Lesson 2: global warming

Graeme, on this comments thread you admitted that humans are contributing to increased global temperatures… but you claim that this is a good thing because we have been in an ice age for 39 million years and in a severe phase for the last 3.5 million years. You have suggested that only “perverts” would disagree.

In response, Terje pointed out to you that “The ice age seems to have been favourable for us. Are you sure you want a new venue after 39 million years?”

Your response was: “Bullshit. Its been one holocaust after another.” 

Calm down big fella. Modern humans have adapted ourselves well to the world in a temperature range a lot narrower than the world has previously had. You may see recent history as one holocaust after another. I disagree. I see it as a story of progress: higher life expectancy, better health & education, higher incomes, more spare time, more freedoms, greater equality of opportunity, new fandangled technology. I don’t want to give up modern developed society, and despite your silly holocaust comment, I doubt you do either.

So it does matter if something is going to upset our current balance. My understanding of the relative costs and benefits is that a moderate warming will have a net benefit to the world (though spread quite unevenly)… but once we start getting above 3 degrees then the costs start to outweigh the benefits. On balance, given the uncertainty about what will happen and the early state of the economic debate, I can’t see merit in pursuing huge government spending projects. I know you like huge pointless spending projects based on fear campaigns that fail BCAs, but I always oppose them. Matter of principle.

P.S. You have also spent some time defending skeptic arguments and saying they haven’t been countered (“You haven’t covered or countered or refuted anything“). The reality is that many skeptic arguments have been found wanting (troposhere cooling). Or at least exagerated (eg urban heat island). If we want to be taken seriously as an intellegent party, then we have nothing to gain by clinging to embarassing junk science when the agreed reality is enough to defend our policy. There is no need to discredit ourselves like that.

P.P.S. And to count Terje among the pro-Kyoto mob shows an amazing lack of ability to read. Terje is perhaps the best and most respected skeptics left running around the blogosphere.

Advertisements

71 Responses to “Lesson 2: global warming”

  1. Graeme Bird Says:

    “You may see recent history as one holocaust after another.”

    No I don’t. Terje was fliippantly saying that the ice age has been good to us. Whereas its been a series of holocausts. But thats not recent history.

    “And to count Terje among the pro-Kyoto mob shows an amazing lack of ability to read.”

    I didn’t say he was pro-Kyoto did I.

    Now does anyone have any evidence for CATASTROPHIC warming?

    You don’t. And neither does Terje. It doesn’t matter whether or not there have been some bad skeptical arguments. Just so long as we are not making them.

    “If we want to be taken seriously as an intellegent party, then we have nothing to gain by clinging to embarassing junk science when the agreed reality is enough to defend our policy. There is no need to discredit ourselves like that.”

    Look. What the hell are you talking about Humphreys. Whose got the reading comprehension problems here?

    Its the alarmist science that is junk science. The ‘real-climate” crowd.

    You ought to speak clearly about this. There is no warming ‘problem’. There is no evidence for catastrophic warming. Therefore coal-fired power is good. If it warms the atmosphere up more then it otherwise would be thats a good thing.

    And obviously so and without fucking controversy. Since we are in an ice age on a planet that is biased towards catastrophic cooling.
    All the interference in the economy has left us on the cusp of serious energy production problems. We have much lost ground to make up on this score.
    This is important. And its no time for you to go weak-kneed on us Humphreys.

  2. John Humphreys Says:

    Graeme… mate… please call me John. I’m not *that* old.

    Human civilisation is recent in the history of the earth, and it has coincided with the time when our temperature has been fairly consistent. Terje pointed out this temperature has been good for us. You said it was one holocaust after another. You were wrong. In fact, human history (with this relatively consistent temperature) has been the story of progress.

    True, you didn’t say Terje was pro-Kyoto. But you referred to him as one of the “guys” who supposedly haven’t covered or countered anything from the skeptics. He hasn’t tried to counter anything. He *is* a skeptic.

    You are trying to weesle our way out of your mistakes… but they are on public record. It would be better to acknowledge and correct your errors.

    Nobody has evidence for catastrophic warming having already happened. There is a possibility that it may happen in the future, and that makes up part of the debate. I don’t doubt the possibility of warming that creates a negative… but I don’t think it justifies any government action. If you pretend the debate is about proof of catastrophic warming then you are intentionally making yourself irrelevant.

    I agree that it doesn’t matter that there have been bad skeptical arguments in the past.

    But I don’t agree that most climate scientists are junk scientists. True… many people (mostly not scientists) are running around fearmongering with half-truths. But that doesn’t invalidate the science of the scientists. Anyway — I thought you liked fearmongering with half-truths. Especially if it ended in billions of wasted tax dollars. ;p

    You state that because there is no evidence for catastrophic warning that therefore coal-fired power is good. That is a non-sequitor. There is no logical connection there.

    You again repeat that warming is necessarily good. Simply untrue. Warming could be good or bad depending on a number of factors. Saying it three times doesn’t make it true.

    You then go on to insist that your obvious error is obviously true. No. No. No. I can say “fuck” too if that helps you believe it.

    I don’t care if we’re in an official ice-age or ice-cream-age. The reality is we’re adjusted to this age and temperature changes will impact us. Evidence seems to suggest that a small amount of warming could be good for us, but a larger amount of warming would be bad. It doesn’t matter that the earth was warmer billions of years ago. That is absolutely irrelevant. What matters is the impact of change. We know that. Your rants don’t change anything.

    Trust me Graeme… my knees have no problem. Unlike some tax-eaters I know, I have and will continue to consistently oppose stupid (read: nearly all) government spending. We don’t disagree on climate change policy. The difference is that I can’t be dismissed as a crank who wants to go back to the “civilisation” of 50,000 years ago when it was nice and warm. We have the same policies preferences on most issues… but while you continue to insist on using irrelevant arguments, and excessive use of CAPS LOCK you create more heat than light.

    Come Graeme. Join me. You could be my greatest creation yet… bwahahahaha…

  3. Graeme Bird Says:

    “Human civilisation is recent in the history of the earth, and it has coincided with the time when our temperature has been fairly consistent. Terje pointed out this temperature has been good for us. You said it was one holocaust after another. You were wrong. In fact, human history (with this relatively consistent temperature) has been the story of progress.”

    No no.

    You are wrong again.

    I was right.

    And you were wrong.

    You SAID I was wrong.

    But thats not the case. In fact you are wrong and I wasn’t wrong I was right.

    Now go back and read the TOING AND FROING of the discussion between me and Terje. Or you will be forcing me to repost the entire conversation to prove it is you and not me who is wrong.

    But there is no question that is you who is wrong. Since we were talking about the 39 million year ice age.

    Not about the Holocene.

    See you simply have gone into MAKE-BELIEVE and are commenting on a MAKE-BELIEVE version of what me and Terje talked about.

    You won’t get away with this in politics. And so since you are not yet a representative I think I’m justified in slamming your head against the wall when you try this bullshit on. Whereas if you are a member of the Queensland Senate or yet even a colleague!!!!!I would have to stay my hand.

    Better to get you to face up to your bad habits now.

    You replaced the 39 MILLION YEAR ICE AGE in what I was talking about and, to make your argument, since you couldn’t make it any other way, substituted…. the historical record? the holocene?

    Well fella I know what you were on about.

    But I was right and you were wrong.

    And I’m OK…… And you’re not yet OK.

    We need to give you some work to get you up to scratch.

  4. John Humphreys Says:

    That post was strange. You repeat yourself, repeat yourself, repeat yourself a few times.

    Here’s the conversation, blow-by-blow

    Terje — “The ice age seems to have been favourable for us. Are you sure you want a new venue after 39 million years?”

    (note go Graeme: ‘us’ refers to humans)

    Graeme — Bullshit. Its been one holocaust after another.

    (presumably we’re still talking about humans)

    me — “You may see recent history as one holocaust after another.”

    (note to Graeme: human history is recent)

    Graeme — No I don’t. Terje was fliippantly saying that the ice age has been good to us. Whereas its been a series of holocausts. But thats not recent history.

    (note: the historical story of “us” is recent)

    Me — “Human civilisation is recent in the history of the earth, and it has coincided with the time when our temperature has been fairly consistent. Terje pointed out this temperature has been good for us. You said it was one holocaust after another. You were wrong. In fact, human history (with this relatively consistent temperature) has been the story of progress.”

    ———

    The point Terje was making… quite clearly… was that our civilisation has done well in this temperature range. You seemed to disagree. You were wrong. Skip the semantics tricks and admit your mistake. Humans have done well in this temperature range. Or perhaps you could just repeat yourself twelve times, call me stupid, and use too many CAPS LOCKS. That seems to work.

  5. Graeme Bird Says:

    “Nobody has evidence for catastrophic warming having already happened. There is a possibility that it may happen in the future, and that makes up part of the debate. I don’t doubt the possibility of warming that creates a negative… but I don’t think it justifies any government action. If you pretend the debate is about proof of catastrophic warming then you are intentionally making yourself irrelevant.”

    No thats wrong as well John. And obviously so. Obviously so if you take in the following facts.

    1. We are in an ice age.

    2. We have a hard-wired tendency to catastrophic cooling.

    3. There is no evidence for catastrophic warming.

    4. But we cannot yet predict the climate very well.

    5. We do not have the choice of quickly altering the level of CO2 in the atmosphere up or down.

    6. So taking 1 through 5 into account we have to go with the balance of probabilities in our CO2 policy.

    7. The balance of probabilities tells us we must go after and defeat these leftist lunatics in the most forward OUT THERE sort of way. Given what we know and what we don’t know this has to be a priority area to go after and beat the leftist death-worshipers. Its simply not good enough to say…. HEY WHATS THE BIG DEAL? OUR POLICY IS THE SAME EITHER WAY?

    This sort of gutless smug attitude is unacceptable. We have to get in a national rumble with the people who would do harm to the nation with this dishonest and ridiculous campaign to stop us from getting the energy we need.

    Part of any Senate deal ought to be getting the alarmists (Quiggin/Lambert etc) off the public tit and to liberalise the coal and nuclear industries with real focus.

  6. Graeme Bird Says:

    “But I don’t agree that most climate scientists are junk scientists. True… many people (mostly not scientists) are running around fearmongering with half-truths. But that doesn’t invalidate the science of the scientists. ”

    Right. There are plenty of good climate scientists. And climate-science is fine. But none of the good climate scientists are alarmists. And Climate science exposes the alarmist argument as fulll of shit.

    “You state that because there is no evidence for catastrophic warning that therefore coal-fired power is good. That is a non-sequitor. There is no logical connection there.”

    No thats your fuck-up and not mine.

  7. John Humphreys Says:

    In your latest rants… I mean posts… you say that I was wrong. Surprise surprise. But you can’t say what’s wrong with what I said. Try again.

    What I said was simple and factual:

    1. it is possible that the globe will warm

    2. it is possible that this could create costs

    3. this is relevant to the debate

    4. but this possible negative doesn’t justify government action

    Simple enough. You said it was wrong. It isn’t.

    All the points you make above are true (or close enough), but not relevant to the debate. The debate is about (1) how will temperatures change (2) how will this effect us (3) what can we do about it. You admit temperatures will go up but naively, stupidly and inexplicably refuse to admit the simple FACT that if temperatures go up too much, that could cause costs. By doing so you make yourself an irrelevant laughing stock. You could do better.

    There is nothing gutless about my approach. I stand up for what I believe in… I just don’t delude myself that global warming could never do harm.

    ———-

    And then…

    me — “You state that because there is no evidence for catastrophic warning that therefore coal-fired power is good. That is a non-sequitor. There is no logical connection there.”

    Graeme — No thats your fuck-up and not mine.

    Me — no… it’s still your mistake.

    I haven’t misrepresented you in anything Graeme. If you can’t argue like a man, then just stop.

  8. Sacha Says:

    A tiny intrusion: if sea water expands with an increase of temperature, then it stands to reason that a sufficiently large increase of sea temperature will probably lead to higher sea levels, which could well lead to the ocean moving more inland than it currently is. Given settlement patterns even in Australia, this could lead to substantial costs.

  9. graemebird Says:

    “Graeme, on this comments thread you admitted that humans are contributing to increased global temperatures… ”

    I’ll do that again to bring out the idiotic word in that sentence…

    “Graeme, on this comments thread you ADMITTED that humans are contributing to increased global temperatures…”

    Admitted is a very stupid word in this context. But in any case I hope that my contention that CO2 does cause SOME warming is not just wishful thinking on my part. It fucking better or we are in for a lot of trouble.

    Now we have a sort of post-Christianity poopy-pants behaviour here. We are hard-wired for catastrophic cooling. So then someone comes up with the good news that CO2 might be warming things up a bit.

    AND WHAT IS OUR RESPONSE?

    Well you would have thought we could have been a little bit grateful. I mean what a lucky break. To find that all we have to do is go forth and be prosperous and the CO2 produced will likely act as an insurance policy against.

    How about a bit of fucking gratitude to the coal industry hey?

    And to capitalism more generally?

    What is wrong with you people?

    You don’t good luck even when it sneaks up on you.

  10. graemebird Says:

    Ok Humphreys you fucked up.

    Not only did you fuck up but you buried the evidence since you didn’t transfer the conversation with Terje.

    Kindly act a bit more honest on this blog dedicated to my good self.

    You’ll only bullshit yourself fella.

    You won’t get anything past me.

  11. graemebird Says:

    “me — “You state that because there is no evidence for catastrophic warning that therefore coal-fired power is good. That is a non-sequitor. There is no logical connection there.”

    Get it right Humphreys. Morphing and condensing my comments to call it a non-sequitor is so fucking lame.

    Sort your act out.

  12. graemebird Says:

    “The point Terje was making… quite clearly… was that our civilisation has done well in this temperature range. ”

    No he was saying that we had done well in the 39 million year ice age.

    No we haven’t. It was a series of holocausts…. Well then again we HAVE done well as a species in that it was so unbelievably harsh that this series of pumping holocausts forced these adaptations out of us.

    So you see you were substituting RECORDED HISTORY for THE 39 MILLION YEAR ICE AGE.

    Now the thing is you are assuming the interglacial climate is a forever thing. But this is ignorant. Because interglacials are the exception and not the rule in the last three and a half million years.

  13. Boris Says:

    JH 1
    GB 0

  14. graemebird Says:

    No you got that wrong Boris.

    You ought to not get your emotions doing the score-counting Boris. Thats no way to do it.

    And by the way. For the very first time you’ve let on that you are a girl.

    Now of course thats nothing to be ashamed of.

    I mean we all cherish our Babes and are involuntarily conscripted into being their body-guards at every moment.

    But why didn’t you confess to being a sheila before?

  15. John Humphreys Says:

    Yes Sacha… if temperatures rise too much that could lead to serious costs associated with higher water levels. That is one of the costs.

    However, it is also important to note that there are benefits of global warming — obvious examples including Lappland and Siberia. While fear-mongers like to play up the costs, I have seen some evidence that moderate global warming will give a net benefit and only when we get past 2-3 degres warmer will there be a net problem.

  16. John Humphreys Says:

    OK, you don’t like the word “admitted”. It doesn’t change the arguments so in the future I’ll use whichever alternative word you prefer. How about you “agree” that humans are contributing to increased global temperatures.

    Whether we are “hard-wired for catastrphic cooling” or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is (1) how will temps change; (2) how will it effect us (3) what can we do about it. We agree on (1) and (3) and half of (2). Our difference in (2) is that I can admit the FACT that warming could create a net cost to society.

    Your value to the libertarian side of the debate is deminished if you deny that fact because it makes you look stupid. I don’t want you to look stupid. That’s why I’m helping you.

    I have gratitude for freedom (and capitalism is central to freedom). I would never support a government program unless there was strong evidence that it made us better off. No libertarian would.

  17. John Humphreys Says:

    Graeme — I don’t mind you saying I fucked up. But you have to go on and show where. I do make mistakes sometimes and even if you’re rude I’ll admit them. But just saying “shit” and “fuck” isn’t an argument.

    I don’t lie when it comes to political debate, I never bullshit myself and I haven’t hidden anything relevant to this debate.

    Terje said that “we” have done well in the ice-age. We refers to humans and quite clearly to human civilisation. Who did you think “we” was? Atoms? The story of human civilisation is the story of the historical record, which is why I correctly used that term. We can ask Terje if you like, but I think his point was clear enough.

    I can appreciate now that you made an honest mistake and that this is not relevant to the central issue — so I’ll let this mistake go this time without loss of credit. Just be careful. The number one rule of being rude in debate is that you have to make sure you’re right first. That way you look like an arrogant wanker, but you don’t look like an idiotic tool.

    You seem to be abandoning the central issues here in mock-offense at some rather tangental issues. Let’s get back on track.

    Simple question… do you think there will be any costs from global warming?

  18. Jason Soon Says:

    Boy, this is funnier than the glasshouse.

    Game on.

  19. Boris Says:

    Graeme I am not a girl and have no idea how you reached that strange conclusion. It would be quite strange for a girl to take the name ‘boris’.

  20. Boris Says:

    Idiotic tool? I like this one…

  21. graemebird Says:

    “Graeme — I don’t mind you saying I fucked up. But you have to go on and show where.”

    I did show where. You fucked up when you started acting like we were talking about the Holocene rather then the wider ice age period.

    Thats no small fuckup.

    Plus you’ve managed to stay in fuckup territory ever since and never left that territory and have not left it now.

  22. John Humphreys Says:

    Who did you think Terje meant by “we” and how long do you think human civilisation (or even humans) has been around?

  23. graemebird Says:

    Don’t try and bullshit your way out of it fella.

    (if i ignore it it will go away)

    You hear of these tribes and their counting system isn’t too sophisticated..

    (if I pretend it isn’t there it ISN’T there)

    When they count things they go like this:

    “One, two, three, four, five, MANY”

    (if I choose not to believe it it isn’t true)

    Since there is no such thing as wages or salaries people vie for the cushiest jobs. And the cushiest job in these tribes, bar none, is maths teacher….

    “two times one is two, two times two is four, two times three is many, two times four is many, two times five is many”

    “Alright kids. I think we’ve earnt ourselves the rest of the day off.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I would understand if you were from one of these primitive tribes fella. And therefore the big numbers. Well I justt wouldn’t expect you to get your head around them.

    (if I pretend its not there it will go away)

    You fucked up by THREE (3) orders of MAGNITUDE (magnitude!).

    The Global warming controversy is one controversy where you have to be clear exactly what sort of time scales you are talking about.

    Now you screwed up bigtime. So because of that you’ve wasted a great deal of time and we have to start again from scratch.

    Ignoring this won’t make it go away. Essentially you’ve been running a pantomime wherein I’ll say something and you’ll argue back AS IF!…. You’ll argue back as if I’ve said something entirely different from what I’ve actually said.

    (if i ignore this it will go away).

    No it won’t go away. And neither will the terrorists. And neither will the lack of evidence for catastrophic global warming. And neither will your fuck-up until you own-uip.

    It aint going anywhere. And no filibuster is going to wish it away.

  24. rog Says:

    Sacha, its not so easy, all matter expands when heated and land mass stores heat whilst the oceans have been releasing a lot of heat out into the atmosphere so who knows the nett amount and whether the heat originates from the sun or the earths core or a combination of both?

  25. John Humphreys Says:

    Graeme — Who did you think Terje meant by “we” and how long do you think human civilisation (or even humans) has been around?

    And a second question — Who did you think Terje meant by “we” and how long do you think human civilisation (or even humans) has been around?

    Try those two questions as homework and then we’ll move on to the next lesson, which should be about how to write a post/comment which gets to the point without fillibuster crap.

    I’ve never argued the terrorist “threat” (sic) will go away. I’ve just pointed out the fact that it’s small and you’re pissing-yourself-scared over a very marginal threat — and stealing my money & liberty in the process. Nowhere did I give the impression that I thought terrorism would just go away. You just made that up. That’s called lying. Perhaps you need a lesson on lying too. I hope you turn out useful, because you’re proving to be a lot of work.

  26. John Humphreys Says:

    And you’ve been caught again Graeme red-handed.

    You said, and I quote: “There is no warming ‘problem’. There is no evidence for catastrophic warming. Therefore coal-fired power is good.”

    I paraphrased you as: “You state that because there is no evidence for catastrophic warning that therefore coal-fired power is good. That is a non-sequitor. There is no logical connection there.”

    You respond thus: “Get it right Humphreys. Morphing and condensing my comments to call it a non-sequitor is so fucking lame. Sort your act out.”

    But as the above direct quote show — I correctly represented your views. You twice try to deny them even thought they’re written directy above!

    Perhaps you realised how stupid your original comment was and wished you had never said it. But you did. Instead of denying reality, the honest approach would be to admit error. I know that would damage your pride, but it has come to a choice between pride and credibility. Somthing is going to suffer. Go on Graeme — make the right choice.

  27. graemebird Says:

    No I wasn’t caught out. You were caught out. You cannot take an atomised quote and alledge a non-sequitir on the basis of your own editing. The entirety of what I said has to be taken into context.

    You fucked up again.

    Now have you got the time-scales right yet.

    You got that sorted yet?

    Last time you were out be three orders of magnitude.

    You got that under control yet?

    Because we are going to start again but we can’t until you get that right.

  28. graemebird Says:

    Right. We were talking about 39 million years. You started saying one bullshit statement after another AS IF we had been talking about recorded history or the Holocene.

    Now that was very dumb. And we’ve got to sort it that you don’t make this same mistake again.

    Now have you got this issue of time scales sorted yet?

  29. graemebird Says:

    “You may see recent history as one holocaust after another. I disagree. I see it as a story of progress”

    OK do you see the idiocy there? Its pretty fucking stupid man.

    Suddenly in mid-flight you start pretending that we had been talking about the last few thousand years. You changed gears and shifted the time scale three orders of magnitude in order to get your idiocy across.

    It was outrageously dishonest and quite literally childish. But it took Boris in completely. Boris was completely stooged by this.

    Here we go again. Watch for the sleight-of-hand:

    “Graeme, on this comments thread you admitted that humans are contributing to increased global temperatures… but you claim that this is a good thing because we have been in an ice age for 39 million years and in a severe phase for the last 3.5 million years. You have suggested that only “perverts” would disagree.

    In response, Terje pointed out to you that “The ice age seems to have been favourable for us. Are you sure you want a new venue after 39 million years?”

    Your response was: “Bullshit. Its been one holocaust after another.”

    (SO RIGHT DOWN TO HERE YOU KNEW THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE LAST 39 MILLION YEARS. PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF WHAT I SAID ABOUT HOLOCAUSTS. NOW IN ORDER TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE MY HOLOCAUST STATEMENT WAS INVALID YOU SWITCH THE TIME FRAME BY TWO OR THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE)

    Calm down big fella. Modern humans have adapted ourselves well to the world in a temperature range a lot narrower than the world has previously had. You may see recent history as one holocaust after another. I disagree. I see it as a story of progress”

    “You may see recent history as one holocaust after another. I disagree. I see it as a story of progress….”

    Did you catch this Humphreys bullshit THIS time around Boris?

    Pay a bit closer attention this time fella. Humphreys argument was wholly dishonest.

  30. John Humphreys Says:

    Graeme — Who did you think Terje meant by “we” and how long do you think human civilisation (or even humans) has been around?

    It is an important question, because that is when the timeframe of the discussion changed. The point Terje was making is that human civilisation has done well in our current temperature range. So I will ask again — how long do you think human civilisation (or even humans) has been around?

    I’m fairly sure Boris is able to follow this conversation, and nobody could fail to see you dodging the above question. Answer the question Graeme.

  31. John Humphreys Says:

    I can accept the above misunderstanding arose quite innocently. While Terje was moving the dicussion to how well humans have done in the current temperature range, you were still thinking in your previous time-range. Understandable and forgivable.

    But your non-sequitor is worse and far more embarassing for you. Your credibility is on the line here.

    This is a direct quote from you: “There is no warming ‘problem’. There is no evidence for catastrophic warming. Therefore coal-fired power is good. If it warms the atmosphere up more then (sic) it otherwise would be thats (sic) a good thing.”

    Do you deny making that comment? Do you understand the consequence of having the word “therefore” in your sentences? It implies that the second sentence follows logically from the first. But it doesn’t. Hence it is a non-sequitor. Presumably you didn’t mean to write “therefore”. That’s OK. We all make mistakes. You just don’t seem able to admit yours.

    My paraphrase of you was absolutely accurate: “You state that because there is no evidence for catastrophic warning that therefore coal-fired power is good. That is a non-sequitor. There is no logical connection there.”

    You call this “morphing and condensing” and now you seem to suggest that the non-sequitor is only there because of my own editing. Simply untrue. The quotes speak for themselves.

    Perhaps you are denying the obvious to side-track this debate into symatic pedantics because you realise that in our basic disagreement you are wrong. Just to remind you — that basic disagreement is that you deny the possibility that warming could be harmful to the world.

  32. Jason Soon Says:

    Not looking good, Graeme.
    My credibility is on the line here with Humphreys for taking you seriously. Don’t let me down, fella!

  33. Jason Soon Says:

    Has Birdy given up? Has he been trounced, whipped and flailed by Humpreheys?

  34. graemebird Says:

    No you are both talking shit.

    Humphreys fucked up badly. And he’s digging in.

    So I’ll just have to repost:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You may see recent history as one holocaust after another. I disagree. I see it as a story of progress”

    OK do you see the idiocy there? Its pretty fucking stupid man.

    Suddenly in mid-flight you start pretending that we had been talking about the last few thousand years. You changed gears and shifted the time scale three orders of magnitude in order to get your idiocy across.

    It was outrageously dishonest and quite literally childish. But it took Boris in completely. Boris was completely stooged by this.

    Here we go again. Watch for the sleight-of-hand:

    “Graeme, on this comments thread you admitted that humans are contributing to increased global temperatures… but you claim that this is a good thing because we have been in an ice age for 39 million years and in a severe phase for the last 3.5 million years. You have suggested that only “perverts” would disagree.

    In response, Terje pointed out to you that “The ice age seems to have been favourable for us. Are you sure you want a new venue after 39 million years?”

    Your response was: “Bullshit. Its been one holocaust after another.”

    (SO RIGHT DOWN TO HERE YOU KNEW THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE LAST 39 MILLION YEARS. PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF WHAT I SAID ABOUT HOLOCAUSTS. NOW IN ORDER TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE MY HOLOCAUST STATEMENT WAS INVALID YOU SWITCH THE TIME FRAME BY TWO OR THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE)

    Calm down big fella. Modern humans have adapted ourselves well to the world in a temperature range a lot narrower than the world has previously had. You may see recent history as one holocaust after another. I disagree. I see it as a story of progress”

    “You may see recent history as one holocaust after another. I disagree. I see it as a story of progress….”

    Did you catch this Humphreys bullshit THIS time around Boris?

    Pay a bit closer attention this time fella. Humphreys argument was wholly dishonest.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Now its all there.

    And its not going away.

    You might think that your fuck-up will go away if you just ignore it.

    And you might think that jihadism will go a way if you just treat it like a natural disaster. An act of God.

    But neither of these things are going away.

    And Jason.

    Stop these bad habits of yours. You are only setting people up for greater humiliation.

  35. graemebird Says:

    “that basic disagreement is that you deny the possibility that warming could be harmful to the world.”

    No thats crap. And really quite idiotic.

    Warming WILL BE good for the world if it happens.

    But it COULD BE bad for the world as a sort of hypothetical.

    I mean supposing we had some sort of hypothetical wherein the sun started acting like its never acted before.

    Well naturally one can imagine that it could be harmful.

    But then what the sun does is out of our hands in any case.

    And so there is not much use pursuing this.

    And this is not what the disagreement is about.

    The problem is this. No-one has come up with evidence for catastrophic global warming. The planet is hard-wired instead for catastrophic global cooling.

    Therefore if a higher level of CO2 will deliver a little bit more warmth obviously, and please attempt not to be an idiot about this, but then obviously we want to go for that extra heat.

    Since we never know when we might need it in a world hard-wired for catastrophic global cooling.

    Now this is very obvious.

    To not see that it is obvious is to confess to being a complete idiot.

  36. Jason Soon Says:

    “And Jason.

    Stop these bad habits of yours. You are only setting people up for greater humiliation. ”

    Sorry Graeme. I didn’t mean to set you up for further humiliation 🙂

  37. terje (say tay-a) Says:

    Sorry I’m late guys. Who seems to be winning?

  38. Jason Soon Says:

    Hard to say Terje. Bird just keeps repeating himself without addressing any of John’s points.

    Graeme, mate, my reputation is riding on you. Gimme a break fella. John is handing your balls to you in a doggie bag.

  39. terje (say tay-a) Says:

    Bird just keeps repeating himself without addressing any of John’s points.

    If he can stick at it he might wear John down eventually.

  40. John Humphreys Says:

    I have a mental picture of Terje and Jason sitting in a commentary box in front of a boxing match having a beer and enjoying the blood-sport. Sorry about giving your boy a black eye Jase, but think of it as tough love.

    Graeme — please don’t simply re-post something that’s already on this comments thread. You could just supply a link. But that’s also not necessary, because I’ve already responded:

    https://bigbirdbrain.wordpress.com/2006/11/12/lesson-2-global-warming/#comment-78

    But now that Terje is here perhaps we can clear this up once and for all. Terje when you said “The ice age seems to have been favourable for us” who did you mean by us? Was it:

    a) human civilisation
    b) homo erectus
    c) atoms
    d) Graeme and his dog

    Did I interpret you correctly when I said: “The point Terje was making is that human civilisation has done well in our current temperature range”?

    If Terje says that he did indeed mean “c) atoms” then I will recant and apologise to Graeme. Otherwise, it seems like Terje had moved the debate to a shorter time frame and the apology should be reversed.

    Unless, of course, Graeme has some evidence for human civilisation going back 39 million years. We’re waiting Graeme. Or, as you would say: WE’RE WAITING.

  41. John Humphreys Says:

    I am a little confused by Graeme’s latest contribution.

    He gives a hypothetical: “Warming will be good for the world if it happens”.

    But then he says: “But it (warming) could be bad for the world as a sort of hypothetical”.

    So which is it? Perhaps a yes/no question will clear things up. Question: If it warms by more than 2-3 degrees, could that be bad for the world?

    It is not necessary for the sun to act differently. That might happen. Who knows. But it’s also possible for increased greenhouse gases to trap more heat inside the earth’s atmosphere leading to higher temperatures. You have already agreed that this is the case.

    And I agree that the sun’s activity is out of our hands. As are most of the greenhouse gases. And even the one in our control, perhaps it’s not in our interests to control it. But none of that changes the fact that warming could be negative for the world, especially if it gets above 2-3 degrees hotter.

    The fact that the planet is supposedly “hard-wired … for catastrophic global cooling” is not relevant. That is not a problem humanity is facing right now.

    What is relevant is (1) will temps change (2) what will the impact be (3) can we do anything about it.

    You say that there is no evidence for catastrophic warming. I presume you mean that is no reason to expect catastrophic warming in the future. I guess I agree, because I don’t think there will be any catastrophy. But there is evidence that:

    1. temps are going up
    2. humans are probably playing a part
    3. temps may continue going up
    4. humans have adapted to our current temps
    5. higher temps can lead to positives (e.g. Lappland, Siberia)
    6. higher temps can lead to negatives (rising water, African deserts)
    7. moderate warming impact could be net +ve or -ve
    8. too much warming will give more -ves.

    There is a chance of too much warming. Therefore it is reasonable to face up to this potential issue.

  42. John Humphreys Says:

    And I can’t let you get away with intentionally misrepresenting me Graeme.

    You said: “And you might think that jihadism will go a way if you just treat it like a natural disaster. An act of God.”

    Where have I ever said that jihadism will go away?

    You imply that I think that. I don’t. Further, you know I don’t. So you are intentionally misrepresenting me. Bad form Graeme.

    What I have stated, time and time again without a proper response from you, is that terrorism is not a big threat. It certainly doesn’t justify running into the arms of high-taxing high-spending liberty-stealing government. You need to face your irrational fears on your own instead of using them to justify your tax-eating and government-loving ways.

  43. Jason Soon Says:

    Ouch! Gonna have to lose those front teeth, Graeme. Lemme stitch up your nose there. Nurse! Get me the anaesthetics!

    Now back into the ring …

  44. terje (say tay-a) Says:

    John,

    I don’t know if I wish to join the bruising process. But what the hell lets give it a go. Jason can hold my beer for a minute.

    Going back to the original context Graeme said:-

    A Priori CO2 would have SOME warming effect. It would be MOST strange if it had no warming effect at all.

    And what can you say about that but YAHOO!

    Because we are in an ice age. And we have been in an ice age for 39 million years. And we have been in the most severe phase of this ice age for 3 and a half million years.

    So CO2 does have some warming effect. And thats a good thing to. And only complete perverts would say otherwise.

    To which I replied:-

    The ice age seems to have been favourable for us. Are you sure you want a new venue after 39 million years?

    Out of your available options I would say that the last 39 million years has been good for (a), (b) and (d).

    However my point was not really a point at all. It was a question based on the statement that Graeme had made. It seemed to me that he thought that the temperature range that we had endured/enjoyed over the last 39 million years was second rate. And that something warmer and outside this range would represent a nice improvement. This seemed like a pretty bold claim. To actively advocate a climatic situation that we have not seen for 39 million years seems quite adventurous. One might even call it an extreme sport. I am just interested in knowing why we should say YAHOO. Is it because we say YAHOO when base jumping or climbing big mountains? Is it a macho thing? Does he have some evidence that shows that the last 39 million years was unsuitable for humans and civilisation and him and his dog.

    Of course it may be that a planet that is warmer than it has been for 39 million years is a good thing for humans. However I don’t really wish for such a theory to be tested any time soon.

    To be fair to Graeme I think he was merely getting over excited and a little carried away. If he had been a bit more conservative in his statement and had simply pointed out that 20,000 years ago things were miserably cold, that much of North America was covered is sheet ice, that the oceans were 100 metres lower and that we would do well to stay away from that possiblity returning (by pumping CO2 into the air) then his statment would be less surprising.

    Going back to the opening statment Graeme made:-

    A Priori CO2 would have SOME warming effect. It would be MOST strange if it had no warming effect at all.

    I don’t know why this is “a priori”. The ice core records show a good correlation between temperature and CO2 over the long hall (400,000 years) however CO2 levels almost universally tend to follow the temperature trend with a lag of several centuries rather than leading the process. In the historical record there are repeat occasions during which CO2 is at a record high and the temperature at some point plumets and then a few centuries later CO2 follows that plumet. I think that such strange phenomena should lead us to set aside our “a priori” assumptions.

    Regards,
    Terje.

  45. Lesson 4: how not to lie « Big Bird Brain Says:

    […] https://bigbirdbrain.wordpress.com/2006/11/12/lesson-2-global-warming/#comment-68  […]

  46. John Humphreys Says:

    Me — If Terje says that he did indeed mean “c) atoms” then I will recant and apologise to Graeme. Otherwise, it seems like Terje had moved the debate to a shorter time frame and the apology should be reversed.

    Terje — Out of your available options I would say that the last 39 million years has been good for (a), (b) and (d).

    Phew!

    I should point out that none of (a), (b) and (d) have been around for 39 million years. Obviously, when talking about (a), (b) and (d) you can only be talking about approximately 5000, 3 million or 20 years.

    But you didn’t actually answer the question Terje. Who is “us”? Atoms, animals, apes, or modern humans?

  47. terje (say tay-a) Says:

    Lets see now:-

    a) human civilisation

    Obviously it has been good for human civilisation. There was no human civilisation prior to 39 million years ago.

    b) homo erectus

    An extinct species of hominoid that probably did well out of the era. Had a good innings and then died out.

    c) atoms

    They have been doing well for billions of years. Like most people I try to change all my atoms once a year just so I can remain confused about who I really am.

    d) Graeme and his dog

    Leave out the dog and this comes closest to what I was refering to. Although you could include the dog as well if you like.

    By “us” I meant homo sapiens. The last 39 million years has been good to homo sapiens. We have become a very successful species and there are now billions of us (mostly arguing on the internet). And every year we change all out atoms.

    Jason can I have my beer back now.

  48. John Humphreys Says:

    Well, for most of the last 39 million years nothing happened to homo sapiens. They didn’t exist.

    The first homo sapiens only started kicking around about 130,000 years ago and we didn’t get around the world until about 40,000 years ago and we didn’t really do anything until about 10,000 years ago. But since then it’s been all fun and games.

    When there is discussion of how something (e.g. weather) impacts homo sapiens I assume we’re talking about the time series in which homo sapiens existed. Not an unreasonable assumption I would have thought.

  49. terje (say tay-a) Says:

    The preceding few million years set the stage for our entrance. So one can claim that they were good for us also. Anyway we don’t need to assume anything because Graeme was specific about the timeframe he had in mind.

    I do agree though that I would prefer our climate to stay within the range that it occupied over the last 10000 years and ideally to stay within the range it has occupied since 1970. However we don’t always get what we want.

  50. graemebird Says:

    Well of course.

    This all backs up my point exactly.

    So horrible were the glaciations that they squeezed evolution out of us.

    Particularly the glaciations of the last 3 and a half million years.

    They were so absolutely nasty you could scarcely get through two of them without transforming the one species into another.

    Bipedal stick-weilding gangsters is a great niche once you get down from the trees.

    And the interglacial of 6,000 to 10,000 years helps you expand, follow the game, spread out of Africa and into Europe and Asia.

    Then the White Death comes.

    And she stays around for 60,000 to 100,000 years.

    THIS PATTERN HAPPENS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND IS HARDWIRED INTO THE PLANET GIVEN OUT CURRENT CONTINENTAL LAYOUT.

    Under this pulsing-holocaust drama….. the bi-pedal stick-weilding gangster-species……weill they have just got to where they are dominating half the worlds land-surface area….

    And after just getting to where they are dominating the world they are culled off mercilessly by the holocaust-of-the-white-death.

    Their numbers dwindle to probably way less then 1% of their former glory just before. Their numbers would peak right at the end of the interglacial just before the white death closes in.

    The populations are so horribly decimated that what remains is a geographically spread out and cut off small clans of wondering bi-pedals.

    Yet when the survivors come together after that endless winter they have all adapted to the same stress. In similiar ways.

    Hence the evolution is FORCED OUT OF THE SPECIES BY PULSING HOLOCAUSTS.

    So it is just foolish to say that the ice-age has been good for us. It has made us what we are thats true. But it has made us what we are by allowing us to spread over the Africa-Asia-Europe just in time for the holocaust to begin.

    This is the horror of contemplating another glaciation.

    It would likely destroy civilisation. And lead to billions of deaths. And it could lead us to regressing right back to clan level. Of course we would get by somehow if we could maintain a capitalist system. But we might not be able to. After all we have not managed to maintain a capitalist system yet? Why will things be so guaranteed when this crisis hits again?

    But with warming things would be on the up and up.

    And the thing is this. The planet is hard-wired for cooling. And warming is good. And CO2 warming is particularly good.

    Whereas cooling means another holocaust.

    So why oh why are we worried about warming?

    Its more then we deserve. But we seem to have stumbled on this lucky break.

    The lucky break of CO2.

  51. John Humphreys Says:

    Graeme: “the bi-pedal stick-weilding gangster-species”

    Classic. I like it… 🙂

    I take your point that an ice-age is bad news. But as far as I know it’s not a problem we have to face any time soon. Global warming might be and you still haven’t answered whether you think the warming (especially > 2-3 degrees) could cause net costs.

    But I’m happy to call a truce on the timeframe debacle. I think that if one person says “x,y,z is good for humans” and the other says “bullshit, it’s all been holocausts” then you are talking about holocausts for the humans. That is how I read it and it’s a fair reading.

    But you meant that the last 39 million years has seen lots of extinctions of animals through the “white death”, and on that I don’t disagree.

  52. John Humphreys Says:

    But Terje… you’re another story. You’re going to have to leave the beer with Jason (or pass it to Graeme).

    If you’re going to say the preceding few million years set the stage for us, then it’s also true that the preceding few billion and trillions years set the stage for us. All true of course, but absolutely pointless in terms of a debate about which temperatures we want now.

    Did you really mean to imply that any stage of history that lead to the evolution of humans has good temperatures? I doubt it.

    I think my interpretation of your comment (that modern humans have done well in the recent temperature range) makes far more sense. Especially as you now go on to say it anyway!

    And the timeframe of a discussion isn’t dictated by Graeme’s mind — but by the content of the discussion. If people are talking about holocausts of humans, I assume they’re talking about when humans existed.

  53. graemebird Says:

    OK good.

    Now here is the point. Warming is better then cooling. And we don’t have a clear prediction for either.

    But we ought to note a few points here:

    1. It appears that we’ve been getting, in recent decades, more energy from the sun, then at any time during the last 1,000 years or so.

    You know when you pass this sort of thing on you are never quite sure what time scales the person who said it means…. But I’m thinking she means over the last century or so.

    But if thats true, then the natural way of things is for the suns activity to oscillate down.

    2. The previous solar forecast had it that cycles 24 and 25 were both going to be really very small. We are now near the end of cycle 23. If that prediction came true we would enter a serious cooling phase almost immediately that would be very serious and getting worse within a decade.

    3. A new prediction out of Nasa by someone called Hathaway suggests that cycle 24 will be a strong one and that cycle 25 will be the weakest one on record….. that would mean some continued warming (thankfully) for awhile. But it would still likely mean mid-century is cooler then it is now. And if cycle 26 is another cold one, following typical 200 (closer to 208 or so) year patterns then we would be in a serious downturn indeed.

    4. On top of that the Malinkovitch cycles are slowly turning bad on us. So the idea is to husband any extra joules that we can. So we cannot put up with public compulsion, or public money, or moral abuse and hectoring to be hassling our decision-makers to make decisions which lead to less industrial-CO2 release. We cannot put up with money being wasted for carbon sequestration for example. Or subsidies for solar energy.

    5. Further CO2-release is a good thing over and above any slight warming effect it might have. It boosts plant growth and therefore the natural world. If it leads to more warming it will lead also to it being easier to collect and distribute fresh water. And it reduces the water transpiration of plants, meaning that the plants require less water. It also makes plants better able to cope with frosts and things. It just makes for a healthier world of plants. And therefore animals and humans too.

    6. Just summarising what we learnt above. CO2, in a world hardwired for catastrophic cooling, is a good thing on all levels. So we see the incredible MAGNITUDE of the fraud we are being force-fed. They want a world of less food and fresh water, or plants requiring more water and growing more slowly, and a world………. where when the cooling disaster comes it will be worse then it otherwise would have been.

  54. John Humphreys Says:

    OK Graeme, I have no great argument with you on these issues. Not because I think you’re necessarily right but because I am not in a position to take a strong stand on the science one way or the other.

    What I am able to do is to take a stand on the economics. That is where I think there is the strongest argument against Kyoto, and that is where I think we will be most pursuasive.

    But I also think you should admit to the possibility of continued global warming is real and that it can cause a net cost. The solar-cycle theory looks interesting, but the nature of climate science is such that I would be slow to place all of my faith in it.

    The debate has turned nice all of a sudden. It’s un-nerving. Feels like we’ve switched from boxing to chess.

  55. graemebird Says:

    Right.

    But from a political point of view someone has to be out there kicking heads. We cannot beat this one just by vaguely referring to broad libertarian principles. We’ve got to be out there kicking heads for the coal industry and levelling great abuse at the French Prime Minister.

    Dumb bastard is always thinking up childish ways for France to gain more influence. And of course the French are the only people with a sound nuclear-energy industry in Europe. So Kyoto would seem to be tailor-made to bring everyone down and leave them in a relatively strong position. Villepen is such a lunatic that this is the sort of thing he would think of.

    Its bad on general principles for people to be accepting rubbish.

    An iceberg off the coast of New Zealand and a cold snap in November is NOT evidence of global warming. I mean I’m just blue in the face by how idiotic things have gotten. Its evidence of Antarctic cooling. And the Antarctic has been cooling and thats a very troublesome thing.

  56. John Humphreys Says:

    I disagree about political tactics. Kicking heads will get us nowhere. It will not change anybodys mind.

    We’d do better to follow the example of Milton Friedman. He has changed the world for good more than you or I could ever dream of doing.

  57. graemebird Says:

    No no no. Thats silly. When he showed up people were printing money hand over fist and lying about it. At the same time they were putting it all down to cost-push-inflation. He essentially told them that this was full of shit and it was the currency debauch that was the problem.

    Well we have to stick up for the truth and we cannot just say “I’m a libertarian so I don’t believe we should….”

    No-ones interested in that sort of shit. The fact is the science goes against the alarmists. And we should say this.

  58. terje (say tay-a) Says:

    Please don’t bring Milton Friedman into this discussion. I have too much to say on that topic and we would drift off topic endlessly.

    If you’re going to say the preceding few million years set the stage for us, then it’s also true that the preceding few billion and trillions years set the stage for us. All true of course, but absolutely pointless in terms of a debate about which temperatures we want now.

    Sure but given a timeframe (eg last 39 million years) and a binary yes/no question about whether it has been good for us, I don’t see how any answer other than the affirmative makes sence. The entire history of the universe taken as a whole has on balance been more good for us than bad.

    Graeme you would do better to make some logically clear points rather than live by the “let kick heads” mantra. You are generally too quick to rattle of your next amazing point without deal with the ambiguities and flaws of your early points. You may know what you meant but assuming that we can all read your mind entails too large an assumption.

    In terms of Antarctic cooling there is an extra piece of evidence in the way of the currently larger than usual ozone hole. Ozone destruction is dependent on low temperature (which is why it happens at the poles). A larger hole is indicative of a larger region of cold. And this does in fact seem to be what the ozone specialists are saying. Although stratospheric cooling is not inconsistent with the AGW theory.

    The other evidence of current cooling is the Argo data that shows that over the last two years the oceans of the world have assumed a cooling trend. Although trend is probably not an appropriate word given the short timescale.

    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06318_Ocean_Cooling.html

  59. Jason Soon Says:

    Graeme
    We’re all mostly on your side but we want you to be better. So try and listen to what john and terje have to say. As John said, this is ‘tough love’ fella. You can only get better after this treatment.

  60. John Humphreys Says:

    Terje — you say that “yes” is the only possible answer to a binary yes/no question about whether the ice age has been good for us.

    But nobody asked you that question. You volunteered the idea that the ice age has been good for “us”, and presumably you had a point. It is strange that you would simply be stating an irrelevant tautology randomly in the middle of a discussion about global warming. I think it was fairly clear that your point was that recent temperatures had been good for human progress (a position I already knew you to hold).

  61. John Humphreys Says:

    I just noticed another point of agreement with Graeme:

    “The fact is the science goes against the alarmists. And we should say this.”

    I agree that it goes against the “we’re all going to die, be scared of the greenhouse-gas-under-your-bed” fear-mongering alarmist crowd. They are doing the time-honoured trick of using fear to promote their preferred government policy. We should certainly stand up loudly against global warming exagerations.

    However, I believe we can do this much more convincingly if we also interact calmly and respectfully with the mainstream global warming community who are worried about the possible effects of a possible 2-3 degree warming. Those are reasonable fears and such an outcome probably will create some costs.

    We should engage these people with respect and intellegent debate and thereby drive a wedge between the fear-mongers and more carefull AGW proponents. The fear-mongering alarmists will never be interested in looking at a BCA of their preferred policies (eg Kyoto), but the reasonable person will be. This is our opportunity.

  62. terje (say tay-a) Says:

    Terje — you say that “yes” is the only possible answer to a binary yes/no question about whether the ice age has been good for us.

    There is a misunderstanding here. However I am not going to spend any time attempting to unravelling it because it is not important.

  63. terje (say tay-a) Says:

    However, I believe we can do this much more convincingly if we also interact calmly and respectfully with the mainstream global warming community who are worried about the possible effects of a possible 2-3 degree warming. Those are reasonable fears and such an outcome probably will create some costs.

    They may be reasonable fears, or they may not be. Surely the point of interacting calmly and respectfully is to try and figure this out.

  64. John Humphreys Says:

    OK, we can skip it if you like, but what I wrote (my supposed misunderstanding) is a fair paraphrase of what you wrote:

    Terje: Sure but given a timeframe (eg last 39 million years) and a binary yes/no question about whether it has been good for us, I don’t see how any answer other than the affirmative makes sence.

    Me: Terje — you say that “yes” is the only possible answer to a binary yes/no question about whether the ice age has been good for us.

    You were either making a point (recent temps have been good for human development) or randomly quoting irrelevant tautologies.

    On reasonable fears — I’m not saying they are correct. I’m just saying that given there is a chance of continued warming and a chance of that having costs it is not unreasonable for people to worry about global warming costs. If we abuse each person with such a fear then we aren’t going to get very far in winning friends.

  65. Boris Says:

    I agree with John. Suggestions that increased CO2 emmissions may cause siginificant and potentially harmful (but far from catastrophic) global warming are not unreasonable. Whether they are correct, we do not know yet. I believe this is unlikely. But they are not unreasonable.

  66. Terje Says:

    I also agree with John. It gets decidely boring when it keeps happening.

    You were either making a point (recent temps have been good for human development) or randomly quoting irrelevant tautologies.

    The truth of the matter is the correct interpretation.

    🙂

  67. graemebird Says:

    I think we do know for the timescales we are talking about.

    The evidence is not only NOT there.

    Its CONSPICUOUS in its absence.

    Now….

    I just found out… or at least some folks claim the entirety of a single circulation of the Great Oceanic Conveyor might be 1200 years.

    This took me entirely by surprise.

    I imagined it would be only like about 20.

    And perhaps 6 months or something to get from Florida to the Sea of Labrador.

    Now if you are saying that this tiny amount of human-induced nature-food (ie CO2)…. might meet all the alarmist-denialists expectations as to equilibrium temperature in the space of four or more total circulations of the Great Conveyor… as a rule of thumb..

    ….Then in consideration of the fact that its not just global warming gasses but the ultimate global warming LIQUID as well… ie liquid water.

    …..In consideration of this I would say that four or more cycles would be a pretty good guess.

    And as a matter of fact it probably ties in alright with the alleged magnification effect assumed in the ancient pre-history, that no-one can prove since the warming always starts before the CO2.

    But we have enough to know now that the projections of Annan and the others are horseshit in terms of the sort of time periods that people normally talk about.

    We really do.

    And if that small effect really does start to kick in with every 1200 or 1400 years… Well thats a good thing.

    Because while Antarctica engulfs the South Pole we have no chance of serious overheating and could hit a catastrophic cooling groove with only two (2) particularly weak solar cyles.

    TWO (2) WOULD BE ENOUGH.

    This is a one-way-bias this planet has.

    With no Continents at either Pole I am sure that the bitch-goddess who eats CO2 and shits life would regulate the planet to her own liking.

    But right now we have a permanent catastrophic-cooling-bias.

  68. Antibush Says:

    Bush is forever saying that democracies do not invade other countries and start wars. Well, he did just that. He invaded Iraq, started a war, and killed people. What do you think? Why has bush turned our country from a country of hope and prosperity to a country of belligerence and fear.
    Our country is in debt until forever, we don’t have jobs, and we live in fear. We have invaded a country and been responsible for thousands of deaths.
    The more people that the government puts in jails, the safer we are told to think we are. The real terrorists are wherever they are, but they aren’t living in a country with bars on the windows. We are.

  69. Bentr Says:

    business phone system voip

  70. graemebird Says:

    HUMPHREYS-THE-EVASIVE-CUNT-SEZ:

    “I ignore the elephant in the room because it is prancing around drunk in a tutu sqwarking incoherent babble.”

    Humphreys.
    Have you got any evidence for any CO2 warming at all?

    “I ignore the elephant in the room because it is prancing around drunk in a tutu sqwarking incoherent babble.”

    You are just going to have to stop being evasive Humphreys.

    Now stop ignoring the elephant in the room and lets see some evidence for the idea that some human warming is a bad thing in a brutal and pulverising ice age.

    And don’t lie and say that the IPCC has summarised the evidence. Lets see some evidence from you!!!!!

    Its bloody well past time.

  71. hunters Says:

    moviepost.cok

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: