Some Book Deals Including Al Gore’s Truth

These are items currently, and possibly for only a short time, in Kindle format for two bucks.

This is a mixture of books that I either thought you would already know about and want, or maybe didn’t know about but should.

An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power: Your Action Handbook to Learn the Science, Find Your Voice, and Help Solve the Climate Crisis goes with the new Gore movie.

Note: The first Inconvenient Truth was essentially a documentary made by Al Gore, about global warming. The second one is really a documentary made about Al Gore, and also about global warming. A not too subtle difference, when you think about it. Anyway, the book that goes with the movie is two bucks in Kindle form, and the book is by Al Gore, not about Al Gore. Just to complicate things.

Bloodline (Star Wars) by Claudia Gray is one of those afeter market Star Wars novels, good ratings and reviews.

A fun language related book, and we all love those: You’re Saying It Wrong: A Pronunciation Guide to the 150 Most Commonly Mispronounced Words–and Their Tangled Histories of Misuse.

I have no idea why they didn’t title it “Your saying it wrong.” Anyway, the description:

For word nerds and grammar geeks, a witty guide to the most commonly mispronounced words, along with their correct pronunciations and pithy forays into their fascinating etymologies and histories of use and misuse.

With wit and good humor, this handy little book not only saves us from sticky linguistic situations but also provides fascinating cocktail-party-ready anecdotes. Entries reveal how to pronounce boatswain like an old salt on the deck of a ship, trompe l’oeil like a bona fide art expert, and haricot vert like a foodie, while arming us with the knowledge of why certain words are correctly pronounced the “slangy” way (they came about before dictionaries), what stalks of grain have to do with pronunciation, and more. With bonus sidebars like “How to Sound like a Seasoned Traveler” and “How to Sound Cultured,” readers will be able to speak about foreign foods and places, fashion, philosophy, and literature with authority.

You all know the book, “Things Fall Apart” This is just book one of the trilogy, but just in case you want a Kindle version of that, this is it.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn

242 thoughts on “Some Book Deals Including Al Gore’s Truth

  1. Professor Laden, it is disturbing that anyone would elevate
    GoreTex, as an authoritative voice regarding scientific matters
    or theory.

    His prophecy have all failed and with object misery. He should
    rather be relegated to the dust bin of history. Even Professor
    Mann has more credibility than this gluttonous energy consumer,
    enriching himself under the guise of protecting the environment.

    The science is settled was Big Al Gore’s assertion.

    Hear are some of Mr Gore predictions; placing him in the
    Global Warming Hall of Fame.

    1. Rising Sea Levels – inaccurate and misleading. Al was even discovered
    purchasing a beachfront mansion!

    2. Increased Tornadoes – declining for decades.

    3. New Ice Age in Europe – they’ve been spared; it never happened.

    4. South Sahara Drying Up – completely untrue.

    5. Massive Flooding in China and India – again didn’t happen.

    6. Melting Arctic – false – 2015 represents the largest refreezing in years.

    7. Polar Bear Extinction – actually they are increasing!

    8. Temperature Increases Due to CO2 – no significant rising for over 18
    years.

    9. Katrina a Foreshadow of the Future – false – past 10 years, no F3
    hurricanes; “longest drought ever!”

    10.The Earth Would be in a “True Planetary Emergency” Within a Decade
    Unless Drastic Action Taken to Reduce Greenhouse Gasses – never
    happened.

    Has this right honorable man recanted? Has he admit he errored?

    Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo !

    He is a huckster; a green money merchant; a fraud whom will cover
    one lie with another.

    If this is the best proponents you can muster, then your cause
    is certainly lost. He will so become irrelevant and so too his
    ardent supporters. He shall soil your reputations – perhaps
    to a point of no return.

    Americans are waking up to this scheme, as more taxation and
    control over their liberties; just another way to deliver their
    Socshevik dogma.

    Can we match up Tokyo Rose and Climax Climate Al,
    both liars and demagogues.

    1. I think it’s just hidden sadness on bb’s part; he’s clearly incapable of reading for understanding because of the multi-syllable words used in science books.

    2. Steve, yes so true but then it carries no burden.

      Neither you and your cohort Dean offer not
      a single rebuttal but only contrite and meaningless
      comments.

      You both badly need a refitting.

    1. I would suggest, that readers would view your
      postings as moranic and vacuuminess.

      SteveO, try being objective rather than the
      indolent subjective.

      You folks are simply dull to the point of boredom.

      Y’all have the debating skill of a six year old.

    2. it is true that bb is an idiot, but you shouldn’t ignore the fact that he is immensely dishonest. He has the habit of assigning the ills of a few (like Franken, most notably) to everyone in the party he dislikes while ignoring the actions of his president, Moore, or the others on the right, and he finds comfort with the self-proclaimed nazis and KKK folks at breitbart and other hate sites, presumably because they, like he, are good christians.

      That, coupled with his comment that his company rushes people out the door not because they’ve been helped but because it generate more revenue, tells you all you need to know.

  2. His Deanship said ” That, coupled with his comment that his company rushes people out the door not because they’ve been helped but because it generate more revenue, tells you all you need to know.”

    Unwised, to choose quantity over quality; as it would subject the
    clinic owners to unwanted litigation; something your side excels
    in.

    “it is true that bb is an idiot, but you shouldn’t ignore the fact that he is immensely dishonest. He has the habit of assigning the ills of a few (like Franken, most notably) to everyone in the party he dislikes while ignoring the actions of his president, Moore, or the others on the right, and he finds comfort with the self-proclaimed nazis and KKK folks at breitbart and other hate sites, presumably because they, like he, are good christians.”

    You, Dean, are the definition of a chariton. You have convenient and selective
    memory – because facts which you never display nor demonstrate do not
    favor your arguments.

    Most of these “ills” come from your comrades, because morals are
    simply optionable. Try to mandate them, as you do with everything
    else.

    Furthermore, I have and will denounce anyone, regardless of party
    affiliations or philosophy. To refresh your ongoing dementia, I took
    to task Oldman Bushneck and Rep Mark Sanford. If you are imoral
    it matters not whom you are. Unlike you, I call it like it is, rather than
    being deceitful.

    And keep defaming Breitbart et al, as Klanners and NAZI, as you
    will only marginalize your own words, without any effort on my
    part. I suspect some or many readers hear, think of you as a
    nutjob.

    Wait, until the list of CONgressional perverts payments becomes
    public: I am afraid it will badly soil your Progressive side.

    Also, left out 100% of all your perverts in Haveywood.

    1. Matey, every time you defend the likes of Blightbart, you show yourself either to be a numpty or worse. It’s the same with climate change denial – either a know-nothing or worse.

      No use whining when people here look at your output, roll their eyes and hold their noses.

      You have to own your own farts.

    2. “Furthermore, I have and will denounce anyone, regardless of party
      affiliations or philosophy”

      Thanks for that lie. It reinforces what you are.

    1. Rutabagas

      Crikey. I had to look that one up. I had no idea the humble neep had such exotic names. Nor did I realise that the swede (rutabaga – love that word now) was a cross between a cabbage and a turnip. Pub quiz instant classic, right there.

      Also inspiration: how about chopped boiled cabbage? That slightly sulfide, smell, you know? Evocative of blocked drains and flatulence?

  3. I must wade in here. I have been reading BB’s bilge for a few months now, and as utterly vile it all is, he reached new depths with his completely vacuous attack on Al Gore. Truth be told, Gore has more integrity in the fingernail of his left pinky than Donald Trump or any of his goons have in their whole bodies. Each of those memes he listed can be summarily quashed, but let’s focus on the Arctic and polar bear lies he spews as I have a paper coming out very soon which in part examines this. You will all know about it very soon.

    There has been no ‘major refreezing’ in the Arctic; indeed by the end of this month ice extent there will in all likelihood be the 2nd lowest for this time of the year after 2016. As for polar bears, numbers are meaningless unless placed in the context of the age structure of the population, the per capita fitness of individual bears, and importantly the projected effects of a continuation in the seasonal decline of ice extent based on extrapolated trends. First of all, the age-structure of many of the populations is becoming skewed towards older animals; natality is down. Moreover, per capita fitness is reduced because the bears face multiple anthropogenic threats in addition to climate change. Bill’s kindergarten analysis ignores vital and relevant crteria such as tipping points, critical thresholds and temporal lags that are vital in order to understand the prognosis of warming on polar bears and other arctic species. Two analogies are appropriate: using Bill and other denier approaches is akin to saying that a patient with spreading cancer is fine because he or she has not shown any symptoms yet. Alternatively, its like asking someone who jumps off the top of a 100 story building how they are doing after falling 50 floors. The person might shout out ‘everything is fine!’ When it clearly isn’t. If the Arctic continues to shrink at the current 30-40 year rate over the coming decades, there are no ands, ifs or buts: polar bears will be in deep trouble.

    There are thousands of other examples of the negative effects of warming on biodiversity. Bill’s sandbox level understanding of the field precludes him from being taken seriously. The rest of his first post was similar gibberish.

    1. Jeff, I recall that we had a similar discussion with another denier a year or two ago (although it wouldn’t surprise me if it was more…) where a lot of your points were laid out. There seems to be an endless supply of science-denying zombies ready to climb over the ramparts.

    2. I think this is unfair to zombies. We all know that zombies die definitively if shot in the head. And that’s it: game over. They do not cheat and wallow in bad faith by getting up again as if nothing had happened. Now your denier on the other hand simply refuses to acknowledge the decorticating blast of a good debunking and just keeps on getting up. Give me a decent, honest zombie any day.

    3. Professor Harvey, please place the Arctic in
      a historical perspective and not the amortization
      of your lifespan.

      http://circleranchtx.com/holocene-sea-ice-cover/

      ” When it clearly isn’t. If the Arctic continues to shrink at the current 30-40 year rate over the coming decades, there are no ands, ifs or buts: polar bears will be in deep trouble.”

      To quote my dear and beloved professor harvey, is this nothing
      more than gibberish speculation.

      “There are thousands of other examples of the negative effects of warming on biodiversity.”

      Nothing positive, Professor ? Your sandbox must be red hot !

  4. Welcome to the wide world of brassica. Here is a good one. Watermelon radishes. This member of the family looks like a small turnip on the outside but looks like a miniature watermelon when you cut it open. Google it. Milder than other radishes I have had. Sliced thin they make a delightful salad, with some oranges and walnuts thrown in. Vinegar to taste. Now if you really want a sulfurous stench to throw against the wall of stupidity,let them pickle in the vinegar for a while. Volatile organic sulfides will evolve and let you know who is boss.

    1. I love a good radish but I like ’em really hot and peppery – sliced thin, with vinegar! I’m a peasant at heart, I know.

  5. Hi Jeff Harvey,
    Thank you for spending your time refuting the bilge that he who shall not be named has stupidly or villainously put forth.

    But I am recommending that we all take the step of ostracizing this mosquito by not interacting directly with him. In time, he may grow up, or grow bored, or simply be fired or reassigned by his Russian masters for not being successful in fomenting arguments and wasting the time of decent people. But interacting with him or with “it” is what he wants. Do you want to give sociopathic entity what it wants? Just sayin.
    SP

    1. Re “interacting with him or with “it” is what he wants. Do you want to give sociopathic entity what it wants?”

      I have some sympathy with your point but debunking specific misstatements, assertions, and outright lies with actual facts is useful to those of us who lack the detailed knowledge to do it ourselves. When I was an active science teacher, I gained a lot of useful information about fields out of my range just lurking at pro-science sites.

    2. Stevepee muttered “But I am recommending that we all take the step of ostracizing this mosquito by not interacting directly with him. In time, he may grow up, or grow bored, or simply be fired or reassigned by his Russian masters for not being successful in fomenting arguments and wasting the time of decent people. But interacting with him or with “it” is what he wants. Do you want to give sociopathic entity what it wants? Just sayin.”

      You can but then this site will be reserved strictly
      for cluster F$$ks. Your so called interactions are
      much like the annoyance of a buzzing fly; a distraction
      but little else.

  6. Professor Laden said “Just for the record, everything in that comment is wrong, much if it opposite to reality.”

    Just for the real record, it needs your unequivocal amplification to
    set the record straight. If I have errored, then please by all means
    correct me, Professor.

    It is of the utmost importance that no one is unfairly discredited
    and that their reputation are not impugned.

    If the record has been stained, let us rehabilitate and restore
    the innocent good name.

    Please, act now as time is of the essence.

  7. Paul Harvey said “I must wade in here. I have been reading BB’s bilge for a few months now, and as utterly vile it all is, he reached new depths with his completely vacuous attack on Al Gore.”

    You need to address your time management, as I have been
    present for only several weeks. Your application as a time
    keeper must be rejected.

    Try some new verb, as vile appears to be a main course word
    by the experts here.

    Now, Harvey, we have work at hand. Rather than your personal
    denunciation of me, classic Socshevikism, address the deficiencies
    of global warming master Al Gore. Namely, his epic failed
    predictions. A what-a-be is all he is.

    You want to be part and parcel of Gore’s circus, then put on
    your clown costume, so your neighbors do not recognize
    you as a fool.

    Of course, I could be completely wong; so put forth your best
    articulations, supported with truthful and credible
    evidence. If you can not, then you are nothing more than
    an irrational GoreBot, whom only acts of reasons are his
    emotional start and fits.

  8. Paul Harvey said “Truth be told, Gore has more integrity in the fingernail of his left pinky than Donald Trump or any of his goons have in their whole bodies.”

    You have already weaken your authority by dragging irrelevant names,
    into the topic of Goretex. I suspect you are little more than flotsam, as
    in your first paragraph you freely expose your personal political bias.

    Again, a reocurring theme on this blog, your opponent lies. May be
    Dean just login as Harvey?

    “There has been no ‘major refreezing’ in the Arctic; indeed by the end of this month ice extent there will in all likelihood be the 2nd lowest for this time of the year after 2016.”

    https://phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet.html

    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/antarctic-winter-sea-ice-extent-sets-new-record-2014

    ” As for polar bears, numbers are meaningless unless placed in the context of the age structure of the population, the per capita fitness of individual bears, and importantly the projected effects of a continuation in the seasonal decline of ice extent based on extrapolated trends. First of all, the age-structure of many of the populations is becoming skewed towards older animals; natality is down. Moreover, per capita fitness is reduced because the bears face multiple anthropogenic threats in addition to climate change. Bill’s kindergarten analysis ignores vital and relevant crteria such as tipping points, critical thresholds and temporal lags that are vital in order to understand the prognosis of warming on polar bears and other arctic species.”

    This is the classic smoke and mirrors one gets from leftist.
    This paragraph is a classic example of the bureaucratic hog-
    wash and scientific claptrap.

    Aggregated numbers are meaningless, so says the writer. What
    is really needed is a mix bag of sampling and computer modeling.

    What is required to truly ascertain a “scientific” count are the
    following category.

    1) age 2) fitness 3) ice decline 4) extrapolated trends
    5) tipping points 6) thresholds 7) lags

    This, dear readers, is the assemblage of a convoluted mind.
    Of course, there is logic to this madness, as now only they
    and their professional and scientific quantification can
    give an accurate estimate.

    It is the same shell game played with global warming, modeling
    away common sense and replacing it with abstract theory,
    destine to fail.

    Naturally, this will require your dependency upon these
    most righteous and honorable scientests and their stooges.

    1. It is the same shell game played with global warming, modeling
      away common sense and replacing it with abstract theory,
      destine to fail.

      Abstract theory doesn’t cause global average temperature to rise. Only a radiative imbalance at TOA can do that. Just because you are ignorant of the mechanism doesn’t mean that physics stops working. It just means that you don’t know what you are wittering about.

    2. “There has been no ‘major refreezing’ in the Arctic; indeed by the end of this month ice extent there will in all likelihood be the 2nd lowest for this time of the year after 2016.”

      bb then links to unrelated articles about the antarctic, one from 2014. Geography is another failure for bb.

      From November 2 of this year:

      Arctic sea ice extent for October 2017 averaged 6.71 million square kilometers (2.60 million square miles), the fifth lowest in the 1979 to 2017 satellite record. This was 1.64 million square kilometers (633,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average and 820,000 square kilometers (317,000 square miles) above the record low October extent recorded in 2012. By the end of October, extent remained below average throughout most of the Arctic

      September sea ice is now declining at a rate of 13.2% per year compared to the 1981 to 2010 average

      (Nasa)

      https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

      Things that are not bb’s strong points
      – integrity
      – honesty
      – science
      – reading

      I’d hate to see his views on vaccines, relativity, evolution — all those other things that are simply the invention of “scientists”

  9. SteveP said “But I am recommending that we all take the step of ostracizing this mosquito by not interacting directly with him.”

    A good way to grow a fringe group, whom
    is losing the public consensus.

    Remember, SteveO, that the mosquito is the leading
    annual killer of man.

  10. Steve, you are right. Why give a complete imbecile like Bill any attention? Blogs are full of ignoramuses like him. As I did here, it is usually easy to demolish their ‘science’.

    Note how Bill, like all deniers, plays on the uncertainty meme. I used two analogies to explain it. To idiots like him, trends are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the present. Like the person afflicted with cancer but who does not yet feel any symptoms, polar bears have not yet reached or exceeded any tipping points. But they will. Using the classic area-extinction models of exponential decay, it can be seen that the loss of tropical forests only really impacts the biodiversity dependent on them when critical thresholds are exceeded. Bill is the type of simpleton who would argue that a 40% reduction in tropical forests is no problem because only a small fraction of species went extinct. The fact is that we know that there are tipping points. Once they are passed, diversity collapses. This tipping point is being rapidly approached in the Arctic.

    As for no warming for 18 years, another Bill meme, well this is utter bullshit. No need for any more to be said.

    1. “Steve, you are right. Why give a complete imbecile like Bill any attention? Blogs are full of ignoramuses like him. As I did here, it is usually easy to demolish their ‘science’. ”

      Paul Harvey, they all left this blog because of the likes of
      such pompous and arrogant elitist as you. Theorist, whom
      need massive computer power, in order to generate fake
      computations and delirious forecasts. (fearcasts)

      Hosting off the middle class to fund your future luncy
      because you are an Enviro malcontent, whom walks
      this planet with self-induced fears, under the shadowy
      guise of an academic credentials.

      You have no rebuttal because most of them will be
      dismissed in short order. You have no rebuttal because
      your computer models, can not talk for you.

      Your entire Enviro moment is really nothing more than
      a daily bowel movement. Your comments have much
      in common with your anus. They stink and are subpar.

      By all means, ignore me. Just as Americans have woke up
      to the fraud perpetrated by the your Enviro clan. Your
      papers will wind up in the archives collecting dust. Perhaps
      in some future time, your work will appear on SNL,
      providing the only real value, laughter and boos.

      I wonder how many of your scientests will bother
      to peer-review your paperwork.

      Another disturbing case of Baccalaureate syndrome
      running wild.

    1. His High Professorship Harvey: The pathogens need
      a vector to perform their deed and not a academic
      statement of correlation.

      “One final aside: mosquitoes don’t kill. The pathogens they carry do. Oh dear Bill, you really are a simpleton.”

      Can anyone see how leftist minds work? When threaten, they
      label their opposition with slurs.

      It is no wonder that there are now public websites that
      rank and rate the performance of these teaching elites.

      A “learned” man whom finds the need to make contemptible
      attacks rather than confined the debate to facts.

      Shame on you, Professor ! You, sir, are a first bully.

    2. Can anyone see how leftist minds work?

      In Jeff’s case (and mine, and others) we work with facts.

      If reality has a left-wing bias that is not to say that rational commenters themselves are left-wing. They are simply objective.

    3. “One final aside: mosquitoes don’t kill. The pathogens they carry do. Oh dear Bill, you really are a simpleton. ”

      Paul Harvey, the esteemed, professor scientest, has to resort
      to plagiarizing.

      How much of that will be in your paperwork?

  11. As a final, final aside, in his vacuous pit of ignorance, Bill calls relevant scientific arguments the ‘assemblage of a convoluted mind’. Folks, it doesn’t get any funnier than that. Translation: Bill has a child’s mind that expunges relevant scientific evidence. Combined with his clear political and ideological bias, it produces a cocktail of ignorance.

    In case you don’t know it brainless Bill, I am a qualified ecologist who will quash every puerile argument that you put up here. I am also a Professor. You aren’t remotely qualified to comment on any of Al Gore’s arguments. As for how long you have been commenting here, it sure seems a lot longer than a few weeks. I suppose that is because your level of stupidity tends to leave a very indelible mark.

    1. Jeff Harvey

      “…tends to leave a very indelible mark.”

      The goal of your basic, classic troll in search of troll glory.

      To paraphrase Scott D. Weitzenhoffer, debating trolls is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

      For the benefit of lurkers, denier blather has been catalogued and delt with at https://www.skepticalscience.com/ .

    2. Professor & The Most Revered Scientest:

      ” In case you don’t know it brainless Bill, I am a qualified ecologist who will quash every puerile argument that you put up here. I am also a Professor. You aren’t remotely qualified to comment on any of Al Gore’s arguments.”

      Your self centered ego must precede you, as this is the second
      pronouncement of your employment and job description.

      You can not quash my talk because you are planning
      to exile me. Are you sure you are also not a “qualified”
      Professor, as you are a “qualified” ecologist?
      I see you caped your “P”. I am very pleased that you have
      manage to become qualified – it should command a premium
      for your salary.

      You are so full of buffoonery, that I think you got your degree
      from some papermill.

      Dear readers, this is what the esteemed Professor (I better cap
      or I will get a grade reduction) just said

      “You aren’t remotely qualified to comment on any of Al Gore’s arguments.”

      Do you see the mindless argument from the Enviro freaks; that a pol
      with such low reputation as Al “I invented the Internet” Gore, is
      beyond reproach and criticism.

      Why do axe? It is because Professor Harvey and his ilk
      have deified Al “lockbox” Gore.

      You probably stoke the fears of your students whom are
      not of the same mind – fearing grade retaliation.

      You have no interest in debating but only parroting
      your fellow bots.

      Professor, hear is your next class assignment:

      Environmental Global Warming for Dummies.

  12. Some thoughts on the entity whom we shall not name, an entity with whom we are in some kind of contest.

    Who or what is this thing? And what does it want?

    Is it an individual, or a group? Is it a tag team of trolls in Oklahoma, or Michigan, or Russia? If it is a single human, it has a lot of time on its hands to propagate misinformation.

    Some of the spelling and idiom mistakes are what one might expect from a Russian speaker. Is this some sort of computer aided Russian puppet? Paid members of a Russian FUD force? An operative for fossil fuel incorporated? Or merely some sweaty true believer who swallows anything from the reich wing media as gospel and then evangelizes it by puking it back out on the internets? I’m not sure that we can know the answer.

    Why does this entity advocate for its position by using an over-abundance of long debunked arguments? Why does it and others like it go ballistic in attacking Al Gore?…. I’ve long thought that attacks on Al Gore come from the twisted mind set of a rabid authoritarian, who, looking for the enemy’s king piece on the chess board, mis-interprets Al Gore as something that he is not… a left wing authority figure. So they pile on the guy as if science and climatology and progress will totally fall if they take him out. Let them keep at it is my thought. Let him draw their wasted fire.

    My guess is that the this entity is some kind of projection of the fossil fuel industry, and that its goal is to provide cover for companies like Gazprom and Exxon, through willing or unwitting servant trolls. Whether it originates in its mother’s Texas basement or a St. Petersburg office complex, it should, because it does not play by the rules, because of its propensity to lie and hurl uninvited insults and veiled threats, not be given the privilege of being treated like an adult human being. Rather, it needs to be encysted, walled of, imprisoned with avoidance, and others need to be warned off from interacting with it.

    So let’s talk around it for a while and see what happens.

    Cheers.

    1. A most highly intelligent reply. SteveO, is without
      a doubt one of if not the alpha he/she or some form
      of genderless human on this site.

      Let’s make a common cause; after all we all must
      live on this planet.

      We all desire, clean air, clean water and a safe enviro
      for our families and friends.

      Hear, let me scare you! I support recycling – especially
      bicycles. I save the smallest peace of paper to write
      on because it still has some form of utilization.

      Although, recycling from an economic standpoint makes
      little sense, we do minimize the use of landfills and the
      toxins therein. Our supply of groundwater, so elementary
      to so many municipalities is more secure than ever as well
      as run off issues, as a pollutant. (hip, hop alert – it rhymes
      with Putin)

      This is indeed outstanding work by Enviros and should be
      publicly supported by the citizenry. It is also scientifically
      demonstrable as well as empirical.

      We can make common cause – on a common core !

    2. So let’s talk around it for a while and see what happens.

      I’m going to keep on laughing, mainly because I can’t help it. Clowns, you see. Funny!

    3. Day 1
      Note: the number of troll’s comments and stratagems rising as troll panics at possibility of being ignored. Typical so far.

    4. Political Commissar StevePee muttered like a crackpot with this

      “not be given the privilege of being treated like an adult human being.”

      He is just like those pols whom suggested that deniers
      should be arrested, charged and tried.

      The Enviro freaks, if left to their own devices, would
      open up the Gulags again.

      When confronted with the truth, all with no exception revert
      to the lie.

    5. Day 2
      Note: Troll becoming increasingly hysterical — spewing E. coli infused venom in all directions. Danger of bystanders becoming contaminated and possibly manipulated into feeding troll. Tsk, tsk.

      Note to self: Remember to post some resources for interested lurkers who might want some resources for understanding why troll heads are exploding all over the Internet.

      Denialism defined
      Don’t confuse denialism with debate.
      https://www.denialism.com/category/denialism_defined/

      Rationalwiki
      Includes a section on logical fallacies.
      https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

      Climate denial talking points catalogued and dealt with.
      https://www.skepticalscience.com/

      Metaliteracy
      Thinking about how how science actually works as opposed to the unsubstantiated fulminations, assertions, obstructions and deceptions of conspiracy theorists, propagandists, and ordinary jerks.
      http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2013/02/scientific-meta-literacy/

      Real Climate
      Blog and resources, run by leading climate scientists — not blowhards and knock-offs.
      http://www.realclimate.org/

      Desmog 
      Media resources.
      https://www.desmogblog.com/media_centre

      Oh yeah, idea for another day. Need to provide links on the psychopathology of trolls… 

  13. Johnny Applesauce said “For the benefit of lurkers, denier blather has been catalogued and delt with at https://www.skepticalscience.com/ .”

    You should troll for the truth, which I am sure is extremely difficult
    for you to recognize.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/battered-extreme-weather-americans-concerned.html

    Is this headline factual or agenda driven propaganda?

    Americans and as well as many of your “world” citizens
    ranking of global warming as a serious issue.

    https://www.newsmax.com/US/Poll-Americans-Global-Warming-Issue/2016/02/01/id/712205/

    Your two old decade man generated fear campaign is failing.
    It is fraying at the seams – leaving you angry and befuddled.

    You have failed to make your case and now people with mere
    common sense, are seeing the vast ploy and actions by the
    assault elites and their underlyings – over priced academics.

    The only instant of global warming, is occurring in the minds
    of the misguided advocates; which poses serious mental
    health issues, as have been demonstrated hear.

    1. The only instant of global warming, is occurring in the minds
      of the misguided advocates; which poses serious mental
      health issues, as have been demonstrated hear.

      Just lying won’t get you anywhere. GAT’s cranking up, OHC’s cranking up, ice mass loss from the GrIS and WAIS is cranking up, Arctic sea ice volume and extent are falling off a cliff.

      Lies don’t reverse reality.

  14. SteveP, it certainly does appear as if Bullshit Bill does take trolling into a new realm of lunacy. He is some kind of entity, but one lacking humility in the sense that, like many similar Dunning-Kruger afflicted trolls, he vastly over-estimates his knowledge base in science. As Greg said, the first post on this thread by BB was almost entirely inaccurate. In other words it was all bullshit, hence Bill’s appropriate title. It is clear that he gleans his information from some utterly obnoxious denier blog, like Climate Depot or WUWT, and then wades in here parading their nonsense as if the garbage they espouse is factual.

    BB’s polar bear/Arctic ice comment required a rejoinder. It was utter gobbledegook, and every time we let these clowns make these vacuous points without responding in full then they are allowed to get away with it. Dave Burton, another simpleton, spent weeks on this blog during the summer spewing nonsense about the so-called fertilization affect of increased atmospheric CO2. I demolished that tired, incorrect meme as well. Notably, like most deniers, Dave resorted to the old tactic of evidence by assertion to hide the fact that he knows nothing about stoichiometry, phenology, competitive asymmetry, trophic interactions, saturation points and a number of other relevant areas that are critical if we are to evaluate the ecological and environmental effects of a rise in atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Deniers try and boil down complex adaptive systems to the simplest common denominator. They do this to hide the fact that they are not intellectually equipped to discuss complexity.

  15. Neither of the Professors have a complete rebuttal
    to all ten failed prediction of Sage Goretex.

    Only a partial one, by Professor Harvey, whom
    clearly commands the stage, with his credentials.

    1. Ignoring the articles about the ice eh? And about your lack of knowledge of geography.
      Again, telling in your dishonesty.

  16. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

    Ignoring the articles about the ice eh? And about your lack of knowledge of geography.
    Again, telling in your dishonesty.

    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

    This site can’t be reached

    climate.nasa.gov’s server DNS address could not be found

    You can’t be reached either, Your Deanship. Try linking and
    reading your sources.

    Oh, I been just be told, you are the copy and paste editor for
    Charles Rosey.

  17. Professor uttered “It is clear that he gleans his information from some utterly obnoxious denier blog, like Climate Depot or WUWT, and then wades in here parading their nonsense as if the garbage they espouse is factual.’

    Please, take some night courses or Head Start, during your lengthy
    summer breaks, as I or we are drawing folks from those sites to
    Professor’s Laden blog – with exploding traffic.

    I would recommend Media Marketing 100, as your first course
    of choice.

  18. I believe Dave Burton may be onto something with his
    “fertilization affect of increased atmospheric CO2.”

    This may indeed explain all of the unwanted sexual
    actions, that we have been reading about.

    I firmly believe there is enviro correlation.

    I have forward his hypothesis to the law offices of
    Ms Glorias “all ways” Allred.

    I am also recommending that Professor Harvey serve
    as her special scientific advisor, in what should be called a
    “matter.”

  19. I will note, that your attacks on any voice of
    opposition has cleared the comment board
    of all opposing views.

    I thought you folks were inclusive; want diversity;
    and a general state of equality ??

    All you have created is an echo chamber. Is that
    mentally healthful? Is it creative? Will it advance
    science? Does it helf to allay your fears? Does this
    advance the debate? Does this find common
    ground?

  20. Your Deanship uttered or muttered “Ignoring the articles about the ice eh? And about your lack of knowledge of geography.
    Again, telling in your dishonesty.”

    I never disregard a vector; especially a first class one.

    1. And again, avoid facts.

      Sorry bb, you have repeatedly shown that

      – despite your claims you studiously avoid calling out any republican who does illegal things
      – despite your claims you have defended the nazis, kkk supporters, and white supremacists at breitbart and other sites
      – despite your claims you don’t look at any real science links or arguments posted

      you are, as others point out, completely devoid of any intention to learn or carry on discussions in good faith.

  21. Your Deanship muttered & puttered “despite your claims you studiously avoid calling out any republican who does illegal things.”

    Are they in Goretex lockbox? I will have to inform myself.

    But wait, as I am a moron, would you so kindly assist me
    in this quest for Dean’s knowledge.

    WHOM ARE THEY ??? We are all waiting for the head dean.

  22. The names were listed. But then any honest person would already know, because they’ve been in the news the same way all the people you name have been.

  23. Bill, read Greg’s immediate response to your initial post. Everything you said was wrong. Really hardly worthy of a polite response. Hurricane intensity: certainly influenced by warmer ocean waters as a result of climate change. More extreme weather events: absolutely. Nothing remotely controversial there. Temperature trends over the past 18 years? Warming. The hiatus meme was put to bed in 2014, and is dead and buried now.

    As Dean said, you used an outdated data set for Antarctica to describe ice extent in the Arctic. A no-brainer. Moreover, ice extent in the Antarctic is in free fall anyway. Right now ice extent in both poles is more than 2 standard deviations below the 1981-2010 mean. The ice is disappearing.

    My question to you is: where do you learn the crap you write here? A fair question. You certainly don’t read much of the primary scientific literature. Your comments might as well come out of a crackerjack box or an appalling blog. Given you have no scientific pedigree whatsoever, it’s remarkable that your views on climate change are at odds with the opinions of every National Academy of Science in every nation state on Earth, every major scientific organisation including the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, NASA, the NOAA, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and others. I will throw in the IPCC for good measure.

    The main point is that internet blogs are full of laypeople who claim to know more than the statured experts. It’s one of the more bizarre things about social media that is difficult to comprehend.

    1. And he also claimed that a link to current information about arctic ice was not working when, in fact, it is perfectly fine. Perhaps the issue is that it was a link to a science site, something to which he seems allergic.

    2. Professor Harvey uttered “Bill, read Greg’s immediate response to your initial post. Everything you said was wrong. Really hardly worthy of a polite response. Hurricane intensity: certainly influenced by warmer ocean waters as a result of climate change. More extreme weather events: absolutely. Nothing remotely controversial there.”

      Sorry, but Professor Laden simply wish to make a
      declaration and nothing more. He should by now have
      sufficient bookmarks at this disposal to repudiate his
      distractors.

      Your arguments, as a certified scientest are shameful in
      the lack of integrity. You may hoodwink your fellow bots
      but anyone with the ability to reason and read will in fact
      discover inconsistency in your talking points.

      Amerian has have an unprecedented decline in hurricane
      activity despite a two decade of increasing temperatures.
      The same is true with tornadoes.

      So what does the global warming alarmists do, they move
      the goalpost, their only defensible action. Your “clan”
      starts to agitate that storms are more intense, because
      your computer models, predicting more storms failed you;
      and they shall fail you time immemorial.

      Dinner time – The Hungarian bureau will now login.

      I’ll be back.

  24. From phys.org
    “2017 saw the first severe tropical storm known to sustain winds of 295 kilometres per hour (185 miles per hour) for more than 33 hours (Irma); and a hurricane that dropped a record 125 centimetres of water (nearly 50 inches) on land (Harvey).”

  25. From phys.org
    “The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says there are demonstrable links between climate change caused by human activity and some extreme weather events, especially heatwaves.
    The number of climate-related extreme events—such as droughts, forest fires, floods and major storm surges—has doubled since 1990, research has shown.”

  26. from phys.org
    “Sea level rise—caused mainly by water expanding as it warms, as well as runoff from ice sheets and glaciers—is now 3.4 millimetres (0.13 inches) per year. Since 1993, the global ocean watermark has gone up by 84.8 mm (3.3 inches).”

    1. That is a quarter of a century. Century pace is about 1 foot, much less than the several meters that gets bandied about. Even tens of meters is the vision that gets presented quite often in the media.

    2. MikeN, you seem to not understand the phenomenon of rate change over time, and the peril of extrapolating slopes when there has been a statistically significant change in the first derivative.

    3. If the prediction was just one meter or two feet, then the acceleration would make sense. At this point,
      you have a quarter of a foot in a quarter century. 3.4mm/ year would have to jump to 10 mm/year just to reach 1m by the end of that century.

    4. MikeN

      The point you seem to be missing is that SLR is very likely to be nonlinear as the drivers shift from thermal expansion of seawater to the increasingly rapid drainage of the WAIS and GrIS. The dynamics of ice sheet collapse allow for much more rapid rates of SLR than thermal expansion of seawater.

  27. from phys.org
    “Twenty-five years after 1,700 scientists issued a “warning to humanity” about environmental degradation, more than 15,000 experts updated the alert this month and noted that virtually all the planet’s problems are getting “far worse”.

  28. Speaking of books and deals, I was flabbergasted to hear on Maddow today that the author of Redistricting and Representation: Why Competitive Elections are Bad for America, one Thomas Brunell, has been chosen by Trump to head the USA’s 2020 census.

    This is wrong in so many ways that even all-upper-case wouldn’t convey the wrongness.

  29. BBD uttered, “Matey, every time you defend the likes of Blightbart, you show yourself either to be a numpty or worse. It’s the same with climate change denial – either a know-nothing or worse.”

    Read the content and not the URL.

    I must say, that Blightbart is a funny tagline, Old Bean.

    1. When I see the URL, I know I’m going to get a bag of ratshit, so I don’t bother clicking the link. Try linking to reputable sources instead…

      Yes, I liked ‘Blightbart’. Might stick with that 🙂

  30. “Abstract theory doesn’t cause global average temperature to rise.”

    BBD, I never said it did. Read one word at a time and your
    comprehension will improve, dramatically.

  31. Here is a riposte to Bullshit Bill. I have no qualms about hurting your feelings. You came onto this thread with a brazen attempt – which miserably failed – to smear Al Gore. There was nothing remotely polite or mature in your smear. It was the kind of rhetoric and hyperbole I have come to expect from climate change deniers and anti environmentalists. If you possessed even a tiny bit of knowledge and expertise in any of the areas you summarily dismiss I might cut you a little slack. But you don’t. You are a know nothing. Your views are therefore not based at all on the empirical evidence – science – but like most deniers you camouflage your own personal political-economic views with it. And you do it very badly. You can’t get past first base on anything relevant to science, but as the Dunning-Kruger effect posits, know nothings like you vastly over-estimate their knowledge of complex fields. You are like cars without brakes racing along roads with many bends going downhill. Faster, faster, faster, then you crash. Inevitably. Unfortunately, blogs are full of D-K afflicted ‘experts’ like Bill who are perfectly described by the pigeon-chessboard-troll analogy.

    Here are some facts. Anthropogenic climate change is going to have serious effects on the functioning of complex adaptive systems upon which the human material economy depends. Let’s for a second assume that Bill is correct (he isn’t) with many of his proclamations at the beginning of this thread. Bill thinks that if sea levels don’t rise quickly, hurricane and tornado incidence and intensity hardly change, and droughts/heavy rainfall events remain similar that there is no problem.

    WRONG.

    Biodiversity at all levels of organisation is being seriously affected by climate change. We are seeing dramatic effects on ecosystems, communities, trophic interactions and individual species in soil, aboveground and aquatic systems. These effects are being expressed through species-specific responses that work their way up through food chains and then expansively through entire ecosytems. These effects are broadly ecophysiological and are being observed through changes in the temporal and spatial dynamics of species interactions- phenology – that are unraveling food webs and reducing the resilience and resistance of ecosystems across the biosphere.

    These effects are being synergized by a suite of anthropogenic stresses including habitat destruction and fragmentation, invasive organisms, other forms of pollution and the profligate use of pesticides. Recent evidence suggests that there are over a billion less birds in North America than there was 40 years ago. Most of these are insectivores. Insect populations are collapsing in many regions, as are amphibians, some groups of mammals (e.g. bats) and other biota. Why does this matter? Because biodiversity represents the working parts of our global ecological life support systems. Humans exist and persist because nature permits it through the generation of a range of ecological services including detoxification of wastes, stabilization of coastlines, climate control, water purification, maintenance of soil fertility, pollination, seed dispersal, nutrient cycling and others. These services emerge freely from nature and are based on a simply stupendous array of biotic interactions. Climate change represents a serious threat to the vitality and functioning of ecosystems across the biosphere.

    Scientific journals are full of studies – many thousands of them – showing harmful effects of climate change on biodiversity. So when Bill comes in here spewing simplistic piffle he needs to be slapped down. He doesn’t like it? Tough.

    1. “These effects are being synergized by a suite of anthropogenic stresses including habitat destruction and fragmentation, invasive organisms, other forms of pollution and the profligate use of pesticides. Recent evidence suggests that there are over a billion less birds in North America than there was 40 years ago. Most of these are insectivores. Insect populations are collapsing in many regions, as are amphibians, some groups of mammals (e.g. bats) and other biota. Why does this matter? Because biodiversity represents the working parts of our global ecological life support systems. Humans exist and persist because nature permits it through the generation of a range of ecological services including detoxification of wastes, stabilization of coastlines, climate control, water purification, maintenance of soil fertility, pollination, seed dispersal, nutrient cycling and others. These services emerge freely from nature and are based on a simply stupendous array of biotic interactions. Climate change represents a serious threat to the vitality and functioning of ecosystems across the biosphere.”

      Well stated, Professor Harvey. Believe it or not I Cher your views
      on these matters. Wetlands, are of particular importance to me
      because of the habitat it provides for wildlife and as a key
      element in the water filteration. Efforts should be made to
      maintain them and where possible expand the acreage.

      The environmental impact on certain species have been
      rather alarming, to say the least. Firefly, in my area, are virtually
      extinct not to mention the bee population. Bumblebees,
      a great favorite of mine, are noticeably absent. They are
      a delight to watch and there lack of presents, is disturbing
      to me.

      How much of this is related to the effects of environmental
      degradation is certainly unknown.

      Please, forgive my piffle retort.

  32. Excellent riposte, Jeff. It is interesting on a local level how this particularly noisome pest has invaded our little ecosystem. But is it just a pest? On a grander level, this parasite is a harbinger of much worse to come. We are under attack within our own country for our beliefs, for our way of thinking, for our concern, for our compassion, for our understandings, for our curiosity, for our ability to buck the authoritarian hordes. On an even grander scale, we are under attack internationally by two bit, murderous thugs who have inserted themselves into our daily lives, both through the every day sadist shits who invade our internet community groups, and the election tampering that small armies of Russian trolls helped pull off.

    By sticking their ugly head into our tent and screaming nonsense, these ignorant pests waste our time, destroy civil conversation, and try to deflect political action in the direction that they want. We need to find an ecologically safe and effective means of removing these pests from our ecosystem if we want to proceed in the direction that is best for us without damaging ourselves in the process.

    1. Stevepee mutters “We are under attack within our own country for our beliefs, for our way of thinking, for our concern, for our compassion, for our understandings, for our curiosity, for our ability to buck the authoritarian hordes.”

      Under attack, not so but rather disagreement over your
      conclusions and mandate Enviro laws.

      “destroy civil conversation”

      You and your Progresso Pals should practice what you
      preach.

      “murderous thugs” How do you rise every morning, when
      confronted with a declining environment and “murderous
      thugs.”

      Is there no joy in your life?

  33. BBD, retorted “It’s all the lurkers having a good laugh at you, matey.”

    I am pleased I can make so contribution to society.

    I do enjoy missives, as they are concise and to the point.

  34. BBD said “When I see the URL, I know I’m going to get a bag of ratshit, so I don’t bother clicking the link. Try linking to reputable sources instead…”

    I support your freedom of action, no mandates from me.

  35. Al Goretex, is a shallow and morally deficient man.
    But sure has manage to snicker his base, laughing
    all the way to his bank.

    His is liking to become the first VP to reach billionaire
    status, coupled with an army of fools.

    Find a more honorable men to lead your crusade. Messrs
    Laden and Harvey, would suffice as adequate replacement.

    At least the aforementioned fellows have more ethics
    than The Deity Goretex.

    1. Gore exposed? By some right wing lunatic writing for a think tank who calls climate change an imaginary threat and then uses the term ‘alarmists’ to describe those who argue that it is real?

      The only thing exposed here, Bill, is what a complete idiot you are. But then again we knew that already. Get lost.

  36. Gore once again exposed.

    http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/nasa-senior-scientist-crushes-gores-new-climate-change-book/

    SS Oberfuhrer Gore, would punish the non-believers? This whom
    you look up to?

    http://www.glennbeck.com/2015/03/17/dont-believe-in-global-warming-al-gore-thinks-you-need-to-be-punished/

    Hockey sticked by Professor Mann.


    “We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.

    The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!

    We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

    The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”

    Plastic… asshole.”
    ? George Carlin

    1. What an absolute pile of shit.
      What a pathetic excuse to make for continuance of this extinction event.
      Its borderline religious nuttiness actually. Its certainly grotesquely arrogant.
      Its an insanely dumb path to follow.
      Pathetic amerucan denier shite.

  37. Bill clearly wallows in right wing ideology. The Capital Research Center is a far right think tank that is obsessed with the funding of environmental groups. Sheesh, we all knew that Bill was a bit of a wingnut but he doesn’t even try to hide his political affiliations. I wait with baited breath at Bill’s next wonderful ‘source’ of information to defend his delusions.

    1. Professor Harvey, your effort to reject others
      points of views, indication how fragile your
      position are.

      Circle the wagons, as the tide of truth will
      sweep you away.

      You have rejected even statements of common
      cause. You seek not common ground but the
      implement of your radical enviro dogma.

      I suppose this individual is a wingnut too.

      http://waltercunningham.com/factsfaith.pdf

      Professor, try to leave your fortified position
      known as “the science is settled.”

      BTW, if it is indeed settled, your paperwork will
      not be needed. In the process, we can save the
      lives of many trees.

    2. Well clearly bb cites those sources because the only people who can be trusted are the people who have been shown to push conspiracies and lies — that’s bb’s “christian” approach to life.

  38. My wish has been granted: WorldNetDaily and Glenn Beck. Enough said. I predicted yesterday that Bullshit Bill gleaned his worldview from dubious sources.

    That was a significant understatement.

    Please excuse my while I roll into a ball and start howling with laughter.

    1. Moore wasn’t the founder of Greenpeace – that’s just another lie you lot dreamed up to give the old shill a (very thin) veneer of respectability.

      As for the Dail Mail, I wouldn’t wipe my backside on it – might catch something nasty.

      But I’m enjoying your romp through the sewers of misinformation; keep on trollin’ along…

      Don’t mind the howls of laughter 🙂

  39. My question to the general board, if we do
    have global warming, how is it successfully
    prosecuted?

    I doubt there will be any serious replies but
    let’s hope I am proven wong.

    1. Do mean what is the mechanism?
      Is that what you mean by prosecuted?
      If so, thats majorly fucking archaic usage.
      Just trolling out of boredom are we?
      Fuck off already stupid yank. Its so pathetic.

  40. Oh dear, now the crazy coot is dredging up shill Patrick Moore to deny anthropogenic climate change. Moore is a complete laughingstock, and has absolutely zero relevant qualifications in climate science.

    Bill, why don’t you find that rock from under which you crawled and return there asap.

  41. With regards to your link, the article assumes that the ‘issue-attention cycle’ with respect to the environment will wane. Golly gee – I wonder what will be prioritized when ecosystem services begin to fail? We are already seeing a collapse in pollinator numbers, and there are few effective technological replacements for these vital organisms that pollinate our crops. There are many similar examples. The recent Living Planet Index estimates that the planet has lost over 50% of genetic diversity since 1970. What does the writer think will happen when communities and ecosystems begin to implode? That the human material economy will somehow miraculously run outside of biophysical constraints?

    Where on Earth do you dredge up such utter drivel?

  42. One final point: the hilarious piece by Walter Cunningham (the astronaut who has absolutely zero qualifications in climate science) was published by none other than the Heartland Institute. Yup, the worst arbiters of climate change denial out there.

    Bill doesn’t need us to annihilate his drivel. He does a pretty good job of doing that himself.

    1. Gore’s role has some parallels with that of Thomas Huxley, “Darwin’s Bulldog.”

      But for some minor quibbles, leading climate scientists have said that “An Inconvenient Truth” is consistent with findings. So he’s carefully listening and then communicating, not just pulling puffed rhetoric out of his arse.

      You’ve been been knocking around on this subject long enough to understand the difference. If you’re about to start pettifogging, don’t bother. If you’re just trying your hand at copy proofing, maybe you should make that clear…

    2. What are Al Gore’s qualifications in climate science?

      This would only matter if AG was presenting his own scientific research, but he isn’t.

    3. What are Al Gore’s qualifications in climate science?

      Indubitably better than yours.

      Further, he’s better qualified to communicate with understanding on the significance of the work of scientists than are you.

    4. Well, Professor Harvey, I shall use the same
      substandard red-lining to invalidate your
      footnotes, which as a Scientest have been
      been non-existence.

    5. Your Hi Professorship:

      “He is a retired Marine Corps fighter pilot with the rank of colonel and
      4,500 hours pilot time. He has graduate degrees from UCLA in physics
      and the Harvard Graduate School of Business.
      Mr. Cunningham is a successful businessman, entrepreneur, venture
      capitalist, lecturer, author (The All-American Boys), and host of a radio
      talk show. He is a member of the Astronaut Hall of Fame.
      His writings and involvement with energy and the environment date
      back to 1970, when he was one of three founders of The Earth Awareness
      Foundation, an environmental concern organization. From 2000 to 2005,
      Mr. Cunningham was a member of the Advisory Board for the National
      Renewable Energy Laboratory.”

      You heard it first, from our Esteemed Professor, that Mr
      Cunningham has “absolutely zero qualifications in climate
      science.”

      Mr Cunningham has a graduate degree in Physics.

      What makes VP, Al “i want to be” Gore’s degree, an authority?

      Oh, I can not wait for the parry, if there is one.

  43. BBD, communication avoidance. No answer to a direct
    question other than some silly muttering.

    Bernard, excellent retort. Yes, your deify is well
    “qualified” so I suggest he is crowned, Director of Enviro
    Communication and Marketing.

    Reads, do you see how a direct and simply question
    is not answered. Why, you axe because frankly they
    have none other than he can “communicate with under-
    standing.”

    Their words bring their own indictment.

    Oh, wait, in my old college catalog, I found a course –
    The General Theory of Communication Transmission
    with Cerebrum Understanding 100.

    Saint Bernard, would dat elevate my status?

    1. BBD, communication avoidance. No answer to a direct
      question other than some silly muttering.

      Wrong. Gore’s only a conduit for scientific information, not the originator of it, so his expertise isn’t relevant.

      Don’t be unnecessarily stupid for rhetorical effect, please.

    2. Bullshit Bill you infantile twerp, I really don’t give a damn what Cunningham’s background is, he writes a piece through the most prominent climate change denying think tank that there is, and his views are at odds with >95% of the climate science community. And on.e again, he has published as far as I know not a single paper in the field of climate science. He has not studied the field and as such I believe that Mann, Hansen, Hayhoe, Schmidt, Trenberth, Santer et al. are infinitely more qualifed than him. And I would not be alone in making this assertion.

      BBD answered your stupid vacuous remark. Unlike a moron like you who thinks he possesses more knowledge than people who have actually bothered to go to university and study a specific scientific field, Gore is simply acting as a spokesman for the broad scientific consensus. He is not arrogant enough to think that he knows more than the statured experts.

      Good grief your arguments are easy to demolish. This is probably because you and I debate on very different intellectual levels. Given you are a dope, that isn’t difficult.

  44. From NOAA…..”October 2017 was characterized by warmer-than-average conditions across much of the world’s land and ocean surfaces, with record warmth scattered across the globe. The largest positive anomalies were observed across north-central Russia, Alaska, northwestern and eastern Canada, and the northeastern contiguous U.S., where temperature departures from average were +3.0°C (+5.4°F) or higher.”

    “The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for October 2017 was 0.73°C (1.31°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F). This value tied with 2003 as the fourth highest October temperature on record since global records began in 1880, behind 2015 (+1.0°C / +1.8°F), 2014 (+0.79°C / +1.42°F), and 2016 (+0.74°C / +1.33°F). The 10 warmest Octobers on record have all occurred during the 21st century, specifically since 2003.

  45. From NSIDC…
    “The linear rate of sea ice decline for October is 77,600 square kilometers (30,000 square miles) per year, or 9.3 percent per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.”

    1. Way above what normal? They are way below the 1981-2010 mean, and by the end of November Arctic ice extent will probably be the 2nd lowest on record for this date, just slightly more than last year.

      Bill, do have even a basic understanding of the relationship between spatial and temporal scales? I need to ask this because its important for me to establish a baseline for your ignorance. Your knowledge of complexity in the Earth and environmental sciences is somewhere between ‘very, very little’ and ‘none’. I just need to know whether we begin on the first day of kindergarten or can begin in grade one. You are somewhere in this intellectual range.

  46. From NOAA again…US stats…
    “For Octobe, 3,408 fires (8th least since 2000) burned 366,641 acres (3rd most on record)….”

    The record year for the US was 2011, with 507,724 acres burned.

  47. “Thus, to regard environmental pollution as a purely
    external negative factor would be to ignore its direct linkage with
    material advantages most citizens enjoy.

    Are things really that bad? Frankly, I am not enough of an ecological
    expert to know. But I am skeptical concerning all highly
    alarmist views because so many previous prophets of doom and
    disaster have been so wrong concerning many other so-called “crises”
    in our society.
    There are two reasonable definitions of “crisis.” One kind of crisis
    consists of a rapidly deteriorating situation moving towards a single
    disastrous event at some future moment. The second kind consists of
    a more gradually deteriorating situation that will eventually pass
    some subtle “point of no return.” At present, I do not believe either of
    these definitions applies to most American domestic problems. Although
    many social critics hate to admit it, the American “system”
    actually serves the majority of citizens rather well in terms of most
    indicators of well-being.

    Concern about the environment has passed through the first two
    stages of the “issue-attention cycle” and is by now well into the third.
    In fact, we have already begun to move toward the fourth stage, in
    which the intensity of public interest in environmental improvement
    must inexorably decline. And this raises an interesting question: Will
    the issue of environmental quality then move on into the “postproblem”
    stage of the cycle?

    Gathering support for attacking any problem is always easier if its
    ills can be blamed on a small number of “public enemies”–as is
    shown by the success of Ralph Nader. This tactic is especially effective
    if the “enemies” exhibit extreme wealth and power, eccentric dress
    and manners, obscene language, or some other uncommon traits. Then
    society can aim its outrage at a small, alien group without having to
    face up to the need to alter its own behavior. It is easier to find such
    scapegoats for almost all forms of pollution than for other major problems
    like poverty, poor housing, or racism. Solutions to those problems
    would require millions of Americans to change their own behavior
    patterns, to accept higher taxes, or both.

    Another aspect of anti-pollution efforts that will strengthen their
    political support is that most of the costs can be passed on to the
    public through higher product prices rather than higher taxes. Therefore,
    politicians can demand enforcement of costly environmental
    quality standards without paying the high political price of raising
    the required funds through taxes. ”

    Could we ask is there such a thing as an economic ecologist ?

    1. I would attempt to educate you on the link between ecology and economics – which is a recognized field of research and of which there are several strong journals – but given your profoundly myopic right wing views and complete inability to grasp the importance of the term ‘ecosystem services’ which I described in an earlier post on this thread, I won’t bother. You are a self-righteous idiot who has a pre-determined view of climate and environmental science and the way you came on here with a failed attempt to smear Al Gore, I would be wasting my valuable time.

  48. Li D “the rapper” muttered with profanities

    “Do mean what is the mechanism?
    Is that what you mean by prosecuted?
    If so, thats majorly fucking archaic usage.
    Just trolling out of boredom are we?
    Fuck off already stupid yank. Its so pathetic.”

    The yank pulled your plank.

    MGBGA – Make Great Britain Great Again

    Li D, try being a useful and productive
    world citizen.

  49. From Yale Climate Connections….
    “One of the first projections of future warming came from John Sawyer at the UK’s Met Office in 1973. In a paper published in Nature in 1973, he hypothesised that the world would warm 0.6° C between 1969 and 2000, and that atmospheric CO2 would increase by 25%. ….. His warming estimate of 0.6° C was nearly spot on – the observed warming over that period was between 0.51° C and 0.56° C.”

    The failure of the fossil fuel economic block to produce a science based model that can match this kind of predictive ability is worth noting. This group instead resorts to tactics such as disparaging the whole concept of model building and to claiming that the ability to predict climate is beyond human capability. They are comfortable with relying on hand waving and bloviating about unknown natural forces .

    A list of failed denialist models would be interesting to see.

    1. The best models are available
      at the Hobby Lobby.

      SteveO, your modeling does not need
      to be dissing, as they have failed time
      immemorial; something the Enviros do
      not admit.

  50. Why are denialists such cowards? Why do they get scared by facts? Why do they interpret the recitation of facts as alarmism? Assholes.

    1. Steve Gets Peed “Why are denialists such cowards? Why do they get scared by facts? Why do they interpret the recitation of facts as alarmism? Assholes.”

      Your three previous posts were productive and then
      your emotion and bipolar sets in.

  51. Regarding my earlier comment about a list of failed denialist climate models… Son of a gun, somebody wrote a blog about that a while back! http://gregladen.com/blog/2015/03/11/climatology-versus-pseudoscience-exposing-the-failed-predictions-of-global-warming-skeptics/

    And son of a gun, somebody wrote a whole book about that too!
    Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1440832013/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1440832013&linkCode=as2&tag=grlasbl0a-20&linkId=3QVWICNIBW2M2552

    1. SteveO, not a single poster on the first thread
      are posting now !

      Did they just quit or were they sweep away
      by the high tide ?

    2. Trolls are boring, Ivan Ivanovitch. You can’t have a conversation with a troll. So people get fed up and post elsewhere until the troll is gone.

    3. BBD, the more that he posts, the more his grammar and usage indicate that English is definitely not his first language. This lends credence to the foreign troll hypothesis.

      Either that or he has a seriously deficient school-level education, in which case he’s a luminous example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

      My inclination is toward the former alternative.

  52. MikeN said “What are Al Gore’s qualifications in climate science?”

    You beet me to it ! I think you have just crucified the
    “nutty” Professor.

    ATTENTION EARTHLINGS: We have just intercept a communicate
    that the Professor is on a conference call to several think tanks.
    Please stand bi, as a plausible denial is in the offering – pending
    climatic conditions.

    Debt collection agencies are blessing the education industry,
    for substantially driving up their revenues.

    1. You’re slow on the uptake. Gore is communicating the climate science, not conducting it, and he’s communicating it accurately. That Gore is not conducting the climate science does not invalidate the climate science.

      You’re engaging in an idiot-level logical fallacy. A gold star though if you can identify which fallacy it is.

  53. N. Baghri wrote an interesting article on the psychology of climate change denialists.

    “The typical denier is also predisposed to avoid negative emotions. In Jylha’s study, those who answered yes to questions such as “I avoid thinking about things that cause anxiety” were found to be more likely to deny climate change. Climate change denial might for them be a kind of buffer against a psychological existential threat, says Jylha.”

    I would posit further that, in the case of denialists, some of that threat is due to the realization that their entire world view is based on a number of poorly supported or unsupported assumptions. Since many of these assumptions are unprovable in real life, they can blithely go through life without most of them ever being challenged, merely by staying in their own peer group, where their view can be continually reinforced. But then, they run into a perceived threat , a challenge to their world view in the form of scientists saying that there are long term problems in a particular course of action, and that course of action is their thoughtless pursuit of ultimately harmful behaviors. They over react to a scientist stating a fact or pointing out a trend . They then attact the scientist with whatever weapons they can muster, ad hominems, propaganda memes supplied by fellow fear addicts, etc., because they have no science on their side to back their case.

    It seems to be very difficult to explain to a denialist that there is a difference between stating facts, and purposefully trying to alarm people. So when a non scientist wanders into or seeks out a science blog, and is alarmed by what is stated there, they typically over react and act as if they are being threatened and go to great lengths to attack the writer.

    Here is a clue for denialists. Your reaction to a fact is your own problem. Your inability to grasp a concept is your own problem. Your sense of alarm about a fact is your alarm, and I cannot cause it in you. Own it.

    If denialists somehow manage to kneecap climate scientists and elect a naked dictator, that is unfortunate, but life will go on. If people want to insult me for understanding the link between the molecular symmetry of carbon dioxide and the rather breathtakingly fast change in our climate, so be it. I chose to ignore idiots when I can. If the modern blog environment is unable to screen out these idiots, well, I guess I have to deal with that. If we are going to have rising sea levels and ever more frequent flooding events like Sandy and Katrina, well, I will have to enjoy the dry spaces in between. If the warming climate brings ever more interesting southern predators to my garden ( it is) I will just have to deal with it.

    My point is that climate change does not alarm me. I cannot make carbon dioxide stop interacting with long wave radiation. And if assholes want to impose their religio-economic misunderstandings on the world to make themselves more comfortable, while actually making the world worse, I will simple have to deal with it.

    And finally, if denialists don’t want to get their feelings hurt and their testosterone lowered, they would do well to stay away from science based blogs.

    1. Ok, SteveO, with “science is settled” you sure
      are an angry dude.

      You should educate the denialists rather than
      berate them with your gutter language.

      We must have some common ground; if not
      you only wish a one sided debate.

      Even your prose betrays you and your radical
      ideology. What a shame, as you appear to be
      intelligent.

    2. At a more basic level, denialists, whether of climate change, evolution, vaccine safety/efficacy, modern physics, etc., have one other thing in common: they are all completely uneducated in the things they claim are bogus, dismiss any comments by academics as simply “income preserving lies by the scientists”, and present statements made by people outside the areas as equal to the statements of the experts.

    3. Bill is such an incompetent idiot. He thinks that there is a debate over the existence of the recent climate warming and over the causes.

      The scientific community by-and-large has left the armchair ‘experts’ like brainless Bill well and truly behind. We are focused on impacts and solutions. There is no longer any debate over process or causation amongst us. We agree that it is warming rapidly and that humans are the primary driver. The debate over process and causation is where the public are stuck, unfortuneately, in large part because much of the mainstream and social media frame it that way.

      Every conference and workshop I attend as a population ecologist takes anthropogenic global warming as a ‘given’. Only among the right wing think tanks and media and denier blogs is AGW deemed controversial. Unfortunately these cater to the masses of Dunning-Kruger afflicted laymen like Bill.

  54. Paul Harvey said “Bullshit Bill you infantile twerp, I really don’t give a damn what Cunningham’s background is, he writes a piece through the most prominent climate change denying think tank that there is, and his views are at odds with >95% of the climate science community.”

    Please provide a link for your claim. Oh, not that I am an infantile twerp,
    which you are correctoe about but your >>>>95% claim. It sounds
    like Soviet dogma.

    ” And on.e again, he has published as far as I know not a single paper in the field of climate science. He has not studied the field and as such I believe that Mann, Hansen, Hayhoe, Schmidt, Trenberth, Santer et al. are infinitely more qualifed than him. And I would not be alone in making this assertion.”

    I suspect you are correct, Professor, but even the
    blind can see the truth. Mr Cunningham is no more likely
    to be correct than you.

    “BBD answered your stupid vacuous remark. Unlike a moron like you who thinks he possesses more knowledge than people who have actually bothered to go to university and study a specific scientific field, Gore is simply acting as a spokesman for the broad scientific consensus. He is not arrogant enough to think that he knows more than the statured experts.”

    “Gore is simply acting as a spokesman for the broad scientific
    consensus.” Well then you support and endorse his many failed
    predictions, which in itself is an indictment of the statured experts.

    Your personal shortcoming, Professor Harvey, is that you
    think that you are infallible and those without an
    Bachalorette are dopes. You cling onto losers like Al
    “i what to be” Gore because he would become your
    political tool of the future.

    And the forecasting record by the global alarmist
    is just as bad as any other groups.

    The fact remains, that any type of forecasting is
    difficult at best.

    You simply can not grasp that simply fact, despite
    your Professorship.

    1. Your idiotship (Bill) I erred. The percentage of scientists supporting the argument that humans are the main driver of climate change is more likely around 99%. The 95% figure is based on being cautious. Please explain why every National Academy of Science across the world as well as every major scientific organisation verifies the reality of AGW. Cunningham doesn’t have a PhD, he admits that he isn’t a climate scientist, he has never published a paper in the field, he confabulates weather and climate and he wouldn’t recognise an abiotic or a biotic proxy if it slapped his old face.

      Given he is a rank outsider, his views can be heard and dismissed. My views as a scientist simply reflect the broad consensus, and I study some of those biotic proxies. Cunningham is a flyweight.

    2. Your profound ignorance is showing again. It may be very difficult to forecast stochastic processes, but it’s much easier to forecast deterministic processes. Before you utter another vacuous word read up on scale (as I suggested) in the context of global change. You are clearly in way over your pin-sized head here. Brian Maurer (1999) wrote an excellent book on the importance of scale in ecology with respect to extrapolating general rules. Stuart Pimm’s easier masterwork, ‘The Balance of Nature?’ (1991) examined scaling as well as a predictive tool. It’s not my fault that you enter here with a seriously jaundiced view of climate and environmental science.

      Essentially eating up your puny arguments and spitting them out is very easy for me. If you were remotely honest you would admit that you know nothing and want to learn the truth. But you write in here as if you are well versed in the science.

      You aren’t.

  55. Paul Harvey uttered, ” We are focused on impacts and solutions.

    I have an open mind, although feeble by your
    standards.

    Your solutions, please? I may even agree with some.

    Is there anyone on the opposite side whom you have
    any respect for?

    Just a warning, however, that more than likely, evironmental
    impacts are more likely to be parochial than global.

    I will be absent now, as I must report to the labor pool.

    Hungarian bureau, please login.

    1. Just a warning, however, that more than likely, evironmental
      impacts are more likely to be parochial than global.

      You aren’t saying anything. Of course specific climate impacts will be regional, but within a context of increasing global average temperature.

      As for solutions, the key thing is to reduces CO2 emissions. The obvious place to start is by displacing coal from electricity generation with a mix of gas and, increasingly, wind and solar. At the same time, it is necessary to decarbonise transport (phase in EVs), heating (go electric), cooking (ditto), lighting (efficiencies – LEDs and reduced usage) etc. The hard stuff will be agriculture, construction (concrete) and bulk maritime transport.

    2. I suspect you are correct, Professor, but even the
      blind can see the truth. Mr Cunningham is no more likely
      to be correct than you.

      I had a look at Cunningham’s article and it is indeed absolutely stuffed with errors and misunderstandings. You can, if you wish, pick one at random and I’ll explain what Cunningham got wrong.

    3. Environmental impacts are likely to be parochial? According to who? You? Now you are really wading in over your head.

  56. Howard Dean blabbed, “At a more basic level, denialists, whether of climate change, evolution, vaccine safety/efficacy, modern physics, etc., have one other thing in common: they are all completely uneducated in the things they claim are bogus, dismiss any comments by academics as simply “income preserving lies by the scientists”, and present statements made by people outside the areas as equal to the statements of the experts.”

    You folks spend too much time denouncing and degrading
    others, rather than bring forth facts and points of views.

    This would tell a reader, that you may indeed have few
    sound arguments and are attempting to redirect
    conversations elsewhere. The hallmark of Socshevekes.

    This is characteristic of shallow, charlation , windbags.

    Jerry Springer, however, would like you to audition
    for this show; needed are angry and radical, white men.

    1. So, habitual liar, what experience in science, statistics, math, and or modeling do you have?

      You do realize a reference to Howard Dean is a good thing, right? One of the few, Manny the only, man with some integrity in the Nixon White House.

  57. from aps…
    “Gardiner provides an astute analysis of the problem of environmental inaction, but he overlooks the possibility that climate change denial may not merely result from ignorance. Rather, many members of the public may possess a relatively strong motivation to deny and minimize environmental realities. Specifically, our research team has found that the social psychological motivation to defend, bolster, and justify aspects of the status quo — what we refer to as system justification (see, e.g., Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004) — contaminates the public’s understanding of anthropogenic climate change.”

  58. Found in an article in Psychology Today on why people deny climate change…

    [The article talks about a study correlating right wing authoritarianism and and self identified pollitical orientation with climate change beliefs]
    “First of all, they confirmed that ideological orientation, RWA and SDO were associated with higher levels of climate change denial. The found that CCDT was correlated with all ideological variables as well as with all climate change denial variables. This supports the basic idea that not only is right-wing ideology connected with climate change denial, but it is also connected with reporting greater concern that addressing climate change will upset the socioeconomic status quo. “

  59. more from the PT article…
    “The finding that socioeconomic threat is associated with avoidant coping (denial) is telling because it is another disturbing example of how people can sacrifice long-term health and safety in order to prevent short-term losses. Avoidant coping is generally considered to be maladaptive, for example, and acceptance and reappraisal, forms of active coping, are generally more effective.”

    So if someone were to bring up believeable evidence that climate change was a hoax, the adaptive response would be to evaluate the evidence with the best tools in ones truth-detecting tool box and make a judgement based on that… As I go through life, I continually re-evaluate the evidence for and against climate change. Everything I see, including the words of scientists like Fourier , Tyndall, Arrhenius,and Mann, and the evidence I’ve seen in school and industry, and the words of the right wing hacks with the mentalities and education of grade school bullies, indicates to me that climate change is real, and that it is being forced by burning fossil fuels. If I were to find out that some major miscalculation had been made and that climate change has nothing to do with carbon dioxide, I would be put in the highly interesting situation of having to question why the perponderance of evidence suggested one thing, but the truth was another thing. And to me that would be really, really interesting! And I could deal with it. I don’t expect that to ever happen, and the dweebs of denial have yet to come up with a scintilla of evidence to support that happening. But I realize that this is one of life’s possibilities, that one can go through life being continually misled. The dweebs of denial are clear evidence of that sort of thing actually happening.

  60. Greg Laden posts about Al Franken’s troubles with sexual harassment, but somehow Gore has gone unscathed even with Bill Clinton’s name brought up again. Apparently no one believes the massage women who said he was asking for more. Al, take some advice from William Shatner to Charlie Sheen, “Prostitutes cost a lot of money. Don’t you know actresses will sleep with you for free?”

    1. It doesn’t matter how hard contrarians try and try and try, Al Gore is not and will never be a proxy for climate science.

      Can we perhaps stop this painfully drawn-out AlGoreIsFat session now?

      Thx.

    2. The big question is not why Gore has gone unscathed but why the current doofus POTUS has thus far escaped unscathed. His profile fits that of a sexual predator completely.

  61. Yeah, blew that one. Still not sure what ol habitual liar bb was going on about. We’ll have to wait until he dodges another direct question.

  62. Note to all: “Socshevekes” is not a word in the English language. Anyone care to translate this slavic slush into English?

  63. My Dearly Beloved Professor Harvey stated,

    “I would attempt to educate you on the link between ecology and economics – which is a recognized field of research and of which there are several strong journals – but given your profoundly myopic right wing views and complete inability to grasp the importance of the term ‘ecosystem services’ which I described in an earlier post on this thread, I won’t bother. You are a self-righteous idiot who has a pre-determined view of climate and environmental science and the way you came on here with a failed attempt to smear Al Gore, I would be wasting my valuable time. ”

    The link to ecology and economic would be an interesting
    read, Professor.

    Would you be so kind and provide me a link or two.

    Thank you for your considerations.

    1. Now you are being polite. Finally. I will send you some links. Robert Costanza at the University of Maryland has written extensively about the valuation of ecosystem services which by now is a field firmly ingrained between ecology and economics.

  64. Dear visitors, please read this as the alarmists
    are attempting to hoodwink you. Let’s exposed
    their hijab.

    http://circleranchtx.com/holocene-sea-ice-cover/

    “According to this paper, Arctic sea-ice fluctuation is caused by natural solar cycles, not anthropogenic (human caused) global warming.”

    “The February issue of the Journal of Quaternary Science, a highly respected paleoclimatology journal, included an article that reported a study of Arctic sea-ice extent over the last 10,000 years in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas of the Arctic Ocean.”

    “As you can see below, the extent of Arctic sea-ice in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas of the Arctic Ocean today is greater than it has been at any time in the last 10,000 years, except for the Little Ice Age, which had temperatures as cold as the last glacial maximum.”

    ” According to the authors, the increase in sea-ice during the late Holocene is a circum-Arctic phenomenon as is demonstrated by other studies around the Arctic.”

    “In a new paper (Stein et al., 2017), scientists find that Arctic sea ice retreat and advance is modulated by variations in solar activity.”

    “In addition, the sea ice cover during the last century has only slightly retreated from the extent reached during coldest centuries of the Little Ice Age (1600s to 1800s AD), which had the highest sea ice cover of the last 10,000 years and flirted with excursions into year-round sea ice.”

    “Of note, the paper makes no reference to carbon dioxide or anthropogenic forcing as factors modulating Arctic sea ice.”

    WORTH REPEATING- dear visitors

    “Of note, the paper makes no reference to carbon dioxide or anthropogenic forcing as factors modulating Arctic sea ice.”

    THIS SHOULD NOT BE UNDERESTIMATED.

    “The causes that are controlling the decrease in sea ice are still under discussion. In several studies changes in extent, thickness and drift of Arctic sea ice are related to changes in the overall atmospheric circulation patterns as reflected in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO). The NAO and AO are influencing changes of the relative position and strength of the two major surface-current systems of the Arctic Ocean.”

    “Robust substantiation for the trends documented in this new Arctic sea ice record comes from a 2005 paper by Lassen and Thejll entitled “Multi-decadal variation of the East Greenland Sea- Ice Extent: AD 1500-2000.” Shown below is an annotated graph from the paper revealing Iceland’s sea ice cover during the last millennium. These scientists also link sea ice variations to solar activity, namely solar cycle length. Notice the direct correspondence between the Arctic trends as a whole (from Stein et al., 2017) and the trends for Iceland.”

    The fear mongers will only examine very short periods of
    time, in order to either buttress or make their case.

    They clearly have a myopic view of History or
    what serves their best and only interest.

    As these scientests indicate, there is no AGW,
    relating to the rise and fall of the Arctic ice packs.

    Albeit, the nonsensical conclusion StevePee
    was attempting to draw.

    1. Lol. You be an idjit. Havnt read it have you. Just read some other dickheads interpretation of it and it seems like they cant read neither.
      How much longer can you look like a dimwit in every single comment? Its an amazing winning streak you are on.

      “As these scientests indicate, there is no AGW,
      relating to the rise and fall of the Arctic ice packs.”
      Not even wrong you muppet.

    2. ” “Of note, the paper makes no reference to carbon dioxide or anthropogenic forcing as factors modulating Arctic sea ice.” ”

      Would you swear that that is a true statement? 100% accurate? No mention at all?
      Fucken numpty denier…

    3. The fear mongers will only examine very short periods of
      time, in order to either buttress or make their case.

      Very quickly:

      Holocene Arctic sea ice extent has broadly increased over the last ~11ka because the Holocene is an interglacial triggered by an increase in summer insolation at high north latitude. This happens when the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit and its obliquity and precession (’tilt and wobble’) combine in particular ways.

      This being the case, the Holocene begins with low Arctic sea ice cover, just as you would expect at a period of high N latitude summer insolation. Over the last 11ka, insolation at high N latitude has slowly decreased and Arctic sea ice extent has slowly increased – again, just as you would expect.

      What you would not expect is an abrupt, very rapid decrease in Arctic sea ice right now, at a period when it should be at an ~11ka high.

      The reason that Arctic sea ice is behaving in dramatically the opposite way to expectations is the increase in ocean and atmospheric temperatures forced by increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

      Now admit it – you knew absolutely none of this, did you?

  65. “Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor’s Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley,”

    According to our Esteemed Professor Harvey, his degree
    does not qualify him, just like Mr Cunningham.

    One review said it was a great book of science fiction.

    1. just like Mr Cunningham.

      I asked you to pick at random one of Cunningham’s claims and offered to debunk it for you, free of charge. Any reason why you haven’t done this yet?

  66. Howard His Deanship said,

    “I think it’s just hidden sadness on bb’s part; he’s clearly incapable of reading for understanding because of the multi-syllable words used in science books.”

    How disturbing, as Dean mocks and laughs at folks
    with handicaps. And you what to trust volks like
    this with the environment ???

    1. Question. Have you seen the volume data? The extent stuff is bad enough but the volume shit is jawdropping.
      Nar, its the friggen sun eh? Its all about them solar cycles eh? The sun is getting extra super duper bright at present. Or its a chinese conspiracy and NASA has fake data cuz they owned by china.
      Or what? Whats the next pathetic denier gambit?
      Like Mr T, i pity the fool.

    2. Here is a graph of sunspot number (SSN) 1900 – present. SSN is a widely-used proxy for solar output: high SSN = higher solar output. It is obvious that solar output has been falling for several decades. It is now (end solar cycle 24) at unusually low levels.

      Solar activity is *not* driving modern warming and Arctic sea ice loss.

      Next.

  67. October 2017 total global sea ice volume was 65% below the maximum October ice volume in 1979….. What’s wrong with that? Its just a little “natural” variation!

    Oh well, what the hell. Polar ice isn’t that important is it? We can just make fake icebergs to hide our boomers under! (nuclear missle subs), can’t we?

  68. Professor Harvey stated, “Now you are being polite. Finally. I will send you some links. Robert Costanza at the University of Maryland has written extensively about the valuation of ecosystem services which by now is a field firmly ingrained between ecology and economics.”

    Good morning my dear Professor. Since I have received any links
    from at this time (I am sure you have been occupied) I will Duckduckgo
    a search of Professor Costanza and his work.

    Are there any video of this lecture that you gave? If not why?

    http://www.biology.colostate.edu/?seminars=internet-blogs-and-online-sources-use-polar-bears-and-their-habitat-as-keystone-dominoes-for-denying-climate-change

    Respectfully yours, His Idiotship <——- Love the honorary title

  69. Bill. Yawn. I think if you get of your butt and type the term ‘Ecological economics’ into the google search engine, you will get many hits.

    Two points: I have minor case of pneumonia right now; I am very busy leading up to the press release of an important paper on climate change, Arctic ice and polar bears (Wednesday). You, Greg and most here will know all about it soon.

    I am tired. Now go away and do your thing.

    1. Thank you, Professor Harvey, for your suggestion !

      Looking forward to immerse myself in your work,
      unless it is hidden behind a paywall.

      Please, get well and quickly recover from your
      wanted umonia.

  70. http://www.journalrepository.org/media/journals/PSIJ_33/2017/Jul/Ollila1522017PSIJ34187_.pdf

    The significants of measuring “ice packs” is, that they can be observed
    and quantified empirically, without the dubious use of PC modeling.
    Henceforth, the layperson can not only understand the outcome but
    it’s possible ramification.

    “Many research studies show that Pacific Decal
    Oscillation (PDO) phenomenon causes climate
    variations in the Pacific Basin and in the North
    America. The ENSO (El Nino-Southern
    Oscillation) causes also very clear climate
    impacts. The Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation
    (AMO) correlates with the sea surface
    temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean. By
    analyzing the long-term PDO index and the AMO
    index, it can be found that they follow quite well
    the general temperature trend of the Earth. For
    example, the high temperature periods of 1930’s
    and 2000’s happen at the same time as the
    maximum values of PDO and AMO index. The
    author’s conclusion is that the oscillation
    phenomena like PDO and AMO are not the real
    root causes of the long-term climate change but
    they have the common origin.
    The warming impact of GH gases has increased
    from 0% in 1750 to 37% in 2015. The Astronomic
    Harmonic Resonances (AHR) can explain the
    temperature peaks of the 1930’s and the present
    warming period since 2000. The change in Sun
    activity explains the low temperatures during the
    LIA. Therefore, these climate forces should be
    included into the overall climate model.”

    However, to be fair and keeping an open mind, I
    shall give the presentation of Professor Hall.

    The article is gone and now requires payment !

    Hall’s, synopsis supports the AGWist theories of
    shrinking ice packs (short term), which I assume
    are based on sound and honest observations.

    Irregardless, of philosophy, I fully support continuous
    research of ice pack formation, whether they are
    increasing or declining in volume.

    Why are so much of scientific publications
    hidden behind paywalls?????????????

    I can no longer source Academia.edu, without
    producing payment. There is no reduced payment plan
    for idiots or the indigent? One would think that
    that the academic world would provide some
    form of forbearance, for the less fortunate groups.

    1. Avoiding dealing with my responses Ivan Ivanovitch? What a surprise. Almost as big a surprise as the fact that you stop posting at the weekends. You should have a word with your sponsors about an overtime plan.

    2. As for the link you provide, here are my first impressions:

      – The journal is published by Sciencedomain International, which is not among the respected publishers of the world. Really not. SDI also turns up in Beall’s list of predatory publishers.

      – The author is an emeritus prof of (you guessed it) engineering. So again, not confidence-inspiring.

      – It’s a monograph – there are no co-authors. Again, not confidence-inspiring.

      – Nobody’s heard of this guy and nobody references this monograph.

      Stick to mainstream journals and researchers with a relevant background. You made such a fuss about Al Gore’s irrelevant background and now you are referencing stuff like this? At least try to be consistent. Trolls are boring but crap trolls are even worse.

    3. Why are so much [sic] of [sic] scientific publications
      hidden behind paywalls????????????? [sic]

      It’s so that ordinary people can’t understand that there’s a global conspiracy to hoodwink the proletariat and install a one-world government.

      Really.

  71. BBD, mate, I have been preoccupied and there
    is no conspiracy in avoidance.

    Any spare time is directed to Professor Greg
    Landen.com.

    Please, accept my most humble apologies, as I
    truly miss the combative atmosphere that you
    and your cohorts provide.

  72. An open question to board members.

    “The past really is the key to the future! In order to understand where climate is heading, we need to know where it’s been.”

    True or not ?

    1. To a point. I know a bit about palaeoclimate, so you get the standard advance warning – don’t bullshit on this topic because you will not get away with it.

    1. Question, why is a rocket agency working an environmental front ?

      Why is a climate science-denying troll baseless posting drivel about global warming?

  73. Lionel, their forecasts past 72 hours are
    still highly unreliable.

    And why is NASA competing with another
    governmental unit NOAA for environmental
    data?

  74. BBD stated, “Stick to mainstream journals and researchers with a relevant background. You made such a fuss about Al Gore’s irrelevant background and now you are referencing stuff like this? At least try to be consistent. Trolls are boring but crap trolls are even worse.”

    Gore has no background, only an indelible and failed predictions
    something of which, you, BBD and not even acknowledged.

    The current ice pack volume decline is true and however its
    ramifications are unknown – accept of course within
    the also declining “community” knows AGWers.

    I listed Hall’s proAGW survey of the current decline
    but that also was left out of your mind.

    1. Gore has no background,

      And we’ve already dealt with why this doesn’t matter so you can stop pushing that particular non talking-point now.

      I listed Hall’s proAGW survey of the current decline
      but that also was left out of your mind.

      You linked to a predatory journal and then handwave at this ‘presentation of Professor Hall’ whatever the hell that may be and now you whine because I ignored the non-citation?

      Away and fuck yourself.

  75. BB King stated, I was “Tone Trolling.”

    “A Tone Troll is a form of internet troll focusing on the tone of arguments. A Tone Troll will typically express great consternation and offense at the style of an argument, as a way of distracting from the actual content.”

    I am incapable of doing so, as I am deaf.

    Is there such a thing as ad hominem tolling,
    which is routinely practiced hear?

  76. Lionel, their forecasts past 72 hours are
    still highly unreliable.

    Displaying a lack of understanding of the difference between weather and climate, how both change and the differences in scales of the boundary conditions of each.

    But then I have taken your statement at face value and not asked you to back up with as to where and why any (whatever) forecasts are highly unreliable. It is just something you wrote as a knee jerk.

    1. Empirical fact is a bit of a push.
      Barb and Thomas (her husband) Ryan, did a good job developing Minitab back in 72, and the current blogs the company runs are good at explaining basic topics — we have several of the topics as reading for introductory classes. (They do have more technical articles as well.)

      But: this little article isn’t so much about weather forecasts in general — note the small sample size and the data collected for a single location — it’s about demonstrating the use of multiple tools on a single problem.

      Modeling complex systems, like weather, is incredibly complicated, with some data sets reaching a few terabytes in size. If you want to look for information about reliability of forecasts look at studies that document the improvement in accuracy of forecasts over time, for large areas. A small sample, for one time period, does nothing to address the large picture.

    1. What, a troll read a textbook (never mind two of the buggers)???

      Are you mad, Lionel?

      He’ll just whine that we’re being mean to him again.

    2. Yeah Lionel, where do you (or anyone) get off asking a christian to read a book that has science in it?

      Not only is there the (admittedly small) risk that the person might learn something, but asking them to struggle with big words and some numbers is completely beyond the pale. bb is perfectly capable of spreading dishonesty and fake science without troubling with valid information.

  77. Is there such a thing as ad hominem tolling,

    The comments made about you are factual, not logical fallacies.

    which is routinely practiced hear?

    And yet you think you should be taken seriously.

  78. Li D muttered, “Lol. You be an idjit. Havnt read it have you. Just read some other dickheads interpretation of it and it seems like they cant read neither.
    How much longer can you look like a dimwit in every single comment? Its an amazing winning streak you are on.”

    Hip Hopper Li D, read what ?? I am not sure what
    you are quacking about.

  79. His Deanship sputtered, ” Yeah Lionel, where do you (or anyone) get off asking a christian to read a book that has science in it?”

    They can most certainly co-exist, Dean. Neither one
    supplants the other, except in the mind of the Secularists.

    1. True, for people willing to make an effort. Several of the people I went through grad school with are science literate Christians, unlike you. But then, judging from your repeated postings from breitbart and other scum infested sites, they are simply better people than you in a multitude of ways.

  80. Dean filled with excessive emotion said, “But then, judging from your repeated postings from breitbart and other scum infested sites, they are simply better people than you in a multitude of ways.”

    After weeks on end of brow beatings, I no longer
    questions your complete and utter authority, in
    drawing the correct and final conclusion.

    It is my way or Dean’s highway.

    1. Don’t want to be described for what you are? Stop referencing breitbart and other vile groups. Unless/until you stop associating your name with racists, folks who identify with Nazis and white supremacists, and their ilk, there is no reason to consider you a decent person.

  81. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140309150437.htm

    “Changes in the sun’s energy output may have led to marked natural climate change in Europe over the last 1000 years, according to researchers at Cardiff University. The study found that changes in the Sun’s activity can have a considerable impact on the ocean-atmospheric dynamics in the North Atlantic, with potential effects on regional climate.”

    Oh dear, solar radiation is once suspect in altering
    earth’s climate !

    1. The study concludes that although the temperature changes expected from future solar activity are much smaller than the warming from human carbon dioxide emissionsregional climate variability associated with the effects of solar output on the ocean and atmosphere should be taken into account when making future climate projections.

      Maybe you should read it.

  82. His Deanship barked, “Don’t want to be described for what you are? Stop referencing breitbart and other vile groups. Unless/until you stop associating your name with racists, folks who identify with Nazis and white supremacists, and their ilk, there is no reason to consider you a decent person.”

    Did not your folks refer to you as BrightDean? Btw, Dean
    you continually mention “and other vile groups.”

    Whom are these vileters ? Which website have your
    approval, Herr Political Commissar ?

    1. Wow. Your original reference to that paper carried the message that climate changes were primarily due to the sun.

      Oh dear, solar radiation is once suspect in altering
      earth’s climate !

      When it was pointed out that the paper didn’t support that at all this crap appeared:

      it just tells us how intricate
      our planet biosphere is. It is not only CO2 that may
      contribute to global warming but many other factors.

      Trying to change your story after your blatantly false assertion was outed — typical.

  83. “Green Guru James Lovelock on Climate Change: ‘I don’t think anybody really knows what’s happening. They just guess’ – Lovelock Reverses Himself on Global Warming

    Lovelock, on BBC TV, slams the global warming claims including those of of the United Nations climate panel. ‘They just guess. And a whole group of them meet together and encourage each other’s guesses.’
    Lovelock was once one of the leading voices of climate alarm. See: 2006 Climate Shocker: Lovelock Predicted Global Warming Doom: ‘Billions of us will die; few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in Arctic’
    Fast Forward to April 2012: ‘Gaia’ scientist James Lovelock reverses himself: I was ‘alarmist’ about climate change & so was Gore! ‘The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago’
    Lovelock becomes UN IPCC’s biggest critic: Green Guru Lovelock Slams UN IPCC & Greens: ‘Whenever UN puts its finger in it seems to become a mess’ — ‘The green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion’ — James Lovelock: ”IPCC is too politicized & too internalized’ — On Green religion: ‘I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use. The greens use guilt. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting CO2 in the air'”

    1. I’m afraid to say that nobody really pays any attention to Lovelock on climate change these days because he has said so many incorrect things – conflating ‘greens’ with climatologists being a prime example. If you want to understand climate, listen to / read climate scientists.

  84. Dear visitor, you can see how quick climate carpetbaggers
    are quick to smear, discredit and lie about Dr Soon.

    [Crazy right wing yahoo link deleted]

    The truth always comes to the surface and apology was
    issued, as well as a financial settlement. This is their
    constance MO, as exhibit hear at gregladen.com

    [Crazy right wing yahoo link deleted] (This a Dean no go zone)

    1. You’ve been conned by liars, ‘Bill’. You should read harder. The total fiction you link was made up by the notorious climate crank and fabulist Christopher Monckton – it was NOT an apology issued by the Harvard Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics. Ever. Here’s what the WingNutDaily editors were forced to add to the top of the fictitious ‘apology’ that never was, but you somehow failed to notice:

      (Editor’s note: Lord Christopher Monckton has written the following statement, and he proposes that it be issued by Dr. Charles Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.)

      Note the words. Monckton – NOT the H-S CA – wrote the ‘apology’ and ‘proposed’ that it ‘be issued’ by Dr Alcock. This is just blatant fantasy. And you fell for it – see the kind of tricksy fantasists you are following? As opposed to, say, actual scientists with relevant domain expertise?

      The situation regarding Soon is unchanged: he is a fossil-fuel industry shill and exposed and discredited as such (this is a Bill no-go zone).

    2. I reckon Monktons got a real whiff of that kipper arsehole Farage about him.
      A sort of plastic toff wankerism.
      Its slightly nauseating .

  85. Dean said, “The study concludes that although the temperature changes expected from future solar activity are much smaller than the warming from human carbon dioxide emissions regional climate variability associated with the effects of solar output on the ocean and atmosphere should be taken into account when making future climate projections.”

    Good find, Dean, however, it just tells us how intricate
    our planet biosphere is. It is not only CO2 that may
    contribute to global warming but many other factors.

    1. it just tells us how intricate
      our planet biosphere is. It is not only CO2 that may
      contribute to global warming but many other factors.

      Nobody has ever disputed this. If you actually talk to climatologists, they will happily explain that planetary climate is set by three things:

      1/ Solar output

      2/ Planetary albedo (reflectiveness as viewed from space)

      3/ Atmospheric composition

      In the past, solar variability and Earth’s orbital dynamics have altered the amount of solar energy reaching the surface. This in turn changes planetary albedo and atmospheric composition, which magnify the effects of a change in solar energy reaching the surface. There have also been periods of sustained volcanism which have altered the atmospheric composition, including by the addition of significant amounts of CO2. This caused major warming events.

      Modern warming is also caused by the removal of large amounts of carbon from geological sinks and its injection into the atmosphere as CO2. There is no inconsistency between the mechansims of past climate change and that of current anthropogenic climate change. That’s just a crude strawman thrown out by ‘sceptics’ trying to confuse people who don’t yet understand the actual science. But now you do, or at least you have a key insight into the way things really work.

  86. Did anyone ever have a ‘anneal’ date ?

    Wrote he trying to ‘normalise’ his idiosyncratic use of words which makes one wonder if
    he is using a dictionary that has been through the washer.

  87. It is not only CO2 that may
    contribute to global warming but many other factors.

    Indeed, but the rapid increase in GHG load in the atmosphere and the associated atypical rapid, at geological time scales, increase in warming is the mechanism in charge as Richard Alley has described.

    William F Ruddiman has also carried out useful research on this topic and demonstrated the wrong way curves of both CO2 and CH4 over the period from when humans began farming as the fortunes of human populations waxed and waned, increasing population and deforestation giving way to depopulation from plagues and other deleterious circumstance.

    More can be learned from Ruddiman’s texts:

    ‘Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate’

    ‘Earth’s Climate, Past and Future’

    ‘Earth Transformed’

  88. Hurricane forecasters make excellent predictions
    for the season.

    [link to climate science denial site deleted. Bill, don’t do that again.] (Caution this is a non Dean approved site)

  89. Well bill, it’s not a science site either, so your record of posting to locations that have no reason to be believed is still unbroken.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.