I’m guessing from your response that you don’t like it, but so far the only reasons given are some unsubstantiated personal comments.
You are being evasive and therefore intellectually dishonest. My remarks on your behaviour are by definition personal, but they are not unsubstantiated.
BBD.
The answer is still the same.
Particularly in relation to your original question.
You are now claiming that you meant that 3C is the best estimate within the range.
That now makes it a different question.
But OK. Let's say that it's possible to get a specific agreement about that best estimate.
What would that achieve?
So Stu 2's answer to "you haven't answered the question, please do" is "Read comment 48.", or to put it another way "I will not or can not. Read my previous non-answer instead".
And furthermore "But wait. Instead of me answering your question, why don't you answer this red herring I pose?"
What, the one where you falsely claim that BBD's reiteration of his earlier question is in fact a different question, a claim that (apart from being false) invalidates your claim to have answered it and still doesn't answer it?
For those fans of numptyism (as Bernard J. might put it) who feel like a change of scene, check out the truly impressive example I recently ran into at Lewandowsky's blog starting with my original comment here. It's most impressive what interpretations one can argue for if one really puts one's lack of mind to it.
Lotharsson.
Please move on.
Let me help you by paraphrasing comment #1.
OK. Let's assume we have achieved that 'specifally required' agreement.
Next ?
Hope that helps?
It didn't contain an answer to BBD's question, it contained a refusal to answer it.
Is this your answer? "I refuse to say"? If so, fine, just keep not saying anything. This time, though, try using no words. When you HAVE something to say, an actual opinion, then use words to display them. But while you're not saying anything, you say it best, when you type nothing at all.
#13...ah, yes, that numpty...I've enjoyed his seamless self-contradiction, audacious redirection and unflagging prolixity at The Guardian. Very defensive of Lomborg, particularly the completely indefensible bits. The 2008 Guardian opinion piece of Lomborg's is transparently weak in its repetitive cheering of meaningless time periods , but your numpty sees something in it... that's dedication!
Not only sees something in it, Nick, but specifically contradicts Lomborg in order to defend him, and contradicts his own argument to defend it, and then charges on the basis of his contradiction of Lomborg that an accurate quote (apart from what looks like a typo that he hadn't spotted) is "a fabrication".
Very impressive work, if you're a fan of that kind of thing ;-)
I really like this little portrait of Lomborg, penned by EO Wilson after the Skeptical Environmerntalist wasted so much time:
" My greatest regret about the Lomborg scam is the extraordinary amount of scientific talent that has to be expended to combat it in the media. We will always have contrarians like Lomborg whose sallies are characterized by willful ignorance, selective quotations, disregard for communication with genuine experts, and destructive campaigning to attract the attention of the media rather than scientists. They are the parasite load on scholars who earn success through the slow process of peer review and approval. The question is: How much load should be tolerated before a response is necessary? Lomborg is evidently over the threshold."
But, no we'll get feshed about a quote that lost nothing from a typo and the exclusion of 'meanwhile'
You know it and I know it and everybody reading this thread knows it.
There’s that pattern again.
Particularly in relation to your original question.
You are now claiming that you meant that 3C is the best estimate within the range.
That now makes it a different question.
No, this is a lie. The question has not changed at all.
This is the original question (#23 previous page):
What I would like to know is whether *in principle* you accept the scientific evidence that strongly suggests a public policy response.
This specifically requires an agreement that the best estimate of climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 is about 3C.
Do you agree with this? If not, please explain why not.
I've missed most of that thread Lotharsson, so I was curious and disconcerted to read Betts' post #42 on the first page.
Betts appears to be saying that there are potential nonlinear trends in global warming on short time scales, by which I presume he means less than about a decade. He said:
Assertions that "the pause does not exist" depend on an assumption that the global mean surface temperature record is best viewed as a linear trend with fluctuations around it.
I have seen nothing in the scientific literature that asserts that a linear trend assumption is "best". Such an assertion by Betts himself is an eponymous logical fallacy - unless of course Betts can point to particular references that make this claim.
There is a rational basis though for making the parsimonious assumption that the warming trajectory is approximately linear. Even in this case though most professional scientists acknowledge that over the meso-scale of decades to centuries it will be non-linear, and again parsimony offers a suggestion, which is that absent unanticipated intermitently-emerging feedings-back the overal warming trajectory will be sigmoid.
Betts however has a preoccupation with short time-scales which are closer to weather than they are to climate. In his post at And Then There's Physics Betts makes a point of speaking about short-term variability, as he does in post #42
...if a member of the public looks at any graph of GMST over the last few decades, they will clearly see that in recent years the change has not been very marked. This is immediately obvious to the eye.
[My emboldening.]
It's spurious to speak of trends in warming trajectories on this time scale though, because at this resolution factors other than 'greenhouse' gas-indiced warming impinge on the movement and storage of heat around the planet. To speak of linear trends is essentially a strawman fallacy, just as it is to say that warming:
...can also be viewed as a series of steps and plateaus.
On scales of less than a decade the chaotic nature of the multifactorial system that is global climate guarantees that there will be increases and decreases between data points - this manifests as the "noise" in the climatic signal, although most of this noise is not random sampling-type of noise but fluctuations in the underlying physical mechanisms in train. Claiming "pause" in such circumstances is akin to claiming that gravity ceases to operate every time a bouncing ball hits the ground.
Betts knows this, because he actually goes in to say:
Neither has any intrinsic truth, it is just how we perceive patterns in numbers.
It's fascinating that he makes this observation, and yet he makes an issue of short term trends and tries to disparage the legitimacy of assuming essentially linear warming over the scale of a number of decades - the scale at which climate is defined, and the scale which statistical analyses indicate is the minimum period of time required such that the longer term climate signal emerges from the short term system noise (note btw the subject of the original post at that link...).
It's fascinating too that Betts says:
...it is just how we perceive patterns in numbers
and yet he also says:
...if a member of the public looks at any graph of GMST over the last few decades, they will clearly see that in recent years the change has not been very marked. This is immediately obvious to the eye. Being flatly told that the feature seen in the data simply "does not exist" is, in my opinion, somewhat patronising. Far better to acknowledge what is seen, explain why it has occurred, and point out that it's only one aspect of climate.
Perhaps it's just me but Betts' umbrage at "patronising" science seems to miss the point that he is implicitly confabulating weather variability with climatic trends. Over periods of less than a decade the magnitude of a 'greenhouse' warming signal is inevitably going to be subsumed by other climatic phenomena, phenomena that are effectively stable over longer periods of time, so the "feature seen in the data" is almost certainly not one that "does not exist" in the context of the underlying forcing effect of 'greenhouse' gas. it's just an inherent part of the cliamte system.
The extraordinary thing though is that Betts has warned us about that "we perceive patterns in numbers" and then immediately strikes forth and perceives patterns in limited numbers where none such exist, at least in the context of warming.
Now, if Betts wants to ask the question "what causes means global temperature to vary from one year to the next, that's a different story and an interesting one, but it does not inform the nature of the trajectory of 'greenhouse' gas forcing. It does inform the question of the variabilty in the warming signal, but variability and trajectory are two different things.
Betts concludes that post on STW with:
Oversimplifying things invariably comes back to haunt you sooner or later.
but completely ignores the fact that there's nothing over-simple about simply acknowledging that it's not valid to make statements about climate on scales less than about half of the minimum defined to identify changes in said climate. Indeed, over-complicating the basic statistical concept of the time required to discern signal from noise in a time series is probably a greater sin than over-simplification, especially when that over-complication is used to create distractions and delay in responding to a problem that has a narrowly defined and shrinking window of opportunity for actually preventing profound planetary harm.
I was ... disconcerted to read Betts’ post #42 on the first page.
You and me both.
In addition to what you point out, he seems to have priorities/principles that I find baffling, especially given how much effort has been expended to point out how much counterproductivity they can generate when exploited by the unscrupulous. In particular he wants to bend over backwards to avoid "patronising" the non-scientific public but can't see that the tools he is offering the unscrupulous by doing so are used to generate far more patronisation by them than is avoided by scientists following his prescription. Or to put it another way, he wants to avoid over-simplifying to the public and in doing so offers tools that are used to over-simplify to the public far more strongly.
It's almost as if he didn't learn a damn thing about the use and abuse of language and concepts from the CG faux-scandal.
Richard Betts appears to acknowledge that the contrarians will twist anything they can in order to make 'the scientists' seem untrustworthy:
The climate is complicated - we need to come terms with that! Oversimplifying things invariably comes back to haunt you sooner or later. While simple "messaging" may be thought to lead to quick wins, if these messages are later exposed as being too simple and omitting important detail, this can eventually backfire. In the long term, credibility and trust are far more important as a foundation for solid decision-making.
Perhaps it’s just me but Betts’ umbrage at “patronising” science seems to miss the point that he is implicitly confabulating weather variability with climatic trends.
The core problem here was the confusion (especially among contrarians) between surface temperature and the climate system as a whole. As we know, the rate of surface warming is modulated by the rate of ocean heat uptake with no impact on the rate of global warming when the climate system is considered in its entirety.
BBD.
Stu 2 is spectacularly uninterested in pseudo psychological pontificating and/or tribalism.
He's interested in what this specifically required agreement about a singular number based on a best guesstimate will achieve.
BTW.
Stu 2 has learnt a great deal from this April thread.
It will help him in his line of work.
Thanks for that.
Because Stu2 is asking why it's SSOOOOOOOO important to have a specific agreement about a specific number that is based on a best guesstimate specifically.
Even if it was humanly possible to gain that very specific agreement, what would that actually achieve?
He assumed that everyone agreed upthread that the best
guesstimate is a actually a range not a number.
Apparently it's still a specific number and we specifically can't move on until Stu 2 accepts that specific number specifically.
So BBD?
Is the best guesstimate 3C or is it a range that includes 3C?
BTW fellas, even though we can all do it, altering grammatical usage from first person only creates the appearance of greater objectivity in this particular time and place.
You're still focusing on your personal opinion of the person regardless of which person (first, second or third) you personally select to use.
assumed that everyone agreed upthread that the best guesstimate is a actually a range not a number.
Why assume, when it is explicit? Everyone except Captain Evasion agrees that there is an estimate range, containing a best estimate. BBD's question was about the best estimate (eg #99 on the previous page). Lotharsson's similar-but-different question was about the range. I can't help but note that Loth's attempt to move the discussion along has only been utilised to add another 50-odd posts of deflection an evasion.
I'm sure that BBD and Lothasson will both be satisfied if Stu2 condescended to answer either of their questions. The rest of us will be merely surprised.
BTW, Stu2 - when people invoke your nym in the 2nd person, they are talking to you. When it is used in the 3rd person, they are talking about you. So in this post, the first two paragraphs are directed to other readers noting my observations about your posts. This last paragraph is directed to you (because everybody else is clearly already aware of this aspect of grammar). You seem to have trouble grasping this along with many other aspects of grammar, so perhaps it will help you parse plain English sentences in future. You're welcome :-)
The continuing absence of a response to either question is
"Stu 2 has learnt a great deal from this April thread.
It will help him in his line of work"
What line of work is that? Local politics? Given your weaving, dodging, faking and outright inability to address questions aimed at you, I think this line of work suits you perfectly.
Because Stu2 is asking why it’s SSOOOOOOOO important to have a specific agreement about a specific number that is based on a best guesstimate specifically.
The ignorant contrarianism just can't help leaking out, even as he consciously chooses not to answer the question.
He assumed that everyone agreed upthread that the best guesstimate estimate is a actually a range not a number.
FIFY. And even after the fix he was still entirely wrong about that too. No-one else mistook best estimate for range. Perhaps that's because everyone else understands the fundamental difference between a number and a range?
Oh, and while I am at it, I might as well throw in the fact that Stu2 claimed that the volumes of empirical evidence - found both in the peer-reviewed literature as well as in other collective sources - showing that humans and the natural world are on a major collision course are nothing more than 'doomsaying'. He says this not based on any actual knowledge of the science, but simply on sticking his finger to the wind.
After making this ridiculous assertion he's steered well away from defending it. This is typical contrarian behavior: make a rash statement without any foundation and then flee. The reason is simple: he doesn't have a clue about the science underpinning research on global change and instead relies on his own Dunning-Kruger-esque instincts for knowledge. If I ask him if he has read any scientific articles from the pages of journals like Ecology Letters, Global Change Biology, Ecosystems. Ecology, Journal of Animal Ecology, Journal of Ecology, Journal of Applied Ecology, Oikos, Oecologia, Basic and Applied Ecology, Conservation Biology, Biological Conservation et al. he'll pontificate in an attempt to hide his profound ignorance. I've published one or more papers in 8 of them; most are relevant to anthropogenic effects on the environment.
Because Stu2 is asking why it’s SSOOOOOOOO important to have a specific agreement about a specific number that is based on a best guesstimate estimate specifically.
You know perfectly well why *general* agreement about the best estimate is a problem for you. It's because the scientific consensus on ~3C ECS comes with inescapable policy implications. So does the range 2C - 4C.
You don't like those policy implications, so you deny the scientific evidence.
What is vile is that you know what you are doing. These evasions and contortions of yours require effort on your part. You are aware of your intellectual dishonesty but you continue, endlessly.
Stupid, since you're still refusing to answer and yet STILL refuse to stop claiming you're answering, and ALSO not shutting the fuck up, why the hell should anyone believe any crap you spout?
Really?
You make many many words and say absolutely nothing.
As Jeff has pointed out, you'd be the absolute spit for the worst sort of politician. The one that is the type lampooned and derided for damn good reason as being a lying weasel without even the good grace to accept their villainy, unlike, say, mass murderers and serial rapists.
They don't pretend that they never did something and complain that they've "already done time", so therefore they shouldn't do any more.
And are deaf and blind when people point out that that was something else they "did time for".
Yet you answer a different question, just like the scummiest politicians, insist you've answered the original question, then demand that everyone else discuss your new question.
Just like the scummiest politicians.
Of course when people then move to your new demanded topic, you then hare off on the same evasion.
This is "the pattern" that has been pointed out to you several times on this thread.
Which is why we're not going to move to a new topic no matter what your demands are. We're sticking with this one and going nowhere else with you until this is resolved.
So don't bother bringing up another topic, don't bother making a request to look at something. Even if you get one of your coworkers to post here and we discuss with Lappers or one of your other co-moron tag-team, there is no point making a point or asking a question on that topic, because you are confined only to this question until we've got answers and dealt with this one.
Answer BBD's question.
Until then, no post of yours will be of any point.
Jeff Harvey.
Stu 2 did not say that evidence is merely doomsaying.
He said that you were doomsaying.
He was questioning your attitude and your lack of meaningful solutions to some of the world's environmental challenges.
Do a little comparison of what Jensen and DGR advocates with Mcewan's speech at Dickinson.
Jensen et al view most of humanity as some type invasive weed or feral pest that needs to be eradicated.
Good luck with that approach.
BBD @#40.
I think we're getting somewhere.
What are the 'inescapable' policcy implications?
BBD.
You do realise we are going around in circles don't you?
What is the 'inescapable' policy response?
Actually, let me reword that.
Please define what you mean by an ' inescapable policy response'.
I also just noticed that Jeff Harvey sort of asked that third person, Stu 2, a question @#37 :-)
No Jeff Harvey, Stu 2's line of work is not in local politics. Stu 2's line of work involves Agriculture and NRM.
Errrr Wow?
I am not sitting in your classroom and reliant on you or anyone else here for a grade.
You are of course completely entitled to offer your personal opinion about me but it is not relevant or particularly useful.
I am not interested in your opinion of me no matter how many times you choose to offer it.
BBD's question includes an underlying assumption that my personal ACCEPTANCE means that I PERSONALLY ACCEPT
there is an 'inescapable policy response'.
How would I know if I accept this 'inescapable policy response' when it is not clearly defined.
My personal observation is that BBD asks poorly worded questions and then loses the plot entirely when he is asked to clarify his questions.
It then becomes highly amusing when you all start playing pseudo psychological games that appear to be aimed at proving that even though you might not be right you're most definitely not wrong because according to your self appointed expertise in these pseudo psychological games Stu 2 (not the first person) has an incurable character flaw that is the reason why the whole world is falling off a cliff.
:-)
I very much suspect that I don't ACCEPT whatever this 'inescapable policy response' is, but, until it is clearly defined why it is specifically linked to an ECS range that includes 3C, then I can't answer BBD's question differently.
Here's a better idea BBD:
Let's look at a typical, publicly available synopsis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
Here's one well 'accepted' best guess based on Industrial Age Data:
........." The global temperature increase since the beginning of the industrial period (taken as 1750) is about 0.8 °C, and the radiative forcing due to CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases (mainly methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons) emitted since that time is about 2.6 W/m2. Neglecting other forcings and considering the temperature increase to be an equilibrium increase would lead to a sensitivity of about 1.1 °C. However, ΔF also contains contributions due to solar activity (+0.3 W/m2), aerosols (-1 W/m2), ozone (0.3 W/m2) and other lesser influences, bringing the total forcing over the industrial period to 1.6 W/m2 according to best estimate of the IPCC AR4, albeit with substantial uncertainty. Additionally the fact that the climate system is not at equilibrium must be accounted for; this is done by subtracting the planetary heat uptake rate H from the forcing; i.e., x = ΔT * (3.7 W/m2)/(ΔF-H). Taking planetary heat uptake rate as the rate of ocean heat uptake, estimated by the IPCC AR4 as 0.2 W/m2, yields a value for x of 2.1 °C. (All numbers are approximate and quite uncertain.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here's another well accepted best guess in the same document based on Ice Age Data:
"In 2008, Farley wrote: "... examine the change in temperature and solar forcing between glaciation (ice age) and interglacial (no ice age) periods. The change in temperature, revealed in ice core samples, is 5 °C, while the change in solar forcing is 7.1 W/m2. The computed climate sensitivity is therefore 5/7.1 = 0.7 K(W/m2)−1. We can use this empirically derived climate sensitivity to predict the temperature rise from a forcing of 4 W/m2, arising from a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels. The result is a predicted temperature increase of 3 °C."[25]
Based on analysis of uncertainties in total forcing, in Antarctic cooling, and in the ratio of global to Antarctic cooling of the last glacial maximum relative to the present, Ganopolski and Schneider von Deimling (2008) infer a range of 1.3 to 6.8 °C for climate sensitivity determined by this approach.[26]
A lower figure was calculated in a 2011 Science paper by Schmittner et al., who combined temperature reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations to suggest a rate of global warming from doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide of a median of 2.3 °C and uncertainty 1.7–2.6 °C (66% probability range), less than the earlier estimates of 2 to 4.5 °C as the 66% probability range. Schmittner et al. said their "results imply less probability of extreme climatic change than previously thought." Their work suggests that climate sensitivities >6 °C "cannot be reconciled with paleoclimatic and geologic evidence, and hence should be assigned near-zero probability."[27][28]"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But of course if you read the whole document you will also discover that the 'best guess' is all over the place and I would therefore submit that your 'specifically requires' underlying assumption in your question is, for the time being, not about to happen.
However:
If it was humanly possible to gain a specific agreement on a specific number that is specifically 3C, what's next?
What have we all actually specifically achieved?
And so the Gish Gallop of specifically not actually answering the specific question continues, in this instance specifically by abusing the definition of "best guess" in not one but two different ways - one of which has been specifically pointed out specifically to Stu 2 earlier in the thread.
Most readers understand that "best guess" implies that all the lines of evidence are taken into account at once. Citing a guess based on a single line of evidence that has some other value (or even citing N or them!) does not make the best guess disappear, so the question remains both valid and "specifically" and almost comically unanswered by Stu 2.
"I don't know the science and don't care what the science is, I want money and rich people who may give me money tell me that it's all a hoax, and I will not move from that position because the rich people won't give me money if they lose the argument."
Stu2, how on Earth can you evaluate the evidence and what it suggests if you've never read the primary literature in a peer-reviewed journal? That was precisely my point. The evidence suggests that the environment is going to hell in a hand basket. That we are clearly on the wrong path, that we are rapidly destroying natural capital and reducing the planet's ability to sustain humanity. I should know - I read the papers, read the journals, and contribute science to them. On all counts YOU DO NOT.
And yet you try and tell me the state of the planet's ecosystems. Un-be-lieve-able.
Jeff Harvey.
How on earth can you miss that it's not the evidence but your attitude that I'm questioning?
The primary literature does not point humanity to the likes of Jensen and DGR.
Wow.
That's fine.
Suit yourself.
I just thought you might like to know that 'all that typing' actually wasn't typing but a copy/paste from the link on ECS & entirely relevant to an answer to BBD's question.
And you know so very little. You don't know that Schmittner et al. is a flawed study that lowballs the ECS estimate. It uses a (modelled) under-estimate of LGM cooling that biases the sensitivity estimate low.
You don't know that all the 'observational' estimates are low because of uncertainty over OHU and aerosol negative forcing and because they do not allow for non-linear feedbacks as future warming progresses towards equilibrium.
If you *knew* anything at all, you would accept that the best estimate for ECS is ~3C.
Instead, you are trying to deny this from a position of frankly contemptible ignorance.
It's strangely impossible for you to answer a question, isn't it.
Guys and gals, I think we can shorten the debats with this moron if we don't bother with his posts unless it starts off looking like it's answering BBD's question.
"Instead, you are trying to deny this from a position of frankly contemptible ignorance."
stupid is not even doing that. He's still pointing to *someone else* who says it's different (if indeed that's what his irrelevant cutnpaste was trying to do).
No idea if he thinks they're right. He's not said.
"The primary literature does not point humanity to the likes of Jensen and DGR"
Since when would you know anything about the primary literature since you have never read any of it? Collectively, this literature shows quite clearly that human activities are consuming natural capital at alarming (and unsustainable) rates and that vital supporting ecological services are being seriously degraded. This situation cannot persist for much longer.
Groups like DGR exist alongside the likes of Occupy Wall Street; they realize that the current dominant rapaciously unsustainable economic system is incompatible with life. When calm voices like Father David Berrigan and journalist/writer Chris Hedges are also openly calling for resistance it suggests that things are going from bad to worse. Your arguments are a load of twaddle, Stu2.
You are in a deep hole and you seem intent on digging it deeper and deeper.
As must be painfully obvious by now, I am trying to get Stu2 to join the dots that connect the most likely approximate ECS to what you are saying to policy implications.
My lack of success in step 1 is of course a great surprise to me and doubtless others here.
BBD.
Seriously?
You're now calling it ' the most likely approximate ECS'?
That's priceless.
And further, that's going to connect the dots to what Jeff is saying to policy implications?
Are those 'policy implications' related to your earlier 'inescapable policy response'?
Oh! Well there you go!
We have 'an inescapable policy response' based on a precisely approximate ECS (in the absence of a specific technical definition) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
I think I'll stick to my original answer to the original question at this point :-)
We have ‘an inescapable policy response’ based on a precisely approximate ECS
Good grief, yet another misrepresentation of what was written. You would probably incorrectly parse "See Spot run!" if you thought it would help avoid answering the question.
Rubbish Lotharsson.
I answered the question ages ago.
Here is the question from BBD:
Stu2 #23
The meta-argument is about climate change mitigation. Bernard J. asks:
So then Stu 2, you are telling us that humans will severely damage the habitability of the biosphere with their emissions if we do not take immediate and effective steps to halt them?
Why not answer?
Earlier, we touched on uncosted externalities. You seem to believe that costing the escalating and irreversible consequences of unmitigated CO2-forced climate change will involve malfeasance (‘gold plating’).
This is not a valid counter to the position that there are uncosted externalities with potentially very serious consequences for future generations, the ecosystem etc.
What I would like to know is whether in principle you accept the scientific evidence that strongly suggests a public policy response.
This specifically requires an agreement that the best estimate of climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 is about 3C.
Do you agree with this? If not, please explain why not.
_____________________________________________
Here is my answer:
I’m happy to answer questions that facilitate a civil discussion
I absolutely agree ‘in principle’, that we need to become more responsible about the environment, our land use practices, our use of recycling & etc, etc, etc.
I don’t agree it must all rely and be exclusively based on a best
estimate of CO2.
That theory is failing miserably.
As I have mentioned here on numerous occasions, these policy measures need to be judged on measurable, accountable results.
Also BBD.
I’m not claiming ‘malfeasance’.
Under the system that you seem to be vaguely advocating, that is just the nature of the beast.
A legislative, bureaucratic monopoly is still a monopoly.
______________________________________________
There has been nothing said since that would convince me to change that answer to that question.
Yes Stu2, we all read that post. And we all understand that it is *NOT* an answer to BBDs question. Well, all of us except you that is. I wonder why that is.
Specifically, BBD asked if you accept in principle the scientific evidence, to which you replied that you accept in principle that we should be responsible about the environment. Not what BBD asked. As usual, you have answered the question you would have liked to have been asked, not the question you were actually asked.
BBD went on to say that your "in principle" acceptance would specifically require your agreement that the best estimate of ECS is ~3 degrees, or offer an explanation of why not. To which you responded with a strawman about whether policy should "rely and be exclusively based" on that best estimate. Not what BBD asked. Once again, you answer the question you would like to have been asked, but not the one you were actually asked.
To date, both of BBD's questions remain unanswered, despite your claims to the contrary and a seemingly endless supply of useless blathering you've treated us all to.
Reading Stu2 is like watching a perpetual loop of the MythBusters guy: "I reject your reality and substitute my own". :-)
"Perhaps if Stu2’s further non-answers were struck out?"
I don't bother reading beyond the first few words if it looks longer than a couple of lines.
It only takes a couple of lines to say "I agree that the best estimate of ECS is 3C per doubling of CO2" and the first sentence, second at least, should be "I do not agree that the best estimate of ECS is 3C per doubling of CO2" even if it then has to go on a long windy tour to "explain" why it's not and what it is.
So if it hasn't answered your question in the first sentence, it's more avoidance.
No need to strike it out, just stop reading if it doesn't immediately make an answer.
For example, scrolling past to see the top of the post I saw "meta" in his post. Don't know and don't care what he was talking about being meta. So that's really all I know about his post. Rather than answer, he wants to claim (complain?) about something being metasomething.
And it goes past at the speed of a scrollbar movement.
The awful thing is, I haven't yet broken the news to Stu2 about slow-feedbacks Earth System Sensitivity (ESS). He probably thinks that it all stops with ECS, but of course that's only half the story.
For example, scrolling past to see the top of the post I saw “meta” in his post. Don’t know and don’t care what he was talking about being meta. So that’s really all I know about his post.
Actually, I've only just noticed that this was in fact me ;-)
S2 was quoting my original comment:
[BBD:] The meta-argument is about climate change mitigation. Bernard J. asks:
"So then Stu 2, you are telling us that humans will severely damage the habitability of the biosphere with their emissions if we do not take immediate and effective steps to halt them?"
Why not answer?
I notice that S2 has yet to respond to Bernard J's question, too.
"Actually, I’ve only just noticed that this was in fact me "
Well, like I said, I never read it.
Why bother? He's not going to answer your question,despite it being central to his posts here having ANY MEANING WHATSOEVER, so why should I read anything he says if he's never doing to say anything?
If he's going to post what OTHER people think, then that's a waste of his time. That person can post here instead. At least then I'll be able to find out WHY they think that. And if their argument is persuasive, I can change my stance to incorporate this knew knowledge.
But Stupid doesn't dare say *what* he things, never mind *why*, so there really isn't any reason to read his posts.
*IF* he changes his patterns and starts *explaining* himself and actually posting *his* opinion, then I will, given this new information, as usual, change my stance.
Until then, there's no point reading Stupid's comments since they're not going to contain anything that can be discussed and reasoned over.
I think I'm developing a bit of a crush on you Wow.
You have done an awesome job of demonstrating that the original answer to BBD's original question was valid.
Thanks for that.
I do have one question though.
Who or what are 'OTHER people' ?
Here:
"If he’s going to post what OTHER people think, then that’s a waste of his time."
Do you mean the copy/paste from the link @#51?
BBD @ # 91.
I don't smoke so my answer to that question is I'm not smoking anything.
But I'll assume you meant to ask which part of my original answer to your original question that I think Wow has helped to demonstrate as valid?
Here:
I don’t agree it must all rely and be exclusively based on a best
estimate of CO2.
That theory is failing miserably.
I will happily concede that I paraphrased this part of your question a little:
"This specifically requires an agreement that the best estimate of climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 is about 3C."
Perhaps if I stick closer to your own wording and say:
"I don't agree this specifically requires an agreement that the best estimate of climate sensitivity to 2 X CO2 is about 3C"
And perhaps I need to further explain that it is the 'specifically required agreement' part of your question that I don't agree with.
The resultant discussion, led ably by Wow has demonstrated clearly why I don't agree with that.
I have also dealt with that different later question BBD.
The best ECS estimate is a range not a specific number.
The range varies widely as per the link @#51- even between studies via industrial age data and ice age data.
That's why the question to you was why a specific agreement about a specific number from me is required?
Oops!
Pressed submit prematurely.
Sorry.
.....as even the recognised and/or appointed experts are not prepared to land on or be accountable for a specific number.
To get away from the rubbish spewed out by StuPid I'd like to ask Craig and Lionel (and anyone else reading Druker's book) what they found to be the most anti-science event in the book. The one thing that really disturbed me was to find out that the GMO industry hid the negative results from the Flavrsavr tomato study. The report, only available after a FOI request or Court order showed lots of harmful effects in the studies conducted under the auspices of Calgene by an "independent "testing laboratory. The result are sickening (pun intended) when one study found 7 out of 40 rats died 2 weeks after being fed the tomatoes.
I have been asking GMO supporters on a blog to tell me what part of the scientific method condones cherry-picking and hiding negative results. They all behave like AGW deniers and refuse to answer these type of questions.
I have also dealt with that different later question BBD.
Bollocks. It's already been pointed out that it's the very same question - and that you have entirely misinterpreted the "specific agreement" part, over and over again, despite a litany of correction being directed at you. Yet here you are still doing it.
...as even the recognised and/or appointed experts are not prepared to land on or be accountable for a specific number.
Dolt. They cite an approximate value for the best estimate, approximate so dolts don't get hung up on quibbling about the exact value, and it is that approximate value for the best estimate that you were asked for.
You're really doing a good impression of having trouble with Grade 8 English comprehension.
You have done an awesome job of demonstrating that the original answer to BBD’s original question was valid.
WTF kind of mind-altering cognition sapping substances are you on?! And can you still legally drive under the influence? Because you sure as hell can't think...
There's that pattern again.
Let me help you Lotharsson.
I answered the question.
The problem is perhaps
1) You don't like the answer or
2) You think there is only one answer to that question
3) You think I meant something different to what you think I said & therefore it's incredibly important that you make it clear that I meant something completely different to what I said and further that means there is an incredibly flawed human lurking in between all those answers- according to you.
:-)
Let me help you Lotharsson.
I answered the question.
Numbskull. As has been repeatedly pointed out, everyone here except you believes that you did not, you answered a different question instead.
If you truly think you answered it rather than "answered" it by following the standard media handling tactic (I've had the basic training) of answering the question you would have preferred to have been asked, then you need to ask yourself just how badly you screwed up your English expression and what you can do to improve it.
Guys, there's no point quoting him either. I skip over the quotes and just read your bit.
All its doing is showing Stupid that his tactic of wasting your time is working: you had to read his drivel. If it doesn't answer BBD's question in the first sentence or look like it's going to in the next one, then it's worth nothing to read the rest, it's going to be bollocks again. So cut to the chase and skip it.
When Stupid actually gets round to answering, if he wants to make the point again, he can post that point again. At that point we may have some indication that it's worth our time and effort to read.
At the moment, we know it's of no benefit to read his crap.
Yep.
I am definitely developing a crush on you Wow.
You have done a far better job demonstrating why my answer to the original question was valid.
Well done.
Thanks again.
:-)
I have also dealt with that different later question BBD.
The best ECS estimate is a range not a specific number.
The range varies widely as per the link @#51- even between studies via industrial age data and ice age data.
That’s why the question to you was why a specific agreement about a specific number from me is required?
The best ECS estimate is a range not a specific number.
No it isn't and you've been told, so stop repeating the same stupid lies and answer the question about the best estimate withing the range.
But you won't will you? Because irrespective of whether we use the ~3C best estimate with or without a generous +/-1C uncertainty, it leaves no room for denialism. The values are too high.
So emissions policy becomes mandatory to avoid serious consequences. Here, after an agonisingly long detour, we rejoin mainstream reality, abandoning physics-denying liars as we do so.
For those fans of numptyism (as Bernard J. might put it) who feel like a change of scene, check out the truly impressive example I recently ran into at Lewandowsky’s blog
Having had three computers fail on me in quick succession, they were all getting on a bit, I am still catching up with events but seeing how boorish 2StuPID was getting I stumbled via Eli's on this vein of gold and the weird that scientists manage to be gamed by WUWT. Sou has interesting posts and ATTP has also.
BBD @# 15.
Yes it is.
As time progresses and more data is collected that range is mostly being estimated down.
Of course as Lotharsson and you pointed out a while back, the ranges will be different according to the methodology that gets used.
I do note that your conclusion is that emissions policy becomes mandatory to avoid serious consequences.
What specific serious consequences does a mandatory emissions policy avoid?
For example, how will a mandatory emissions policy reverse that worrying trend in agriculture that was highlighted earlier?
No, it isn't. You are mistaken and should admit it at this point.
As time progresses and more data is collected that range is mostly being estimated down.
No, it isn't. That is your perception based on the disproportionate attention given to 'observational' estimates which share a common methodological bias. This was pointed out in an earlier comment regarding your level of topic knowledge. A comment that you ignored.
This is getting boring for everyone, so let's try and move things along.
There is a best estimate of ECS / 2 x CO2. It is (and remains) ~3C.
If you want to argue for a significantly lower value within the range of possibility you need to explain why.
This argument will involve the size and sign of feedbacks to CO2-forced warming. It will be about physical climatology and it will require plausible physical mechanisms.
If you cannot make or reference a plausible, physical argument against the best estimate of ECS, then why are you refusing even to discuss it?
By definition the best estimate of a value is not a range of values (unless one can show that all values in the range in question are equally likely - an outcome that is very rare in real world science, and does not apply here).
Of course as Lotharsson and you pointed out a while back, the ranges will be different according to the methodology that gets used.
No, I did not. In response to your comment pointing out that different lines of evidence taken in isolation produced different ranges, I pointed out that on the question of the best estimate one has to simultaneously take into account all the lines of evidence.
That is quite a different thing to point out than you say I did.
I'm beginning to suspect that you're simply not cognitively equipped to understand the question.
BBD @ # 19.
I understand about the ranges.
Let's move on.
IF(!) you could possibly ever get that specific agreement about a singular number:
1) Why does that mean a mandatory emissions policy?
2) What is a 'mandatory emissions policy"?
2) What are the 'serious consequences' that a mandatory emissions policy will avoid?
For example, will a mandatory emissions policy reverse that worrying trend in agriculture that was highlighted earlier?
As well as a pattern, it has ramped up its repetition.
:-)
But you're right Lotharsson.
You saying that I haven't answered the question, over and over again - doesn't make it so.
This is funny.
In other words?
LOL!
:-)
We've proof enough that the moron isn't going to post anything other than the thoughts of others (so he can't be blamed for him being wrong in believing them), and isn't going to say what they do believe (in case we find an explanation that makes him change his mind).
He's like the religious fundamentalist, unwilling, no, unable to allow themselves to be persuaded they're wrong because their abject fear of being wrong about what they believe is their only comfort.
There's no point wondering why Stupid is stupid, all we really need to know is they want to remain Stupid.
Therefore anything they say will be a waste of time to read.
Stu, I have the impression that all your posts are trying to lead up to a " Gotcha!!!" moment. However, if #23 is anything to go by, then it's likely to be a very damp squid.
Fellas.
You have my original answer to the original question and my subsequent answers to other questions.
The further this has gone, the more you have convinced me that that the original answer is valid.
I did not answer to have it graded.
I quite clearly said that I don't agree with the original proposition that it all relies on a specific agreement about a number.
I think that the fixation on a number is not doing anything at all to address or solve social and environmental challenges.
All that has done is create a deeply divisive political arguments.
The environment and/or the climate doesn't give a toss about whether humanity can agree about a CO2 ECS best estimate within the range approximation.
BBD.
Yes you do.
I understand that you don't like that answer and you're attempting to grade it and demand I resubmit it.
I wasn't sitting for a test or attempting to submit an assignment for you to mark.
You asked if I agreed with your propsosition about requiring an agreement about a specific number.
I don't.
I also explained why.
Perhaps you might like to explain what *everyone* knows?
BBD.
I do have to include you when I say thanks.
This April thread (at the end of May) has been a very informative experience for me.
I very sincerely can't thank you enough for what *everyone* has taught me.
BTW.
I didn't necessarily like or dislike the original question.
I just answers it.
However, on reflection and with several days worth of hindsight
I think I probably like the question rather than dislike it.
:-)
Lotharsson.
Please enlighten me on this clear delusion/lie.
In what way is it clear to you?
I do find your personal, pseudo psycho analyses & particular personal pontification highly entertaining most of the time.
:-)
You know it's a lot quicker to read this thread when you know you can skip Stupid's posts right off the bat.
It's pity he never could answer BBD's question. What he says might get read. But that would require there be some point to his posts. And there just wasn't.
Yep.
I have to say I am definitely developing a crush on you Wow.
You have done an excellent job of demonstrating that the original answer was to the original question was not wrong.
Thanks for that.
Saying "I disagree with the implied corollary of the answer to the question that you are asking" is not answering the question that is being asked. And saying "The best estimate is a range" is both an obvious falsehood and is not answering the question "what is the best estimate?"
This is clear to everyone except you, which should give you pause.
I do not know whether you are delusional or lying when you assert that you answered the question, hence my use of "delusion/lie".
What sort of blog is this? No original writing to speak of. Just a joint where well-meaning, erudite folks can while away their time arguing with morons about facts?
You all have wasted a decade of your lives here, folks. The Koch brothers could not be happier.
May I make a suggestion? Why not spend your time more productively? Perhaps in advocacy for
the actual building and deploying of a new 100% renewable energy utility system?
As to what the kocks like, they'd like every rational person to shut up and let the morons keep the stage far far more than wasting all our time here making sure the Big Lie (google the term) doesn't get traction.
Lotharsson.
The original question actually asked if I agreed with the corollary.
I don't and explained why I don't.
As Gingerbaker points out @ # 47, it has proven to be a waste of time.
The IPCC has been around since 1988 and that corollary is still not happening.
Of course BBD called it a specific agreement and later an inescapable policy implication.
For example, how would the corollary help to reverse the worrying trend in Agriculture that was highlighted earlier?
Or, how would the corollary reverse the environmental challenges that Jeff Harvey talks about?
Or how would the corollary encourage less waste?
Or how would the corollary keep us safe from the climate?
Or how would the corollary protect future generations?
And numerous other such topics that you fellas imply that this specific agreement about a CO2 ECS will mean somehow that we can all live happily ever after?
I don't agree that over 2 decades fixating on a CO2 best estimate ECS to achieve some type of 'grand challenge' is proven to be a good idea.
Of course he did not. Several people including BBD have pointed out to you this is completely and utterly false. What kind of fool repeats a false claim about someone else's words after their author corrects him?
The original question actually asked if I agreed with the corollary.
How impressively dense you make yourself appear!
Yes, the corollary I was referring to is the policy implications of the ECS estimate. You cited your disagreement with the policy implications as an answer to the original question. By definition a disagreement with a corollary is not an answer to the original question, as everyone but you understands.
So here we stand days and days later, in a thread polluted by your cloud of bafflegab and near complete bamboozlement. As far as everyone (but you) can see you still have not answered the original question: do you agree that the best - that is, the most likely - estimate of the value of ECS is approximately 3C?
And as far as everyone but you can tell, you will not answer and there's one candidate reason why that is way out ahead of the pack. (That reason is additionally informed by the fact that I gave you a much looser alternative question about ECS ranges and you totally refused to answer that either.)
"What kind of fool repeats a false claim about someone else’s words after their author corrects him?"
Is this a trick question? :-)
Stupid does, because it keeps him from saying what HE thinks on a subect, yet allows himto continue to demand others say what they think and keps him able to waste others' time.
in short, the moron wants people to say something so he can show something is wrong, and doesn't want that to happen to them.
Their essays are just sound and fury, containing absolutely nothing.
By the way, sneaky there, quoting him first. I read a few words before they were obviously quoting him and I could skip that to the words in your post that actually may contain actual real information: your own.
Lotharsson and Wow.
If nothing else you don't fail to be entirely predictable.
My original answer to the original question stands because of the corollary.
Stu2.
If nothing else you don't fail to be entirely predictable.
Your original non-answer to the original question stands as a non-answer because of teh stoopid.
For pity's sake, just answer the question. You're looking more and more like Tony Abbott answering a Mark Riley question. Still, never mind, eh...some days shit happens....
You have my answer to BBD's original question.
For any further clarification please see # 33 & # 50..
I'm sorry that you don't like the answer.
Nonetheless, that is my answer to that question.
BBD.
If it wasn't my answer to your original question then whose answer was it?
I know you are demanding that I have to resubmit it because of all sorts of totally irrelevant personal accusations and even your first attempt to observe that I must be a member of a particular tribe called 'Lukewarm' apparently?- right up to and including a personal accusation about something you have named (but not defined) as 'intellectual dishonesty'.
What should you know?
You asked me a question and I answered it.
There was no proviso in that question that you could pass it or fail it.
There was however a proviso that I agreed with what has been called such things as a specific agreement, an inescapable policy implications and a corollary.
I don't agree.
The IPCC has been trying that for over 2 decades.
It is not working.
It's not because they can't agree about a number.
Apart for the fact that this place is still arguing as an April thread at the very end of May, the politics needs to move on and start addressing social and environmental challenges with proven practical policies.
Hilarious! That sludge at #60? Turns out that's what was stuck to the very bottom of the barrel. Thanks Stu2. Its been very educational... :-)
...as an April thread at the very end of May
Since Tim stopped posting articles, whenever our resident losers are losing, they almost inevitably fall back on "It's May already! Where's the May thread?", like it doesn't count if its not in the correct monthly thread. GSW and the Duffer used to do this too. It's kind of a Godwin's Law of Open Threads. I think this is the second time Stu2 has used this gambit on this thread (but I can't be bothered going back to check). Hilarious!
It counts just fine Frank D
I was merely using it as an analogy.
That's all it was.
Of course you are completely entitled to read whatever you like into the comment.
As am I :-)
a personal accusation about something you have named (but not defined) as ‘intellectual dishonesty’.</blockquote
I'm sure I did define it and that you are again lying, but to be clear, your intellectual dishonesty is your refusal to answer a direct question about the best estimate for ECS because you know that the most likely value is high enough to require urgent emissions reductions to avoid dangerous warming later this century and beyond.
So you won't even discuss this. You will do *anything* - no matter how shameful - to dodge and avoid answering a simple question. You will even repeat the most infantile lie that you have answered when nobody - not even a muppet like you - could believe this to be the truth.
BBD.
I answered your question.
I have no problem with the fact that humans need to become more responsible, including more efficient energy use.
I don't agree that a specific agreement about a singular CO2 ECS number is proving to be the only way to achieve it.
That idea is failing.
Frank D.
There is a consensus amongst most in civil society that once
people launch personal attacks they have pretty much lost the
argument.
I apologize if you didn't like my analogy.
I used it to demonstrate that it's probably past time to move on.
Your response reveals more about you than anything else.
I am spectacularly uninterested in your personal opinion of me - what you think about me is not my business.
BBD.
Of course I did.
Pages ago.
I completely understand that you don't like my answer.
I guess I could make speculative pseudo psychological guesses about you based on that but I think that's just a pointless waste of time.
As I have commented earlier, I didn't answer your question in
order to get a grade from you or to elicit a designation to a particular tribe from you & etc.
Perhaps we could move on?
I asked some questions upthread about some of our
Sorry.
.....some of the social and environmental challenges that have been highlighted at different times.
I do note there has been no attempt to offer any answers to those.
Of course there is no personal reason why you should or shouldn't or could or couldn't.
If you don't want to answer that's fine.
BBD.
Your rephrased question is a different question.
Let me make it very simply a yes or no answer to each question
My simple yes or no answer to the original question is NO.
My simple yes or no answer to your question @ # 73 is YES.
.
It most certainly is a different question BBD.
My simple yes or no answer to your question @#73 is yes.
My simple yes or no answer to your original question is no.
If you would like further clarification about the answer to your question @#73 please let me know.
I have already explained why the simple yes or no answer to your original question is no.
My simple yes or no answer to your question @#73 is yes.
My simple yes or no answer to your original question is no.
Hilarious! Stu2 finally concedes that, as we said for pages, he simply misread the original question, since the two questions are the same. Unless Stu2 was saying "no" to the "accepting the science" bit, but "yes" to the ECS bit. Which would display a remarkable level of magical thinking (which doesn't actually surprise very much).
Either its performance art, or everything else in this thread is just his cognitive dissonance to prop up his denial of his original error, necessary to protect a fragile ego.
I see you have encountered another Stu2 type over at DesMog, but one who appears to be a real danger to society. Did somebody mention 'redneck'?
He seems to have about the same level of environmental and humanitarian awareness as ........er um ....Owen Patterson, who happens to be married to Rose Ridley.
Ridley- Patterson, Monckton - Lawson, anybody know a fly on the wall at their dinner parties?
Yes, I saw you over at DS. John Doe is a singularly charmless not-quite-human being. I'm enjoying helping him to reveal his inner depths to everyone else on the thread. Same MO as the muppet here though - refusal to answer direct questions, obfuscatory bullshitting, intellectual dishonesty etc.
Frank D @#81.
If you are referring to the DS reference from Lionel @#80 I totally agree with you.
I would suggest to BBD that he could perhaps Google 'types of questions' or 'questioning styles' or similar - and it may help him understand why he always finds himself stuck in that repetitive pattern.
Stu2 #87 - Obviously I was replying to your #79, referring to your pattern of simple denial of reality, or your "misunderstandings" or misrepresentations like those "If you are saying" posts...
Could not this publication be challenged in court? After all the list of contributors reads like that of a travelling circus of clowns.
Does Richard Lindzen realise how his reputation has now been brought as low as that of Pat Michaels to be equivalent to the likes of Delingpole, Darwall and Exposed as a fraud Plimer?
There is a consensus amongst most in civil society that once
people launch personal attacks they have pretty much lost the
argument.
If there actually were such a consensus then most in civil society would be ignorant boobs, since it's an ad hominem fallacy. Calling you a stupid fucking piece of dishonest shit has no bearing on the validity of an argument (especially since it's true).
I have no problem with the fact that humans need to become more responsible, including more efficient energy use.
I don’t agree that a specific agreement about a singular CO2 ECS number is proving to be the only way to achieve it.
You are denying that a specific agreement on something is the only way to achieve becoming more responsible, which isn't something that anyone has proposed, you stupid fucking dishonest moron.
There was however a proviso that I agreed with what has been called such things as a specific agreement, an inescapable policy implications and a corollary.
You're right, there's no need for maggots like you to agree that facts that entail an end to human civilization require policy changes.
I think that the fixation on a number is not doing anything at all to address or solve social and environmental challenges.
All that has done is create a deeply divisive political arguments.
No, it is dishonest shitholes like you who have created political divisiveness.
Stu2
Your #48:
But there *is* a best estimate within the range, derived from multiple lines of scientific evidence.
What I asked you was:
The best estimate for ECS / 2 x CO2 is that it will be about 3C.
Do you accept this or not? If not, please explain why.
Come on.
Stu2
You are being evasive and therefore intellectually dishonest. My remarks on your behaviour are by definition personal, but they are not unsubstantiated.
BBD.
The answer is still the same.
Particularly in relation to your original question.
You are now claiming that you meant that 3C is the best estimate within the range.
That now makes it a different question.
But OK. Let's say that it's possible to get a specific agreement about that best estimate.
What would that achieve?
Fellas.
Look up Ian McEwan 2015 Commencement Speech at Dickinson College.
Pretty good outline.
So Stu 2's answer to "you haven't answered the question, please do" is "Read comment 48.", or to put it another way "I will not or can not. Read my previous non-answer instead".
And furthermore "But wait. Instead of me answering your question, why don't you answer this red herring I pose?"
And he wonders why he gets called "evasive"!
Well, doh! You and only you were the only person to claim otherwise, and you have resisted all efforts to get you to understand this until now.
.
He did. Comment 48 is where you didn't answer his question.
Not answering you are evading. When you whine "What evasion", comment 48 and comment 98 are what evasion.
So your answer is you still refuse to answer.
No.
If you answer BBD's question, then I'll look.
There's that pattern again.
:-)
Still not answering BBD's question.
So we're still not bothering to read what you want us to read.
Do you accept a 3C climate sensitivity is the best estimate? If not, why not and what do you claim is the best estimate and why.
No, it's not a different question, just trying different wording until you get to answering it.
Wow.
Please read comment #1 on this page.
What, the one where you falsely claim that BBD's reiteration of his earlier question is in fact a different question, a claim that (apart from being false) invalidates your claim to have answered it and still doesn't answer it?
Sheesh.
For those fans of numptyism (as Bernard J. might put it) who feel like a change of scene, check out the truly impressive example I recently ran into at Lewandowsky's blog starting with my original comment here. It's most impressive what interpretations one can argue for if one really puts one's lack of mind to it.
Lotharsson.
Please move on.
Let me help you by paraphrasing comment #1.
OK. Let's assume we have achieved that 'specifally required' agreement.
Next ?
Hope that helps?
My apologies.
Please read 'specifically' not 'specifically'.
Dammit!
Auto correct coupled with very poor reception out here in central NSW.
Apologies again.
Read:
'SPECIFICALLY' not 'SPECIFALLY'
"OK. Let’s assume we have achieved that ‘specifally required’ agreement."
Why must we assume you agree with 3C ECS estimate being the best guess?
Do you not know what you think of it???
"Wow.
Please read comment #1 on this page."
I did.
It didn't contain an answer to BBD's question, it contained a refusal to answer it.
Is this your answer? "I refuse to say"? If so, fine, just keep not saying anything. This time, though, try using no words. When you HAVE something to say, an actual opinion, then use words to display them. But while you're not saying anything, you say it best, when you type nothing at all.
#13...ah, yes, that numpty...I've enjoyed his seamless self-contradiction, audacious redirection and unflagging prolixity at The Guardian. Very defensive of Lomborg, particularly the completely indefensible bits. The 2008 Guardian opinion piece of Lomborg's is transparently weak in its repetitive cheering of meaningless time periods , but your numpty sees something in it... that's dedication!
Not only sees something in it, Nick, but specifically contradicts Lomborg in order to defend him, and contradicts his own argument to defend it, and then charges on the basis of his contradiction of Lomborg that an accurate quote (apart from what looks like a typo that he hadn't spotted) is "a fabrication".
Very impressive work, if you're a fan of that kind of thing ;-)
I really like this little portrait of Lomborg, penned by EO Wilson after the Skeptical Environmerntalist wasted so much time:
" My greatest regret about the Lomborg scam is the extraordinary amount of scientific talent that has to be expended to combat it in the media. We will always have contrarians like Lomborg whose sallies are characterized by willful ignorance, selective quotations, disregard for communication with genuine experts, and destructive campaigning to attract the attention of the media rather than scientists. They are the parasite load on scholars who earn success through the slow process of peer review and approval. The question is: How much load should be tolerated before a response is necessary? Lomborg is evidently over the threshold."
But, no we'll get feshed about a quote that lost nothing from a typo and the exclusion of 'meanwhile'
Stu2
What answer? You haven't provided one.
You know it and I know it and everybody reading this thread knows it.
There’s that pattern again.
No, this is a lie. The question has not changed at all.
This is the original question (#23 previous page):
Stop your dishonest weaseling and ANSWER IT.
Stu2
And one other thing: Ian McEwan has about as much time for intellectual dishonesty and climate change denial as I do.
Read Solar if you doubt this.
I've missed most of that thread Lotharsson, so I was curious and disconcerted to read Betts' post #42 on the first page.
Betts appears to be saying that there are potential nonlinear trends in global warming on short time scales, by which I presume he means less than about a decade. He said:
I have seen nothing in the scientific literature that asserts that a linear trend assumption is "best". Such an assertion by Betts himself is an eponymous logical fallacy - unless of course Betts can point to particular references that make this claim.
There is a rational basis though for making the parsimonious assumption that the warming trajectory is approximately linear. Even in this case though most professional scientists acknowledge that over the meso-scale of decades to centuries it will be non-linear, and again parsimony offers a suggestion, which is that absent unanticipated intermitently-emerging feedings-back the overal warming trajectory will be sigmoid.
Betts however has a preoccupation with short time-scales which are closer to weather than they are to climate. In his post at And Then There's Physics Betts makes a point of speaking about short-term variability, as he does in post #42
It's spurious to speak of trends in warming trajectories on this time scale though, because at this resolution factors other than 'greenhouse' gas-indiced warming impinge on the movement and storage of heat around the planet. To speak of linear trends is essentially a strawman fallacy, just as it is to say that warming:
On scales of less than a decade the chaotic nature of the multifactorial system that is global climate guarantees that there will be increases and decreases between data points - this manifests as the "noise" in the climatic signal, although most of this noise is not random sampling-type of noise but fluctuations in the underlying physical mechanisms in train. Claiming "pause" in such circumstances is akin to claiming that gravity ceases to operate every time a bouncing ball hits the ground.
Betts knows this, because he actually goes in to say:
It's fascinating that he makes this observation, and yet he makes an issue of short term trends and tries to disparage the legitimacy of assuming essentially linear warming over the scale of a number of decades - the scale at which climate is defined, and the scale which statistical analyses indicate is the minimum period of time required such that the longer term climate signal emerges from the short term system noise (note btw the subject of the original post at that link...).
It's fascinating too that Betts says:
and yet he also says:
Perhaps it's just me but Betts' umbrage at "patronising" science seems to miss the point that he is implicitly confabulating weather variability with climatic trends. Over periods of less than a decade the magnitude of a 'greenhouse' warming signal is inevitably going to be subsumed by other climatic phenomena, phenomena that are effectively stable over longer periods of time, so the "feature seen in the data" is almost certainly not one that "does not exist" in the context of the underlying forcing effect of 'greenhouse' gas. it's just an inherent part of the cliamte system.
The extraordinary thing though is that Betts has warned us about that "we perceive patterns in numbers" and then immediately strikes forth and perceives patterns in limited numbers where none such exist, at least in the context of warming.
Now, if Betts wants to ask the question "what causes means global temperature to vary from one year to the next, that's a different story and an interesting one, but it does not inform the nature of the trajectory of 'greenhouse' gas forcing. It does inform the question of the variabilty in the warming signal, but variability and trajectory are two different things.
Betts concludes that post on STW with:
but completely ignores the fact that there's nothing over-simple about simply acknowledging that it's not valid to make statements about climate on scales less than about half of the minimum defined to identify changes in said climate. Indeed, over-complicating the basic statistical concept of the time required to discern signal from noise in a time series is probably a greater sin than over-simplification, especially when that over-complication is used to create distractions and delay in responding to a problem that has a narrowly defined and shrinking window of opportunity for actually preventing profound planetary harm.
"...so the “feature seen in the data” almost certainly is one that “does not exist” in the context..."
It's late here...
You and me both.
In addition to what you point out, he seems to have priorities/principles that I find baffling, especially given how much effort has been expended to point out how much counterproductivity they can generate when exploited by the unscrupulous. In particular he wants to bend over backwards to avoid "patronising" the non-scientific public but can't see that the tools he is offering the unscrupulous by doing so are used to generate far more patronisation by them than is avoided by scientists following his prescription. Or to put it another way, he wants to avoid over-simplifying to the public and in doing so offers tools that are used to over-simplify to the public far more strongly.
It's almost as if he didn't learn a damn thing about the use and abuse of language and concepts from the CG faux-scandal.
Richard Betts appears to acknowledge that the contrarians will twist anything they can in order to make 'the scientists' seem untrustworthy:
The core problem here was the confusion (especially among contrarians) between surface temperature and the climate system as a whole. As we know, the rate of surface warming is modulated by the rate of ocean heat uptake with no impact on the rate of global warming when the climate system is considered in its entirety.
BBD, I believe that Stupid is saying that he WILL NOT answer your question.
We can guess at many reasons why this would be so, but the basic fact of the matter is that Stupid does not want to answer.
At least he's stopped saying he's answered it and instead shut the fuck up.
It's definitely an improvement on the noisy blowhard pissing over the site.
Wow
Stu2 would do well to ask himself why he is reluctant to answer the question.
Stu2 has to work at these evasions. I suspect even he knows that they are transparent. So why persist?
This is the aspect of contrarianism that I find hardest to understand.
BBD.
Stu 2 is spectacularly uninterested in pseudo psychological pontificating and/or tribalism.
He's interested in what this specifically required agreement about a singular number based on a best guesstimate will achieve.
BTW.
Stu 2 has learnt a great deal from this April thread.
It will help him in his line of work.
Thanks for that.
Stu2 is spectacularly avoiding answering a straightforward question about physical climatology.
Why is that?
Because Stu2 is asking why it's SSOOOOOOOO important to have a specific agreement about a specific number that is based on a best guesstimate specifically.
Even if it was humanly possible to gain that very specific agreement, what would that actually achieve?
He assumed that everyone agreed upthread that the best
guesstimate is a actually a range not a number.
Apparently it's still a specific number and we specifically can't move on until Stu 2 accepts that specific number specifically.
So BBD?
Is the best guesstimate 3C or is it a range that includes 3C?
BTW fellas, even though we can all do it, altering grammatical usage from first person only creates the appearance of greater objectivity in this particular time and place.
You're still focusing on your personal opinion of the person regardless of which person (first, second or third) you personally select to use.
Stu2
Why assume, when it is explicit? Everyone except Captain Evasion agrees that there is an estimate range, containing a best estimate. BBD's question was about the best estimate (eg #99 on the previous page). Lotharsson's similar-but-different question was about the range. I can't help but note that Loth's attempt to move the discussion along has only been utilised to add another 50-odd posts of deflection an evasion.
I'm sure that BBD and Lothasson will both be satisfied if Stu2 condescended to answer either of their questions. The rest of us will be merely surprised.
BTW, Stu2 - when people invoke your nym in the 2nd person, they are talking to you. When it is used in the 3rd person, they are talking about you. So in this post, the first two paragraphs are directed to other readers noting my observations about your posts. This last paragraph is directed to you (because everybody else is clearly already aware of this aspect of grammar). You seem to have trouble grasping this along with many other aspects of grammar, so perhaps it will help you parse plain English sentences in future. You're welcome :-)
The continuing absence of a response to either question is
Bah! Like Oliver Twist vis-a-vis Mr Bumble, the last line in my previous was an orphan, and should be ignored if possible.
"Stu 2 has learnt a great deal from this April thread.
It will help him in his line of work"
What line of work is that? Local politics? Given your weaving, dodging, faking and outright inability to address questions aimed at you, I think this line of work suits you perfectly.
The ignorant contrarianism just can't help leaking out, even as he consciously chooses not to answer the question.
FIFY. And even after the fix he was still entirely wrong about that too. No-one else mistook best estimate for range. Perhaps that's because everyone else understands the fundamental difference between a number and a range?
Oh, and while I am at it, I might as well throw in the fact that Stu2 claimed that the volumes of empirical evidence - found both in the peer-reviewed literature as well as in other collective sources - showing that humans and the natural world are on a major collision course are nothing more than 'doomsaying'. He says this not based on any actual knowledge of the science, but simply on sticking his finger to the wind.
After making this ridiculous assertion he's steered well away from defending it. This is typical contrarian behavior: make a rash statement without any foundation and then flee. The reason is simple: he doesn't have a clue about the science underpinning research on global change and instead relies on his own Dunning-Kruger-esque instincts for knowledge. If I ask him if he has read any scientific articles from the pages of journals like Ecology Letters, Global Change Biology, Ecosystems. Ecology, Journal of Animal Ecology, Journal of Ecology, Journal of Applied Ecology, Oikos, Oecologia, Basic and Applied Ecology, Conservation Biology, Biological Conservation et al. he'll pontificate in an attempt to hide his profound ignorance. I've published one or more papers in 8 of them; most are relevant to anthropogenic effects on the environment.
Stu2
You know perfectly well why *general* agreement about the best estimate is a problem for you. It's because the scientific consensus on ~3C ECS comes with inescapable policy implications. So does the range 2C - 4C.
You don't like those policy implications, so you deny the scientific evidence.
What is vile is that you know what you are doing. These evasions and contortions of yours require effort on your part. You are aware of your intellectual dishonesty but you continue, endlessly.
"He says this not based on any actual knowledge of the science, but simply on sticking his finger to the wind."
That;s not the wind...
AAAGGHH!!!!
;-)
Stupid, since you're still refusing to answer and yet STILL refuse to stop claiming you're answering, and ALSO not shutting the fuck up, why the hell should anyone believe any crap you spout?
Really?
You make many many words and say absolutely nothing.
As Jeff has pointed out, you'd be the absolute spit for the worst sort of politician. The one that is the type lampooned and derided for damn good reason as being a lying weasel without even the good grace to accept their villainy, unlike, say, mass murderers and serial rapists.
They don't pretend that they never did something and complain that they've "already done time", so therefore they shouldn't do any more.
And are deaf and blind when people point out that that was something else they "did time for".
Yet you answer a different question, just like the scummiest politicians, insist you've answered the original question, then demand that everyone else discuss your new question.
Just like the scummiest politicians.
Of course when people then move to your new demanded topic, you then hare off on the same evasion.
This is "the pattern" that has been pointed out to you several times on this thread.
Which is why we're not going to move to a new topic no matter what your demands are. We're sticking with this one and going nowhere else with you until this is resolved.
So don't bother bringing up another topic, don't bother making a request to look at something. Even if you get one of your coworkers to post here and we discuss with Lappers or one of your other co-moron tag-team, there is no point making a point or asking a question on that topic, because you are confined only to this question until we've got answers and dealt with this one.
Answer BBD's question.
Until then, no post of yours will be of any point.
Jeff Harvey.
Stu 2 did not say that evidence is merely doomsaying.
He said that you were doomsaying.
He was questioning your attitude and your lack of meaningful solutions to some of the world's environmental challenges.
Do a little comparison of what Jensen and DGR advocates with Mcewan's speech at Dickinson.
Jensen et al view most of humanity as some type invasive weed or feral pest that needs to be eradicated.
Good luck with that approach.
BBD @#40.
I think we're getting somewhere.
What are the 'inescapable' policcy implications?
Stu2
When you answer the question, we can move on to policy implications.
What I would like to know is whether *in principle* you accept the scientific evidence that strongly suggests a public policy response.
This specifically requires an agreement that the best estimate of climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 is about 3C.
Do you agree with this? If not, please explain why not.
There;s no policy implications in you refusing to answer BBD's question. There's no policy implications in you actually ANSWERING BBD's questions.
Therefore policy implications are unimportant at this time.
Answer the fucking question.
BBD.
You do realise we are going around in circles don't you?
What is the 'inescapable' policy response?
Actually, let me reword that.
Please define what you mean by an ' inescapable policy response'.
I also just noticed that Jeff Harvey sort of asked that third person, Stu 2, a question @#37 :-)
No Jeff Harvey, Stu 2's line of work is not in local politics. Stu 2's line of work involves Agriculture and NRM.
The only reason for that, Stupid, is that you refuse to answer the bloody question.
So if you want to stop going in circles, answer the fucking question.
If you don't want to stop going in circles, then why the hell make out that you're disappointed in it?
Don't make up new questions. Answer the one you're given.
The circularity is entirely your doing, dumbass.
Errrr Wow?
I am not sitting in your classroom and reliant on you or anyone else here for a grade.
You are of course completely entitled to offer your personal opinion about me but it is not relevant or particularly useful.
I am not interested in your opinion of me no matter how many times you choose to offer it.
BBD's question includes an underlying assumption that my personal ACCEPTANCE means that I PERSONALLY ACCEPT
there is an 'inescapable policy response'.
How would I know if I accept this 'inescapable policy response' when it is not clearly defined.
My personal observation is that BBD asks poorly worded questions and then loses the plot entirely when he is asked to clarify his questions.
It then becomes highly amusing when you all start playing pseudo psychological games that appear to be aimed at proving that even though you might not be right you're most definitely not wrong because according to your self appointed expertise in these pseudo psychological games Stu 2 (not the first person) has an incurable character flaw that is the reason why the whole world is falling off a cliff.
:-)
I very much suspect that I don't ACCEPT whatever this 'inescapable policy response' is, but, until it is clearly defined why it is specifically linked to an ECS range that includes 3C, then I can't answer BBD's question differently.
Stu2
Well, yes. We are stuck until you answer the question:
This specifically requires an agreement that the best estimate of climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 is about 3C.
Do you agree with this? If not, please explain why not.
Come on.
For an academic gloss on this discussion, see #47.
Think, please.
Here's a better idea BBD:
Let's look at a typical, publicly available synopsis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
Here's one well 'accepted' best guess based on Industrial Age Data:
........." The global temperature increase since the beginning of the industrial period (taken as 1750) is about 0.8 °C, and the radiative forcing due to CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases (mainly methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons) emitted since that time is about 2.6 W/m2. Neglecting other forcings and considering the temperature increase to be an equilibrium increase would lead to a sensitivity of about 1.1 °C. However, ΔF also contains contributions due to solar activity (+0.3 W/m2), aerosols (-1 W/m2), ozone (0.3 W/m2) and other lesser influences, bringing the total forcing over the industrial period to 1.6 W/m2 according to best estimate of the IPCC AR4, albeit with substantial uncertainty. Additionally the fact that the climate system is not at equilibrium must be accounted for; this is done by subtracting the planetary heat uptake rate H from the forcing; i.e., x = ΔT * (3.7 W/m2)/(ΔF-H). Taking planetary heat uptake rate as the rate of ocean heat uptake, estimated by the IPCC AR4 as 0.2 W/m2, yields a value for x of 2.1 °C. (All numbers are approximate and quite uncertain.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here's another well accepted best guess in the same document based on Ice Age Data:
"In 2008, Farley wrote: "... examine the change in temperature and solar forcing between glaciation (ice age) and interglacial (no ice age) periods. The change in temperature, revealed in ice core samples, is 5 °C, while the change in solar forcing is 7.1 W/m2. The computed climate sensitivity is therefore 5/7.1 = 0.7 K(W/m2)−1. We can use this empirically derived climate sensitivity to predict the temperature rise from a forcing of 4 W/m2, arising from a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels. The result is a predicted temperature increase of 3 °C."[25]
Based on analysis of uncertainties in total forcing, in Antarctic cooling, and in the ratio of global to Antarctic cooling of the last glacial maximum relative to the present, Ganopolski and Schneider von Deimling (2008) infer a range of 1.3 to 6.8 °C for climate sensitivity determined by this approach.[26]
A lower figure was calculated in a 2011 Science paper by Schmittner et al., who combined temperature reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations to suggest a rate of global warming from doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide of a median of 2.3 °C and uncertainty 1.7–2.6 °C (66% probability range), less than the earlier estimates of 2 to 4.5 °C as the 66% probability range. Schmittner et al. said their "results imply less probability of extreme climatic change than previously thought." Their work suggests that climate sensitivities >6 °C "cannot be reconciled with paleoclimatic and geologic evidence, and hence should be assigned near-zero probability."[27][28]"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But of course if you read the whole document you will also discover that the 'best guess' is all over the place and I would therefore submit that your 'specifically requires' underlying assumption in your question is, for the time being, not about to happen.
However:
If it was humanly possible to gain a specific agreement on a specific number that is specifically 3C, what's next?
What have we all actually specifically achieved?
And so the Gish Gallop of specifically not actually answering the specific question continues, in this instance specifically by abusing the definition of "best guess" in not one but two different ways - one of which has been specifically pointed out specifically to Stu 2 earlier in the thread.
Most readers understand that "best guess" implies that all the lines of evidence are taken into account at once. Citing a guess based on a single line of evidence that has some other value (or even citing N or them!) does not make the best guess disappear, so the question remains both valid and "specifically" and almost comically unanswered by Stu 2.
There's that pattern again :-)
"Here’s a better idea BBD:"
No, that's still not answering the question, Stupid.
Note: I didn't read a single word beyond that, so all that typing was pointless.
Here's a better idea, instead of coming up with ways of not answering, how about answering the question?
Or is that devastating to your case?
"There’s that pattern again"
Yes, that pattern of you avoiding the question and then complaining about other people pointing this out.
Answer the question, Stupid.
Since you won't answer, Stupid, I will.
Unless you DO answer, this will BE your answer:
"I don't know the science and don't care what the science is, I want money and rich people who may give me money tell me that it's all a hoax, and I will not move from that position because the rich people won't give me money if they lose the argument."
Errrr Wow?
It was a copy/paste from the link.
Perhaps you could consider reading if?
Stu2, how on Earth can you evaluate the evidence and what it suggests if you've never read the primary literature in a peer-reviewed journal? That was precisely my point. The evidence suggests that the environment is going to hell in a hand basket. That we are clearly on the wrong path, that we are rapidly destroying natural capital and reducing the planet's ability to sustain humanity. I should know - I read the papers, read the journals, and contribute science to them. On all counts YOU DO NOT.
And yet you try and tell me the state of the planet's ecosystems. Un-be-lieve-able.
"Perhaps you could consider reading if?"
Only after you've answered BBD's question and that subject is completed, Stupid.
Jeff Harvey.
How on earth can you miss that it's not the evidence but your attitude that I'm questioning?
The primary literature does not point humanity to the likes of Jensen and DGR.
Wow.
That's fine.
Suit yourself.
I just thought you might like to know that 'all that typing' actually wasn't typing but a copy/paste from the link on ECS & entirely relevant to an answer to BBD's question.
Stu 2 is like a Ronny Corbett joke, but without the punchline.
Stu2
Here’s a better idea BBD:
Let’s look at a typical, publicly available synopsis:
How about you answer the fucking question.
There’s that pattern again
You are a transparently dishonest little shit.
And you know so very little. You don't know that Schmittner et al. is a flawed study that lowballs the ECS estimate. It uses a (modelled) under-estimate of LGM cooling that biases the sensitivity estimate low.
You don't know that all the 'observational' estimates are low because of uncertainty over OHU and aerosol negative forcing and because they do not allow for non-linear feedbacks as future warming progresses towards equilibrium.
If you *knew* anything at all, you would accept that the best estimate for ECS is ~3C.
Instead, you are trying to deny this from a position of frankly contemptible ignorance.
"Jeff Harvey."
That's still not answering BBD;s question, is it.
It's strangely impossible for you to answer a question, isn't it.
Guys and gals, I think we can shorten the debats with this moron if we don't bother with his posts unless it starts off looking like it's answering BBD's question.
Go on, Stupid, try using your own mind instead of borrowing others.
Say "I, Stu Pid, do/do not [delete as appropriate] agree that the best estimate guess of ECS is 3C per doubling of CO2".
What's so difficult?
"Instead, you are trying to deny this from a position of frankly contemptible ignorance."
stupid is not even doing that. He's still pointing to *someone else* who says it's different (if indeed that's what his irrelevant cutnpaste was trying to do).
No idea if he thinks they're right. He's not said.
Why?
Because he's hella stupid.
"The primary literature does not point humanity to the likes of Jensen and DGR"
Since when would you know anything about the primary literature since you have never read any of it? Collectively, this literature shows quite clearly that human activities are consuming natural capital at alarming (and unsustainable) rates and that vital supporting ecological services are being seriously degraded. This situation cannot persist for much longer.
Groups like DGR exist alongside the likes of Occupy Wall Street; they realize that the current dominant rapaciously unsustainable economic system is incompatible with life. When calm voices like Father David Berrigan and journalist/writer Chris Hedges are also openly calling for resistance it suggests that things are going from bad to worse. Your arguments are a load of twaddle, Stu2.
You are in a deep hole and you seem intent on digging it deeper and deeper.
Jeff
As must be painfully obvious by now, I am trying to get Stu2 to join the dots that connect the most likely approximate ECS to what you are saying to policy implications.
My lack of success in step 1 is of course a great surprise to me and doubtless others here.
BBD.
Seriously?
You're now calling it ' the most likely approximate ECS'?
That's priceless.
And further, that's going to connect the dots to what Jeff is saying to policy implications?
Are those 'policy implications' related to your earlier 'inescapable policy response'?
Seriously.
Because that's precisely what "the best estimate of ECS is approximately N" means in the absence of a specific technical definition.
It's like you don't even know the very basics of what you're trying to talk about instead of answering the question.
Oh! Well there you go!
We have 'an inescapable policy response' based on a precisely approximate ECS (in the absence of a specific technical definition)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
I think I'll stick to my original answer to the original question at this point :-)
"You’re now calling it ‘ the most likely approximate ECS’?"
Still avoiding answering the question, Stupid?
"We have ‘an inescapable policy response’ "
So you're still refusing to answer the question.
"an inescapable policy response"
Only you've said that, Stupid.
Why are you making up stuff rather than answering the question?
In what way would answering the question be devastating to you?
Errrr Wow?
Read comment @#40.
Good grief, yet another misrepresentation of what was written. You would probably incorrectly parse "See Spot run!" if you thought it would help avoid answering the question.
Rubbish Lotharsson.
I answered the question ages ago.
Here is the question from BBD:
Stu2 #23
The meta-argument is about climate change mitigation. Bernard J. asks:
So then Stu 2, you are telling us that humans will severely damage the habitability of the biosphere with their emissions if we do not take immediate and effective steps to halt them?
Why not answer?
Earlier, we touched on uncosted externalities. You seem to believe that costing the escalating and irreversible consequences of unmitigated CO2-forced climate change will involve malfeasance (‘gold plating’).
This is not a valid counter to the position that there are uncosted externalities with potentially very serious consequences for future generations, the ecosystem etc.
What I would like to know is whether in principle you accept the scientific evidence that strongly suggests a public policy response.
This specifically requires an agreement that the best estimate of climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 is about 3C.
Do you agree with this? If not, please explain why not.
_____________________________________________
Here is my answer:
I’m happy to answer questions that facilitate a civil discussion
I absolutely agree ‘in principle’, that we need to become more responsible about the environment, our land use practices, our use of recycling & etc, etc, etc.
I don’t agree it must all rely and be exclusively based on a best
estimate of CO2.
That theory is failing miserably.
As I have mentioned here on numerous occasions, these policy measures need to be judged on measurable, accountable results.
Also BBD.
I’m not claiming ‘malfeasance’.
Under the system that you seem to be vaguely advocating, that is just the nature of the beast.
A legislative, bureaucratic monopoly is still a monopoly.
______________________________________________
There has been nothing said since that would convince me to change that answer to that question.
Yes Stu2, we all read that post. And we all understand that it is *NOT* an answer to BBDs question. Well, all of us except you that is. I wonder why that is.
Specifically, BBD asked if you accept in principle the scientific evidence, to which you replied that you accept in principle that we should be responsible about the environment. Not what BBD asked. As usual, you have answered the question you would have liked to have been asked, not the question you were actually asked.
BBD went on to say that your "in principle" acceptance would specifically require your agreement that the best estimate of ECS is ~3 degrees, or offer an explanation of why not. To which you responded with a strawman about whether policy should "rely and be exclusively based" on that best estimate. Not what BBD asked. Once again, you answer the question you would like to have been asked, but not the one you were actually asked.
To date, both of BBD's questions remain unanswered, despite your claims to the contrary and a seemingly endless supply of useless blathering you've treated us all to.
Reading Stu2 is like watching a perpetual loop of the MythBusters guy: "I reject your reality and substitute my own". :-)
"Read comment @#40."
Nah, I'm waiting until you answer BBD's question.
All you've done is avoid it.
"Rubbish Lotharsson.
I answered the question ages ago."
Rubbish, stupid, you've not yet answered the question, you've only evaded it.
Perhaps if Stu2's further non-answers were struck out?
I'm rather losing patience with this evasion and bad faith.
It is time Stu2 stopped fucking lying about having answered the question and actually answered it.
"Perhaps if Stu2’s further non-answers were struck out?"
I don't bother reading beyond the first few words if it looks longer than a couple of lines.
It only takes a couple of lines to say "I agree that the best estimate of ECS is 3C per doubling of CO2" and the first sentence, second at least, should be "I do not agree that the best estimate of ECS is 3C per doubling of CO2" even if it then has to go on a long windy tour to "explain" why it's not and what it is.
So if it hasn't answered your question in the first sentence, it's more avoidance.
No need to strike it out, just stop reading if it doesn't immediately make an answer.
For example, scrolling past to see the top of the post I saw "meta" in his post. Don't know and don't care what he was talking about being meta. So that's really all I know about his post. Rather than answer, he wants to claim (complain?) about something being metasomething.
And it goes past at the speed of a scrollbar movement.
Sage advice, Wow.
The awful thing is, I haven't yet broken the news to Stu2 about slow-feedbacks Earth System Sensitivity (ESS). He probably thinks that it all stops with ECS, but of course that's only half the story.
Such fun!
I do really want to thank all of you again.
Thanks fellas.
Still not answering, then.
Why thank us for an opportunity to not answer a question?
Dumb, stupid, real dumb.
Wow
Actually, I've only just noticed that this was in fact me ;-)
S2 was quoting my original comment:
I notice that S2 has yet to respond to Bernard J's question, too.
Stu2
For exposing you as an intellectually dishonest, serially evasive contrarian with virtually zero topic knowledge?
Are you sure you want to thank us?
"Actually, I’ve only just noticed that this was in fact me "
Well, like I said, I never read it.
Why bother? He's not going to answer your question,despite it being central to his posts here having ANY MEANING WHATSOEVER, so why should I read anything he says if he's never doing to say anything?
If he's going to post what OTHER people think, then that's a waste of his time. That person can post here instead. At least then I'll be able to find out WHY they think that. And if their argument is persuasive, I can change my stance to incorporate this knew knowledge.
But Stupid doesn't dare say *what* he things, never mind *why*, so there really isn't any reason to read his posts.
*IF* he changes his patterns and starts *explaining* himself and actually posting *his* opinion, then I will, given this new information, as usual, change my stance.
Until then, there's no point reading Stupid's comments since they're not going to contain anything that can be discussed and reasoned over.
Wow
There is that... :-)
I think I'm developing a bit of a crush on you Wow.
You have done an awesome job of demonstrating that the original answer to BBD's original question was valid.
Thanks for that.
I do have one question though.
Who or what are 'OTHER people' ?
Here:
"If he’s going to post what OTHER people think, then that’s a waste of his time."
Do you mean the copy/paste from the link @#51?
Stu2
Not from where I'm sitting. WTF are you smoking?
I'd pay good money to sit at an adjacent table during your first date.
BBD @ # 91.
I don't smoke so my answer to that question is I'm not smoking anything.
But I'll assume you meant to ask which part of my original answer to your original question that I think Wow has helped to demonstrate as valid?
Here:
I don’t agree it must all rely and be exclusively based on a best
estimate of CO2.
That theory is failing miserably.
I will happily concede that I paraphrased this part of your question a little:
"This specifically requires an agreement that the best estimate of climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 is about 3C."
Perhaps if I stick closer to your own wording and say:
"I don't agree this specifically requires an agreement that the best estimate of climate sensitivity to 2 X CO2 is about 3C"
And perhaps I need to further explain that it is the 'specifically required agreement' part of your question that I don't agree with.
The resultant discussion, led ably by Wow has demonstrated clearly why I don't agree with that.
Stu2
You are getting ahead of yourself. Start by answering the question:
Do you agree that the best estimate of climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 is about 3C?
If not, please explain why not.
I have also dealt with that different later question BBD.
The best ECS estimate is a range not a specific number.
The range varies widely as per the link @#51- even between studies via industrial age data and ice age data.
That's why the question to you was why a specific agreement about a specific number from me is required?
Oops!
Pressed submit prematurely.
Sorry.
.....as even the recognised and/or appointed experts are not prepared to land on or be accountable for a specific number.
To get away from the rubbish spewed out by StuPid I'd like to ask Craig and Lionel (and anyone else reading Druker's book) what they found to be the most anti-science event in the book. The one thing that really disturbed me was to find out that the GMO industry hid the negative results from the Flavrsavr tomato study. The report, only available after a FOI request or Court order showed lots of harmful effects in the studies conducted under the auspices of Calgene by an "independent "testing laboratory. The result are sickening (pun intended) when one study found 7 out of 40 rats died 2 weeks after being fed the tomatoes.
https://www.leopold.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/events/Chapter16.pdf
I have been asking GMO supporters on a blog to tell me what part of the scientific method condones cherry-picking and hiding negative results. They all behave like AGW deniers and refuse to answer these type of questions.
Bollocks. It's already been pointed out that it's the very same question - and that you have entirely misinterpreted the "specific agreement" part, over and over again, despite a litany of correction being directed at you. Yet here you are still doing it.
Dolt. They cite an approximate value for the best estimate, approximate so dolts don't get hung up on quibbling about the exact value, and it is that approximate value for the best estimate that you were asked for.
You're really doing a good impression of having trouble with Grade 8 English comprehension.
WTF kind of mind-altering cognition sapping substances are you on?! And can you still legally drive under the influence? Because you sure as hell can't think...
There's that pattern again.
Let me help you Lotharsson.
I answered the question.
The problem is perhaps
1) You don't like the answer or
2) You think there is only one answer to that question
3) You think I meant something different to what you think I said & therefore it's incredibly important that you make it clear that I meant something completely different to what I said and further that means there is an incredibly flawed human lurking in between all those answers- according to you.
:-)
Numbskull. As has been repeatedly pointed out, everyone here except you believes that you did not, you answered a different question instead.
If you truly think you answered it rather than "answered" it by following the standard media handling tactic (I've had the basic training) of answering the question you would have preferred to have been asked, then you need to ask yourself just how badly you screwed up your English expression and what you can do to improve it.
"I don’t smoke so my answer to that question is I’m not smoking anything."
So still not answering.
"I’d pay good money to sit at an adjacent table during your first date."
I'd pay good money not to! :-)
But I guess we can see where Stupid's orientation lies.
"I don’t agree this specifically requires an agreement that the best estimate of climate sensitivity to 2 X CO2 is about 3C"
Still not answering the question, Stupid.
"I have also dealt with that different later question BBD."
No, and this is still avoiding answering it.
".There’s that pattern again."
Still not answering the question.
Do you know how you can tell you haven't answered the question?
We don't know if you agree with the IPCC estimate or not yet.
When we DO know whether you agree with it, then you will have answered the question.
Grade 8 English comprehension? Fuck, Grade 1 comprehension fail, not knowing that, Stupid.
Guys, there's no point quoting him either. I skip over the quotes and just read your bit.
All its doing is showing Stupid that his tactic of wasting your time is working: you had to read his drivel. If it doesn't answer BBD's question in the first sentence or look like it's going to in the next one, then it's worth nothing to read the rest, it's going to be bollocks again. So cut to the chase and skip it.
When Stupid actually gets round to answering, if he wants to make the point again, he can post that point again. At that point we may have some indication that it's worth our time and effort to read.
At the moment, we know it's of no benefit to read his crap.
Yep.
I am definitely developing a crush on you Wow.
You have done a far better job demonstrating why my answer to the original question was valid.
Well done.
Thanks again.
:-)
"I am definitely developing a crush on you Wow."
So rather than answer the question, you go all teenager gooey. You can develop a crush on me AND answer BBD's question.
Just to remind you, I only read that sentence and the first word.
I have NO IDEA what the hell you said otherwise, but given the lack of any useful content in what I've read, there's no loss there.
No seriously.
You are truly amazing Wow.
OK, so that's proof enough you're never (and I really DO mean *never*) going to post anything substantive.
I can't be arsed even to read your posts now, so I won't. I'll just skip them entirely forever.
Stu2 has demonstrated his rank ignorance for all to see. Time to move on. He's been hammered.
I have also dealt with that different later question BBD.
The best ECS estimate is a range not a specific number.
The range varies widely as per the link @#51- even between studies via industrial age data and ice age data.
That’s why the question to you was why a specific agreement about a specific number from me is required?
Answer the question.
No it isn't and you've been told, so stop repeating the same stupid lies and answer the question about the best estimate withing the range.
But you won't will you? Because irrespective of whether we use the ~3C best estimate with or without a generous +/-1C uncertainty, it leaves no room for denialism. The values are too high.
So emissions policy becomes mandatory to avoid serious consequences. Here, after an agonisingly long detour, we rejoin mainstream reality, abandoning physics-denying liars as we do so.
Lotharsson
May 22, 2015
wrote
Having had three computers fail on me in quick succession, they were all getting on a bit, I am still catching up with events but seeing how boorish 2StuPID was getting I stumbled via Eli's on this vein of gold and the weird that scientists manage to be gamed by WUWT. Sou has interesting posts and ATTP has also.
BBD @# 15.
Yes it is.
As time progresses and more data is collected that range is mostly being estimated down.
Of course as Lotharsson and you pointed out a while back, the ranges will be different according to the methodology that gets used.
I do note that your conclusion is that emissions policy becomes mandatory to avoid serious consequences.
What specific serious consequences does a mandatory emissions policy avoid?
For example, how will a mandatory emissions policy reverse that worrying trend in agriculture that was highlighted earlier?
Stu2
No, it isn't. You are mistaken and should admit it at this point.
No, it isn't. That is your perception based on the disproportionate attention given to 'observational' estimates which share a common methodological bias. This was pointed out in an earlier comment regarding your level of topic knowledge. A comment that you ignored.
Answer the question.
Stu2
Please try to understand that there is a difference between a best estimate and the range within which it lies.
Stu2
This is getting boring for everyone, so let's try and move things along.
There is a best estimate of ECS / 2 x CO2. It is (and remains) ~3C.
If you want to argue for a significantly lower value within the range of possibility you need to explain why.
This argument will involve the size and sign of feedbacks to CO2-forced warming. It will be about physical climatology and it will require plausible physical mechanisms.
If you cannot make or reference a plausible, physical argument against the best estimate of ECS, then why are you refusing even to discuss it?
No.
By definition the best estimate of a value is not a range of values (unless one can show that all values in the range in question are equally likely - an outcome that is very rare in real world science, and does not apply here).
No, I did not. In response to your comment pointing out that different lines of evidence taken in isolation produced different ranges, I pointed out that on the question of the best estimate one has to simultaneously take into account all the lines of evidence.
That is quite a different thing to point out than you say I did.
I'm beginning to suspect that you're simply not cognitively equipped to understand the question.
"I’m beginning to suspect that you’re simply not cognitively equipped to understand the question."
Or is just a twat.
Occam's razor.
They won't answer. Why? Who cares.
BBD @ # 19.
I understand about the ranges.
Let's move on.
IF(!) you could possibly ever get that specific agreement about a singular number:
1) Why does that mean a mandatory emissions policy?
2) What is a 'mandatory emissions policy"?
2) What are the 'serious consequences' that a mandatory emissions policy will avoid?
For example, will a mandatory emissions policy reverse that worrying trend in agriculture that was highlighted earlier?
Saying it does not make it so.
In other words "I still refuse to answer the question".
As well as a pattern, it has ramped up its repetition.
:-)
But you're right Lotharsson.
You saying that I haven't answered the question, over and over again - doesn't make it so.
This is funny.
In other words?
LOL!
:-)
Of course he refuses to answer.
We've proof enough that the moron isn't going to post anything other than the thoughts of others (so he can't be blamed for him being wrong in believing them), and isn't going to say what they do believe (in case we find an explanation that makes him change his mind).
He's like the religious fundamentalist, unwilling, no, unable to allow themselves to be persuaded they're wrong because their abject fear of being wrong about what they believe is their only comfort.
There's no point wondering why Stupid is stupid, all we really need to know is they want to remain Stupid.
Therefore anything they say will be a waste of time to read.
I agree. It's quite evident that it is so even if you ignore all of my comments pointing out the lack of an actual answer.
Stu, I have the impression that all your posts are trying to lead up to a " Gotcha!!!" moment. However, if #23 is anything to go by, then it's likely to be a very damp squid.
Here is a Stu2 kinda fella.
Stu2
No. Answer the question.
The question about the best estimate within the range.
That one.
The one you've been dodging ever since I asked it.
The one you have repeatedly lied about having answered.
That one.
Come on.
"No. Answer the question."
Understanding means he knows he can't afford to answer.
Fellas.
You have my original answer to the original question and my subsequent answers to other questions.
The further this has gone, the more you have convinced me that that the original answer is valid.
I did not answer to have it graded.
I quite clearly said that I don't agree with the original proposition that it all relies on a specific agreement about a number.
I think that the fixation on a number is not doing anything at all to address or solve social and environmental challenges.
All that has done is create a deeply divisive political arguments.
The environment and/or the climate doesn't give a toss about whether humanity can agree about a CO2 ECS best estimate within the range approximation.
Stu2
No we don't. That's why we keep asking you to answer the original question.
And *everyone* knows why you won't answer.
BBD.
Yes you do.
I understand that you don't like that answer and you're attempting to grade it and demand I resubmit it.
I wasn't sitting for a test or attempting to submit an assignment for you to mark.
You asked if I agreed with your propsosition about requiring an agreement about a specific number.
I don't.
I also explained why.
Perhaps you might like to explain what *everyone* knows?
......and also who is *everyone* ?
I understand that you don't like that question, which is why 'that answer' isn't one and that none will be forthcoming.
All posting participants in this thread, including you.
BBD.
I do have to include you when I say thanks.
This April thread (at the end of May) has been a very informative experience for me.
I very sincerely can't thank you enough for what *everyone* has taught me.
BTW.
I didn't necessarily like or dislike the original question.
I just answers it.
However, on reflection and with several days worth of hindsight
I think I probably like the question rather than dislike it.
:-)
Sorry.
Bloody auto correct!
Read ANSWERED not ANSWERS.
Your clear delusion/lie on this point is noted.
Lotharsson.
Please enlighten me on this clear delusion/lie.
In what way is it clear to you?
I do find your personal, pseudo psycho analyses & particular personal pontification highly entertaining most of the time.
:-)
You know it's a lot quicker to read this thread when you know you can skip Stupid's posts right off the bat.
It's pity he never could answer BBD's question. What he says might get read. But that would require there be some point to his posts. And there just wasn't.
Yep.
I have to say I am definitely developing a crush on you Wow.
You have done an excellent job of demonstrating that the original answer was to the original question was not wrong.
Thanks for that.
Saying "I disagree with the implied corollary of the answer to the question that you are asking" is not answering the question that is being asked. And saying "The best estimate is a range" is both an obvious falsehood and is not answering the question "what is the best estimate?"
This is clear to everyone except you, which should give you pause.
I do not know whether you are delusional or lying when you assert that you answered the question, hence my use of "delusion/lie".
The corollary of his antics is that he's never going to post anything that says something, therefore it's not worth reading.
Not answering shows clearly there's no point to the posts he makes, there will be no information in them.
What sort of blog is this? No original writing to speak of. Just a joint where well-meaning, erudite folks can while away their time arguing with morons about facts?
You all have wasted a decade of your lives here, folks. The Koch brothers could not be happier.
May I make a suggestion? Why not spend your time more productively? Perhaps in advocacy for
the actual building and deploying of a new 100% renewable energy utility system?
Something.... anything!... but this?
Uh, we don't just post here.
As to what the kocks like, they'd like every rational person to shut up and let the morons keep the stage far far more than wasting all our time here making sure the Big Lie (google the term) doesn't get traction.
Gingerbaker
Thank you for your concerns.
Ever see a raven stropping its beak on a brick? It only takes a brick to keep a beak nice and sharp.
Lotharsson.
The original question actually asked if I agreed with the corollary.
I don't and explained why I don't.
As Gingerbaker points out @ # 47, it has proven to be a waste of time.
The IPCC has been around since 1988 and that corollary is still not happening.
Of course BBD called it a specific agreement and later an inescapable policy implication.
For example, how would the corollary help to reverse the worrying trend in Agriculture that was highlighted earlier?
Or, how would the corollary reverse the environmental challenges that Jeff Harvey talks about?
Or how would the corollary encourage less waste?
Or how would the corollary keep us safe from the climate?
Or how would the corollary protect future generations?
And numerous other such topics that you fellas imply that this specific agreement about a CO2 ECS will mean somehow that we can all live happily ever after?
I don't agree that over 2 decades fixating on a CO2 best estimate ECS to achieve some type of 'grand challenge' is proven to be a good idea.
Of course he did not. Several people including BBD have pointed out to you this is completely and utterly false. What kind of fool repeats a false claim about someone else's words after their author corrects him?
How impressively dense you make yourself appear!
Yes, the corollary I was referring to is the policy implications of the ECS estimate. You cited your disagreement with the policy implications as an answer to the original question. By definition a disagreement with a corollary is not an answer to the original question, as everyone but you understands.
So here we stand days and days later, in a thread polluted by your cloud of bafflegab and near complete bamboozlement. As far as everyone (but you) can see you still have not answered the original question: do you agree that the best - that is, the most likely - estimate of the value of ECS is approximately 3C?
And as far as everyone but you can tell, you will not answer and there's one candidate reason why that is way out ahead of the pack. (That reason is additionally informed by the fact that I gave you a much looser alternative question about ECS ranges and you totally refused to answer that either.)
"What kind of fool repeats a false claim about someone else’s words after their author corrects him?"
Is this a trick question? :-)
Stupid does, because it keeps him from saying what HE thinks on a subect, yet allows himto continue to demand others say what they think and keps him able to waste others' time.
in short, the moron wants people to say something so he can show something is wrong, and doesn't want that to happen to them.
Their essays are just sound and fury, containing absolutely nothing.
By the way, sneaky there, quoting him first. I read a few words before they were obviously quoting him and I could skip that to the words in your post that actually may contain actual real information: your own.
Lotharsson and Wow.
If nothing else you don't fail to be entirely predictable.
My original answer to the original question stands because of the corollary.
You are astonishingly stupid and astonishingly dishonest, Stu2.
Watching your performance on this thread has been a new low.
Stu2.
If nothing else you don't fail to be entirely predictable.
Your original non-answer to the original question stands as a non-answer because of teh stoopid.
For pity's sake, just answer the question. You're looking more and more like Tony Abbott answering a Mark Riley question. Still, never mind, eh...some days shit happens....
It's too tricky for Stu 2, that's for sure ;-)
You have my answer to BBD's original question.
For any further clarification please see # 33 & # 50..
I'm sorry that you don't like the answer.
Nonetheless, that is my answer to that question.
No we don't!
And I should know.
So should stupid.
But he finds it easier to be stupid than to be honest.
BBD.
If it wasn't my answer to your original question then whose answer was it?
I know you are demanding that I have to resubmit it because of all sorts of totally irrelevant personal accusations and even your first attempt to observe that I must be a member of a particular tribe called 'Lukewarm' apparently?- right up to and including a personal accusation about something you have named (but not defined) as 'intellectual dishonesty'.
What should you know?
You asked me a question and I answered it.
There was no proviso in that question that you could pass it or fail it.
There was however a proviso that I agreed with what has been called such things as a specific agreement, an inescapable policy implications and a corollary.
I don't agree.
The IPCC has been trying that for over 2 decades.
It is not working.
It's not because they can't agree about a number.
Apart for the fact that this place is still arguing as an April thread at the very end of May, the politics needs to move on and start addressing social and environmental challenges with proven practical policies.
Hilarious! That sludge at #60? Turns out that's what was stuck to the very bottom of the barrel. Thanks Stu2. Its been very educational... :-)
Since Tim stopped posting articles, whenever our resident losers are losing, they almost inevitably fall back on "It's May already! Where's the May thread?", like it doesn't count if its not in the correct monthly thread. GSW and the Duffer used to do this too. It's kind of a Godwin's Law of Open Threads. I think this is the second time Stu2 has used this gambit on this thread (but I can't be bothered going back to check). Hilarious!
It counts just fine Frank D
I was merely using it as an analogy.
That's all it was.
Of course you are completely entitled to read whatever you like into the comment.
As am I :-)
"like it doesn’t count if its not in the correct monthly thread"
Doesn't stop them posting, does it.
And it's not like "This is the wrong thread title" when corrected would magically make Stupid answer the question, is it.
So it really is another "SQUIRREL!" moment from the denier.
Of course it is, Wow. But I think its all we can expect - like the scorpion's "it's in my nature".
Perhaps its some sort of weird performance art?
Stu2
No you didn't, you lying sack of shit!
Soddit. Tags.
BBD.
I answered your question.
I have no problem with the fact that humans need to become more responsible, including more efficient energy use.
I don't agree that a specific agreement about a singular CO2 ECS number is proving to be the only way to achieve it.
That idea is failing.
Frank D.
There is a consensus amongst most in civil society that once
people launch personal attacks they have pretty much lost the
argument.
I apologize if you didn't like my analogy.
I used it to demonstrate that it's probably past time to move on.
Your response reveals more about you than anything else.
I am spectacularly uninterested in your personal opinion of me - what you think about me is not my business.
That's all it was.
Stu2
No, you didn't.
BBD.
Of course I did.
Pages ago.
I completely understand that you don't like my answer.
I guess I could make speculative pseudo psychological guesses about you based on that but I think that's just a pointless waste of time.
As I have commented earlier, I didn't answer your question in
order to get a grade from you or to elicit a designation to a particular tribe from you & etc.
Perhaps we could move on?
I asked some questions upthread about some of our
Sorry.
.....some of the social and environmental challenges that have been highlighted at different times.
I do note there has been no attempt to offer any answers to those.
Of course there is no personal reason why you should or shouldn't or could or couldn't.
If you don't want to answer that's fine.
Stu2
Then you will have no trouble in repeating you answer.
Here is the original question:
To help you answer the actual question, I will rephrase it.
Do you agree that there exists a best estimate for ECS of ~3C or not?
BBD.
Your rephrased question is a different question.
Let me make it very simply a yes or no answer to each question
My simple yes or no answer to the original question is NO.
My simple yes or no answer to your question @ # 73 is YES.
.
Please let me know if you need further clarification for the answer to your question @#73.
Stu2
No, it isn't.
You cannot have it both ways. This is intellectual dishonesty.
It most certainly is a different question BBD.
My simple yes or no answer to your question @#73 is yes.
My simple yes or no answer to your original question is no.
If you would like further clarification about the answer to your question @#73 please let me know.
I have already explained why the simple yes or no answer to your original question is no.
Hilarious! Stu2 finally concedes that, as we said for pages, he simply misread the original question, since the two questions are the same. Unless Stu2 was saying "no" to the "accepting the science" bit, but "yes" to the ECS bit. Which would display a remarkable level of magical thinking (which doesn't actually surprise very much).
Either its performance art, or everything else in this thread is just his cognitive dissonance to prop up his denial of his original error, necessary to protect a fragile ego.
Frank D.
The 2 questions are not the same.
For the remainder of your comment please read #68.
BBD
I see you have encountered another Stu2 type over at DesMog, but one who appears to be a real danger to society. Did somebody mention 'redneck'?
He seems to have about the same level of environmental and humanitarian awareness as ........er um ....Owen Patterson, who happens to be married to Rose Ridley.
Ridley- Patterson, Monckton - Lawson, anybody know a fly on the wall at their dinner parties?
There's that pattern again, Stu2.
;-)
Lionel
Yes, I saw you over at DS. John Doe is a singularly charmless not-quite-human being. I'm enjoying helping him to reveal his inner depths to everyone else on the thread. Same MO as the muppet here though - refusal to answer direct questions, obfuscatory bullshitting, intellectual dishonesty etc.
There's a clown factory somewhere.
The production line is defective, then.
Wow
Who knows? Is it a bug or a feature? These are *clowns*, after all ;-)
Yeah, but clowns are supposed to be either scary or funny.
Deniers are neither.
Their antics really do denote that "sapiens" must include a massive range of "wise" to apply to this genus...
You've got me there, Wow. Bug, then.
:-)
Frank D @#81.
If you are referring to the DS reference from Lionel @#80 I totally agree with you.
I would suggest to BBD that he could perhaps Google 'types of questions' or 'questioning styles' or similar - and it may help him understand why he always finds himself stuck in that repetitive pattern.
Monckton's latest Australian protege' informs us that climate forcing apart, "coal dramatically reduced pollution"
http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/05/a-viscount-who-has-seen-light-sings-in.html
A bit like "Apart from the agonizing pain, anasthetic-free surgery is slightly better for the patient".
Stu2 #87 - Obviously I was replying to your #79, referring to your pattern of simple denial of reality, or your "misunderstandings" or misrepresentations like those "If you are saying" posts...
Yep, there's that pattern again.
:-)
Frank D.
I can assure you that the pattern at this blog and at the DS blog Lionel refers to @#80 is not being generated by me.
"I can assure you that the pattern at this blog and at the DS blog Lionel refers to @#80 is not being generated by me."
StewToo, you are miss-characterising the opinion expressed here.
But then comprehension was never your strong point.
Is he still pretending he answered?
At what point will he understand nobody buys bullshit?
Ignoring the resident clown-shoe for a moment picking uo on a story at DeSmogBlog Australian Tax Breaks Help Fund Climate Science Denier Mark Steyn's Libel Defense in the US I wandered over to Amazon to see how the land lay and was disgusted to find that they appear to teach delusion in Australia if the 5 star votes are anything to go by.
Could not this publication be challenged in court? After all the list of contributors reads like that of a travelling circus of clowns.
Does Richard Lindzen realise how his reputation has now been brought as low as that of Pat Michaels to be equivalent to the likes of Delingpole, Darwall and Exposed as a fraud Plimer?
There is a consensus amongst most in civil society that once
people launch personal attacks they have pretty much lost the
argument.
If there actually were such a consensus then most in civil society would be ignorant boobs, since it's an ad hominem fallacy. Calling you a stupid fucking piece of dishonest shit has no bearing on the validity of an argument (especially since it's true).
I have no problem with the fact that humans need to become more responsible, including more efficient energy use.
I don’t agree that a specific agreement about a singular CO2 ECS number is proving to be the only way to achieve it.
You are denying that a specific agreement on something is the only way to achieve becoming more responsible, which isn't something that anyone has proposed, you stupid fucking dishonest moron.
There was however a proviso that I agreed with what has been called such things as a specific agreement, an inescapable policy implications and a corollary.
You're right, there's no need for maggots like you to agree that facts that entail an end to human civilization require policy changes.
I think that the fixation on a number is not doing anything at all to address or solve social and environmental challenges.
All that has done is create a deeply divisive political arguments.
No, it is dishonest shitholes like you who have created political divisiveness.