Image of the day: It’s global warming stupid

The debate just shifted profoundly:

Tagged , ,

206 thoughts on “Image of the day: It’s global warming stupid

  1. Is that Sandy 2012 or Katrina 2004?

    – MJM

  2. Eric Worrall says:

    Bloomberg wants to get re-elected, and you guys are piling on the lies. What else is he going to say? Of course, he might also believe it.

    • Ignore the science Eric, we all know you and your fellow denialists will be the ones crying longest and loudest when insurance rates and other costs related to changing climate increase. Keep your head in the sand but don’t expect much sympathy because you have knowingly ignored the warnings.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        You’re using “the science” like its some kind of religious invocation.

        Is there any science in particular you think I am ignoring?

        Are you too ignoring science? Such as Briffa’s new paper which shows that between 900AD and 1100AD, summer temperatures were similar to today’s? (Briffa being the person who did some of the analysis behind Michael Mann’s iconic hockey stick).

      • john byatt says:

        The news was that the re insurance companies had already factored the likely- hood of just these AGW caused extremes.

        of course the deniers were claiming that they were just trying to increase profits
        with no risk

        Sandy stuffed up that theory

        but will probably increase more as we go forward as you state blair,

        insurance against SLR will be non existent, so Victoria and NSW govts now must accept the responsibility for removing building restrictions

        what will QLD do?

        I reckon that Newman will plan for an SLR drop over coming decades,

        should know soon, I hammer him in the papers over his denial very quiet though, they usual reply to letters that they can gain browny points on .

        • Eric Worrall says:

          You guys are such a bunch of nanny staters.

          Why don’t you let people take their own chances, and form their own opinions? Make them sign a contract if you have to that the government won’t help them if the sea level rises.

          Anyone who lives next to water is already taking a chance – insurance for flood protection if your house is next to a river is near non-existent. People can choose to have the amenity of a nice body of water outside their house, so long as they accept the negatives of doing this.

      • john byatt says:

        You did not understand, the victorian govt has said that they will only plan for two decades after that it is up to future generations

        they have removed the requirement for people to have to disclose the 2100 SLR for their homes and removed the requirement for the purchaser to sign for responsibility

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The 2100 SLR projections are highly speculative. If Briffa is right, and summer temperatures in the Arctic remained at current temperatures for around 200 years in the MWP, yet there was no accelerated sea level rise caused by Greenland ice melt or whatever, then modern projections of accelerated SLR seem a bit shaky.

      • Nick says:

        Eric,sit down and take a breath. The effects of SLR on high water and flooding in low lying parts of NY are happening now. SLR estimates are not ‘highly’ speculative,they are real.

        Four of the top ten highest floods since 1900 at The Battery gauge in NY have occurred in the last three years.

      • Nick says:

        And if there was no accelerated or noted SLR during the purported MWP’s alleged 200 years [your simplified postulate],then the MWP was not very significant and was definitely not globally synchronous.

        • eworrall1 says:

          No, the arctic regions measured by Briffa experienced summer temperatures similar to today. Greenland didn’t melt. So Greenland won’t melt this time either – models of accelerated SLR based on arctic melting are falsified by the historical record.

        • I have received an email back from Keith Briffa and I strongly recommend that you email him yourself although you’d do better to contact the lead author. I could relay to you what he said but rather than have you accuse me of being dishonest I would really prefer you get it first hand. You can then come back in here and redact everything you have said about his paper that is blatantly untrue (that is everything you have said). You can then also tell me that my assessment of the paper was spot on. I canpolitely say thank you for being a grown up and we can move on.

        • eworrall1 says:

          Post your email and Keith’s response – if I have any doubts I shall ask Briffa directly.

        • Sorry Eric. Email him yourself. What are you afraid of?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Why should we bother the great Professor Briffa twice with the same question?

          Like I said, if I have any doubts or concerns about your question and his reply, I can contact him to clarify any issues.

        • Because Eric, after seeing the way you continually reference second hand information I figure you need some training in understanding the importance of 1. not being lazy and 2. finding first hand information. I also recommend emailing the lead author. Ask him if his work requires a new understanding of arctic climate history and also if it negates mann’s hockeystick? If you can stop being lazy and afraid and take some initiative, perhaps I will then compare emails with you.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Stop wasting my time. I want to see some evidence there actually are some emails.

        • “Stop wasting my time. I want to see some evidence there actually are some emails.”

          You seem to have plenty of time to post inane comments in here and elsewhere Eric. You certainly have time to email the lead author and ask him some questions. As for evidence of emails, you have my word Eric. Now, go fetch!

        • Eric Worrall says:

          All I hear is pointless noise uknownothing.

        • Let’s get this straight, you won’t take my word for it because you don’t trust me but you are willing to make ignorant comments about a paper you haven’t actually read when you could cure your ignorance by taking less than a minute to send an email? Lazy lazy lazy.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          No, I just want you to break climate science protocol and reveal method and data. If I have any further questions for Professor Briffa, I shall email him directly.

        • I already told you the gist of what he said. As for breaking protocol, why would I do that? Clearly you aren’t satisfied. I think its time for you to ask him yourself. If you must know though, I am time poor and I don’t have time to black out all of my personal information in the email just so I can show you, so you can claim dissatisfaction because it completely refutes everything you’ve said but then find some other weasel excuse to not chase it up for yourself. Nope, yet again I’m fed up with your nonsense, intellectual laziness and lies and I’m going to bed. Grow a spine and email him yourself.

      • Nick says:

        Eric,it is warmer than the MWP according to glacier evidence covering a greater area than Melvin and Briffa’s Tornetrask,and it will get warmer still according to the physics. The historical record shows sea level at 1 to 2m higher than present 6000-8000 years ago at the height of the Holocene optimum…and higher still in the Eemian when CO2 was at similar levels to today. SLR continues month by month right now and the projections of 60 to 1.25m by 2100 do not depend on much from Greenland..

        • eworrall1 says:

          Interesting you admit the Holocene Optimum was Warner than today. Since there was no industrial civilisation back then, where did all the warmth come from?

          And you know we disagree about what the physics tells us – and the twentieth century physics greats Edward Teller and Freeman Dyson agree with me

      • john byatt says:

        Face up to reality eric

        Summary of Key-References for CO-CAT Sea – Department of Water ……/Summary-CO-CAT-SLR_TechnicalReferences….File Format: Microsoft Word – Quick View
        SLR estimates are greater than IPCC and Rahmstorf 2007. Projects SLR ranging from 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100. Rahmstorf, April 2010, A new view on sea level

      • john byatt says:

        Google then click link (DOC)

        Summary of Key-References for CO-CAT Sea – Department of Water …
        SLR estimates are greater than IPCC and Rahmstorf 2007. Projects SLR ranging from 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100. Rahmstorf, April 2010, A new view on sea level

      • Nick says:

        I ‘admit’ the HO was warmer than today? ‘admit’? When was I denying it? Why is it controversial? Not long ago I stated we were heading towards an HO-redux future:how did you miss that?

        Whatever,you have to deal with SLR in the recent historic record. Why was the HO an ‘optimum’? A response to obliquity : an insolation optimum and earth feedbacks that peaked near the end of the IA deglaciation. Another example of sensitivity in the system that kills your no feedbacks ideas.

    • Nick says:

      Eric,you’re using “you’re using the science like it some sort of religious invocation” like some sort of religious invocation. And like classic on-message repetition. It’s transparent and not in the least useful.

      This Big Lie bullshit is tiresome.Your endless insinuations that science=religion are tedious. Desist.

      “Why don’t you let people take their own chances” That’s a f…ing laugh! People have to take their own chances in a world where corporate/state cronyism makes the deals and sets the agendas…and where the next generation will inherit the consequences of poor decisions to stay on carbon to the bitter end.

      You have also repeated your unfounded assumptions about Melvin and Briffa 2012. Their work is for summer only and covers only northern Europe. Further extrapolation is unjustifiable.

  3. catweazle666 says:

    Stupid is right.

    On that page, it’s the only thing that is.

  4. john byatt says:

    Obama expected to win because of climate change stance

    If he does then he has a responsibility to his voters.

    US comes in out of the cold?

  5. john byatt says:

    The article,

    Jonathan Foley, director of the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota. On Oct. 29, Foley thumbed thusly: “Would this kind of storm happen without climate change? Yes. Fueled by many factors. Is storm stronger because of climate change? Yes.” Eric Pooley, senior vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund (and former deputy editor of Bloomberg Businessweek), offers a baseball analogy: “We can’t say that steroids caused any one home run by Barry Bonds, but steroids sure helped him hit more and hit them farther. Now we have weather on steroids.”

    In an Oct. 30 blog post, Mark Fischetti of Scientific American took a spin through Ph.D.-land and found more and more credentialed experts willing to shrug off the climate caveats. The broadening consensus: “Climate change amps up other basic factors that contribute to big storms. For example, the oceans have warmed, providing more energy for storms. And the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed, so it retains more moisture, which is drawn into storms and is then dumped on us.” Even those of us who are science-phobic can get the gist of that.

    The deniers will never get it,

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Warmer weather might amplify storms, though there is the troubling issue of the continuing US tornado drought, and models which suggest a warmer climate should be less stormy.

      But we haven’t established how much man is contributing to climate change. Even the IPCC won’t call more than a 90% confidence level on human contributions to CO2 driving climate change, and IPCC is hardly a gold standard – riddled with grey literature, and the devastating embarrassment of Glaciergate.

      • Nick says:

        ‘Continuing tornado drought’…you are clueless. Last year was busy enough to kill over 550 people in the US. Tornadoes are highly variable from year to year…just like the ‘landfall likelihood’ of Atlantic storms.

        The allowability of grey literature was flagged for WG2 output from the start…perhaps you’re just embarrassed you never knew that. Criticise the specific examples if you like,check their references

        Repeating that the Himalayan error was ‘devastating embarrassment’ only demonstrates you ignored the context,and are not interested in the data and the surveys carried out since. The embarrassment remains yours.

  6. john byatt says:

    Sandy, eight countries affected

    Dr. Jeff Masters
    Published: 7:19 PM GMT on November 01, 2012
    The immensity of the impact of Superstorm Sandy on the Eastern U.S. is difficult to comprehend, and the scenes of devastation coming from the impact zone are stunning and heart-wrenching. To help understand the extraordinary scale of this historic storm, I’ve put together a list of notable statistics from Sandy:

    Death toll: 160 (88 in the U.S., 54 in Haiti, 11 in Cuba)

    Damage estimates: $10 – $55 billion

    Power outages: 8.5 million U.S. customers, 2nd most for a natural disaster behind the 1993 blizzard (10 million)

    Maximum U.S. sustained winds: 69 mph at Westerly, RI

    Peak U.S. wind gusts: 90 mph at Islip, NY and Tompkinsville, NJ

    Maximum U.S. storm surge: 9.45′, Bergen Point, NJ 9:24 pm EDT October 29, 2012

    Maximum U.S. Storm Tide: 14.60′, Bergen Point, NJ, 9:24 pm EDT October 29, 2012

    Maximum wave height: 33.1′ at the buoy east of Cape Hatteras, NC (2nd highest: 32.5′ at the Entrance to New York Harbor)

    Maximum U.S. rainfall: 12.55″, Easton, MD

    Maximum snowfall: 36″, Richwood, WV

    Minimum pressure: 945.5 mb, Atlantic City, NJ at 7:24 pm EST, October 29, 2012. This is the lowest pressure measured in the U.S., at any location north of Cape Hatteras, NC (previous record: 946 mb in the 1938 hurricane on Long Island, NY)

    Destructive potential of storm surge: 5.8 on a scale of 0 to 6, highest of any hurricane observed since 1969. Previous record: 5.6 on a scale of 0 to 6, set during Hurricane Isabel of 2003.

    Diameter of tropical storm-force winds at landfall: 945 miles

    Diameter of ocean with 12′ seas at landfall: 1500 miles

  7. John, I think for some balance you might want to add some quote from Pielke’s article in the Wall Street Journal at


    “If Sandy causes $20 billion in damage (in 2012 dollars), it would rank as the 17th most damaging hurricane or tropical storm (out of 242) to hit the U.S. since 1900—a significant event, but not close to the top 10. ”


    “from August 1954 through August 1955, the East Coast saw three different storms make landfall—Carol, Hazel and Diane—that in 2012 each would have caused about twice as much damage as Sandy. … the U.S. is currently in an extended and intense hurricane “drought.” The last Category 3 or stronger storm to make landfall was Wilma in 2005. The more than seven years since then is the longest such span in over a century.”

    Of course both the above refer primarily to economics and particulars of development and geography. As we saw with Katrina, the damage from a storm depends on a lot of factors besides simply how intense or large a storm is: if the levees hadn’t failed in NOLA Katrina’s damage would probably have been about a tenth of what it was if my understanding/memory of what happened there is correct.

    In the case of Sandy, the problem seems to have been horribly aggravated by the intensity with which it hit a highly populous area that was unusually vulnerable? This is not my area of expertise, but as I was looking at the maps it struck me how the storm surge would have been coming from the wider ocean into what amounted to a “funnel” leading into lower Manhattan.

    In Haiti, Hazel killed over a thousand people in 1954, and in 1963 Flora killed over 8,000. Those deaths weren’t the result of global warming, but of the geography of the island and the social infrastructure.

    My criticisms of the AGW people here on an issue like this is the tendency to take isolated extreme incidents and then relate them to claimed much longer term trends. Could AGW bring about a real increase in killer storms in the future? Possibly, but nothing I’ve seen indicates that we’re talking about ten years or even fifty or a hundred years in terms of blaming a particular event on AGW. Again, not my area of expertise, BUT… very reminiscent of the style of argument IN my area of expertise when the death of an individual waitress or “lounge singer” (who never really sang in lounges to any great extent that I’ve been able to find) is “irrefutably” pinned on their exposure to secondary smoke: it’s exploitation of an individual tragedy without any real evidence that the tragedy is the result of a larger “trend.”

    – MJM

    • john byatt says:

      so everything in jeffs post is meaningless because the costs of storms is the benchmark ?

      We are talking about a record breaking event ,

      you have contradicted yourself as well.

      • John, if you read my post I believe you’ll notice that I pointed out the weakness of his addressing only the cost issue. I expanded the discussion beyond that.

        What was the claimed self contradiction btw?

        – MJM

      • rubber taster says:

        Creepy dude… From his photo, this MJM must be at least 75 years old. Or is that just the result of his addiction to cigarettes?

    • Nick says:

      I think Pielke Jr’s damage estimate is premature,partly due to the ‘New York effect’,the fact that the Big Apple dominates the early coverage and the coverage in general. The next week will see more quantification of damage in neighbouring states. 20 bill is lowball.

      The storm surge was highest over maybe a couple of hundred kilometers of coastline but was certainly very significant over another thousand. This puts Sandy into a very interesting category for mid latitude storms. More interesting than Pielke Jr or Sr.

      Pielke Jr will push his damage comparison based pettyfogging to divert from the overall picture. He is not an earth scientist.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I wouldn’t count on much damage outside the most severely affected areas. I used to live near a river, which occasionally suffered a few feet of flooding due to storm surge combining with a high tide.

        Its quite easy to protect your house, because a few feet of storm surge only lasts an hour or so, while the tide is at its peak (spring tides normally vary by a few metres, depending on local geography). You protect your house by putting heavy repair tape around the exposed door frames (or greenhouse tape – any waterproof tape really). Inside the house you use Plumber’s Mate non setting putty (normally used to seal the gap between toilet waste pipes and walls or floors) as required, to seal any leaks which appear in your tape defences.

        Its also a good idea to use telescopic air bricks, or have a good way of sealing low level air vents if installing telescopic air bricks is not an option. (bathroom sealant silicone squeezed on a sheet of plywood is a pretty formidable water barrier).

        Obviously this doesn’t help if the storm surge is 20ft high and lasts for days.

      • Nick says:

        Storm surge was well over two feet from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras. That’s one thousand kilometers of coast. Two thirds of that was over 4 feet. Plus high tide and on top of sea level rise of greater than the global mean. Then there is a building code that puts houses too close to the sea. Factors line up.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          If you live right on the waterfront, you see a 3-4ft storm surge combined with a high tide every 3-4 years. So people in such proximity to water should already know how to protect their houses.

          And living right on the waterfront is a lovely experience – I miss having the Swans swim up to our patio. A nanny state building code to stop people such a wonderful lifestyle is red tape madness.

      • Nick says:

        Your figures for return times of high tide and storm surge are plucked from your fundus. Those sort of figures would mean abandoning quite a lot of waterfront property in NSW already. It’s not that extreme yet. However,1:20,1:50 and 1:100 year storm events can radically redraw boundaries overnight….and with SLR underneath the weather,each storm can move up a notch in severity.

        The problems arise when the sea encroaches on your land,and you start looking to the the state to compensate you/bear some/all the cost of defending your property/investment. Then we’ll see who wants nanny..

        • eworrall1 says:

          My figures are “plucked” from my experience living by the water in England, and successfully defending my home against the occasional storm surge.

      • rubber taster says:

        Eric is just a sad troll. I feel sorry for his children.

      • Nick says:

        Pretty sobering info coming in from the ravaged coastal settlements.

        • Nick, very true. It seems there was a LOT of construction of homes along the NJ shore area that were not built to withstand that sort of assault and were not built on ground high enough to withstand that level of surge. And I think lower Manhattan got socked so badly because of that “funnel effect” I noted earlier: Sandy just piled up right into that whole “natural harbor” area. Manhattan also suffered (and will continue to suffer for weeks) from the amount of infrastructure it maintains underground that was simply not built for an inundation of salt water and dirt.

          To add insult to injury: computer systems and such things that thought they were “safe” because they had backup power generators? Heh… the generators were sometimes (often?) in the BASEMENTS — and didn’t work very well underwater.

          It’s kind of like what happened in Japan with the earthquake/tsunami and the power plant: they were built to withstand 98% of what nature might throw at them. And that’s just not good enough when you’re talking about installations so vital.

          – MJM

        • Interesting graph. However the green “rolling index” (the 9 point binomial line) seems a bit off at the end. Plus, you chose to show a graph that EXcludes the tropical cyclone indicator. Move your selection to the next option on the list, which INcludes that indicator and you’ll see a rather pointed trend downward since the late 1990s.

          On the other hand, extremes in annual temperature would certainly look warming in the most recent year, but contrarywise, extremes in landfalling tropical systems have been going down since 2005.

          – MJM

        • But why would you choose “year to date”? Put in “annual” or “hurricane season” as that would tend to provide a more complete data series. Your drop since your cherrypicked 2005 disappears and the result is now more in line with both of the peer reviewed papers I linked for you. For the record, the eyecromoter is a very poor analytical tool. The devil is always in the detail. Graphs are always meant as a supplement to the rest of the story. You should probably be aware MJM that your generally consistent non-acceptance of science is being seen by those of us in here who actually are scientists as rejection through ignorance. Disclaimers that “I’m no expert” used to allow you to make uninformed comment just paints you as a slick snakeoil salesperson. You are obviously more intelligent than the other anti-science troll in here but only just. He’s just a troll out to draw attention to himself. What is your motivation?

      • john byatt says:

        Enter this into the plot data

        region NE


        Max temp (step 1)

        big changes in NE US

      • john byatt says:

        Draw a trend line through that graph Michael, report back what you think may be happening

        I did not choose that michael, it must have been what was on there when I copied the URL, I was offering a site where one could obtain all types of extreme info only

      • john byatt says:

        Sandy damage bill now likely to exceed $50 billion, roger the dodger jumped in too early and has made himself irrelevant by using damage bill as the benchmark


      • Nick says:

        I’m pretty astonished that someone with a professional reputation to consider would try to call a damages figure so prematurely…then again,he’s not as smart as he thinks he is. Tamino just booted him off his blog for misdirection in comments.

      • This is to uknow’s Nov 4th 8:21 comment that I can’t coax into showing a reply button. :/

        UKnow, you wrote, “But why would you choose “year to date”? ” – = – = – I don’t think I did. I just took John’s choice and altered one other variable for comparison — NOT to “cherrypick” but to show that simply looking at the originally posted graph WAS cherrypicking — even if unintentional on John’s part.

        You also wrote, “Put in “annual” or “hurricane season” as that would tend to provide a more complete data series. Your drop since your cherrypicked 2005 disappears” – = – = – Again, since the data is all there right in front of you on the page I linked to, I can hardly be accused of cherry picking: I clearly picked 2005 to show how, with a different endpoint, a very different conclusion would have been reached. In terms of climate change I’m hoping that you wouldn’t try to argue that the VAST difference between the 2005 and 2012 figures had anything to do with the intervening amount of climate change. Would you?

        And wrote, “The devil is always in the detail. Graphs are always meant as a supplement to the rest of the story.” – = – = – Fully agreed. They can also sometimes be useful in giving someone quick access to a wider picture or to generating ideas though.

        And wrote, “You should probably be aware MJM that your generally consistent non-acceptance of science is being seen by those of us in here who actually are scientists as rejection through ignorance.” – = – = – What non-acceptance? Point out a single place on this blog where I have clearly made a statement that is non-acceptance of science. Please do NOT try to do so in an area where I’m not allowed to respond however.

        “Disclaimers that “I’m no expert” used to allow you to make uninformed comment just paints you as a slick snakeoil salesperson. You are obviously more intelligent than the other anti-science troll in here but only just. He’s just a troll out to draw attention to himself. What is your motivation?”

        I don’t know what my slickness is supposed to be selling, but my motivation here is similar to my motivation over at WUWT: to see how well the arguments on both sides stand up. Generally I’ve been more impressed by what I’ve seen over there, but, again as noted, I haven’t spent years studying this field nor have I read even a dozen real scientific studies on it: THAT is why I preface my statements with the note that I’m making no claim to be an expert. I do object however to being called “an anti-science troll” unless you can offer clear and convincing argument of such and back it up. Otherwise I think the rules of the board here would call for an apology and retraction.

        Thank you.

        – MJM

  8. john byatt says:

    the U.S. is currently in an extended and intense hurricane “drought.” The last Category 3 or stronger storm to make landfall was Wilma in 2005. The more than seven years since then is the longest such span in over a century.”

    thought irene made landfall in 2011

    What a load of cherry picked drivel michael

    • It could well be John. I noted that this is not my area of expertise. Was Irene a Cat 3 when it made landfall? Seems like a rather obvious thing for Pielke to have missed. You might want to post the details over at the WSJ.

      – MJM

      • john byatt says:

        You have already admitted that his cost analysis was stupid especially only a day or so after the event, Irene made landfall twice, the cat 3 reference was the cherry picked bit

        What you seem to deny is that all storms are now stronger than they otherwise would have been due to warmer ocean and more atmospheric moisture

        for goodness sake the deniers even claim that the extra moisture will reduce global warming

        roger also seems to have missed the seven other countries that Sandy hit,

        Why did you even bother to put that crap up if as you now say you do not agree with it, you saw your contradiction and then claimed that you pointed out the weakness in his argument, yet what i am reading is that you where trying to point out the weakness from the AGW side.


      • Hmm… I don’t think I said *anything* about his analysis being “stupid” John. Where do you see that? I pointed out that it’s limited. Can you clarify on Irene? Was it a Cat 3 when it made landfall? If it *was* then your point is correct. If it was not, then it’s not. P. evidently thought it was not and I suggested you correct him over at the WSJ with a proper citation. Did you do that?

        I also didn’t deny anything about ocean temps etc: I *doubt* that “storms are now stronger” in any measurable sense because of AGW however.

        As to why I “put that crap up” it was as a note that there was more to be considered and as an introduction to my more generalized thoughts (which I don’t think you’ve addressed at all?)

        – MJM

      • john byatt says:

        ,” I also didn’t deny anything about ocean temps etc: I *doubt* that “storms are now stronger” in any measurable sense because of AGW however.”

        then you need to go back to basics

        just looked at your link “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

        check that out eric, this guy is one of your mob

  9. John, why would you say, “just looked at your link “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” check that out eric, this guy is one of your mob” ?

    “Brains” has nothing to do with GW. It’s mainly an analysis of statistical and linguistic propaganda techniques and their results.

    – MJM

    • john byatt says:

      Glad that you agree that second hand smoke is dangerous then

      • John, directly misattributing statements to one’s opponent in a debate is dishonest. You have now twice clearly attributed statements to me that I believe were never made (1. That Pielke’s “cost analysis was stupid”; and 2. that “secondhand smoke is dangerous”). That would seem to show that you are not a very honest debater unless you would like to simply apologize for the misattributions and move on within the context of the AGW and Sandy debate.

        Would you like to do so?

        – MJM

      • john byatt says:

        what is to take offence at

        Glad that you agree that second hand smoke is dangerous then

        this is congratulating you for accepting the science, do not see that as an insult do you?

        roger is stupid your post proved it , why prove it if you do not believe it ?

      • john byatt says:


        The poor little fellow pictured here is an Antibrain. Taken from the head of a typical Anti-smoker, he’s about to be dissected by, of all things, a smoker.

        Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains dumps traditional “conspiracy theory” thinking about social movements and examines the rise of public feeling against smokers and smoking as the being the product of a number of diverse groups and individuals with differing motivations. Today’s antismoking lobby has access to hundreds of millions of dollars to promote their goals but “The Greedy”, those with largely financial motivations, are only one of nine distinct groups examined in the first fifty page section of Dissecting.

        This website will give you a general introduction to Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains. Several excerpts including the Author’s Preface, an analysis of the arguments and research surrounding tobacco taxes, and excerpts from the extensive sections on “second-hand” smoke are available through the links on the left. In addition, is a full reproduction of one of the appendices, while is an early version of another Appendix.

        These sections should give you a reasonably good feel for the writing style and content to be found within the book as well as providing the web reader with some important basic information.

      • Since I clearly did not “agree that second hand smoke is dangerous” without qualifications (e.g. I would certainly agree that being locked in a phone booth with 500 Smoldering Salems for an hour would be “dangerous” but I would most certainly not agree that being in a well-ventilated bar or restaurant with a few smokers was “dangerous”) I believe the “offence” was well-stated and has now been repeated for a third instance in your post of 8:01.

        I’m quite careful with my science and the statements I make John, as you’ll see if you examine the document at and search for specific criticisms to make, and I do not appreciate having inaccurate statements attributed to me. Since it’s so easy to rebut them in forum like this they’re not really harmful, but they’re still annoying and distract from the larger discussion.

        I stated quite clearly in my opening posts that GW discussions were outside the area of my expertise and thus showed myself being open to correction if any of my statements were poorly based. But I should not be “corrected” for things I did not say.

        – MJM

      • john byatt says:


      • rubber taster says:

        John, well played sir!

        Your one word describes this douche perfectly!

    • Eric Worrall says:

      John believes the alarmist dogma that climate skeptics are all closet creationists who believe the moon landing was faked. Its kind of pathetic really.

      • john byatt says:

        Eric, just about every young earth creationist in existence is an AGW denier and every moon landing was faked nuts are also.

        it is par for the course

        Just go to the blog that promote the creationist and moon nonsense, then give us a verdict.

        if it quacks like a duck eric

      • john byatt says:

        Eric you were pushing the nonsense that there is no correlation between climate deniers, creationists and moon whackos

        nearly of those people deny climate change so you claim that all those who accept the science are terrorists based on a few examples,

        So not all climate deniers are creationists or mooners

        but nearly all creationists and mooners are climate deniers

        try that with your terrorist claim that you think refutes that
        and you would be saying

        not all those who accept the science are terrorists

        but nearly all terrorists accept the science

        as you can see it becomes a complete nonsense,
        this in effect is what you are saying

    • john byatt says:

      You effeb liar

      The poor little fellow pictured here is an Antibrain. Taken from the head of a typical Anti-smoker, he’s about to be dissected by, of all things, a smoker.

      Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains dumps traditional “conspiracy theory” thinking about social movements and examines the rise of public feeling against smokers and smoking as the being the product of a number of diverse groups and individuals with differing motivations. Today’s antismoking lobby has access to hundreds of millions of dollars to promote their goals but “The Greedy”, those with largely financial motivations, are only one of nine distinct groups examined in the first fifty page section of Dissecting.

      This website will give you a general introduction to Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains. Several excerpts including the Author’s Preface, an analysis of the arguments and research surrounding tobacco taxes, and excerpts from the extensive sections on “second-hand” smoke are available through the links on the left. In addition, is a full reproduction of one of the appendices, while s an early version of another Appendix.

      These sections should give you a reasonably good feel for the writing style and content to be found within the book as well as providing the web reader with some important basic

      • rubber taster says:

        John, good ol’ Darwin will sort out MJM and his ilk. If the cancer doesn’t get him, his habit will make his swimmers look like wizened sea monkeys, unable to get past the starting line. Not to mention the DNA damage and shorter life he has gifted to any children he may (struggle to) have will tilt the odds against his line continuing. Two to three generations should sort things out.

    • john byatt says:

      this us election is vital which way will america go,

      New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has endorsed the re-election of Barack Obama, citing the president’s leadership on climate change.

      Mr Bloomberg said the megastorm Sandy, which killed at least 80 people, had re-shaped his thinking about the presidential campaign.

      He said the risk that the recent extreme weather was a result of climate change should compel all leaders to take action.

      Interactive: US election map

      Track how Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are faring in the polls as US election day approaches.
      There has been a pronounced lack of discussion of climate change on the campaign trail, and Mr Bloomberg said Mr Obama was the best candidate to tackle the issue.

      “The devastation that Hurricane Sandy brought to New York City and much of the north-east – in lost lives, lost homes and lost business – brought the stakes of Tuesday’s presidential election into sharp relief,” the mayor said.

      “We need leadership from the White House – and over the past four years, president Barack Obama has taken major steps to reduce our carbon consumption, including setting higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks.”

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I’d say too close to call. Its true Obama has been given a boost by climate lies and people’s distress following Sandy, but politics is strange – there are a lot of Republicans who will be angry that the green communists seem to be in the ascendancy, so Republican turnout might be higher.

      • rubber taster says:

        Obama has it in the bag.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Ah, so you’re not a terrorist like Bin Laden, but you do support direct action by fanatics to harass politicians you don’t like.


      • Nick says:

        Heckling politicians is ‘fanatical harassment’? My,my Eric you must be a very passive citizen!

      • Nick says:

        Well,pardon them for not being complacent compliant bunnies like you,Eric. Protest like that has been going on for centuries. Some people really think about politics and the presumptions of its actors. Your life has been improved by people who heckle,campaign, jump in front of cars,chain themselves to machinery or shout from the public gallery.

        If we had no ‘eco-fanatics’–such a mindless description–we would not have a national park system,we would not have a nature reserve system,NSW forests would have been uneconomically and unsustainably logged through the 1980s. People were prepared to physically interpose themselves into a situation when negotiation and consultation were being abused or ignored..a necessary way of exposing the important things,and those who would seek to hide and destroy.

      • Nick says:

        Don’t be so fearful.

  10. uknowispeaksense says:

    Mike, I have a comment in response to MJM that is waiting in moderation. It is a couple of links to papers that he may be interested in even though it is not his “area of expertise” that demonstrate changes in storm dynamics as a result of AGW.

    • Thank you unknow. I’ll check them out. You’re also welcome to email them to me at Cantiloper over on the gmail system if you like.

    • john byatt says:

      probably the same one on mine that is in moderation, not sure if it was because i called him a liar, (penis) or the two links

      definately one of erics mob a disinformer


    • uknow, thank you for the references, but (1) there’s not that much in the abstracts and the rest is behind paywalls it seems; and (2) I have a hard enough time keeping up with the weeds in my own garden: truly understanding changes in storm dynamics is a bit beyond me. I don’t argue against such things as climate cycles or the possibility of long term changes as we grow to 14 or 30 billion people driving deathmobiles around the planet, but I stand by my original comment in this thread that exploiting isolated instances of individual tragedy and claiming that they are “irrefutably” caused by minor contributing factors (which, I believe, “anthropogenic climate change” is (at most) at the moment as regards such things as the formation/development/intensities of hurrricanes) is out of line as far as science goes.

      If someone wanted to claim that their research showed that AGW had increased the intensity of Sandy by somewhere between 2% and 5% I might doubt their model, but I certainly wouldn’t simply dismiss it as untrue without understanding it. When someone points to Sandy as a disaster and claims it was “caused by” or even “is a symptom of” AGW, THEN I feel more comfortable in such dismissal.

      – MJM

      • uknowispeaksense says:

        With all due respect, the “paywall” argument is an excuse for intellectual laziness. The problem is you are refuting absolute statements that experts aren’t making. Scientists rarely talk in absolutes. In those two papers, they provide evidence for the conditions that faciltate more intense storms e.g increased average water temperature. They also then provide evidence of increased average storm intensity from things like sediment depositions. With that they can make a very compelling case for cause and effect. Naturally they have various caveats that preclude them from linking individual events directly to AGW but it is perfectly reasonable for them to state that based on the evidence available that events such as Hurricane Sandy are becoming more frequent.
        What is “out of line” is questioning a discipline of science which by your own admission you know very little about and aren’t too keen to learn about. Using that as a caveat is disingenuous and quite frankly annoying. You should just be a bit more upfront and state that your uneducated opinion is worthless.

      • Dunno why I have a “reply” button under me but not under you unknow, but I’m replying to you. :>

        The paywall argument is most definitely NOT “an excuse for intellectual laziness.” Obviously I have no idea what your economic circumstances are, but I can share mine rather easily: here’s a link to an article about my house nestled between two abandoned properties with 15 foot weeds growing around me. (Heh, I had a couple of 15 *INCH* weeds that resulted in the newspaper article.) :

        (I live in the green house.) I can assure you that I have had to neglect scientific articles of far more central interest to me in the past because of paywalls.

        You said to me, “You should just be a bit more upfront and state that your uneducated opinion is worthless” and again, if you go back to my earlier postings I believe I stated quite clearly, at least twice, that this was NOT my “area of expertise.” Again, lack of anonymity helps prevent folks from claiming expertise where it does not exist. You wouldn’t believe the number of anonymous “doctors,” “surgeons,” “Mothers Of Four,” etc I’ve had attack me with all sorts of unsubstantiated claims from their supposed areas of expertise. Whenever I’m discussing the details of a subject in my area, I’m always quite clear about who I am and where I’m coming from in discussions, either by signing my potential conflicting interest in my first appearance on a thread or referring people to a profile.

        – MJM

  11. john byatt says:

    MJM ‘s book ,

    Samantha Phillipe, founder of the and the the long running (260+ weekly issues!) Pro-Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter ( had this to say:

    “Overall his book is incredibly readable for the amount of information it packs into its 370 pages: you’ll almost feel at times like you’re reading a page-turning novel rather than a serious work of non-fiction aimed at a modern social problem.”

  12. john byatt says:

    Michael J. McFadden, on January 12, 2009 at 3:10 am said:
    This is one of the few accurate articles I’ve seen on this “study.”

    The researchers did absolutely no new research on the health effects of smoke or even “third hand smoke” on children or anyone else. They simply utilized an opinion survey and determined that people who are really paranoid about smoke in the most microscopic amounts are the ones most likely to ban smoking in their homes. They then went on to point out how such beliefs (no matter HOW crazy – though of course they didn’t say this) could be used to pressure smokers into quitting.
    The researchers also seemed to play up the “deadly toxins” rhetoric in their statements to such an extent that the New York Times felt quite comfortable about highlighting the threat to children from the “deadly radiation” in tobacco smoke that was used to kill a Russion KGB agent a few years ago.
    The Times neglected to mention that even the most extreme floor-licking child would have to lick floors for literally three trillion years in order to receive the deadly KGB dose.
    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

    go and mate with yourself

  13. Not exactly sure what an “effeb liar” is, but I kind of doubt I am one. Was there anything in the material you quoted that illustrates an “effeb lie”?

    I will repeat though, that I believe you should drop this line of discussion as it is not on topic, but if the moderator wants to allow it to continue I won’t personally object. You might be new here and be unaware of some history, but I’d suggest you look at the thread:

    where WTD notes problems with the discussion moving “from ‘robust’ to personal and vitriolic.” and further noted that “some impassioned individuals make comments through their perceived anonymity.” I clearly do not hide behind anonymity in my postings, which thereby opened the doorway to John seeking out my other websites and topics and bringing their materials in here, but I’d like it to be clear that I don’t really approve of such a thing: I *could* carry on an extended discussion of secondhand smoke topics here, but I believe, in the spirit of the previous discussions at the noted thread and what followed it that I should refrain. John, I think you should refrain as well unless WTD stops in and notes that it’s fine to continue.

    – MJM

    • uknowispeaksense says:

      What is your take on people who ‘hide behind anonymity’?

      • uknow, when someone “hides behind anonymity” on the Internet in any discussion where there are possible vested interests or the possibility of people being paid to promote certain views and such then it becomes suspicious and the value of their arguments should likewise be regarded. Their arguments might still be *valid* but it’s a good idea to triple-check their references to be sure they say what they’re claimed to say.

        Other than that, hiding behind anonymity leads to the “cyber troll” type behavior that caused WTD to shut down a previous thread that strayed into this territory too heavily. It’s fine to use occasional parallels from other areas as they relate to global warming arguments but I believe he wants to strictly limit discussions that go directly into debates ABOUT those other areas. It’s his blog, his home, his rules… and his wishes should be respected. Although if he wanted to set up some sort of side sub-thread for a particular off-topic discussion I’d certainly have no objection!

        – MJM

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          It’s a shame you feel its ok to make sweeping generalisations like that. Some of us, have very sound and legitimate reasons for maintaining anonymity. In my case, I have multiple reasons; one legal, one work related and one not wanting any more lunatics sending anonymous hate mail to my wife as happened 3 years ago. I’m certainly not paid and am disappointed that an uninformed and somewhat prejudicial opinion could somehow cast doubt on the validity or integrity of my comments.

      • Uknow, you’ll notice that I did not say the arguments of anons should simply be discounted: if they’re valid, they’re valid. But if the debater is presenting their views at a highly professional and knowledgeable level (both in terms of the subject and in terms of knowing what key aspects of the debate etc should be emphasized to promote their view) and has appeared out of the blue as an anonymous persona then it is reasonable to suspect that they’re more than just somebody sitting in their living room voicing an opinion without exterior motivations. As such, it pays to show at least a little extra care in accepting what they might claim without checking on it. Heh, I most certainly wasn’t hinting that you yourself are a secret operative for Big Wind Farm. ;>

        And I’m well aware that sometimes people *need* anonymity: there are a number of people in the medical, educational, and literary fields who are active in my area but who need to maintain their anonymity or their “heretical” views could cost them their jobs. Sorry to hear about the hate mail thing. :/ I’m in the midst of writing a book at the moment that has a chapter examining hate directed toward a denormalized subgroup and the consequences it can bring about. Sad.

        – MJM

      • rubber taster says:

        He wont understand. Nicotine affects the sarc mechanism..

    • john byatt says:

      That is nonsense I clicked on your name which links to your anti science book promotion, whether your name was used or you used a pseudonym with the same link, it would still have allowed a search

      It was not your name it was your self promotion

      ” I clearly do not hide behind anonymity in my postings, which thereby opened the doorway to John seeking out my other websites and topics and bringing their materials in here,

      “but I’d like it to be clear that I don’t really approve of such a thing:

      which is why he links his anti science self promotion to his name,
      because he does not want it brought here, pull the other one


  14. john byatt says:

    Go and spruik your crap elsewhere micheal anyone who starts off with words to effect “this is not a conspiracy theory” has already lost me

    I know two people that have emphysema from second hand smoke

    get lost


    • As noted, I’ll refrain from further involvement until the morrow, but you really should do more reading of the actual science in that area — or do what I did in my initial post and simply note a lack of expertise.

      – MJM

      • john byatt says:

        And you should visit a few people with second hand smoke emphysema and tell them that it is harmless,

        • Well, since WTD seems comfortable with this thread of discussion I’ll respond (although without autocopulatory suggestions… :> ). John, you say, “And you should visit a few people with second hand smoke emphysema and tell them that it is harmless,”

          John, have you read the studies on ETS and COPD? Even for people with lifelong heavy ETS exposure, all that can be argued is that some of the studies show a slight, and not necessarily causal, correlation between the two. If the correlation shows, as in the case of forty years of daily exposure to workplace ETS and lung cancer, an RR of 1.19, that means that an individual with such an exposure could be argued to have had an 81% chance of developing it with no exposure, and a 19% chance it developed due to exposure. I believe the figures for clinically significant COPD are even lower.

          The 19% excess risk for lung cancer btw translates into 1.19 x .4% lifetime risk — an increase of one chance in a thousand from the base rate of four chances in a thousand: and that’s according to the EPA figures on a lifetime of exposure.

          – MJM

      • John, “factsheets” aren’t science you realize. What you should be doing is reading the actual studies. As you may have noticed from my earlier reference link, a good many of them are freely available for evaluation and criticism. However, if you want to stand behind your factsheet, let’s go right to the top overview to see how accurate it is.

        Note where it says of that ETS contains 7,000 chemicals, including “70 that can cause cancer.” If you do a bit of research on that statement you’ll find that in reality only about 12 of those chemicals are known to cause cancer in HUMANS … which is what we are generally concerned about, for those of us that fit in that category. The rest of the 70 are uncertain or cause cancer in mutant hairless gerbils etc. So right off the bat your “factsheet” is misleading people.

        Furthermore, if you take those 12 chemicals and add up their emitted weight per cigarette it comes out to about 1/2 of a single milligram. How dangerous is that to another person in the room? Well, if I sit here with a martini, chock FULL of highly volatile known human carcinogen (ethyl alcohol) about 1 full gram per hour of that carcinogen, 2,000 times the amount known to be coming from the other person’s cigarette, is evaporating into the air for everyone to breathe. See my piece on that in the British Medical Journal at:

        if you want more details.

        Also, you’ll note the scary number, “7,000 chemicals” in your factsheet. What that number does NOT tell you is that ordinary exhaled human breath contains over 3,000 volatile organic chemicals, almost ALL of which are “toxic” as well. Remember: toxicity depends upon dosage: your factsheet in simply using the word without qualification is misleading people when it says “hundreds” of the chemicals in ETS are toxic.

        OK… all I did was start right at the top, in the very first section, of your factsheet and look at all that was wrong with it.

        Try reading the Surgeon Generals Reports sometime. I have. A good scientist doesn’t just read what agrees with him or her. You can learn more by reading what you DISAGREE with.

        – MJM

      • john byatt says:

        Your so called piece is letter to the editor Michael,
        no qualifications whatsoever from the link, anti science activist

        facts sheet are the results of thousand of scientific studies that make up the consensus
        we have fact sheets about climate change, fact, it is human caused.

        you are advocating a game of russian roulette. some people will be more prone than others, we do not know those who will be prone so we take the precautionary principal and assume that every one is prone.

        makes good health sense

        On this blog you will find people who respect both science and scientists.

        your attitude is a lack of respect for both. and you wish me to respect your moronic view when you are advocating the harming of babies,

        see i have remained polite despite despising you,

    • Thank you WTD. Sorry to have probably disturbed your digestion while your morning coffee is still brewing here. :> Nothing was said that particularly bothered me so no need to worry about it ( Heh, “I’ve been called worse!” as they say. :> ) I actually went looking for those guidelines a while ago in this discussion so I could refer John to them but after a fairly good searching at I was not able to find wherever to click to get to that page!

    • john byatt says:

      Yes I will try to conform, but it was obvious that michael purely came here to promote his nonsense about second hand smoke, he evens admits that he knows nothing on the subject that he is claiming is wrong re Sandy

      best I do not reply to him, a peddlar of anti science and makes me want to spew.


  15. john byatt says:

    Half page story in regional newspapers this morning ” Climate Commission links Sandy to climate change, report to be issued, talks about poleward tracks of cyclones and the affect that could have for the Australian east coast, report out soon

    Not so good though was a letter to the editor from QLD greens senator Larissa Waters.

    Commonwealth government to hand over all environmental responsibilities to states. the only exception is for uranium mining. In other words the newman government can do what it likes in the great barrier reef and national parks
    How this came about she does not say, but it will also place the Franklin back in the firing line,
    when we fought for the Franklin I said that the day would come when we would have to do this all again, hope that does not prove to be true.


  16. john byatt says:

    Mike uknowispeaksense

    some of eric’s claims re the Biffra paper verus Biffra’s email would make a good post and excellent take down of willard the source of Erics crap

    consider when you get back from your lazing around in the forest junket

    lucky B

  17. Rubber, we’ll see how even-handed the moderator is now. You saw the warnings about bringing up forbidden subjects on the blog here and you’ve ignored them. Not to mention your slippage into what WTD has called vileness and vitriol.

    On the other hand, if WTD is willing to lift the ban on my responding to gentlemen such as yourself, I’d be more than happy to.

    – MJM

    • john byatt says:

      Mike has told you that you are welcome to remain if you wish to discuss climate change, he has given you a lot of leeway on two threads, more than I would have.

      rubber taster may not have seen Mikes response that the subject was now banned,

      easy to miss comments

      now go and do some weeding.

  18. John, other than responding to your off-topic comments (and quite arguably “vile,” “vitriolic,” or “abusive,” as WTD has noted some people seem to slide into in such discussions which in your case oddly don’t seem to have merited a warning) my comments here were all on-topic, and, even in responding to such gems of thine as “Retard.” have consistently remained both polite and proper… as anyone reading up through them will easily see.

    – MJM

    • Eric Worrall says:

      As the 10:10 exploding school children video showed, climate alarmists think bad things happening to skeptics is funny – they insult us, because to them we’re Untermench.

    • john byatt says:

      The warning was for me, Did you miss my response ?

      google john byatt is a complete bastard and you will get about 10,000 hits.

      as I said I have a problem with suffering fools.

      I learn

      • rubber taster says:

        Eric keeps projecting his pro-fascist ideology on others. We’re not the ones with the weird fascination with Nazism. I don’t think you’re Untermensch Eric – I think you are sad and lonely, unable to accept what the evidence shows and probably using your denial to feel connected to others – even if the ‘others’ on wtd think you are a dope.

        Always remember that many of fascism’s recruits were right-wing conservatives.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I’m not the one who wants to impose my beliefs on others rubber. And I’m not the one who believes the world faces an imminent scientific crisis, based on the projections of defective models.

          For example, I don’t care what form of electricity you use, but you want to ensure the electricity I use comes from low carbon sources, even if it costs me more – you would ban me from using coal, if you could.

      • rubber taster says:

        Eric, yes your neo-fascist sympathies become more evident every time you post here. One feature of your fascism is the focus on the denial of common good, much like your thought leaders in the US.

        • eworrall1 says:

          Fascism is the denial of common good

          Last time I checked fascism was strongly associated with national socialism.

          I guess we need to add “student of history” to your list of expertise.

  19. catweazle666 says:

    rubber taster says:

    No Eric, we call you names because you are a complete denialist fuckwit.

    Been honing your debating skills I see, rubber taster.

    Presumably the generally accepted convention that when a party resorts to abuse it indicates that they have lost the argument doesn’t hold on this blog?

    Just as a matter of interest, what kind of rubbers do you usually taste, plain or fruit flavoured, and in what situations do you taste them?

    • john byatt says:

      It is very hard to respond to idiots who just continue to throw up the same nonsense day after day and after fully explaining why they are wrong with polite chit chat.

      Eric has been on the Biffra paper every day for over a week .It has been explained to him that the MXD data which showed higher MWP temps in the region discussed was wrong and that the TRW data was more correct, this actually reduces the MWP temp data to comparable to the late 20th century, this is what the TRW data had shown years ago, already known and nothing to do with Mann’s work.

      After going over and over it, sooner or later someone is going to realise that eric is just a complete DF unable to comprehend even the basics,

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Perhaps I missed the MWP kink in Mann’s hockey stick.

        And my point about arctic melting still stands – if 200 years of arctic temperatures comparable to today’s is not enough to create a SLR shock, then models which predict a SLR shock are falsified by the historical record.

      • john byatt says:

        See Cat, point proven

      • Nick says:

        …..or,Eric,your premise is wrong to start with. I warned you about unsupportable extrapolation from one location. MWP summers can be ‘as warm as late 20th century’ without the entire Arctic following suit: have a look at a map sometime.

        As well Melvin and Briffa 2012 have not a ‘200y period’ but a couple of warm subperiods within that time.

        You also have to get a synchronous warming out of all your proxy data to make inferences like yours. Maybe that will be very difficult because of differing methods and unavoidable error margins,but what I see of MWP papers shows quite a spread of time periods.

        Greenland winter data as discussed by Vinther et al 2010 show that the warmest signals there are just pre 800AD,and the MWP [conventionally 950-1200AD] is warm but less so than present [post 1980] He uses the term Medieval Climate Optimum for 800-1000AD. Something to be considered with Greenland data is that it is from ice cores and bores at considerable elevation. Another is just how large and rapid recent warming is compared with variations in any direction in the two millenia past

        Again:the hockey stick of MBH 98 did not go back to the MWP. MBH 99 made it back 1000 y. Both papers however show the unmistakable decline to LIA depths. That’s how you ‘missed the kink’

    • john byatt says:

      Catweazle , eccentric, dishevelled and smelly

      you picked a good one there.

      what is with the 666,?

    • rubber taster says:

      weasel, Eric trolls, I respond. That’s how the game is played. He’s not here to talk science, he’s here, like you, because you are sad and lonely people, trying desperately to prove to yourselves that you are relevant to the discussion in some way.

  20. john byatt says:

    From uknowispeaksense link
    N pacific
    Consensus of TC trends between the two agencies over the period is interpreted as fewer, but stronger events since 1984, even with the lower Power Dissipation Index (PDI) in the western North Pacific in recent years.

    * Corresponding author address: Bellamy Building 320, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA. E-mail:

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Alarmists blow in the breeze – every shift in weather becomes new evidence for their theory, even if it contradicts what they were saying before. And they shamelessly pretend they predicted it all along.

      For example, Jo Nova’s hilarious post on the Antarctic Flipflop.

      Or the funny example of Obama’s science advisor John Holdren, who used to predict global cooling which was all our fault, but now predicts global warming which is all our fault.

      • john byatt says:

        After being hoodwinked by WUWT now you allow yourself to be scammed by Nova

        If the Southern Ocean is warming, why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). This strengthens the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas leads to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009).

        Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters. So now you have a surface layer that is less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007).

        The bottom line is Antarctic sea ice is a complex and unique phenomenon. The simplistic interpretation that it must be cooling around Antarctica is decidedly not the case. Warming is happening – how it affects specific regions is complicated.

        bet you have been scammed a few times in your life

        • eworrall1 says:

          Maybe you’re right about the Antarctic – perhaps warm water and increased precipitation in the Antarctic has the opposite effect to warm water and increased precipitation in the Arctic.

          But this was not the issue I was flagging – my point is that even when alarmists get it wrong, they pretend they were right all along – as the Jo Nova link shows. They avoid falsification by claiming infallibility, and ignoring their own contradictory past statements.

          No more snow, anyone?

      • Nick says:

        Your act is very thin, Eric. Face it,the sum of climate knowledge and what has been summarised for the public is far greater than your awareness of it. Or Jo Nova’s. Every gotcha based on argument by incredulity attempted by Jo is really just a reiteration of her ignorance.

        Holdren’s views on global cooling were based on observations of aerosols,anthropogenic and/or natural,and his utterances were based on the potential effects of continued emissions without control measures. That was forty years ago.In the light of his views and those of many others,the US and Europe limited emissions of coarser particulates and SO2,continuing efforts begun in the 1950s.

        Forty years later, the concern having shifted by the 1980s to the GHG aspect of human waste generation,Holdren is addressing those issues.

        Get with it. 40 years of accumulating knowledge,yet you act like science is like 1950s politics or religion:you inherit daddy’s views and stick to them.

        And your flapping around on Arctic/Antarctic ‘contradictions’ shows you have learned nothing in the last few months,despite patient direction and explanation. Still incredulous because you are oblivious.

        Antarctica:elevated continent,ice covered,occupying polar latitudes,surrounded by open ocean..

        Arctic: polar sea,partially covered with seasonal sea ice,surrounded by land masses,one of which carries substantial ice sheet.

        Do you see the gross physical dissimilarities between the two physical set ups?

        Start from that,and you may get somewhere…maybe.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Keep telling yourself that its all too big and complex to understand if it helps. Ineffability is a good defence against people who question the mysteries.

          Of course, if the arctic starts to freeze again, or the Antarctic starts to melt, you will have predicted that as well, won’t you?

          We actually saw some groundwork for a new flipflop with new papers appearing explaining the lack of warming is due to particulates.

          Its a sweet setup – if the world starts cooling, you dial up the effect of particulates in your models. If the world starts warming, you dial up the amplification of CO2 forcing. Either way, your model can never be falsified.

          A theory which cannot be falsified is not scientific.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          eagerly waiting for you to attempt falsifying the theory of gravity. I’ll bring popcorn. Someone else can bring the shovel.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          At least gravity is falsifiable, in principle – unlike the alarmist faith, with changes its spots every time one of its predictions is falsified.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          “at least gravity is falsifiable”

          What are you waiting for?

      • john byatt says:

        If he even refuses to accept the time line re Gold coast desal plant and his nonsense about Tim Flannery

        eg 2004 ron clarke mayor GC touts GC desal plant

        2005 ron Clark confirms that he will build desal plant

        2005 state govt confirms a 50/50 investment in GC desal plant

        2007 Tim flannery on landline

        then there is absolutely no chance that he could even accept peer reviewed papers

        He is not only incapable he is also a propagator of obvious lies.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The only government scientific body which is more alarmist than the CSIRO are the New Zealand Climate groups, and they’ve been at it for years, so trying to suggest dire predictions of a drying climate had nothing to do with the desal disaster is nonsense.

      • john byatt says:

        ERic paper

        Cambridge, Mass. – April 26, 2012 – Climate scientists at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) have discovered that particulate pollution in the late 20th century

        late 20th century

        “at this point, most of the “catch-up” warming has already occurred.”

        if you read a paper’s abstract eric try going past the first sentence next time

        • Eric Worrall says:

          If the current flatline in global temperatures continues, they’ll blame it on particulates holding back dangerous global warming – but for how long?

          If temperatures go down, they’ll flipflop to global cooling fears – all our fault for polluting the atmosphere.

          If temperatures go up, they’ll say “see we were right all along – CO2 is now ravaging the global climate”.

          Whatever happens to global temperatures, they will have been right all along.

      • Nick says:

        You are absolutely incredible,Eric…you’re the one peddling the arguments from incredulity, then you address ‘keep telling yourself it’s all too big and complex to understand’ to me!!!

        I’m beginning to think you are genuinely dense,rather than just playing at it.

        No need to project what the ‘reasons’ for a ‘warming pause’, ‘warming’,’cooling’ are or what will be ‘offered’: the explanations have long been available,starting from first principles,on aerosol effects,oceanic thermal lag,solar cycle variation and PDO/ENSO influences.These are all powerful natural variables working at varying strength,sometimes synchronous in effect. IPCC reports are full of such weighings….FFS,attribution study is in essence what every effing WG1 section of the report is about!!!!

      • zoot says:

        Eric’s “current flatline in global temperatures” is put in context here:

      • zoot says:

        Eric, you never studied stats did you?
        That plot merely shows that every shift in the weather becomes new evidence for your theory.

      • zoot says:

        BTW eric, thanks for demonstrating my point.

  21. john byatt says:

    Eric Worrall says:
    November 5, 2012 at 12:37 am
    The only government scientific body which is more alarmist than the CSIRO are the New Zealand Climate groups, and they’ve been at it for years, so trying to suggest dire predictions of a drying climate had nothing to do with the desal disaster is nonsense.

    then you did not read ron clarke’s statement that the desal was due to expected population

    growth that it would still be required “despite the drought”

    In 2004 the Gold Coast City Council resolved to construct Stage 3 of the Dam. This took it from 93.5 metres to its full height of 108 metres for water storage and flood mitigation purposes.

    You do not raise a dam wall if you not think that it will never rain again

    both projects as stated were for future requirements

    “despite the drought” Ron clarke

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Just part of the bandwagon. You tell greens its needed to combat climate change – the Bligh government did just that, and claimed they would also build a load of wind turbines to ensure the desal plant ran on green power. You tell anyone who objects to the climate change argument that it is needed anyway.

      Well guess what, the desal plant is a disaster – substandard construction, badly chosen materials going rusty, and such enormous electricity operating requirements that, even if the thing can be fixed, the electricity can only be realistically be supplied at anything remotely resembling an acceptable cost, either by building a large new coal power plant, or by going nuclear.

      Job well done – someone did very well out of that useless government white elephant. And it wasn’t the taxpayers.

  22. john byatt says:

    Eric Worrall says:
    November 5, 2012 at 12:46 am
    If the current flatline in global temperatures continues, they’ll blame it on particulates holding back dangerous global warming – but for how long?

    If temperatures go down, they’ll flipflop to global cooling fears – all our fault for polluting the atmosphere.

    If temperatures go up, they’ll say “see we were right all along – CO2 is now ravaging the global climate”.

    Whatever happens to global temperatures, they will have been right all along.

    If if if is all you have now that the paper rebuts your nonsense

    • Eric Worrall says:

      We’ve already seen the flipflops, with the Antarctic warming and the no more snow predictions changing to Antarctic cooling and extra snow due to higher precipitation.

      When challenged on the lack of recent warming, they trot out the particulates argument – e.g. Kauffman et al 2011 –

      If the world starts cooling significantly, they’ll just dial up the particulates, and claim to have predicted the possibility all along.

      Nothing which happens short of a full blown ice age can falsify the climatologists – and they’re even prepared for that – they’ll claim we shut down the North Atlantic current by melting the Arctic, just like the movie “The Day After Tomorrow”.

      • john byatt says:

        “If the world starts cooling significantly, they’ll just dial up the particulates, and claim to have predicted the possibility all along”.

        As the warming trend has been ongoing for the past 4 decades any one who believes the possibility of the world starting to cool significantly just does not get it

        just think eric future generations will get to read your crap here and think how could those people has been so mislead by a few people who were not even qualified in the sciences involved

      • Nick says:

        David Whitehouse is a lobbyists mouth for hire…the GWPF,a fake charitable status lobby group with undisclosed funding. It is not possible to get straight information from that group..

        There has been a lot of work on the Atlantic overturning,and a few views put forward. Confidence is greater now that it will not stop,but that it will slow a bit…You are beginning to learn about the possible influences of natural variability on the upward progress of the T signal,at least 20 years after the fact.[sarc]please excuse scientists for thinking out aloud,and engaging the public…when they really should just shut up and not risk scaring the chooks.[sarc]

      • john byatt says:

        we are just coming out of a solar minimum I believe eric, so solar ouput is more likely to increase temps over the next decade, after that even a really low sunspot count will have little effect on global temperature. a maunder minimum up to 2100 will also only reduce warming by a fraction of what AGW will contribute

      • john byatt says:


        The current exceptionally long minimum of solar
        activity has led to the suggestion that the Sun might
        experience a new grand minimum in the next decades, a
        prolonged period of low activity similar to the Maunder
        minimum in the late 17th century. The Maunder minimum
        is connected to the Little Ice Age, a time of markedly lower
        temperatures, in particular in the Northern hemisphere.
        Here we use a coupled climate model to explore the effect
        of a 21st‐centu ry grand minimum on futu re global
        temperatures, finding a moderate temperature offset of no
        more than −0.3°C in the year 2100 relative to a scenario with
        solar activity similar to recent decades. This temperature
        decrease is much smaller than the warming expected from
        anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the
        century. Citation: Feulner, G., and S. Rahmstorf (2010), On the
        effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate
        on Earth, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L05707, doi:10.1029/

        • Eric Worrall says:

          So a real popcorn moment then.

          If the solar minimum is as severe as the Maunder minimum, and global temperatures continue to rise, CO2 alarmism is vindicated.

          If global temperatures crash, CO2 alarmism is falsified.

  23. john byatt says:

    Here Eric

    can you pick where Anthony Cox TCS blog uses mathturbation to get his moronic conclusion?

    The bulk atmospheric CO2 is increasing by about 1.5ppm PA or about 4Gt; then there is the annual flux which is the movements into and out of the atmosphere which are described here.

    Currently the atmospheric bulk is about 3000Gt; the annual flux is 218.2Gt [from Figure 7.3, AR4].

    The amount of human sourced CO2, ACO2, in that annual flux is 8Gt, or about 3.67% of the FLUX.

    How much of that flux actually stays in the air and adds to the atmospheric bulk? The answer is given by the US Department of Energy [DOE]; see Table 3 on page 22 of the PDF.

    From this we can see that 98.5% of ALL annual emissions of CO2/ACO2 are reabsorbed and about 1.5% of the flux or about 4Gt is added to the atmospheric bulk.

    In 2009 Australia was 16th of the world’s nations CO2 emitters, emitting 374 million tonnes or about 1.28% of ACO2.

    So, there are all the facts; who is closer to the truth; Jones or Karoly?

    1.5% of all CO2, both natural and ACO2, is retained annually to add to the atmospheric bulk.

    Of that 1.5% addition, annually, the ACO2 component is 3.67%; so ALL of nations’ contributions is 3.67/100 x 1.5/100 = 0.000552.

    Australia’s annual emissions are 1.28% of the global ACO2; so 0.000552 x 1.28/100 = far less than what Karoly said and even less than what Jones said.

  24. […] 2012/11/01: WtD: Image of the day: It’s global warming stupid […]

  25. john byatt says:

    someone at RC went to the trouble of dissecting Roger jnr’s piece

    11, Let’s not dismiss Pielke, he’s a clever boy. It’s important to understand what he’s doing here. This WSJ opinion piece cloaked as a factual Hurricane Sandy in-the-light-of-history overview is just another vulgar hit piece on climate science and the scientists who work to expand our understanding of how the earth is adapting. Since it’s illustrative of the genre, the piece is worth deconstructing.

    Headline: Hurricanes and Human Choice. As he’ll point out, this is your fault.

    Paragraph 1: Acknowledge the obvious and follow up with a few non-controversial facts.

    Paragraph 2: Frame the opinion of your opponents with regard to this storm as the “new normal” and “unprecedented”. Then let your target audience know that through the magic of spreadsheet knowledge, you’ll prove that Sandy was only average in the world of awful outcomes. Bonus: Frame your opinion as reasonable and by comparison, your opponents as fanatics.

    Paragraph 3 & 4: Make your case regarding the hurricane. In the world of top 10 lists, Sandy was run-of-the-mill. In the world of killer weather, Sandy is a loser, (like those global warming fanatics).

    Paragraph 5: Save a juicy fact which may or may not matter to skewer “the media”. Bonus: The under-informed dislike “the media” and you’ve made the connection to those fanatics who see Hurricane Sandy as “unprecedented”.

    Paragraph 6, 7 & 8: Transition to a discussion of bad weather in general and point out how lucky we are today. Lay out some random tornado and drought stats and bring it home with a 1906 earthquake reference.

    Paragraph 9: Hey losers, did you see my headline, you live by water.

    Paragraph 10, 11 & 12: Humans “make their own luck” and experts should be congratulated. Bone chilling, your-on-your-own creepy. And of course, a warning with a wonkish reference.

    Paragraph 13: Finally, begin making your point…it’s a conspiracy. There is a “climate lobby” exploiting this weather event. Quote non-scientists making concerned points of view in the heat of a disaster.

    Paragraph 14: The red meat. Concede some ground to scientific consensus on climate change and make a hard right turn to introduce energy policy into the discussion as if this was relevant to the previous 13 paragraphs. Then hammer your only real point home, “…to connect energy policy and disasters makes little scientific or policy sense”. And pile on with a new centerpiece of climate denial,”…changes to energy policies wouldn’t have a discernible impact on future disasters for the better part of a century or more”.

    Paragraph 15: If you thought the set-up to this opinion piece was disturbing, here’s how to resolve our weather disaster issues: Look to the past for solutions.

    How far back, the Old Testament?

  26. Eric Worrall says:

    From The Guardian, Britain’s Greenest mainstream newspaper.

    Massive job cuts at Vestas, the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturer, thanks to uncertainty over government subsidies, and increased competition from China (down from 23,000 jobs a year ago, to 15,000 jobs now).

    Funny enough, it turns out that if green policies do create any jobs, the new jobs are created in China.

  27. air max 2009 says:

    This is really interesting, You’re a very skilled blogger. I have joined your feed and look forward to seeking more of your fantastic post. Also, I’ve shared your website in my
    social networks!

  28. I drop a leave a response when I appreciate a post on a site or I have something to contribute to the discussion.
    It is a result of the passion communicated in the post I read.

    And on this post Image of the day: Its global warming stupid Watching the Deniers.
    I was actually excited enough to drop a leave a responsea response 🙂 I actually do have a couple of questions for you
    if you don’t mind. Could it be only me or do a few of these comments appear as if they are left by brain dead people? 😛 And, if you are posting on other places, I would like to keep up with anything fresh you have to post. Would you make a list every one of all your social pages like your Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: