And nor can Marc Morano. Though he likes to pretend he is presenting real science, the people who actually understand the subject know he is about the exact opposite. And today he finally reveals his true interest -- the ego of Marc Morano!
Of course, Morano is only "winning?" in the same sense that Paris Hilton is influencing people abotu what shoes to buy -- it will all disappear 6 months from now, when some other bimbo comes along.
No one who really knows anything about science believes anything Morano has to say, and his Drudge-like tactics are very easy to see through. But now, we know, Morano is mostly interested in only one thing -- Marc Morano. He's be against kittens if he thought it'd get him attention. And yes, like Joseph McCarthy, even kitten-haters can sometimes seize the spotlight.
Of course, it never lasts, and forever after they have to be known as Joseph McCarthy. It's a very ugly trade-off that very few are willing to make. But every once in a while, someone goes for it.
28 comments:
Rule #1: You can never ask too many questions.
Apparently you are not living by your own rules.
If you were to ask a few more questions on climate science, such as, "where is the evidence that CO2
drives climate" or "how accurate are your models?"
Or, "why do I not observe what the models predicted?" you would perhaps have a bit more respect for those who have not drunk the kool aid.
Unfortunately for the global warming protagonist camp, the "scientific method" seems to have been thrown out of the window.
Real world observations at worst are ignored or at best heavily manipulated to show that they want. Along with massive cherry picking and refusal to compare the trends in the last 30 years or even the last 100 years with what has happened before in this and other interglacial periods and from a geological viewpoint in general. Nor are they interested in what has been happening in the rest of the solar system during the last of earths warming period (According to Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995), where most of the other planets also warmed. Coupled with the deliberate and successful attempts to stop skeptical articles from being published in the scientific periodicals and from being incorporated in the IPCC reports.
It seems that the global warming protagonists can now only fight with ad homminin attacks, character assassinations and down right lying!
Awww...go easy on David, he thinks he's trying to save the world and he loves himself for it. This is the classic good vs. evil and David will never understand the fact that he is the evil in this story. Belief in anthropogenic global warming needs to be classified as a mental illness and treated accordingly.
Boy, David, the bots are out today, aren't they? Shine some light on Morono and the cockroaches scuttle about, looking for cover.
Best,
D
I quite agree Dano, the AGW camp are in fear of Morano as well of an increasingly number of scientists vocally questioning the "science".
And scuttling about, looking for cover is all they can do, as character assassinations and attacks don't hide the huge lack of scientific evidence supporting AGW.
Even the Staunch green James Lovelock is saying that "The skeptics have kept us sane" and "They have kept us from regarding climate science as a religion. It had gone too far that way" and "We haven't got the physics worked out yet.I think the public are right"
The wind is blowing their house of climate cards rapidly into obscurity to leave the core climate religious zealots worshiping at realclimate.org in isolation.
Yea Marc is a Drudge , and he does not hide his enjoyment of all references to himself . I find it rather amusing . But he is effective because he facilitates the responses of the more rational climate realists against the luddite irrational alarmists . The warmists are losing because in fact science and reality are finally prevailing .
Hey Dano,
I just read your eblogger bio and you are actually an AGW protagonist. I should have realised that as it is only really the AWG protagonists who attack their debating opponents by insulting or belittling them rather than debate and this is what you were doing by calling me and the other two skeptical posters "cockroaches". It rather proves my earlier point. Plus, by personally insulting and attacking us by calling us cockroaches you destroyed any ounce of credibility you might otherwise have brought to this debate.
Way to go Dano, nice one. I suggest you spend a bit of time meditating on your own denialist fringe's tactics rather than others.
Patrick, when you learn about the adaptation and mitigation to man-made climate change issue I'd be happy to discuss it with you.
That is: the scientific debate over man-made climate change has moved on, so the vast majority of the planet outside of the lunatic fringe presumes you wish to debate societal responses via adaptation and mitigation.
The vast majority of society outside of the lunatic fringe won't "debate" lunatics on the basic science that the lunatics refuse to acknowledge.
HTH.
Best,
D
Morano's personal agenda is not relevant. His claims stand or fall based on the validity of each.
I never hear any rebuttals of what he's said, only analysis related to his "salesmanship" versus his opponent. (also not relevant.
Get some climate science background, at - for example -
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddrj9jjs_0fsv8n9gw
Dano,
You speak as if the science is settled the is a consensus that man is causing the climate to warm. There is not to both. Therefore to say there is a need for adaptation and mitigation to man-made climate change is premature at best
Furthermore you infer that everyone who doesn't believe in what you believe in, i.e. AGW, are part of the "lunatic fringe" which basically just illustrates how radical you are and coupled with your insults calling the skeptical posters cockroaches earlier unfortunately reduces your credibility to zero.
BTW, have you seen the graph of the current arctic ice extent lately? Strange that the ice area is still increasing three weeks after it normally peaks and in a day or two may be at the highest level for at least 8 years (the graph only show the last 8 years of readings). I can't quite reconcile this fact with NASAs temp map painting the arctic blood red with heat and saying this winter it's been one of the hottest ever. I thought heat melted ice, but I must be wrong
Denis,
I agree with you, the AGW protagonists can't rebut his arguments so sink to ad hominem attacks.
The "AGW Protagonists" don't need to directly refute Morono's talking points.
Why don't the "AGW Protagonists" 't need to directly refute Morono's talking points?
The "AGW Protagonists" don't need to directly refute Morono's talking points because Morono's talking points are recycled talking points from years ago.
That is: they all were refuted years ago. Put to bed years ago with respect to policy (why is API saturating the airwaves with "tax" and not hoax or bad science, hm?).
Nothing has changed, except the Swift Boater delivering them.
The long-ago refuted talking points are numbered for our convenience.
And the non-denialist reality-based vast majority of humanity even makes a little game out of comment bots mindlessly and gullibly parroting the long-ago refuted talking points. I'm currently sixth in my Gullible Denialist League (GDL) in points - having fallen from third just three weeks ago (I've been traveling and out of touch).
Best,
D
(word verification agrees : pansee)
Dano,
It doesn't matter if Moranos points are recycled or not (and most actually aren't), science is science and its validity doesn't go away after a specific length of time, especially if the global warming protagonists cannot refute them, which they can't.
Einstein said that you can have a thousand facts in support a theory but doesn't prove it true and it needs just one contrary fact to destroy the theory for good. There are many contrary facts that blow the man made global warming theory completely out of the water.
Actually there is now considerable talk on the airwaves compared to before about the "hoax", bad science and scientific malpractice by climate scientists in the US (Glenn Beck being on of many), in the UK and Europe and Australia and New Zealand.
Your statement "non-denialist reality-based vast majority of humanity." A vast majority is a number approaching 100% which vast majority are you talking about?? You must either be confused or wanting so much you statement to be true that you are deluding yourself. Every public poll over the last few years has show a rapidly decreasing belief in the general public that man is causing global warming. Only 20% of American weather forecasters think man has anything to do with the recent warming. A recent poll in the UK showed only 31% of the population believed as you would like them to. In a poll in America in Oct 2009 only 36% though that there was solid evidence that the earth was warming and it was due to mans activities. This is also reflected in Europe and Australia and New Zealand.
I looked at you little refutal list and the first thing that struck me was that it is is basically an exercise in miss information. There is not one bit of supporting evidence for even one of the points. Most if not all are exaggeration, downright inaccuracies/lies/misrepresentations and/or cherry picking. And anyone knowing anything about the science of the points can clearly see this. An example of this would be reading Phil Jones BBC interview transcript and seeing how Danos article has used small parts and ignored much larger other, inconvenient parts of it. I would recommend people to read it on the BBC web site and see just how it is misrepresented/ignored with many of Jones points directly contradicting points in Danos article.
Some examples are:
Point 73 to "Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995" you're right he did say " ...no statistical warming since..." and I don't know anyone who has said he said otherwise. You are wrong though to say "He's not talking about whether warming is actually happening.", he is actually talking about whether we can say for certain warming has actually happened or not and he is clearly saying that from 1995 we can not say this, full stop. The point also cherry picks and misrepresents him to say that he said there is very slight warming trend - yes he measured this but it is too small to be CERTAIN that it is actually there or not. Further more the article mentions him saying the statistically insignificant warming from 1995 to now but completely ignores him saying that there has been a statistically insignificant COOLING since 2002. If this last bit was added then the whole refutal of point 73 would fall apart and his clear message would stand.
To illustrate even greater just how cherry picking, biased and manipulative this article is with the truth. The article completely ignores that fact that Jones also said in the article that, in point A, Jones agrees that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical. Since it is only from 1945/50 that man has been producing significant amounts of CO2 the first two warming periods are natural, so why should the last period also not be natural? This statement also makes lies out of the oft banded about statement that the earth has never experience the rate and level of global warming that it has in the warming period of the end of the 19 century.
In your articles point 65 it states "While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions." Again its a twist on the truth implying untruths. It's NOT know that the planet was cooler generally. The warmer regions where most of the northern hemisphere and may well have extended to the tropics and southern hemisphere but difficult to be sure due to fewer palaeoclimatic records there. But the peer reviewed literature for these few palaeoclimatic records that show that DOES support a world wide Medieval Warm Period. This was in part confirmed again by Jones in the interview, which your article chooses to totally ignore, and I quote from part G: "There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions."
An example of gross exaggeration is in point 27 of Danos article it says "human[s] emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year", with nothing backing this number up. Peer reviewed articles say that mans total CO2 output is only 8 Gigatons.
I could go on but you at least will no take a bit of notice as for the radical AGW protagonists it not and never was about the science. Its only about ideology and the "climate science" has only been used to promote this ideology and as this "tool" is increasing not working for you, your only action is to insult and belittle the people trying to debate the science or create juvenile "games" rather than engage in proper debate with referenced and peer reviewed science.
Enjoy your little games, as really that's all you have left. I didn't see my last point in your scoring of points system, so it must be a new or unusual one, so might I suggest it gets added as point 45 and worth say 50 points due to its unusualness? to make you day a little better with a few extra points. I'll check back later to see if it has indeed been added.
Best regards - it's been a pleasure,
Patrick.
Oh, I was hoping for some amusing commentary about the amusing fellow Marc Morano.
Instead I find I've stumbled into another fringe site in time to watch it collapse bitterly in decay.
Sorry to bother- please continue your asymptotic approach to null significance.
Oh, I was hoping for some amusing commentary about the amusing fellow Marc Morano.
Instead I find I've stumbled into another fringe site in time to watch it collapse bitterly in decay.
Sorry to bother- please continue your asymptotic approach to null significance.
David,
The link you provided was to a Google page, clearly not peer reviewed. Nor is the web site that Google takes the data from peer reviewed or even clear where they got their data from, so with respect, I do not believe it. The number I got was from a couple of peer reviewed papers I read about 10 days ago. I'll try to find them again. If I really am wrong, please show me links to independent peer reviewed papers supporting your figure, I would be interested in reading them.
Regards,
Patrick.
P.S Am I to understand that disagreeing on a point is inflammatory, but calling other posters cockroaches isn't?
Patrick wrote:
> Since it is only from 1945/50
> that man has been producing
> significant amounts of CO2
Untrue.
Patrick, the data is readily available. Please tell us what pct of today's atmospheric CO2 was emitted before 1945.
> The link you provided was
> to a Google page, clearly not peer > reviewed
The Google link was based on World Bank data, which _was_ peer-reviewed.
Admit it, Patrick, you're wrong on your numbers. By a large factor of about 4.
Patrick wrote:
> The number I got was from a
> couple of peer reviewed papers
> I read about 10 days ago
Put up or shut up.
8 Gmt/yr/world is *obviously* too small.
A peer reviewed reference stating a figure for human CO2 output similar to mine is this:
Knorr, 2009, states that the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions are 10 Gigatons.
Knorr, W. (2009), Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613.
http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf
You are criticising just my figure for CO2 which by implication means that the other points relating to what Jones said in the BBC and how they directly contradict points in Danos list are correct.
Patrick wrote:
> You are criticising just my
> figure for CO2 which by
> implication means that the
> other points relating to what
> Jones said in the BBC and how
> they directly contradict points
> in Danos list are correct.
More dumb logic. The fact that your worldwide emissions number was so wrong means that I'm not going to waste my time even considering your other claims. Frankly, you haven't proven that you're worth it.
Patrick wrote:
> Knorr, 2009, states that the
> total anthropogenic CO2
> emissions are 10 Gigatons
Once again, Patrick, you've proven you have idea what you're talking about.
Knorr is talking about *carbon*, not carbon dioxide. The very first sentence in his paper says:
"Of the current 10 billion tons of carbon (GtC) emitted annually as CO2 into the atmosphere by human activities...."
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0921/2009GL040613/2009GL040613.pdf
Carbon dioxide and and carbon have different molecular weights -- their ratio is 44/12.
Guess what 44/12 times 10 Gt is?
It's not dumb logic, anyone who actually goes to the BBC web site and reads the transcript of the Jones interview, and then Danos article will find the truth in what I said very clear, as well as many other points that I could have mentioned.
Indecently, the answers Jones gave were premeditated having had the questions sent to him before the interview, not off the cuff, and also vetted by his lawyers. There will be no retractions or contradictions by Jones.
Jones speaks for himself, not the collective set of climate scientists. He is one scientist among thousands. And, speaking to the press is not the same as publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. Saying the world has cooled since 1998 says nothing, because the world is *always* cooled w.r.t. its highest point. (Theorem: by that criterion, therefore, the world is always cooling.) That means nothing, because climate is an average of many, many years, and not w.r.t. a single year.
since you commented on my last post, can you not at least show me the cuortesy of publishing it in full so others can see for themselves? and can so people can then judge your reply properly in the context of what I wrote.
Professor Jones isn't just any old scientist, he's the (or was) leader of the CLimate research institute, at East Anglia widely recognised as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.
For you information he said there was a slight but not statistically significant cooling from 2002, not 2008. Obviously you've not bothered to read it youself.
Patrick wrote:
> A peer reviewed reference
> stating a figure for human CO2
> output similar to mine is this:
>
> Knorr, 2009, states that the
> total anthropogenic CO2 emissions > are 10 Gigatons.
Patrick, once again, you are confusing "carbon emissions" with "carbon dioxide emissions." They differ by a factor of 44/12.
Give it up already.
Knorr, W. (2009), Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613.
http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf
Post a Comment