow indefinitely. Growth is always at the expense of something else. There are many more ways for things to break than to come together in an orderly fashion, and that includes human civilization.

END EDIT

Sorry for derailing the thread but this is critical to proper understanding of the fundamental science.

Climate sensitivity is broken into two parts....direct impacts (CO2 forcing) and indirect inpacts (all other feedbacks). The direct impacts is what I was alluding to when speaking of there needing little compromise. The indirect part of the equation that determines sensitivity is where the larger uncertainty lies and seems to be where our discussions get lost.

Sorry to derail the thread further but it's critical for me after all we've been through to ease your concerns about any lack of understanding.

[TerryM]

Climate sensitivity is broken into two parts....direct impacts (CO2 forcing) and indirect inpacts (all other feedbacks). The direct impacts is what I was alluding to when speaking of there needing little compromise. The indirect part of the equation that determines sensitivity is where the larger uncertainty lies and seems to be where our discussions get lost.

Sorry to derail the thread further but it's critical for me after all we've been through to ease your concerns about any lack of understanding.

Don't you have anything to add regarding the subject of this thread?

[LakeEffectKing]

Don't you have anything to add regarding the subject of this thread?

Why? So as to aid in your amusement of toying with us non-intellects? LOL! No thanks. I prefer to be amused by your postulated characterizations of my Id, Ego, and my Super Ego.

[WeatherRusty]

Climate sensitivity is broken into two parts....direct impacts (CO2 forcing) and indirect inpacts (all other feedbacks). The direct impacts is what I was alluding to when speaking of there needing little compromise. The indirect part of the equation that determines sensitivity is where the larger uncertainty lies and seems to be where our discussions get lost.

Sorry to derail the thread further but it's critical for me after all we've been through to ease your concerns about any lack of understanding.

Yes, and only +0.8C of net feedback is required to reach the 2C minimum of best estimate for sensitivity. I fully accept that low end possibility as well as the points higher in the estimated range. We can't be as far apart as you imagine if you accept the direct forcing will impart 1.2C of warming energy to the surface which you seem to be saying you do.

Of course that all assumes a single doubling of CO2 without consideration of any additional forcing from other greenhouse gases or any other factors for that matter.

[WeatherRusty]

Have you really looked at the science without any predetermined bias? Where do you find the actual science lacking? I'm not referring to the way it is portrayed in the media or by pro and anti blogs or political rhetoric.

If you are not a denialist or alarmist you must fall somewhere in the middle. I consider the mainstream science in the middle. Take the personalities out of it. Look at the core physical basis and expand outward to the areas of acknowledged greater uncertainty.

[cheetah440]

Have you really looked at the science without any predetermined bias? Where do you find the actual science lacking? I'm not referring to the way it is portrayed in the media or by pro and anti blogs or political rhetoric.

If you are not a denialist or alarmist you must fall somewhere in the middle. I consider the mainstream science in the middle. Take the personalities out of it. Look at the core physical basis and expand outward to the areas of acknowledged greater uncertainty.

I've outlined this years ago on Eastern, in this forum.

For starters, the HS is terrible science. It is important as it eliminated the MWP. Without this, it has been warmer not that long ago, than it is today. With that fact, CC really is a moot point and the science tells us as much. We don't understand all the forcings and feedback at play. We always think we know everything, we don't. Tree rings and ice cores don't give us accurate temperature data, accurate enough to compare with recent sat or ground measurements. It's really the worst science, garbage science there is. It is the essence of comparing apples and oranges. Not to mention the rush to politicize it. Why? To save the planet? LOL. Some would actually say that. Cultists actually believe it. And as it goes on and on their lives become invested in it.

My conclusion from spending a few yrs in this forum is that AGW is a cult. That's all it is. The CO2 issue is here to stay and will never, repeat and listen closely, it will never go away.

OIl, gas and energy production over the last 150 yrs has meant mankind lives the most comfortable life in all of man's history. LIfe has become so easy that it is no longer simply the pursuit of survival, but the pursuit of enjoyment for a good many. Not just for the extreme wealthy, but for the masses. And there are Billions yet to enjoy those benefits. If that means problems down the road, so be it. Who cares. The Earth is eventually doomed. Birth is fatal, you are a dead man walking as am I. The goal as I see it and as most rational people see it, is how to maximize our time, how to get the most out of our time. 300 yrs from now is irrelevant. All within reason of course, but this notion we should not use coal, oil, nat gas is one of the dumbest, stupidest things man has ever proposed. We should be doing the exact opposite and should be spending more resources finding as much of it as possible. It means a better life for more humans.

I'd be more concerned about a major asteroid collision or rogue nuclear device than the effects of CO2 and "global warming".

But cultists never can see the forest through the trees.

[WeatherRusty]

I've outlined this years ago on Eastern, in this forum.

For starters, the HS is terrible science. It is important as it eliminated the MWP. Without this, it has been warmer not that long ago, than it is today. With that fact, CC really is a moot point and the science tells us as much. We don't understand all the forcings and feedback at play. We always think we know everything, we don't. Tree rings and ice cores don't give us accurate temperature data, accurate enough to compare with recent sat or ground measurements. It's really the worst science, garbage science there is. It is the essence of comparing apples and oranges. Not to mention the rush to politicize it. Why? To save the planet? LOL. Some would actually say that. Cultists actually believe it. And as it goes on and on their lives become invested in it.

My conclusion from spending a few yrs in this forum is that AGW is a cult. That's all it is. The CO2 issue is here to stay and will never, repeat and listen closely, it will never go away.

OIl, gas and energy production over the last 150 yrs has meant mankind lives the most comfortable life in all of man's history. LIfe has become so easy that it is no longer simply the pursuit of survival, but the pursuit of enjoyment for a good many. Not just for the extreme wealthy, but for the masses. And there are Billions yet to enjoy those benefits. If that means problems down the road, so be it. Who cares. The Earth is eventually doomed. Birth is fatal, you are a dead man walking as am I. The goal as I see it and as most rational people see it, is how to maximize our time, how to get the most out of our time. 300 yrs from now is irrelevant. All within reason of course, but this notion we should not use coal, oil, nat gas is one of the dumbest, stupidest things man has ever proposed. We should be doing the exact opposite and should be spending more resources finding as much of it as possible. It means a better life for more humans.

I'd be more concerned about a major asteroid collision or rogue nuclear device than the effects of CO2 and "global warming".

But cultists never can see the forest through the trees.

The physical basis for AGW has nothing to do with paleoclimate reconstructions. It has nothing to do with the instrumental record either. Neither does our dependence on fossil fuels.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I've outlined this years ago on Eastern, in this forum.

For starters, the HS is terrible science. It is important as it eliminated the MWP. Without this, it has been warmer not that long ago, than it is today. With that fact, CC really is a moot point and the science tells us as much. We don't understand all the forcings and feedback at play. We always think we know everything, we don't. Tree rings and ice cores don't give us accurate temperature data, accurate enough to compare with recent sat or ground measurements. It's really the worst science, garbage science there is. It is the essence of comparing apples and oranges. Not to mention the rush to politicize it. Why? To save the planet? LOL. Some would actually say that. Cultists actually believe it. And as it goes on and on their lives become invested in it.

My conclusion from spending a few yrs in this forum is that AGW is a cult. That's all it is. The CO2 issue is here to stay and will never, repeat and listen closely, it will never go away.

OIl, gas and energy production over the last 150 yrs has meant mankind lives the most comfortable life in all of man's history. LIfe has become so easy that it is no longer simply the pursuit of survival, but the pursuit of enjoyment for a good many. Not just for the extreme wealthy, but for the masses. And there are Billions yet to enjoy those benefits. If that means problems down the road, so be it. Who cares. The Earth is eventually doomed. Birth is fatal, you are a dead man walking as am I. The goal as I see it and as most rational people see it, is how to maximize our time, how to get the most out of our time. 300 yrs from now is irrelevant. All within reason of course, but this notion we should not use coal, oil, nat gas is one of the dumbest, stupidest things man has ever proposed. We should be doing the exact opposite and should be spending more resources finding as much of it as possible. It means a better life for more humans.

I'd be more concerned about a major asteroid collision or rogue nuclear device than the effects of CO2 and "global warming".

But cultists never can see the forest through the trees.

You basically addressed nothing.

Why not just say you think people who believe GHG's prevent radiation from escaping the atmosphere thus adding heat and the subsequent feedback's, Snow albedo, ice albedo, water vapor.....are not happening, not gonna happen and are only followed by members of a cult.

Of course we do not know all of the answers.

but your opinion on what the dumbest thing ever is while ignoring reality(like actually happening events) is no better, in fact about as bad as an opinion saying the Sea Level will rise 10M by 2050 with no base for their claim.

FYI..you can call me a cultist, alarmist, idiot. I don't care. But I do agree with you to a point about some alarmism. These posts about Kara Sea Ice possibly not freezing because of methane piss me off something fierce. It completely makes the science looks alarming and bogus.

I get tired of the doomsday posts not based in substantial reality. I try to make any predictions and thoughts I have well understood and well backed.

At the same time there is tons of BS posted, more so than on the so called alarmist side here, that is worse science than you call cultist science.

You say it is not real.

Ice Albedo is a feedback. Global Climate Indices say the Earth is in a cold period. -AMO, -PDO, La Nina for 3 of 4 years. Longest and strongest solar min in decades.

yet the Ice Albedo/Snow Albedo feedback is causing rapid near run-away warming in the arctic at this point. how far will that go? I don't know. Maybe it will just stop. But this feedback is the reason the Earth hasn't cooled off as a whole. If the Arctic and Antarctic were the same in Ice loss/gain the last 50 years. The Earth would be quite a bit cooler right now even with all of the other warming.

that is a physical undisputed, undeniable feedback. It is also the place of the highest concentrations of GHGs over any given time period.

So I am in a cult because I think that is potentially bad for our planet to see the ice rapidly melt out? glacial ice, Land Ice, Fast ice, and Sea ice are melting out at increasing rates.

Do you understand when zero sum is realized, IF it is realized. The incoming solar energy will have nothing to do but warm the water and air instead of melt ice and keep temperatures near 0C.

That should be alarming.

[cheetah440]

That should be alarming.

Why?

[WeatherRusty]

Why?

I take that to mean you don't really care if the climate changes or not. That's a valid point of view I suppose.

This is a discussion forum. If you have any questions concerning the scientific basis for AGW just ask, maybe someone here can give you a cogent answer.

This forum doesn't have to be about fighting all the time does it?

[LakeEffectKing]

Have you really looked at the science without any predetermined bias? Where do you find the actual science lacking? I'm not referring to the way it is portrayed in the media or by pro and anti blogs or political rhetoric.

If you are not a denialist or alarmist you must fall somewhere in the middle. I consider the mainstream science in the middle. Take the personalities out of it. Look at the core physical basis and expand outward to the areas of acknowledged greater uncertainty.

How do you measure that??

I've looked at the science when I was a "true" believer, and (now some 20 years later) as one who thinks a few important bricks of the scientific method have been removed and replaced with models and "consensus"/"peer reviewed ideas", which are fine additions, but horrible replacements of important steps when drawing conclusions.

[Vergent]

Development of our "Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms" project.

Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are

considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are

pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12

schools. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the

U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. His effort will

focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and

uncertain - two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science. We

tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by

the Anonymous Donor.

The topic is money being spent to derail any discussion about climate change. LEK has made 11 posts here to derail this topic. How much is he being paid to do so?

[WeatherRusty]

How do you measure that??

I've looked at the science when I was a "true" believer, and (now some 20 years later) as one who thinks a few important bricks of the scientific method have been removed and replaced with models and "consensus"/"peer reviewed ideas", which are fine additions, but horrible replacements of important steps when drawing conclusions.

It is likely impossible to view the science free of all bias, but we can try can't we?

Ideally, no one should hold blind trust in the science. Being a "true" believer in the religious sense affords no one any rationally based reason for accepting the conclusions coming out of the community of climate scientists. Unfortunately, that's the best most people care to do. Doubly unfortunate is the reality this leaves people easy prey for the well funded misinformation machine which is the topic of this thread.

Speaking of conclusions, what specifically are you referring to? Some conclusions are quite confidently arrived at, while other's involve varying ranges of uncertainty. Some conclusions are proclaimed according to someone's personal viewpoint (Hansen), while others enjoy the wide support of the scientific community. Some conclusions are drawn from the authors of a single study, yet may be an outlier when measured against the broader spectrum of research.

[PhillipS]

The topic is money being spent to derail any discussion about climate change. LEK has made 11 posts here to derail this topic. How much is he being paid to do so?

I think LEK is a volunteer - it appears he's motivated by political leanings and not a paycheck.

[cheetah440]

I take that to mean you don't really care if the climate changes or not. That's a valid point of view I suppose.

This is a discussion forum. If you have any questions concerning the scientific basis for AGW just ask, maybe someone here can give you a cogent answer.

This forum doesn't have to be about fighting all the time does it?

Once upon a time I started a thread in Eastern about Arctic sea ice. It was probably the longest thread in this forum's history and LEK carried it over to here. It wasn't fighting, it wasn't political, it was about facts observed and measured. Sure there was some heated exchanges, but it wasn't all about fighting. It's only when the cultists get on their soapbox does the fighting truly begin.

Global war, er uh, Climate Change is not about facts observed or measured, it is about a movement of individuals and governments to control masses of people. That and some serious self-aggrandizement on the part of a select few individuals involved. Saving the world can make for a big ego.

The only true facts are that we know the climate is changing, that is has ALWAYS been changing and that we MAY be contributing to it. I don't believe our contributions amount to very much. I believe that by studying this for the next 30-50 yrs we will have a better picture. Of course those who wish to profit and control have long ago said we have passed the tipping point and 30-50 yrs is too late. Well, according to them it's already too late so there you have it. It's too late and nothing, I'll repeat slower, n-o-t-h-i-n-g is going to slow it down over the next 10 yrs.

So keep the doom and gloom and we are fooked etc out of it, observe and measure and let's have real science and debate on what is happening because nothing is going to change in the short to medium anyway.

[TerryM]

I think LEK is a volunteer - it appears he's motivated by political leanings and not a paycheck.

If true, this does nothing to remove his culpability. If one person deliberately tries to misinform the public because of a few dollars shoved in his pocket, while another deliberately attempts to misinform to promote a political agenda, are they not equally guilty of deliberately spreading falsehoods?

There are many people who are victims of this disinformation campaign. I don't believe that LEK fits that category.

[LithiaWx]

The topic is money being spent to derail any discussion about climate change. LEK has made 11 posts here to derail this topic. How much is he being paid to do so?

The article seemed to refer to people getting paid to debunk alarmists and well that should be done. We need facts not hyperbole. As for LEK getting paid; I can unequivocally guarantee you none of us are important enough to warrant someone paying a single cent to any poster here to debunk some of the alarmists in the forum. Some of you guys really think you are more important than you are, it is quite sad. The delusions of grandeur are pathetic.

[TerryM]

The article seemed to refer to people getting paid to debunk alarmists and well that should be done. We need facts not hype and hyperbole. As for LEK, I can unequivocally guarantee you none of us are important enough to warrant anyone paying a single cent to any poster here to debunk some of the alarmists in the forum. Some of you guys really think you are more important than you are, it is quite sad. The delusions of grandeur are pathetic.

Marie again pretends he can't read - or comprehend what he has read.

Why?

[TerryM]

And another one bites the dust.

Bjorn loses funding for climate disinformation site in Denmark

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/data/satellite/hrpt_dfo_ir_m_2012@02@16_03h35m.jpg

[dabize]

And another one bites the dust.

Bjorn loses funding for climate disinformation site in Denmark

http://www.weatherof...2@16_03h35m.jpg

Now the Danes can say without hypocrisy that something is rotten in America..........

[dabize]

This forum doesn't have to be about fighting all the time does it?

It does if that is the main reason a guy comes here in the first place - to fight, and therefore to divert and obfuscate.

[PhillipS]

The article seemed to refer to people getting paid to debunk alarmists and well that should be done. We need facts not hyperbole. As for LEK getting paid; I can unequivocally guarantee you none of us are important enough to warrant someone paying a single cent to any poster here to debunk some of the alarmists in the forum. Some of you guys really think you are more important than you are, it is quite sad. The delusions of grandeur are pathetic.

Well, Marie, since you haven't debunked anything in the time I've been participating in this forum does that make you a failure as a skeptic? Just askin'.

[LithiaWx]

Well, Marie, since you haven't debunked anything in the time I've been participating in this forum does that make you a failure as a skeptic? Just askin'.

I'm here to learn and follow along like the rest of you. The only debunking I've done is call out the extreme alarmism that occurs at times. That's just part of my personality that I can't let things go like the methane monstrosity. I think I've done a pretty good job explaining why the hype over that is ridiculous. If you read deeper into my postings here you will find I'm a pretty moderate guy all around. If you don't see that it is perhaps due to the AGW extremism that dominates this forum. Some posters here appear to be mainstream even though they are far from that in real life and in mainstream science.

Also Marietta is the name of the city I live in, it was named after a woman named Marietta. So if you want to shorten it to Marie be my guest, I promise you it doesn't both me in the slightest. All it does is remind me of the heritage of the city I grew up in.

[TerryM]

Now the Danes can say without hypocrisy that something is rotten in America..........

Nice !!

[PhillipS]

If true, this does nothing to remove his culpability. If one person deliberately tries to misinform the public because of a few dollars shoved in his pocket, while another deliberately attempts to misinform to promote a political agenda, are they not equally guilty of deliberately spreading falsehoods?

There are many people who are victims of this disinformation campaign. I don't believe that LEK fits that category.

Terry, I agree with you completely. My only point was that I think LEK is a pro bono pseudo-skeptic, and not on the payroll of Heartland or any of the other FUD Factories. He is a zealot for the denialist side - not a victim in any sense.

There is a Paul Simon song, The Boxer, which has the lyrics "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". I think many who call themselves 'skeptics' fall into that fallacy. They will grasp any blog post, tabloid article, or denialist nonsense that aligns with their belief system and disregard the reams and volumes of actual climate science.

[dabize]

Terry, I agree with you completely. My only point was that I think LEK is a pro bono pseudo-skeptic, and not on the payroll of Heartland or any of the other FUD Factories. He is a zealot for the denialist side - not a victim in any sense.

There is a Paul Simon song, The Boxer, which has the lyrics "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". I think many who call themselves 'skeptics' fall into that fallacy. They will grasp any blog post, tabloid article, or denialist nonsense that aligns with their belief system and disregard the reams and volumes of actual climate science.

What he said.

We neuroscientists are finally running into real evidence for this sort of thing - it is sobering how much we all do this, which is why science education and the promotion of the fruits of scientific observation and reasoning as a point of view is so important. We all need this, and if we can't construct it ourselves from our experiences, we borrow it ready-made from elsewhere (The Heartland Institute, the Church, or even the Grand Order of Odd Fellows).