Open thread – November

News, view and (civil) debate.

About these ads

369 thoughts on “Open thread – November

  1. john byatt says:

    .amazon.com/Godless-Evangelical-Preacher-Americas-Atheists/dp/1569756775

    godless Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists

    goes into mod if full link is included

  2. john byatt says:

    Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists

    i am pissing myself at your pathetic attemps here

  3. john byatt says:

    the controversy

    Review
    Christianity and the Piltdown Hoax (one of the largest academic scandals in history) share many similarities: In both stories the information was constructed and then salted into the information stream, and, through the word of noted scholars, presented as fact, the truth. Scholars have egos and once committed to their ideas through scholarly publications, faculty meetings, and conferences, have difficulty seeing, hearing, or even appreciating an adverse view. To waver from a strongly held opinion could spell academic ruin and withdrawal of acclaim. This leads to lively debate,counter stories, and even character assassination if one side or the other is being out trumped in the symbolic mêlée. Jan Irvin (The Holy Mushroom) has captured what we might call an anthropology of clarification regarding whether or not mushrooms, and mind-altering substances in general, played any role in the development of not only Judaism and Christianity but the total culture in play at that time. It is now recognized in many academic communities (anthropologists,sociologists, psychiatrists, psychologists) that sufficient evidence exists of the importance of these substances, both textual and visual, to say yes in very large letters. It is no longer theory. The questions Irvin asks is this: If mind-altering substances did play this major role, then how would this affect our interpretations of the Bible and the Quran? Would this shed light on the origins of mystical experiences and the stories, for example Abraham hearing voices and Ezekiels convenient visions? What would this suggest about the shamanic behavior of Jesus? What impact would this have on organized religion? These are bold questions. This is a very useful volume for those interested in the Holy Mushroom and the politics of truth. Detailed and wonderfully illustrated; great bibliography.
    ~ Professor John A. Rush, Sierra College

    John Allegro’s revelation of the sacramental role of a sacred mushroom in the ancient religions spanning the agrarian region from Mesopotamia to the Near East was immediately and unfairly rejected by a chorus of scholars less competent than him, but continuing research into early Christianity and the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world and their perpetuation in alchemy and European folkloric traditions has vindicated the correctness of his discovery.
    ~ Professor Carl A. P. Ruck, Boston University -

    • john byatt says:

      bump

      • john byatt says:

        ” Ezekiels convenient visions?

        I had a good long discussion with Barbara Theiring about his many many years ago after her essay on the von dickhead drivels and yes narcotics was mentioned.

        we could never agree on her teacher of righteousness though

        prior to allegro i had read many apologists books on the claims that jesus was a person of history, most of them worked their way through the usual sources and accepted that each was probably not in itself a proof, they always seemed to end up saying ah but look at the many non proofs there are this must be evidence of jesus , came out like that anyway

        after allegro the books changed, no longer did they put up both sides, it was like the kleptocracy viewed themselves as being under attack and had to reinforce the barricades,

        I think that some social atheists actually hope that a jesus existed and maybe then it is all real, i get this impression from those who have started their journey from the wrong end.

  4. john byatt says:

    An anniversary edition of sacred mushroom and the cross was released last year by john’s daughter and jan irvin at gnostic media, it not only has the original text but also includes updated findings over the last three decades,

    Allegro’s acedemic publications

    http://www.johnallegro.org/academic-publications/

    • john byatt says:

      rest in moderation amazon edition jan irvin’s book on the controversy

      Review
      Christianity and the Piltdown Hoax (one of the largest academic scandals in history) share many similarities: In both stories the information was constructed and then salted into the information stream, and, through the word of noted scholars, presented as fact, the truth. Scholars have egos and once committed to their ideas through scholarly publications, faculty meetings, and conferences, have difficulty seeing, hearing, or even appreciating an adverse view. To waver from a strongly held opinion could spell academic ruin and withdrawal of acclaim. This leads to lively debate,counter stories, and even character assassination if one side or the other is being out trumped in the symbolic mêlée. Jan Irvin (The Holy Mushroom) has captured what we might call an anthropology of clarification regarding whether or not mushrooms, and mind-altering substances in general, played any role in the development of not only Judaism and Christianity but the total culture in play at that time. It is now recognized in many academic communities (anthropologists,sociologists, psychiatrists, psychologists) that sufficient evidence exists of the importance of these substances, both textual and visual, to say yes in very large letters. It is no longer theory. The questions Irvin asks is this: If mind-altering substances did play this major role, then how would this affect our interpretations of the Bible and the Quran? Would this shed light on the origins of mystical experiences and the stories, for example Abraham hearing voices and Ezekiels convenient visions? What would this suggest about the shamanic behavior of Jesus? What impact would this have on organized religion? These are bold questions. This is a very useful volume for those interested in the Holy Mushroom and the politics of truth. Detailed and wonderfully illustrated; great bibliography.
      ~ Professor John A. Rush, Sierra College

      John Allegro’s revelation of the sacramental role of a sacred mushroom in the ancient religions spanning the agrarian region from Mesopotamia to the Near East was immediately and unfairly rejected by a chorus of scholars less competent than him, but continuing research into early Christianity and the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world and their perpetuation in alchemy and European folkloric traditions has vindicated the correctness of his discovery.
      ~ Professor Carl A. P. Ruck, Boston University -

  5. john byatt says:

    Evidence of drugs in ancient religions including christianity

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_A._P._Ruck

    for some strange reason we seem to believe that the drug culture began in the sixties.

    thousands of years ago they were not seen as “drugs’ but the plants of enlightenment , sacred plants

        • john byatt says:

          “Erwin Panofsky asserting that art scholars are aware of many ‘mushroom trees’ in Christian art. but he claimed that they were pine trees”, bad move, amanitia is associated with pine trees and the pine cone in ancient art and sculpture

          http://www.egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm

          so if the creationists and fundamentalists wish to claim that climate change is a hoax then i will expose their own religious hoax, I kept quiet due to not wishing to upset the christian mainstream,sorry but it is becoming too dangerous to now consider their sensitivities.

          apologies to those offended

        • Bernard J. says:

          Heh, I think that we’d have a few evening’s worth of fat-chewing about religion, mythologies, and entheogenesis, John.

          On Amanita, it’s as partial to oak and birch as it is to pine (oak especially around here) and although I sadly cannot attest to it’s psychotropic qualities (which are heat-labile) I hear that it has a delicious savoury bacon flavour.

        • john byatt says:

          did not even know in the beginning that it was associated with pine as my early readings were about the siberian shamans and the birch tree’s symbiotic relationship. the pine tree association came later.

          came across it once when i lived in tassie, across the road there was a small pine plantation, was surprised to find it there,

          no have not tried it as i have not tried any drugs, those who take it thinking they are having some sort of spiritual enlightenment, deeper understanding etc just fooling themselves,

          “The Dead Sea Scrolls scholar John Marco Allegro also proposed that early Christianity sprang from cultic use of the fly agaric in Second Temple Judaism, and that the mushroom itself was used by the Essenes as an allegory for none other than Jesus Christ”.

          he is not saying that early christians necessarily took the drug as the apologists have tried to make out, only that the gospels stories reflect an ancient tradition of reverence of the amanitia “christ crucified”

          they are reading used in the wrong context

          alas, up here they only talk about football

        • john byatt says:

          just as Salman Rushdie ridiculed and took the piss out of catholicism and the politics of Canada UK USA Australia and New Zealand in the satanic verses the new testament writers were doing the same to the romans.

          i can just imagine them saying ” hey put the one in about the shekel in the fishes mouth” and having a good laugh.

          after reading it i thought that if anyone else in Australia was likely to understand it then it would be phillip adams, so i rang him, shit you have done a lot of reading he said, could only discuss it briefly as he was catching a plane

        • john byatt says:

          “after reading it” ( the satanic verses)

        • john byatt says:

          As a child we had the worlds best disposal shop, about two acres of great stuff, even jousting sticks and old ship figureheads, a real treasure hunt .As a child i came across boxes of books at the back of one of the sheds, filled with these,books Roy Unwin the shopkeeper could not believe his luck that he had a purchaser, think i hid them from my parents for a few years, but they were the beginning of a wonderful journey, i accepted that god was crap but where did the shit come from

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinker's_Library

    • john byatt says:

      enjoy Zoroastrianism /ˌzɒroʊˈæstriənɪzəm/, also called Zarathustraism, Mazdaism and Magianism, is an ancient Iranian religion and a religious philosophy. It was once the state religion of the Achaemenid, Parthian, and Sasanian empires. Estimates of the current number of Zoroastrians worldwide vary between 145,000 and 2.6 million.[1]
      Zoroastrianism arose in the eastern region of the ancient Persian Empire, when the religious philosopher Zoroaster simplified the pantheon of early Iranian gods[2] into two opposing forces: Ahura Mazda (Illuminating Wisdom) and Angra Mainyu (Destructive Spirit) in the 7th century BCE.
      Zoroaster’s ideas led to a formal religion bearing his name by about the 6th century BCE and have influenced other later religions including Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity and Islam.[3]

      and lets not forget Haoma the drug, possibly aminita

      • john byatt says:

        ah the internet certainly beats spending a decade in the theological section of james cook uni

        in those days you had to sign a little chit in the back of the book you were borrowing

  6. john byatt says:

    re your reference to passage in the book by Habermas

    Gary Habermas – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Habermas‎
    Gary Robert Habermas (born 1950) is an American evangelical Christian apologist, … Gary R. Habermas and Antony G. N. Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?

    bet he reckons he did. too funny giddeon you are way out of your depth

    • john byatt says:

      “To the reader, enjoy a once banned book”.

      no it wasn’t banned says the guy who only ever heard about it a day or so ago

  7. john byatt says:

    HE ANUNNAKI AS REFLECTED IN THE SCRIPTURES

    Is there evidence in Western religious literature that corroborates the activities of the Anunnaki as it is found in the numerous myths, poems, and hymns of Mesopotamia? These Sumerian sources deal with the same events – the creation of Man, its subsequent modification into a modern man or Homo sapiens, the existence of god-kings, the coming of the Deluge, and many of the subsequent events of recorded history.

    There is a large body of religious literature besides the Book of Genesis which deals with the period before the Deluge. Sources such as the three books of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, the Gnostic teachings, the Dead Sea scrolls, the Haggadah or the oral tradition of the Jews, the Rabbinical writings, the works of Josephus, and many works of the Pseudepigrapha.

    Much of what is not intelligible in these ancient religious writings is explained in part in the large library of available Sumerian, Babylonian and other cuneiform inscriptions. It will be demonstrated that the Scriptures and Sumerian literature, regarded in a historical context, and stripped of their spiritual and mythological verbiage, support and augment each other remarkably. For it is clear that Sumer was the fountainhead for the events and stories of the Old Testament and other Western religious writings.

    Much as Biblical apologists have tried to avoid or cloud the issue of the origin of the Old Testament, the historical facts clearly show that its antecedents are in the valley of Mesopotamia.

    So what has allegro discovered,? hardly surprising that many of the ancient sacred words also originated in Mesopotamia, words as used in the earliest gospels.

    how hard is this ?

  8. john byatt says:

    “. Then its a fact that there was no Jesus…then there are arguments on both sides…now we’re back to it being a fact”

    you fail to understand the onus of proof, it is impossible to prove that something does not exist, eg a flying spag monster, so the responsibility falls on those who claim something does exist, in this case your claim that the jesus of the gospels existed,

    so far you have failed to provide any evidence, handwaving to scholars who represent the christian church

    did you really think that the church would acknowledge the myth?

    all a myth

    • J Giddeon says:

      Onus of proof…we have any number of pre-Christian writers who talk about him eg Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, The Talmud (which gives him different parentage), the Koran. There are no 1st and 2nd century texts that dispute his existence. OK, so you want to ignore all that because its inconvenient. That’s fine,but don’t call it scholarship. What proof do you want? A certified copy of the birth certificate from the Nazarene municipal council?

      ” in this case your claim that the jesus of the gospels existed”

      I understand why you constantly want to redefine the terms of my ‘claims’. I don’t and haven’t in any of the above, claim that Jesus of the Gospels existed. I, and the vast majority of scholars of the period, simply say that a man named Jesus was born around 1CE and died in the reign of Tiberius on a Roman cross. That’s all I say. Since you are on very thin ground on that point, you keep trying to change the issue.

      If pressed, I’d suggest that this man was a relatively minor political leader of a vaguely rebellious sect (either Essenes or an offshoot of the Essenes) who had some shamanistic skills learnt from his predecessor (John the Baptist) and who overstepped the mark in some way with either the Pharisees or the Romans. His best asset, like many well-known but failed leaders (eg Julius Caesar) , was that he was succeeded by some very capable men.

      • john byatt says:

        no he was the sacred mushroom incarnate, and again you cite sources without any actual reference to anything, you have been duped by the catholic church for two thousand years

        “what proof do you want”

        well let us have your proof from Pliny for a start

        • john byatt says:

          Scratch Pliny

          Pliny the Younger
          Pliny the Younger was a Roman official born in 62 CE. In one letter c. 106 CE he said “Christians were singing a hymn to Christ as to a god …” That is all. In all of Pliny’s writings, we find one small tangential reference, and not even to Christ, but to Christians. Again, notice, the absence of the name Jesus. This could have referred to any of the other “christs”[139] who were being followed by some Jews who thought they had found the messiah.
          Pliny’s report is only of what other people believed. Even if this sentence does refer to a group who followed Jesus it is not particularly enlightening as no one denies that Christianity was in existence at that time. Pliny’s report might be useful in documenting the religion, but not the historic Jesus.

        • john byatt says:

          scratch the talmud

          Talmud
          Perhaps surprisingly, some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, a collection of Jewish civil and religious law, including commentaries on the Torah, as evidence for the existence of Jesus. They claim that a man called “Yeshu” in the Talmud refers to Jesus.
          However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey, is actually a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia who lived at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. And regardless of how one interprets the name “Yeshu”, the Palestinian Talmud was written between the 3rd and 5th century CE, and the Babylonian Talmud was written between the 3rd and 6th century CE, at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion.
          In other words, even if it does refer to Jesus, it is even more recent then the gospels and even less useful as an eyewitness reference.

          see you have been believing a load of codswhallop

        • john byatt says:

          scratch Suetonius

          Suetonius
          A Roman historian born in 69 CE mentions a “Chrestus,” a common name meaning “good,” used by both slaves and free people and occurring more than 80 times in Latin inscriptions. Apologists assume that “Chrestus” means “Christ”, which it generally does not. But even if Suetonius had meant “Christ,” it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus.
          Suetonius wrote a biography called Twelve Caesars around the year 112 CE, mentioning that Claudius “banished the Jews from Rome, since they had made a commotion because of Chrestus,” and that during the time of Nero “punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief …” Notice that there is no mention of Jesus by name. It is unlikely that Christianity had spread as far as Rome during the reign of Claudius, or that it was large enough to have caused a revolt.

          any of this sinking in?

        • J Giddeon says:

          A book called “Godless” – that’s your preferred source? Completely impartial, is it?

          As an example of its lack of rigour, “Godless” says the fact that the Talmud was finalised several centuries after the event is conclusive. But it fails to point out that the Talmud was an oral history only written down following the 70CE destruction of the temple. So it is quite contemporary. Also it is highly hostile to JC. If there was the slightest evidence that he was a fiction, they surely would have used it. But nowhere in any ancient literature is there any claims that the JC was a fiction.

        • J Giddeon says:

          And once more from Wikipedia, just to show how screwball your beliefs are (yes they are beliefs just like fundamentalist beliefs)

          “Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity. There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.”

        • john byatt says:

          ignore that it is rational wiki

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

          The Talmud contains passages that some scholars have concluded are references to Christian traditions about Jesus. The history of textual transmission of these passages is complex and scholars are not agreed concerning which passages are original, and which were added later or removed later in reaction to the actions of Christians. Scholars are also divided on the relationship of the passages, if any, to the historical Jesus, though most modern scholarship views the passages as reaction to Christian proselytism rather than having any meaningful trace of a historical Jesus.

          you idiot, i have been reading this shit for thirty years or more

        • john byatt says:

          Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists

          now i am pissing myself laughing at your pathetic attempts

        • J Giddeon says:

          “i have been reading this shit for thirty years or more”

          So you say….but there’s no evidence for that.

        • john byatt says:

          there certainly is and it is in the theological section at james Cook uni, just about every book there has a record of when i took it out, only a few years ago a friend who lives in Townsville range to say that he was going through some of the books and my name was in every fucking one he picked up,

          the theological section contained real scholars writing real comparative studies and even about the drugs in religion, books not available in the public realm,

          when james cook uni opened many UK universities donated many books, r books about Soma and other drug cultures where priced at about $5000 at the time, they were the culmination of decades of work by these scholars and really only affordable by such institutions

          you know nothing about such things and i find your insistence that most scholars agree simply a confirmation of your own ignorance

        • john byatt says:

          Your ignorance is breathtaking

          “But it fails to point out that the Talmud was an oral history only written down following the 70CE destruction of the temple”
          sheesh

          The first Christian censorship of the Talmud happened in the year 521.[1] However, far better documented censorship began during the disputations of the Middle Ages. Advocates for the Christian church alleged that the Talmud contained insulting references to Jesus and his mother, Mary

          . Jewish apologists during the disputations said there were no references to Jesus in the Talmud,

          and claimed Joshua and its derivations was a common Jewish name, that they referred to other individuals. The disputations led to many of the references being removed (censored) from subsequent editions of the Talmud.

          but what would the people who wrote it know compared to giddeon , your name is ironic, you just ignore anything you do not like and write complete drivel

          so after claiming scholars are on his side he now disputes scholars

          As evidence of the historical Jesus[edit]

          Bart Ehrman and separately Mark Allan Powell state that the Talmud references are quite late (hundreds of years) and give no historically reliable information about the teachings or actions of Jesus during his life. Ehrman clarifies that the name “Son of Panthera” (Roman who allegedly was the seducer of Mary) was a tradition, as scholars have long recognized, that represented an attack on the Christian view, that he was the “son of a virgin.” In Greek, the term for virgin is Parthenon, pun of Panthera. [43][44]
          Also, there are contradictions in the Talmud about the times when Jesus lived. In Sotah 47a, Sanhedrin 107 it is said that Jesus lived in days of Alexander Jannaeus’ reign (103 BC to 76 BC), but the Sanhedrin 43a (Jesus’ execution) is an Amoraic reference about events that occurred from 200 AC to 500 AC.
          Peter Schäfer states that there can be no doubt that the narrative of the execution of Jesus in the Talmud refers to Jesus of Nazareth, but states that the rabbinic literature in question are from a later Amoraic period and may have drawn on the Christian gospels, and may have been written as responses to them.[45]
          Scholars argue that the Talmud provides no evidence of Jesus as a historical individual, instead they view the Talmudic references as reaction to Jesus as the messiah of Christianity.

          jews reject that it is about jesus

          may have drawn on the christian gospels,

          not much evidence to go on there, i have read christian apologist books that after concluding that each separate reference is bogus to then have the hide to say that many bogus references must point to a historical jesus

  9. john byatt says:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/21/2013-4th-hottest-year_n_4638954.html

    NOAA fourth hottest
    tied seventh in GISS ( 2013 hotter in GISS than NOAA though

    possible el nino developing northern autumn

  10. J Giddeon says:

    I really don’t want to get into this whole Jesus-didn’t-exist thing with JB. He’s just as doctrinaire on this as any fundamentalist and isn’t really interested in actual knowledge or unbiassed evaluation.

    But it probably does need to be pointed out that “Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted”.

    You could say there is a consensus on this. Then again we do know that the consensus can often be wrong.

    • john byatt says:

      seeing you quote without crediting .

      you can start here

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

      about another ten years of study for you

      you obviously have never read any of the non christian sources

      hoist on your own petar as usual

      • J Giddeon says:

        I advise that the majority of experts on the issue agree that JC existed.

        The main reason for those views are the relative unanimity among the contemporary sources eg Tacitus, Josephus and Suetonius.

        From this, using whatever is the opposite of logic, JB concludes that I “obviously have never read any of the non christian sources”.. You’ve just gotta shake your head and hope that he does have a driver’s licence.

        • john byatt says:

          you have obviously never read Tacitus, Josephus and Suetonius.

          probably read the interpolated version of josephus ,

        • john byatt says:

          http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

          Louis H. Feldman writes (Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, p. 57): “The fact that an ancient table of contents, already referred to in the Latin version of the fifth or sixth century, omits mention of the Testimionium (though, admittedly, it is selective, one must find it hard to believe that such a remarkable passage would be omitted by anyone, let alone by a Christian, summarizing the work) is further indication that there was no such notice…” I regard this as an important and powerful piece of evidence, although one that doesn’t get much attention.

          the argument for both sides is there, was reading this stuff forty years ago, and on it goes

        • J Giddeon says:

          JB, you are making it too easy…

          1. If you are going to say its obvious I did this or didn’t do that, its probably worthwhile to have some passingly valid reason behind that. Even BBD won’t be able to help you out if you just stamp your feet and shout “tis too”.

          2. I obviously haven’t read josephus but I probably have read it?

          3. a week ago it was A FACT that there was no Jesus (” the biggest hoax in history, no jesus no paul, no god, and that is a fact”). Now “the argument for both sides is there”. JB’s ‘facts’ are rather nebulous. ;)

          4. In the late 70s I did an Ancient History elective as part of my BA. Main areas of study….Thukydides and the Flavians. If, as you claim, you’ve read Suetonius et al, you’ll understand the ramifications of that.

        • john byatt says:

          Suetonius you have to be joking,

          there is no evidence that jesus existed, he is a myth,

          but if you wish to believe that a water walking, magic man existed then go for it the evidence does not back your ignorance

          this is not new info, most of this was known in the early ninteenth century

          http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

        • john byatt says:

          Paul was a load of crap as well,

          http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/saul-paul.htm

        • J Giddeon says:

          Well JB you’re all over the place on this. First you say I should read Suetonius, now he’s a joke. Then you say I haven’t read Josephus and then I probably have. Then its a fact that there was no Jesus…then there are arguments on both sides…now we’re back to it being a fact. Perhaps you need to reacquaint yourself with what you last wrote before making a fool of yourself each time.

          Now I find that you don’t even understand the parameters of the issue with your ” but if you wish to believe that a water walking, magic man existed”. The question of the historicity of Jesus is whether there was a man named Jesus, born in the 4 yrs either side of 1 CE who died in the reign of Tiberius on a Roman cross and whose followers spread word of his supposed deeds into the Greco-Roman world. Questions of his divine abilities are religious, not historical.

          What I see is someone who came across a book (Allegro) that said what he wanted to hear. JB accepted it without further thought or investigation even though most experts rejected and even mocked it and the publishers apologised for even printing the drivel. All rather pathetic and not worth the effort in trying to set him straight. As I said earlier, he has the faith of a fundamentalist and mere data ain’t gunna shift him from that.

        • john byatt says:

          jesus is the greek rendition of the name, go back to basics,

          “Now I find that you don’t even understand the parameters of the issue with your ” but if you wish to believe that a water walking, magic man existed”. The question of the historicity of Jesus is whether there was a man named Jesus, ”

          obviously now you accept that at least part of the jesus story is myth,take away the miracles and magic man stories and you are left with nothing but a name Yeshua, a very common name at the time,

          had you read the historical accounts and followed up on them you would have found that they are complete nonsense for any claim of an historical person,

          so again you at least concede that part of the story is complete myth,

          the same myth as it relates to dionysus, mithra etc etc

          by your reasoning Zeus existed , i mean we even have coins to confirm that

        • john byatt says:

          just as you do not accept expert evidence from climatologists , believing that you know better, you also now claim to know better than an expert in the field of comparative religious studies, the dead sea scrolls and a renowned scholar in philogy

          http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=john+allegro&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

          nothing new here

        • J Giddeon says:

          “For instance, when John M. Allegro wrote a rather bizarre work (The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1973]) to argue that Jesus probably never lived, he was greeted by intense criticism from his peers, even though he admitted that his views were only speculation on his part. Norman Anderson reports that, in England, Allegro’s thesis was dismissed by fifteen experts in Semitic languages and related fields who lodged their protest in a letter that was published in the May 26, 1970 issue of The Times (apparently referring to the American edition). They judged that Allegro’s views were “not based on any philological or other evidence that they can regard as scholarly.” The book was also “met with scathing criticism in review after review.” See Anderson’s Jesus Christ: The Witness of History (Leicester: InterVarsity, 1985), p. 15, fn. 2. John A.T. Robinson concurs, mentioning Allegro’s volume in a section of his book entitled “The Cynicism of the Foolish.” Robinson asserts that if such reasoning was found in other disciplines, it “would be laughed out of court.” See Robinson’s Can We Trust the New Testament? p. 15″

          (here)

          Allegro is the sky dragon slayer of the “Christ-myth” world.

          “he (Allegro) admitted that his views were only speculation on his part.” Mere speculation to the author…obvious fact to the gullible reader. Dear oh dear

          BTW the above experts wrote to the Times because the book had been serialised in its pages. Strangely JB claimed the book had been banned. Dear oh dear :)

        • john byatt says:

          it was banned in australia,

          the debate is no longer about whether drugs were used in ancient religions but rather which were the drugs

          Clark Heinrich (born 1945) is an American author living in the coastal mountains of California, specializing in comparative religion and ethno-botany since 1974. He has reportedly studied with masters of yoga and Western mysticism.
          He is known for his views on consuming the mushroom fly agaric or Amanita muscaria as a hallucinogenic to achieve religious ecstasy. His book Magic Mushrooms in Religion and Alchemy, which is an improved second edition of his earlier Strange Fruit, explores the role that Amanita muscaria may have played in various mythologies, belief systems and religious art throughout history, such as Native American Anishinaabeg mythology, the Rig Veda, the Puranas, the biblical Old Testament and New Testament, Gnosticism, the Holy Grail legend, Alchemy and Renaissance painting.[1]
          The book The Apples of Apollo: Pagan and Christian Mysteries of the Eucharist deals with possible occurrences of entheogens in general, and Amanita muscaria in particular, in Greek and biblical mythology and later on in Renaissance painting, most notably in the Isenheim Altarpiece by Matthias Grünewald.

          here we have a complete strawman

          “What I see is someone who came across a book (Allegro) that said what he wanted to hear. JB accepted it without further thought or investigation”

          my readings on comparative religion started many years previous and revealed that there was nothing unique about christianity, just a rehashed god from previous religions, many of these ancient religions were fertility and drug cults but i never even suspected that christianity was also of the same ilk,

          i knew that jesus was a mythical being decades before reading allegro

        • john byatt says:

          loved his reference

          “John A.T. Robinson concurs, mentioning Allegro’s volume in a section of his book entitled “The Cynicism of the Foolish.” Robinson asserts that if such reasoning was found in other disciplines, it “would be laughed out of court.” See Robinson’s Can We Trust the New Testament? p. 15″

          John Robinson (bishop of Woolwich) – Wikipedia, the free …
          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Robinson_(bishop_of_Woolwich)‎
          John Arthur Thomas Robinson (16 May 1919 – 5 December 1983) was an English New Testament scholar, author and the Anglican Bishop of Woolwich.
          ‎Early life, ministry and …

          new testament scholar = christian apologist

          did not see that coming did you?

        • john byatt says:

          I purchased a copy allegro’s book in the early eighties when it was still banned in australia from this bookshop in sydney,

          http://adyar.com.au/index.php/catalogsearch/result/?q=sacred+mushroom+and+the+cross

          under the counter job in a plain brown paper bag, “it is banned so i cannot display it”

        • J Giddeon says:

          Banned?

          Your Serendipity link says “This list includes eight books which are banned in Australia”. The eight banned books are specifically marked. Your Allegro tripe isn’t one of them. Dear oh dear.

          ‘under the counter job in a plain brown paper bag, “it is banned so i cannot display it” ” The shop-keeper is probably still laughing at the suckers who bought a piece of rubbish just because they thought it was banned.

          Your credulity knows no bounds.

        • john byatt says:

          gee your not doing to well here are you?. i have put up heaps of evidence and so far you have one evangelical and a bishop .

          so any evidence for this magic man?

          normal position from you lot, all religions in the middle east etc may have been drug cultures but not goody goody christianity, and you talk about being duped, ironic

        • J Giddeon says:

          So your ‘evidence’ it was banned has crumbled to one hysterical assertion by someone who thinks that when a book goes out of print its a conspiracy to suppress it. Dear oh dear JB. It just gets more and more embarrassing for you. I thought you’d hit rock bottom when you linked to the Serendipity site because you thought it supported your silly claims only to find it did the opposite. But after hitting rock bottom, you find a way to sink even further.

          Face it old boy, when you bought the book in the brown paper bag, you were being made a fool. But you must be used to that.

        • john byatt says:

          You still do not get it the serendipity site was to show you that many books about drugs are still banned in australia. the store where i bought it was the only bookshop in australia which had it you fool, why because at the time it was banned but a friend at james cook uni knew were i could get a copy when i was next in sydney, you are just displaying your own ignorance about a book which you have only just found out exists,

        • J Giddeon says:

          Attaboy, JB. Never admit an error. Stick to your guns no matter how foolish you look.

          There isn’t the slightest evidence that this silly book was banned anywhere including Aust. When I first mentioned this you would have, like me, done a Google search to find evidence of it. And like me you would have found that there is scant mention of Allegro being banned.And like me you would have stumbled upon the Serendipity site which had the book in question in a list that included banned books. But unlike me you didn’t bother to read it carefully in your haste to post your ‘vindication’.

          Think about it. Its not mentioned in any listing of banned books.
          It was so not-banned in the UK and the USA that it was syndicated in their press.
          Its held in the Mitchell Library as a first edition (1970) (see below)

          Your gullibility led you down the garden path. But we’ll all pretend to not notice, ok?

        • john byatt says:

          this copy has been updated each year

          http://ahcult.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-sacred-mushroom-and-the-cross-john-allegro.pdf

          enjoy giddeon

          Reply
          john byatt says:
          January 26, 2014 at 6:19 am
          “To the reader, enjoy a once banned book”.

          no it wasn’t banned says the guy who only ever heard about it a day or so ago

          the reality and the giddeon

        • J Giddeon says:

          I first started reading about the changes in the thinking about Jesus following the Dead Sea Scrolls when I read a book called “The secret life of Jesus”
          by Robert Macklin back in the early 1990’s. This book was a speculative look at what Jesus might have been like given the new data about Essenes. Among lots of other data it covered the Allegro controversy which led me to source that book from Mitchell Lib. I didn’t read it in full but got enough to know why it had been heavily panned. It also led onto other reading including Thiering and Meurois-Givaudan.

          In Macklin’s book, he mentions the Talmudic tradition of Mary being impregnated by a Roman soldier called Pantera (panther). He speculates that this is the correct story of the virginal birth – a girl who strays and then finds a divine excuse. He then speculates that, since the only panthers known in the Roman world were black then this Pantera must have been a Negro. He then speculates that Jesus would have therefore looked quite different to the average Jew and this is why he was successful and also a bit of an outsider.

          Speculation built on speculation leading to a fun conclusion that even the author doesn’t believe.

          And this is what Allegro does. Even he calls his book speculative. But in the hands of types like JB speculation becomes fact.

          If JB had read Macklin’s book he’d be telling us how it is a FACT that Jesus was black and anyone who doesn’t buy that is just a christian apologist and therefore wrong wrong wrong. You can probably, at a stretch, call it research, but I wouldn’t.

        • john byatt says:

          Macklin is not a specialist why the hell would i read that, might as well read crap like the da vinci code,

          too funny claiming that i would read von dickhead and it is you reading the nonsense

        • john byatt says:

          no wonder you believe anything that watts tells you,

          you have had practise believing anything the church tells you

          Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew and Aramaic) is the name of an individual or individuals mentioned in Rabbinic literature.[1] The oldest works in which references to Yeshu occur are the Tosefta and the Talmud, although some scholars consider the references to Yeshu to be post-Talmudic additions.

          [2]
          During the Middle Ages, Ashkenazic Jewish authorities were forced[by whom?] to interpret these passages in relation to the Christian beliefs about Jesus of Nazareth. As historian David Berger observed,

          Whatever one thinks of the number of Jesuses in antiquity, no one can question the multiplicity of Jesuses in Medieval Jewish polemic. Many Jews with no interest at all in history were forced to confront a historical/biographical question that bedevils historians to this day.[3]

          In 1240 Nicholas Donin, with the support of Pope Gregory IX, referred to Yeshu narratives to support his accusation that the Jewish community had attacked the Virginity of Mary and the divinity of Jesus. In the Disputation of Paris, Yechiel of Paris conceded that one of the Yeshu stories in the Talmud referred to Jesus of Nazareth, but that the other passages referred to other people. In 1372, John of Valladolid, with the support of the Archbishop of Toledo, made a similar accusation against the Jewish community; Moses ha-Kohen de Tordesillas argued that the Yeshu narratives referred to different people and could not have referred to Jesus of Nazareth.[4] Asher ben Jehiel also asserted that the Yeshu of the Talmud is unrelated to the Christian Jesus.[5]
          There are some modern scholars who understand these passages to be references to Christianity and the Christian figure of Jesus,[6] and others who see references to Jesus only in later rabbinic literature.[7][8] Johann Maier argued that neither the Mishnah nor the two Talmuds refer to Jesus

          as evidence of a historic jesus it would be thrown out of court,

          oh and barbara, i have spoken to her,

  11. J Giddeon says:

    Judith Curry, speaking before a US Senate committee about AGW, sums it all up in one sentence….

    “a theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain.

  12. john byatt says:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1971.73.6.02a00620/abstract

    the fertility cult of the catholic church is not in dispute, think anti gay, anti condom, anti abortion, every sperm is sacred.

    That christianity is linked to ancient drug cults is also not in dispute, just what type of drug is the question

    I see that Pyne wants Judeo-christian values taught in schools,

    what no more catholic kids chanting “the jews killed jesus” going home on the school bus

    the creationists who claim that AGW is a hoax have themselves fallen for the biggest hoax in history, no jesus no paul, no god, and that is a fact

  13. john byatt says:

    Monthly GISS @ RC

    data is NASA GISS monthly global temperature anomalies. If you do a least squares regression with this data 1980 to Date1, you will get an “end point” at Date1 on a line of slope X. These end points are traced out in black & the slope in red. If adding more recent data causes the regression slope to increase, it will be due to the temperature rise accelerating during the period of that more recent data. Such acceleration is evident up to July 2007. – See more at:

    http://tinyurl.com/lkfu7my

  14. john byatt says:

    J Giddeon says:
    January 11, 2014 at 1:43 am
    More signs that the great scare is unravelling:

    * Unbelievably I saw some on ABC Breakfast TV talking about turney’s Ship of Fools AND pointing out that, despite Gore’s claims, the Arctic sea ice extent in Dec 2008 was the same as Dec 2013. The poor presenters didn’t know how to respond to such unexpected heresy and I wondered for a moment if the very foundations of our national broadcaster would crumble. But alas things went on as normal although I’m sure there were multitudes of ABC lovies who heard a contrary climate view for the first times in their lives.

    * Trenberth is now admitting that the 1976-1998 warming was “enhanced” by the “the positive phase of the PDO”. He also says that the the negative phase of the PDO explains the post 1998 surface cooling, which of coarse, according to this blog doesn’t exist. Wow, how’d have thunk it, natural forces play a part in the climate!. Who knows, one day we might even find out the sun plays a role as well. I just don’t know how we’ll ever reconcile this with our settled knowledge that its all caused by changing the make-up of the atmosphere by .01%

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

    What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this thread is now dumber for having read it.

  15. john byatt says:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140109003752.htm

    Jan. 9, 2014 — Ocean dead zones — regions with levels of oxygen too low to sustain marine life — have grown to become a common feature of coastal regions around the world. A new study published in the January 8 issue of PLOS One by Christopher Gobler, Professor in the School of Marine & Atmospheric Sciences at Stony Brook University and colleagues, has found that low pH levels within these regions represent an additional, previously unappreciated, threat to ocean animals.

    • J Giddeon says:

      And of course this is the first time its happened. Well except for the other 200+ times since 1970 when Griffith temps have exceeded 40c.

      I wonder what they blamed in 1972 when they had a three such days in one month followed by two the next month. Or in 1979 when the same thing happened. Perhaps in those days they just called it weather.

      • john byatt says:

        Most Griffith monthly record high temperatures have been in the twenty first century, you ignore the bleeding obvious

        • J Giddeon says:

          Even if that were true, (and its not), it would be entirely beside the point. the issue was days over 40c and the record shows this was a regular event in the past.

  16. john byatt says:

    climate sceptics party bringing this moron to australia

    http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-essex

    “There is no such thing as global temperature. And if there is no global temperature, how can there be global warming?”

    bring popcorn and tomatoes

    • J Giddeon says:

      Yeah a complete dunderhead….
      “Chris Essex
      Christopher Essex is Professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario. In 2003, he was invited to teach on the thermodynamics of photon and neutrino radiation at the UNESCO advanced school in Udine, Italy. He is also known for work on anomalous diffusion, especially on superdiffusion and extraordinary differential equations. In connection with that, he is codiscoverer with K.H. Hoffmann of the superdiffusion entropy production paradox. He has also worked on applications of dynamical systems theory, such as chaos cryptography, and recently the limits of computation, among other applications of mathematics. By invitation, he has been organizing annual sessions for the World Federation of Scientists in Erice, Sicily on different aspects of the limits of climate forecasting. He has cochaired those sessions with Antonino Zichichi of CERN and Nobel Laureate T.D. Lee. He held an NSERC postdoctoral fellowship in the Canadian Climate Centre’s general circulation modelling group (1982-84). He also held an Alexander von Humboldt Research Fellowship in Frankfurt, Germany (1986-87). In 2002-03 he was a sabbaticant at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark, supported by a Danish National Bank foreign academic’s program. He is an award-winning teacher and a recipient, with Ross McKitrick, of the $10,000 Donner Prize for 2002, for the book Taken by Storm: the Troubled Science, Policy, and Politics of Global Warming-now in its second edition. That book was also a finalist for the 2002 Canadian Science Writers’ Book Award. In November 2007 he was a panelist and featured speaker at the Chicago Humanities Festival on the theme of climate angst. He is also coauthor with Robert Adams of Calculus: A Complete Course, 7th edition. In December 2007 he was a guest of the Vatican. In 2007 he was commissioned by the Queen to serve on the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.”

  17. john byatt says:

    most of these predictions of effects of human enhanced global warming were made prior to 1900,,

    That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
    That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
    That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
    That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

    Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
    That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
    The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
    They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

    They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
    The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
    The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
    The expansion of the Hadley cells.

    The poleward movement of storm tracks.
    The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
    The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
    The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
    That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

    Seventeen correct predictions?

    how many have the sceptics made? ONE it would cool….. WRONG

  18. john byatt says:

    (2007) extreme precipitation events predicted for west of Brisbane

    http://www.hpsc.csiro.au/users/abb029/TCs_extreme_rainfall_reports/GCCC_Phase2_final.pdf

    three years later The inland Tsunami

  19. john byatt says:

    Bushfire Abbott

    Perth Hills residents wait nervously to inspect razed homes
    Devastated Perth Hills residents are anxiously waiting to inspect their homes after at least 46 properties were razed by a bushfire that swept through the area.

    Four people are unaccounted for and with only 70 per cent of the fire zone assessed, authorities say more homes could have been lost.

    The blaze, which has now been contained, flared at Parkerville yesterday morning and quickly spread to surrounding areas, including Stoneville and Mount Helena.

    Anxious residents, meanwhile, have been critical about the amount of information flowing down from emergency services.

    “I don’t think people have got the information they’re after; we’re all on a bit of a wild goose chase and now everyone’s just waiting for that phone call,” said Stoneville resident Russel Goldsmith.

  20. john byatt says:

    Lindzen’s 1989 Global temperature prediction

    “we only find out that they’ve been misinterpreted AFTER the prediction is falsified”

    cannot remember anyone in 2007 saying dams would never fill again and quoting Flannery

    and cannot remember anyone in 2006 saying that the Arctic would be melted by 2013 and quoting Gore, read that there was a possibility based on one paper bust most papers and IPCC expected the melt to occur towards the end of the twenty first century,

  21. john byatt says:

    Roy obviously did not understand what the ten years referred to,

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/al-gores-10-year-warning-only-2-years-left-still-no-warming/#comments

    read the comments

    • J Giddeon says:

      You know there’s an awful lot of this going on. Poor scientists making predictions about future climate and being totally misunderstood. For reasons that elude me, we only find out that they’ve been misinterpreted AFTER the prediction is falsified. You’d think that these people would make strenuous efforts to immediately set the record straight but I guess they’re way to busy an important for that.

      Poor Flannery never meant that dams wouldn’t fill. Gore never meant that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. Trenberth has been saying (quietly) for decades that nature systems can overwhelm CO2.

      But somehow, the information that they’ve been misunderstood remains unavailable for the longest time and only surfaces when they’ve been shown to be wrong. Well, they weren’t wrong, they were just misunderstood. I blame Big Oil.

      • john byatt says:

        “Poor Flannery never meant that dams wouldn’t fill. Gore never meant that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. Trenberth has been saying (quietly) for decades that nature systems can overwhelm CO2.”

        quotes too hard ?

        you are like a creationist with this hoax drug cult religion accepting anything the priests tell him,

        so come on, quotes and your own explanations not bolt and roy’s distortion

        • john byatt says:

          and old Roy’s drug cult priests have been claiming that god will return just about every year for the past 2000. some people still believe that crap.
          waiting waiting

        • J Giddeon says:

          Yes I agree..the priesthood of both religions are hopeless at predicting the future.

        • J Giddeon says:

          “quotes too hard ?”

          We did an entire thread on Flannery’s failed prediction so refresh your memory from there..
          I linked to Gore’s speech above to help Nick, who was determined to NOT find it.
          I was being satirical about Trenberth.

        • john byatt says:

          still no quotes, and don’t tell me tell Roy about his mushroom cult failed predictions

      • Nick says:

        Giddeon’s extraordinary non-stop dancing effort continues!

        Dimwit, you were pinged the first times you tried out your stupidities here…you just will never acknowledge it. Never. That’s OK. I know the score. You’re a pathetic serial liar and dull provocateur.

        It must be complete exhaustion on your part: you can barely stand up. But, hey, they’re playing your song again, you must stagger to your feet even if you cannot think straight…

        Put him out of his misery.

        • J Giddeon says:

          Wow, Nick’s really gone over the edge. And to think that when I first came here, I pegged him as the most cerebral of the group. First impressions aren’t always right I guess.

        • Nick says:

          Infantile. I’m OTE because you are serially incorrect and obnoxiously incorrigible? Your choice of ‘material’ and the conclusions you think flow from it proves you are a fantasist, well over the edge of reality.

          The options :You did not read the Gore speech, or did read it but have a crippling comprehension problem. Or your egoism keeps your gums flapping, facts be damned. If your ego is driving you to do that, you need therapy.

          It’s not exactly difficult to see the divergence between Solomon’s ‘interpretation’ and the source material.

        • J Giddeon says:

          Yes Yes Nick, I get it. You’ve decided that poor Al didn’t really think the arctic would be ice free by 2013, he was just passing on info that others thought that. Don’t shoot the messenger and all that.

          Funny that he didn’t say at the time that he didn’t accept these predictions. Funnier still that when so many others started saying that he’d made that prediction, he didn’t set them right. Only when the prediction is shown to be definitively wrong do the foot-soldiers decide that he was badly misinterpreted.

          /sarc off.

          The fact is that these high priests of the faith are more than happy to put these predictions out there in line with Schneider’s exhortation to scary scenarios. They serve the purpose of getting the plebs suitably concerned so that desired changes are more amenable. This was especially so in 2007 at the height of the hysteria. Gore wasn’t about to say anything even close to a reasoned assessment. The whole point was to build the hysteria, and it worked – for a while. Now its rebounding and the retreat is on. But the people remember those who cried wolf and aren’t about to be fooled again.

        • Nick says:

          Yes, yes, I get it..

          No, you still do not want to have a clue, dancing fool.

          Solomon: Gore / said / will

          Gids goes ditto, look at the transcript! Gore said! It will! By now!

          transcript: Group x and group y / project / could…one group that Gore relayed projected a later figure, Solomon ignored that..but by Solomon’s magnificent parsing, surely Gore ‘said’ that ,too! LOL

          I didn’t ‘decide’ any of that, the f**king facts speak for themselves, nitwit! Clearly Gore thought that, if credible projections were made, then the Arctic Ocean could be ice free by the dates he relayed.

          Could. Will. Could . Will. Could. Will…hey, different words, different meanings! Wow! Are you going to play Humpty Dumpty or are you going to be a grown-up?

          Now a Giddy ‘look, a squirrel': why didn’t Gore reject the projections at the time of reporting them ? Because Gore was reporting the specialists estimates. He, like Flannery, relays the science from the source. He’s not a sea ice specialist,and never pretended to be. You’ve discovered that Gore is an activist? Such a well-kept secret! He has never pretended to be other than an advocate for action on the weight of evidence and credible projection. He advised his audience of these authoritative estimates. The term of one has not run yet. The other [earliest bound] was an over-estimate, though its context has not been reported by you or Solomon.

          Why do you find this so difficult to understand? Because your dancing fool act depends on your playing the idiot. Simple grabs for simpletons. You’ve dumbed yourself down to rock bottom in quoting Solomon.

          “Now it’s rebounding and the retreat is on” Unintentionally amusing usage there, Gids.

          Somewhere up the page you sagely counselled against using too little data to determine a trend. Here, you are sure that the Arctic sea ice decline trend has reached an inflection / is rebounding, based on one season. Even though Arctic sea ice is at the 4th lowest December extent in the 36 year satellite record.
          And the declining trend is ahead of most projections made over the last twenty years.

  22. Andrew Strang says:

    Possibly for the general benefit of J Giddeon and to punctuate the thread, an interesting new infographic appears here –

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/

  23. Gregory T says:

    Who would of thought that people would die from an anomaly ?

  24. john byatt says:

    definition of heatwave takes into account local conditions etc

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-11/wa-closes-parks-ahead-of-heatwave/5195514

  25. J Giddeon says:

    More signs that the great scare is unravelling:

    * Unbelievably I saw some on ABC Breakfast TV talking about turney’s Ship of Fools AND pointing out that, despite Gore’s claims, the Arctic sea ice extent in Dec 2008 was the same as Dec 2013. The poor presenters didn’t know how to respond to such unexpected heresy and I wondered for a moment if the very foundations of our national broadcaster would crumble. But alas things went on as normal although I’m sure there were multitudes of ABC lovies who heard a contrary climate view for the first times in their lives.

    * Trenberth is now admitting that the 1976-1998 warming was “enhanced” by the “the positive phase of the PDO”. He also says that the the negative phase of the PDO explains the post 1998 surface cooling, which of coarse, according to this blog doesn’t exist. Wow, how’d have thunk it, natural forces play a part in the climate!. Who knows, one day we might even find out the sun plays a role as well. I just don’t know how we’ll ever reconcile this with our settled knowledge that its all caused by changing the make-up of the atmosphere by .01%

    • john byatt says:

      shit and here it appears that sea ice extent is equal lowest 9/1/14

      http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    • BBD says:

      Dear Gideon

      * Trenberth is now admitting that the 1976-1998 warming was “enhanced” by the “the positive phase of the PDO”. He also says that the the negative phase of the PDO explains the post 1998 surface cooling, which of coarse, according to this blog doesn’t exist. Wow, how’d have thunk it, natural forces play a part in the climate!. Who knows, one day we might even find out the sun plays a role as well. I just don’t know how we’ll ever reconcile this with our settled knowledge that its all caused by changing the make-up of the atmosphere by .01%

      Please explain how a natural, quasi-cyclic variability can create a centennial trend. Bear in mind that oscillatory systems average out to zero over time. This really is very important.

      Thanks!

      BTW, the argument about surface cooling isn’t really worth having. It is to take a statistically insignificant trend from a very short time-series characterised by two strong La Nina toward the end, and it is to ignore the ongoing increase in ocean heat content which is a clear indicator that energy continues to accumulate in the climate system. This could only happen if it were in radiative imbalance. Note that this energetic accumulation continued, unabated, despite the recent, unusually profound solar minimum.

      • BBD says:

        My apologies – that should be “Dear J Giddeon”, of course.

      • BBD says:

        Gosh, that killed the thread off. Sorry. Was it something I said?

      • J Giddeon says:

        “explain how a natural, quasi-cyclic variability can create a centennial trend.”

        Well I wouldn’t have thought they could. I’m not entirely sure why you’d think they would. Bear in mind that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system with many roughly cyclic systems operating on many different time scales. One such variable isn’t, of itself, going to have sufficient influence to create any particular trend, centennial or otherwise. It may be possible to argue that a particular variable has greater influence at this or that point in time, but even that is usually going to be a stretch. I guess this type of thinking (that one variable can create a trend) comes more easily for those who think that tweeking the make-up of the atmosphere by a fraction of a percent can cause massive changes, But you might have noticed that I don’t buy that.

        “BTW, the argument about surface cooling isn’t really worth having.”

        And yet many climate scientists are looking at it. There are two good reasons why this ought to be investigated. firstly the assertion that the ‘missing’ heat is going into the deep oceans is based on the flimsiest of data may very well be wrong or exaggerated.
        Secondly, the entire scare is based on the projections of models which project surface temps. We have been assailed for 3 decades now with assertions that temps at the surface will rise by x degrees and this is the justification for economic upheavals. We need to know why the models are being falsified by the real world so that the models can be fixed and then the danger re-evaluated.

        • BBD says:

          J Giddeon

          Well I wouldn’t have thought they could. I’m not entirely sure why you’d think they would.

          You said it. *You* were talking about the PDO. If you don’t believe the PDO is relevant to centennial-scale climate projections, why raise it in the first place?

          But you might have noticed that I don’t buy that.

          Perhaps you should cease argument from ignorance and acquaint yourself with the basic physics. Ray Pierrhumbert wrote an excellent and comprehensive primer. I recommend it wholeheartedly. Please try to remember that your opinion is scientifically weightless and arguments from ignorance and from incredulity are logical fallacies. TL-DR: you didn’t say anything.

          firstly the assertion that the ‘missing’ heat is going into the deep oceans is based on the flimsiest of data may very well be wrong or exaggerated.

          This is incorrect. There are >3000 ARGO floats sampling OHC 0 – 2000m in all major ocean basins. The data are unequivocal. You are arguing from assertion and you are wrong.

          Secondly, the entire scare is based on the projections of models which project surface temps.

          Again, argument from assertion and again you are wrong. The best evidence for climate sensitivity to CO2 is from paleoclimate behaviour. How, for example, do you explain the early Cenozoic hyperthermals without invoking an efficacious GHG forcing? For a comprehensive review of sensitivity estimates derived from Cenozoic climate behaviour, see the landmark study arising from the PALAEOSENS Project: Rohling et al. (2012).

          * * *

          If you respond, can you try and refrain from arguments from incredulity, ignorance and by assertion? Also reference any claims you make. Thanks.

        • BBD says:

          We need to know why the models are being falsified by the real world

          This claim is incorrect. Please show by reference to the published literature – not crap on denier blogs – where “the models” have been falsified.

          Are you sure you understand what this term means?

        • BBD says:

          I guess this type of thinking (that one variable can create a trend) comes more easily for those who think that tweeking the make-up of the atmosphere by a fraction of a percent can cause massive changes, But you might have noticed that I don’t buy that.

          Having established that oscillations cannot force a centennial trend, how do we explain the centennial trend?

          Global average surface temperature (GISTEMP); linear fit 1900 – present

          How do we account for that?

        • BBD says:

          Let’s check.

          Well, it’s not the PDO:

          GISTEMP and PDO, decadal means

          And it’s not the sun:

          GAT vs TSI (cubic fit)

          So what does that leave?

        • BBD says:

          It leave GHG forcing:

          GAT vs GISS forcings: solar; WM- GHGs; total net forcing

          GAT (surface) annual means are shown at the top (green). The three lower curves are coherently-scaled forcings. Well-mixed GHGs (blue) and solar (yellow; bottom) bracket the total net forcing (red).

          It leaves the laws of physics, as expressed through radiative transfer (see Pierrehumbert, above).

          * * *

          Remember, if you respond, no arguments from assertion, ignorance or incredulity. And I want to see references for any substantive claims you make only to the published literature not rubbish on denier blogs.

        • J Giddeon says:

          Well BBD, let’s start with your utter comprehension fails….

          Despite your assertions I didn’t raise PDO as “relevant to centennial-scale climate projections” I merely mentioned it in regards to Trenberth’s finding that it was the cause for the recent hiatus. It was you who then decided to extrapolate it to absurd lengths which I didn’t and don’t go along with. Now you’ve utterly turned it around. Perhaps you need to read the thread again.

          I never said ” “the models” have been falsified.”. I said they were being falsified. Let me know if you need me to explain the difference :) .

          I’ve pointed to this before but clearly it doesn’t fit with what you want to be true and is therefore summarily discarded. I can but try again.

          Von Storch…
          “At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase……If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations…..There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.”

          You write “This is incorrect. There are >3000 ARGO floats sampling OHC 0 – 2000m in all major ocean basins. The data are unequivocal. You are arguing from assertion and you are wrong.”

          I’m not arguing from assertion, (although you certainly have the slogans down pat). I’m simply stating things that you ought to know but clearly have chosen not to know. Argo has been operating only since 2003 and not fully until 2007. In
          that time many problems have been found. Its touching that you have so much faith in these data, but it really is quite too early to be betting the house on its accuracy. Still its currently telling the story that you want to hear so you’ll believe it without question. Well the adjusted data is telling the right story…the raw data isn’t quite so accommodating. As Trenberth says (and he’s a really consensus guy so you are required to believe him upon pain of excommunication) “Trenberth questions whether the Argo measurements are mature enough to tell as definite a story as Hansen lays out. He has seen many discrepancies among analyses of the data, and there are still “issues of missing and erroneous data and calibration,” he said. The Argo floats are valuable, he added, but “they’re not there yet.”

          Valid Argo data only goes back to 2007….2003 if you want to be completely credulous. Why is it that you see such a short time frame as being more than sufficient to prove your point, but the much longer hiatus timeframe is, in your view, too short to draw conclusions. Six year trend that tells the right story is gold. 17 yr trend that tells the wrong story – nothing to see here folks. Can you spell hypocricy :) .

    • Nick says:

      Is the super dope Giddeon still posting?
      Passing on another attempted gotcha framing as in ‘Trenberth admits’ a PDO factor, an influence from natural variability ?…

      FYI, Gids, Trenberth has spent at least two decades exploring the interplay between natural modes and variability, and anthropogenic influence. It’s not as though his publication record is hidden away.

      Gloating about your ignorance yet again?

  26. john byatt says:

    This combination euphemism and pun is about the closest to a monty python sketch as you could write.

    the shekel in the fishes mouth story, the compilers of the new testament would have included it purely because it contains a miracle

    apart from how unlikely the story is “hey pay your temple tax”

    http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BS/k/1586/Miracles-Jesus-Christ-Coin-in-Fishs-Mouth.htm

    the story is repeated weekly in sermons throughout christianity

    those who understood the story meaning would have been ROFLMAO

    so what is it all about

    the fishes mouth was an euphemism for the female vulva at the time and the pun on shekel is referring to the male organ

    the writer had jesus telling the romans “to get fucked” those in attendance would have been trying to stop from laughing, but it did not happen anyway and is just part of the myth

    If the creationists and fundamentalist wish to disseminate crap that AGW is a hoax then their own religion is the biggest and longest lasting hoax of all

    • john byatt says:

      This is the sort of crap that the new testament writers believed in sacred number FFS

      The Literary Canon: 153 Fishes in the Net

      1. Seven disciples are on the shore of Tiberias. Simon Peter enters a boat to go fishing; the others foIlow. The number of Simon Petros, Simon Peter, is 1925.

      ‘Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three’ (John 21: 11).

      A circle is therefore drawn with circumference 1925 represent Peter, and six more circles are placed so that the circumference of each passes through the center of the first circle and also through the centres of the two on either side. A larger circle contains them all. In this most economical fashion the seven disciples are packed into 11 the circular boat, like the coracle of the Celtic saints, which, since the circumference of the lesser circles is 1925, will be found to have a diameter of 1224.

      Why there should have been exactly 153 fishes in the net is a question which has puzzled commentators from the earliest time. Obviously the number had an esoteric significance, and by reference to the sacred canon of number and geometry this may be discovered. The parables and many of the episodes in the New Testament form the literary expressions of geometrical processes. This is particularly clear in the case of the 153 fishes. The key is the number 1224, which is the value by gematria of both to dikton, the net, and icthys, fishes.”. 1224 is equal to 8 times 153, and 153 is the sum of the numbers 1-17.

      as i said the whole thing is a hoax based on the ignorant beliefs in magic number as we see with 666

      thus concludes the lesson for today ,

    • J Giddeon says:

      All very interesting but it does rather miss the point.

      It’d be like criticising 1984 because it doesn’t accurately describe musophobia.

  27. john byatt says:

    well done the whitehouse

  28. john byatt says:

    Read a banned copy in the eighties, anyone interested in the origins of christianity can purchase a copy about $24

    http://www.johnallegro.org/

    see sacred mushroom and the cross

  29. john byatt says:

    Here is another one of the worlds most misunderstood puns

    Corinthians

    “we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles”

    both the word stumbling block and folly are puns on the magic mushroom aminita muscaria

    so the “christ crucified” is confirmed as the sacred mushroom

    john allegro dead sea scrolls… the magic mushroom and the cross

    again rushdies ” the satanic verses'” references that

    the satanic verses is not as believed anti islam it is anti christianity and as funny as fuck

    • john byatt says:

      they have tried to bury that by changing the text, see KJ version

      • john byatt says:

        The Satanic verses reference

        “Saladin and Eugene Dumsday, Creationist and anti drugs campaigner are walking through the markets when they are approached by a drug pusher,

        “Hey, mistamerica. yes, unclesam, you want opium, best quality, top price?. Okay you want cocaine?.
        Saladin began, helplessly, to giggle. The incident struck him as Darwin’s revenge.
        If Dumsday held poor, Victorian, starchy Charles responsible for american drug culture, how delicious that he himself should be seen, across the globe, as representing the very ethic he battled so fervently against”

        got to love Salman

    • J Giddeon says:

      So JB believes Allegro’s drivel. Big surprise there.

      No word yet whether he’s also thinks Da Vinci ran a secret society of bloodline defenders or that Von Daniken’s aliens built the pyramids.

      the 70’s we a great time for these sort of fantasies.

      As Chesterton (sort of) said ‘When a Man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.”

  30. john byatt says:

    J Giddeon says:
    January 9, 2014 at 6:52 am
    I can’t in all good conscious take money from the less fortunate…

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

    john byatt says:
    January 9, 2014 at 6:59 am
    well google galileo, how about fifty dollars?, i believe you are working now

    see now giddeon has been going on and on how nobody here except himself can understand the written word

    but he reads into things that which he believes it should be saying

    his wiki reference is a perfect example , he believes that the word is petard so puts up a link where it is clearly petar, yet still reads it as petard

    here it is in his link and it was in bold as well

    There’s letters seal’d: and my two schoolfellows,
    Whom I will trust as I will adders fang’d,
    They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way
    And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
    For ’tis the sport to have the enginer
    Hoist with his own petar'; and ‘t shall go hard
    But I will delve one yard below their mines
    And blow them at the moon: O, ’tis most sweet,
    When in one line two crafts directly meet.

    the word used by shakespeare “petar” is a pun on the french pet (fart) and petard (detonator)

    so giddeon as shown for all to see it is you who does not comprehend the written word

    • J Giddeon says:

      You really have no pride, do you? The wikipedia article is clearly headed “Petard”. Everyone can see it.

      Sure in 1600 Bill might have spelt it petar but the world has moved on dontcha know.Perhaps it was the fact that elizabeth is still on the throne that threw you.

      Google “hoist on his own petard”. 74000 hits.
      Google “hoist on his own petar” and it asks if you meant petard.

      What a dill.

      • john byatt says:

        it was not spelt petar in 1600 it is a pun on pet and petard both words used then and now

        if you googled ” a white man stole my car ” once it changed it to “did you mean a black man stole my car” that will not change the colour of the bloke who stole your car though

        but thanks for proving my point and proving that even when you are shown to be wrong even by your own link you still cannot accept it and still cling to your original nonsense claim.still trying to defend it,

        so can never admit he is wrong even when it is indisputable

        here read it again and concentrate

        There’s letters seal’d: and my two schoolfellows,
        Whom I will trust as I will adders fang’d,
        They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way
        And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
        For ’tis the sport to have the enginer
        Hoist with his own petar’; and ‘t shall go hard
        But I will delve one yard below their mines
        And blow them at the moon: O, ’tis most sweet,
        When in one line two crafts directly meet.

        • john byatt says:

          “spelt petar in 1600″, what a dickhead, the original version of hamlet with the use of petar was printed by the oxford press in 1914

        • J Giddeon says:

          Oh my. ” the original version of hamlet with the use of petar was printed by the oxford press in 1914″
          Hamlet written in 1914?

          JB, I do you the courtesy of assuming that you are not that moronic and that you prefer to play the fool rather than admit to an error. Just bonkers.

        • john byatt says:

          Hamlet written in 1914?

          no i will type it slowly Oxford press printed a copy of the original version in 1914, it still had the correct term Petar, oxford press got the joke, petar referring to both a fart and a detonator,

          interesting that i have had this debate on numerous occasions over the past 50 years, everyone to date has accepted the original version’s humour and conceded that it was petar. giddeon is the first person who has made stupid claim that petar was the spelling for petard in 1600 or even his insane question ‘ was Hamlet written in 1914,

          either a complete moron or a troll, his job did not seem to last very long

        • J Giddeon says:

          This is all so stupid. It started when I simply pointed out to JB that he was misspelling the word, which is rather a hindrance when he was mocking others . At that time he could have said either said something like “Thanks for the info” or “I prefer the middle english spelling even though it now out of favour” or he could have let it pass.

          But not JB. Nup he never admits a flaw.So despite the fact that Wikipedia spells it petard, every online dictionary I’ve looked at spells it petard, Google assumes you’ve misspelt it when you spell petar, JB ploughs on trying to find a way of proving that he’s right and the rest of the world is wrong. Its pathological and hilarious at the same time. In the journey we find that Google is racist and a publisher who publishes Hamlet in the original format proves…er…something.

          As Mark Twain said ““Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” On that basis I stop trying to help the silly old duffer out.

        • john byatt says:

          some people just do not know their Shalkespeare

          http://www.dailywritingtips.com/hoist-with-his-own-petard/

        • Bernard J. says:

          Face it J Giddeon, John Byatt was using the word in an appropriate context and with subtleties that escaped you, and you tried to call him on an imagined mistake. You’ve cut your own throat, Dibbler, and you’re making an arse of yourself by trying to wriggle out of it.

          It would all be so trivial, except that this is the typical modus operandi that you and your ilk employ when telling professional scientists that they’re wrong – you have the facts shown to you and a long harrumphing and an exercise in squirrel-pointing and straw man erection ensues.

          Have you no dignity?

        • J Giddeon says:

          “Face it J Giddeon, John Byatt was using the word in an appropriate context”

          Yes, and it only took him 24hrs, a few posts and the realisation that he’d misspelt the word to decide that he was ‘deliberately’ using an archaic version.

          Its nice to you protecting the weaker members of the herd, but its probably more efficient to allow them to be culled.

        • Bernard J. says:

          Yes, and it only took him 24hrs, a few posts and the realisation that he’d misspelt the word to decide that he was ‘deliberately’ using an archaic version.

          See, the thing is that I know John is a wide reader of literature and that he knows how to employ archaic language without needing to think about it. But if it makes you feel better thinking that then by all means do so.

          Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind.

  31. john byatt says:

    Roy “Why do I support it? The central reason is I believe that current green energy policies are killing poor people.”

    http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/the-cornwall-declaration-on-environmental-stewardship/

    rather weird reason to sign that, you might sign an anti renewable energy institution’s policy statement but signing this crap for that reason is without any logic at all

    • Nick says:

      How does Roy feel about coal mining deaths in China? Or are Chinese miners rich people?

      How does Roy feel about feeble Chinese air pollution measures and rampant respiratory diseases in China?

      Really, he is contemptibly intellectually dishonest, a disgusting god-bothering concern troll.

    • Bernard J. says:

      The Cornwall Alliance’s declaration on environmental stewardship is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve seen in a long time. Thoroughly unevidenced and based on argument by assertion, it is full of internal contradictions and outright errors of fact.

      There are too many to go into now (one could stop at just about every phrase in the declaration) but apparently the Earth was made by God to be “fruitful”. So why then is the extinction rate three or four orders of magnitude greater than it was before the last ice age (ignoring the fact that the universe apparently wasn’t invented before the last ice age and indeed even before the first half of the Holocene…). Biologically the planet’s ‘fruitfulness’ is bottoming, and this current extinction event may end up being about as bad as it could be short of serious supervulcanism or a large asteroid impact.

      Is this due to God’s “curse” resulting from the sin of humans? If so, then it must be sinful to not act to reverse the loss to the planet’s fruitfulness, must it not? Don’t see much of that happening… Which makes a mockery of the claim that “man” is a moral steward – empirical evidence and God’s curse argue to the contrary state.

      This fundamentalist, Christian creationist brand of religious/magical thinking is intellectual laziness and moral prurience of the worst sort. It’s a blight on the other forms of ‘spiritual’ understanding, and it is a danger to all humans.

      The Cornwall Alliance and its manifestos are some of the strongest arguments for atheism that I know.

      • J Giddeon says:

        Speaking of unevidenced assertions…
        “So why then is the extinction rate three or four orders of magnitude greater than it was before the last ice age “

        • Bernard J. says:

          J Giddeon.

          This is one of those things that is so trivially known (at least, to ecologists) that I assumed that you’d have the nous to corroborate it yourself (yeah, I know, I over-estimated you…).

          Really, it’s not difficult. Just go to the smart-arse search engine, type in “extinction rate, and the very first hit:

          http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/

          says:

          The rapid loss of species we are seeing today is estimated by experts to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate.

          Perhaps you like it scientific? Well, the third link:

          http://theconversation.com/extinction-just-how-bad-is-it-and-why-should-we-care-13751

          points to a review paper that presents the very same figures:

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1521-1878%28200012%2922:12%3C1123::AID-BIES10%3E3.0.CO;2-C/abstract

          There’s lots more of the same if you care to look.

          Or are you an extinction denier too?

        • Bernard J. says:

          Lest J Giddeon thinks that I didn’t care to respond, I’ve removed the https that put me in moderation:

          Bernard J. says:
          Your comment is awaiting moderation.
          January 9, 2014 at 1:58 pm

          J Giddeon.

          This is one of those things that is so trivially known (at least, to ecologists) that I assumed that you’d have the nous to corroborate it yourself (yeah, I know, I over-estimated you…).

          Really, it’s not difficult. Just go to the smart-arse search engine, type in “extinction rate, and the very first hit:

          panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/

          says:

          The rapid loss of species we are seeing today is estimated by experts to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate.

          Perhaps you like it scientific? Well, the third link:

          theconversation.com/extinction-just-how-bad-is-it-and-why-should-we-care-13751

          points to a review paper that presents the very same figures:

          onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1521-1878%28200012%2922:12%3C1123::AID-BIES10%3E3.0.CO;2-C/abstract

          There’s lots more of the same if you care to look.

          Or are you an extinction denier too?

        • J Giddeon says:

          Yes, BJ, I’m well aware that some’experts’ claim a massive extinction rate. But surely you realise this is all just guesses.

          The known extinction rate is unchanged from previous decades and centuries so what these ‘experts’ have to do is propose that there is a massive unknown extinction going on. They have no evidence for this, just suppositions heaped on suppositions. One of the tricks is to assert that, if we loose 50% of a particular habit then we loose 50% of the species. But there is no evidence for that and good evidence that it is at the very least a massive exaggeration.

          If the extinction rate is 1000 or 10000 greater than normal that means that 2000 -20000 species went out the backdoor in say 1999. Name 10 of them :)

          Its all smoke and mirrors. But the usual suspects will fall in line and it’ll be only a matter of time before we hear there’s a consensus on this.

          There are two ways to look at these guesses.

          1. I guess that if we loose habit we loose species at a known rate.
          2. I guess that if my career is to flourish I’ll need to create scare scenarios.

        • Bernard J. says:

          es, BJ, I’m well aware that some’experts’ claim a massive extinction rate. But surely you realise this is all just guesses.

          And thus you show your ignorance of taxonomy, genetics and evolution.

          There is a large body of scientific research/literature focussed on assessing the diversity of species over evolutionary scales. There is a related and extensive field of work that quanifies the rates of species lost and development for various taxa. These fields of endeavour are based on a detailed understanding of the genetic, ecological and evolutionary biologies of species – there is no guessing about it. You make the claim so I presume that you can substantiate it with specific reference and examples: please list these in detail with careful attention to all of the disciplines to which I referred above.

          The known extinction rate is unchanged from previous decades and centuries…

          Support your assertion with references to evidence and analysis please.

          …so what these ‘experts’ have to do is propose that there is a massive unknown extinction going on. They have no evidence for this, just suppositions heaped on suppositions.

          Support your assertion with references to evidence and analysis please.

          One of the tricks is to assert that, if we loose 50% of a particular habit then we loose 50% of the species.

          Heh, you obviously have no clue about island ecology. Your assertion is incorrect, and any student who has completed a decent first year ecology course would tell you why. The relationship between ecosystem area and biodiversity is not linear, and whole lines of research are devoted to this.

          Your job is to go and teach yourself why this claim is incorrect.

          But there is no evidence for that and good evidence that it is at the very least a massive exaggeration.

          Please proved examples and/or literature to support both (or even either…) of your assertions.

          If the extinction rate is 1000 or 10000 greater than normal that means that 2000 -20000 species went out the backdoor in say 1999. Name 10 of them :)

          Either you’re clueless, or deliberately mendacious.

          1) The vast majority of species on the planet are yet to be identified. Many will exist and disappear without humans ever having known of their existence.

          2) The technical definition of extinction relies on the species not having been recorded for a minimum of 50 years. The state of taxonomy in 1949 was extrememly limited compared with the understanding on 1999, and hence it is a specious gambit to demand that extinctions particular to 1999 be tabled.

          3) The profiles of species ammenable to taxonomic identification are different to those at particular risk of exinction. Some identified species are less at risk of extinction than ‘average’, and some are at greater risk. Therefore reference to lost identified species is an invalid metric of the actual extinction rate.

          Its all smoke and mirrors. But the usual suspects will fall in line and it’ll be only a matter of time before we hear there’s a consensus on this.

          There’s no conspiracy in the field of extinction biology. The long-term rates of species evolution are quite well understood (cf. my comment about evolutionary genetics, and refer also to paleotaxonomy) and the Eldredge/Gould school of thought regarding punctuated equilibrium don’t alter the fact that the loss of species at the contemporary rate is far higher than the background rate.

          J Giddeon, you’ve made some bold assertions that evolutionary ecologists, taxonomists and geneticists are fudging the figures, but you don’t refer to any of their work by way of direct rebuttal, nor do you refer to any other credible work (or indeed, any work at all…) that indicates that the rate of extinction has remained essentially unchanged. You’re making a typical denialist claim that is in flagrant opposition to the best professional work, based on nothing more than your own argument from assertion, and you appear to imagine that you somehow hold some sort of credibility by so doing.

          You’re not even wrong.

        • J Giddeon says:

          This is a blog site. I’m not writing papers hoping to pass peer review. I’m writing opinion based on research and general reading over many years, back into the times of the idiotic assertions from Ehrlich and Wilson.
          You are simply wrong to say I don’t get it because I haven’t linked to papers.

          Now let’s start from the macro level. We don’t know how many species there are on earth. Estimates range from 2 to 100 million with 5-10 mill being mostly used. Of these about 1.5mill have been identified. From first principles we cannot therefore know the extinction rate. I’d be the equivalent of earning $100 on investments and then trying to work out the rate of return without knowing the invested amount.
          We do know the numbers of creatures that have gone extinct of those that have been identified and we know that that number is extremely low.

          Of those which have gone extinct the vast majority were on islands as a result of first contact. Vanishingly few continental creatures have gone extinct…

          http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3463

          According to a relatively new paper in Science ” Extinction rates are, however, poorly quantified, ranging from 0.01 to 1% (at most 5%) per decade.” (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6118/413.full.pdf). That’s a range of estimates where the upper limit is 500 times the lower. To then claim that there is any certainty about it is just bonkers. That same paper also talks about “alarmist estimates of extinction rates”.

          We cannot know how many critters there are nor how many are going the way of the Dodo because so many are small and/or inaccessible. On the other hand we can know quite a bit about the larger creatures such as mammals.Since 1500 61 mammals have gone out. Of these 58 were on islands. The island extinctions were a special case as a result of first contact (eg Dodo) and are a declining problem. . The continental rate is within the bounds of the background rate. Similar results occur for birds.

          To get to the numbers where it is claimed that extinctions of 1000 – 20000pa occur,claims that vast numbers of unknown creatures are disappearing need to be asserted. Such claims can neither be verified nor refuted, especially when it is asserted that its inappropriate to even enquire as to the names of a tiny fraction of that hoard.

          Finally I wasn’t claiming a conspiracy on this just as I don’t claim a conspiracy on CAGW. But there is a element of group-think which is only now starting to be challenged.

        • J Giddeon says:

          Claims that we are loosing vast numbers of creatures that we don’t even know exist put me in mind of this poem which I first encountered in AJP Taylors history of the 1930s…

          “Yesterday, upon the stair,
          I met a man who wasn’t there.
          He wasn’t there again today,
          I wish, I wish he’d go away…”

        • john byatt says:

          you are loosing the plot

        • Nick says:

          I’m writing opinion based on research says Gids

          Well, your research is crap, which is why your opinion is worth nothing. As usual.

        • Bernard J. says:

          J Giddeon.

          Your arguments that allude to the uncertain numbers of species identified is a straw man.

          Consider the numbers of species in higher taxa, say the Chordata. The number of species identified in the respective classes in this phylum is well known, as are the speciation rates for these classes. The extinction rates for these are far higher than the speciation rates – what do you think this suggests about the overall rate of extinction compared to baseline?

          Extinction rates will be different for lower taxa, but there are several points to be made here.

          1) the invertebrates (track down ‘The Other 99%’) and plants are also suffering elevated extinction rates.

          2) in terms of significance to humans, the higher taxa are very disproportionately the most important (unless you subscribe to a viable biosphere composed of people, brambles, jellyfish and bacteria…) and usually the ones that are considered when extinction rates are discussed.

          3) the lack of taxonomic identification of all species do not mean that they are not going extinct. It’s all about representative sampling…

          4) A large part of the divergence in estimation of extinction rate calculation has to do with the definition of species, and with the taxa included in the calculations. In terms of the higher taxa the range I quoted is pretty well nailed – if in doubt do some of your much self-vaunted research and read about what’s happening with the Amphibia, for example.

          5) You’ve not yet addressed the biodiversity/area issue – why not? Is there a quivering in your belly that is warning you to avoid it? Don’t be so scared… And when you do address this matter be sure to discuss what will happen with, say, Amazonian biodiversity if the current logging and global warming trajectories are maintained for the rest of the century.

  32. john byatt says:

    first sentence is a strawman . It is not about a belief in a god, it is about Roy’s creationist crap

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/science-and-religion-do-your-own-damn-google-search/#comments

    • john byatt says:

      roy even has to misquote “Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama (signatory to a declaration that “Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting”

      as just a belief in god

      notice others who have been here with the self regulating garbage, roy that is not scientific

      • J Giddeon says:

        I guess you didn’t read (or understand?) the article you linked since Spencer specifically addresses that point. Oh well!

        • john byatt says:

          Roy “Why is it that a bible-believing scientist’s views on science are automatically discounted by some people?”

          well Roy this is what is stated” “Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama (signatory to a declaration that “Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting”

          so giddeon where pray tell in the bible does it state ““Earth and its ecosystems——are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting”

          find that in the bible or look stupid as usual

        • J Giddeon says:

          Yep, as I thought…JB didn’t read or understand the article. RS specifically addressed the point JB whines about…

          “Epstein incorrectly assumes that I support the wording of all of the positions of the Cornwall Alliance, as stated in their Cornwall Declaration. But the Director of the Cornwall Alliance knows I don’t. We’ve discussed it.

          Nevertheless, I still support the work of Cornwall. Seldom does a member of an organization agree with all of that organization’s stated positions.

          Why do I support it? The central reason is I believe that current green energy policies are killing poor people.”

        • john byatt says:

          i dont i just signed it , classic

        • john byatt says:

          even better ” For those who are unaware, Roy Spencer is a vocal climate change “skeptic”, but a particularly influential one as a member of the UAH remote sensing team. He has been making the rounds of late peddling a “climate is self-stabilizing due to large negative feedbacks”

          hoist on his own petar

        • J Giddeon says:

          Yes, Spencer, as a Christian believes in a God that created the world. So…

        • john byatt says:

          so your nonsense is rebutted,

        • J Giddeon says:

          What nonsense and how rebutted? I’ve simply been trying to get you to understand the written word.

        • john byatt says:

          Roy ““Epstein incorrectly assumes that I support the wording of all of the positions of the Cornwall Alliance, as stated in their Cornwall Declaration. But the Director of the Cornwall Alliance knows I don’t. We’ve discussed it.”

          notice that Roy does not specify which positions he does not support, if honest would have said that i do not support that particular para,

          petar- hoist- on

        • Nick says:

          Spencer is a member of the Cornhole Alliance, though he doesn’t agree with everything in their dogma…well, you’d never know that by visiting the CA’s website. No dissent evident there. Perhaps it is forbidden?

          So Spencer is a ‘dissenting’ member, but stays the course because he thinks ‘green policy is killing poor people’…another claim that Roy conspicuously provides no backing for.

          Really, these pseudo-thinking ‘sceptics’ are comedic gold. Gids brains trust is self-marginalising, never mind the CA’s fantasy self-regulating planet..

        • J Giddeon says:

          “notice that Roy does not specify which positions he does not support,”

          What is the matter with you chaps….reading age of 7?

          Here is what RS says in the very article that you rely on to make your silly assertions…

          “In the case of global warming skeptics, I suppose the accusation is part of the assumption that bible-believers feel that “God is in control”, and so everything will turn out OK no matter what we do. Go ahead and pump all the CO2 into the atmosphere you want. The Big Guy will take care of it.

          Except that I don’t put myself in this class.”

          Look I know its very difficult for you chaps to think outside of what you’ve conditioned to believe but it really is possible to think all of the following simultaneously :

          There is a God
          It doesn’t have its hand on the tiller all the time and isn’t ensuring that ma’s fine irrespective of what he does.
          The nature of the earth’s climate system is somewhat self-regulating.

          BTW no one gets hoisted on a petar (whatever that is). Its a petard.

        • john byatt says:

          he is telling a fib

          He has been making the rounds of late peddling a “climate is self-stabilizing due to large negative feedbacks”

          and that is exactly what he claims not to believe in the post.

        • john byatt says:

          petard? you must be joking, how much you want on that ?

        • Nick says:

          Roy doesn’t put himself in that ‘class’ of believers…OK, the Big Guy will take care of everything else, perhaps?…but is still a signatory to the Cornhole Alliance’s magical tosh in toto…OK, it’s nuts but he is… because his belief, in the absence of evidence, that ‘green energy policy killing poor people’ is stronger than his courage to present a dissenting view on CO2 to his alliance fellows….oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

          So Roy claims not to be a literalist god-botherer at all, but has signed on to a manifesto that is literalist. Why? Because he has a fantasy belief about a third issue.

          Look, Gids, Roy is not really thinking this through, is he. I don’t expect you to do so, but an educated man should be able to do so.

          Maybe the CA give great lunches, or give away a snappy pen?

        • J Giddeon says:

          “and that is exactly what he claims not to believe in the post.”

          You are just sooooo blinkered you will never get it.

          He believes the climate is self-regulating. He doesn’t believe its being regulated.

        • john byatt says:

          giddeon “He believes the climate is self-regulating. He doesn’t believe its being regulated”.

          the declaration does not claim that god is regulating it either , they are saying the same as spencer ” that god made it self regulating

          “Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting”

          you are so predictable

        • J Giddeon says:

          “and sustained by His faithful providence”

          Fair dinkum

        • john byatt says:

          BUMP

          john byatt says:
          January 9, 2014 at 5:31 am
          petard? you must be joking, how much you want on that ?

        • john byatt says:

          so now you are claiming that roy, a creationist does not accept his gods divine guidance or care

          please

        • J Giddeon says:

          I can’t in all good conscious take money from the less fortunate…

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

        • john byatt says:

          well google galileo, how about fifty dollars?, i believe you are working now

        • J Giddeon says:

          “so now you are claiming that roy, a creationist does not accept his gods divine guidance or care”

          I’m not claiming anything. I’m just reading what he said and trying to translate into infantile so that you can understand it also.

          He says he doesn’t go along with the view that ” “God is in control”, and so everything will turn out OK no matter what we do.”

          Its really that simple. But that doesn’t suit your deranged view of what believers believe so you spend 20 posts trying to prove that he didn’t say what he said or doesn’t beleive what he said or does beleive what he doesn’t say….or something.

          Tying yourself and simple logic into knots. Jumping through hoops. Gold medal gymnastics. All to try to reconcile what he says he believes with what you’ve come to convince yourself all believers believe. Hint: you’re wrong.

        • john byatt says:

          how dumb are you?

          “God is in control”, and so everything will turn out OK no matter what we do. Go ahead and pump all the CO2 into the atmosphere you want. The Big Guy will take care of it.

          Except that I don’t put myself in this class.”

          that is not a rejection, a rejection would be ” except that i do not accept that”

          not putting himself in that class are weasel words as he has already claimed that the planet is self stabilizing, that is consistent with the CA position

        • J Giddeon says:

          FFS now your evidence that he thinks something that he says he doesn’t think is that he doesn’t use the wording that you consider appropriate.

          Honestly JB, when you are in hole, you should stop digging. Please stop. Its embarrassing for all of us.

        • BBD says:

          It is clear that the Cornwall Alliance’s view of AGW is that it contradicts Scripture.

          Consider this statement carefully (emphasis added):

          We believe that idea—we’ll call it “global warming alarmism”—fails the tests of theology, science, and economics. It rests on poor theology, with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible.

          That is pretty unambiguous from where I’m standing. Spencer is a signatory to the Declaration and the scientific advisor to the CA. So whatever he may now claim, he has explicitly endorsed the CA’s position in many ways, both above and below the line.

        • Bernard J. says:

          We believe that idea—we’ll call it “global warming alarmism”—fails the tests of theology, science, and economics. It rests on poor theology, with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible.

          Eh, Spencer subscribes to an organisation that dismisses empirical, objective, and scientifically-derived understanding on the basis that it “fails the test… of… science”?! That it has a “worldview” that differs from the one taught in a book of mythology and superstition, cobbled together over many centuries from the magical-thinking and fairy stories of many cultures, and heavily dosed with the political ambitions of a cabal of elitist self-servers who invented institutional celibacy in large part to redirect the wealth of its minions to its own coffers rather than to have inheritances pass to decendants?

          Talk about cognitive scotoma.

          And since when did theology become a rational measure for the quality of science? And economics? That discipline where the exam questions are always the same but the questions change over time…

          The only people that the Cornwall Alliance will fool are fools themselves. Unfortunately that includes a significant portion of the human population…

        • BBD says:

          For more fun with the Cornwall Alliance, see here.

          Some quotes from the Cornwall Alliance’s publication Resisting the Green Dragon:

          The Litany of the Green Dragon provides some certainty for people without God, who drift steadily from their rational moorings, and for whom there is an increasing sense of separation anxiety…

          We humans are special creatures, in a class of our own, quite separate from, and superior to, trees and animals…

          The Green Dragon must die…[There] is no excuse to become befuddled by the noxious Green odors and doctrines emanating from the foul beast…

          This slimy jade road…is paved with all kinds of perverted and destructive behaviours, leads to death itself, and finally, to the pains of hell forever…No Hollywood celebrity bunnies draped over its foul form can deny its native evil…

          It is no coincidence the rise of environmentalism as a significant political entity tracks the rising political clout of modern feminism…

          Savage wolves have come to be among the church…No one can serve two masters…

          The first few chapters in the Book of Genesis are an infinite mine to plumb for riches. All the world has no wisdom that is greater…

          So-called “natural” or wilderness areas are not hospitable to man, and God does not consider this a good or natural state…

          The fruits of the Green Dragon are not good, but evil…Humans are urged to surrender as many liberites as judged fit to save the world, which is pretty much all liberty that makes life worth living…

          Christians must resist Green overtures to recast true religion, nor allow themselves to be prey for teachers of pagan heresies…

          Woo!

        • john byatt says:

          are you sure that was not a speech from Bernardi?

        • Bernard J. says:

          So-called “natural” or wilderness areas are not hospitable to man, and God does not consider this a good or natural state…

          What, “natural” and wilderness areas are not a “natural state”?!

          Odin on a stick, do these superstitious morons know what they’re saying? And if they’re not “natural” or “good”, then why did God “create” them this way in the first place? Remember, according to the fairy tales humans only gave in to sin after the ‘Creation’ – before Eve munched on the apple humans were in paradise, which surely included the wilderness and “natural” areas.

          Or did God invent wilderness and a lack of cities and suburbia after he cast from Eden the apple-munching pair? Or was Eden a parkland interspersed with cities and suburbs, surrounded on all sides by the rest of the planet which was “[un]natural” and “wild”? If the latter this again begs that question – why did God create such an unnatural and not “good” planet in the first place?

          Perhaps God’s intention was that all of this horrible biodiversity, all those creatures great and small, be created so that they could be wiped out and paved over with strip malls, apartments and open cut mines. Yeah, that makes sense – not.

          Sorry, but if I was going to subscribe to a sky fairy I’d like mine to be a little less oxymoronically biophobic than this.

    • J Giddeon says:

      “first sentence is a strawman ”

      Whatever that means. The first sentence (I assume you mean the first sentence of the first comment) is a bible quote. Do you know what the Word is?

    • J Giddeon says:

      Again,JB, you’ve demonstrated an inability to understand the written word. This wasn’t Watts claiming a new ice age was coming, it was Watts linking to an article that linked to an article that, among other things, said some scientists think a new LIA is coming.
      But the main point was that the article was yet another example of Europeans starting to think outside the CAGW box, that, whereas in the past anything suggesting that CAGW was wrong was just not discussed, now major papers are giving such views credence. It seems the subtlety of these things is beyond your understanding.

      And yet you are the one who is most prone to call others idiot – the irony of it all.

      • john byatt says:

        shorter giddeon watts is not saying there is an ice age coming he is just putting up some evidence that an ice age is coming.

        oh well

        • J Giddeon says:

          Read the article three or four times, JB. You might, just might, get it.

        • Nick says:

          “Read the article three or four times, JB. You might, just might, get it.”

          Really, Giddeon, what would you know about ‘getting it’? Reading an article never helped you, as your blundering above clearly shows.

        • J Giddeon says:

          Atta boy Nick. Stick to your guns…pretend Gore’s Nobel speech never happened.

        • Nick says:

          Gore’s speech happened alright. Thanks for linking it.

          Of course, it provides you with no support whatsoever for repeating Solomon’s dishonesty..,none_at_all. Oh deary me.

          Covered yourself in glory shit once more,eh?

  33. J Giddeon says:

    One of the beauties of making many and varied prognostications is that you can always try to ignore the ones that turn out wrong and rely on the others to try to pretend you have a modicum of credibility. And one of the beauties of having an army of faithful lackeys is that they will help you in these endeavours.

    Gore has made many and varied predictions about this and that. Those that turn out to be mere alarmism aimed at getting the world to do his bidding are quietly forgotten by his foot-soldiers once the purpose of the alarm is passed.

    In his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize, Gore used a new study by US researchers to claim that the arctic would be ice free by 2013.

    Of coarse, now that that is shown to be plainly bunkum, the true believers have decided it never happened. Whatismore, according to Nick, those who remember that it did happen are lazy liars in the pay of…er…someone. Nick is a good and faithful defender of the one true faith and its priesthood so its only to be expected that he’d lash out at anyone like the well-respected Solomon and anyone who enables his heretical views to be disseminated.

    But we all know where the lazy think lies.

    • Nick says:

      Yes, we do very much where the lazy think lies.

      Lawrence Solomon lied about Gore’s comment on the Arctic. You posted that lie here: Lazy Think 1

      I demonstrated the details of the lie with quotes. I noted the lack of editorial concern for facts at The Fin Post.

      You ignored it. That is Lazy Think 2

      Now you’re tripling down on the Lazy with that third-hand idiot vocabulary around equating science with religion ….as if it meant anything the first time ’round.

      And Solomon, an all-time fool whose mendacious progress is amply documented, is apparently ‘heretical’ for being wrong on purpose.

      Really, Gids, you are obviously not coping with reality.

    • Nick says:

      Here it is for you once more ,Gids:

      Nick says:
      January 5, 2014 at 3:26 am

      Lawrence Solomon:

      Five years ago, Al Gore predicted that by 2013 “the entire North polar ice cap will be gone”

      The reality:

      “Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore said. His office later said he meant nearly ice-free, because ice would be expected to survive in island channels and other locations.

      Solomon is a lazy, lazy liar. No one vets his posts at the Financial Post, no one there gives a shit.

      That’s Gids and his credibility.

      Compare and contrast. See what Solomon claimed, and compare it with what Gore actually claimed.

      Gids. Is Solomon correct? Yes or No?

      ‘The true believers decided it never happened’…in reality, the sane checked and noted that it never happened.

      Yes/no?

      • J Giddeon says:

        As I said Nick, Gore makes all sorts of claims depending on what suits his politics and business interests at the time. And I fully understand that you want to pretend that the more ridiculous of those never happened.

        But go and check his acceptance Nobel prize acceptance speech to see why Solomon is right.

        Here. I’ll do you a favour since you probably can’t find stuff that you hope doesn’t exist….

        http://blog.algore.com/2007/12/nobel_prize_acceptance_speech.html

        • john byatt says:

          so put up relevant para which verifies Solomon’s claim
          “Five years ago, Al Gore predicted that by 2013 “the entire North polar ice cap will be gone”

        • Nick says:

          Gore, from your linked speech:

          Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

          You’re contradicted, Gids, pure and simple.

          Gore notes two studies that make two estimates. That is, two groups—not Gore, he is simply relaying their projections–have estimates, not certainties.

          So when Solomon writes : Al Gore predicted the ice cap will be gone, it’s quite incontrovertibly clear that Solomon has lied. Lazy lying shill, just doing what he always does.

          That’s another dumb,dumb mistake from you, J.Giddeon…but you’ll keep on dancing, dancing fool. LOL

  34. john byatt says:

    J Giddeon says:
    December 31, 2013 at 8:39 am
    When I saw the GISS number my only thought was…”I wonder how long it’ll take for that to be corrected.”

    pretty much sums up how their brains deal with the inconvenience of having their beliefs shattered,

    • J Giddeon says:

      None of the other datasets agreed with GISS as regards November. But we all understand why you’d prefer to rely on the outlier….or since it was GISS should it be outliar.

      • john byatt says:

        any villages missing an idiot? we found him

      • J Giddeon says:

        Can’t live without the invective, heh my boy? Oh well it is well documented that it is the last refuge of those who have nothing more to add.

        BTW if you’re looking for idiots then I think they’re all cooling their heals :) of the coast of Commonwealth Bay.

        • john byatt says:

          J Giddeon says:
          January 1, 2014 at 1:59 am
          None of the other datasets agreed with GISS as regards November. But we all understand why you’d prefer to rely on the outlier….or since it was GISS should it be outliar.

          so are you an idiot or a liar, or both?

          and your comment re antarctica is further proof that you are an idot

        • J Giddeon says:

          These are prelim numbers from NOAA. You should know better than to use them as they almost invariably get adjusted down. Or don’t you care so long as they support your prejudices?

          “you are an idot”

          Is that like an i-pod?

        • Nick says:

          Oh, Gids is here in the new year with his double-down stupidity. Of course he has bought into the fake laughter and utter cluelessness over the ‘Academik Shokalskiy’… WUWT ‘clients’ get their daily email instructions no doubt.

        • john byatt says:

          too funny nick UAH came in as fourth warmest for lower trop and wuwt monkeys seem to think that roy is on the take or has got it wrong.
          poor bastard

          seemed to have settled down and it is obviously the start of the great cooling, lol

        • Gregory T says:

          I think Gidd’s must have a new hero. After reading Mike’s new thread at Ukis regarding Paul Crovo, it almost seemed word for word, but without a link. But he’s that predictable.

        • J Giddeon says:

          “fake laughter”!!!

          No Nick, the world really is laughing at the ship of fools. Although now some of the more sober are expressing anger that these clowns have caused real science real damage.

          Someone else who understands why the warmolholics are reeling from a year they’d rather forget….

          http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/12/19/lawrence-solomon-for-global-warming-believers-2013-was-the-year-from-hell/

        • Nick says:

          “The world” is laughing, Gids? Or just the usual rump of often-humiliated dimwits that frequents your small community?

          Typical exaggeration from the self-oblivious.

          Typical link to the paid-to-lie Solomon.

          We have yet another example of pseudo-skeptics ill-will, lack of substance, malicious speculation, concern trolling, cluelessness on science, and gang behavior. They cannot help themselves. They never helped you, Gids.

        • Nick says:

          JB, when the WUWT cretins are compelled to attack Roy, you can smell the fear.

        • Nick says:

          Lawrence Solomon:

          Five years ago, Al Gore predicted that by 2013 “the entire North polar ice cap will be gone”

          The reality:

          “Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore said. His office later said he meant nearly ice-free, because ice would be expected to survive in island channels and other locations.

          Solomon is a lazy, lazy liar. No one vets his posts at the Financial Post, no one there gives a shit.

          That’s Gids and his credibility.

        • J Giddeon says:

          Wow Turney says the expedition was worth it. Doesn’t get much more authoritative that that!
          I wonder if all those scientists who’ve had then own plans thrown in chaos agree. And I wonder if the Australian taxpayer, who will ultimately foot the bill for all the rescue efforts, agree. Still it was a nice outing for the Turney family (the wife and kids will have stories to tell at school) and it did bring some publicity for the family business. So all’s well that ends well, heh?

        • john byatt says:

          I believe that aurora expeditions are insured, here were the research goals on the website earlier this year

          We are going south to:

          gain new insights into the circulation of the Southern Ocean and its impact on the global carbon cycle
          explore changes in ocean circulation caused by the growth of extensive fast ice and its impact on life in Commonwealth Bay
          use the subantarctic islands as thermometers of climatic change by using trees, peats and lakes to explore the past
          investigate the impact of changing climate on the ecology of the subantarctic islands
          discover the environmental influence on seabird populations across the Southern Ocean and in Commonwealth Bay
          understand changes in seal populations and their feeding patterns in the Southern Ocean and Commonwealth Bay
          produce the first underwater surveys of life in the subantarctic islands and Commonwealth Bay
          determine the extent to which human activity and pollution has directly impacted on this remote region of Antarctica
          provide baseline data to improve the next generation of atmospheric, oceanic and ice sheet models to improve predictions for the future
          All our science work has been approved by the New Zealand Department of Conservation, the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service and the Australian Antarctic Division. We are incredibly grateful for all their help and support.

          For more information, do feel free to contact us. We hope you can join the team.

          Professor Chris Turney and Dr Chris Fogwill
          The Australasian Antarctic Expedition 2013-2014

          did giddeon hear that november 2013 was the hottest november in the modern record?

          well he did but still denies it

          did not take me up on the bet re 2013 would be hotter than 2012 either, all talk but not much confidence in his own beliefs.

          now what bet would he like to make about the arctic, who will be the closest to reality Gore (2013) or wuwt (never) as we slide into an ice age,

          my money is on gore, how much giddeon ?

        • J Giddeon says:

          “did giddeon hear that november 2013 was the hottest november in the modern record?”

          Well I did hear that one (the least reputable) of the main datasets made that claim. But then others (eg UAH)tell a different story.
          It used to be that one month’s data was called ‘weather’. These days its called proof that we’re all gunna die. I guess that when nothing else is going right, the self-righteous need to clutch any straw available.

          “did not take me up on the bet re 2013 would be hotter than 2012 either, all talk but not much confidence in his own beliefs.”

          Pure JB fantasy. Never happened. JB likes to just make stuff up. Or does he just like to stuff-up.

          “now what bet would he like to make about the arctic, who will be the closest to reality Gore (2013) or wuwt (never) as we slide into an ice age,”

          Watts says we’re sliding into an ice age? Well I never!
          I don’t know what bet you’re proposing but it seems to be one which is so nebulous that you’ll claim victory or deny defeat irrespective of the actual ice extent.

        • J Giddeon says:

          Well JB, either you didn’t read the article or its way above your reading age since its a million miles away from Watts saying that he thinks we’re headed for an ice age.

        • Bernard J. says:

          It used to be that one month’s data was called ‘weather’. These days its called proof that we’re all gunna die.

          See, all you’re doing J Giddeon is showing the world what an ignorant idiot you are.

          One month in isolation is weather. One month compared to its 130 or so predecessor months at the same time of year is climate.

          I’ve tried to explain this to you using simple words and short sentences. If the message refuses to sink in we can try pretty pictures, but given that graphics don’t seem to be able to impart understanding to you either I wouldn’t hold much hope…

        • J Giddeon says:

          “One month in isolation is weather. One month compared to its 130 or so predecessor months at the same time of year is climate”

          Oh I see. So when, in 2011 the Nov anomaly was only the 15th warmest on record as compared to its predecessor months and the lowest in over a decade, this ‘climate’ data demonstrated what exactly.
          Or when the April 13 monthly figure showed it to be way outside the top ten hottest for that month and significantly lower than its recent predecessors, that ‘climate data’ was evidence of….?

          As usual J you are long on the invective and short on the stop-and-think-for-30-seconds.

        • john byatt says:

          i presume you are referencing lower troposphere rather than surface?

        • Bernard J. says:

          As usual J you are long on the invective and short on the stop-and-think-for-30-seconds.

          They say that speaking to oneself is a sign of madness, but in this case it’s the first sensible thing that you’ve said on this thread.

          The trouble is that you wouldn’t understand why.

        • Bernard J. says:

          J Giddeon.

          What part of this is not a reflection of climate change?

          http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/11/

        • J Giddeon says:

          So BJ, I give specific examples of months where the temp records give a lie to your assertions and your response is more invective.
          Very instructive.

        • Bernard J. says:

          So BJ, I give specific examples of months where the temp records give a lie to your assertions and your response is more invective.

          You’re a risible cherry picker and erector of straw men J Giddeon.

          When attention is drawn to the most recent November out of the last 134 Novembers being the warmest of the lot, that’s a comment on climate.

          When deniers like you pick a recent month that doesn’t happen to be a record, and when they ignore the trend over time in which that month is just a part, that’s a mendacious reliance on the natural variability of weather to obfuscate the underlying change in climate.

          So your claim that you cherry-picked examples make a “lie” of my support for the warming trend in global climate is itself a lie – or at the least a mistake born of ignorance. No-one has ever said that increases in temperature due to human-caused climate change must be monotonic. In fact, the experts will tell you that it won’t be monotonic. Therefore your approach is either one of ignorance of the nature of variability (‘noise’ in a signal) or it is a deliberate attempt to conflate completely different things for ideological ends.

          And if you’re such a poor petal that you’re wilting under the invective, perhaps you should grow some intellectual integrity, or at least the beginnings of a brain. People would be much more inclined to treat you with some respect if you weren’t so flagrantly demonstrating that your antipathy to fact, evidence and reason wasn’t rooted in an ideology that risks destroying human civilisation and a huge swath of the biodiversity of the planet.

  35. J Giddeon says:

    Wow, is this site bound for the circular file? I go away for a while and both posts and comments grind to a halt.

    I read a while back about a Scandinavian pro-AGW website that had given up fighting for a lost cause and quietly became a site advocating sustainable eating. Still bonkers but less likely to be constantly wrong.Maybe this site could consider a similar metamorphosis – we could get everyone’s recipe for humble pie.

    Its pretty amazing how quickly the whole CAGW meme is falling apart now that its no longer socially unacceptable to point out that the emperor is naked. As much as the fanaticists try to reposition the debate away from warming and toward climate disruption, they no longer have any credibility and therefore don’t get any traction. Sure they’ll always have the ABC/Fairfax on-board, but when people read of snow in Cairo they know the game is up.

    Warsaw was a disaster for the alarmists and a non-event in the real world. Countries are lining up to proclaim that their previous pious promise to the CO2 agenda are null and void.

    And then to ensure that the alarmists won’t be able to enjoy their Christmas tofu at all, the Arctic sea ice extent decides to make their prognostications look even more foolish.

    Its unravelling quicker than I thought possible. So perhaps its appropriate that sites like this make as graceful an exit as they can. But hopefully it will be archived somewhere so that when, in 20 or 40 years, we are told that the whole sorry scare was just a bit of a media beat-up, just like the 1970’s ice age scare is asserted to have been, the inquisitive will be able to see the truth.

    • Nick says:

      Merry Xmas, knucklehead!

      I notice you’ve clung to the uninformed denialism that gives you the greatest comfort.

      Arctic sea ice extent is in the lower reaches; it’s sea ice volume that has ‘rebounded’ [relatively speaking, as it's still rubbish in context].

      ‘Snow in Cairo’ was actually small hail. Climate disruption has always been a core finding in IPCC reports. So will you in humility acknowledge your errors? LOL.

      If you keep reading Murdoch’s fish-wrapper as a prime source, you’ll remain laughably ignorant. Ditto the hopeless dumbnialist blogs, the naked emperors of their own micro-states, blundering over subjects they do not understand, while their hangers-on,Louis XIV-style, commend every royal turd that emerges.

      Political inaction is not a measure of global atmospheric/ocean heat content. We keep saying this though it goes right over your head. You seem to think that simply because recalcitrant and aggressively ill-informed political actors choose to reject science, thus unwittingly/witlessly kicking the can down the road, a problematic AGW is simply a ‘meme’.

      Same old Gids.

    • Gregory T says:

      And yet, not one link to substantiate any of the claims made.

    • J Giddeon says:

      Idiot? Knuckle-head? You chaps just can’t help yourselves, can you?

      Still, with every day bringing new evidence that your religious beliefs are baseless, what more have you got other than the invective. All very amusing.

      Well you do also have the outright lie. eg asserting that I don’t understand that “Political inaction is not a measure of global atmospheric/ocean heat content”. But in a blog which specifically says that factual accuracy is not permitted why wouldn’t you lie?

      It must be so distressing for you chaps. Back in 2007 it must have been so easy to convince yourselves of your innate intelligence and to ridicule those dumb deniers. Everything was going to plan and the weather was playing ball. How easy it was to just know that you were on the right side of history and the science and that you were so much smarter than those fools sucked in by big oil.
      But now its all falling apart. But you can’t/won’t and never will admit that you were wrong, that those who you ridiculed as fools were in fact way ahead of you. So you devolve to the invective, the lie and the strawman, the banning of uncomfortable issues.

      Its both funny and sad at the same time.

      • Nick says:

        Ha! You couldn’t even get your little talking points right in your firs tpuerile comment, Gids, and your latest is just as poor.

        You remain a knucklehead, animated by trivia [our host's typographical oversight-of course he meant 'inaccuracy']. And you’re unable to argue coherently; you spew political triumphalism as if physics gives a toss whether or not our IPA puppet government banishes science from its court. I’m well aware of political paralysis over this issue. Beats me how you can take comfort in incompetence, but you do.

        I eagerly await your correcting your sorry record…pffft. Fat chance,eh?

        Did it snow in Cairo? Check back with the correct info.

        Current sea ice extent versus volume, and placed in context of the full record. Report back with an intelligent comment, or bugger off.

        • J Giddeon says:

          Yes it snowed in Cairo although I guess its possible to play silly semantic games and assert that it wasn’t snow but just frozen water. Straw clutching as a winter Olympic event.

          Yes, sea ice volume rebounded spectacularly. But extent also rebounded.

          “Report back with an intelligent comment”

          Unfortunately in the narcissistic world that you inhabit the only “intelligent comment” is to fully agree with Nick. But then I’d be plain wrong so……

        • Nick says:

          It’s ALWAYS projection with you [and Maurice Newman] Gids.

          You and Maurice are the narcissists who can conveniently dismiss the observations, the massed evidence of experts and the laws of physics.

          Sea ice extent has NOT rebounded. Why do you persist with your careless waffling?

        • J Giddeon says:

          I thought you’d enjoy the Newman article.

          My information is that there is no way he would have put out such an article without running it past the PM’s office. I’ll leave you to work out what that means.

      • john byatt says:

        really do not know what else to call a person who reads the GISS november anomaly, the hottest since records began and declare that the warming has ended,

        idiot, stupid, dumb? they all are appropriate

        • Gregory T says:

          I find the reverse order, works extremely well.

        • J Giddeon says:

          When I saw the GISS number my only thought was…”I wonder how long it’ll take for that to be corrected.”

          I wouldn’t base any conclusion on one month’s data. Strange that you do…but a drowning man will cling to any passing straw.

        • Nick says:

          You’re too simple to be ashamed of yourself, Gids. Given time you might learn something…I hope. But it ain’t looking good:

          “I wouldn’t base any conclusion on one month’s data”

          Really? You thought that ‘snow’ [actually small hail] in Cairo had some predictive value!! One day was good enough for you then!

          You thought a ‘recovery’ in sea ice data was indicative of something more than inter-annual variability, or the tendency of reversion to the mean, didn’t you?
          Reality-based community looks at all the data

          Yes or no? Did you?

        • J Giddeon says:

          ” You thought that ‘snow’ [actually small hail] in Cairo had some predictive value!!”

          Well Nick, I didn’t say anything remotely like the snow in Cairo being predictive of anything. But as usual you’re not gunna let mere facts get in the way of the invective, are you?

          Equally I didn’t suggest that the Arctic rebound was anything other than another reason for warmists to choke on their Xmas tofu.

          Are your reading skills deteriorating or have you, in your frenzy to assert that things aren’t falling apart for the CAGW scare, just decided to give up any pretence of rational thought?

        • Gregory T says:

          More idiot speak.

          J Giddeon says:
          December 22, 2013 at 4:54 am

          “but when people read of snow in Cairo they know the game is up”

          J Giddeon says:
          January 1, 2014 at 1:45 am

          “Well Nick, I didn’t say anything remotely like the snow in Cairo being predictive of anything”

        • J Giddeon says:

          You might need to acquaint yourself with the meaning of “predictive”.

        • Gregory T says:

          predictive
          prɪˈdɪktɪv/
          adjective
          1.
          relating to or having the effect of predicting an event or result.

          idiot
          ˈɪdɪət/
          nouninformal
          1.
          a stupid person.
          synonyms: fool, ass, halfwit, nincompoop, blockhead, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, imbecile, dullard, moron, simpleton, clod; More
          antonyms: genius
          archaic
          a person of low intelligence
          a Giddeon

        • J Giddeon says:

          So he looks up the word, surely then realises I didn’t say anything predictive re Cairo’s snow and then still says I’m the idiot. wow.

        • Gregory T says:

          Let’s face it, if you’re nothing else, you’re predictable. However, why anyone in their right mind, would continually want to display their ignorance in a subject which they know nothing about, baffles us all. But at least, when your name appears on these threads, it’s predictive of the crap to come.

        • Nick says:

          Humpty Dumpty Gids, would you prefer ‘implicit’?

          ‘Snow in Cairo’ [despite being hail, but snow also according to the thoroughly believable L. Solomon..] is implicit of what,Gids?

          Another global cooling ninny with one event for confirmation. Sheesh

          I wouldn’t base any conclusion on one months’s data. Very wise, Gids. Very wise.

  36. J Giddeon says:

    Banned?

  37. Gregory T says:

    It appears that Fukushima, is spiralling out of control on all fronts; from dead zones in the pacific, to a new states secrets act, that prohibits information being disseminated by the press. I hope it doesn’t foretell our own future.

    http://ecowatch.com/category/news/energy-news/nuclear-energy-energy/

  38. Gregory T says:

    FYI, for those interested in all things nuclear. Something to huddle around the A/C and read.

    http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/20130716msc-worldnuclearreport2013-lr-v4.pdf

  39. Sundance says:

    FYI – USA Congressional hearing will be held tomorrow on climate and weather. The link is below if you want to watch the hearing.

    ‘Subcommittee on Environment Hearing – A Factual Look at the Relationship Between Climate and Weather’

    http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-environment-hearing-factual-look-relationship-between-climate-and-weather

    • Nick says:

      The leading inclusion of the word ‘factual’ made me click the link…and lo!…we have the mendacious Christy and the self-serving Pielke Jr as ‘witnesses’! David Titley for cred.

      The committee is dominated by paid-for Republican cranks.

      File in the bin.

      Will be mildly interesting how they ‘handle’ the juxtaposition of record Alaskan and Floridan warmth with the record mid state freeze, though.

    • john byatt says:

      only last year i received a personal letter from the environment minister (climate change) assuring me that he fully endorsed the IPCC science findings.
      bashed off a letter to editor re that

  40. Gregory T says:

    A little light reading, to keep that blood pressure up. This has ramifications for any international treaties that involve climate, or any aspect of life as we know it.

    http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta

  41. Bernard J. says:

    Australia’s Peter Christoff is not exactly optimistic about the future:

    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3903815.htm

    Christoff’s comments are measured and informed, and his observations on the effect of late action should have any genuine leader sitting up in his or her seat.

    In light of these comments I cannot believe the obstinate idiocy of the Coalition, who are willing to destroy their grandchildren’s world for whatever passes as thought in their minds. And they can’t ever say that they weren’t told, because we’re telling them over and over and over again.

    And for those trolls who would shout “alarmist!”, it’s only alarmist if the warnings are overblown. The warnings from science are certainly alarming but they are also conservative and that means that they are most definitely not alarmist.

    What is alarmist is the nonsense that we “can’t afford to act”. Humanity cannot afford to not act, and it cannot afford to not act immediately.

    • Gregory T says:

      Bernard, what I find intriguing with the “can’t afford it” rant, is the fact that the benefits of awarding humanity a future and the potential of a new and self sustaining economy, seems to scare people. While in the US, corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars that they could be investing in the future of humanity, they instead, choose to hoard it, like it will still have a value, when the collapse happens. Meanwhile, our esteemed politicos, of both sides, rush to embrace the ignorant fallacy, expounded by the NeoCons.
      I for one, will be happy to exact retribution, from this despicable group, when it attempts to assimilate back into society, using terms like “Fair Go”, “Help a Mate” etc. and declares it was misled by the likes of Murdoch and Co. But I fear that it’s to late and the only way to awaken,this slumbering audience, in this theatre of life, is to stand up and shout “FIRE”. But then again, they would probably just say, “define fire”.

    • Bernard J. says:

      Matthew England also talks about “Four Degrees of Global Warming: Australia in a Hot World” and about the consequences of the warming that are in train… and about which we’re currently not only not doing anything, but about which the Coalition government is actively seeking to avoid any genuine action at all:

      http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/content/s3904315.htm

      Listen and weep for your children and grandchildren.

    • john byatt says:

      we all remember this fraud

      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition

      “The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM’s Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”

    • Nick says:

      What a klutz!…a career politician who cannot master a brief! A bit like the inept Chrissy Pyne, who can’t understand Gonski, therefore pretends it’s ‘too complex’…these guys are even dumber than we thought.

        • FrankD says:

          Given that the first Fairfax/Nielsen poll of Abbotts tenure unequivocally shows support for a price on carbon (45%) to “Direct Action” (12%) or no action (11%), will Tones now confirm he will respect the will of the Australian people and yank his farcical non-plan?

          That “mandate” is looking sketchier every day…

      • Nick says:

        This is what the liar Pyne said nine days ago on Sky News:

        ” Exactly the same way as in the Schools Portfolio, I said that we would keep the new school funding model but over the next four years because we don’t believe in Labor’s claims that things can be promised in five, six, ten, fifteen, twenty years.

        Over the next four years, we will maintain the new school funding model and the budget that went with that in the forward estimates. And the same with education in general because Tony Abbott has a very deep commitment to universities, to research, to science and to education. ”

        This is a government where breathtaking dishonesty is the norm.

      • Nick says:

        Even [gasp] Andrew Bolt is deeply unimpressed with Pyne!

        The organ grinder loses his monkey!

        • Gregory T says:

          Nick, what with the Pyne/Ashby/Slipper affair, the term “organ grinder”, could be a poor choice of words.

        • Gae Abandon says:

          GT – indeed.

          what surprises me and others I speak with is that in all of that sordid flirting and entrapment the public never thought to query why Pyne was involved in the affair…

          it’s one of the elephants in the room.

  42. Rodger the Dodger says:

    Idiot comment of the month.

    “J Giddeon says:
    November 21, 2013 at 10:07 pm
    @baddles

    “Too bad for them that the warming hid itself just in those places where we can’t measure it;’

    There’s every chance the warming is hiding in other places we can’t investigate eg the Penn state email system.”

    • john byatt says:

      he put the same one up on sheries blog, sheri is that idiot @ watchingthe watchers

      comedy gold that blog

      • Rodger the Dodger says:

        Here is the latest rant from a crackpot denier from Washington on the Wikipedia global warming talk page.

        “This article is completely biased, if not bigoted in many sections. ‘Climate Change’ should not be marginalized to become a new synonym for Man-made Global Warming theories. Climate Change should address the dispute in some section, yet it should be objective and non-partisan in all general, and other sections that do not specifically address the AGW (man-made Global Warming theory).
        Also, the FAQ section of the Talk page is completely disputable and very bigoted towards a pro-AGW (man-made global warming theory). It is inane to have such a FAQ, as well.
        This is VERY important to correct, as it’s a FEATURED article (somehow, without any dispute banner or sections on the counter theories and disputes).
        The banner needs to be added at the top of the article (at the very least). There should not be a bigoted FAQ, as there are so many disputes, contradictions and ambiguity. The FAQ, at the least, should consider each side’s rationale and should not be edited/filtered by those who have a bigoted point of view. It needs to be NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.131.188.5 (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)”

        They just get crazier and crazier.

        There is also a dumb climate zombie trolling on Sou’s blog. Another idiot who would trip over a cordless phone.

  43. Gregory T says:

    I found this an interesting article, that covers climate change and related extenuating circumstances. A quick but essential read.

    The Biological Structure Called “Humankind” has Gone Haywire
    The Oligarchy vs. Planet Earth
    by PETER BELMONT

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/21/the-oligarchy-vs-planet-earth/

  44. Bernard J. says:

    Today is the day that Australia confirms that it is the premier global pariah:

    http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/20/climate-talks-walk-out-compensation-un-warsaw

  45. Bernard J. says:

    Had Cook actually done an honest survey, we’d have the opinions of the authors about their papers, not the opinions of the SkS pal review squad in place of those opinions.

    Is Watts completely troppo?!

    From the Skeptical Science page announcing the paper:

    The Self-Ratings

    As an independent test of the measured consensus, we also emailed over 8,500 authors and asked them to rate their own papers using our same categories. The most appropriate expert to rate the level of endorsement of a published paper is the author of the paper, after all. We received responses from 1,200 scientists who rated a total of over 2,100 papers. Unlike our team’s ratings that only considered the summary of each paper presented in the abstract, the scientists considered the entire paper in the self-ratings.

    There is a graph comparing the original-authors’ assessments to the Cook et al assessments:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Figure_3_col.jpg

    Based on the raving lunacy in the last paragraph in the quote above, Watts is certifiably crazy. Or plain stupid. Or playing mendacious games. Or any combination of the above.

  46. john byatt says:

    @wuwt

    seems like a reasonable comment

    Dumb Scientist says:
    November 20, 2013 at 11:28 am
    Anthony Watts: The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey … We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots … Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers … a lie of omission … they’d been lied to by John Cook et al². … we’ll be fighting this lie for years … blown Cook’s propaganda paper right out of the water.
    ==================================

    Isn’t a survey of opinions different from a survey of scientific abstracts? If so, how can an opinion survey show that a survey of scientific abstracts is a “lie”?

    Note that 78% of meteorologists who publish mostly on climate agree that the warming is mostly human-caused. Only 5% of all meteorologists claim that the warming is mostly natural, and only 4% claim that the warming isn’t happening.

    If we can agree about these facts, that’s great news!

    so how do you think it was answered?

    REPLY:Bryan, This response suggests you are simply concern trolling. Had Cook actually done an honest survey, we’d have the opinions of the authors about their papers, not the opinions of the SkS pal review squad in place of those opinions.

    For more shenanigans related to SkS, you might look up the sort of pea and thimble switcheroos (they didn’t survey skeptical blogs) and statistical techninques (populations of N=0 are allowed, add your own interpretation) employed by the gang that couldn’t shoot straight when it came to their published opinions on skeptics and their supposed belief in “faking the moon landing”. What you have here with SkS is an organized propaganda team. They aren’t interested in science.
    – Anthony

    pointing out watts stupidity was concern trolling?

    watts is a moron

    • Nick says:

      Watts is a liar: a pro-active moron. He either does not understand what the procedure in Cook et al [or any paper] means and demands, or thinks it appropriate to pretend he doesn’t. Since even he cannot be so stupid about science papers as to be so ignorant, he is a liar.

      And since he cannot produce or cite any similar, transparent survey paper to contradict or counter Cook and other papers like it, but is satisfied with his own impotent non-authoritative insistence, he is a delusional.

    • To everyone’s complete surprise, WUWT banned me (see very bottom).

      Now where will I get my daily dose of accusations that scientists are dishonest corrupt godless Anti-American murderers? Luckily there are hundreds of crackpot blogs to choose from…

      • john byatt says:

        join the club

      • Rodger the Dodger says:

        I read that thread from the start, and the first comment spoke volumes.

        “Ferdinand (@StFerdinandIII) says:
        November 13, 2013 at 6:46 pm
        Great article on the orwellian rewriting of science and CO2. We do live in a dark age of superstition and ignorance. Where stupid now means science (see evolution).”

        Denialism of evolution and climate science is the new anti-science religion, taking over from the flat-earthers. And like the flat-earthers, they will NEVER change. I do admire your stoicism, but really, it’s a fools folly. No matter how much science and links you try and force onto them, their little brainwashed brains will spit it out like a cherry pip. That is why they like WUWT. It is a place to reinforce their prejudices and dogma. Then if anyone tries to show them reality, they will curl up into a ball and scream it’s a conspiracy, the scientists are all corrupt and make it up so they can get grant money.

        It’s all laid out in this comment.

        “RACookPE1978 says:
        November 23, 2013 at 2:52 pm

        Rather, he (or she) IS a “committed” very earnest “believer” in CAGW (who is employed now by NASA/GISS/government laboratories/government universities) specifically BECAUSE of those beliefs and faith in the religion of CAGW. Further, although now trained and indoctrinated thoroughly in the CAGW religion of belief-in-evil-without-evidence/belief-in-propaganda-despite-evidence/belief-in-imminent-catastrophy-if-we-do-not-kill-millions-of-innocents, he/she was indoctrinated in that religion from near-birth and thus is not fully to blame for his/her religion prior to adulthood.
        Now an adult, whose life and future and social worth and career potential are financially interwoven INSIDE of and woven BY their CAGW belief system, he/she is now unable to see facts. I hope not permanently, but you will note that no CAGW dogmatist has been able to offer ANY consistent specific level of proof of its failure. They cannot conceive that they could be wrong. It is out of their belief system.
        Worse, because their entire life rejects (Christian) faith and religion ferociously, and because (almost all) equally zealously hate/fear/despise/condemn ANY form of capitalism in favor of even greater government control of all life at all times, they have denied themselves any other view of life.
        Also, because they are so firmly wrapped inside their religious zealotry of “saving the formerly pristine world from mankind’s evil taint” (by killing people, by harming people, by erasing pollution and man’s impact, and by exaggeration through propaganda man’s admitted sometimes poor results) they (he/her personally) have been willingly warped into seeing their own evil actions in deed and in intent (changing scientific results to fit the narrative of CAGW, ignoring valid results of experiments and biasing experiments to give wanted results, accepting money BECAUSE of the desired government results and the government praise and honors and money and careers and publications and recognition and promotions and higher budgets and longer salaries and promised tenure result BECAUSE of the deliberate reults of that “science”) are good, true, virtuous because the “intent” of their despicable and evil actions is seen as “good, true, and virtuous” ….
        SO their CAGW-favorable results and mindsets come from within and without – from personal feedback favoring (almost requiring) CAGW-promotable results and decisions and thoughts, and from without. THEN, at the same time that THEY (he/her) are reaping the pleasant results of much spending and improved budgets and big labs that do receive, they write emails and speeches and press releases claiming that their opposition (skeptical, realistic science) is only enabled by what skeptics do NOT receive: money, recognition, grants, publications, and security.
        Is “dumb scientist” innocent?
        No. He/she is a willing propagandist, a willing priest of his/her religion promoting that religion despite the deaths and injuries and harm that comes from that religion.
        Can he or she ever find the truth? Can he or she ever even find the evidence or the truth in even their scientific research?
        Not if he/she continues to look in a pile of dung in search of a tainted paycheck and their promised retirement at the hands of a corrupt government system that will only pay them if they commit to furthering the government’s religion. Look no further than the hundreds of “scientific” papers published since 1998 that have a (editor/reviewer-inserted)/(writer/author/group-think-inserted) “CAGW-caused this”/CAGW is making this worse”/”despite the evidence of this paper, future CO2 emissions will make this problem worse” phrase added.
        Admitting the truth within a socialist government desperate for 1.3 trillion in CAGW taxes each year opens the door …. to a cell in the GULAG.”

        • john byatt says:

          you may or may not be surprised at the number of creationists who frequent such blogs

        • Nick says:

          It’s hard to believe that anyone could post such a demented rant in the belief it was rational. It’s hard to believe that a blog site that wants to position itself as credible and influential would post it.

      • Rachel says:

        That’s a shame. You were doing so well too. I read some of your comments at WUWT and enjoyed them very much.

        I have not been banned there so if there’s ever anything you desperately want to say just let me know and I could comment on your behalf.

        • Thanks, but being banned from WUWT is like a weight off my shoulders. ;)

          By the way, the person I originally responded to in that WUWT thread followed me on twitter. Savoring the little victories.

        • Rachel says:

          Lucky you! I think. A WUWT twitter follower :-)

        • Rodger the Dodger says:

          Hi Dumb Scientist,

          I’ve just read your twitter feed and some of your webpage archives. I’m impressed, that you’ve been fighting the battle for so long and your depth of knowledge. Unfortunately it has been wasted on arguing with dunderheads and dipshits. I to have battled with my share of idiots, and at times become quite flustered. From a sociological perspective, it’s amazing at the range of crazy myths that some people will believe, and the extent that some people refuse to educate themselves. For many, the idea of AGW is too frightening to contemplate, so they will reassurinly wrap themsleves in a comforting blanket of myths and deception. At first I was perplexed with denialism, and naively thought that all you had to do was to present the facts, and they would turn. But after some time, I realised that it wasn’t so simple. I feel your pain, hoping that through education, that the tide would turn and better policies would be enacted. Unfortunately, there are immensely powerful and wealthy forces that are committed to rape the planet for profit, at our, and future generations expense. It is human nature, greed and fear will overwhelm logic and reason.

          “The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.”– H. L. Mencken

          I would recommend looking at the science of denial, like motivated reasoning and confirmation bias. Look up the papers of Dan Kahan or the books and videos of Chris Mooney. I find it now quite boring explaining simple physics and basic science that has been known for decades to climate zombies, but I now find the science of denial much more interesting.

          I would also be interested in knowing how many people you have seen that have turned. I can tell you that on the WUWT site, that number will be zero. I have seen many people try to show people the truth, but everytime they fail, forced off the site with their tails between their legs. At least you didn’t have a blog post dedicated to your ‘antics’, as has happened to many other people. Also, can you imagine the heat that Mann and Hansen has been put through. Many of the climate zombies have been on WUWT and other sites for years, reading all of the anti-science books. They are a lost cause.

          I also recommend watching this video, ‘Conspiracy road trip’, and perhaps the entire series. I found it compelling, and it goes along way to understanding the denial mindset and why they will never change. Basically it would require the person to dismantle their entire belief system, and accept that everything they have ever believed in is ‘bullshit’. It just doesn’t happen.

        • Rodger, thanks for the kind words and the video. I went through the same shift in mindset after watching others explain science very politely and clearly but get buried in a flood of nonsense and insults.

          I think that’s the point. The only way to appreciate the awesome power of Morton’s demon is to see how contrarians react to science. I know it’s impossibly to change their minds, but I want posterity to know that scientists tried. I worry that contrarians will try to revise history to blame climate scientists.

          Out of >70 contrarians in my article “Abrupt climate change” only a few have stopped repeating misinformation. The number of genuine retractions (where they actually stopped spreading that nonsense) can be counted on one hand. I eventually had some success with ShakaUVM. He agreed with President Reagan’s economics adviser’s plan to account for the externalities of CO2 by “taxing what we burn, not what we earn” and hasn’t spread misinformation since. (Considering my Sisyphean effort, this was a Pyrrhic victory at best.)

          The person I first responded to on the WUWT where I got banned probably doesn’t count; she was so reasonable even from the beginning that it wouldn’t be accurate to say she changed her mind.

          I also recently visited Climate Audit and talked with McIntyre. When Howard implied that I only engaged in monologues, I linked to another WUWT dialogue where ATheoK and davidmhoffer introduced a productive issue at 3:16 and 7:44pm. I responded at 8:36 pm by linking a recent tweet. Anyone who read that exchange would be staring into the jaws of Morton’s demon.

        • I also commented at Climate Audit here but (to his credit) Steve McIntyre deleted them because of who I was “replying” to. However, McIntyre’s net credit is negative on that page because he threw the chum that attracted all the attacks in the first place. Incidentally, at his blog omnologos complained about being snipped and speculated about why the scientist he was punching didn’t individually object to all of his insulting comparisons.

  47. john byatt says:

    http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/the-heats-on-our-building-authorities/2089804/

    Bill Hoffman

    DESTRUCTIVE tornadoes in the United States, killer typhoon in the Philippines, storm surge pushing through waterfront properties in Lombok last month and hail the size of fists slamming down on to cars and homes on the Sunshine Coast have all tested and found wanting the resilience of many structures in extreme weather events.

    Buildings in Tacloban in the Philippines and Pekin in Illinois were reduced to matchsticks by nature’s power. The trail of destruction resembled similar scenes after earthquakes unleashed tsunamis in Japan three years ago, Aceh and the hurricane that tore apart New Jersey and parts of New York just last November.

    Those who reject the overwhelming scientific evidence that human-induced climate change is happening. And that it will lead to more extreme weather events will no doubt dismiss all that is going on around them as being part of natural cycles that have occurred through the eons.

  48. john byatt says:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-20/kohler-gas-exports-and-carbon-reduction/5104014

    High gas prices and so-called fugitive emissions from liquefied natural gas plants will make it impossible for the Government to reach the 2020 carbon emissions reduction target without the carbon tax, Alan Kohler writes.

    • Bernard J. says:

      This was mentioned in an interview on the World Today on Tuesday:

      We are stabilising our emissions. We also have a small tendency for emissions in the energy sector to have decreased. There’s been a slight decrease, less than 1 per cent over the last year in the observations.

      That’s offset by an increase in the emissions from other sectors, particularly fugitive emissions, largely because of the expansions of the coal seam gas industry.

      I note that the elephant in the room was ignored – that energy-based emissions are down. Now, given the overall growth in the Australian economy I wonder why this is so? And what effect will axing that “ineffectual” carbon “tax” have?

      Huh?

      The pig-headed ineptitude of Abbott, Hunt and Hockey knows no bounds.

  49. john byatt says:

    Idiot comment of the weekend

    J Giddeon says:
    November 16, 2013 at 12:49 am
    There must be ‘missing heat’ because the models couldn’t possibly be incorrect, right?

    Isn’t it funny how this fugitive heat always seems to be in places we don’t or can’t measure properly – deep ocean , Arctic”

    well that makes three times now in which the data and models did not match and we found out that the models had it correct

    “They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

    They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.

  50. john byatt says:

    i am just behind the NOOSA sign and my wife is in view above the T in the large sign.

    have a go at some of the local dunces comments here

    http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/call-for-clean-energy/2086868/

    • Bernard J. says:

      Some of those comments make me think that there should be an intelligence test required to log on to the internet.

      Just as there should be a general knowledge test required to be eligible to vote.

  51. Rodger the Dodger says:

    I came across this comment on hotwhopper about a comment by Bill Illis on WUWT

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/11/wuwt-comment-of-week-why-earth-isnt-dry.html?showComment=1384484633609#c3404318926264468509

    Bill is quite a famous clueless climate zombie. He has amassed quite a collection of temperature and CO2 data, and is renowned for posting his ‘graphs’. I have personally locked horns with him in the past, but this latest comment really takes the cake.

    “421,000,000 Hiroshima bombs every second on every square metre” which is more than the entire world’s arsenal combined, on a square metre, every second. Certainly explains why my potato crop is going gangbusters.

    Just 1 Hiroshima bomb per second per square metre would reduce the earth to a cinder in the first second.

    It just shows how much of a joke climate zombies are. This guy has been at it for years, and no matter how much evidence you show him, he will NEVER change his ways. What a loser!!!

    • Bernard J. says:

      I thought that Illis was referring to the output at the surface of the sun, and not incident at the surface of the Earth.

      Even in that case though his arithmetic is abyssmal: it’s just useful to refute him on the actual basis on which he might have been thinking that he was smart…

      • Rodger the Dodger says:

        Ahh, Bernard, I think that you might be right. I googled that line, and I came across this

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/why-one-hiroshima-bomb-every-four.html?showComment=1384444842705#c2203066324828476154

        the reply was

        “Bill, the Sun only puts out about 0.8 Hiroshima bombs every second on every square kilometer of surface (not square meter), or a total of about 10,000,000,000,000 Hiroshima bombs every second across the whole surface. This is a lot, but we need to be reasonably accurate. While the interior is about 27 million degrees K, the surface is only about 5800 K, and radiates as a near black body.”

        Either way, his calculation was waaaaay of the mark. But the point I think that Bill was unsuccesfully trying to make was that the excess heat that is warming the earth, which is put at 4 Hiroshima bombs per second, is insignificant, by comparing it to a really large number. But of course, the earth is not at equilibrium, so even though it’s seems relatively small, the earth will continue to heat until it reaches equilibrium, and while the level of CO2 continues to rise, there will always be warming ‘in the pipeline’.

  52. john byatt says:

    Went to the action day nambour rally on the sunshine coast, over 400 attended and placards were very positive rather than the sceptic type rallies negativity

    Ian Lowe gave a talk and said that Australia had gained the “fossil” award on three of the five days to date.at the climate talks
    local paper was in attendance so will be interesting to find out how many people around the country attended

  53. john byatt says:

    will be interesting to see how much coverage this will get

    MikeH says:
    November 10, 2013 at 3:12 am
    Please pass the following on to your friends.

    National Day of Climate Action, next Sunday 17th November.
    In every Australian capital city and 100s of regional towns.

    https://www.getup.org.au/get_togethers/climate-catchup

    sunshine coast gathering today

  54. Steve says:

    Since this is an open thread, I hope no one will object to me introducing a new topic; nuclear power. I suspect that the regulars on this blog vary considerably in their opinions on the use of this power source.
    Personally I am not totally opposed to nuclear power as long as it is done safely. John Howard once said that he would not object to a nuclear power station in his backyard. He was living in Killibilly House at that time, so I’m not sure if his backyard was Sydney Harbour or the Sydney CBD. In my opinion both are not safe places for a nuclear power station, and I assume he was speaking metaphorically.
    However, I have been looking at some of the places that nuclear power stations have actually been built, and some are at least as dangerous as Sydney, like the Turkey Point nuclear station and waste storage facility in Florida.

    https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=25.434167,-80.330556&q=loc:25.434167,-80.330556&hl=en&t=p&z=15

    For nuclear power to be taken seriously the possibility of a much more rapid increase in sea level needs to be considered in choosing the location of the power plant.

    • Rachel says:

      I’m surprised no-one has responded to a discussion about nuclear power. I think Australia is the perfect place for nuclear power with all that uranium and the continent’s placement away from major fault lines. The country also needs a cheap replacement for coal and nuclear is probably the best alternative. I think hydro/wind/solar are all important too, but I imagine nuclear will also be needed. Is there any discussion about this in Australia?

  55. klem says:

    Just to let you know ladies, I live in North America and the current UN climate summit is receiving close to zero news coverage here. Only a few short years ago it was the news headliner for the entire summit, but today hardly a whisper. Lol!

    cheers

    • zoot says:

      A turkey gloats about Xmas.

    • Steve says:

      The news coverage here in South Australia is also rather meager. However, we can at least hope that with less of the media spotlight on them that the delegates will actually get a useful agreement like one to remove all energy and fuel subsidies over a specific period.

    • john byatt says:

      ” it was the news headliner for the entire summit, but today hardly a whisper. Lol!”

      There is a lot of news but as it mostly comes from the Murdoch press it is all denial propaganda.

      only in the US, Canada and Australia though,

    • J Giddeon says:

      One bit of new I saw was that the Japanese have decided to confirm that they won’t be cutting emissions any time soon.

  56. john byatt says:

    A degree by degree explanation of what will happen when the earth warms

    http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 771 other followers

%d bloggers like this: