We have a lemming instead of a leader

Written By: - Date published: 9:04 am, November 13th, 2012 - 80 comments
Categories: climate change, disaster, ETS, john key, national - Tags:

It’s actually a myth that lemmings commit “mass suicide” by hurling themselves off cliffs. Which is a pity really, because as metaphors go the lemming suicide is a pretty damn useful one. It’s what we humans are currently engaged in, just for example. A quick scan of recent headlines:

Climate change ‘likely to be more severe than some models predict’

Scientists analysing climate models warn we should expect high temperature rises – meaning more extreme weather, sooner

Climate change is likely to be more severe than some models have implied, according to a new study which ratchets up the possible temperature rises and subsequent climatic impacts.

The analysis by the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) found that climate model projections showing a greater rise in global temperature were likely to be more accurate than those showing a smaller rise. This means not only a higher level of warming, but also that the resulting problems – including floods, droughts, sea level rise and fiercer storms and other extreme weather – would be correspondingly more severe and would come sooner than expected. …

There has already been increasing evidence of a warming effect this year – the Arctic’s summer ice sank to its lowest extent and volume yet recorded, and satellite pictures showed that surface ice melting was more widespread across Greenland than ever seen in years of observations. Experts have predicted that the Arctic seas could be ice-free in winter in the next decade.

The International Energy Agency warned earlier this year that on current emissions trends the world would be in for 6C of warming – a level scientists warn would lead to chaos. Scientists have put the safety limit at 2C, beyond which warming is likely to become irreversible.

(Keep in mind what a 6C rise means for the planet.)

Governments failing to avert catastrophic climate change, IEA warns

Governments are falling badly behind on low-carbon energy, putting carbon reduction targets out of reach and pushing the world to the brink of catastrophic climate change, the world’s leading independent energy authority will warn on Wednesday.

The stark judgment is being given at a key meeting of energy ministers from the world’s biggest economies and emitters taking place in London on Wednesday…

On current form, she warns, the world is on track for warming of 6C by the end of the century – a level that would create catastrophe, wiping out agriculture in many areas and rendering swathes of the globe uninhabitable, as well as raising sea levels and causing mass migration, according to scientists.

Experts warn of superstorm era to come

Superstorm Sandy was no freak, say experts, but rather a hint of a coming era when millions of Americans will struggle to survive killer weather.

They’re telling us we shouldn’t be surprised that this 900-mile-wide monster marched up the East Coast this week paralyzing cities and claiming scores of lives. “It’s a foretaste of things to come,” Princeton University professor Michael Oppenheimer told CNN. “Bigger storms and higher sea levels” will pile on to create a “growing threat” in the coming decades.

It’s Global Warming, Stupid

Yes, yes, it’s unsophisticated to blame any given storm on climate change. Men and women in white lab coats tell us—and they’re right—that many factors contribute to each severe weather episode. Climate deniers exploit scientific complexity to avoid any discussion at all.

Clarity, however, is not beyond reach. Hurricane Sandy demands it: At least 40 U.S. deaths. Economic losses expected to climb as high as $50 billion. Eight million homes without power. Hundreds of thousands of people evacuated. More than 15,000 flights grounded. Factories, stores, and hospitals shut. Lower Manhattan dark, silent, and underwater.

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

And so on and so on, a crescendo of warnings. And on to this troubled world stage, like a colossus of Lilliput, strides John Phillip Key:

Key defends ‘no’ to Kyoto Protocol

The Government is defending its decision not to commit to the second stage of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, acknowledging the previous Government “may have had a stronger emphasis” on the issue. …

The Government has since been criticised by Labour, the Greens and WWF, who say the decision leaves New Zealand’s “clean and green” image in tatters, with Australia and European countries reaffirming their Kyoto commitment. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Jan Wright is not happy either. “I don’t think the clean green brand, you can’t just abuse it and expect it to look after itself.” …

[Key:] “New Zealand needs to play its part, it is playing its part – it’s already got an Emissions Trading Scheme, we’ve made quite a number of other changes … but I think we never want to be a world leader in climate change. “We’ve always wanted to be what is affectionately called a `fast follower’.”

No no, with so much of our income dependent on agriculture and “clean green” tourism I can certainly see why we would never want to be a leader in protecting the environment. Much better to ignore the science, ignore the numbers, believe whatever we want to believe (like Republican commentators on November 6th and with the same result). Much better to ignore the massive opportunities for early movers in the Green economy. Much better to be a lemming (sorry – a “fast follower”) and follow all the other lemmings off the cliff.

“Damnit”, we might wail on the way down. “Turns out we really needed a leader after all. Someone who was ambitious for New Zealand. Someone who aspired to be something more than a follower. But we didn’t have a leader. We had John Key.”

80 comments on “We have a lemming instead of a leader ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. tinfoilhat 1
    13 November 2012 at 9:38 am

    The climate criminal key and his farming kronies must be brought to justice.

  2. AmaKiwi 2
    13 November 2012 at 9:40 am

    Grant Robertson warned we should not be too extreme in our regulations to reduce green house gases. I am NOT impressed.

  3. kiwicommie 3
    13 November 2012 at 9:49 am

    I think calling John Key a lemming, is an insult to lemmings; at least they can build ladders to somewhere and a functioning society, with zero carbon emissions. 😀

  4. Richard Christie 4
    13 November 2012 at 10:04 am

    Lol, I read the headline and assumed it was going to be a post about the Labour party.
    As you were.

  5. Richard Christie 5
    13 November 2012 at 10:09 am

    Brewers yeast is better metaphor than lemmings.
    Yeast just keep multiplying until their shit (C2H5OH) kills them.

  6. BM 6
    13 November 2012 at 11:01 am

    Big vote winner for Key, especially once he scraps the ETS Tax.
    Key has drawn a line in the sand.

    Vote National no Kyoto, no ETS tax.
    Vote Labour and Greens huge amounts of ETS tax.

    Who do you think the public are going to vote for.

    • Jackal 6.1
      13 November 2012 at 11:22 am

      The environment hands down. Your comment might be relevant in the US around 2010 BM, where 42% of the citizens didn’t believe in global warming, but it effectively means nothing here and now.

    • Colonial Viper 6.2
      13 November 2012 at 11:23 am

      The party most willing to turn our planet into a freezer/oven for profit

    • One Tāne Huna 6.3
      13 November 2012 at 11:28 am

      “the public” will vote for the party that offers them genuine wage increases. Choke on it.

    • Dr Terry 6.4
      13 November 2012 at 1:48 pm

      BM. I think the public will vote in line with current scientific evidence, ethically (rather than selfishly), for the sake of their descendants (God help them all). I think that will do for starters.

      • Draco T Bastard 6.4.1
        13 November 2012 at 5:13 pm

        I think the public will vote in line with current scientific evidence, ethically (rather than selfishly), for the sake of their descendants (God help them all).

        Unless they’re National supporters in which case they will vote for the continued exploitation and destruction of the Earth.

    • fustercluck 6.5
      13 November 2012 at 3:11 pm

      Notwithstanding my belief that environmental degradation is problem numero uno for us to tackle on a society-wide basis, the commodification of CO2 is unlikely to lift us out of the crapola.

      Given that the Greens and Labor are hell-bent on integrating us into a poorly conceived internationalized tax framework and the torys are avoiding this vote killer, what am I to do? Switch my vote from Mana to ACT?

  7. prism 7
    13 November 2012 at 11:45 am

    Rod Oram is scathing this morning on radionz about this NZ government’s contradictory climate change movement – backward and against our previous policy declarations. And about this government’s providing such huge subsidies to business that they have no price signals to encourage a reduction in climate change baddies. I think he said the price, possibly the net price, is 10c a tonne (by unreliable memory).

    Also he is saddened that we are refusing to look to new business opportunities from adopting and developing for the new technology.

    I think there is no other developed country that is so dependent on agriculture. And I don’t think we have a policy of innoculating against foot and mouth, which would wipe us out our main trade and affect the lot of us. Our whole approach is to go with dairy. Although sheep farmers are asking for help – and not getting it, (and meat workers are expressing alarm at the loss of jobs etc in their industry). So we are moving backwards to the early 1900s rather than pushing our growth in the 21st century developments. And Rod Oram asked just how profitable farming is really in earnings for the farmer? Many farmers only get some moolah in their hands as capital when they sell up (probably to a foreigner is my comment).

    And this in a country that has clever and bright adopters – for instance we got electric lighting early, developed a small plane early, were into radio broadcast early. This is the sort of innovation and cleverness we should be pushing while at the same time we encourage farmers to extend their practices to what is appropriate for the 21st century, and help with expos giving the PR needed. We can use innovation in our practices – methane for farm energy, the end of the bare paddock with planting around streams and trees along fencelines, high nutrition grasses, practical TB tests for herds etc.

    • bbfloyd 7.1
      13 November 2012 at 12:40 pm

      “So we are moving backwards to the early 1900s”…. You are being too polite…. It’s the 1800’s that we are heading back to…

      The “golden” days, before those evil unions started to ruin it for “nice” people….

    • TEA 7.2
      13 November 2012 at 1:32 pm

      Ahhh yes ! My (by unreliable memory).
      Rod Who ?

  8. gobsmacked 8
    13 November 2012 at 12:13 pm

    @Anthony

    On TV3 news (midday bulletin) this post was shown, with the headline both visible on screen and mentioned in the audio.

    But … the dimwit reporter was citing it as an example of a post critical of Shearer!

    If the report is online at TV3, check it out. Total misrepresentation.

    (and for anybody who can’t distinguish chalk from cheese – yes, I do agree with the posts critical of Shearer, but that’s irrelevant. Facts are facts).

    • Colonial Viper 8.1
      13 November 2012 at 12:22 pm

      OMG TV3 SUCKS SHIT

      (apologies for the caps…)

    • Bill 8.2
      13 November 2012 at 12:31 pm

      Maybe the reporter is getting his lemmings and lemons all mixed up? 😉

      (Which is no excuse for not reading beyond the banner – even if only in a cursory manner – which would be enough to offer a modicum of understanding on what the post is about and who it refers to.)

    • r0b 8.3
      13 November 2012 at 12:31 pm

      Huh. Well it’s hardly the first time that 3 News has stuffed up. At least anyone who comes here on seeing the clip will find out the truth!

      Let me know if you spot the clip online though, I’ll link to it if I can…

  9. Tanz 9
    13 November 2012 at 1:16 pm

    Thought this post was going to be another one about Shearer.
    I disagree with on Climate Change, it is not proven and the Science is shonky that tries to prove it.
    Am with the right on this one.

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      13 November 2012 at 1:22 pm

      There is no doubt that “Greenhouse Gases” play an important role in keeping the Earth warm. The question some people still have is whether or not human influences on those Greenhouse Gases has any significant real effect. Would that describe your position?

    • One Tāne Huna 9.2
      13 November 2012 at 1:27 pm

      This selective illiteracy is getting tiresome.

      Please read “Unsettled Science” by Gavin Schmidt, or perhaps Einstein’s famous (obviously not famous enough) observation that “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”

      So of course any “science” that attempted to “prove” “Climate Change” would be “shonky” by definition.

      One question: have you actually ever read a Climatology paper? It doesn’t sound like it.

      PS: Or, to put it another way, can you cite one example of an attempt to “prove” Climate Change in a peer reviewed paper? An actual quotation, mind, not some witless ninny’s misinterpretation.

    • Dr Terry 9.3
      13 November 2012 at 1:54 pm

      Tanz. So what on this earth do you think is finally “proven”? If you wait around to act only on that which is “proven” you give yourself a fine excuse never to act honorably.

  10. Tanz 10
    13 November 2012 at 1:31 pm

    I have read Ian Wishart’s very convincing Air Con book, (not that I am always convinced by Wishart), and yes, I have followed much of the science. Just because I don’t believe in Climate Change doesn’t mean I should be called a denier, either. I agree with Labour on many issues, but not on global warming/climate change. Am I not allowed my own opinion?

    • One Tāne Huna 10.1
      13 November 2012 at 1:37 pm

      Any chance you can just cite one example of an attempt to “prove” climate change in a scientific publication? Just one, so that we know you aren’t making up a complete fantasy?

      When you’ve failed, would you mind answering a question?

      Are you mendacious or deceived?

    • Zorr 10.2
      13 November 2012 at 1:52 pm

      Science doesn’t allow opinions. It allows hypothesis that are testable by repeat experimentation to determine their accuracy.

      Opinion has *nothing* to do with climate change except in the policy debate. As with OTH, another challenge. Come up with a single scientific publication that refutes any part of the current understanding of climate science.

      *pulls up deckchair on Titanic to wait because in a future without large icebergs, this will be the best place to enjoy the new weather*

      • Colonial Viper 10.2.1
        13 November 2012 at 2:08 pm

        Science doesn’t allow opinions. It allows hypothesis that are testable by repeat experimentation to determine their accuracy.

        That may be true in the lab, but that’s not what happens in society, in the slightest.

    • Dr Terry 10.3
      13 November 2012 at 1:56 pm

      Tanz. Of course you are allowed your opinion (however misguided it may be), but you should not be allowed copping out from your responsibilities.

      • Tanz 10.3.1
        13 November 2012 at 7:08 pm

        But I don’t believe in climate change, therefore I have no responsibilities re this. Or will I be forced? This is why I agree with the Nats on so-called climate change. Also, who’s going to get China to do anything, if it were real? The earth’s climate has been changing since God created this amazing planet. Actually, this spring is quite cold so far.

        • fatty 10.3.1.1
          13 November 2012 at 7:29 pm

          “Actually, this spring is quite cold so far.”

          True, I never thought of it that way. I’ve also noticed that today was colder than yesterday…I think you’re onto something here

        • Richard Christie 10.3.1.2
          13 November 2012 at 8:09 pm

          Hi Tanz, how old is this “amazing planet”?

    • One Tāne Huna 10.4
      13 November 2012 at 2:03 pm

      “I don’t believe in Climate Change” – what do you deny? The changing atmospheric carbon isotope ratio. perhaps? Or the Manua Loa CO2 observations? Is it the melting cryosphere that isn’t happening? Perhaps Quantum Mechanics is wrong!

      It would at least be nice to know which part of the jigsaw you are in denial of.

    • Doug 10.5
      13 November 2012 at 2:44 pm

      Please be specific, where have you followed much of the science? Nature, Science, Journal of Climate, Geophysical Research Letters, Climate Change, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, or Climate Dynamics?

      Or have you followed the “science” in Energy and the Environment, WUWT, and Climate Audit?

      Let me guess…..

    • Draco T Bastard 10.6
      13 November 2012 at 5:26 pm

      Am I not allowed my own opinion?

      The only opinions worth listening to as far as AGW goes is that put forward by climatologists in peer reviewed articles based upon the observed facts and tested theories. Your opinion goes against those articles and those facts.

    • One Tāne Huna 10.7
      13 November 2012 at 5:32 pm

      “Am I not allowed my own opinion” – sure, so long as you refrain from spreading it. Otherwise I think you should be regarded as either a criminal – deliberately spreading lies that will do direct harm to others – or a dupe, worthy of derision and contempt.

      I hope that the people responsible for the lies you spread face prosecution, since they are set to do far more harm than tobacco barons the penalties should be commensurately worse.

      A bit like shouting fire in a crowded theatre, really.

      • Tanz 10.7.1
        13 November 2012 at 7:04 pm

        This is exactly the narrow-minded sort of attitude that Wishart speaks of in Air Con. One is not allowed to disagree with the myth that is climate change is, and if one does, look out!! Scary.

        • handle 10.7.1.1
          13 November 2012 at 7:47 pm

          They’re all against you. Circle those wagons.

        • Richard Christie 10.7.1.2
          13 November 2012 at 7:56 pm

          Tanz, Do yourself a favour-
          Wishart targets his drivel at the gullible and the feeble minded.
          You don’t come across as a winner by citing Ian Wishart against NASA and every major scientific institution on the planet.

        • lprent 10.7.1.3
          13 November 2012 at 8:18 pm

          Look I’m usually one of the most “nasty” when it comes to CCD’s. But I only attack misinterpretation of facts in my usual way. I reduce the amount of time I waste by rewarding the obvious bullshit with complete scorn, through to explaining the science when people clearly don’t understand. I can’t remember ever giving you more than my passing attention.

          I also have absolutely no time for Wishart because he has a very strong tendency to make crap up – including about my partner and her documentary. He bases most of his stuff on crap interpretations of crap documents (like a childs guide to climatology being one of the worst) because he can’t be bothered learning even the most basic of science. So he plays word games rather than using maths.

          As soon as someone raises him then it becomes pretty clear they have never bothered to look at the science and are gullible enough to swallow any old whaledreck.

          People like Wishart are why people tend to treat many skeptics as being morons. They don’t discuss the actual science. Usually what they do is play word games. After you have explained the same bit of basic science several times to get the same blank response, followed by a rephrasing of the same cobblers they gave you last time, you start treating most CCD’s as scientific morons.

          As far as I’m concerned if you can’t examine the science enough to understand more than wordgames, then you aren’t really worth exerting much arguing time on.

          • Tanz 10.7.1.3.1
            14 November 2012 at 2:53 pm

            Yes, I know Wishart is loathed by the Left generally, but can I ask, have you actually read Air Con? If not, how can you yourself make a judgement on his book? This is a highly detailed and well researched piece of work.

            • One Tāne Huna 10.7.1.3.1.1
              14 November 2012 at 3:18 pm

              …much more so than NASA, the guys who can only manage to put skycranes on other planets.

              So well researched is Wishart. So balanced. So peer-reviewed. So much more truthy.

            • Daveosaurus 10.7.1.3.1.2
              15 November 2012 at 8:09 pm

              I simply don’t have enough spare time to waste on Wishart’s unedifying drivel; particularly when I can read reviews which sum the book up in a quick few paragraphs.

              In any case, when, as per the extract presented here, the book contains gems such as

              “they want ordinary families and kids to become extinct, leaving space for the Green elite to run the planet and enjoy exclusive bird-watching excursions while feasting on the bones of six year olds who’d earlier been sold to Asian brothels.“

              it is plain that there is nothing to be learned about climate from the book. One does not need a science degree to be able to spot blood libel when one sees it.

        • One Tāne Huna 10.7.1.4
          14 November 2012 at 1:55 pm

          Tanz: “myth” – no, it isn’t. Since it isn’t, your argument collapses.

          You have advanced not a single fact-based argument. Which piece of the jigsaw do you dispute? The disappearing cryosphere? The recorded (by multiple threads of evidence) temperature anomaly? The changing atmospheric carbon isotope ratio? Manua Loa CO2 observations? Quantum Mechanics? Physics?

          Sorry if you find it “scary” that you be held responsible for your actions. No, I take that back, I’m not sorry at all.

          However, if you think wilful negligence leading to huge loss of life and damage to property is nothing to be concerned about, perhaps you should contact Munich Re and explain to them where they’re going wrong, and why you should be eligible for a discount. Good luck!

    • handle 10.8
      13 November 2012 at 6:32 pm

      “I don’t believe in Climate Change”

      How do you feel about gravity?

    • Macro 10.9
      13 November 2012 at 10:03 pm

      “I have read Ian Wishart’s very convincing Air Con book” lol
      More fool you. So you place the misconceptions and bullshit of a person who has no more scientific knowledge than school certificate above practically every major scientific associations of the world (including the Royal Society and NZRS and the American Scientific Assn for example). There is hardly a page of that “book” that is not filled with error, misrepresentation, or just plain demonstrably wrong. Amazing faith on your part! But stupidity of the highest order.
      http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/teaching-learning/resources/gamma/climate-change/
      http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf
      http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/climatechange/regpolicy.shtml

  11. infused 11
    13 November 2012 at 2:40 pm

    The end is coming!!!11

  12. tracey 12
    13 November 2012 at 4:25 pm

    I wonder if he taught his kids the same way… That is, if everyone is doing something wrong, dont do it right til they do. Is this the personal responsibility the right glibly speaks of?

  14. coge 14
    13 November 2012 at 9:53 pm

    Something like 87% of nations are not signing up for Kyoto 2. Looks like a consensus to me.

    • Colonial Viper 14.1
      13 November 2012 at 9:58 pm

      But why did we pull out of Kyoto?

      Something like 87% of nations are not signing up for Kyoto 2. Looks like a consensus to me.

      But a consensus of what? That Kyoto 2 was too compromised by business interests?

      • Doug 14.1.1
        14 November 2012 at 1:40 pm

        Yes I agree it was a

        a A consensus of political inaction and lack of leadership
        b A consensus of stupidity
        c A consensus of selfishness
        d A all of the above.

        What it was NOT a consensus of was the understanding of the state of the global climate.

    • tracey 14.2
      14 November 2012 at 1:37 pm

      self interest prevails over preservation for the future, whodathunkit.

  15. Bob 15
    15 November 2012 at 6:14 am

    We should never have signed up to the Kyoto protocol in the first place!
    In 2000 my University Oceanography lecturer Dr. Willem De Lange, who was listed as one of the 3,000 climate scientists that made the famed ‘consensus’ which started this whole thing, told us of how his work had been completely mis-interpreted and how he did not believe that humans were the main source of climate change. He has since been fighting to have his name removed (to no avail, and he is not the only one).

    For those of you who are willing to be open minded, here is a website he contributes too, worth reading (by climate scientists who want the science to be the reason for change, not money or politics!)

    http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

    • RedLogix 15.1
      15 November 2012 at 6:20 am

      So if you think humans are not the “main source” of climate change … then what is?

      Pixies?

      • jaymam 15.1.1
        15 November 2012 at 7:50 pm

        The sun is the main cause of climate change.

      • Bob 15.1.2
        16 November 2012 at 12:00 am

        Possibly the same thing that caused the temperature to be 0.25 of a degree warmer 600 years ago than now, could be pixies, that massive yellow thing in the sky seems to effect our daily temperature, I wonder why the IPCC doesn’t think it is important in Climate Change, so does Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”, here, have a read of 45 other climate scientists who are equally baffled by the IPCC’s idea’s http://undeceivingourselves.org/I-ipc3.htm

        One of my personal favourites comes from one of our very own, Dr Vincent Gray, climate consultant, long-standing member of the New Zealand Royal Society and expert reviewer for all four IPCC Assessment Reports described the IPCC’s climate change statements as: “An orchestrated litany of lies.” Poetic, isn’t it?

        • One Tāne Huna 15.1.2.1
          16 November 2012 at 9:15 am

          They refused to consider the sun?

          L(1-α) = εσT^4

          What the fuck is “L” doing in that equation then?

          • Bob 15.1.2.1.1
            16 November 2012 at 10:52 pm

            “What the fuck is “L” doing in that equation then?”

            The L is incoming longwave radiation, what is your point OTH? This is purely measuring Irradiance, so are you precious friends at Skeptical Science, no measure on the suns magnetic fields/storms. Here is a quote from Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen’s 2007 Birkeland lecture (http://www.dnva.no/binfil/download.php?tid=27269) on the Earth – Sun magnetic correlation “Protection of our planet will be in the focus of much research but we have also realized that our planet is not isolated in Space. It is exposed to forces originating from the Sun, which we are just beginning to understand”, if these are forces we are just beginning to understand, and he has already found correlations between sun storms and earth’s weather (I know weather is short term, but over a long period of time, which I believe the sun has been around for, these weather events shape the climate), how the fuck is the ‘science settled’ as I keep hearing from commentators here.
            According to Wikipedia ‘Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen is an expert in space physics, and Director of the Danish National Space Center’, so I am pretty sure he is in a better position to comment than you or I.

            • One Tāne Huna 15.1.2.1.1.1
              17 November 2012 at 10:06 am

              Why are nights warming more than days?

              First you claim they don’t consider the sun, then I pointed out it only has it’s own term in the equation, and now you claim they are in fact researching it intensely.

              Oh, and to make yourself look even more like a tool, you trot out the bullshit lie about “settled science”, which I have answered in this forum so many times I’ve lost count.

              Once again for the remaining half-wits and amnesiacs:

              “…no scientist has said this is because they know full well that knowledge about science is not binary – science isn’t either settled or not settled. This is a false and misleading dichotomy. Instead, we know things with varying degrees of confidence – for instance, conservation of energy is pretty well accepted, as is the theory of gravity (despite continuing interest in what happens at very small scales or very high energies) , while the exact nature of dark matter is still unclear. The forced binary distinction implicit in the phrase is designed to misleadingly relegate anything about which there is still uncertainty to the category of completely unknown. i.e. that since we don’t know everything, we know nothing.

              Gavin Schmidt

              Blow harder, Bob.

        • One Tāne Huna 15.1.2.2
          16 November 2012 at 9:46 am

          Skeptical Science needs your expertise, Bob: they have it all wrong.

          But in amongst all the Physics and Mathematics which you, Bob, will no doubt be able to correct, I came across this little gem, which anyone can grasp. Even me.

          …if global warming were due to increased solar output, we would expect to see all layers of the atmosphere warm, and more warming during the day when the surface is bombarded with solar radiation than at night. Instead we observe a cooling of the upper atmosphere and greater warming at night, which are fingerprints of the increased greenhouse effect.

          “That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.” Ray Pierrehumbert.

          Go on, back under your bridges the lot of you.

          • Bob 15.1.2.2.1
            16 November 2012 at 11:10 pm

            Also, where did Skeptical science get their ‘Reconstructed Temperature, figure 5’ from? Oh wikipedia, that makes sense.
            See example 22 here http://undeceivingourselves.org/I-ipc3.htm

            • McFlock 15.1.2.2.1.1
              16 November 2012 at 11:40 pm

              oh wow, Wikipedia? Anyone can submit to that. They might have just scribbled on a bit of paper.

              Alternatively, they might have actually referenced where they got the data from.

              And your example 22 is irrelevant to Skeptical Science, Wikipedia, and OTH’s quote.

              When all’s said and done, that was quite a spectacular fail – so spectacular that I’m actually marginally closer to becoming a vegetarian, playing the guitar, and wearing a fucking poncho. I think it’s a physiological reaction to reading your stupidity, as the only alternative is to sneeze so hard while holding my nose so that brain matter is expelled out my ears. You utter pillock.

              • Bob …
                17 November 2012 at 1:08 am

                The link you gave me went to the Wikipedia page I mentioned, and they reference the NCDC who have removed that graph from the archive it links too! Why would they remove the graph if it was still relevant (or correct)? Why would ‘non-biased’ scientific website still be using incorrect data?
                Example 22 refutes the graph used by Skeptical Science on the page OTH sent me too, to apparently learn something from. If they can’t even use correct temperature data how can they even begin to work towards a viable hypothesis?

                • McFlock …
                  17 November 2012 at 1:26 am

                  You did not mention a Wikipedia page. You mentioned the entirety of Wikipedia. Similarly, there are over a dozen links or citations to individual sources used in the creation of that chart. Which single one were you having difficulty with? Because this one seems fine. Whereas your “example 22” has not one single link, citation or other reference. So in order for it to be any use I’d have to print it off and use it as toilet paper.

                  • Bob …
                    17 November 2012 at 2:29 am

                    I just said the NCDC have removed that graph from their archives and you link me back to the NCDC, bit slow tonight?
                    ““example 22″ has not one single link, citation or other reference. So in order for it to be any use I’d have to print it off and use it as toilet paper” This is a fair comment, here you go, the data is based on Figure 8 from this paper http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf If this isn’t enough for you then try this, here is a link to approx 120 graphs with citations, most of which contridict the graph that Skeptical Science uses (which comes from a wikipedia page who’s reference doesn’t exist!) http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html

                    • McFlock …
                      17 November 2012 at 3:05 am

                      Here’s how “credibility” works:
                      One broken link out of a dozen does not discredit anything.
                      Providing very rough referencing as an afterthought because the link you used to support your assertion had none certainly adds no credibility. Especially when your evidence is from one of these guys, an economist playing at climatology and seemingly only the golden boy of fools and those with a vested interest in burning the planet down after they leave.

                      But then you go into data dump mode: graphs with no context. You obviously fail to understand that a reference without an assertion is as useless as an assertion without a reference, or indeed and unwrapped condom without a dick to fill it.

                      It’s obvious that you’re trying to use words bigger than you are, it’s late, and I’m going to bed.

                    • Bob …
                      17 November 2012 at 5:17 am

                      “Here’s how “credibility” works: One broken link out of a dozen does not discredit anything” You really do need some sleep, there are only two external references on Wikipedia for the graph Skeptical Science use, one is a broken link as you put it, and the other links to the website of a lady called Lis Cohen who has a master’s degree in public affairs, and you try to discredit the use of my links to an Economists work when this is the reference OTH uses as the guru on Climate Change?

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      17 November 2012 at 10:03 am

                      Bob, you’re not very good at this.

                      McKitrick 2005? What about Muller 2012 – y’know, the BEST study that Watts contributed to?

                      Multiple threads of evidence tell us that Earth is warming. Citing McKitrick’s 2005 (bogus) objections to Mann et al seems a bit redundant in the light of Muller et al, no?

                      Oh, I almost forgot: why are nights warming more than days the way Arrhenius said they would? Why is the upper atmosphere cooling down while the surface warms up? And why is the Arctic warming more than the Antarctic?

                      Gotta love that late nineteenth century climate model, eh! Oh, and first you said the warming is the sun and now you appear to be saying Earth’s not warming.

                      Are you delusional or mendacious?

    • One Tāne Huna 15.2
      15 November 2012 at 6:28 am

      Dr. Willem De Lange’s zombie fantasies have been thoroughly debunked.

      /

      • Bob 15.2.1
        15 November 2012 at 10:46 pm

        So why won’t the IPCC allow him to remove his name and research from the mighty consensus on Climate Change then? Is it because once they allow his research to be removed it sets the precident for other scientists to remove their names also?

        He is not alone http://undeceivingourselves.org/I-ipc3.htm

        • One Tāne Huna 15.2.1.1
          16 November 2012 at 9:16 am

          Because the argument from authority carries no weight. His published work stands or falls on its own merits.

  16. xtasy 16
    17 November 2012 at 1:42 am

    Shearer or no shearer –

    With all given “natural gifts” of supposed “intelligence” and capability to “reason”, one would think that human beings would have it all under control and could manage their existence on planet earth quite well.

    I am afraid, but it does not seem to work.

    The human being is the most destructive and ignorant being on the planet, because while animals act under instinct and in need to survive, we have humans being pre-occupied with ravaging each other and the planet’s resources. Humans are hostile to the environment, and they generally want to exploit resources, to survive and more.

    But this will and cannot go on. Sadly only a few realise what that means. Having grown up on a farm and close to nature, I know what needs to be done. But as most humans these days are urban city dwellers, only having a very alienated view and impression of “nature” and “agriculture”, I fear we are to be doomed. I see no potential for change, as we just have more destructive habits and consumerist behaviour going on. There is NO indication of an increased awareness of environmental needs and concerns. This planet will largely die, because of the worst plague it ever experienced: The HUMAN PLAGUE, worse than the RAT plague of past ages.

    So talk about a “leader”, that is a total side show of idiots leading worse idiots, I am afraid! I rather move on, to a hopeful early grave. This is all a lost battle and no cause to stand up for anymore.

    Good night.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.