Leaked IPCC report confirms scientists have “95% confidence” we’re changing the climate

95sure

From the Jakarta Globe:

Climate scientists are surer than ever that human activity is causing global warming, according to leaked drafts of a major UN report, but they are finding it harder than expected to predict the impact in specific regions in coming decades.

The uncertainty is frustrating for government planners: the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the main guide for states weighing multibillion-dollar shifts to renewable energy from fossil fuels, for coastal regions considering extra sea defenses or crop breeders developing heat-resistant strains.

Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the UN panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.

That is up from at least 90 percent in the last report in 2007, 66 percent in 2001, and just over 50 in 1995, steadily squeezing out the arguments by a small minority of scientists that natural variations in the climate might be to blame.

That shifts the debate onto the extent of temperature rises and the likely impacts, from manageable to catastrophic.

Governments have agreed to work out an international deal by the end of 2015 to rein in rising emissions.

More details to come.

Not that it is a surprise to many of us.

About these ads

282 thoughts on “Leaked IPCC report confirms scientists have “95% confidence” we’re changing the climate

  1. Watching the Deniers says:

    Time to end this thread guys, closing off this conversation.

    Mike @ WtD

  2. Bill Jamison says:

    A new study claims that as of 2011 half of all scientific papers were available free of charge through one form or another. I haven’t found that to be the case with climate related research but I hope more papers are available to the public free of charge even if there is a short delay between when the paper is published and when it is made public. I strongly feel ALL papers funded by public money should be public.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6148/830.short

  3. john byatt says:

    cryosphere

    sea ice extent drops below 4 miilion sq km

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

  4. john byatt says:

    The Arctic is changing due to anthropogenic global warming

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130823094309.htm

    ecosystem change, albedo change, but the denial continues

    • john byatt says:

      Should we really care about voles?

      “Our work, founded on multiple lines of evidence suggests a future of rapidly geographically shifting Arctic small mammal prey communities, some of whom are on the edge of existence, and whose fate may have ramifications for the whole Arctic food web and ecosystem”

      http://tinyurl.com/kb697h2

  5. Bill Jamison says:

    If anyone actually cares why john byatt started “accusing” me of being a christian here’s your answer: I publicly embarrassed him by proving that he didn’t understand monthly climate anomalies. He thought that January 2007 was the “warmest month in history” because it has the highest anomaly. He thought that all months had the same mean absolute temperature of 14C. He didn’t know that the earth’s mean temperature varied quite a bit from month to month and that January is actually the coldest month of the year with a mean absolute temperature of 12C while July is 15.8C.

    I tried to explain this to John but he wouldn’t listen. I even suggested he check with his experts at Real Climate and Tamino but he wouldn’t do it. He kept telling me that I was wrong and to “do the maths”. Apparently he’s not good at basic math. I put the values into a spreadsheet and proved that it doesn’t matter what the mean temperature of an individual month is as long as the mean of the monthly means is 14 (another way to view is that the sum of the monthly mean temperatures is 12*14). It was right after that he started trying to claim I was a “creationist moron”:

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/california-feels-the-heat-new-report-notes-impact-of-climate-change-significant-and-growing/#comment-46610

    john byatt says: August 17, 2013 at 9:28 am

    bill hopes no one will notice that he is a creationist moron.

    god will not save you bill

    john byatt says: August 17, 2013 at 10:37 am

    Bill If you had of said that you were a xtian but also a sceptic i would have left it at that,
    but you claimed to be an atheist,

    then you made a comment some time ago it linked to you saying

    “bill ” thank you all for your thoughts and prayers”

    that is something that only a christian would say but you had denied being xtian

    see the contradiction?

    so i think that you are not a sceptic at all but are bound by religious ideology which fits in with your claim of the planet having an inbuilt mechanism ( from god ) to maintain the temperature for humans.

    Yeah I state I’m an atheist and then I’m going to claim that god keeps the planet at the perfect temperature for mankind. Right….

    So this whole thing is due to John being publicly embarrassed over not understanding something as simple as monthly temperature anomalies. I embarrassed him so he set out to “out me as a christian” (his words).

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/the-new-normal-tornadoes-strike-italy-hundreds-dead-in-uk-heatwave-shanghai-record-breaking-heatwave-japans-new-national-heat-record/#comment-46584

    • john byatt says:

      It all comes together in his mind, you need help

      • Bill Jamison says:

        It’s why I quoted you directly John and provided links. Anyone that cares can see that what I just posted is true and accurate. They can verify the timing for themselves.

        I’ve asked you several times but you never answer even though it’s an incredibly simple question: Why were you reading my Facebook posts?

        • john byatt says:

          melt pond north pole

          google gives

          http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/north-pole-melt-global-warming/15985706

          always read comments from the retards,

          guess who was there? a bill jamison with a facebook link which looked like penguins

          is this our bill

          big photo of jonova,
          it is our bill
          how much climate crap is here
          oh there is one
          and another
          whats this? billy talking about thanking people for their prayers
          is this our self proclaimed atheist billy?

          i reckon it was,

          billy said that he has never said that ,maybe it wasn’t our billy,

          did not give him exact words as it was how i remembered it,

          billy thinks that thank you instead of thanking you was designed to prevent him from remembering that he had put it on his open for the public facebook

          had to go back the other day to get him something like the photos

          that is it

          carry it over to the next thread bill, no one will answer

          does he really believe that his facebook is more exciting than watching grass grow?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          John when you post on a site that links to your Facebook page it shows your current profile photo so I have no idea what you’re talking about with penguins. Is that supposed to mean something? As you know I only “Liked” Jo Nova’s Facebook page Aug 10th. Does that make me a “big fan”? Did you notice that I’ve never commented on her blog?

          I’m glad that you’re at least not denying that you’ve read through two years of my posts to find that one quote that “outs” me as a christian. With all those posts, pics, check-ins, tags, etc. you couldn’t find ONE where I mentioned god or a church or anything else religious. Couldn’t find one church or religious page or person that I Liked. Not one.

          So who’s account were you using to read my Facebook posts? You couldn’t read them without being logged into Facebook.

          But more importantly….Why were you reading my Facebook posts John?

        • john byatt says:

          it looked like penguins yellow white and black on the link,emperors
          i do not know wnen you linked nova, so “as you know is drivel”

          now bill i have given two posts showing what happened, you have put up about fifty and each time as the insanity overcame you the story became more and more the product of your own imagination

          everything else is none of your business,

          had to laugh at the tech not knowing that his facebook was open when he thought it was private,

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I knew which posts I made were public John. I just never expected someone from this blog to read through two years of my posts in order to find something they could quote here. I never would have guessed that someone could become so obsessed with me that they would constantly read my Facebook posts even though they don’t know me personally. I didn’t have anything to hide – as you saw.

          Why were YOU reading MY Facebook posts John? Why do you refuse to answer that simple question?

        • john byatt says:

          poor bastard, i feel i have scared him for life.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I have to admit that having a stranger read through all of my personal posts trying to find something to use against me on this blog is uncomfortable. I don’t look into other posters’ personal lives (nor do I care about their personal lives) so I never expected it from anyone else. It’s definitely a strange feeling.

          It would be different if I provided a link to my Facebook and posted climate change related posts there for the public to read and possibly even comment on but that wasn’t the case. My posts were solely personal in nature including the one that John quoted that I posted after my mom was released from the hospital where I thanked family and friends. It doesn’t get much more personal than that. I certainly never expect anyone to quote that post on a climate blog!

  6. john byatt says:

    I have editied out the crap

    Gregory T I understood that my public posts were viewable by everyone that was logged into Facebook. That’s not why I’m complaining here.

    John Byatt came across my Facebook page

    called me a liar and accused me of slander.

    John said he doesn’t have a Facebook account

    • Gregory T says:

      John, you devious bastard, I thought I was the only one without a Facebook account. 2 thumbs upk

      • john byatt says:

        I think that he is trying to get himself banned, we will see if he carries his nonsense into derailing the next thread, this thread is stuffed now so does not matter much what he goes on with here,

        people come to read about climate change and find this crap rammed down their throat,

        even Nova thinks he is neurotic

      • Bill Jamison says:

        He doesn’t need one he uses his wife’s.

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Let’s add the pertinent parts that John left out in an effort to minimize his actions:

      john byatt says: August 23, 2013 at 4:42 am

      Gregory T I understood that my public posts were viewable by everyone that was logged into Facebook. That’s not why I’m complaining here.

      John Byatt came across my Facebook page a month ago and read through two years of posts trying to find a post that would “out me” as a christian. He’s been reading it regularly ever since.

      called me a liar and accused me of slander and asked me for evidence so I posted it and John then admitted he read my Facebook posts

      John said he doesn’t have a Facebook account under the name “John Byatt” but he couldn’t read any Facebook posts without being logged in. John was using someone’s account to read my posts.

      Those are the facts. They are easily proven.

      • john byatt says:

        you cannot be this stupid

        , i gave you some photos so you would know that it was your facebook and that it was open without bringing it to anyones attention.

        • john byatt says:

          but by all means get a second opinion from the voices in your head.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Try to be factually correct John: You didn’t give me some photos. You mentioned a the site Project Yosemite that I had “Liked” the day before. That was your way of letting me know you were reading my Facebook posts without having to admit it publicly.

          Bill Jamison says: August 19, 2013 at 10:02 pm

          Still waiting for you to provide a link [to where I thanked people for their prayers] John…

          john byatt says: August 19, 2013 at 11:10 pm

          here are some nice photos instead.
          projectyose.com/

          Bill Jamison says: August 20, 2013 at 3:29 am

          John if you’re stalking me online then just admit it and post the link. Then everyone on this site will know just how creepy you are.

          john byatt says: August 20, 2013 at 4:13 am

          are you stalking me? No that is why i did not link,

          so that is what you were waiting for, a link to claim stalking, It was obvious , sorry not into that,

          complete fluke,

          Bill Jamison says: August 20, 2013 at 4:23 am

          You claim to have a quote from me posted in Nov 2012. Did you find one or didn’t you? Where did you look? Are you a stalker or not John?

          john byatt says: August 20, 2013 at 4:25 am

          did you like the photos?, good move billy,

          http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/california-feels-the-heat-new-report-notes-impact-of-climate-change-significant-and-growing/#comment-46783

          That last line, “good move billy”, was him letting me know that I had successfully prevented from reading my Facebook posts by locking down my account.

          Notice that he never publicly admitted what he had done or where he had found the quote. Plausible deniability. When I posted here that he was reading my Facebook posts he accused me of slander in the comments above:

          john byatt says: August 20, 2013 at 6:08 am

          evidence or you are slandering

          I provided the evidence and he admitted it while trying to minimize it so people wouldn’t know he had read through two years of posts and had been reading my Facebook posts for the last month.

        • john byatt says:

          these are not photos?

          http://projectyose.com/

          gee bill as i said it told you that your facebook was open,

          you really are this stupid

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Yes John by mentioning that website you hinted that you got that quote from my Facebook page without having to admit publicly that you were reading my Facebook posts.

          It’s obvious why you did it that way instead of simply telling me honestly “You posted it on Facebook almost two years ago”.

          Why were you reading my Facebook posts daily?

  7. john byatt says:

    forget the melt pond at the north pole, this is extraordinary,

    green circle marks the pole

    ,

  8. john byatt says:

    bill “jo nova, i am the only person on earth to have found the huge mistake in the Australian projections for deaths due to heat waves”

    nova” i will have a look at it bill”

    nova ” it is not important enough bill” ( translation,,, you are freakin insane)

    • Bill Jamison says:

      john byatt says: August 7, 2013 at 8:33 am

      bill’s figures are correct

      Bill Jamison says: August 7, 2013 at 8:38 am

      Thank you for acknowledging that john!

      You certainly couldn’t figure out the error even after I told you where to look.

      It must have KILLED you to have to admit I was right!

      • Gregory T says:

        Bill, are you going to scream, shout, stamp your feet, cry and bemoan to everyone, about how you were “Cyberstalked” because you failed to adhere to the rules and warnings provided by Facebook of the information you posted .

        “When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).”
        “https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms”

        Seems straight forward to me. It says nothing regarding how much time, or how often it can be viewed or how the information is to be used. This includes people off of Facebook. You can imagine how many people really saw it, considering 1.15 billion people use it monthly. Granted, I don’t think many people would be interested in you or what you have to say. But then again, as long as you impose your tripe and crap upon people who use sites such as this, I’m afraid it’s just the nature of the beast and like everyone else who is of sound mind, you cop it and move on to more important matters.

        Regarding the religious aspect; your affiliations to any organisation, is your problem. However you do have to admit that you have a religious zeal when it comes to the likes of Watts and co. As I’ve said before, your like an “acolyte” at the feet of your idols, who tell you to go out and smite the blasphemers, who dare question God’s plan. But like I said, that’s your problem, but don’t think you can place yourself up on
        a pedestal as a poor maligned soul, who only really suffers from a self inflicted inability to cope with reality.

        Now if you really feel that you have a case against anyone at this site, gather your evidence, seek out a lawyer and go to court, because your endless crying and shouting is unproductive and only reinforces what everyone already knows.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Gregory T I understood that my public posts were viewable by everyone that was logged into Facebook. That’s not why I’m complaining here.

          John Byatt went out and found my Facebook page and then read through years of posts trying to find something that would “out me” as a christian. He continued to read my posts for the last month and would then post here alluding to things I posted. When he posted a “quote” (meaning he put words inside quotations marks but they weren’t a direct quote) I asked him where I had posted it. He refused to say. I continued to ask him to post a link and he refused. It’s obvious that John didn’t want people to know that he was reading my Facebook posts.

          When I posted here accusing him of reading my Facebook posts he called me a liar and accused me of slander. Once I proved that he had been reading them he admitted it but minimized it and made it appear that the post he quoted was “right there” instead of admitting he had gone through two years of posts to find it.

          That indicates to me obsessive behavior. How would you feel if I found your Facebook account and read through years of your posts trying to find something I could use against you here? Wouldn’t that seem creepy to you?

          Finally John said he doesn’t have a Facebook account but he won’t say who’s account he was using when he read mine. He had to be logged in to read my posts. He refuses to admit the extent of his obsessive reading of my posts and his need to “out me as a christian”.

          Obviously several posters here don’t have a problem with what John did. I do. It’s even worse when he lies, misleads, shifts blame, plays victim, etc. He doesn’t want you guys to know what he’s done because he’s embarrassed. That shows that even he knew what he was doing was creepy otherwise he would simply admit it and move on.

          I’ve asked John several times why he was reading my Facebook posts but he refuses to say. What is John hiding?

        • john byatt says:

          take Gregory T’s advice,

          you are into your own version of chinese whispers

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Well John I bet you’re feeling really smug right now. You’ve gotten away with it. People here have been fooled by your incessant posting, they missed your confession and want to believe that it’s really me that’s the issue here.

          Nice job obfuscating the truth and even your own confession. The regulars here are just gullible enough to believe you. Too bad they aren’t skeptics then they wouldn’t just believe a liar they would read your posts and realize that you really did cyberstalk me for the last month. But this site is full of followers so you’re safe. You can sleep well at night knowing that you got away with it.

        • john byatt says:

          bill you have been playing chinese whispers with the voices in your head, you really need to see someone, even your own pastor may be able to help you .

          keep taking the medication though

        • Gregory T says:

          Bill, we’ve read it all before, talk about obsessive behaviour.

          Re. Your claim of being an atheist, it reminds me of what a priest said to me years ago, “some of gods most courageous soldiers, have to don the cloke of the enemy to rid the world of evil”. This is seen today, when Christians bomb abortion clinics in the name of god. So don’t be askance, when someone questions your beliefs, after all they are only questioning the the fact you do not write your own words, but preach from the gospel, of denial.

          And once again, Now if you really feel that you have a case against anyone at this site, gather your evidence, seek out a lawyer and go to court, because your endless crying and shouting, is reinforcing your inability to deal with your overly obsessive behaviour.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          My “claim of being an atheist”? What does that mean?

          Almost a month ago john asked me if I was a fundamentalist christian and I answered “Actually I’m an atheist john. Does that matter?”. I had no idea that telling john that I’m an atheist would lead him to try to find “evidence” that I’m a christian so he could “out me”. Bizarre if you ask me. Personally I’ve never met a fundamentalist christian or creationist that wasn’t proud of their beliefs. I’ve never come across one lying about their beliefs and claiming to be an atheist. Apparently john thinks it’s common.

          Of course I had no idea that religious people were viewed with such disdain on this site and people would be ridiculed for their beliefs instead of what they post. John’s even tried to claim that I’ve stated things like “god made the planet with a self-regulating temperature” which is easily proven false but is also completely ludicrous.

          http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/oh_dear_looks_like_you_have_found_warmist_hq/#comment-44476

          It’s okay, I get it. You guys don’t care if john lies about his behavior and makes up quotes for people in an attempt to discredit them. It’s the culture on this blog apparently. Truth isn’t highly valued. When I first posted here I was surprised at all the nasty name calling and labels used to try to marginalize people with dissenting views. Now I’m used it and joined in. It’s a pretty ugly way to try to make a point. I regret that I decided to participate in the ugliness and stooped to the same level.

  9. FrankD says:

    WTD Reveals relevant experts are 95% humans are the main cause of climate change. Narcissisitic paranoid tone troll whines about “cyberstalking” in transparently desperate attempt to derail thread.

    Just another day in the bullshitarium. Remember folks, whatever its about, its always about Bill.

    • FrankD says:

      Grr… “95% certain”.

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Hey Frank did you miss the post where John admitted he cyberstalked me?

        http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/leaked-ipcc-report-confirms-scientists-have-95-confidence-were-changing-the-climate/#comment-46808

        Of course he minimized it and made it look like the quote he posted was right there when he looked at my Facebook post instead of admitted he read through two years of posts to find it. Then he admitted that he’s been reading it regularly maybe even daily.

        Then he tried to lie by claiming he doesn’t have a Facebook account but you can’t read anyone’s posts, even if they’re public, without being logged in. So he may not have an account but he was on someone’s account whether he created an account under another name or used his wife’s account. Of course he won’t tel us and he won’t say why he was reading my Facebook posts regularly for the last month even though I’ve asked repeatedly.

        Maybe you don’t consider it cyberstalking when someone searches out your personal Facebook page and then reads it daily looking for something they can’t post here to “out you” (his words) as a christian but I do and I find it creepy.

        • john byatt says:

          you are talking in tongues.

          .

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Are you now denying you were reading my Facebook posts John?

        • Dr No says:

          Sob, sob, sob.
          Forgive me Bill,
          I read your Facebook post
          Just once, mind you .
          But I sincerely regret my lack of judgement.
          I promise never to do it again.

        • john byatt says:

          will i read bill’s facebook or watch the grass grow this morning?

          boy that grass grows very slowly at the moment

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john “will I read bill’s Facebook today”?

          Sorry John you can’t use your wife’s Facebook account to read my Facebook posts anymore. I realize it’s been an obsession for you but I now restrict everything so it doesn’t matter if who’s account you use you won’t be able to read my posts.

          Why do you want to John? Why are you so obsessed with me?

  10. johnmagenta says:

    Bill- having chanced upon this drawn-out discourse, I have to say that I might be tempted to search the internet for an image of you- but only to confirm my suspicion that you wear a tin-foil hat.

  11. john byatt says:

    I think that bill may be bragging about doing this

    bill”Or since you were cyberstalking did you go so far as to hijack someone else’s Facebook session in a place with public wifi?

    Okay that last one made me laugh I’m pretty sure you’re not smart enough or tech savvy enough to know how to do that.”

    • john byatt says:

      Why did bill want to know how to do that, I would not have even wanted to know about it,

      • Bill Jamison says:

        I read tech news since I’m in the technology field John.

        If that’s not how you did it then you were simply using someone else’s account – assuming you’re telling the truth that YOU don’t have an account. But then you didn’t really say that, did you? You said you don’t have an account under the name “John Byatt”.

        You’re slippery, I’ll give you that much. You avoid answering simple questions, you evade and distract then you try to turn it on me and make it appear that YOU are the victim. You give misleading answers hoping no one will notice – like when you say “I don’t have an account under John Byatt”. You don’t deny that you were logged in when you read my posts only that you weren’t using an account under your own name.

        Slippery indeed but it’s not working John. You’ve been caught.

        • john byatt says:

          so you hack peoples facebook account do you,?

        • john byatt says:

          Do PPD suffers like to play the victim? : Paranoid Personality …
          http://www.psychforums.com/paranoid-personality/topic29031.html‎
          Aug 22, 2008 – 4 posts – ‎4 authors
          I understand that PPD suffers often think that they are always right, but do they often times play the victim?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Is that what you have John? It would explain why you feel that you’re the victim here when you were the one cyberstalking me. Or did you forget that already?

          Why won’t you tell us WHY you were so obsessed with me that you felt the need to constantly read my Facebook posts for the last month???

          What are you hiding John?

  12. john byatt says:

    bill “when I was discussing writing a post about the errors in the “State of Australian Cities” report that lead to the false claims that “annual heat related deaths in Australia will quadruple to 2,000″.

    so what happened to the post, did jonova spot your error or is it in the pipeline or did nova not want people to see that the heat wave deaths will increase?

    • Bill Jamison says:

      She didn’t think it was a big enough deal to do a post on it. I didn’t make an error you even admitted I was right – or did you forget already?

      john byatt says: August 7, 2013 at 8:33 am

      bill’s figures are correct

      Bill Jamison says: August 7, 2013 at 8:38 am

      Thank you for acknowledging that john!

      http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/uncertainty-is-not-our-friend-leaked-ipcc-report-confirms-climate-change-still-dangerous/#comment-45991

      • john byatt says:

        I also stated that I could not download that at the time and would get back when i did read it. not very honest

        I found after reading it you had conveniently left out the bit that stated in effect not to use the current averages as they could be misleading

        Nova did not think it a big deal because she would have been ridiculed by “itsnotnova”

        • john byatt says:

          Nova did not need a guest post by you to make her look like an idiot, she is quite capable of doing that herself

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Oh now you insist on honesty John? Really? When you make shit up and put it in quotes to make it look like I posted it???

          john byatt says: August 7, 2013 at 9:25 pm

          managed to download pwc report this morning and can see what bill is saying from fig3, but it does state that these figures of annual averages may mask the true effect

          The current annual average is only 24. The report states that the number of heat related deaths would more than double due to population growth and ageing population regardless of changes in climate. Of course that was left out of the alarmist stories.

          The error, as you know, was that the alarmist news stories claimed that the annual death toll would increase to 2,000 a year. That was completely and utterly wrong an not supported by either the “State of Australian Cities” report or the PWC report that was the source of the original data.

          You really can’t handle it when I’m right, can you John? You’re still embarrassed about your ignorance over monthly climate anomalies. You said you’re retired so you’re an adult: try acting like one.

  13. Bill Jamison says:

    John caught in another lie: ” i do not have facebook”

    If he wasn’t logged in to Facebook then he couldn’t have read the posts on my Timeline even though they’re public. Try it yourself and see.

    What are you hiding John?

    As John knows, I didn’t “Like” Jo Nova’s Facebook page until Aug 9th when I was discussing writing a post about the errors in the “State of Australian Cities” report that lead to the false claims that “annual heat related deaths in Australia will quadruple to 2,000″. Apparently I’m the only person that spotted the error in both the reporting on the official Australian government report and the report itself. John Byatt and JHS couldn’t spot the errors even after I told them where to look. I don’t follow her blog since it’s very much Australia-centric.

    John’s been hoping that I was a “fundamentalist christian” for a while now:

    john byatt says: July 13, 2013 at 9:33 pm

    are you a fundamentalist christian bill ?
    Reply

    Bill Jamison says: July 14, 2013 at 12:57 am

    Actually I’m an atheist john. Does that matter?

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/oh_dear_looks_like_you_have_found_warmist_hq/#comment-44476

    Since John has something to hide he assumes everyone else does too.

    • john byatt says:

      I do not have a facebook account, find me using facebook ,

      you only need to set to private, saying that you will block all john byatt facebook accounts is absurd,

      you will not find john byatt facebook for me

      • john byatt says:

        in other words blocking john byatt facebook achieves nothing

        • john byatt says:

          and you have gone from claiming last week to now claiming nearly two weeks ,
          this is the same as you first claimed that the earth was self regulating, realised that it was too close to god will fix it, so then said that it is self regulating at 20C, then later 30C

          at what temperature does civilization collapse, 6DegcC or less ?
          what flaming use is your self regulation at 30C?

          So why make that ridiculous claim in the first place

          and jo nova was there when i clicked on at accuweather, work it out

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Well since you really do have a Facebook account then IF it’s under John Byatt it did do something. Otherwise it was a waste of time but certainly didn’t hurt.

          john “you will not find john byatt facebook for me”

          So you went from denying you even had a Facebook account which is a lie to now saying it’s not under the name “John Byatt”. That I can believe.

          If you aren’t logged into Facebook you can’t read a person’s posts even if they are public. Anyone can verify this fact for themselves very easily.

          John lied when he said he doesn’t have a Facebook account. Apparently he IS hiding something which is why he signed up under another name. That’s assuming his real name is John Byatt. I have no idea if it is or not and I don’t care.

        • john byatt says:

          are you stupid, you said that you have blocked john byatt facebook,
          i said that was a waste of time as i did not have a facebook account and that is all the information that you are going to get

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john ” find me using facebook ” “you will not find john byatt facebook for me”

          No thanks I don’t want to find you on Facebook. I don’t care what you post on your personal private Facebook account and I don’t care whether you signed up under “John Byatt” or some other name.

          All I know is that you had to have been logged in to Facebook to read my posts. Facebook doesn’t allow someone that isn’t logged in to read posts even if they’re public. Anyone can verify this for themselves very easily.

          Caught in another lie John. It’s not looking good for you.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john byatt says: August 22, 2013 at 8:56 am

          in other words blocking john byatt facebook achieves nothing

          If you signed up under a different name, which is what you’re saying, then you’re absolutely right it didn’t do any good to block everyone named “John Byatt” on Facebook. But it didn’t take long since there are only about 10 people of the same name.

          john byatt says: August 22, 2013 at 9:22 am

          are you stupid, you said that you have blocked john byatt facebook,
          i said that was a waste of time as i did not have a facebook account and that is all the information that you are going to get

          I never said I blocked YOU. I said I blocked all “John Byatt” accounts on Facebook. Maybe you’re telling the truth and you don’t have an account, it doesn’t matter. You were using someone’s account when you read my posts. Whose account was it? Your wife’s? A friend’s? A fake account you signed up as under a different name?

          Or since you were cyberstalking did you go so far as to hijack someone else’s Facebook session in a place with public wifi?

          Okay that last one made me laugh I’m pretty sure you’re not smart enough or tech savvy enough to know how to do that.

          john “that is all the information that you are going to get”

          I don’t want more information about what account you were using. I don’t care. I just want to know WHY you’ve been reading my Facebook posts for the last month?

          Why won’t you answer that simple question John???

  14. CassieST says:

    And the answer is … WE’RE DOOMED, because we were too damned cheap to save the planet* (oh well, 2,000,000 years … blink …)

    *Vonnegut

  15. john byatt says:

    remember this guy?

    had to break the link as it triggers as spam

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/pe te-rid leyfsmail-net-is-the-presumed-cyberstalker/

    delete spaces

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Was that actually you John?

      Do you have a history of cyberstalking or is this something new?

      • john byatt says:

        i hope that mike does not ban you outright but gives you two chances, that way it becomes your choice and will be obvious what you want to happen if you persist with your delusions

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Exactly what am I delusional about John? You already admitted to searching out my personal Facebook page and reading two years worth of posts over the last month. You admitted it. You admitted to reading it more than once because you say you found my post from Feb 2012 “a month ago” then you posted that I like Jo Nova which I did last week. You also posted that I liked Project Yosemite which was only liked 3 days ago. It’s obvious you were reading it regularly or should I say obsessively.

          But you won’t say WHY you were reading it. What are you hiding John?

        • john byatt says:

          think he will find that i have been making bill jamison jo/nova jibes for more than the last week

        • zoot says:

          Oh FFS Bill, you’re sounding like a whiny prepubescent girl.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john byatt says: August 22, 2013 at 6:57 am

          think he will find that i have been making bill jamison jo/nova jibes for more than the last week

          Yes you’re right john. I liked Jo Nova’s page on Aug 9th but you knew that because you were looking at my Facebook page regularly. I think your first jibe about it was on the 10th or 11th, right? So that would make it almost two weeks ago.

          Just how often were you looking at my Facebook page??? Seems like it must have been at least daily.

  16. john byatt says:

    uki “More hypocrisy from the resident troll, unless of course you think labelling someone a cyberstalker isn’t an attempt to marginalise them?”

    i think that he is genuinely paranoid about it,

    left his open facebook link all over the web but believes that anyone who clicks on is stalking him.

    set his facebook to private but still believes that others can see it unless he blocks their facebook account i do not have one.he could have found that out will a simple google.

    now seems to be going all over the web to where he linked his account and deleting.

    that is not then actions of a rational person who would know that you only need to set on private

    possible had more incriminating evidence further down his timeline ?

    big fan of Jonova, a known coinspiracy theorist and one world government crazy

    he might also be trying to get himself banned for harassment

    who knows the mind of the crazy?

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Don’t try to minimize what you did John. You didn’t just click on a link to my Facebook page you read through TWO YEARS OF POSTS and you’ve been reading my Facebook posts for AT LEAST A MONTH. That’s by your own admission.

      Now you’re trying to find “more incriminating evidence” of me being a christian???

      Why were you reading my Facebook posts John???

      • john byatt says:

        yes apart from being paranoid he wants to be banned,

        wants to leave but needs to try to save face,

        sees filling up all threads with his delusions as the best way to achieve that

        sees adding new comments as trying to hide his rants, typical paranoid ME ME ME

        sorry but we will have to put up with it until he achieves his banning.

        even the claims are becoming more delusional

        and again feels that he needs to keep denying something over and over,

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Why won’t you tell people here why you were reading my Facebook posts for the last month? Why you looked back through two years of posts?

          Why John Byatt? What are you hiding?

          It’s not paranoid or delusions when it’s true and it’s already been established as fact. You’ve even admitted it.

          john “I read his facebook looking for proof he was religious”

          Why would you need to do that John? How much time have you spent “respecting my privacy” by reading my personal Facebook posts?

  17. john byatt says:

    turn off all years except 2009 and 2013, same track, will be another very low year despite the cold start,

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

    the death spiral continues

  18. john byatt says:

    both uki and wtd are working and busy, i am a retired veteran among other things so have plenty of time and a passion to get information out and to reply to the deniers,

    I do this because i love my children, grandchildren and new great grandchild,
    it is obvious that the retards and morons of denial are confusing the general public about the risks we face and what my own will face in the future without responsible action ,

    my morning routine is to check out nature journal updates, science daily, arctic ice news and about ten other blogs,
    I do not give a shit about being attacked in public and on line for my passion as i spent about five years standing up to the creationists on the sunshine coast. a real experience in being slandered and ridiculed by the creationists and fundamentalists,

    I see exactly the same twaddle espoused by the deniers as I saw from the creationists,

    you realise that after a few years even though most of the deniers are creationists none of them ever disclose that in blog comments, go to wuwt and read the sceptic confessions.not one gave their religious belief as the reason for being a sceptic, Bullshit

    read the drivel on the climate sceptics party. all of them fundamentalist christians, yet you only ever see supposed atheists being anti science on blogs such as wtd and uki , well i am on a few atheists sites and not one of the atheists on those sites have any doubts about the fact that humans are to blame for changing the climate.

    bill’s replies are typical of the sort of ducking and weaving that i have come to expect from the fundamentalist conspiracy owg crazies

    http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/denier-comment-of-the-day-august-21-2013/

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Classic case of projection there johnny boy. I have to say that I am surprised you’re old enough to be retired. I thought you were simply an immature young adult. Actually surprised isn’t the word, shocked is really what I’m feeling. I didn’t realize that guys old enough to be retired would be cyberstalking anyone. That’s fascinating.

      I realize it’s important to you to try to paint people you don’t agree with as creationist or some other label that marginalizes them. Sorry, as I’ve stated repeatedly I’m an atheist. I grew up catholic but left the church over 25 years ago and never looked back. However my mom and the rest of my family and most of my friends still believe in god. Hence the “prayers” they gave when my mom was hospitalized. I have to admit that even though I’m an atheist I still say “goddamnit” and “jesus christ what the hell is wrong with you?!?”. I suppose to you that’s more proof that I’m religious. Pretty warped mind there john when you feel the need to read through years of posts trying to “out” someone as christian. You might want to find a new hobby instead of cyberstalking me or anyone else. It could get you in trouble some day.

      You accuse me of “ducking and weaving” yet you still haven’t admitted why you have been reading my Facebook posts for the last month. Why is that John? Why are you avoiding the question? What are you hiding?

      Seriously, what are you hiding John Byatt? Why were you cyberstalking me for a month? What did you hope to find? Who else do you cyberstalk?

      • “I didn’t realize that guys old enough to be retired would be cyberstalking anyone.”

        “I realize it’s important to you to try to paint people you don’t agree with as creationist or some other label that marginalizes them.”

        More hypocrisy from the resident troll, unless of course you think labelling someone a cyberstalker isn’t an attempt to marginalise them?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          No it’s not an attempt to marginalize John Byatt. John IS a cyberstalker. I’ve proved that. It’s not a label it’s a statement about his actions.

          I thought you would be smart enough to understand the difference but obviously I was wrong.

        • Oh I see. Just like you being a pseudointellectual concern troll. Its not a label. Its a statement of fact.

        • john byatt says:

          I think that he is embarrassing himself, this must the twentieth time that he has insisted that he is not religious,. certainly paranoid though.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Stating the fact that I’m an atheist isn’t “insisting I’m not religious”. I have no need to insist anything. You’re the one that keeps insisting that I’m a christian or creationist or something. Why is it so important to you that I be a christian or religious that you were willing to spend the time reading two years worth of my Facebook posts in order to “out me as a christian”???

          Why, John? Why do you need me to be religious? Why are you willing to invest so much time stalking me online???

      • john byatt says:

        LOL

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Boy you sure are posting a lot of unrelated crap johnny boy. It’s obvious, to me anyway, that you’re just hoping people will see the new posts and not notice the ones that out you as a cyberstalker.

      • Actually, John has a habit of posting copius amounts of important links. He always has. He does it at my blog as well, for which I am grateful. His passion for bringing important accurate information to the fore should be commended. A little less laziness on your part and a bit of research would show that this is what John does. It’s not all about you. Maybe I can add narcissist to the list of character flaws.

        • john byatt says:

          if wordpress ever sorts out the mess that i probably created

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Oh it’s pretty obvious that John probably posts half of the total posts here. I’m sure it makes him feel important. I’m not sure I’ve seen another thread where he posted so many links that were completely unrelated to the topic at hand though. Of course in this case he has an agenda. He’s obviously ashamed of what he’s done and “wants this conversation to end”.

          If he wasn’t ashamed of his cyberstalking then he would have admitted to it when confronted instead of accusing me of slander and calling me a liar. It was only when he was cornered that he admitted what he had done but even then he minimized what he did and made it appear that the post he quoted was right there when he read my Facebook page instead of admitting that he had gone through almost 2 years worth of posts.

          I am a little surprised that you are defending his actions uki since you don’t even want people to know your real name. I doubt you’d be so accepting of it if I – or anyone else – somehow did the same thing to you. But the difference between me and John is that I don’t care who you are or what you post on your Facebook page. It’s not at all relevant to what you post here. It’s personal and doesn’t concern me. Just as what I post on my Facebook page shouldn’t concern John or anyone else.

          Which is why it’s cyberstalking.

        • “Of course in this case he has an agenda”

          Yep, it’s called Agenda 21 and we’re all part of it. Hear those drones? They’re mine.

  19. john byatt says:

    have decided that it is not fair on mike or others to keep answering the liar, just fills up the comments with his nonsense

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Oh I’m the liar John? You accused me of slander because you didn’t think I could prove that you had read my Facebook posts. I bet that was a big suprise huh? I bet you never expected me to go public with what you did! Now everyone here knows that you’re a cyberstalker, they know you’ve been reading my Facebook posts for the last month, they know you’re somehow infatuated with me and that you have something to hide.

      What are you hiding you pathetic cyberstalker john byatt?

  20. john byatt says:

    concern troll wrong again,

    http://takvera.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/sea-level-rising-60-faster-than-ipcc.html

    boy you need to wade through a lot of crap to get to post a comment

    • Bill Jamison says:

      You’re just happy no one is talking about you being a cyberstalker and apparently violating this blog’s TOS. Has Mike responded to your email when you accuse me of slander for telling everyone what you did?

      • john byatt says:

        Oh you have stopped the medication, get your flock to pray for you again, it may help

        • Bill Jamison says:

          What church do I attend John? You would know, right? I mean you’ve read everything about me since my Facebook page was completely open since I don’t have anything to hide. Well I didn’t until I found out you were cyberstalking me. I hope you don’t have a bunch of Facebook accounts under other names than John Byatt since those are the ones I blocked.

          What are you hiding John?

        • john byatt says:

          I thought that you said you closed it,
          why take down the accuweather link if you closed it, paranoia ?

          how do you know i have facebook accounts, have you been naughty , that is cyberstalking

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I have no idea if you have Facebook “accounts” (I only have one). I did block multiple people named “John Byatt” since I have no idea if any are you.

          pathetic cyberstalker john

        • more namecalling? Weren’t you meant to be indignant about that?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I learned very quickly that name calling is part of the culture here so I adapted uki. I use labels, names, and adjectives. I’m flexible like that. For many of you guys it seems you can’t post your ideas without insulting, demeaning, and labeling anyone you disagree with. You call them “concern trolls”, “deniers”, “clowns”, “idiots”, “retards”, “morons”, etc. etc. Quite an impressive list actually. Now you can add “cyberstalker” to the list though since that’s exactly what John Byatt is. Or more specifically:

          pathetic cyberstalker john byatt

        • So your indignation at being called names wasn’t real? I mean you aren’t taking any moral high ground as you are prepared to follow the crowd. However, you said it was pathetic and that indignation seemed very real. I guess we can add liar to the long list of names I have for you. Maybe you’re just confused and don’t really know yourself very well and are experimenting with different personas? I seem to recall asking you if you knew yourself without getting an answer about 3 or 4 times in another thread. But you answer questions don’t you? However, you seem indignant and accuse me of not responding. Maybe it’s the same for answering questions as it is for namecalling where hypocrisy is the order of the day for you? Maybe you have schizophrenia? That would explain much and possibly account for some of your paranoia too. I’m merely speculating of course because I’m not a psychologist You’d make an interesting study for someone who cared.

          I do need to clarify something for you. You said, “For many of you guys it seems you can’t post your ideas without insulting, demeaning, and labeling anyone you disagree with.”

          I hope you aren’t including me in that. I occasionally have disagreements with people and if they put forward genuine arguments and back it up with real evidence and make a compelling case, I am more than happy to respectfully agree to disagree and move on. If they are open and honest in their discussion, they get my respect. If they convince me that I am incorrect about something, I thank them, change my position and do more research. The difference with you Bill, is that you aren’t genuine, open or honest. You are a troll and I don’t respect you. I insult people I don’t respect.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I was never indignant over the name calling uki just surprised. It’s not something I normally engage in online and other sites where I post – which are relatively few – don’t allow it. I was surprised how common it is here.

          Sure you can justify calling me names all the while claiming you don’t normally engage in the behavior. Sure, I believe you.

        • “Sure you can justify calling me names all the while claiming you don’t normally engage in the behavior. Sure, I believe you.”

          That’s not what I said, so now you are putting words into my mouth. How about instead of paraphrasing what I say with your bias included, you actually quote me..in full? Your dishonesty knows no bounds.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Wow that’s funny uki. I didn’t quote you or even paraphrase you. At most I summed up what you said. I notice you never call John Byatt out for actually using quotation marks to make it appear he is quoting someone when in fact he’s not. He’s either paraphrasing or making it up completely. Obviously you don’t have an issue when someone like John does it to someone else but even a hint of taking something you said out of context and you start whining.

          What a little bitch.

        • “…but even a hint of taking something you said out of context and you start whining.”

          Who’s whining? I gain satisfaction from having people like you constantly demonstrating how dishonest you are, but thanks for admitting that you are taking me out of context.

          “What a little bitch.”

          Classic. Never been called that before. Given that you are basing that assessment on a false premise of your own making, I’ll take it as a compliment.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I’m not surprised that you would take it as a compliment. You are arrogant enough to believe it IS a compliment. Maybe I should have been more specific and called you a whiny little bitch.

        • Too funny. Don’t flatter yourself sunshine. Your failure to understand why I consider it a compliment coming from you is hilarious. Please don’t make me explain it to you. I don’t have the spare hour or two it would take. Besides, I’ve had my fun and won’t be giving you a platform to further hijack this thread. Thanks. I have more than enough now.

  21. Bill Jamison says:

    A Nobel Prize laureate and atmospheric chemist explains the climate consensus:

    “We should just make it clear that the consensus of scientists is NOT that climate change is perfectly understood and that we can project with certainty what will happen. But what is very clear is that we are already seeing indications of climate change — and that it is very likely that they have to do with human activities. It is very clear there is a risk, and that is what society needs to know in terms of acting or not acting. ”

    It’s refreshing to hear a scientist honestly explaining that there is still a lot we don’t know and model projections lack certainty. It’s also nice to see that he understands that nuclear energy is the real solution to providing future energy while reducing CO2 emissions.

    http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/aug/19/tp-traveling-the-globe-to-warn-about-its-warming/

    • “A Nobel Prize laureate”

      What is it with you clowns that you need to list everyone’s credentials? If you think it somehow adds weight to whatever it is you are trying to say, you will find that those of us who actually are scientists automatically raise our eyebrows and look for weaknesses in your argument. Why not just mention his name..Mario Molina? Next you’ll be spouting a dead language to sound like an intellectual.

      So, yes he is a reputable scientist who knows a thing or two about climate science, however you have used him to imply that he is a small minority of climate scientsts who acknowledge that “the consensus of scientists is NOT that climate change is perfectly understood and that we can project with certainty what will happen” when in fact the vast majority of climate scientists acknowledge this point. This tactic is typical of the climate concern troll who tries to appear that he is agreeing with the overall position that climate change is real and happening but tries to manufacture doubt where there actually isn’t any. That is extremely dishonest but really, you’re not very good at what you do so why do you persist? Mike, I think has been very forgiving in that regard. You wouldn’t last two comments at my blog. I wouldn’t tolerate any of your crap.

      So, now we come to nuclear. Do you feel that an atmospheric chemist, even a Nobel laureate at that, is qualified to discuss the relative merits of nuclear power? I don’t. He has an opinion, no doubt based on some very well-reasoned argument but in the end, it is just an opinion and he has also qualified it to a high degree besides. For me, I’d much rather listen first to a nuclear physicist about safety, an environmental scientist about potential affects and then energy experts about delivery. You may like to go to a vet for brain surgery or a butcher to buy bread or a pushbike mechanic for your car but I wouldn’t.

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Wow uki you really like make assumptions or read into things that are said when it can’t be justified. I said he “explains the climate consensus”. I didn’t say or suggest that he was somehow in the minority. In fact if I had it would have weakened my statement. The point is that he’s a highly experienced and lauded climate scientists. His credentials matter in this case because what he says carries weight. Some people don’t seem to understand the uncertainty. They think model projections have some certainty when they don’t.

      Freeman Dyson (I won’t mention his credentials since you’ll just slam me for doing so) said “The climate-studies people who work with models always tend to overestimate their models. They come to believe models are real and forget they are only models.”

      He could be talking about posters right here on WtD when he said “According to the global-warming people, I say what I say because I’m paid by the oil industry. Of course I’m not, but that’s part of their rhetoric. If you doubt it, you’re a bad person, a tool of the oil or coal industry.” Global warming, he added, “has become a party line.”

      Some of you put way too much faith in computer models and activists posing as scientists.

      • john byatt says:

        effin lack of comprehension, obviously a troll

      • “It’s refreshing to hear a scientist…” implies what I said you are implying. You seem to think I have come down in the last shower Bill and you can be pretty slippery with your words. If you aren’t being slippery then you are completely incompetent at explaining what you mean. It’s one or the other.

        Freeman Dyson…uh huh. Got any quotes from actual climate scientists that aren’t deniers?

        As for faith in computer models.. and activists. Ummmm, only a handful of the thousands of climate experts in the world could be considered activists. Either you don’t realise that fact in which case you are a complete moron and a lazy researcher or you do but choose to ignore it in which case you are dishonest. My educated guess is its a bit of both. You are a moronic, dishonest, wilfully ignorant clown.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          No it doesn’t imply what you’re saying. You rarely hear climate scientists discuss the uncertainty, the issues with models, the lack of ability to test them empirically.

          “moronic, dishonest, wilfully ignorant clown” Nice list of names uki. Can’t debate the subject so resort to ad hominem and personal attacks. Pathetic.

        • “You rarely hear climate scientists discuss the uncertainty, the issues with models, the lack of ability to test them empirically.”

          Try reading a few papers dopey instead of repeating the kind of bullshit you read over at Whacky Watts. But here’s the thing. You just denied that you were implying the exact thing you just repeated. wtf is wrong with you?

          “moronic, dishonest, wilfully ignorant clown” Nice list of names uki. Can’t debate the subject so resort to ad hominem and personal attacks. Pathetic.

          Bill, anytime you have been presented with evidence, you either shift the subject or ignore it completely. I can cyberstalk all your comments back through the posts here on this site and find plenty of occasions where that is exactly what you have done. If anyone can’t debate it is you. And by the way, the only name I used was “clown”. The rest were adjectives and accurate ones at that. If you want to use my “personal attacks” as an excuse to avoid answering any of the actual questions I am more than happy to put to you, be my guest. I’ll just add precious princess to my list of names for you along with gutless. Thanks for using a dead language by the way. Feel smart? If you want to actually have a conversation in Latin I can oblige but I would be reluctant to. I don’t need to try and appear smart.

        • john byatt says:

          Yes it does, as just about all scientists would agree with that opinion, you see uncertainty as implying less than expected but it works both ways,

          yet you tried to make out that it was refreshing to hear from an honest scientist

          pathetic concern troll bill

        • Bill Jamison says:

          There were actual questions in that rant uki? All I see is you attacking and insulting me and not discussing what I posted. Pretty typical for this site so I’m getting used to it. At least you’re not cyberstalking me.

        • “At least you’re not cyberstalking me”

          I don’t need to and nobody here has.

          “Not only are you an idiot but you’re apparently also a liar John.”
          “Pathetic”
          “Sleazy”

          What was it you were saying about ad hominem and personal attacks? Oh….it doesn’t apply to you? Hypocrisy? Any indignation you have to being called a name is meaningless given your form.

          Oh and I have answered all of your questions and you have failed to answer most of mine. Anyone reading through this thread can see that. By the way, a simple thankyou would also suffice for my pointing out YOUR Facebook responsibilities. I think given you now know you are responsible for your own privacy settings an apology is in order to John. I’m not sure he did look through your stuff, but if he did, he was legally entitled to. By you calling it cyberstalking is to imply that he has committed a crime which he clearly hasn’t. A big person would admit their mistake, apologise and move forward.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john “you see uncertainty as implying less than expected but it works both ways”

          No, I see uncertainty as just that – an admission that we don’t know for sure. An admission that computer models are representations of how we think the climate works.

          pathetic cyberstalker john

        • namecalling? but you said…….

        • john byatt says:

          Bill ” uncertain is a city in Texas”

        • Bill Jamison says:

          uki “I don’t need to try and appear smart.”

          Now that’s FUNNY! You’ve already told us all how smart you are. Not that speaking Latin somehow confirms that a person is smart but apparently you think it does.

          Thanks for the laugh uki.

  22. john byatt says:

    And another christian fundamentalist denier in the running for election

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/the-best-chance-to-remove-greens-from.html

  23. john byatt says:

    You will love this Uki, this is the creationist mob that monkton launched the election campaign for

    a classic

    http://www.gympietimes.com.au/news/un-caused-cq-floods-capricornia-rise-up-federal-/1992188/

  24. “You guys have been warned.”

    Bill Jamison, in the context of your comment and the conversation, I am convinced your warning is an accusation that I am cyberstalking you. Are you accusing me of cyberstalking you?

    • Bill Jamison says:

      What? Are you serious? I have no reason to think you’re cyberstalking me and can’t figure out why you would even think that. As I’ve said before you – as in the collective you that post here – have been warned that John Byatt is a cyberstalker. He searched out my Facebook page and read several years worth of posts trying to find something he could use against me here. That’s creepy.

      Obviously you protect your privacy and anonymity uki since you use a screen name. I doubt you’d be happy if John did the same to you. It certainly bothers me that he would spend so much time focusing on me simply because he disagrees with what I post here.

  25. john byatt says:

    Willard Watts goes from claiming no consensus to, well just plain lunacy

    “When they get that large, at 97%, they tend to be as laughable as some of the voting results we see in North Korea:…Whether it be a political majority, a social majority, or a synthesized scientific majority, a majority that large almost always tends to come crashing down once the methodology is examined.”

    too many scientists agree, something smells

  26. john byatt says:

    full lecture

  27. john byatt says:

    part of keeling lecture

  28. john byatt says:

    why do you claim that solar scientists were wrong billy for forecasting maximum

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/01mar_twinpeaks/

    because you do not have a clue

    • john byatt says:

      The IPCC said it would be premature and misleading to draw too many conclusions from the leaked draft.

      “Draft reports are intermediate products and should not be represented as the final scientific view [of the IPCC],” a statement read.

      “The text is likely to change in response to comments from governments received in recent weeks and will also be considered by governments and scientists at a four-day approval session at the end of September.

      good idea to get the LNP government rep to have input? NOT

      • john byatt says:

        at the last IPCC approval session (AR4) the scientists were arguing that the uncertainty level was zilch, zip zero in Gavin Schmidt’s words

        the politicians won and got it to 90% only,

  29. Bill Jamison says:

    For those playing along at home, here’s a detailed list of how John “outed” me (his words) as a non-atheist:

    john byatt says: August 17, 2013 at 12:57 am

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/the-new-normal-tornadoes-strike-italy-hundreds-dead-in-uk-heatwave-shanghai-record-breaking-heatwave-japans-new-national-heat-record/#comment-46576

    sprung?

    fundamentalist “god will maintain the globe at the temperature required for humans”

    bill ” the planet has a self regulating method to keep the temperature stable ”

    bill ” i am an atheist”

    bill ” thank you all for your thoughts and prayers”

    Bill Jamison says: August 17, 2013 at 2:30 am

    Not only are you an idiot but you’re apparently also a liar John. That’s shocking. You appear to be quoting me but you’re actually making up those quotes. That’s absolutely shameful.

    john byatt says: August 17, 2013 at 2:34 am

    No I did not bill and you know that it is true, I respect your privacy so will not link

    found that nearly a month ago when you were whinning about a news report

    your denial of that statement only confirms that you will tell lies for god

    Bill Jamison says: August 17, 2013 at 2:43 am

    Okay so you are a liar. Now I’ve confirmed that you are a liar and an idiot. I’ve made a lot of progress in just two days.

    john byatt says: August 17, 2013 at 2:46 am

    keep up the charade bill, but you are outed

    Bill Jamison says: August 17, 2013 at 2:54 am

    John are you really so embarrassed by your public display of ignorance that you have to try to “out” me as a Christian? Do you really think I’d publicly state that I’m an atheist if I believed in god? Really? Are you that stupid?

    John then continued to post ‘Bill “thank you all for your thoughts and prayers” comments in the thread about California wildfires:

    john byatt says: August 17, 2013 at 10:37 am

    Bill If you had of said that you were a xtian but also a sceptic i would have left it at that,
    but you claimed to be an atheist,

    then you made a comment some time ago it linked to you saying

    “bill ” thank you all for your thoughts and prayers”

    that is something that only a christian would say but you had denied being xtian

    see the contradiction?

    so i think that you are not a sceptic at all but are bound by religious ideology which fits in with your claim of the planet having an inbuilt mechanism ( from god ) to maintain the temperature for humans.

    Bill Jamison says: August 18, 2013 at 12:50 am

    Okay John, provide the link.

    I repeated my request for John to provide a link:

    john byatt says: August 18, 2013 at 10:12 pm

    bill ” thanks everyone for their thoughts and prayers”

    Bill Jamison says: August 18, 2013 at 10:28 pm

    John did I say that somewhere? If I did please provide a link or STFU.

    Bill Jamison says: August 19, 2013 at 10:02 pm

    Still waiting for you to provide a link John…

    john byatt says: August 19, 2013 at 11:10 pm

    here are some nice photos instead.

    projectyose.com/

    So instead of admitting he got the quote (which he paraphrased) from my Facebook page he instead provided a link to a page I had just Liked yesterday. It was a subtle way of letting ME know, and no one else, where he had gotten in from, of admitting that he had stalked me but with complete (or so he thought) deniability. So after quite a bit of searching I found it. As I said it took him 18 months of posts to find that one statement that, in his words, “outs” me as a christian because thanking people for their thoughts and prayers “is something that only a christian would say”. I disagree obviously.

    John likes to put words in quotes to make it appear that the person has actually said them when they haven’t. He accuses me of saying that god regulates the earth’s temperature for man which is completely absurd. I do believe the planet is basically self-regulating to a degree and within a range of about 30C. I never said or implied anything about god having a hand in it or that it was for man. He also used the word “Gaia” which I never used. He takes what is said and twists it and modifies it then attacks his own words!

    If any of you are religious and/or christians you’re the ones that should be offended by John trying to “out” people for their religious beliefs. For me I’m completely comfortable with my lack of belief in any gods.

    I’m glad that he finally admitted what he’s done although an apology would be a better start.

    • john byatt says:

      Hamlet act three scene two

      • Bill Jamison says:

        I wonder what the next act will entail.

        Respect people’s privacy and anonymity: if an individual refuses to reveal personal details or their “real world” identity, respect that (see also cyber stalking below)

        Immediate bans will be placed on those who “cyber stalk” and try to identify either the blog owner and/or commentators.”

        Seems that trolling someone’s personal Facebook page would be a failure to “Respect people’s privacy” as well as being being an attempt “to identify either the blog owner and/or commentators”.

        • john byatt says:

          try some of these

          clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone, zotepine, sertindole, amisulpride, quetiapine, and paliperidone. Aripiprazole

          one pill a day might help

        • Bill Jamison says:

          John we know you want this conversation to be over but it’s not. I know you don’t want people knowing what you did but it’s too late.

          “this conversation is over billy and i know that while you claimed to be an atheist you are actually religious
          not interested in everyone else thinking that you are atheist
          i know otherwise as you recently confirmed ”

          You make it sound as if being religious is some horrible thing. Well I’m sure there are religious people on this blog that would disagree with you. I say that I’m an atheist because I am. I don’t have any other reason to say it. I don’t believe in any gods or the supernatural. I do believe that some people are dishonest and unethical and make false claims about others to try to discredit their views. It’s pretty disgusting.

        • john byatt says:

          up the dose to three pills a day and see how that goes

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I love how John tries to minimize what he did here:

          “clicked on name and his facebook was open, with “ mum is much better nowthanks for all the thoughts and prayers””

          As you can see from the screen capture that I linked that post was made in Feb 2012. But my Facebook just happened to be “open” with that post right there for everyone to see after they scrolled through 18 months of posts!

          Failed to mention that part. Not sure if he scrolled back any farther than that. And with all that digging all he could come up with to “out me” (his words) as a christian was me thanking people. That’s it. No links of any kind of religious nature. No post when my mom was hospitalized and in serious condition asking for prayers. No check-ins at a church or temple or synagogue or mosque. Nothing religious at all. Just me being polite. Few if any climate related posts since most of my friends and family don’t care. I’m sure John was majorly disappointed that he didn’t find some hard evidence to use to discredit me and my views. Instead it’s shown everyone here the type of person he really is. He accuses me of slander for posting exactly what he did here in an attempt to silence me. He accuses me of cyberstalking after he apparently violated this site’s rules on privacy.

          Now he hopes no one will see my posts and his shame won’t be exposed.

        • Retard. You are using your real name and your facebook is set on public and yet you somehow think anyone looking is cyberstalking. If you don’t want someone to see it, make it private. idiot.

        • john byatt says:

          certainly has something to hide, seems to have marked his comment and facebook link at accuweather as spam and reported to have removed,

        • Bill Jamison says:

          So now you’re blaming me for John finding a link to my Facebook page on another site and reading through 18 months of posts in an attempt to find something that proves I’m not an atheist? Just so he could post a quote that wasn’t really a quote but a paraphrase of what I said.

          You think that’s okay uki? You don’t think it violates this blogs TOS? I was hoping Mike would comment one way or the other.

          Now John claims I have “something to hide” because I made my Facebook private to keep him from reading my posts. Once again he tries to take the focus off what he did and make it look like I’ve done something bad.

          If John didn’t have anything to hide then he would have said where he got that quote. I asked several times but he wouldn’t admit it. He didn’t want people here to know that he had read two years of my Facebook posts to find it. Now he accused ME of having something to hide.

          He’s a cyberstalker. You guys have been warned.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Just to be clear, John didn’t just happen to find my personal Facebook page and read my Facebook posts just once. He’s admitted to reading it regularly. He said he “found that nearly a month ago” when I asked about the quote he posted. He posted a link to the Project Yosemite page I liked just 3 days ago. Then yesterday he mentioned that I had set my Facebook page to private which I had just done after finding out he was reading my posts. As I said he’s been cyberstalking me.

          He’s been regularly reading my Facebook page and now he accuses me of “having something to hide”. That’s just creepy.

        • john byatt says:

          cut it back to two pills a day, three seems to have triggered a bit of insanity

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Everything I wrote here is true and accurate:

          Just to be clear, John didn’t just happen to find my personal Facebook page and read my Facebook posts just once. He’s admitted to reading it regularly. He said he “found that nearly a month ago” when I asked about the quote he posted. He posted a link to the Project Yosemite page I liked just 3 days ago. Then yesterday he mentioned that I had set my Facebook page to private which I had just done after finding out he was reading my posts. As I said he’s been cyberstalking me.

          He’s been regularly reading my Facebook page and now he accuses me of “having something to hide”. That’s just creepy.

        • john byatt says:

          Was it the voice in your head that told you to remove the accuweather link you posted or just paranoia?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Are you trying to find my Facebook page John? I blocked everyone on Facebook named John Byatt so if that’s your real name you won’t be able to view my page.

          You’ve been reading my Facebook posts for a month. Why?

        • john byatt says:

          Not that I give a shit bill but you seem to be on a mission of cyber harassment to have yourself banned and become a martyr to the climate goons.

          go and see about the paranoia

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Wow I knew John alluded to something I said in February 2012 but I couldn’t remember where I read it until I saw this post:

          john byatt says:
          August 18, 2013 at 8:37 am

          but i know that god is not real bill, remember feb 2012?

          That’s when he was referring to the post where I thanked people “for their thoughts and prayers” when my mom was released from the hospital. Once again I asked John for a link since I had no idea what he was referring to but of course he couldn’t post a link without letting everyone know that he had been reading my Facebook posts for the last month.

          Interesting that John is so intent on bashing people that are religious. As I’ve said it’s creepy to know that someone’s been cyberstalking me for over a month just so he could try to “out” me (his words) as a christian.

          Just bizarre behavior. I wonder how many other people he’s cyberstalked and what else he’s hiding.

  30. john byatt says:

    uki

    wordpress buggard up my email and log in details still trying to fix it,

    so did not try to change it here

    jb

  31. Bill Jamison says:

    WARNING: John Byatt will stalk you if he disagrees with you here and wants to try to find something to discredit you. In my case he set out to try to prove that I’m religious even though I’ve stated several times that I’m an atheist so he’s been stalking me online.

    You’ve been warned.

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/california-feels-the-heat-new-report-notes-impact-of-climate-change-significant-and-growing/#comment-46796

    Very creepy.

      • john byatt says:

        what is your evidence for having been stalked, if no evidence retract,

        do you understand slander?

        • john byatt says:

          and you are currently meeting the definition of cyber stalking

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

        • Bill Jamison says:

          It’s simple John: Tell everyone where you found the quote you posted several times where I wrote “thank you for your thoughts and prayers”.

          Now who is getting defensive and wants to make this conversation go away???

          It’s time to fess up and admit what you did John.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          In case anyone doesn’t believe me here is what John has posted several times in trying to “out” me as a christian:

          “you made a comment some time ago it linked to you saying

          “bill ” thank you all for your thoughts and prayers”

          http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/california-feels-the-heat-new-report-notes-impact-of-climate-change-significant-and-growing/#comment-46619

          I had no idea what he was referring to and he wouldn’t provide a link but then he made a reference to a site of Yosemite pictures I had just “Liked” on Facebook so I knew he was hinting that he had found it on my Facebook. I looked back through my timeline and found this post from February 2012:

          That’s how badly John wanted to find something on me – he not only searched out my Facebook profile he then paged through a year and a half of posts to find this post that he alludes proves I believe in god.

          I’m glad to know that WtD has a policy against cyberstalking. This type of behavior should not be permitted and abusers should be permanently banned IMO.

          As I said, you’ve all been warned.

        • john byatt says:

          evidence or you are slandering

        • Bill Jamison says:

          The evidence is right there in your posts John and the screen cap I posted.

          I think the truth should be obvious to everyone.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Just try to explain why you wrote:

          “here are some nice photos instead.

          http://projectyose.com/

          The DAY AFTER I liked the page on FB.

          Then after I changed my privacy settings on FB and blocked everyone named “John Byatt” (don’t even know if that’s your real name or not of course) from viewing my FB you post:

          “did you like the photos?, good move billy,”

          http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/california-feels-the-heat-new-report-notes-impact-of-climate-change-significant-and-growing/#comment-46794

          It’s NOT a coincidence!

        • john byatt says:

          No but your claim of cyberstalking is nonsense,

          email sent to Mike

          Just to clear it up

          Was looking for info re melt pond at north pole , top of google search

          http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/weathermatrix/did-the-media-just-prove-north-pole-is-not-melting/15739869

          comment there by a bloke who was at the WTD blog “bill”

          clicked on name and his facebook was open, with “ mum is much better now thanks for all the thoughts and prayers”

          I found that strange after he claimed to be an atheist

          Gave him a clue this morning re photos of Yosemite so he would close it

          So after you are proven to be a liar you go off on another track

          creationist or fundamentalist is no different, like you they believe that god made the planet self regulating for humans

        • Every day I get to see the google, yahoo and bing search terms people have used that have led to them clicking on my blog. Everyday, the search term that is used the most is “uknowispeaksense”. Now I am certain that a number of those are people who actually agree with what I’m saying however, every now and then the search term “who is uknowispeaksense” or “uknowispeaksense details” and even “uknowispeaksense real name” comes up. Now that’s cyberstalking. I have a theory that those who complain about it are more often than not perpetrators. It’s the paranoia I think.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Wow you’re a liar. So you found my Facebook page by linking it from somewhere else. Then you searched back almost 18 months in an attempt to find a post that proves I’m actually religious and not an atheist.

          And you claim that’s not stalking???

          I provided a screen cap to specifically show just how long ago I posted that status update and how much digging you had to do to find it.

          As I said it should be clear to everyone that reads this who is telling the truth. At least now you admit you got it from my Facebook page.

        • john byatt says:

          No you had a jonova like there and some anti solar scientists solar crap, so wondered just how much more anti science crap you were posting up,

          bit of a shock to find an atheist praising prayers though

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Keep trying to make excuses for your behavior John. At least now you’re admitting what you did instead of trying to pretend that I’m lying about it. That’s a start.

        • john byatt says:

          you claimed to be an atheist and were adamant that you have never said
          “thank you for your thoughts and prayers’

          that was a lie and you had the hide to call me a liar

          many people have a link in their name as we see all the time, you had that link to what was in effect public information that you were giving out.

          you had a few anti science quotes there and jo nova like, how much anti science crap is this bloke into?

          you have been caught out as a theist by your own public statement.

          When people told me they would pray for me I replied that as an atheist that would be an insult your thoughts are appreciated and will suffice

        • john byatt says:

          faux indignation

          Bill Jamison says:
          August 17, 2013 at 2:30 am
          Not only are you an idiot but you’re apparently also a liar John. That’s shocking. You appear to be quoting me but you’re actually making up those quotes. That’s absolutely shameful.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Once again you try to distract from what you did John. You keep using quotation marks to make it appear I’ve said something that I haven’t. At best you paraphrase what I say but of course you twist it just as you’re doing with my statement thanking my family and friends for their “thoughts and prayers”.

          It’s pretty despicable IMO and says a lot about your character. Did you read the part of the site rules where it says no ad hom attacks? Yet you keep trying to paint me as a creationist or something simply because you disagree with what I post. Shameful.

        • john byatt says:

          bill I said “thanks to everyone for your thoughts and prayers” I did not say

          “thank you for your thoughts and prayers’”

          well that changes everything,

          no i have just outed you as a liar, nothing more nothing less,

          did not take a screen shot so you need not have worried about that

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Did you really expect me to recognize something that I posted 18 months ago when you paraphrased it John? I asked you several times to provide a link and you refused.

          Then when I laid out exactly what I did you accused me of lying and slander and asked for “evidence”. You really have some balls, that’s all I can say.

          Sleezy doesn’t begin to describe it.

          BTW being polite and thanking people for their thoughts and prayers after a family member is hospitalized doesn’t make me, or anyone else, religious. It’s called common courtesy. You never found a single post from me ASKING for prayers.

        • Are you asking for thoughts and prayers? It sounds like you might be….reading between the lines that is. Look Bill, I’m actually concerned that your vehement denial of religion could be deemed offensive. Don’t get me wrong, as an atheist myself, I can understand the need to get defensive when you are actually an atheist and someone is suggesting that you aren’t. I’m just concerned that you might be offending any here who is religious. You really should have more respect for those who choose religion. Please choose your words more carefully in future. That would be the polite and courteous thing to do.

        • john byatt says:

          remember?

          prediction
          bill will go from denying it to trying to explain it away

          BTW being polite and thanking people for their thoughts and prayers after a family member is hospitalized doesn’t make me, or anyone else, religious. It’s called common courtesy. You never found a single post from me ASKING for prayers.

          thank you

        • Bill Jamison says:

          And there you go trying to distract from your cyberstalking again.

          First you denied it then you accused me of slander and now you try to change the subject.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Wow uki that’s actually offensive. John asked me about my religious beliefs a while back and I stated that I’m an atheist. He continues to try to paint me as religious and he’s specifically mentioned creationist several times. Funny that you don’t consider that offensive though. It’s an ad hominem attack at minimum. At worst he’s calling me a liar and his “proof” is that I thanked people for their support and prayers. As I said, being polite and thanking people doesn’t make me religious. I also say “bless you” when someone sneezes simply out of custom and habit. I certainly don’t believe that someone that sneezes needs some kind of “blessing” and even I understand where the custom originated.

          It’s obvious that some of you think it’s perfectly acceptable for someone to find a person’s personal Facebook page and then read through years of posts trying to find something to use against them and then refuse to admit doing it. I asked John several times for a link where I had said what he claimed but he refused to post one knowing that it would show that he had read through years of my Facebook posts. He was cornered. He couldn’t admit where he found the quote – which he paraphrased btw – or it would show people that he had cyberstalked me.

          I find it unethical at minimum especially when John accused me of lying and slander when I posted what he had done.

          Obviously that’s the worst thing he found otherwise he would have posted other things to try to discredit me. I don’t believe it’s a coincidence that he did this after I proved that his complete failure to understand monthly temperature anomalies and the simple math. He was embarrassed and looked for something, anything, to try to make me look bad. It backfired in a big way.

        • “Wow uki that’s actually offensive.”

          Now you know how the rest of us feel when we have to put up with the concern trolling you engage in and if you think that’s offensive, then you need to take a good hard look at yourself. I haven’t even begun to be as offensive as I would like to be with you, but I have decided you actually aren’t worth it. You are a concern troll and nothing more. You have no idea what you are talking about most of the time and your only goal is to draw attention to yourself and sew doubt wherever you go, about what sane people know is the most important issue facing us. To me, that makes you an ignorant and dangerous recalcitrant. To be completely honest Bill, I have so little respect for you, I wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire. Feel free to be offended at that. Wanker.

        • john byatt says:

          you still do not get it , I was trying to paint you only as a liar and I have succeeded.

          What else have you lied about?

          being an atheist?

          over and out

        • Bill Jamison says:

          What are you hiding John? Just answer the question: Why have you been reading my Facebook posts for the last month?

          You keep trying to distract people so they won’t know what you did but it’s not going to work. What are you hiding? How long have you been stalking me online? Why have you been reading my Facebook posts?

        • “Why have you been reading my Facebook posts?”

          If you are so concerned about strangers reading your facebook posts, why have you got your privacy settings set so that they can? Facebook’s terms are very clear on this. It is YOUR responsibility.

          https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/your-info-on-fb

          “When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).”

      • Ed Darrell says:

        Is anything here really worth discussing? Get back to climate change and its deniers; seriously, you’ll be happier.

        Think of the electrons.

        • john byatt says:

          could not click on your name Ed that might be cyberstalking

          “I intend to live forever, or die trying.” ― Groucho Marx

          I intewd to live forever, so far so good” john byatt

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Hey, if you’re coming to my site, do us the courtesy of leaving a substantial comment.

          At the moment, at least, I’m not knee-deep in mud and excrement.

        • john byatt says:

          been there done that

  32. […] 2013/08/18: WtD: Leaked IPCC report confirms scientists have “95% confidence” we’r… […]

  33. tsk tsk tsk. A number of you have jumped in and fed the Bill Jamison concern troll. No matter how many scientific references you throw at him, he will duck and weave and shift goalposts as well as our dearly beloved and not really missed Eric. Bill however, unlike Eric, isn’t quite stupid enough to get himself banned from here.

    My questions to those of you who really want to feed trolls are….

    1. Do you think trolls are interested in evidence?
    2. Is the evidence going to change their minds?
    3. Is catching them out or demonstrating that they are wrong going to shut them up and stop them from dribbling incorrect bullshit?
    4. Do you really thing lurkers are going to be influenced by their idiocy or is it more likely that giving a troll the respect he or she deserves (i.e ignoring them) is more likely to send a message to lurkers that the troll’s opinion is worthless?

    • BBD says:

      I do sympathise with this, Uki, but trolls – especially concern trolls – are vexatious and difficult to ignore. The temptation to apply boot to arse generally overwhelms the pragmatic wisdom of leaving well alone. Mea maxima culpa, many, many times ;-)

  34. john byatt says:

    Hansen & Sato 2013

    The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been
    conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases2
    ,
    which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century. The approximate stand-still of global
    temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and
    greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on
    particulate air pollution, but satisfactory quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the
    absence of adequate aerosol measurements3,4
    .

  35. Malamuddy says:

    Bill J
    Are you implying by your question that climate scientists are saying that prior to 1950, 50% of global warming was caused by factors other than anthropogenic carbon dioxide? If so, you have not understood the phrase “it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels” is responsible for global warming. This simply means that certainty about this claim has increased from a low 50% then to a (conventionally) scientific certainty now.

    In fact, given the low activity of the sun and long lasting la ninas, which would tend to cool the earth, the actual contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide to global warming, including warming of the oceans, could be more that 100%.

    • Bill Jamison says:

      I’m implying that this statement (specifically the sentence I quoted) doesn’t give any cause for warming before the 1950’s.

      • Malamuddy says:

        Is that all? I think that makes your question a rather pointless ‘gotcha”. If you were being serious and really don’t know (or think scientists don’t know) then do some reading. But don’t be surprised if you find that the laws of physics and chemistry didn’t suddenly change in 1950 and the forcings that operated before then are the same as those that operate now.

        None of that will change the fact that science is sure global warming is happening and that it is anthropogenic and that we need to do something about it. Unless, for some strange reason, you want to bet on the one in twenty odds that all the results of scientific research are just a fluke.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I never stated or implied that global warming isn’t happening or that man hasn’t contributed to the warming. You apparently just made some unwarranted assumptions.

          As for “doing something about it” well good luck with that. Have you personally done anything? I hear a lot of people saying “something should be done” but I rarely hear anyone saying “I’m going to give up driving my car and using electricity”. Nope, I never hear anyone saying that. At best they’ll commit to some small token effort that will have zero impact.

          What ever impact GHG emissions will have we better figure out a way to deal with it because it’s going to happen.

        • john byatt says:

          well i hope that you are trying to get that message through to the politicians

          in australia we have four state governments and a soon to be federal government who deny global warming, the states have not only pulled down many mitigation strategies but have dismantled laws designed to keep ocean front developments proceeding , Victoria now allows development to within 300mm amsl for existing towns

          If they deny the warming what chance that they think we need any adaption measures? same as your conservative politicians,

          Queensland will adapt as it happens apparently

          the link between religion, conservative politics and denial of science is undeniable

        • john byatt says:

          correction “prevent ocean front”

      • Kevin MacDonald says:

        I’m implying that this statement (specifically the sentence I quoted) doesn’t give any cause for warming before the 1950′s.

        I’m not sure why it’s relevant. The statement doesn’t concern climate before the 1950’s, so there is no reason to expect it to attribute causes to any trends observed in that period.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          It’s relevant because the warming before the 1950’s accounts for about 25% of the observed warming over the last 150 years.

        • Kevin MacDonald says:

          It’s relevant because the warming before the 1950′s accounts for about 25% of the observed warming over the last 150 years.

          Again, I fail to see the relevance. The statement does not address warming over the last 150 years, it addresses warming over the last 50 years and 25% of that didn’t occur in the 100 years before it happened.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Actually it’s really only addressing warming since 1980 since there was a cooling period from the 1950’s through the 1980’s. It’s pretty easy to see on any chart of global temperature.

          So now what we’re talking about is more like a 25 year period of warming. It’s good to know that we can ignore the rest.

        • “So now what we’re talking about is more like a 25 year period of warming. It’s good to know that we can ignore the rest.”

          Again you show your scientific illiteracy and ignorance, but then ignoring data is the bread and butter of the average denier. I wonder of you should go to some psychology blogs and make ignorant comments there. You might be lucky enough to get a diagnosis.

        • Kevin MacDonald says:

          Actually it’s really only addressing warming since 1980 since there was a cooling period from the 1950′s through the 1980′s

          Again, I fail to see the relevance. Even if we concede that all the warming since 1950 has occured since sometime in the 80’s (it didn’t, but that’s another matter), it’s still all the warming since the 1950. Further, this in no way explains why you think a statement about warming since 1950 should address warming prior to this.

  36. Reblogged this on DarinSullivan.net and commented:
    Hot August in Australia? Scientist more sure than ever we are changing the climate.

    • john byatt says:

      spent the season at Jindabyne the year of the Thredbo landslide,
      so perisher blue or Thredbo?

      ever been to Charlottes pass in summer?, nothing but massive boulders, unbelievable after being there during the season.

  37. john byatt says:

    Incredible that in 1975 it was thought that the warming due to human increased CO2 would not emerge from the natural variability noise until 2000 .

    read the predictions made,

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/happy-35th-birthday-global-warming/

    unbelievable that people still believe that the planet is a self regulating system

    the 95% is an average, climatologists such as Gavin Schmidt would put it at 99.99999%

    • Bill Jamison says:

      So Gavin doesn’t agree with the consensus? Fascinating!

      • john byatt says:

        so bill did not read the link.

        say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.

        at least does not discount Gavin’s certainty now does it,

        • john byatt says:

          nor even the post it seems, just the headline

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Has Gavin said that or are you putting words in his mouth just as you’ve done with me?

        • john byatt says:

          both statements are at about the same time feb 2012

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I read the link and I can’t find anyone in there saying anything about 99% certainty nevermind 99.99999%. Apparently you’re making shit up AGAIN. But then that’s what you do.

  38. Why don’t you just come out and say what you’re thinking, instead of this question game? You clearly believe that there is a problem with the scientific community’s attribution of global warming to fossil fuel emissions. It is not our job to explain science to you – if you have a specific objection then the best place to express it would be within the scientific literature. What do you hope to achieve by posting questions on a blog? Do you think we’ll be like: ‘What caused warming before the 1950’s? Well gee – I don’t know! OMG! I’ve been looking at this all wrong!’

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Wow Sammy did I hit a nerve or are you just in a pissy mood?

      • I just grow tired of concern trolls. You guys are just like creationists, who show up on science blogs to ask “How does evolution add information to the genome?” Or like the ant-vaccination crowd, who ask “What do you think is causing all this autism?”

      • louploup2 says:

        I’m with Sammy, tired of the cr@p fake skeptics (“deniers”) pump out constantly on blogs. Call it pissy if you want, but the fact is your arguments are nonsense.

    • Correctly called, Sammy. And you have Bill blustering. And he knows it. :-)

      • john byatt says:

        looking at http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/509796main_GISS_annual_temperature_anomalies_running.pdf

        what question would a layman ask ?

        he might ask what caused the warming up to 1940, doubt that he would pick 1950

        JHS is right, just parroting denier drivel from Nova Watts etc

        • Bill Jamison says:

          That’s funny john you don’t even know what anomalies are!

        • john byatt says:

          but i know that god is not real bill, remember feb 2012?
          and i know that the IPCC did not overestimate SLR
          I know that we do have paleo dta for rapid SLR
          and i also know that it would not take 20ft to put the west side highway partially under water.

        • john byatt says:

          I would say that my comment above hit the spot

        • Bill Jamison says:

          No john I don’t remember Feb 2012 do you have a link?

          There’s plenty of paleo evidence for fast sea level rise. Remember the link you provided yesterday that claimed 5 meters in 1,000 years?

          Of course at the end of ice ages sea level rose extremely quickly. For example it’s thought that at the end of the last ice age ~14,500 years ago sea level quickly rose between 14 and 18 meters at a rate of more than 40mm per year (compared to the current rate of ~3mm per year).

          How much sea level rise would it take to put the West Side Highway under water permanently John?

        • john byatt says:

          http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7240/abs/nature07933.html

          that paper contains evidence of three metre SLR in fifty years, you must have missed that link

          god is not going to keep the climate at a stable temperature bill,

        • john byatt says:

          sks comments

          mikeh1 at 15:36 PM on 30 October, 2012
          Photo of flooding along the Westside Highway during Hurricane Sandy.
          Arctic Haze at 18:02 PM on 30 October, 2012
          Here is another one:

          And I will remind here that Hansen was talking not only about ocean surge but also hight winds. He apparently meant a tropical hurricane in NY.

          ““The West Side Highway will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds”.

          His prediction came true after 24, not 40 years!

        • Bill Jamison says:

          “He apparently meant a tropical hurricane in NY.”

          BULL SHIT

          But nice try johnny. Keep making excuses for alarmists like Hansen.

        • john byatt says:

          too funny, it came from goddard

          At Steve Goddard’s blog — this is the same guy who said the western drought was over because Lake Powell rose a few feet, though the drought raged on everywhere else — Goddard and his flying and limping monkeys have been poking fun at something James Hansen is alleged to have said:

          According to NASA’s top scientist, Manhattan has been underwater for the past four years, and is experiencing a horrific drought.

          While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

        • john byatt says:

          goddard’s verballing bit him on the bum

          here is the real story

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-West-Side-Highway.htm

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Here’s the full text of that letter (it’s not a paper):

          http://www.academia.edu/196059/Rapid_sea-level_rise_and_reef_back-stepping_at_the_close_of_the_last_interglacial_highstand

          Could you quote the part where you got your claim “that paper contains evidence of three metre SLR in fifty years, you must have missed that link “?

          So please quote the portion where the rate is 60mm/yr or greater for 50 years. I don’t see proxies with that fine of a resolution or any statement of greater than 60mm/yr increase.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          ‘something James Hansen is alleged to have said’

          It’s not alleged. He admitted he said it. The only disagreement is that apparently it was 40 years not 20 years and included “a doubling of CO2″. The quote about 20 years was from an interview an author who interviewed Hansen did with Salon:

          “While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

          http://www.salon.com/2001/10/23/weather/

          Hansen confirmed his prediction:
          “Michaels also has the facts wrong about a 1988 interview of me by Bob Reiss, in which Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount. Michaels has it as 20 years, not 40 years, with no mention of doubled CO2. Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message: “I went back to my book and re-read the interview I had with you.
          I am embarrassed to say that although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later – probably because I’d been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question.” So give Michaels a pass on this one — assume that he reads Salon, but he did not check the original source, Reiss’ book”

          http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf

          Here we are 25 years into the 40 year prediction and sea level has risen less than 3 and 1/2 inches. Only another 10+ feet to go!

          Like I said, keep making excuses for failed alarmist predictions from the likes of Hansen.

        • Ed Darrell says:

          Thanks for the plug, John Byatt! Would love to have commenters here sneak over to Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub and continue the conversation, perhaps in longer form. (http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/ouch-warming-denialists-claims-blown-away-by-sandy/ )

          And thanks for that Tweet and its photo. Denialists will keep on denying, of course.

        • john byatt says:

          The following types of contribution to Nature journals are peer-reviewed: Articles, Letters, Brief Communications, Communications Arising, Technical Reports, Analysis, Reviews, Perspectives, Progress articles and Insight articles. All forms of published correction may also be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          You referred to it as a “paper” but it’s a “letter”. It says so right there in your link.

          Since you still haven’t quoted from the letter where they claim 3m SLR in 50 years I’ll have to ask again:

          Could you quote the part where you got your claim “that paper contains evidence of three metre SLR in fifty years, you must have missed that link “?

          So please quote the portion where the rate is 60mm/yr or greater for 50 years. I don’t see proxies with that fine of a resolution or any statement of greater than 60mm/yr increase.

          If you can’t then it will be obvious to me and everyone else that you’re full of crap AGAIN.

        • john byatt says:

          read the paper, if dumb scientist could find it within five minutes then it should not take you more than a couple of days,

          no hints

        • john byatt says:

          loved goddard’s look squirrel comment there Ed

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I read the letter john. You made the claim so provide a quote that backs up your claim.

          I’m still waiting to the link to something that I supposedly said in Feb 2012.

          Are you going to proven a liar yet again John?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          It was a simple question John: Are you trying to find my Facebook page? Why did you read my posts for the last month?

        • john byatt says:

          found it bill, like your photo

  39. Bill Jamison says:

    What caused the warming before 1950?

    • Is this one of those ‘concern trolling’ questions, where you already ‘know’ the answer? Why don’t you go and do some research on your own? Maybe speak with a climatologist about it?

      • Bill Jamison says:

        You don’t see the relevance of the question? Did you read the post and specifically this sentence? “…95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.”

        I think it begs the question of what caused the warming from 1850 to 1950 which is about 1/4 of the warming experienced since 1850.

        • FrankD says:

          Okay, firstly look up what “begs the question” means – your doing it wrong.

          But your question is flawed because it implies a single cause, which no climatologist thinks is the case either before 1950 or after. The answer is clearly “much the same things that cause warming now, but in different proportions.”

          The qualification does not imply different processes, only that one of the following applies:
          1. They are less confident about causation (maybe only 90% or 80% or whatever) or
          2. That they are equally confident about causation, but that human activities were not the main cause.

          Human activities clearly had less of an impact (less CO2, land clearing, factory farming etc etc), and natural factors (which are still present) were more likely to have been more significant. But it does not imply that human factors were absent. It does not even necessarily suggest that they were not the main cause. And the statement that we are now the main cause does not suggest we are currently the only cause.

          It’s hard to see shades of grey when your filter is set to black and white….

        • Bill Jamison says:

          “The qualification does not imply different processes, only that one of the following applies:
          1. They are less confident about causation (maybe only 90% or 80% or whatever) or
          2. That they are equally confident about causation, but that human activities were not the main cause. ”

          Do you think it’s important that we know what caused the warming before the 1950’s considering that it’s about 25% of the observed warming (actually more if you look at the cooling up to the early 1900’s)?

          It seem implausible to me that climate scientists would be less confident about causation of warming more than 100 years ago. If human activities were not the main cause of of warming before the 1950’s then it would be interesting to know what natural changes in forcing resulted in the warming.

          Thanks for the pedantic criticism of my grammar.

        • john byatt says:

          http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/509796main_GISS_annual_temperature_anomalies_running.pdf

          I see warming and cooling very much in the range of natural variability .

        • john byatt says:

          solar contributions

          ,

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Not to mention that manmade cooling from the 1940’s through almost 1980.

        • john byatt says:

          the deniers view and the realists view

        • Bill Jamison says:

          John do you disagree that the cooling period was likely due to man?

    • Steve says:

      Many things effect the climate, but the suggestion made by some people that humans couldn’t have had any effect before 1950 has always seemed odd to me. However as our population and our per capita output of greenhouse gasses increases what we are doing is increasingly becoming the most important factor changing the climate.
      Without our influence, at this stage of the natural cycle, the temperature should dropping. Instead heat is rapidly accumulating in the atmosphere, the soil and the oceans.
      In answer to your question, ‘What caused the warming before 1950?’ Bill, see the work of Professor Ruddiman.

      http://vaseee.org/page6/page6.html

      • If I may, that is an odd link. The good Professor’s hypothesis is intriguing, agreed.

        But the article concludes with “The reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC 2008, 2009), never scientifically refuted, include many of these ignored studies and conclude that Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate. There is no scientific basis for claiming that man’s emissions of these gases caused the recent warming – or for declaring these gases pollutants.”

        If we just start with the NIPCC never having made a scientific claim to refute…

        • john byatt says:

          steve is selling a book ,probably just googled to get something to say

          it is an E&E rebut to the professor JHS

        • john byatt says:

          there has been a lot of comment at RC over the years about man having changed their climate over the past 10,000 years

    • The new(-ish) denier meme. I’ve seen this on a few boards this month. They need new ones as the old ones have all failed.

      If you Google for “what caused global warming before 1950″

      https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=what+caused+global+warming+before+1950&rlz=1CASMAE_enGB535GB535&oq=what+caused&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j5j0.5616j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

      the first page has entries from Watts, ClimateDespot, teh Goddard, etc.

      The switch to a diversion implies they’re preparing to cede man being the cause of global warming.

      A real sceptic would demonstrate they’d researched for an answer. A real denier just pulls another sheet from the toilet paper roll.

    • Ed Darrell says:

      CO2 caused much of the warming prior to 1950 — dramatic increases in CO2 from burning of coal and oil started significantly in the 19th century.

      Prior to the Clean Air Act and 1972, however, most burning of fossil fuels included heavy emissions of particulates and sulfate and other aerosols that reflect warming radiation from the Sun back into space. So the warming effects of greenhouse gases were masked by the cooling effects of particulates and aerosols.

    • toby52 says:

      Same reason, but less CO2 and more volcanoes.

      The American Meteorological Society say the panet warmed 0.8C since 1910, and 0.5C since 1975.

      You can Google the rest.

    • BBD says:

      What caused the warming before 1950?

      Flatulent concern trolls!

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 771 other followers

%d bloggers like this: