Posted by: Barry Bickmore | June 22, 2015

Mark Steyn’s Genius Legal Gambit

“Who’s to say what’s right or wrong, when your IQ could easily be the losing team’s score in a baseball game?”

In previous posts, your humble correspondent has noted that Mark Steyn and the other defendants in the Mann v. National Review et al. libel case are in a somewhat difficult position.  The easiest way to get out from under the lawsuit would be to issue a correction with appropriate weasel words added, but that would completely undermine the defendants in the eyes of the people who pay their bills–a bunch of Libertarian conspiracy nuts.  Therefore, the defendants have to act like this is some landmark free speech case to keep the money rolling in.  Another option is to claim their accusations against Mann were actually true, but that’s a long shot, given that the scientific work the defendants accused Mann of intentionally faking has repeatedly been confirmed by other scientists.  I also suggested the defense of “Invincible Ignorance,” meaning that the defendants would claim they did not know their accusations were false, and they are so stupid that no argument could possibly convince them otherwise.  In Steyn’s case, at least, I thought this unorthodox strategy might have some tiny chance of succeeding (especially if the jury happens to be packed with Catholic Theologians), because he apparently used to think the Hockey Stick was a climate model that made predictions of the future, rather than a paleotemperature reconstruction.  However, such a strategy would run the risk of alienating the rubes who are Steyn’s bread and butter, once again.  What to do?

Mark Steyn’s genius solution is to put forward arguments that will appear to the rubes to be supporting the truthfulness of the defendants’ accusations against Mann, while in reality, the arguments are so idiotic that any reasonable judge and jury would conclude that Steyn cannot be held accountable for his actions.  Who’s to say what’s right or wrong, when your IQ could easily be the losing team’s score in a baseball game?

To wit, Steyn has announced that he will be self-publishing a book full of quotations by various scientists about what a twit Michael Mann is, and what a disgraceful mess Mann’s Hockey Stick reconstruction was, and what a load of damage all this has done to the noble cause of Science.  The title of the book will be “A Disgrace To The Profession”  The World’s Scientists, In Their Own Words, On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick And Their Damage To Science.  We don’t know everything that will be included in this literary tour de force, but you can rest assured that it will be a bombshell, because Steyn has provided us with three of the juiciest quotations.  Greg Laden has now ferreted out the sources of these quotations, and concluded that one is from a legitimate contrarian (who happens not to specialize in anything to do with climate studies), another is from a climate scientist who was a co-author of one of the main studies that support Mann’s original Hockey Stick, and another from a climate scientist who had some problems with Mann’s original methods, but does not think those problems amounted to much, and has since co-authored a paper with Mann.

Now, you might think it astonishingly stupid for Steyn, in the midst of his defense against a libel suit by Mann, to publish a book full of quotations attacking Mann and his work, gleaned from a bunch of non-experts and out-of-context comments by experts who actually think the Hockey Stick is pretty accurate.  But you would be wrong.  First, even if Steyn loses the lawsuit, the rubes might well buy enough copies of the book to cover any eventual legal bills and judgement.  Second, Steyn will look like a hero to the rubes no matter what, as long as he never lets on that he might be a teensy bit in the wrong.  Third, you never know, some jury might be stupid enough to buy the defense.  And finally, a jury might let Steyn off the hook out of pity, inferring that he doesn’t have the intelligence to be considered culpable for his actions.

Yes, my friends, Mark Steyn is a gamblin’ man, and he has a foolproof system.


Responses

  1. I guess the flaw in this idea would be if any jury worked out that it was actually really a very clever strategy that was aiming to make him look stupid.

    • Ok, so maybe not “foolproof”.

      • Maybe “proof he’s a fool”.

      • Barry, if you want to delete Loco nutbar’s spamming posts feel free to delete them and my responses.

        Leave the fucking moron to do it on the other thread killed by his profligate lunacy and if anyone cares to look at the evidence and come to their own conclusion they can wade through the lot.

        Though for any who do, ACTUALLY read through them all. Don’t just say you did.

        • Well there you have it folks, the climate cultist’s standard operating procedure.

          1. Lie
          2. Demand that your opponents be censored.

          • You’re looking in the mirror again, Loco.

            “Why would I want to censor your posts? They’re the clearest exhibition of deniers insanity!”

            • So let’s get this straight. You invite Bickmore to delete my posts. And then you demand that I explain to you why you would make such a request.

              How the hell should I know! I’m not your psychiatrist.

              Maybe you just need your meds adjusted.

            • Yes, I invite him to. And not go into hissy fits when he doesn’t.And not pretend I didn’t ask him to afterward, unlike yourself.

              If he feels your spamming of this thread is a waste of this resource, then he can feel free to remove my responses too.

            • I also note you have avoided answering the question: “Why would I want to censor your posts? They’re the clearest exhibition of deniers insanity”.

              Stop your usual avoidance tactic and answer the question!

            • Wrong again numbskull!

              I never asked Bickmore to delete any of your comments. I asked Bickmore if he thought he might be legally liable for defamatory comments that you made about Prof. Adler.

              Bickmore responded by saying that he didn’t care if you got sued and he would take down your comments *and apologize* if threatened with legal action. It was Bickmore who brought up the idea of removing your stupid statements, not me.

            • Hey Stupid,

              Your question doesn’t make any sense so how in the hell am I supposed to ‘answer’ it?

              You’re claiming that you’d never want my comments censored because they’re a clear example of “denier insanity”. But you just admitted that you did indeed invite Bickmore to delete my posts.

              So which is it?

              Do you still want my posts deleted or not?

              You’re the dumbest person in the entire world.

            • And you lack even an iota of self awareness, too.

              And back at work again, I see.

            • YOU’RE the one posting during business hours! Is this your job?

            • “YOU’RE the one posting during business hours! Is this your job?”

              I believe Wow is a student. A scatterplot of his activity shows curious blackout hours three days a week for a few hours. Other than that, he’s on pretty much all day; but his summer and winter activity differs suggesting he’s an international traveler, studying overseas but returning to the east coast of the United States for summer vacation. That implies parental affluence and privilege and everything that goes with it. He’s the child of well-to-do eastern liberals and wishes to meet their expectations and approval and, like many his generation, believes the art of insulting others is how you get ahead (which in liberal circles is how you get ahead).

              There really isn’t very much you can do about it but engage him in his weakness — genuine exposition and argumentation. But it will be like playing tennis with nobody on the other side. Not much fun, no challenge to it.

              It is remotely possible that Wow is a brilliant psychologist who is skillfully pretending to be all the above but that’s a lot of work to mislead a dozen readers.

            • To quoque fallacy again. Only concedes the point.

              And, no you don’t post on weekends. I do. And I don’t work weekends.

            • Answer the question! Do you want my posts deleted or not?

            • Answer mine! Why would I want your insane raging spittle-flecked rants removed from public view?

              I have already answered yours: I don’t MIND if they’re deleted, and if deleted, my responses are redundant and therefore would be deleted too.

              Your incurable stupidity keeps you demanding the answer to your inane demands again and again. And if answered, you never acknowledge it, because you don’t WANT the answer, you want to RAGE.

    • “Stupid” is not a defense in the United States. In fact, it is irrelevant anywhere except blogs where one side spends its days insulting the other on the chance that anyone is reading it.

      • Thank you for clarifying that point, Michael. I’m sure you’ve saved many people from taking the “Invincible Ignorance” defense seriously.

        • Although Loco still decided he would take it seriously. After all, that way he can berate you and make you a nasty man.

          It’s his thing.

  2. You also made up quotes by Steyn, and have dreams of stripclubs. Why do they hire perverted liars as profs at BYU these days?

    You never provided sources for the claims you made about what Steyn said in the past, and I tried the best I could but couldn’t find them. Because you apparently made them up. Now you’re just left with insults, coming from your diseased mind. Maybe you should see a therapist or something.

    • Try clicking the links I provided in all previous posts.

      • Yep, I did that, and you didn’t provide references.

        • Please provide an example.

          • I think he’ll have to drop his pants and reach round to get his proof, Barry.

            • Hey “wow”, way to add to the discussion. Did you and Barry spend time together in strip joints? Or are both of your minds in the sewers independently?

            • Conversation requires the intelligence of both parties, dude. Something you’ve not bothered to bring to the table here because it’s ruinous to your desires.

          • Ugh, it took a little while to dig back into the sewage of your posts. In the comments to your “flashdance” filth, you asserted that Steyn “recently said that the Hockey Stick is a ‘climate model’ whose ‘predictions’ have failed.”

            He didn’t say that, and you conveniently didn’t provide a link to support your claim.

            • I said that in the comments section, and I am not as meticulous about documenting things there. I did, however, document that fact in several other posts, including this one:

              https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2014/06/01/inspector-steyn-is-looking-for-a-clue/

              Here’s the quotation:

              “In a post at NATIONAL REVIEW’s website, I mocked Dr. Michael Mann, the celebrated global warm-monger, and his ‘hockey stick,’ the most famous of all the late-Nineties global-warming climate models to which dull, uncooperative 21st-century reality has failed to live up. So he sued.”

              Here’s the original of Steyn’s article.

              http://www.steynonline.com/6017/slappstick-farce

              Believe it or not, I actually care about documenting factual claims, so feel free to ask me for any more sources you can’t find.

            • In fact the word you have in quotes, “predictions” does not exist in the article. Which means you lied about what Steyn said. Are you willing to admit the error?

            • Sure. I even corrected the error and acknowledged your help. Thank you.

              Now, are you willing to admit that my characterization of what Steyn said was accurate, if the quotation marks are removed?

            • So you were wrong in your direct quote. And I was being a bit pedantic by pointing out the flaw. Just like you were in misconstruing what Steyn wrote.

              Note, while you corrected one of your comments you left at least 2 more, and my moniker doesn’t have a space before the ‘dad’.

              Note also, that your revised statement doesn’t accurately summarize his statement. “his ‘hockey stick,’ the most famous of all the late-Nineties global-warming climate models to which dull, uncooperative 21st-century reality has failed to live up” clearly is addressing all of the models not living up to reality. It’s clear in context he simplified “temperature reconstructions, feedback models, climate simulations” etc. to read simply “climate models.” That might not pass in a peer-reviewed journal (or it might, who knows these days) but it’s perfectly reasonable for laypersons.

              We know that the hockey stick is a temperature reconstruction, using the unsound technique of gluing proxy data to thermometer data, eliminating the medieval warming period, etc. And it was scrubbed from the IPCC once the data errors were obvious (it’s so hard to check data for errors since climate scientists are so loathe to keep them around or share them).

              In other words, I believe you’re dishonest about the debate as well as inaccurate in your quote.

              I seem to recall someone once saying “I told them I was but a man, and they must not expect me to be perfect; if they expected perfection from me, I should expect it from them; but if they would bear with my infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, I would likewise bear with their infirmities.” Maybe we all could learn something from that.

              And stay out of the strip clubs.

            • So the answer to your query, Barry, is “No, I REFUSE to acknowledge anything other than YOU’RE WRONG!!!!! And I will now rant to berate you for being against me in any shape or form! RAAAAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!!”.

            • Well, danger dad, (note that I typed your moniker as one word, and autocorrect separated it), I must still disagree with you. Your argument seems to boil down simply to an attempt to rationalize why Steyn couldn’t possibly have meant what he said–i.e., that the HS is a 1990’s climate model to which the subsequent decade failed to conform. Ok, when it was pointed out to him that his characterization of the HS was false, did he admit that he made a mistake?

              You say,

              “We know that the hockey stick is a temperature reconstruction, using the unsound technique of gluing proxy data to thermometer data, eliminating the medieval warming period, etc. And it was scrubbed from the IPCC once the data errors were obvious (it’s so hard to check data for errors since climate scientists are so loathe to keep them around or share them).”

              The original HS graph had a paleotemperature reconstruction and a thermometer record plotted on the same graph, but the different data series were clearly labeled. How is that “unsound”? If I have two data sets that overlap, but were generated by very different techniques, I would ALWAYS want to plot them together to see how they compare. ALWAYS. It would be incredibly stupid not to, especially given that proxy temperatures are always a step or two away from actual temperature measurements, and there may be complicating factors.

              And the various HS graphs did NOT “eliminate the medieval warming period”. It just turned out to be smaller (as a global average) than some people wanted, because the warm periods in different locations around the globe didn’t always occur at the same time.

              Finally, the charge that the IPCC “scrubbed” the HS is nonsensical. I invite you to peruse the latest Working Group I volume of the IPCC report.

              http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf

              Look at Figure 5.7 on page 409, where you will find graphs with a whole bunch of Hockey Stick-shaped temperature reconstructions for the Northern Hemisphere. Almost all of them are within the error bars of the original HS, but now some of them go back 2000 years, instead of a mere 600. So yes, the original HS is not there… because it has been replaced by newer, more complete data sets. (You might also notice that there is a pretty distinct MWP in most of the data sets, and that those nasty IPCC authors are STILL pasting thermometer data in with the proxy data, because that’s what competent scientists do.)

              “In other words, I believe you’re dishonest about the debate as well as inaccurate in your quote.”

              Look at what I just did to your arguments, DD. The only thing you can pin on me is that I accidentally put quotation marks around a word that was actually a paraphrase. And I corrected it. (BTW, if you know where else I made the mistake, I would happily correct those, too.) Meanwhile, it is evident that you have been listening to a bunch of nonsense about the HS, and not bothering to check sources. (You know what I did to find HS graphs in the IPCC Report? I scrolled through the chapter on paleoclimate reconstructions for about 2 minutes. Seriously.)

              And yet, now you’re lecturing ME about how I should give Mark Steyn the benefit of the doubt when he says something flatly untrue. Why should I, when he is going about smearing people’s reputations based on the same kind of nonsense you have been listening to? He accused Mann of deliberately committing a crime for political purposes. Why can’t he just modify the verbiage to something that isn’t legally actionable? Because the pitchfork-wavers he has backing him won’t stand for it.

            • Straining at gnats while swallowing camels.

              I suggest studying the dog that didn’t bark (Sherlock Holmes reference) or the star you cannot see (black hole).

              It is likely that something important is cloaked by the relentless buzz of unimportant things argued.

              Now that the Hockey Stick is all nice and fuzzy with uncertainty, and the ensemble of climate model predictions looks like spaghetti left in the kitchen sink overnight, science is better but not nearly as compelling as when it was the clean and pure Hockey Stick, 97 percent certain!

            • So, Michael, are you agreeing that the IPCC didn’t “scrub” the HS from the report?

            • Barry Bickmore “So, Michael, are you agreeing that the IPCC didn’t “scrub” the HS from the report?”

              What I see is that the hockey stick is now fuzzy with uncertainty clearly denoted. That’s okay. It is also almost meaningless in a scientific way but still good politics to have a thick black line running nearly straight through the middle of the grey area.

              If the MWP was actually regional rather than global, so be it but that’s not what I remember. What I remember was denial of the existence of the MWP. It created dispute and it also created reasonable doubt about the accuracy or veracity or intentions of its proponents.

              I appreciate that some scientists are trying honorably do a nearly impossible job. I say “some” only because I have at hand only a few dozen names at most and I suspect the list is not representative. I have not encountered any doubt from anyone, for instance, that the Vostok ice cores are anything other than portrayed. Keith Briffa’s surveys appear not in doubt; what is challenged is the subset of his survey that was used for the original hockey stick. Some of the proxies go up, some go down. The utility of recent proxy from tree rings seems doubtful hence the splicing of thermometer data and hiding the decline — the decline was in the dendrochronology. The reasons for the decline are many and probably not known; it was better for political reasons to simply hide it rather than try to explain it. Or so it seemed at the time.

              I do not see a massive sinsister plot by MM; what I see is that Marice Strong saw an opportunity to pursue his own goals which only he knows for sure what they are. Several unrelated agenda’s came into alignment for a while taking advantage of each other. Climate science gets billions of dollars suddenly where before I imagine it was, at best, mere millions in aggregate. I mean, when was the first “climatology” degree issued? Within the past decade maybe? It’s a new field brimming with government money.

              In only 20 years climate science, and the IPCC, goes from uncertain human involvement to highly likely or nearly certain — is our technology really that much better? Maybe. Is this what many billions of taxpayer dollars buys? Obviously. But you and I know that you can buy anything for money.

              So I do what I can in a libertarian way; LED illumination, a few solar panels, turning off things I don’t need to use right now, fans are on timers. Even at work at my own expense I installed LED’s above my hutch and turn off the overhead fluorescent lamps. I study the matter carefully and I don’t believe anyone just by hearing words.

            • Yeah, Mike. It’s easy to make a useless and worthless claim since you don’t give a monkeys whether you’re right or not, all you desire is the claim is made.

              “Now that the Hockey Stick is all nice and fuzzy with uncertainty”

              Yeah, honesty isn’t wanted. If they’re honest, you can’t make shit up about how it’s dishonest because it doesn’t have error bars…

              “the ensemble of climate model predictions looks like spaghetti left in the kitchen sink overnight”

              But oddly enough all showing the same increasing trend as reality does. In your world, accurate predictions are a terrible thing, since you can’t do anything other than blather on about spaghetti.

              “as when it was the clean and pure Hockey Stick, 97”

              Oh dear. In this real world, that paper was 1998. But accuracy isn’t something you care about for yourself.

            • Wow, meaning to be more insulting than actually occurred, said: “since you don’t give a monkeys whether you’re right or not”

              Largely correct. I make no climate predictions. I doubt yours of course. Instead, I challenge bad logic, language and argumentation. It’s fun. We won’t even be alive in the year 2100 to find out who was “right”.

              “But oddly enough all showing the same increasing trend as reality does.”

              Incorrect. The predictions are extremely varied and none of them correspond to reality, but then, what is reality? Yours seems to not be the same as mine.

              “In your world, accurate predictions are a terrible thing”

              In my world accurate predictions don’t exist. Not of tomorrow’s weather or the climate next year or 80 years from now.

              “Oh dear. In this real world, that paper was 1998.”

              Yes, I think that is not in dispute.

              “But accuracy isn’t something you care about for yourself.”

              Probably correct. I can be precise but being accurate is not something I can be certain of. Even less so with you of course. I invite you to consider the difference between precision and accuracy. IPCC predictions are precise, but not accurate. Your argumentation is sometimes accurate, but not precise (poorly measured or with no quantifiable measurement).

            • You know, I’m told that one doesn’t have to slavishly do what autocorrect says. Kind of odd for you to leave the error in there after noting it. Whatever. It’s pretty easy to find where you used the same false quote over and over in those comments–most browsers have a “find in page” function.

              You misquoted (and then mischaracterized) Steyn. You demand allowance for imprecision on your part, yet attempt to lambaste others for the same.

              The points Steyn were making were 1) The Climate Models in the 90s have clearly failed based on the last 15 years of data (obviously you disagree with that) and 2) the Hockey Stick is one of those models. A more precise term for the HS is a temperature reconstruction, of course. But it is a model. It’s a model mapping tree rings to temperature. And it was used to bludgeon the public into believing that temperatures have shot up dramatically, so lumping them together is quite reasonable when addressing general readership. Your quibble with his precision is absurd.

              Lastly, I wasn’t lecturing you, I was quoting Joseph Smith. I figured you might have at least heard of him at BYU, but you must be spending Sunday mornings giving tips in one dollar bills. Face it Barry, you’re a liar and a hypocrite.

            • Just because I insulted you Mike doesn’t make you right. Ask a grown up to tell you what “non sequitur” means.

              “Instead, I challenge bad logic, language and argumentation. ”

              No, you *apply* them, Loco.

              “We won’t even be alive in the year 2100 to find out who was “right”.”

              Case in point: proof that you don’t want to pay to clean it up because you believe you’ll be dead before it becomes a problem for you. Colloquially known as “I’m all right, Jack, fuck you”.

              ““But oddly enough all showing the same increasing trend as reality does.”

              Incorrect.”

              Nope, they do. Please visit reality one day and have a look.

              “In my world accurate predictions don’t exist. ”

              Please visit reality one day and check up how wrong you are.

              ““Oh dear. In this real world, that paper was 1998.”

              Yes, I think that is not in dispute. ”

              It was. You claimed it was 1997.

              ““But accuracy isn’t something you care about for yourself.”

              Probably correct. ”

              Proven correct. See your “response” quoted above.

            • Wow argues “It was. You claimed it was 1997.”

              Nope. “97” is the percent of consensus. Curious you did not recognize this number.

            • “You misquoted (and then mischaracterized) Steyn. ”

              No he didn’t, diddy

              “1) The Climate Models in the 90s have clearly failed based on the last 15 years of data ”

              Since they haven’t, this claim is false.

              “the Hockey Stick is one of those models.”

              No, it still isn’t a model.

              “The points Steyn were making were …”

              For someone whose only “point” was “You misquoted him!!!!!” why the hell did you go and make shit up about what Steyn said when he didn’t say what you put down?

            • “Nope. “97” is the percent of consensus.”

              There was nothing to indicate that. Like, for example, the % sign, which would have been somewhat indicative of it being a percentage.

              Then, of course, you had no indication that it was about a different paper than the one the conversation was about, by authors who were not in any way, shape or form Michael Mann.

              So in conclusion, your claim here is made up bollocks.

              Or, in other words, a big fat lie.

          • Oh, and you don’t seem to understand the difference between a database error and a conspiracy. Have you been hanging out with Steven Jones much?

            • So do you admit that I accurately summarized Steyn’s explanation of the Hockey Stick?

            • Haha! Guess what? I was only half serious about Steyn taking down his article and then putting it back up again, and I indicated that I couldn’t be sure of that in my article, in any case. But your goading has caused me to stumble into something that leads me to put more stock in the theory. Steyn’s article is up on his site again, but after I used the Wayback Machine archiving robot to show that his article had, indeed, been down for quite some time, and had magically reappeared just in time for Steyn to claim it was always there, a robots.txt script has magically appeared on Steyn’s site, blocking all access by archiving robots! Hahahaha. What a weasel.

            • “a robots.txt script has magically appeared on Steyn’s site, blocking all access by archiving robots!”

              robots.txt is not a script and it blocks nothing. It is a polite request to crawlers, spiders and indexers to not index whatever directories (folders) are named therein. Actually blocking crawlers is quite a bit more difficult.

              However, that’s just a nit. If the Wayback machine honors robots.txt then it will seem to have disappeared, but only from indexers; conversely it could be as you say; the blog entry in dispute may well have been removed for a while and would seem wise during litigation.

            • Again, conspiracies everywhere. People update their robots.txt all the time. Dude, tell me about the many noses of Osama.

            • Oh, and “robots.txt” is not a script.

            • That’s interesting. What do you call a file of commands that interact with another program? Is there some other technical term?

            • And of course people update their robots.txt all the time. It just happened that he updated his to block the Wayback Machine after I had poked him about how the Wayback Machine had exposed his little ruse. I have no idea whether all that is connected, but it’s fun to tease Steyn about it.

            • A script is executed by an interpreter, a series of commands. The robots.txt file is a request for spiders according to a certain protocol. A request can be ignored, a script command cannot.

              But then I only have about 20 years of professional software development experience (with about 10 years of hobby and education before that). About half that time doing physics simulation rigorously checked against, you know, data.

            • No, a robots.txt file DOES block webcrawlers, you fool. Any webcrawler that wants to keep its writer or user out of prison will read it and obey its instructions.

              Please learn up what you talk about BEFORE making a damn stupid claim.

            • “Wow”, I’ve WRITTEN webcrawlers. I know in excruciating detail about robots.txt. I actually believe an exemption for archive.org should be endorsed by W3C, but you don’t understand the difference between a script and a protocol. I’ve written SH, CSH, BASH, BAT scripts (interpreted), as well as Ruby, Python, and Perl (precompiled).

              robots.txt is a request that is formalized in the protocol. It is not a script.

              So you’re arguing that I should look past the rigid definition of ‘script’ — sure, happy to do that. Glad you can agree with me that Barry was out of line pedantic with his mischaracterization of Steyn’s post.

            • No, dad, you’re talking rubbish.

              You either are knowingly and brazenly lying or you’ve never read anything about web services or web servers.

              Oh, possibly you’re a criminal. There’s that option too.

            • “Wow” you’re a moron. Read any reference to robots.txt (here’s one, for instance: http://www.robotstxt.org/faq.html ). Note the definitions of standard, protocol, etc. precisely what I’ve been saying.

              You have a weird obsession dude. You spammed out over a dozen comments in 10 minutes. I’ve never seen such behavior outside of sock puppets and stalkers. Go outside, get some fresh air. Maybe see if someone’s hand is up your ass.

            • “Read any reference to robots.txt (here’s one, for instance: ”

              I did, diddy.

              And it shows me correct and you hopelessly flailing for anything to support your lies.

  3. Invincible Ignorance, wow, that describes so many in today’s political discourse. Gonna use that one…

    • I can’t be vinced by any of the substandard halfwits who try, den.

      Your attempt being about the best attempt. And being empty of anything substantive, indicates how badly you do generally when trying.

    • Dennis says “Invincible Ignorance, wow, that describes so many in today’s political discourse. Gonna use that one…”

      Hopefully you’ll take the time to learn its meaning.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_%28Catholic_theology%29

      “it is used to refer to the state of persons (such as pagans and infants) who are ignorant of the Christian message because they have not yet had an opportunity to hear it.”

      But of course you can give it any meaning you wish.

      • Michael, using “invincible ignorance” like I did is actually fairly common. They even have a wikipedia entry on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy

        • Barry Bickmore says: Michael, using “invincible ignorance” like I did is actually fairly common. They even have a wikipedia entry on it.

          Indeed, but it has nothing obvious in common with Catholic theology. Many phrases exist to convey the same idea, some perhaps better known.

          I find it a difficult concept to grasp, somewhat similar to atheism in a way. Atheists must define the thing they then say does not exist. So it must be with willfull ignorance or the same idea by any other name. In order to be deliberate or willfull about a thing, one cannot be ignorant of the thing, as otherwise “will” is not part of it.

          An atheist can choose to disbelieve a particular claim, or he may even go out on a limb and pre-emptively disbelieve any future claim about supernatural beings and by that close the door on learning. But this is easily circumvented by telling a story and NOT using the forbidden word.

          So it is with any form of deliberate ignorance. It is a religious response and isn’t nearly as ignorant as one might suppose. It is more akin to atheism, simply stated, “I don’t believe you” and extended to perhaps cover all similar claims pre-emptively.

          Why would it be so? An atheist seems usually to be reacting to the social control mechanism of, say, the Catholic church. He might not even have an opinion about “God” nor can he since God doesn’t exist (for him). And yet, God obvious does exist for him so that he can deny it.

          In the climate world, much the same. A “denier” is almost never denying “climate” (an absurd concept), or even climate change (it changes frequently and in fact never stops changing for more than a few years at a time). What he denies is your right, duty, power or obligation to take away the things he has worked to achieve — house, car, light and heat or whatever. Deniers are nearly always libertarians; do you concur? Warmists are nearly always Democrats or socialists to varying degree. I don’t need your concurrence because it is conspicuously obvious that it is so and surveys have quantified the political division of belief on this topic.

          Many “deniers” are very well informed on the topic of climate change. I study it nearly daily. What is denied is to become a member of the Borg Collective, a drone in a beehive, a worker ant in the United Nations.

          • “Indeed, but it has nothing obvious in common with Catholic theology.”

            You mean apart from how Barry points to the definition that says it is…

            • Wow “You mean apart from how Barry points to the definition that says it is…”

              I am beginning to suspect you might be Barry. Persons in a highly orthodox or rigid social structure sometimes find freedom in being someone else online; what better place than your own blog?

            • Well you’re wrong about that too, Loco.

  4. If Mr. Steyn is so dumb and his defense so inane or inept as to be a joke (ie not any landmark free speech matter), I’m curious as to why the ACLU, Washington Post, NBC News, LA Times and others would file briefs in support. Is that not true?

    And further to that point, has anyone filed in support of M. Mann?

    • Gee, why would news organizations want to be able to print anything they want without fear of a libel suit? Hmmmmm. I’ll have to think about that one for a while, and then get back to you.

      • I see – news organizations, like deniers, are only informed by their corrupt self-interest, whereas noble scientists are wholly objective and reliable reporters of truth, regardless of funding or other such crass mortal agendas.

        Then again, who am I to question the climatological, legal or political claims of someone armed with the mighty and unassailable authority that comes from a) being a BYU geochemist specializing in low temperature reactions and b) being a Republican?

        Like Chomsky arguing outside linguistics, your opinions on matters outside your scientific expertise are no more informed or worthwhile than any other dedicated amateur activist. As such, listing yourself as a “Republican scientist” is a transparently false appeal to authority when it comes to the subjects of libel law or climate change policy. You’re a shriveled gnome snarking from behind a curtain of false gravitas.

        • I didn’t say I blame them for trying to get what is in their self interest. Why wouldn’t they?

        • I see, the news are infallible and above criticism when it comes to denying climate change and science, but science must ALWAYS be at fault when it comes to something you don’t want to know.

          • Wow says “science must ALWAYS be at fault when it comes to something you don’t want to know.”

            Science is not an actor capable of being at fault, but I think I understand your point — the people and the methods of science could be faulty or incomplete, making it possible to ignore those people and methods if I decide they are faulty.

            As such you are doubtless correct and merely stating the obvious.

            • “Science is not an actor capable of being at fault”

              So you’re saying the science is always right? How, then, can you square that with your insistence that the science is wrong???

              Oh, I see. You’re ignoring the English language again, Loco.

            • Wow “So you’re saying the science is always right? How, then, can you square that with your insistence that the science is wrong???”

              Science is neither right nor wrong. Conclusions made by human beings based on scientific methods and measurements can be right or wrong, correct or incorrect, and usually mixtures of correct and incorrect.

            • “Science is neither right nor wrong. ”

              So you haven’t a clue what science is.

              Or English.

              Or, possibly, both.

        • “Like Chomsky arguing outside linguistics, your opinions on matters outside your scientific expertise are no more informed or worthwhile than any other dedicated amateur activist”

          Like Steyn?

          • Wow ssays “Like Steyn?”

            Yes, exactly. It would be improper for Steyn to pronounce directly upon climate, as in making his own predictions (not that he isn’t free to do so; he’s simply not an expert).

            Since he is a journalist he is within his expertise to pronounce upon politics and politically motivated behavior.

            • “It would be improper for Steyn to pronounce directly upon climate”

              Then his pronouncements on climate are wrong.

              How do you square that with your claims insisting he’s right?

              Oh, I get it. You’re doing it again: Ignoring English, Loco.

            • “Since he is a journalist he is within his expertise to pronounce upon politics and politically motivated behavior.”

              BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

              No, that isn’t what he’s doing, though, is it. He’s making up lies.

              You can’t just libel someone and claim they are a criminal “for political reasons”.

            • Wow “You can’t just libel someone and claim they are a criminal for political reasons.”

              Perhaps not in England. It seems fairly common in the United States.

            • So are murders.

              It’s fine to murder people, then? It shouldn’t EVER be prosecuted?

              You’re not, though, here to argue a point. You’re just here to make yourself important and troll.

            • Wow “It’s fine to murder people, then? It shouldn’t EVER be prosecuted?”

              I do not understand “fine”. Murder is a crime and the person murdered presumably wished not to be murdered. Perhaps you were asking whether I personally approve of murder, but if so, that should be your question. “fine” is not by itself a property of murder, it is a word describing the state of contentment of a person. He is fine with something means he is undisturbed by the something, neither approving nor disapproving; merely undisturbed or not involved.

              The word “should” cannot exist by itself; it is always part of a conditional statement although sometimes implied or inferred. IF you wish something, then you SHOULD do this. You will notice I used that form above; “if so, that should be your question”; if not, then that shouldn’t be your question.

              Prosecution happens as a proxy of the murdered person’s wishes, the violation of his life and liberty which he can no longer personally prosecute. Whether this proxy exists is a matter of law and custom in each nation.

              In a theoretical pure libertarian society there would be no third-party prosecution except as a contract made between the murdered person and someone he has appointed to act in his stead if he is killed. Whether the terms of the contract would be honored after the murdered person is dead depends on the personal honor of the contracted person.

              In the United States, an implied contract of exactly that type exists with the judiciary branch and law enforcement acting as the prosecutor on behalf of the murdered person in accordance with the social contracts of the United States. As with honoring the specific contract above, the social contract will be honored, or not, according to the personal honor of the persons who are appointed as proxies for the murdered person (the “prosecutor” specifically).

            • Wow “You’re not, though, here to argue a point. You’re just here to make yourself important and troll.”

              Writing here does not make a person important. It confers no social status, no increase in payroll, no increase in reproductive success. It does help me sharpen my thought processes and exposes me to different ways of understanding things.

              I have argued many points for instance:

              comment-29310 I argue for the possibility of a “gambit”. On topic, too!

              comment-29261 I argue for a more precise specification of Mark’s I.Q.

              comment-29163 — That was trolling. I hope you can learn to distinguish them someday.

              I’ve discussed many topics on this page. How about you? Let’s see your list of two or three meaningful contributions you’ve made here on this page.

            • Murder is a crime and libel is a crime.

              I did not know this had to be pointed out to you, but there we go, it was.

            • Wow “Murder is a crime and libel is a crime.”

              It is interesting to compare international variations on what exactly these are and what defenses exist. In the United States, “truth” is a defense against accusation of libel, but in the Phillippines, it isn’t. This makes it very difficult to prosecute crimes because anything a witness says is nearly certain to be “libel” even when making statements in court.

              Also, in the United States, libel is not a crime. It is a tort which means you can be sued for it, but the police (law enforcement) are involved only in crimes, not torts.

              https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel
              “Libel is a tort governed by State law”

              I see you are still hunting for something on which I have no knowledge whatsoever I’m sure plenty of things exist about which I have no knowledge so keep trying! I will then study it and add to my knowledge.

          • Why are you trying to pretend that libel isn’t against the law?

    • I think Steyn may be using Loco as his counsel, now that actual lawyers have dropped him as mad enough to get them into professional trouble.

  5. “Therefore, the defendants have to act like this is some landmark free speech case to keep the money rolling in”

    Many media organizations and the ACLU have filed an amicus brief on behalf of Steyn that the case is just that

    https://www.rcfp.org/sites/default/files/2014-08-11-competitive-enterprise-institu.pdf

    “If affirmed, the decision below will work a profound chill on expressions of opinion about important scientific and public policy issues “

    • Here’s the answer I gave above.

      “Gee, why would news organizations want to be able to print anything they want without fear of a libel suit? Hmmmmm. I’ll have to think about that one for a while, and then get back to you.”

      As for the ACLU, I tend to agree with them in about 25% of the cases I hear about, with which they are involved. How about you?

      And the idea that this suit is about stifling scientific debate is ludicrous. Lots of people have criticized Mann, and they haven’t been sued. Why? Because they didn’t publicly accuse him of a crime, without so much as an “in my opinion”.

      • “Lots of people have criticized Mann, and they haven’t been sued. Why? Because they didn’t publicly accuse him of a crime, without so much as an “in my opinion”.”

        It may be a gambit. MM is a pawn in his own game. So far all efforts to pry loose his correspondence have failed. Perhaps a lawsuit will do the “trick” by forcing “discovery”.

        A Queen’s Gambit, for instance, seems really stupid unless it wins the game for the person that seemed stupid. It is inherently risky of course.

        Orson Scott Card’s book-turned-movie, Ender’s Game, illustrates that point. In the training area the students execute a gambit that causes all of the students to be paralyzed with the stun guns; but the game is won if they deliver a student to the other side. The costs along the way become irrelevant; achieving a goal is relevant.

        What here is the goal? I suggest that neither you nor I know what goal or goals exist that have set this gambit in motion; that neither you nor I have any reason to be guessing at stupidity based on what we see when it is likely carefully choreographed as to what we are permitted to see.

        What *is* known is worldwide socialism, but whether or to what extent that goal has become enmeshed with global warming is at least partly hidden. It appears that George Soros is funding MM’s defense and that suggests a political alignment. Many suggestions, rather unfounded I suggest, of “oil money” funding “deniers” is also routinely made.

        MM is thus just the “point of a spear” and maybe he didn’t envision it being that way but it seems he likes the attention. Mark Steyn certainly likes the attention; that’s part of what it takes to be a journalist. So we have these two spears pointed at each other and the pointy ends are highly visible but who is holding and pushing the shafts of the spears is less visible.

        • “It may be a gambit. MM is a pawn in his own game.”

          No, it isn’t that, you conspiracy loon.

          “So far all efforts to pry loose his correspondence have failed. Perhaps a lawsuit will do the “trick” by forcing “discovery”.”

          That is what Steyn thought he could do when he started it, but the reality is that this is a lawsuit against Steyn, not an invitation to undertake a fishing expedition.

          Steyn makes a claim.

          He has no proof it was valid.

          He has shown reckless disregard for the facts on the claim.

          He has to prove that he had evidence proving his suspicion was a valid inference.

          He can’t do that from anywhere apart from evidence he already has.

          Steyn’s private files are available for fishing on the idea of actual malice being the driver of Steyn’s lies, however. Which is why the desperate attempts to get this closed down.

          • Wow says “No, it isn’t that, you conspiracy loon…. That is what Steyn thought he could do when he started it”

            Evidently we share the same conspiracy loon!

            • “Evidently we share the same conspiracy loon!”

              Evidently you haven;t a clue how to use English, Loco.

          • Wow, pull your head in for once and be civil. Michael has shown you more respect than you currently deserve.

            • By that, Colon, you think “Making shit up and pretending the English language doesn’t work as it does in real life”?

              No Colon, keep your head up your arse and enjoy the echo chamber.

            • It’s Colin, not colon you little child and an echo chamber is you logging into pro-CAGW sites and pretending to be a man. Time to move out of mummy’s basement and grow up.

            • However, you head is permanently stuck up your arse, hence your true name is Colon.

            • Wow says “hence your true name is Colon”

              You’d be dead without colon. Give it some respect!

            • Pathetic.

            • Yes, Colon, but it’s not stopped you before and won’t stop you doing it again.

              After all you never hear a discouraging word in that echo chamber up your arse. Everyone there agrees with you.

              Which is nice.

    • If that were the case, why isn’t it linked to ACLU’s site?

  6. Mr. Bickmore. The truth always wins. You’ll see.

    • Thanks, Ted. I hope so.

    • Ted says “The truth always wins. You’ll see.”

      No, the truth does not win and you won’t see. Truth cannot be seen since what is seen cannot be fully trusted; it can be disguised, cloaked, counterfeit.

      Truth does not win because truth does not compete. It is not in a race. For any truth an infinite cloud of untruth surrounds it.

      Truth must be sought and is extremely difficult to find. It is infinitely easier to find untruth; since you don’t “find” untruth you make it as needed.

      Truth is found only by those that seek it, and then comes the serious problem of being sure you found it.

      • “No, the truth does not win and you won’t see.”

        I see what you did there.

        Ignored the English language.

  7. “he apparently used to think the Hockey Stick was a climate model that made predictions of the future”

    Essentially everyone used it exactly this way.

    “when your IQ could easily be the losing team’s score in a baseball game?”

    Let’s insult Mark Steyn.

    “Second, Steyn will look like a hero to the rubes no matter what”

    That is the nature of being a follower. You have them too.

    “Third, you never know, some jury might be stupid enough to buy the defense.”

    Let’s insult the jury.

    “(especially if the jury happens to be packed with Catholic Theologians)”

    Let’s insult Catholics.

    Conclusion: Wait for the court case to conclude.

    • Michael, let me explain some things for the benefit of your plodding, humorless mind.

      1. “Essentially everyone” used the Hockey Stick as a climate model to predict the future? Only if we are excluding scientists and others who bothered to look up what the Hockey Stick was before commenting on it.

      2. In fact, I don’t think Steyn is stupid…. Well, at least not THAT stupid. The IQ comment was made about how stupid Steyn was TRYING to look, not how stupid he IS, after all.

      3. If I accept someone as a “leader,” that does not mean I put blind faith in their pronouncements. It can be done, Michael! Try harder!

      4. If you don’t think some juries are stupid, you are unbelievably naive.

      5. I was not insulting Catholics. I was making a joke about “Invincible Ignorance,” which is a perfectly reasonable Catholic theological concept that happens to have a name that can also be used to humorously describe behavior like that shown by Steyn.

    • Steyn IS as dumb as claimed, Mikey. This isn’t an insult. Merely documentation of the facts.

      “Essentially everyone used it exactly this way. ”

      Essentially NOBODY used it that way.

      “That is the nature of being a follower.”

      Only when you’re the leader of a cult, Mikey. With a cult following.

      “Let’s insult the jury. ”

      Never let the knowledge of sarcasm being a rhetorical technique get in the way of a po-faced angry rant, eh, Mike?

      “Let’s insult Catholics. ”

      Of course, the Pope is just a watermelon commie who has been “got at” to toe the political line, when he says “Yup, it’s real, we done fucked it up, people”.

      Defending people as long as you can get mileage white knighting for them, eh, Mike?

      • Wow says in response to Michael 2: “Steyn IS as dumb as claimed”

        Prove it. Identify the claim, quantify it.

        Identify the claim: “His IQ is similar to the losing score of a baseball team.”

        Quantify it: What is a typical score? It could be 200 if the winning team has 201. It could be zero if the winning team has 1.

        I suspect this idea you have of “fact” and truth is about as useless as your grasp of truth and fact in all aspects of your life.

        But so what? What is the POINT of identifying Mark’s I.Q. or yours? Will you suddenly become a skeptic just because I am a skeptic and my I.Q. is higher than yours? Probably not. Your choices are emotional. You choose your team, then after that, you support your team and insult the opponent.

        “Only when you’re the leader of a cult, Mikey. With a cult following.”

        Barry’s comment was to “rubes”. Rubes are not associated with cults per se, although a cult may have some rubes. As it is a relative term it is useless by itself. “Rube” has no meaning except in comparison with “genius”. I am the genius. Guess where that leaves you?
        https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rube

        “Let’s insult the jury.” Never let the knowledge of sarcasm being a rhetorical technique get in the way of a po-faced angry rant, eh, Mike?

        Quite right. Sarcasm is unwise. It seems even more unwise for a professor. It invites cutting and pasting and the result is very much not what you meant while undeniably being what you wrote. There is no question in my mind that Barry Bickmore intended to insult, in advance, the jury that finds for Mark Steyn.

        “Of course, the Pope is just a watermelon commie who has been got at to toe the political line, when he says ‘Yup, it’s real, we done fucked it up, people’.

        That makes even less sense than your other writings. The pope has always been a political position. Does God appoint the pope? No, the college of Cardinals elects him. Germany was known as the “Holy Roman Empire”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire

        I find it amusing when atheists suddenly approve of the Pope because of this. “Welcome to the club… for now.”

        “Defending people as long as you can get mileage white knighting for them, eh, Mike?”

        Yes. I defend truth and honor. Truth can be difficult to uncover but honor, or its absence, is more conspicuous.

        • YOU PROVED IT FOR ME!

          After years of studying the MBH paper, you’ve just stated as of fact that Steyn STILL thought it was a model

          PROVEN.

        • “Wow says in response to Michael 2: “Steyn IS as dumb as claimed”

          Prove it. Identify the claim, quantify it. ”

          That’s rich from someone who started off with:”Straining at gnats while swallowing camels. ” then refuses to support, identify or quantify that claim.

          However, you’ve all managed to prove my claim for it, and this petulant whine has been tried by others here before. The answer is the same.

          After claimed YEARS studying MBH98, Steyn still thinks it’s a model and makes predictions.

          Proven.

          • Wow says “That’s rich from someone who started off with:Straining at gnats while swallowing camels then refuses to support, identify or quantify that claim.”

            Since you haven’t figured it out I will explain. These very lengthy, but nearly trivial arguments are gnats. Accepting other people’s claims at face value without question is the “swallowing camels”. “We are all going to die” is a camel, arguing about whether Steyn actually thinks the hockey stick is a predictive tool is a gnat. We cannot know what Steyn thinks neither does it matter to you, me or anyone other than the judge and jury.

            “However, you’ve all managed to prove my claim for it”

            The assertion to be proved is “Steyn IS as dumb as claimed.”

            To prove this you need a “dumb index” and then you need to show where Steyn is on that index in a way that can be replicated by any competent practitioner of the art of deciding how stupid you are. Since the claim is that his IQ is that of a losing baseball team, and nobody can know what exactly that is, quite frankly the assertion itself is flawed and thus cannot be proven.

            “Proven.”

            Plain to see that “proven” is one of the many words for which you have your own private definition.

            Since IQ is normalized around 100 (when it ought to be “1”) I suggest dividing IQ by 100 then take its reciprocal as a DQ (Dumb Quotient).

            Please declare or state Mr. Stey’s DQ and how you arrived at it.

            • “These very lengthy, but nearly trivial arguments are gnats.”

              Then you are more guilty of it than anyone else here, Loco. You’re arguing about the trivial itself.

              “The assertion to be proved is “Steyn IS as dumb as claimed.””

              And you did it for me, as I said. Was there something you missed reading in your blindness?

              By the way, was that a gnat you were arguing about?

              “quite frankly the assertion itself is flawed and thus cannot be proven.”

              And I see what you did there. Again, ignoring English.

              How dumb ARE you, Loco?

              I didn’t know a negative IQ existed, but hell, you’ve got it.

            • Wow says, in response to Michael 2 (I am puzzled by the references to Loco):

              <"Then you are more guilty of it than anyone else here, Loco. You’re arguing about the trivial itself."

              Of course, but this is a meta-gnat when arguing about gnats as a metaphor for a trivial argument. Arguing about the argument itself is a meta-argument. It is why I participate. I wish these arguments to be improved, on-topic, useful to society and in that manner help shape my opinions on climate change.

              “And I see what you did there. Again, ignoring English.”

              Inasmuch as I am responding to you the fact is self-evident that I am not ignoring it. Unless, of course, for you “ignore” means something else.

              “How dumb ARE you, Loco?”

              You have yet to establish the scale. Once we have established a mutually agreeable scale and replicable methods of investigation we can start to assign DQ’s to various participants and non-participants.

              “I didn’t know a negative IQ existed, but hell, you’ve got it.”

              It would be an imaginary number similar to “i”, the square root of negative 1. Conceptually it is a pretty good idea you have; great in magnitude and in opposition to you.

            • “Then you are more guilty of it than anyone else here, Loco. You’re arguing about the trivial itself.”

              Of course”

              So we’re done. You and me agree that you’re far more guilty than anyone else here.

            • Wow says “So we’re done.”

              Unlikely. You are enjoying this and so am I.

              “You and me agree that you’re far more guilty than anyone else here.”

              In the United States that would be rendered “You and I”.

              Agreement is irrelevant. I may very well be more guilty than anyone else here, but it is not for you, or even me, to know or declare. Only God can declare it.

            • “Wow says, in response to Michael 2 (I am puzzled by the references to Loco):”

              I am puzzled then why you responded to a post to Loco from me that complains about the content being about you.

              You’re Loco. Or you’re nuts, just like Loco. Maybe you’re his weekend shift replacement.

              “Wow says “So we’re done.”

              Unlikely. You are enjoying this and so am I.”

              All you can do is claim what you feel. Not what I feel.

              “Agreement is irrelevant.”

              Then so are you and your posts here.

            • Wow says “So we’re done.”

              I say: “Unlikely. You are enjoying this and so am I.”

              Wow, obviously not done, says: “All you can do is claim what you feel. Not what I feel.”

              So, what do you feel? Why are you still corresponding with me if you do not enjoy it? Are you paid to engage me in this unpleasant task?

            • “Only God can declare it.”

              ROFLMAO!!!!!!

              A *self described libertarian* who believes that they are beholden to the most tyrannical overlord ever produced in life or in fiction (and it IS a fiction, that bible)!

              Shit, I really cannot conceive of anyone really being libertarian and thinking god is real.

              I guess you’re butthurt that your government won’t let you force your religion and your fictional god onto everyone else, therefore hate that government. And that’s the only place where you are libertarian.

              This will also be why you talk a load of shit about science, because every claim you fundies make about your god is shown to be false by science. Ergo it MUST be wrong. Somehow.

              And that’s why you’re against AGW, too. “God won’t let us flood his world. Unless this is the End Of Times, in which case, I get to see everyone who didn’t agree with me be tortured in front of my eyes! So DON’T STOP THE WARMING!!!! I gotta get me some jeebus popcorn!!!”.

            • Wow, in response to Michael 2: “A *self described libertarian* who believes that they are beholden to the most tyrannical overlord ever produced in life or in fiction”

              I am not a “they”. You might be. As to beholden, yes, I am; but not to you.

              “I really cannot conceive of anyone really being libertarian and thinking god is real.”

              The logic of your statement escapes me. Being libertarian simply means I prefer to choose for me while I assume you wish to choose for you. English don’t have much use for liberty but the United States was founded on that principle.

              Thinking god is real simply requires some evidence. If I proclaim that everything that exists is because of god, then all I need do is find something that exists, me for instance, and there’s my proof. Cogito ergo Deus.

              However, I have not made that claim, but it would be logical. In my libertarian opinion God will reveal whatever he chooses to reveal and to whomever he chooses. If you have no knowledge of God then his choice, and yours, is revealed.

              “I guess you’re butthurt that your government won’t let you force your religion and your fictional god onto everyone else”

              I don’t know anyone over the age of 18 that uses the word “butthurt” and I don’t know what it means.

              I am glad that my government does force some of my religion on others, such as “thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt not steal”.

              I agree that governments ought not to be forcing fictional gods onto anyone. Forcing the real God may have some merit but in my opinion God is himself libertarian. You are free to choose and obviously have done so.

              “And that’s the only place where you are libertarian.”

              So you are now suddenly a judge of what is a libertarian and also my judge? I think not.

              “This will also be why you talk a load of shit about science”

              I’m not sure what that means but I haven’t seen a single sentence from you that I would consider scientific.

              “because every claim you fundies make about your god is shown to be false by science.”

              So you say. Pick one of my claims and show it to be false.

              “And that’s why you’re against AGW, too.”

              Everyone here is against anthropogenic global warming.

              “God won’t let us flood his world.”

              You are hardly in a position to do so.

              “Unless this is the End Of Times, in which case, I get to see everyone who didn’t agree with me be tortured in front of my eyes!”

              Maybe. I see that you arrogate to yourself to be a watcher, maybe even a performer, rather than a victim with no eyes to watch what happens to everyone else.

              It is the end times but is gradual, sneaking up on the world.

            • “English don’t have much use for liberty but the United States was founded on that principle.”
              And here I was thinking that slavery continued after it’s founding.
              The genocide inflicted on the country’s original inhabitants did offer them a sort of ‘freedom’ from the constraints of their mortal bodies, however.

            • lenny says “And here I was thinking that slavery continued after it’s founding.”

              That sounds like the first sentence of an interesting story. Perhaps you would finish it someday.

              “The genocide inflicted on the country’s original inhabitants did offer them a sort of freedom from the constraints of their mortal bodies, however.”

              That it did. After many such genocides (the Mound Builders for instance; what happened to the Mount Builders?) my ancestors arrived but I regret have not participated in any genocide of their own or since. It seems my Scandinavian ancestors were more civilized and less war-making than the people already in North America.

            • It’s been done. It’s called the “History of the U.S.A.” a country founded on the freedom of property-owning white protestant male slave-holders.
              I’m sure your Scandinavian ancestors were lovely people, but then they weren’t the ones who took the land they lived on from it’s original inhabitants and founded the country, were they?

            • Lenny says “a country founded on the freedom of property-owning white protestant male slave-holders.”

              I sense you are struggling to make a point. It will probably turn out to be the Standard White Guilt trip popular among New England socialists that is supposed to mean something but y’all seem to never get to the POINT.

              Would someone please make a point out of this?

              I suggest for your consideration to NOT use western cultural norms to judge non-western cultures, in particular the peculiar concept of “original inhabitants” and whatever rights you believe such concept confers.

              Doubtless you are referring to First Nations but they are themselves not “original inhabitants”. What exactly is an original inhabitant? It is someone that occupies land that has never previously had a human inhabitant. He displaces animals of course.

              Is his children an original inhabitant? No. Communists, and to a lesser extent Socialists, denounce any kind of inheritance.

              “1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.”

              https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

              Therefore, no purpose is served citing “original inhabitants” because it means nothing. They don’t exist. They’re dead. Under socialism only the State owns property but even there, “owning property” is a western convention.

              “I’m sure your Scandinavian ancestors were lovely people”

              Some were, some weren’t. I suspect they came to the United States seeking some lovelier people than what they left behind.

              “but then they weren’t the ones who took the land they lived on from it’s original inhabitants and founded the country, were they?”

              I do not understand “werent they were they” questions. Original inhabitants were dead 12,000 years earlier.

              None of my ancestors “founded the country” although they participated in their various civic duties which for one included service in the Revolutionary war (Pennsylvania) and then in the Civil War another fought in the Wisconsin Regulars for the North. So you see, I have no white guilt. One of my ancestors fought to free slaves, although it is unlikely he did it exclusively for that reason and it is bizarre to suppose I have anything to do with slaves — but so what if one of my ancestors DID own slaves? What is that to me? Nothing whatsoever. That was then, this is now. I am responsible for my actions, not yours, not my father’s. My existence in North America is probably an accident. I take the cards dealt me and make the best hand I can out of them (card playing metaphor).

            • No idea where “guilt” entered into it. But, the point was quite simple: Your assertion that the U.S. was ‘founded on the principle of liberty’ is complete nonsense unless you’re simply talking about the liberty of the minority of landed, white Protestant males.
              The concept of original inhabitants used here is equally simple – the people that were there before the U.S. killed or drove them from the land, seizing it for themselves. Acts that are pretty much universally recognized as wrong, despite whatever efforts you might make to twist yourself into a pretzel to make them right. Acts that are also unquestionably incompatible with ‘liberty’.

            • Lenny says (interleaved)

              “No idea where guilt entered into it.”

              It is the purpose of the Revised Narrative of the History of the United States. You don’t need to say it to be instantiated. The purpose of the guilt is to reduce resistance to your subsequent intentions which are partly inspired by the jealous comintern augmented by your own envy or you’d take a closer look at that story you think is true.

              “But, the point was quite simple: Your assertion that the U.S. was ‘founded on the principle of liberty’ is complete nonsense”

              So you say and presumably so you believe. Your mileage obviously varied.

              “unless you’re simply talking about the liberty of the minority of landed, white Protestant males.”

              The documents declaring liberty do not mention land or religion in declaring “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Some doubtless were landed, white and male as if any other class, at that time and at that place, can form a nation. I have a doubt they were all Protestant but to me it is unimportant. It seems important to you.

              “The concept of original inhabitants used here is equally simple – the people that were there before the U.S. killed or drove them from the land, seizing it for themselves.”

              So they aren’t original, merely the then-current tenants, who themselves had killed or driven off their own predecessors, and whose interactions with settlers varied from trade and cooperation to being driven off or doing their own driving-off. You seem not to have a complete picture.

              I say again, what is your point in this narrative? We are on a blog page about Michael Mann and Mark Steyn and you are wrestling with guilt over the bad guys doing bad things to the good guys 200 years ago.

              “Acts that are pretty much universally recognized as wrong, despite whatever efforts you might make to twist yourself into a pretzel to make them right. Acts that are also unquestionably incompatible with liberty.”

              It is your straw-story. Write it any way you like. It does not change my story.

              But let us consider “wrong”. I doubt that you are omniscient and know what is or is not “universal”.

              As I was driving along the highway yesterday looking at farmland, I recognize that 200 years ago it was occupied by a few fur traders and some Shoshone. The Shoshone are still here — not the same ones of course.

              Is it right that land capable of supporting 100,000 people by farming should be held by only 1,000 by hunting? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Yes, will say the many; no, will say the few.

              Ultimately right and wrong are best left to God and what remains is strong versus weak. I suspect that you judge “right” to be what you like and “wrong” is what you do not like. What is your source of moral authority? You probably do not have one but assume your sense is, as you say, “universal”.

            • Lenny, Michael/LocoSock2 is a narcissist troll. They’ll make up any bend in logic to win with absolutely no concern with logic reason or accuracy.

              Facts? Up for debate to this moron.
              Evidence? Disposable if it gets in the way.
              Language? Torture it like it’s a GITMO prisoner until it bends to his will.

              But under no circumstances can ‘merkins like him be at fault.

              Because GAWD is with him!

              Just like they’re with ISIS.

            • Wow “Because GAWD is with him!”

              More English spelling I presume, but yes, you are for once correct.

              “Just like they’re with ISIS.”

              It is unclear who you mean by “they”.

      • I wrote: “as when it was the clean and pure Hockey Stick, 97 percent certain!”

        (snip a couple of exchanges)

        Wow says “There was nothing to indicate that. Like, for example, the % sign, which would have been somewhat indicative of it being a percentage.”

        The word “percent” should have been adequate for the purpose.

  8. Sorry to ruin your delusional article, but the comments from Michael Mann’s colleagues and other scientists rubbishing his work were not out of context.

    • Did you read Greg Laden’s article?

    • Were not out of context????

      Wow!

    • Yeah, right. Every word was there. Of course the words around it (known as “context” in the real world) were missing, but hey, forget that, right?

  9. “In previous posts, your humble correspondent has noted that Mark Steyn and the other defendants in the Mann v. National Review et al. libel case are in a somewhat difficult position.”

    Interesting. Les Machado, an experienced attorney who runs a blog specifically about D.C.’s SLAPP law, attended last year’s oral arguments in front of the D.C. Court of Appeals. Here’s his summary,

    “It is always dangerous to make predictions about outcomes based upon oral argument. With that caveat, it would not surprise me if the Court holds that: (a) there is a right to immediate appeal from the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss; (b) a trial court should apply the “likely to succeed” law from the preliminary injunction context; and (c) in this case, the trial court erred in not granting the anti-SLAPP motions.”

    Mr. Machado is saying that he wouldn’t be surprised if Mann’s case was thrown out.

    What do you think Mr. Machado is getting wrong?

    http://dcslapplaw.com/2014/12/17/reflections-on-the-mann-v-cei-oral-argument/

    I’m not saying that Mr. Machado has the exclusive right to an opinion but I’m curious as to the basis of yours.

    Do you have a good reason for being so sanguine? Or are you just shaking your pom-poms?

    • I am advertising the fact that Steyn is once again playing fast and loose with the facts, not making a serious legal argument.

      • Uh… What question are you answering? The question was why you thought that Steyn was in a “difficult position”.

        The reason I ask is because the Digital Media Law Project has this to say about actual malice,

        “Not surprisingly, this is a very difficult standard for a plaintiff to establish. Indeed, in only a handful of cases over the last decades have plaintiffs been successful in establishing the requisite actual malice to prove defamation.”

        http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence

        And yet you seem to be confident of a Mann victory.

        Why?

        • What I’m really confident of is that Mann’s case is not some frivolous SLAPP suit. Which is why two judges haven’t thrown it out. That said, defamation suits are always tough to win for public figures.

          • If you concede that defamation suits are “always tough to win for public figures” then why do you say that Steyn is in a “difficult position”?

            • Given that it isn’t a frivolous lawsuit (i.e., Mann has some chance of winning), I doubt the defendants would be awarded attorney’s fees, even if they end up winning. They will be out quite a bit of money, and their libel insurance premiums will likely go up. They could have avoided all this just by issuing a retraction/clarification, but they can’t be seen by their supporters to give in to the New World Order, so they have to slog along with the lawsuit.

            • So aren’t you agreeing with Steyn here at least partially? That someone could harass their critics by dragging them through court for years and, in your own words, costing their critics “quite a bit of money”? And all by bringing a suit that you say is “always tough to win for public figures”?

              I’d like to point out that Steyn chose not to join in the latest anti-SLAPP motion, instead asking Judge Weisberg to get his case into court as soon as possible. Mann could’ve dropped his case against CEI/NRO and gone mano-a-mano with Steyn. While potentially less lucrative, Mann would have lowered his own legal fees and finally gotten the chance to repair his supposedly injured reputation in a court of law.

              So, if Mann’s true motivation was his reputation why would he delay his day in court and run up his own bills? Could it be that Mann’s real purpose is to silence his critics?

              Bickmore you’ve accused Steyn in the past of delaying tactics. I think we can call that accusation false.

            • Steyn is in a difficult position because it would be easy to avoid this by retracting the claims before it gets to court. Except he can’t because his only job now depends on his cult following believing him to be “fighting the good fight”, so he can’t back down a millimeter.

              Hard of reading, Loco?

            • “So aren’t you agreeing with Steyn here at least partially? That someone could harass their critics by dragging them through court for years and, in your own words, costing their critics “quite a bit of money”?”

              Are you saying that liars shouldn’t face any consequences for their lies?

            • Locus, of course lawsuits can be used that way. In this case, however, there was a very simple means of dodging a lawsuit–publishing a clarification.

            • Barry Bickmore says “there was a very simple means of dodging a lawsuit–publishing a clarification.”

              Suggesting the lawsuit is desired by both parties to it.

            • Bickmore,

              And who gets to decide what “the clarification” is? If it’s the one who threatens the lawsuit how does that differ from coercion?

            • “Suggesting the lawsuit is desired by both parties to it.”

              No, that, however, shows that you’re living in a fantasy world, Loco.

            • “and who gets to decide what “the clarification” is?”

              Who gets to decide what is public? Who gets to decide which words we can quote to be a quote?

              Who gets to decide that they can just be JAQing off to hide their stupidity?

            • Wow asks “Who gets to decide what is public? Who gets to decide which words we can quote to be a quote?”

              In this instance it will be a jury.

            • “In this instance it will be a jury.”

              So you think you’re a jury now????

              Or are you jaqing off now?

        • It’s there in black and white, Loco.

          Steyn is in a difficult position because it would be easy to avoid this by retracting the claims before it gets to court. Except he can’t because his only job now depends on his cult following believing him to be “fighting the good fight”, so he can’t back down a millimeter.

    • Interesting. According to two of the judges who have seen all the evidence so far:

      “At this stage, the evidence before the Court does not amount to a showing of clear and convincing as to “actual malice,” however there is sufficient evidence to find that further discovery may uncover evidence of “actual malice.”
      Judge Natalia M. Combs Greene

      “Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, a reasonable jury is likely to find in favor of the plaintiff on Count VII against the National Review defendants, and their special motion of those defendants to dismiss Count VII as well as their Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss will also be denied.”
      Judge Frederick H. Weisberg

      Which is rather opposite to your claims, Loco.

    • EINAL but he too attended that hearing. BTW, Steyn was not involved in that nor was he represented, but he too attended. FWIW the lawyers for National Review and CEI had a much harder time than Mann’s representative.

      Frankly no one actually had a cut and dried answer for what the standard should be for granting an anti-SLAPP motion, and this is something the Court of Appeals is going to have to settle if it allows (and it seems it has based on some earlier cases) appeals from Anti-SLAPP cases to go forward. The court kept trying to get a clear statement, asking for comparisons with the standards for other motions to dismiss and frankly got nowhere. They are going to have to do it themselves probably settling for preponderance.

      If anybunny thinks this is an easy case for the court, where is the judgement? The issue is not this case but the flood that follows.

      • “… probably settling for preponderance”.

        What basis do you have for making that statement? That’s not being argumentative, I’m genuinely asking.

        I’ve listened to the oral arguments several times myself and will probably do so again. You’re entitled to your opinion but I would contend that things went very badly for Mann’s attorney when the judge asked how does the plaintiff get to actual malice given that the defense took apart Mann’s exonerations “quite thoroughly” in their reply brief. Williams did not seem to provide an adequate answer prompting the judge to ask the question a second time.

        • What basis? The same as any human who has investigated: the track and history of the situation.

          Did you miss it?

          • BAHAHA!

            You never answered the question because you’re too goddamned stupid.

            Any human who has investigated the track and history of ‘Wow’ has concluded that ‘Wow’ is a useless sack of crap.

            • Your insane laughter does not constitute proof of your claim nutbar.

  10. Bickmore is claiming that the amici briefs are nothing more than media organizations seeking legal protection to want to “…be able to print anything they want without fear of a libel suit.”

    Except that some of the strongest free speech commentary comes from the ACLU et al brief.

    “Furthermore, to the extent the Superior Court credited Mann’s assertion that investigations by the EPA, the National Science Foundation, and Penn State, among other scientific and governmental bodies, “laid to rest” defendants’ questions regarding Mann’s research, Am. Compl. ¶ 24, this too was in error. See also July 19, 2013 Orders at 16 (suggesting that statements were actionable because “Plaintiff’s work has been investigated and substantiated on numerous occasions”). The fact that certain official panels backed Mann’s methodology – facts that were not only disclosed in the challenged publications but in fact formed the basis for them – cannot allow him to silence his critics in a defamation claim. Under the First Amendment, the government is not the final arbiter of truth with the power to foreclose further challenge to its policies.11”

    http://climateaudit.org/2014/08/13/aclu-and-national-media-intervene-in-mann-v-steyn-et-al/

    • Except that Mann isn’t trying to “silence his critics”. If that were true, he would be suing people like Steve McIntyre. But Mann isn’t suing McIntyre, because McI never publicly accused him of deliberately fudging his data… because McI isn’t that stupid, whatever his other faults.

      • Of course Mann is trying to silence his critics. Otherwise he’d be suing Von Storch or Muller.

        Muller has publicly stated that Mann’s work on the Hockey Stick was so egregious that he’ll never read one of Mann’s papers again. Von Storch called the Hockey Stick “something stupid” cooked up to support a political agenda. Given their scientific credentials aren’t their statements more damaging to Mann’s reputation than Steyn’s?

        But of course it’s precisely because Von Storch and Muller are respected global warming believers that causes Mr. Potato-Head to studiously ignore what they have to say. After all if he gets into a public tiff with them he very well can’t portray himself as the noble victim of climate denying “conspiring men” can he?

        So like the classic bully, he looks for what he thinks will be an easy target. It’s starting to look like he may not have picked too wisely.

        • Your comment makes no sense. If he weren’t trying to silence his critics, he’d be suing some other critics?

          Notice also that neither one of the people you mentioned was stupid enough to accuse Mann of deliberate fraud.

    • Yeah, right. And the demands you’ve made to shut people up have been totally different for reasons of, uh,well, for REASONS!!!!!

      Spittle-flecked insanity isn’t a winning technique, Loco.

    • Some of the strongest free speech commentary in ANY case comes from the ACLU. That;s what they do.

      • But according to Bickmore this case has very little to do with free speech. So are you saying that the ACLU is wrong to think otherwise?

        • Where does the ACLU say otherwise?

          We have an AFFILIATE that the poster who propounds their involvement (which is solely to protect their union from any need to be realistic or accurate or face the consequences of their speech) claims is the ACLU, but they aren’t the ACLU.

  11. It’s easy to mistake courage for stupidity – that is the error of this post.

    Steyn’s point is exactly the same as the Supreme Court’s (in New York Times v. Sullivan and many later cases): In this country, you can say whatever you like about a public figure….as long as you believe what you’re saying. Which Steyn manifestly does. And they can’t use libel suits to shut you down…unless they can prove you don’t believe what you said. (i.e., you positively disbelieved it, or else you “in fact, maintained serious doubts” about it…didn’t care if it was true or not). The ACLU supports keeping this standard. Good for them!

    The “easiest” way out is indeed to cringe, grovel, retract, and weasel. But it is not the bravest way and in this case it is not the right way. Steyn’s put his time and money on the line before when free speech was under attack — in the “human rights” tribunals of Canada — and he continues to do so here. We should be grateful.

    What is especially pernicious about Mann’s suit here — and the ACLU understands it well in its amicus brief — is his theory of malice. How do you prove that Steyn didn’t really believe what he wrote? “Easy,” says Mann. “A bunch of government bodies said my work is honest, and Steyn just has to believe them.” It would be a terrible day for free speech indeed if this became accepted doctrine.

    • It would be quite easy for Mann to argue that the defendants “didn’t care if [their accusation] was true or not.” Steyn didn’t even bother to look up what the Hockey Stick was before calling it fraudulent. None of them seem to care to look at all the other studies that have produced essentially the same results. Apparently any mistakes Mann made didn’t affect the results much, so why would he DELIBERATELY fudge his data to essentially no effect? The defendants may well win, but ONLY if they are judged too stupid or belligerent for any of that kind of thing to cross their minds.

      • Steyn didn’t even bother to look up what the Hockey Stick was before calling it fraudulent.

        You are quite mistaken on this point. Steyn had been writing about the hockey stick (and Mann’s work generally) for years before the 2012 post that Mann sued over. In fact, he’d written about it before Climategate, and he certainly wrote about it afterwards. . Here are some links to his earlier columns on the subject.

        Apparently any mistakes Mann made didn’t affect the results much, so why would he DELIBERATELY fudge his data to essentially no effect?

        That’s Mann’s line, but opinion is decidedly divided on that point. And that, of course, is the point. You can take sides in a controversy without being sued into silence. The government does not get to decide, even through “inquiries,” what the right side in the controversy is, and therefore which side must shut up. This is a very good thing, for which we should be grateful.

        • I’m confused, Joseph.

          Do you mean that Steyn didn’t actually say the Hockey Stick is a climate model that is supposed to predict the future, or are you saying that the Hockey Stick REALLY IS a climate model that is supposed to predict the future?

          And are you saying that all those other scientists are part of a giant conspiracy to cover up Mann’s mistakes?

          • “or are you saying that the Hockey Stick REALLY IS a climate model that is supposed to predict the future?”

            It was used as a scare device to show flat climate from the middle ages to 1970-ish and then suddenly take off on a ramp. Extending that ramp was not MM’s job; that was left to the IPCC, but the implication was obvious and intentional (in my opinion).

            It is the way it was used particularly before Congress and other legislatures around the world and it didn’t come with the usual SEC mandated warning “”past performance is not a guarantee of future results.”. In fact, past performance is and was used as an indication of future performance. It clearly has that effect on you and a great many others willing to abandon just about every modern thing on the expectation that the hockey stick blade is going to get a whole lot bigger.

            • Oh, so it isn’t a climate model, and it wasn’t used to predict future climate evolution. People used actual climate models to project likely future climate evolution, and tacked the results onto the end of an empirical estimate of past climate evolution. And some people (like Steyn and you, apparently), can’t tell the difference.

            • And what it was “used” for was to show that something unusual, compared to the last several hundred years, has been happening, lately. What, exactly, is wrong with that?

            • It’s called “evidence”.

            • No it wasn’t Michael.

              Stop making shit up to prop up your pension fund.

          • I’m confused, Joseph. Do you mean that Steyn didn’t actually say the Hockey Stick is a climate model that is supposed to predict the future, or are you saying that the Hockey Stick REALLY IS a climate model that is supposed to predict the future?

            Read the offending post and see the irrelevance of this. Steyn has been sued over the words “fraudulent hockey stick” in this post. Any claim that the hockey stick is a “climate model that is supposed to predict the future” doesn’t enter into it.

            You couldn’t defeat his right to free speech regardless of whether he thought that in 2012, or misuses the word “model,” or any other such thing. The offending ad in New York Times v. Sullivan contained demonstrable factual errors. The Supreme Court conceded that but didn’t care. As long as the Times believed it was printing the truth, it could print it. The fact that they didn’t bother to investigate and learn the details didn’t enter into it. If it’s about a public figure, and you believe it, you can say it. Whether you’re right, whether you use the terms properly, whether did enough investigation, your education in the area is extensive, doesn’t matter…only whether you actually believed what you were saying. And Mann hasn’t a scrap of proof that Steyn didn’t.

            What Steyn said in the offending post, and what he has been saying for years, is that he believes the stick is deceptive. There is no evidence that he doesn’t believe this. Mann doesn’t have such evidence…so he uses this argument: that Steyn has to believe government inquiries that give Mann a clean bill of health. (If you look up Mann’s complaint and read it you will see that this is all he has on the subject of malice. Parsing an older article on the use of the word “model” doesn’t enter into it.)

            • “Steyn has been sued over the words “fraudulent hockey stick” in this post. Any claim that the hockey stick is a “climate model that is supposed to predict the future” doesn’t enter into it. ”

              Yes, however, big problem for you: Steyn has tried to do more than that. I supposed it could be raised as another lawsuit.

              He has also used the “it’s a failed model, therefore it is fraudulent!” as a defence.

              Go look at his court pleadings.

        • “Steyn had been writing about the hockey stick (and Mann’s work generally) for years before the 2012 post that Mann sued over.”

          So he knows it was not a model.

          And he knows that it has been proven correct with only minor differences to detail in a dozen other studies, and his work exonerated in a dozen investigations?

          Therefore his error can only be malice.

          Well done for helping Mann!

      • Barry, you may have to let this current busload from the Asylum know about “Reckless disregard”.

        Not that this will change anything. They’re nutcases after all.

      • Remember, Michael2 is saying as a point of fact Steyn spent many years looking into MBH98. So he definitely looked at it. He can’t claim he didn’t know what it was.

      • “The defendants may well win, but ONLY if they are judged too stupid or belligerent for any of that kind of thing to cross their minds.”

        The defendents (Mark Steyn I presume) will likely win for entirely different reasons. Being stupid is irrelevant in court so far as I know. To the extent that Michael Mann is a public person and Mark Steyn an opinion journalist, he is even more protected in his claims than you are of your repeated accusations of the stupidity of others.

        The apparent purpose of dragging this out is to force MM to cough up documents in discovery that so far have remained carefully hidden. It is obvious that MM wishes to hide more than a decline.

        • “The defendents (Mark Steyn I presume) will likely win for entirely different reasons. ”

          Yeah, their likelihood of winning are about the same as OJ Simpson didn’t murder his wife.

          “To the extent that Michael Mann is a public person and Mark Steyn an opinion journalist,”

          Who doesn’t know or care what the truth is, which is reckless disregard for the truth,. The judge described it as “not pure opinion but statements based on provably false facts”. And that is sufficient for it to be actionable.

          “The apparent purpose of dragging this out is to force MM to cough up documents in discovery that so far have remained carefully hidden.”

          Yes, but apparent based on hope and insistence, just like the god appears to exist, but remains hidden from any view.

          That such a thing doesn’t exist therefore cannot be seen is discarded as unpossible.

          Because hope.

    • “you can say whatever you like about a public figure….”

      No you can’t.

      “as long as you believe what you’re saying. Which Steyn manifestly does.”

      Which he absolutely does NOT.

      • I know quite a bit about “reckless disregard.” Read St. Amant v. Thompson:

        “[The court’s earlier] cases are clear that reckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published, or would have investigated before publishing. There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant, in fact, entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. Publishing with such doubts shows reckless disregard for truth or falsity and demonstrates actual malice.”

        So….if you actually believe it, you can say it. (If it’s about a public figure; the standard for non-public figures is different.)

        • No you don’t Joseph.

          Look at this case.

          “There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant, in fact, entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.”

          Yup, Judge Greene already said this passed.

          And said that there may be evidence found to prove ACTUAL malice, rather than reckless disregard.

  12. Mann has to prove that Steyn knew or strongly suspected that what he was saying was false. So how does Steyn’s continued insistence that he was in fact correct hurt his case?

    Bickmore’s expert legal opinion is that Steyn should grovel and beg for forgiveness. Funny, during oral arguments before the D.C. Court of Appeals one of the judges seemed to think that CEI’s aggressive stance was a serious hurdle for the plaintiff. She noted that with regards to Mann’s assertions of multiple exonerations the defendants “… take them apart in their reply brief quite thoroughly. At least from their perspective.” and asks how the plaintiff gets to “knowing falsity”.

    Clearly the judge thinks that the defendants continuing to argue the correctness of their position is beneficial.

    What does Bickmore think he knows about the law better than the appellate judge?

    [audio src="http://www.climateaudit.info/proceedings/legal/mann%20v%20steyn/Mann%20OA%20Audio%201.mp3" /]

    [audio src="http://www.climateaudit.info/proceedings/legal/mann%20v%20steyn/Mann%20OA%20Audio%202.mp3" /]

    • Ummm… publishing a retraction or correction is THE classic method of dodging a defamation suit.

      And it seems the Appellate judge thinks “Invincible Ignorance” is an appropriate defense, after all, I guess. 😉

      • “And it seems the Appellate judge thinks …”

        Please explain why the judge is wrong.

        • Where did I say the judge is wrong?

          • You’re starting to argue like ‘Wow’. And believe me THAT’s an insult.

            Putting ‘seems’ and ‘thinks” together is almost never complimentary.

            Are you honestly going to claim that your sentence,

            “And it seems the Appellate judge thinks “Invincible Ignorance” is an appropriate defense, after all, I guess.”

            is *not* implying that the judge is making a mistake?

            Really?

            • Yes. My sentence is not implying that the judge is making a mistake. I was expressing amusement that my silly idea might actually have some merit.

            • You’ve claimed the Judge was wrong, Loco.

              Is that something only you’re allowed to do?

            • Your explanation is absurd. You can’t really believe that “Invincible Ignorance” could possibly be a suitable defense in a courtroom. So when you said that the judge “seems” to think that it would be appropriate you were clearly being condescending and suggesting the judge is wrong.

            • Well, given Barry has said explicitly several times he doesn’t think anyone would go for it seriously, I think the problem is between your left and right ear, Loco.

  13. How can Bickmore claim that the defendant’s “didn’t care if their accusation was true or not”. As one of the appellate judges noted the CEI reply brief took apart each of Mann’s supposed exonerations “quite thoroughly”. That doesn’t mean that CEI’s analysis is correct but it certainly shows that they cared.

    • “from their perspective”…. A perspective that doesn’t care that even the investigative reports that didn’t mention Mann did address “hiding the decline” using “Mike’s Nature trick”. Who is Mike?

      So yeah, if the judge thinks the defendants’ arguments are not disingenuous, then the judge is wrong (if we discount the idea that the defendants are intractably stupid, which I’m not ready to do.)

      • Egad! Didn’t we cover this last year? Didn’t ‘rsprung’ and I explain over and over again that what counts in determining “actual malice” is the defendant’s perspective?

        Secondly, this was an appeals hearing. The court is supposed to determine matters of law and not weigh the evidence which is the jury’s responsibility. It will be up to a jury (maybe) to decide if the defendant’s perspective is accurate.

        But the fact that the defendants could put together an articulate explanation of their position, correct or not, does not bode well for the plaintiff.

        • But it might matter if their position is patently disingenuous. Then we shall see how good the Invincible Ignorance defense is. 😉

          • This is typical Bickmore gibberish. If you can make an argument that their position is is “patently disingenuous” then make it!

            Instead you just throw out accusations in a hit and run.

            • He has shown the evidence of his claim.

              Ironic that you complain of “hit and run”, though, Loco nutbar.

        • “Didn’t ‘rsprung’ and I explain over and over again that what counts in determining “actual malice” is the defendant’s perspective?”

          Yes, apparently you never understood why that was a load of tosh, though.

          You test driving Steyn’s Invincible Ignorance for him, Loco?

          • C’mon bigmouth, don’t be shy. If you can prove this is a “load of tosh” then make your argument.

            And this time try to do it without lying over and over again about downloading the court documents from Court Case Online like you did in the last thread.

            Typical nonsense from a worthless turd.

            • I have proven it, multiple times, Loco nutbar.

            • Oh here we go!

              I’ll spare everyone the misery of wading through Wow’s obnoxious avoidance tactics. Here’s how it’ll go.

              I’ll ask Wow to back up his statements.

              Wow will lie and claim to have done so “multiple times”.

              Then Wow will demand my sources. This is a misdirection play as Wow will be hoping that everyone forgets that the source for his legal “analysis” was his own intoxicated imagination.

              Then Wow will play the victim card and whine that I’m harassing him.

              All to avoid the obvious truth that Wow just plain makes stuff up because he’s a stupid fraud and poseur.

            • The facts of the matter are you didn’t even try for six weeks.
              Even if your accusation were correct, it is meaningless.
              Your accusations are false no matter how many times you make them.

            • Answering the claim is not avoiding it, dumbass.

              You spammed the same demand and lies scores of times. I answered dozens of times and I merely am referring you back to my previous answers.

            • I didn’t answer for six weeks because I wanted to give other people a chance to have their say before you destroyed this thread with your stupid avoidance tactics and lying just like you did the previous thread.

              “Even if your accusation were correct, it is meaningless”

              What in the hell is that supposed to mean? Only Wow is dumb enough to write something like that.

              STOP AVOIDING THE DAMN QUESTION!

              Show where you’ve “proven” that my statements about actual malice are incorrect.

              But of course you’ll just keep ranting because you’re a lying little turd.

            • You didn’t try for six weeks because you were busy finding out where a different link you posted could be found that didn’t find the judgements. then complain that this different location did not have the judgements.

              You also had a delay of a week or more in giving a non-blogger “interpretation” of the judges rulings yourself.

            • What in the absolute hell are you babbling about?

              If you’re talking about the Weisberg and Greene rulings, they’re hosted at Mann’s attorney, Williams Lopatto.

              AND I LINKED TO THAT PAGE FOUR MONTHS AGO YOU GODDAMN STUPID MORON!

            • When I answer your ridiculous queries, you do not get to just go “What are you babbling on about”.

              Because I’m answering your ridiculous query.

            • Stop your avoidance tactics.

              You said that my statements regarding actual malice are a “load of tosh”.

              If you have an actual argument then go ahead and make it. Otherwise stop wasting everyone’s time with your “I have proven it, multiple times” nonsense.

            • Same BS whine gets the same answer: I’ve not avoided, I’ve already answered.

      • So you’re claiming that the mere mention of “Mike’s Nature Trick” = exoneration of all of Mann’s work?

        How disingenuous was it for Mann to alter a quote and then submit it to the court?

        http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/

        And of course if the judge doesn’t agree with your perspective she must be wrong because …?

        • No, it is proof that the claims of ignorance is not a valid or supportable defence, Loco.

          • What in the hell are you babbling about? What claim of ignorance? Who’s claiming ignorance as a defense?

            • The words are there, plain as day, Loco.

              Read them. And if you don’t like them, stop pretending that they are confusing to you, just say you don’t like them.

              Be honest for the first time in your life.

            • STOP YOUR AVOIDANCE TACTICS AND ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!

              Who’s claiming ignorance as a defense?

            • I’m not avoiding anything.

            • Stop your avoidance tactics and answer the question.

              Who’s claiming ignorance as a defense?

            • I’ve not avoided. So I can’t stop it, it hasn’t started.

            • Stop your avoidance tactics and answer the question.

              Who is using a “claim of ignorance” as their defense?

        • Oh, by the way, two things

          1) from a group that love the quotemine, deal with the plank on your shoulder before pointing to a possible splinter on anothers;

          2) Clmiatefraudit is written by a moron who make a complete and utter hash of attacking MBH and now peddles lies to keep his audience listening.

  14. Extremely short on evidence here.

    Linking to one of your own blogs as “proof” of setting doesn’t really count. Scratch that, it doesn’t count at all.

    • You’re right. I should have rewritten everything, and included all the links, that I had in that other post. We don’t want to make your clicking finger tired.

    • You’re talking about Steyn, NR and CEI, right?

  15. Bickmore,

    In an encyclical Pope Francis is calling for action on climate change. Is this an example of Catholic Invincible Ignorance you’ve been talking about?

    • In a reply above, I said, “I was not insulting Catholics. I was making a joke about “Invincible Ignorance,” which is a perfectly reasonable Catholic theological concept that happens to have a name that can also be used to humorously describe behavior like that shown by Steyn.”

      • This is utter nonsense. Apparently you did not even read your own link.

        “The term “invincible ignorance” has its roots in Catholic theology, where — as the opposite of the term vincible ignorance — it is used to refer to the state of persons (such as pagans and infants) who are ignorant of the Christian message because they have not yet had an opportunity to hear it.”

        and,

        “When and how the term was taken by logicians to refer to the very different state of persons who pigheadedly refuse to attend to evidence (see Invincible ignorance fallacy) remains unclear, but one of its first uses was in the 1959 book Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument by W. Ward Fearnside and William B. Holther.[2]”

        How in the world can you claim therefore that the second meaning is a “perfectly reasonable Catholic theological concept”? It’s simply grotesque.

        For someone who’s jumping up and down over Steyn’s use of the word “fraudulent” you’re awful sloppy about the words you throw around.

        Thank you to Michael 2 for pointing this out.

        • You are truly dense, Locus.

          • Now you really are sounding like ‘Wow’.

            Your argument style has now condensed to throwing an insult and then …?????

            • If everyone around you is calling you a moron, maybe the problem isn’t everyone else, but that you’re a moron.

            • Wow suggests “If everyone around you is calling you a moron, maybe the problem isn’t everyone else, but that you’re a moron.”

              I can think of no situation where I will ever know what everyone around me is saying about me or anyone else. Spy much?

            • Locus, I started typing a much longer response, but found myself writing a philosophical treatise on humor. Not worth it.

            • “I can think of no situation where I will ever know what everyone around me is saying about me or anyone else”

              Apart from how you whine about how you’re being called a moron by everyone.

              Insanity, much?

          • Well let me take a stab at humor then.

            When looking at the dangers our planet faces from the ravages of climate change I can’t help but think of Mormon magic underwear. This is the “perfectly reasonable” Mormon theological concept of how your choice of drawers can protect you from minor household accidents and heavy caliber machine gun fire. And that’s what the planet needs right now is its own pair of Mormon mighty, tighty whiteys. Perhaps we could start tracking the changes in flora and fauna due to climate change in biological variation databases called Global BVDs for short.

            Oh, what’s that? I’m being messaged that I’m grossly mischaracterizing temple garments which are really just reminders of the covenants of the faithful, no more magical or supernatural than the yarmulke worn in a synagogue. And now people are telling me that I did this intentionally, as an insult! Well, that wounds me, it truly does. Just because I dishonestly and outrageously distorted a Mormon religious practice to make the LDS look like a bunch of superstitious hicks that doesn’t mean that I intended to insult anyone. Golly and Gee Whiz.

            • Problem with that is you’re a miniscule minority of lunatics screaming at everyone else that we should ignore the evidence and just go with conspiracy theories.

              All the while screaming alarmist scare stories of what would happen if we did anything to avoid catastrophe, and more scare stories of black helicopter conspiracies to enslave the world.

              You’re not a reliable witness as to what is a risk in this world.

            • Wow, observing symmetry, says “All the while screaming alarmist scare stories of what would happen if we did {anything, nothing} to avoid catastrophe”

              Yes. Perfectly symmetrical. However, it is a straw-man argument. Skeptics are not screaming anything and have been respectful and mild-mannered. It is the warmists that handwrite hand-wringing letters expressing their fears.

              http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/scientists-reveal-how-they-feel-about-climate-change-in-handwritten-letters-and-photos/story-fn5fsgyc-1227038781108

              Perhaps you could find similar expressions among skeptics. Then again, probably not.

            • “Yes. Perfectly symmetrical.”

              With your usual lack of grasp of the English Language, you misspelt “one-sided”.

            • Wow says “With your usual lack of grasp of the English Language, you misspelt…”

              I bend no knee to the King’s English. In the United States it would be “misspelled”.

              https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/misspelled

              Alternative forms: misspelt (British)

              As I suspected: English.

            • “I bend no knee to the King’s English.”

              You don’t bend knees to read, Loco.

              And misspelt or not (in your parochial opinion), you refuse to understand the English language, preferring to jaq off and pretend erudition.

              Instead of having a point, you fuck about and refuse to go anywhere near one.

  16. Not sure a nobody with a blog is qualified to question the intelligence of others. What exactly have you accomplished again? This blog? LOL! Yes, yes we know, any criticism of Mann is just appealing to the rubes and earning a paycheck from the Koch brothers or something. Seems to me that the proper response by a reputable scientist who is also a public figure to critics saying that they think the scientist’s findings are bogus is to stand by his work and to say he invites scrutiny, brushing it off knowing that his findings are sound. Suing critics is nothing but a very loud admission of guilt.

    • Astrodog, that is exactly what Mann has done. He only sues people who publicly accuse him of deliberately committing crimes.

      • I wonder if dog will go “Oh, fine, then, there’s no problem if he’s doing that. I was misled into thinking this was more villainous than that”.

        I’m betting no.

        • Wow-Again, what crime? Last I heard there is no crime for being a lousy scientist. And so that people here figure this out, accusing a scientist of being wrong, biased, incompetent, even outright dishonest is not an accusation of criminal behavior. And even if it were, if the shoe fits.

          • Ask Wegman.

            He’s a lousy scientist.

            And his plagiarism and fraud are criminal offences.

            “accusing a scientist of being wrong, biased, incompetent, even outright dishonest is not an accusation of criminal behavior. ”

            Yes it is. If you claim fraud then that is a criminal offence you are claiming.

            If you have no evidence of it, then your words are actionable.

            But you haven’t a clue, have you dog.

            Not a frikkin clue.

            • Wow says “Ask Wegman… And his plagiarism and fraud are criminal offences…. If you claim fraud then that is a criminal offence you are claiming. If you have no evidence of it, then your words are actionable.”

              I suppose Wegman ought to thank you for providing him with a cause of action.

            • “I suppose Wegman ought to thank you for providing him with a cause of action.”

              I suppose you’d have a point if he wasn’t actually being investigated and the case proven.

      • What crime was that? He sued people for saying they thought his theory was bogus. That happens in science every day. Heck Mann himself has used that terminology. Even if I said I thought a person’s theory was fraudulent, what crime is implicated? Is saying someone is an incompetent scientist any better than claiming they are dishonest? And claims of bad science very often involve the suggestion of bias. Do you really think that there are no grounds to question Mann or the entire lucrative enterprise of climate science? Questions of objectivity and bias are par for the course. And the outright falsification of data happens often enough that the suggestion is not per se bad faith.(Just the other day a major paper from Columbia Medical School had to be retracted because one of the authors falsified data; science is a human activity after all with all the failings). In this very blog post you suggested that critics of Mann were on the dole. If there is more dole to go around let me know.

        • Steyn said Mann massaged the data for political purposes. This implies an intent to deceive, and it is a crime to produce fraudulent science when funded by a federal grant.

          • This is nonsense. So according to your theory you can’t criticize any government funded scientific work without necessarily accusing the scientist of a crime?

            There’s no middle ground? The scientist is either a saint or a criminal?

            Please. So if Curry or Lindzen produced some work under a government grant that you disagreed with you’d want to be able to criticize it without running the risk of a lawsuit.

            Let me know when you grow up enough to be able to envision the world from someone else’s point of view.

            • You can’t break the law and pretend you’re merely “criticising”.

    • “Yes, yes we know, any criticism of Mann is just appealing to the rubes and earning a paycheck from the Koch brothers or something. ”

      No, we also know that there are a shitton of idiots out there who really don’t like the facts beause it “feels” like it’s telling them they’re doing it wrong, and that is uncomfortable. Not to mention inconvenient.

      However, as pertains to Steyn, the accusation fits with precision.

      • Facts? You means like the fact that a methodology that uses temperature proxies over centuries just may not be all that reliable? Or that the divergence between real temp readings and proxy readings would seem to warrant some reservation? Or the constant readjustment of temp readings would seem to warrant even more? Or predictions that never seem to pan out? Or the amount of money invested in climate change? Or the amount government cheer leading because wouldn’t you know it but this just happens to dovetail nicely with greater government power? Or how about this strange hypersensitivity to criticism? Or labeling anyone with a discouraging word as “deniers” or corrupt? Call me a rube and all, but do you guys really want to go to the mattresses about this? Then who is the rube?

        I say this with all charity, but maybe read a little about the history of science before being roped into to stuff you will be embarrassed to be associated with. Just as many bad scientists as any other profession.

        • “Facts? You means like the fact that a methodology that uses temperature proxies over centuries just may not be all that reliable?”

          And facts like these uncertainties are still taken into account and the conclusions are solid still.

          “Or that the divergence between real temp readings and proxy readings would seem to warrant some reservation?”

          And that this was done and claimed as fraud because that reservation was done by morons who haven’t the first clue about reality or truth.

          “Or the constant readjustment of temp readings would seem to warrant even more? ”

          Or that the data is reduced in trend with the adjustments.

          And that when it’s not adjusted you same morons whine about “Have you checked whether it’s UHI????”, which IS adjusted for.

          And when it isn’t, you same whining assholes scream “GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT!!!!”.

          “Or predictions that never seem to pan out?”

          By which you mean these:

          http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/denier-weirdness-collection-of-alarmist.html

          and these

          http://skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.html

          which prove denier predictions failed 100% of the time whilst the IPCC model ensembles have tracked the temperature trends well, and that if anything the predictions have been underestimated in their speed.

          You’re not cherry picking what you claim to fit a preconcieved desire, are you, Doggie?

          “Or the amount of money invested in climate change?”

          Or that it pales in comparison with the amount invested in fossil fuels.

          “Or the amount government cheer leading…”

          …by that famous watermelon environmentalist George W Bush (and before him Ronald Reagan)?

          “Or how about this strange hypersensitivity to criticism?”

          By deniers who whine and whinge “Holocaust!!!!!”

          What about the desire for truth, which deniers want to avoid at all costs?

          “Or labeling anyone with a discouraging word as “deniers” or corrupt? ”

          How about this strange hypersensitivity to criticism?

          “Then who is the rube? ”

          You.

          “I say this with all charity, but maybe read a little about the history of science”

          You first:

          http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

          I will point out NOTHING in your claims were about science nor predicated on knowing its history.

      • “I think the problem is between your left and right ear, Loco.”

        The entire universe is between my left and my right ear. The number of paths between them is infinite. Perhaps you are more limited in your comprehension.

        • Sorry, you posting twice under different socks, Loco?

          The problem is also in the rest of your body: dumbass from bollocks to bones.

          • Wow “Sorry, you posting twice under different socks, Loco?”

            I use only one handle per blog and I am consistent. It is unsurprising that intelligent people will use a similar style of writing. Where I differ from Loco is that he still seems to be trying to convince you of something.

            “The problem is also in the rest of your body: dumbass from bollocks to bones.”

            Ah, well that’s good then. The problem is no longer global warming.

            • “I use only one handle per blog and I am consistent.”

              Yes, that is exactly the claim of someone using socks to pretend a consensus on their side.

              “The problem is no longer global warming.”

              More proof of your stupidity: only one problem can exist in the world, according to loco lunatic here.

            • Wow says “Yes, that is exactly the claim of someone using socks to pretend a consensus on their side.”

              I sense a bit of conspiracist ideation on your part. I am libertarian. I do not have a “side” and I care little for consensus. I am pleased that you consider Locus and myself to be the same person. He argues very well.

            • “I do not have a “side””

              Yes you do, dipstick.

              “and I care little for consensus.”

              And therefore have nothing to say, since you can only converse with yourself, everyone else being a consensus.

              It really doesn’t surprise me that you identify as libertarian, you freaks are complete morons, unable to grasp even the simplest facts of realities.

              Not so much organised religion, as organised insanity.

            • wow says “since you can only converse with yourself”

              I’m glad we got that sorted out. Hello, self!

            • So you agree that you will only talk to yourself.

              OK.

              Save yourself a lot of time and effort and stop typing out the conversation you’re having with yourself.

              Everybody wins.

            • You have also posted here on this thread as Michael w. And in earlier threads as Michael.

              And Michael 2 now.

              Consistent???

        • Maths fail.

          Neurons in the human brain: 10^15
          Paths between 10^15 sites: 2^10^15

          Fraction of the way to infinity: 0.

          • Wow says: “Maths fail.”

            You are European where the word is plural. Interesting!

            • Yes, over here we do more than one sum.

            • Wow says “over here we do more than one sum.”

              We? How many of you are in there?😉

              Anyway, I am delighted to learn that all of you do more than one sum. My next question would then be whether you do any, some or all of them correctly but I regret I am in no position to verify your answer so for now I’ll accept it as claimed.

          • Wow says “Maths fail.”

            Obviously. Let me help where I can.

            “Neurons in the human brain: 10^15”

            Accepted as an unproven premise…

            “Paths between 10^15 sites: 2^10^15”

            Irrelevant to the first. Neurons are not connected in a full-mesh to all other neurons. I do not know what is typical; several axons and several inhibitors per neuron. I’d suggest 3 * (10^15) as the number of connections, not paths. For any particular neuron to reach any other neuron, it is remotely possible that only one path exists, and when that path is gone, you forget something.

            “Fraction of the way to infinity: 0.”

            I disagree. 1/infinity is not zero. It is infinitely close to zero but not zero itself. The reason is that 1/0 is not infinity. It isn’t anything, it does not exist even as a symbol.

            Some useful discussion on the topic:
            https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081226090442AAlY0sc

            • Yes, Mike, maths fail.

              You know, that class you skipped out on. Where they would have told you how big infinity was.

              “Irrelevant to the first.”

              No, it’s central to the first.

              “Neurons are not connected in a full-mesh to all other neurons.”

              So the number will be lower than what I’d put, since it assumed that it was possible. You’re even more wrong than I said, and you think your response is helpful to you???

              Weird insanity.

              “I’d suggest 3 * (10^15) as the number of connections, not paths.”

              And that connection IS a path, dipshit. Oh, and it’s more than 3 per neuron.

              “Fraction of the way to infinity: 0.”

              I disagree.”

              Yes, morons will. Because they don’t like to be wrong, but think that just claiming it is enough. Same with your denial of reality and climate science.

              ” 1/infinity is not zero.”

              Yes it is.

              “The reason is that 1/0 is not infinity.”

              Yes it is.

            • Wow asserts that 1/0 is infinity rather than “undefined”.

              Well, there you have it. As Spock would say, “Fascinating!”

            • “Wow asserts that 1/0 is infinity rather than “undefined”.”

              Nope, I asserted that maths says it IS infinity.

              And it does.

              YOU are the one who made up the claim I said it was not undefined.

            • Wow says “Nope, I asserted that maths says it [one divided by zero] IS infinity. And it does.”

              Your timestamps suggest you typically write at 0900 UTC/GMT which is likely when you arrive at school somewhere in England. I have provided a link, perhaps you could do likewise where one divided by zero is considered to be infinity (rather than undefined).

            • Buy the way, you’re not relying on a mathematical consensus are you?

              I thought you didn’t believe in them, never partook of them.

              You weren’t lying about that, were you? But that would mean you’re wrong now. So something doesn’t add up.

            • Wow “Buy the way, you’re not relying on a mathematical consensus are you?”

              I do not know how to unambiguously “don’t you do you” questions. In this particular instance, you declared the number of neurons. I have no information to the contrary neither is it relevant. My path went from my left ear out around the world to my right ear. Neurons were not involved.

              “I thought you didn’t believe in them, never partook of them.”

              Inasmuch as I use the word “consensus” and understand, or have an understanding of its meaning, obviously I “believe in them”; they exist.

              As to partaking of them, the existence of a consensus is not by itself a scientific fact beyond the existence of a consensus. Nothing is made true merely by a number of people believing it is true. However, in certain realms of human existence the presence of a consensus is a piece of evidence one can use in determining the truth of a thing.

              “You weren’t lying about that, were you?”

              I do not know how to satisfactorily answer “werent you were you” questions.

              “But that would mean you’re wrong now. So something doesn’t add up.”

              It is always possible for me to be wrong now, then, last week or next year. This goes for you as well.

            • Wow, I should be more precise in one of my claims.

              A consensus can be useful in deciding on probabilities when making personal choices. If the consensus is that the risk of avalanche is very high today, I will likely choose not to go snowboarding. The truth of it will not probably be knowable with certainty; as the risk itself is just an estimate, but it is still useful to me to decide my own behavior.

              In the realm of climate science, the consensus is not about the science — the data and so forth — the consensus is to the perceived risks and consequences of global warming. People reasonably skilled in climate science believe certain risks and consequences exist. To me it is evidence I use in decide what, if anything, I am going to do. However, to a “consensoid”, the fact of a consensus on anything is compelling to behavior. Such persons will buy clothing, cellphones and cosmetics with no other thought process but it is what “everyone is doing”.

              That is the difference. Libertarians choose their behavior based on available evidence, and the existence of consensus is one piece of evidence.

              It is a lot of work to be libertarian. Where a consensoid abandons personal responsibility to the hive queen, the libertarian must be well informed constantly making his own choices. A poorly informed libertarian is chaos.

            • 0/0 is undefined, Loco.

            • “which is likely when you arrive at school somewhere in England. ”

              Which would mean I’m more educated than you are, Loco.

              “In this particular instance, you declared the number of neurons.”

              Sorry? You’re claiming that your link “proving” 1/0 is not infinity was about neurons now????

              I guess you don’t go to school. Just stay at home and let your fundie parents indoctrinate you and call it “education”.

              “As to partaking of them, the existence of a consensus is not by itself a scientific fact ”

              The second half of the sentence has nothing to do with the first part. English is not your first language, is it, Loco?

              And you claimed that there is no such thing as scientific consensus. Now you claim that there is one???

              By the way, the existence of facts will make a consensus, dearie.

              “If the consensus is that the risk of avalanche is very high today, I will likely choose not to go snowboarding.”

              And if there’s a consensus that there’s snow up there???

              What if there’s a consensus that it is raining now? Do you still “believe” that nobody can know if it’s a fact that it is raining now, or that there is snow up there now, merely because there’s a consensus on it?

              Or are you completely braindead, and there’s fewer neural connections in your brain that will activate than you’d find in the common jellyfish?

              Oh, since you have such problems with them, I’ll stop with rhetorical questions and just state the plain facts. Don’t whine: you demanded I stop with the rhetorical questions, so it’s your fault if you don’t like the alternatives.

            • Wow says (in response to “which is likely when you arrive at school somewhere in England.”) “Which would mean I’m more educated than you are, Loco.”

              So, you are English and in school. Were you Scotch, Irish or Welsh your correction would have been swift.

              Your arrogance is youthful. “Butthurt” is youthful. You want to participate in an adult world but the only way you can is by slinging insults, a thing you’ve been practicing on Facebook and Deviant Art for the past ten years, more or less.

              I appreciate your passion and commitment. I predict you will do well in life.

  17. Well I see that the rulings of Greene and Weisberg have made a reappearance as proof that Mann’s case is “likely to succeed” once it gets to trial. But as with just about every other warmist belief this, on closer inspection, turns out to be myth.

    http://www.williamslopatto.com/uploads/2/5/8/4/25843913/1222014-01.22_order_denying_motions_to_dismiss_amended_complaint.pdf

    Greene’s and Weisberg’s rulings were made in response to anti-SLAPP ( Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation ) motions brought by the defendants. SLAPP refers to lawsuits brought by well-heeled yet thin-skinned individuals/entities who seek to intimidate their critics on issues of public interest. The suits are not expected to win in court but instead to drive up the legal costs of the defendants, in essence making the process the punishment. To prevent such abuse a number of states and D.C have enacted anti-SLAPP laws that seek to short-circuit frivolous lawsuits before discovery and trial. Defendants move to have the lawsuit dismissed and a judge applies a legal test to determine if the suit *could* win. This is the important point. The judge is not making a prediction or handicapping the odds of the plaintiff winning for the amusement of interested onlookers. The question before the court during a SLAPP motions is whether the plaintiff has any chance of prevailing. Different jurisdictions have different standards for dismissing a case during a SLAPP hearing.

    So let’s look at Judge Weisberg’s ruling first. Any intelligent person would have noticed the ruling includes the qualifier.

    “viewing the evidence in light most favorable to the plaintiff”

    This is legal terminology that indicates the judge is applying a summary judgement standard which is a very low standard. Note that,

    “Summary judgment does not mean that a judge decides which side would prevail at trial, nor does a judge determine the credibility of witnesses.”

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Summary+Judgment

    So Weisberg was *not* saying that Mann was likely to win a verdict, but instead that his case was not so laughably weak that it should not even go to trial.

    As usual the warmists jumped to the conclusion they wanted to hear and never took the time to determine if they knew what they were talking about.

    Mann’s own attorney argued in a brief from June 11, 2013 that “likelihood to succeed” requires only that the plaintiff’s case exhibit “minimal merit”. What’s more the brief argued for the low summary judgement standard to be used in dismissing the defendant’s anti-SLAPP suit.

    http://dcslapplaw.com/files/2013/07/Mann_Payne.pdf

    Judge Greene’s ruling is also problematic in that she notes that Mann had only “slight” evidence of actual malice. She allowed the case to move forward on the chance that sufficient evidence of actual malice *might* be discovered. That’s obviously not very good news for the Mann camp. The judge is saying that your team is losing but perhaps you’ll pull it out in the fourth quarter.

    http://www.williamslopatto.com/uploads/2/5/8/4/25843913/7192013_order_denying_nri_motions_to_dismiss.pdf

    http://www.williamslopatto.com/uploads/2/5/8/4/25843913/7192013cei_motion_to_dismiss_denied.pdf

    Therefore Bickmore and all the others who believed that the two rulings were a stirring endorsement of the strength of Mann’s case simply had no idea of what they were talking about. Yet again.

    • For what it’s worth, I think you are correct about the two judgements not necessarily being stirring endorsements of Mann’s case. I do, however, believe that they are good indicators that this is not some frivolous SLAPP suit, as the defendants have tried to portray it.

      • And what happens if the D.C. Court of Appeals SLAPPs the case out of court? Will you concede that it was frivolous or will you try and move the goalposts?

        • That attempt has been tried multiple times and smacked down three times by the judges involved.

          Yet you have refused to admit this EVER.

          • Wrong again numbskull!

            The defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion that Judge Greene denied. Greene’s decision was tossed by the D.C. Court of Appeals over a procedural error and both sides had to start over under Judge Weisberg.

            Judge Weisberg also denied the defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion but in doing so essentially relied on Judge Greene’s original decision. Weisberg’s order was a very paltry six pages long as compared to Greene’s twenty seven page ruling. In effect Weisberg’s ruling wasn’t so much a separate decision as it was a rubber-stamp of the previous one.

            NRO and CEI appealed the decision claiming that the legal standard used to dismiss the anti-SLAPP motion was too low to comport with the intention of D.C.’s SLAPP law. Interestingly D.C. agreed with the defendants and filed an amicus brief in support of their appeal.

            So the defendant’s appeal has really only been denied once ( since legally Judge Greene’s ruling was rendered moot ) and it’s currently under review by the D.C. Court of Appeals.

          • Nope, it happened. You just read denier blogrolls that interpreted in a way that was comforting to your insanity.

            • “it happened”

              What happened that I didn’t mention?

              Are you congenitally incapable of writing a coherent sentence?

            • Lots of things you didn’t mention happened.

              Care to clarify what you want to know?

            • If you actually have something to say about the timeline of this case then just SAY IT!

              Otherwise stop wasting everyone’s time with your stupid and petulant avoidance tactics.

            • Just like to say I didn’t need your permission.

            • Then what are you waiting for? If you have an argument to make then make it!

            • Feel free to tell me I can feel free to say it. Go ahead.

            • Stop stalling and make your argument. Oh, that’s right you can’t because you don’t actually have an argument.

            • Already answered you.

    • You mean the court where the claims of CEI, Steyn and NR are all shown to be based on provably false facts?

      We’re supposed to draw a different conclusion from the case than the judges themselves drew?

      Why?

      • Wow says “…all shown to be based on provably false facts?”

        Your definition of fact differs considerably from mine. To me, a fact cannot be provably false. Perhaps you meant claims but doubtless you are correct in whatever is your native language.

        • “Wow says “…all shown to be based on provably false facts?”

          Your definition of fact differs considerably from mine. ”

          That wasn’t my definition. It was the one from the judge of the case, loco.

          “To me, a fact cannot be provably false.”

          Yes, that would be a problem with your insanity driving you, Loco.

    • “Judge Greene’s ruling is also problematic in that she notes that Mann had only “slight” evidence”

      Why was your only quote a single word, Loco?

      Is it because you don’t know what she said, therefore rely on denier blogs telling you what she “said”?

      • I provided links to Judge Greene’s rulings months ago in the previous thread. You know the links you refused to accept because they weren’t provided directly by the court.

        After which you began your epic lying spree about downloading the documents from Court Case Online.

        • Pretending that you had read them when in fact you had only read the denier blogrolls you had given FAR MORE links to when asked for proof of your wild claims.

          The judges rulings were entirely different from your claims about them.

          Because you’d read denier blogrolls, not the judge court case.

          PS I too showed a link to the court itself where you can get the judges rulings from.

          • Just more lying from Wow. I’ve already showed in the Merchants of Doubt thread how the climate cultists never really understood what the Judge meant by saying that Mann was likely to prevail at trial. I understand this stuff far better than Wow does. Scratch that. EVERYONE understands this stuff better than Wow.

            And why don’t you show that link to the court where you can download the documents? Because the court only provides an electronic docket. You can see the document titles as they were filed but there’s no way to download them.

            You’re a pathological liar.

            • No you only showed how insane you are.

              And doing it again on this thread.

              Because you’re nuts.

            • For the second time.

              Why don’t you show that link to the court where you can download the documents? Because the court only provides an electronic docket. You can see the document titles as they were filed but there’s no way to download them.

              You’re a pathological liar.

            • I refer you to my previous answer.

            • It’s a simple question. Dozens of times in the previous thread you posted a link that you *claimed* would allow the downloading of court documents.

              Yet you refuse to do the same in this thread.

              Because your claim is quite simply a lie.

  18. I’d like to comment on the reaction of some observers to last year’s oral arguments in front of the D.C. Court of Appeals.

    Steve McIntyre thought that the defendants did kinda OK but had some pointed criticism.

    Steyn felt that defense scored some good points but nonetheless predicted a Mann victory in this SLAPP motion.

    Les Machado, who as far as I can tell does not have a dog in the climate fight but instead is trying to build a practice litigating SLAPP suits, opined that the defense may have come out ahead.

    And the outlier was Josh Halpern who said that arguments were a blow-out win for Mann. ( For those of you who don’t know Eli Rabett is Halpern’s alter-ego. Halpern likes to write in the third person while imagining himself as a giant rabbit. )

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/29/saturday-silliness-the-only-thing-more-ridiculous-than-eli-rabett-the-required-usda-rabbit-disaster-plan/

    Makes one wonder who is being objective. Those awful climate deniers and a legal observer or the species-confused warmist?

    • Well, it’s definitely not you being objective, Loco.

      Despite NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of it, you insist that Mann is a liar.

      And Tony only gets money as long as he screams insanity that denier idiots will lap up. So not him, either.

      The world’s science institutes are, though. And they agree that the science is solid.

      • You’re lying again. I’ve already shown you how Climate Audit caught Mann lying in his submitted court documents.

        ——————-

        From climateaudit,

        http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/

        The Muir Russell Report

        In their summary, the Muir Russell report explicitly stated that its remit related to the behavior of CRU scientists, not scientists in the United States or even at other UK institutions:

        6. The allegations relate to aspects of the behaviour of the CRU scientists, such as their handling and release of data, their approach to peer review, and their role in the public presentation of results…

        The Team wishes to focus on the honesty, rigour and openness with which CRU handled its data…

        The Muir Russell panel did not interview Mann, a minimum prerequisite in any investigation of Mann. (Not that their investigation of CRU scientists was searching or even adequate, but they at least interviewed Jones and Briffa.) Nowhere is there any Finding in the Muir Russell report that refers to Mann, though there are many references to “CRU scientists.” Consistent with their limited remit, their signature finding is explicitly and unequivocally limited to “CRU scientists” and made no mention of Mann:

        8. The Review examines the honesty, rigour and openness with which the CRU scientists have acted… On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.

        Re-read the exact language of this finding carefully as I’ll refer to it later.

        Mann’s Complaint
        As discussed in connection with the Oxburgh panel (see here), Mann claimed that he had been “investigated” by numerous investigations, including the Muir Russell inquiry, and that “all” of these investigations, including Muir Russell, had “exonerated” him on wide-ranging counts, “scientific misconduct”, “fraud”, “academic fraud”, “data falsification”, “statistical manipulation”, “manipulation of data” and even found that his work was “properly conducted and fairly presented”.

        Mann’s Reply Memorandum contains a section entitled “Dr Mann Is Exonerated”, in which the two East Anglia investigations (Oxburgh and Muir Russell) are discussed in support of the assertion that Mann had been “exonerated” by “all” of these numerous investigations.

        National Review and CEI Motions to Dismiss

        The National Review memorandum in support of their motion to Dismiss (December 2012) clearly stated (page 9) that the Muir Russell report did not “offer any opinion on Mann”:

        Nor did it offer any opinion on Mann, who was not a part of CRU, but merely a collaborator with some of its scientists.

        The CEI memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss (p 12) more generally observed that Mann had failed to provide supporting quotations from seven of the nine reports (including Muir Russell.)

        So too is the assertion that those reports’ contents contradict any of the challenged statements made by the CEI Defendants. Compl. ¶¶24-25. Indeed, the Complaint fails to quote a single word or cite a single page from seven of those reports, and the brief excerpts of two that it does set forth do not actually contradict any of the CEI Defendants’ challenged statements.

        Mann Reply Memorandum

        In the Introduction of his Reply Memorandum, Mann acknowledged that both CEI and National Review had contested Mann’s claim to have been exonerated by the Muir Russell and other listed investigations with bluster that these (true) assertions were nothing more than attempts to “obfuscate and misrepresent”:

        While Defendants do address some of the inquiries [a list including Muir Russell] into these issues, including those undertaken by Pennsylvania State University, the National Science Foundation, and the University of East Anglia, they obfuscate and misrepresent the findings of those panels, in an effort to suggest (erroneously) that those inquiries did not exonerate Dr. Mann of fraud or misconduct. See CEI Anti-SLAPP Mem. at 14-17; NRO Mem. at 8- 11. 9 [Reply to CEI, page 3, fn 5]

        {Feb 27, 2010): That Mann himself knew that the Muir Russell report was limited to “CRU scientists” and did not include himself is demonstrated by his contemporary comment at realclimate (h/t Barry Woods):

        “The main issue is that they conclude that the rigour and honesty of the CRU scientists is not in doubt. For anyone who knows Phil Jones and his colleagues this comes as no surprise, and we are very pleased to have this proclaimed so vigorously.” Mike & Gavin

        Later in the Reply Memorandum (page 19), Mann purported to provide the requested supporting quotation from the Muir Russell report showing that the supposed exoneration was not limited to “CRU scientists”, but extended more generally to “the scientists”, including Mann himself:

        Three months later, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report, prepared under the oversight of Sir Muir Russell. The report examined whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt. [my bold][38 – Muir Russell Report]”

        But watch carefully here. The exact phrase within quotation marks doesn’t actually occur in the Muir Russell report: I noticed this because of the American spelling “rigor” rather than the English spelling “rigour” which would have resulted from a cut-and-paste. The actual quotation from the Muir Russell report (shown below) clearly limits its findings to CRU scientists,as National Review and CEI had asserted and contradicting both Mann’s complaint and blustery reply:

        On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.

        Had Mann’s Reply Memorandum provided the actual quotation, it would have confirmed National Review’s and CEI’s claim that the Muir Russell had confined its findings to “CRU scientists”, but not in the quotation as altered by Mann and/or his lawyers.

        • Nope, climatefraudit (run by a hopeless incompetent) is lying.

          (the proof of this is that I have caught him being incompetent and lying: see proof the above sentence)

          You just want to believe his lies so pretend they are true.

          They are not.

          • You really are stupid. Your “proof” that McIntyre is “lying” is your previous sentence????

            What in the hell is wrong with you?

            • Yup. Just as solid a proof as your claim he did: McIntyre said so.

            • Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !

              McIntyre makes his case that Mann provided an altered quote in a court document.

              And your only response is to stick your fingers in your ears, stamp your feet and yell “I don’t wanna believe it, I don’t wanna believe it, I don’t wanna believe it”

              You’re utterly worthless.

            • Nope, McI makes a claim based on evidence he made up.

              You DO know what lying is, don’t you, Loco?

            • That’s a pretty serious accusation, claiming that McIntyre “made up” evidence.

              Back it up then. Show what McIntyre “made up”.

              If I didn’t know what lying was, all I would have to do is read your comments for the world’s best tutorial.

            • Yes, it is a serious allegation.

              It’s also true.

            • If you have an argument to make, then present it. All you ever do is constantly repeat the same allegation.

              Stop wasting everyone’s time with your stupid avoidance tactics.

            • See previous answer.

              This used to be tiresome before you proved you weren’t bothering to read the answers.

            • Just more avoidance tactics from Wow. All he does is run his big mouth and make wild accusations. When asked for evidence he just claims that he’s “already answered” and then tries to run away.

              Show some evidence that McIntyre “made up” the evidence that Mann provided a doctored quote in a court document.

            • See previous answer to same previous repeated comment.

            • Show your evidence that McIntyre “made up” the evidence of Mann providing a doctored quote to the court.

              Oh that’s right you can’t. Because YOU’RE the one making stuff up.

            • The evidence he gave is not proof of his claim, retard.

        • He, loco, if you or that incompetent blowhard McI want to read the Muir report, then do so. It’s pretty clear that the report clears the MBH98/99 reconstruction because of section 1.3.2 (notably point 23) and the entire Chapter 7.

          The CRU worked on a reconstruction, and that reconstruction was part of Ch6 in IPCC FAR, and Muir found NO DECEPTION OR FRAUD AT ALL in the reconstructions WHATSOEVER. They also concluded that after two days work FROM SCRATCH, with no climate knowledge or prior experience of climate studies, they could recreate code that reconstructed the information shown.

          IOW M&M were either incompetent or negligent when they demanded the code and data for paleo reconstruction, and had no need to demand it of Mann, Jones, Briffa or any other.

          And lastly the report found that the hockey stick was robust and valid when done by CRU, and since it ALSO shows the same “hockey stick” shape as MBH98/99, that reconstruction is ALSO valid.

          The quote may be out of context that shows it was specifically about CRU, but that context is out of context that shows it was also specifically showing that the hockey stick shape is valid. Which, being the result from Mann’s work too, is thereby exonerated as valid and robust scientific conclusion.

          • And what does any of this have to do with Mann FALSIFYING a quote in his court documents?

            Mann supporters have come up with the excuse that the Muir investigation must also by extension cover Mann. If that’s the explanation that Mann wants to present then why didn’t he do so? Instead he chose to doctor a quote and file it with the court.

            And let’s not forget that the Oxburgh report made sure to draw a distinction between the CRU scientists and Mr. Potato-Head.

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7589897/Hockey-stick-graph-was-exaggerated.html

            In short a number of the inquiries that Mann claims “exonerated” him were specifically aimed at other scientists. His attempts to claim otherwise show clear intent on misleading the court.

            Pretty ironic. In an attempt to prove how trustworthy he is, Mann ends up altering quotes.

            • Nothing, because he didn’t falsify a quote.

            • McIntyre clearly shows that Mann did falsify a quote.

              This is just invincible ignorance on your part.

            • McI did no such thing. He’s incompetent and lying and paid for it. His livelihood depends on it.

            • Show some evidence you lying sack of monkey crap.

            • His paper with McKitrick demonstrates his incompetence, nutbar.

          • *None* of your “analysis” changes the fact that McIntyre caught Mann falsifying a quote in a court document.

            You claimed that McIntyre just made that up. Still waiting on your “proof” of that allegation.

            • The quote wasn’t falsified. He didn’t lie to the court.

              Unlike many deniers.

            • Typical Wow avoidance tactic.

              Just repeat the same accusation over and over and over again with ZERO evidence to back it up.

            • Says someone spamming the same repeated accusation time and time again…

              It’s all projection with you moron deniers.

            • Show some evidence to back up your claim. Oh that’s right you can’t because you just made it all up.

              Lying sack of crap!

            • Your spamming demands to answer your repeated queries is the evidence, retard.

    • “Les Machado, who as far as I can tell does not have a dog in the climate fight”

      Therefore has nothing to say on the science.

      • He’s talking about the *law* not the science.

        You really are the stupidest person on the planet.

        • The judges will know a hell of a lot more about this case than some random blog lawyer will, so if the claims are about the legal underpinning, he’s going to be wrong.

          But the claims are about the science, and if you don’t know the science, then you cannot opine about the accuracy of the slanderous and illegal claims on the science. And if the science claims are lies, then any argument about the merit of the case is defunct and void.

          • Stupid.

            I’ve already explained that Machado is not some “random blog lawyer”. He’s building a practice dealing specifically with SLAPP cases. He’s been following every SLAPP case in the D.C. court system.

            The Court of Appeals only deal with the SLAPP cases when there’s an appeal.

            You just don’t want to believe Machado because he felt that the defense did fairly well during oral arguments.

            And your second paragraph is just as stupid. If you’re saying the lawyers are scientifically unqualified to comment on the case how are jurors supposed to make their judgment?

            • And since SLAPP isn’t insisting you cannot sue anyone, he needs to know the case is unsupported. For which he needs to know the science.

              He doesn’t and doesn’t even care.

              He’s talking bollocks, and you just love to swallow them.

              Your adoration of the idea doesn’t make it true, dumbass.

            • This is the stupid mentality of the climate cultists. Tell these animals something they don’t want to hear and they start foaming at the mouth.

              They wail that non-scientists don’t have the right to criticize their climate heroes but the cultists of course can throw their bile at anyone they like.

              As a consequence you have the bizarre situation where this utterly worthless excuse for a human being, Wow, screams that a practicing lawyer is “talking bollocks”.

              HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

              Wow is so mentally impaired that he thinks that National Review and CEI are sometimes the “plaintiffs” in this case.

              HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

              Wow is so stupid he claims that judges assign prosecutors to libel cases!

              HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

              Wow is a pathological liar who dozens of times claimed to have downloaded court rulings from a website that doesn’t provide document downloads.

              HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

              C’mon you disgusting little creep! Don’t just make an accusations and then run away!

              Show your “proof” that Machado was “talking bollocks” simply because he thought the defense did OK during oral arguments.

            • I’d ask you not to be insane, but that is not possible. You don’t think you are nuts, clearly.

              But your insane rants contain nothing of reality only your belief in what ought to be true.

            • Stop your sniveling avoidance tactics. You claimed that Machado was “talking bollocks”.

              So c’mon bigmouth! Back up your claim you little fraud!

            • I refer you to my previous answers to this oft-repeated claim.

            • You’re simply lying as everyone can plainly see.

              You claimed that Machado was “talking bollocks” and since then provided absolutely nothing to support that accusation.

              If you have an argument to make then make it. Otherwise stop wasting everyone’s time with your avoidance tactics.

  19. Loco of a court judge: “Their claims are problematic”

    To Loco’s insanity driven hatred of Mann.

    • The phrase “Their claims are problematic” appears ONLY in your comment.

      So how can you present it as quote of me?

      • In just the way I did: by not presenting it as a claim of yours.

        • Oh here we go again! Wow gets caught talking nonsense and tries to cover it up by claiming that his words don’t actually mean what they say.

          I’ll ask any reader. Who you gonna believe? Wow or your own lying eyes?

          • Where did I claim they were a quote, Loco?

            • Oh here we go with Wow’s asinine avoidance tactics.

              He puts a phrase in quotation marks and then tries to claim that *doesn’t* imply a quote.

              Typical up-is-down, black-is-white lying gibberish from this blog’s resident scum-weasel.

            • Scare quotes. You use them enough. Nowhere did I say it was a quote of you, and you have just admitted it.

            • Everyone can see you’re a lying coward. You clearly *thought* you were quoting me but as usual you screwed it up.

              Lying little turd.

            • Only if they’re insane, nutbar.

  20. Mann, BB and Wow are all cut from the same cloth. For an intro to the real Mann see:
    http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/102468/16997800/1331117842640/Manns_Book_Review.pdf?token=eCzwhOJBUq3JxRZ9WAq0zBVi9aM%3D

    That’s just for starters. –AGF

  21. I see Bickmore continues to maintain that Steyn “did not even look up what the Hockey Stick was before calling it fraudulent”.

    Patently, demonstrably untrue.

    If I may direct your attention to Steyn’s comments made in the years before the post which prompted Mr. Potato-Head’s suit.

    http://www.steynonline.com/2729/the-emperor-new-carbon-credits

    “In the National Post of April 2, 2001, after the UN had adopted this graph as the official proof of global warming, I pointed out that the first nine centuries of the millennium were measured by using tree-ring cycles, and the modern era was represented by temperatures.”

    and,

    “If we’ve got tree rings for the first nine centuries, why can’t we stick with the tree rings through the 20th?”

    Answer: because after 1960 the tree rings show no express elevator up the thermometer, but in fact a decline. That’s the “decline” that Dr. Phil Jones, in his leaked email, is trying to “hide.””

    and,

    “And, when they did, it emerged that Dr. Briffa had cherry-picked a few trees from the Yamal peninsula in Siberia to obtain the desired result.

    Question: can you measure any tree-ring cycles for the last millennium and get a genuine hockey stick?

    Answer: yes. Tree Number YAD061. That’s it. One tree. The temperature records show no warming in Siberia over the last half-century. But you can’t see the forest for the tree, singular. Mr. McIntyre calls it “the most influential tree in the world,” which hardly does justice to what’s being contemplated in its name.”

    Clearly Steyn showed a pretty good lay understanding of the Hockey Stick and the criticisms surrounding it. Bickmore had no idea of what he’s been talking about.

    And the real kicker? How many times has Bickmore lambasted Steyn for not adding “in my opinion”? And as you look over this page Bickmore did not caveat his comments with an “in my opinion”. Not once.

    Now it might be interesting, as a thought experiment, to speculate on whether Steyn could sue Bickmore over this blog post.

    • Ahhh, so he did look it up… and then forgot. Actually, he didn’t seem to look very closely at it, did he? I mean, there was over 100 years of overlap between the tree rings and the instrumental data, wasn’t there? So he never quite understood what he was seeing, did he?

      The “decline” bit is just ridiculous. It only affects certain localities (I’m guessing it has to do with industrialization). Meanwhile, we have up to 400 years of thermometer readings in some localities to compare to tree ring data, and there are other temperature proxies we can compare, as well. And guess what? They all give about the same answers. Problem solved! Yay!!! We can move on, now.

      And as for Yamal, McIntire blew it… again.

      http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

      • What in the world are you babbling about? I’ve got the very scary feeling that you’ve no clue as to what’s wrong with the Hockey Stick.

        • What on earth are you babbling about, Loco?

          I know you’re insane, but THIS mad? Seriously?!?!?

      • Actually, Barry, it’s pretty clear from the discussion in the Nature paper on the subject. The cliff notes version is:

        North hemisphere mid-latitude bristlecone pines at high altitudes show a post-1960-1980 (time of this depending on location in that band) disagreement with the other proxies. 1960 was chosen as far too early for any new factor to skew the results of any bristlecone pine data in the graph.

        High altitude is picked because the limits on growth aren’t sunlight, water or nutrients, since all are in critically limited supply and don’t vary on a full year trend (or longer). Temperature, however, does. Therefore the number of confounding factors in the growth of tree rings are limited in scope and the proxy more likely to be pure.

        However, northern midlatitude is where a lot of industry dumps their pollution. And a lot of pollution can cause limits to growth to appear and this would cause the same effect as cooling would on tree growth.

        Southern areas have much less industry, therefore much less industrial pollution. If pollution was the new factor, then southern proxies at similar location features would not have a divergence from recorded fact.

        This is borne out by the data.

        Non-tree proxies don’t show the problem.

        And industrial pollution output was minimal (compared to the 70’s) before 1960. More indications that industrial pollution is a new confounding factor.

        Other trees were in locations less stringent and therefore less affected by pollution, and they too show little deviation from other proxies.

        And MBH99 dropped the Bristlecone pine completely and used the “better” statistical method to calculate the historical temperature trend AND included earlier proxies to include the time period of the MWP proposed by deniers as “hotter than today”.

        The difference was not visible by eye on the same scale plot.

      • Now that Bickmore’s original smear has turned out to be so much garbage he is trying to move the goalposts.

        Funny Richard Muller doesn’t seem to think that the “hide the decline” scandal is so “ridiculous”. And he’s on *your* side.

        And as for Yamal, Briffa didn’t actually fully address McIntyre’s criticisms until 2013. And there was a giant endzone celebration at climateaudit.

        http://climateaudit.org/2013/06/28/cru-abandons-yamal-superstick/

        • Well that was a load of fictitious bollocks from Loco nutbar.

          And no wonder that such a Walter Mitty character should go to climatefraudit for their “goodfact evidence”. The site is written for such delusional nutjobs.

          • Insult, insult, insult. Another zero information post from Wow, just another of the numerous climate frauds in the world.

            At least with your zero information posts you don’t end up lying about where you got it like you did with Court Case Online.

            • A well deserved and accurate insult, Loco.

            • You’re such a fraud. All accusations and never with anything to back it up.

              Lying little turd.

          • For someone with advanced tourettes in every post, you have no ground to complain. And I’ve already answered you.

            Go read the evidence there.

    • “I see Bickmore continues to maintain that Steyn “did not even look up what the Hockey Stick was before calling it fraudulent”.

      Patently, demonstrably untrue.”

      So you’ve just proved actual malice on Steyn’s part.

      “Answer: because after 1960 the tree rings show no express elevator up the thermometer,”

      Yes. So what?

      “Question: can you measure any tree-ring cycles for the last millennium and get a genuine hockey stick?”

      Answered in a dozen other studies, even the same one if you remove one small class of proxies.

      And the answer is “Yes”.

      “Answer: yes. Tree Number YAD061. That’s it. One tree. ”

      Nope. Far more than that.

      “The temperature records show no warming in Siberia over the last half-century.”

      Siberia isn’t the world.

      “Clearly Steyn showed a pretty good lay understanding of the Hockey Stick and the criticisms surrounding it. ”

      Clearly your definition of “clearly” is “I believe it, so fuck the evidence!”.

  22. First this an exercise. I can’t imagine that Steyn would ever sue.

    Second, I’m not a lawyer so no one should take this as legal advice. Corrections are welcome.

    The first few steps, or rungs of the ladder if you will, of libel are trivial. Bickmore did indeed make false statements publicly about Steyn.

    Where the the statements defamatory? Meeeeehhh. Honestly I don’t think so. It’s so common to call ignorance on public commentators. But that short-circuits the exercise so let’s stipulate that Steyn’s lawyer makes an impassioned argument that Bickmore’s false accusation of willful ignorance damages Steyn’s reputation as an opinion journalist. Who wants to read someone who doesn’t bother to look up the subject at all?

    The next rung is negligence and yes I see Bickmore as negligent. What does it take to do a quick Google search of “Steyn” and “Hockey Stick”? Bickmore didn’t do his homework before running his mouth.

    If Steyn were not a public figure he’d win the case here. But up looms the hurdle of actual malice.

    Did Bickmore entertain serious doubts or actually know that his comments were false? Not a chance. Bickmore thought he had Steyn’s number and he was running with it.

    My conclusion. Bickmore wins.

    My point is that the warmists should probably start thinking about the possible negative consequences of a Mann legal victory. I think this is what Prof Carter was expressing last year and that’s why it’s so unfortunate that Bickmore decided to be such a dipwad towards him.

    • Except that Steyn blew his description of the HS even at that earlier time. And more recently he blew it in an entirely different, and more idiotic, manner. The earlier one makes it sound like he never actually looked at the HS–he just was trying to copy what someone else said about it. But then later he forgot his Cliff’s Notes… and hilarity ensued.

      Locus, give me a break. Are you actually going to tell me that, if he weren’t a public figure, Steyn could sue me for pointing out he said the HS is a climate model that was supposed to predict something about the early 20th century? Because he did say that. And it’s wrong. Badly wrong.

      • I just read your comments on the proxies and the Hockey Stick and I’m going to ask you to clarify them. Because if you’re saying what I *think* you’re saying you are completely ignorant of what’s going on. You’re actually starting to scare me.

        You still can’t read can you? I said that I couldn’t imagine Steyn suing you. I said that your comments most likely weren’t defamatory. You claimed that Steyn never “looked up the Hockey Stick”. Even if your claim that he *only* looked at the Cliff Notes was accurate it means that your previous statement was *completely false*. What does it take to get these simple concepts through your head?

        I once heard a sociologist claim that men can never seem to imagine themselves as marginalized. She noted that on surveys that men seemed to approve of polygamy. ( No, this isn’t about your Mormonism. It’s the example she used ). The thing is that every man sees himself as James Bond surrounded by a bevy of lovelies. When in reality the real James Bond types in a polygamous society end up with eight wives and seven ordinary schlubs end up wondering what happened.

        Once you unleash the lawyers into scientific debates they’ll take over. Guaranteed. Right now the legal artillery is only outbound. But someday you’ll end on the wrong end of a fire mission and you’ll be the one standing around wondering what happened. How did I end up in court?

        • Barry can read, Loco.

          Your insanity chili is making you imagine an alternative reality and inhabit there all the time.

          “I once heard a sociologist claim that men can never seem to imagine themselves as marginalized.”

          Stark example of a lack of self-awareness.

      • I’m sorry but Bickmore is still not making any sense. He now concedes that Steyn did “look up” the Hockey Stick enough to understand that it was a temperature reconstruction using tree rings as proxies and that there was serious criticism of that technique.

        Bickmore’s new theory is that Steyn must have forgotten this by the time he wrote the blog post that prompted Mann’s suit.

        But didn’t Bickmore even read what Steyn wrote?

        “Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.”

        So how’s this supposed to work? Steyn knew that the Hockey Stick used tree-ring proxies, then forgot while typing the word “fraudulent” but then remembered quickly enough to finish the sentence calling the affair a “tree-ring circus”.

        I think it’s becoming painfully obvious who the “rubes” are in this debate.

        • “He now concedes that Steyn did “look up” the Hockey Stick enough to understand that it was a temperature record”

          Yet others are claiming that the “pause” “proved” that MBH was wrong because it was a model and “predicted” no such “pause”. Just read diddy daddy LocoSock2 and the other idiot posters here defending the moronic Steyn.

          Others, I may say, include Steyn, NR and CEI.

          Barry is pointing out that Steyn cannot claim ignorance on what the hockey stick is, but still attempts to claim things that are absolutely not possible to be considered true *unless* you’re ignorant on what the hockey stick is.

          • What in the absolute hell are you babbling about?

            Your last paragraph is the very definition of gibberish. How in the world can you state that Steyn is claiming ignorance about the hockey stick?

            What is your malfunction?

            • My malfunction is having to converse with an idiot.

              You.

            • Stop your avoidance tactics you disgusting little creep.

              Answer the question.

              How can you state that Steyn is claiming ignorance about the hockey stick.

            • I’m not avoiding anything. I’m conversing with an idiot. You.

            • Stop your avoidance tactics and answer the question.

              How can you state that Steyn is claiming ignorance about the hockey stick?

            • Please see earlier answer.

            • You’re wasting everyone’s time with your sniveling avoidance tactics.

              If you can make the argument that Steyn is “claiming ignorance” about the hockey stick then do so.

      • No Bickmore you falsely claimed that Steyn didn’t know that the Hockey Stick was a paleoclimate reconstruction. You said so in this blog post.

        I guess it’s official. Bickmore’s blog sucks so bad that even he doesn’t read it.

        • Nope, he’s taking the word of someone and seeing whether it comports to the known reality and pointing out how it is inconsistent with other claims made about what he’s said.

          Then again, you’re insane, so who the hell knows what it is you think you read.

          • Honestly, nothing is more pathetic than some fraud and poseur attempting to sound like an intellectual.

            Your first paragraph reads like it was written by a baboon with a brain tumor.

            • You are incapable of rational thought and your claims have never withstood even the slightest hint of scrutiny.

              What makes this post of yours and its content any different from the fantastical mythology you have promoted in every other post you have made?

            • You’re a pathetic little creepy fraud. You constantly lose arguments at which point you resort either to blatant lying or invent your own reality.

              You lied dozens of times about downloading court rulings from Court Case Online and you created a fantasy world where “plaintiffs” somehow magically turned into National Review / CEI in Judge Weisberg’s ruling.

            • More maniacal claims from a diseased and warped mind.

            • Post your directions for downloading the court documents directly from Court Case Online then.

            • Please see earlier reply to this demand.

            • Stop wasting everyone’s time with your annoying avoidance tactics. Explain how why you claimed to have downloaded court documents from a website that does not provide such a service.

    • “Second, I’m not a lawyer so no one should take this as legal advice.”

      Nobody does.

      “Corrections are welcome.”

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!

      “so let’s stipulate that Steyn’s lawyer makes an impassioned argument that Bickmore’s false accusation of willful ignorance damages Steyn’s reputation”

      Which ALSO happens to stipulate that we make the assumption Barry’s accusation is false.

      However, that’s a false claim.

      You DID say you welcomed correction…

      • Bickmore admitted his charge was false.

        Can’t you read? Or perhaps you’re lying? Just like you did over and over and over in the comments from the last blog post when you ridiculously claimed to have downloaded the court rulings directly from the court itself.

        • Nope, he considered what it meant if someone’s counter claim of what steyn said was true.

          I realise that accepting even tentatively as a working hypothesis that someone else’s claims might be true and working out if it seems credible in the face of evidence is something that is entirely alien to you, Loco nutbar, but that’s all that’s happening here.

          He’s considering the claims of someone else at variance to the one he’s made and musing over the consequences of it.

          • Scratch my earlier comment.

            Your prose reads like it was written by a baboon that DIED of a brain tumor.

            It’s real simple. Bickmore claimed that Steyn never looked up what the hockey stick was. I punctured that claim.

            Barry responded by admitting that Steyn did look it up.

            Babble all you want. That doesn’t change reality.

            • You have made so many wild accusations based on only your insane dribblings and hatred what makes you think that anyone would consider your frothing mania here any different from the rest of the pile of garbage you have spewed here?

            • Stop your avoidance tactics you filthy little creep. If you can’t come up with a sensible argument then stop wasting everyone’s time with your drivel.

            • When you make repeated spam demands, the answer to one is the answer to all. It isn’t avoidance to say “see previous answer” to the same petulant demand.

            • Stop your sniveling avoidance tactics.

              It’s real simple. Bickmore claimed that Steyn never looked up what the hockey stick was. I punctured that claim.

              Barry responded by admitting that Steyn did look it up.

              Babble all you want. That doesn’t change reality.

            • Please see earlier response.

            • Barry admitted that Steyn did look up the hockey stick.

              Stop your annoying and petulant avoidance tactics.

            • “Barry admitted that Steyn did look up the hockey stick.”

              (well, he allowed that Steyn did look up the hockey stick: he doesn’t get to admit what someone claims they did, only admit that that person CLAIMED they did, but apart from that…)

              Yes. And?

            • Since you finally agree that I was right all along,

              “(well, he allowed that Steyn did look up the hockey stick…”

              Why did you waste everyone’s time with your avoidance tactics?

            • Why do you waste everyone’s time spamming the same old content-free bollocks on this site, Loco?

              And no, Barry doesn’t know that Steyn looked. He only knows Steyn SAYS he looked. However, having looked, he could not have come to the conclusions he made about it, therefore he must have known his claims were false.

              Steyn is proving his own guilt.

              OR he’s lying about having looked.

              Pick one, Loco.

            • You and Bickmore tried to claim that Steyn never “looked up” the Hockey Stick. But now that I’ve destroyed that falsehood you’re both trying to move the goalposts by claiming that Steyn didn’t look up the Hockey Stick *enough*.

              Typical behavior for frauds like yourselves.

            • Locus, I haven’t been following your feud with Wow, because I would rather pull off my face with my fingernails, but I did see this last comment.

              Here is how I would put it. Steyn, at one point, may have looked up what the HS is, but by the time he wrote the piece in question, he had forgotten it. Or, perhaps he paraphrased what he had looked up earlier, and it came out garbled because he never really understood the words he was mouthing.

              At the time he wrote the piece in question, he did not understand what the HS is. That much is clear, whether he ever looked up the information, or not.

            • Anyway, I don’t see how anything I’ve done regarding this was in the least dishonest. You provided a link showing that, at least several years ago, Steyn was capable of saying something accurate about the HS, so he must of at least copied it from somewhere. I admitted you were right about that, but I don’t feel bad about my original mockery, because he obviously didn’t know what it was when he wrote the later piece.

              So if you insist on continuing your mutual troll-baiting with Wow, leave my name out of it. If you haven’t gathered that Wow is messing with your head and wasting your time by now, you need an intervention. (I’m saying this to you, instead of Wow, because you seem more earnest about it. Give up while you are still nominally sane.)

            • Barry, nothing you did was wrong, but Loco is batshit insane and his side is so dirty he has to concentrate with maniac concentration on any perceived error against his ideology no matter if real or imagined.

            • He is also going to spam your thread for punishing you for not deleting my comment that made him go ballistic and me for not letting him win. He’s always used frothing insanity before to get his way and doesn’t understand it not working here.

            • Bickmore could you try and write with a bit less ambiguity? The “later piece” you keep writing. Are you talking about the blog post that got Steyn sued? Because that’s the issue here.

            • Wow calls his behavior “not letting him win”. Everyone else calls it lying through your teeth for weeks on end because you lost the argument.

            • Locus, the “later piece” was the one in which Steyn indicated he thought the HS was a model that failed to predict something about the 21st century. I’ve linked it several times.

            • No, only you call that “lying” Loco. Mostly because you don’t know what it means. Just like Eskimos have no name for a coconut.

            • You delusional little cretin. You always lose every argument and retreat into your avoidance tactics.

              Worthless little turd.

            • You’re not, however, a reliable witness of reality, Loco.

  23. Not bad (just takes a minute): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/26/friday-funny-a-very-pc-prayer-for-our-times/

  24. Better, nasty, to read this news!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=1

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/25/us-usa-court-healthcare-idUSKBN0P51V220150625

    your party planks are rotting, dude.

    • “Party planks” huh? So you admit the schlechtspiel is nothing but politics? How’s this: the Pope is a schmuck therefore to hell with the Gregorian calendar (which the Protestant world took centuries to adopt).

      I never said there’s not a competent Republican (or Democrat) who takes the climate scare seriously, I said there’s not a competent scientist who does. Or layman. –AGF

      • Yes, the drive against them were purely political, not moral or religous.. Yes, including gay marriage.

        If they believed it were a religious issue, they would be less butthurt over the Pope’s message and wouldn’t be screeching “Keep religion out of politics!”.

        And what was your assertion supposed to prove, anyway? That politicians are bad if they drive their actions in voting from party political points? What else should they have been using?

        Seriously, Nasty, your attempt to troll breaks your brain in some seriously odd ways.

  25. Good lord. What a bunch of nit-picking hyenas. The earth keeps warming while these Steyn homunculi holdouts play gotcha. What an exercise in futility.

    • Remember, Jim, they’re running the clock out. If they act now, they will “lose” and won’t get the benefits, since the benefits are a generation away.

      But unless we’re completely fucked, the western world and the top 10% of money in there will be innured until well after the current proclaimers of doubt die, it will only be the poor (which they hope not to be any moment now…) who will be harmed, and most of those in foreign countries.

      They’re cynically running out the clock to kick the can down the road for *other people* to deal with. That it will be a lot more expensive and a lot less useful is irrelevant: they have investments to draw down on!

      • And that’s the most moronic lie of all: that climate change hurts the poor the most. Rather the cure kills the poor: higher food prices because of grain diverted to ethanol; energy poverty due to higher prices and miserly support from wealthy countries seduced by a climate panic; even firewood shortages as English profiteers turn the world’s forests into “renewable” wood pellets in the name of saving mother earth.

        There have never been fools like these climate fools. –AGF

        • Yes, a moron like you would say, that. You have your job and pension to look out for, for a start.

          Then there’s your ego.

        • You want to bring the third world out of poverty? Cancel their debts.

          • Wow “You want to bring the third world out of poverty? Cancel their debts.”

            Please explain how this brings a world out of poverty. Wealth is having stuff. Poverty is not having stuff. Canceling a debt does not suddenly create STUFF.

            Why should anyone cancel a debt? That money came from someone and that someone isn’t getting it back. Plain to see you are not a contributor to society but rather a consumer for whom debt cancellation has no negative consequences.

          • Shall we start with Greece?

            • Start with all of them. Greece is still a first world country and their debt hasn’t crippled them for two or three generations. So lets not start with the penny ante stuff. If you have to start with one, start with one of the African nations.

  26. Republicans are moronic enough to believe you can get rid of drugs by outlawing them. Democrats are that dumb twice over: they not only think you can eliminate drugs by outlawing them, but they think you can eliminate guns by outlawing them. They’re all brain dead.

    But at the bottom of the IQ heap you find the climate crackheads. They think it’s impossible to exaggerate the danger of CO2. Dry ice is pure evil in solid form. And every possible (formerly ‘natural’) catastrophe imaginable shall surely be the result of all the evils of GHG’s. All the plagues of Egypt shall be but a Sunday picnic compared to deserved fate of the SUV drivers and other assorted gas guzzlers.

    Moreover the prophets of doom are proven fraudsters: IPCC chairman Pachauri was the greatest prevaricator of them all when he denounced sound science to repeat his prophecy of Himalayan glacier doom: they’ll be gone by 2035!!! And for his fraud what is his reward? A piece of a Nobel Prize. Like false prophets of old, they throw them money for phony soothsaying. Hansen? The oceans shall boil. Mann: The MWP was nothing. And their ignorant dupes swallow whole the false religion and deride the doubters and heretics.

    It’s hard to believe people can really be so stupid–it’s easier to believe they have ulterior motives: there are no dupes; all are liars. –AGF

    • “of Himalayan glacier doom: they’ll be gone by 2035”

      And here was me thinking it was 2015!

      Who knew 20 years and more could go by in seemingly one day?

      • Wow says (in reference to “of Himalayan glacier doom: they’ll be gone by 2035″) “And here was me thinking it was 2015! Who knew 20 years and more could go by in seemingly one day?”

        One assumes that everyone participating in these converstions knows the highlights in climate unscience since 2009. In this case, the IPCC reported that the Himalayan glaciers would be all gone by 2035. It eventually turned out to be off by about 200 years and wasn’t properly sourced anyway.

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/himalayan-glaciers-melt-claims-false-ipcc

        I have no idea why you think 20 years goes by in one day, but I agree with you that in western nations the calendar year is 2015.

      • One therefore assumes you are not in that number, since one in that number would know that this wasn’t in WG1. Moreover, someone who knew what was going on rather than repeating denier screed uncritically accepted as “truth enough for me!” that this was corrected by the IPCC before any denier noticed, and that the report said 2350.

        One would also notice that you haven’t actually noticed it’s not 2035 yet.

        Or are you going to pretend you won’t bend your knee to any linear chronology?

        • Wow always speaks anonymously from willfully perfect ignorance. India’s leading expert on Himalayan glaciers, Jairam Ramesh, called the 2035 prediction nonsense after an extensive survey: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains
          Pachauri labeled the survey “voodoo science.” For Pachauri’s perversion of the IPCC process he was not demoted, replaced, fired, or anything. Rather he shared a Nobel Prize. That’s how thoroughly the kakangelium has perverted modern science. –AGF

          • And your name is agofterjr, right?

            LOL!

            Here, here’s some authoritative source on the situation:

            http://www.ipcc.ch

            You’ve probably never been there before. All you’ve done is repeat denier lies from Tony “I’ll do anything for a buck!” Watts.

            • Which again just goes to show that “Wow” is a paid troll whose job is to obfuscate. –AGF

            • agfosterjr “Which again just goes to show that “Wow” is a paid troll whose job is to obfuscate.”

              Maybe, but he’s still just a student in England and doubtless touched by a spot of chav for whom rudeness is praise.

              It could also be relatively normal youth desire to be someone special in a modern world. Facebook in particular has bred a generation of young adults who have been insulting each other for their entire internet lives and to them it is normal social intercourse.

              What they did not learn in school they might learn here, patient correction after patient correction.

              Humans have always had some mechanism of establishing a “pecking order” and in past generations it was often education that positioned you socially. With the advent of instant communication, how skillfully one can deprecate another is what establishes social standing among today’s youth. It was the same in my youth but in those days the insulter had to be physically present also his entourage of groupies as he showed off his deprecatory prowess. My response has always been vaguely similar to Judo; I pull when he expects push, agree when the script calls for disagree.

              Once off script, then some real communication can take place and in my experience a persistently rude person has interesting issues worth exploring.

            • Even SS knew better than to deny AR4’s whopper: http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-2035-prediction-Himalayan-glaciers.html

              But Wow doesn’t.

            • Wow says “Here, here’s some authoritative source on the situation: http://www.ipcc.ch You’ve probably never been there before.”

              That is correct. I think I have not visited ANY “ch” website.

              “.ch is the country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for Switzerland”
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.ch

              Well then, at least it is probably Swiss. It is as likely for the IPCC to reveal its own errors as it would be to find FBI errors on http://fbi.gov

            • So you make up what is there on the page when you reply to it too?

              This is exceptionally dumb.

              Except for deniers.

              Go back, read what was written, then get a grown up to help you understand it.

              Then work out when 2035 happened and come back with your answer.

            • Wow “work out when 2035 happened and come back with your answer.”

              It will happen at 0000 on January 1, 2035. Inasmuch as at least 24 time zones exist, it will happen at least 24 times.

            • Which claim just goes to show you make shit up because you feel you need to make a claim.

              Nobody is surprised.

        • Wow says “One therefore assumes you are not in that number”

          Sounds good to me!

          “One would also notice that you haven’t actually noticed it’s not 2035 yet.”

          Correct. I cannot remember the last time I didn’t notice it is not 2035.

          “Or are you going to pretend you won’t bend your knee to any linear chronology?”

          No pretense needed. I do not bend knees to linear chronology. Do you?

          • So you only posted that to hear the sound of your own voice?

            There’s a term for that: Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

            • Wow “So you only posted that to hear the sound of your own voice?”

              The only thing I hear when I am writing is the clicking of my keyboard.

              But if you meant “do I wish to see my own writing” the answer is yes!

              These conversations help me shape my own thoughts. Questions asked, even when rhetorical or meant to be insulting, nevertheless open my mind to consider things I would probably not have considered except for those questions.

              “There’s a term for that: Narcissistic Personality Disorder.”

              Incorrect. NPD is defined in the DSM and for laypeople adequately described by Wikipedia:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

              Let us consider one or two factors.

              “a. Empathy: Impaired ability to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others; excessively attuned to reactions of others, but only if perceived as relevant to self; over- or underestimate of own effect on others.”

              Please note how courteously I have treated you, seeking to understand where you live, why you do what you do, and intervening occasionally on your behalf with others. I will leave it to you to consider your own empathy and treatment of others here.

              “a. Identity: Excessive reference to others for self-definition and self-esteem regulation; exaggerated self-appraisal may be inflated or deflated,”

              You seem not to be here to discuss issues. Lenny has an issue in his mind that he is discussing. You seem to be here solely for the purpose of insulting other people. Why is that?

              Keep in mind also that some individual factors of NPD can be present without it being NPD. My empathy to others is weak, but I am not excessively attuned to the reaction of others. Different combinations of strengths and weaknesses get different names.

            • Follow-up:

              Wow says “There’s a term for that: Narcissistic Personality Disorder.”

              I suggest for consideration this sentence from
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

              “when in reality they have a fragile self-esteem, cannot handle criticism, and often try to compensate for this inner fragility by belittling or disparaging others in an attempt to validate their own self-worth. Comments and criticisms about others are vicious from sufferers of NPD, in an attempt to boost their own poor self-esteem.[10] ”

              I am dangerous to you because I do not attack you in ways for which you have well-developed defenses. My interest in you provokes a wish to reveal yourself which battles with your sense of self-preservation to keep the real you deeply hidden.

              You need an anchor, something to validate your worth that doesn’t depend on the internet. I cannot help much with that other than to remind you that you won’t find self-esteem (or any kind of esteem) on the internet. My esteem comes from my experiences and my knowledge. Over time you’ll get more of that and your youthful insecurity will gradually melt away. Climbing the mountains of Scotland is probably a good way to rapidly add some worthy experiences. Hiking and camping did wonders for me in my youth.

            • That’s right, Loco, I’ve never been attacked by someone who redefines and undefines the english language to ensure that they’re never wrong.

              Oh, hang on, that’s not right, Brad Keyes tried that shit too.

              It didn’t work for him, either.

              He, unlike you, never said right out that they didn’t give a shit that they were wrong, though, and just loved the attention. He at least pretended he was an honest broker.

  27. “Republicans are moronic enough to believe you can get rid of drugs by outlawing them.”

    I do not know any Republican that thinks this, although I suppose some must exist. It is like a climate “forcing”, a repression, it has an efffect and works very well on law-abiding citizens that might otherwise be tempted to destroy their lives on addictive, life-destroying substances.

    It isn’t 100 percent effective and was never claimed to be. It needs only to be more effective than its cost, but the true cost of drugs is no easier to find than the true cost of carbon.

    Democrats, on the other hand, do seem to be as you describe, actually believing you can “uninvent” guns by banning them, magically making them disappear.

    But even if you succeed, what then? Well then it’s back to swords, bows and arrows, and the great “equalizer” for the weak vanishes and now the world is returned to the strongest.

    Guns allow the 120 pound woman to be nearly equal to Arnold S. Democrats ought to be in favor of anything that “equalizes” people, but that’s not actually the goal. When you are behind, you seek “equal”, but when you achieve it, keep going! Seek advantage!

    • America’s drug war has corrupted and destroyed Mexico, devastated much of Latin America and steered the rest over to Castro and Mao. It is the essence of anti-Capitalism: an attempt to overthrow the law of supply and demand. Throwing money into the drug war has been as effective as throwing money at poverty–they are economically bankrupt policies. It is Prohibition rehabilitated. It is insane. Like the climate war. –AGF

      • 50% right, 50% wrong.

        Yes, it has cost the lives, livelihood of people, innocent people, and the stability of countries and their sovereignty.

        Yes, it is anti-capitalist.

        But so is prohibition on murder, slavery and destruction of property. Hell, robbers have a demand for money and you have a supply. Not giving them your wallet is anticapitist.

        Heroin (hell, alcohol and tobacco, too) are dangerous, even lethal. There are excellent reasons to ban their sale. Not for infringing on the right of people to buy them, but to stop people getting someone addicted to something they are selling. Why? Because when you are addicted, you haven’t got a rational choice in buying any more, and that’s not a free market.

        Many drugs either have bigger up sides (medication) or no meaningful downsides (non medicinal marijuana) and those should not be banned, just like you don’t ban skateboarding because someone might fall off and hurt themselves.

        And the only insane thing about the climate “war” is the denier rhetoric.

        • Wow says “50% right, 50% wrong…”

          That’s progress!

          “Yes, it is anti-capitalist.”

          Neither you nor AGF seem to understand “capitalism”. But then, words change meaning rather frequently. The meaning of the word is simply to use capital (money) to build things that make things and by so doing overall improve the efficiency of society. Nuances include whoever provided the money to build the machine expects some sort of reward for doing so (as otherwise she won’t do so).

          The law of supply and demand is known as the “Law of Supply and Demand” and is independent of capitalism. Communism is still subject to the law of supply and demand; generally very little supply and a lot of demand. Since prices are fixed by government, the “real” price is revealed by the black market.

          “But so is prohibition on murder, slavery and destruction of property. Hell, robbers have a demand for money and you have a supply. Not giving them your wallet is anticapitist.”

          Incorrect. In the language of economics, demand is not the same as “want”. Demand is an ability and a willingness to pay. If you have no money you also have no “demand” in economics. You might not even want the thing you “demand”.

          “Heroin alcohol and tobacco are dangerous, even lethal. There are excellent reasons to ban their sale. Not for infringing on the right of people to buy them, but to stop people getting someone addicted to something they are selling. Why? Because when you are addicted, you haven’t got a rational choice in buying any more, and that’s not a free market.”

          The reason to ban any mind-altering substance, certainly including marijuana, is to avoid the social costs and dangers to others associated with it. In a libertarian society nobody would care what you did to yourself; but society would still care that you not operate motor vehicles or dangerous equipment while impaired, and marijuana is definitely impairing thus dangerous to society, more so than tobacco, which is dangerous mostly to yourself.

          But since society *does* bear much of the cost of personal stupidity, society obtains a right to dictate limits. An effective response is to remove society’s duty to your personal stupidity rather than try to ban something anyone can make or grow for himself. Since I can think of no way to actually prevent impaired driving, I can understand trying to limit the possibility of impairment in the first place.

          “Many drugs either have bigger up sides (medication) or no meaningful downsides (non medicinal marijuana) and those should not be banned, just like you don’t ban skateboarding because someone might fall off and hurt themselves.”

          You ban skateboarding when you personally bear liability for the skateboarder falling off and hurting himself. That is why nearly all corporate property and most public property bans skateboarding. A town might also have a wish for youth to do something more substantial with their lives but that infringes upon liberty. Are you a libertarian? Of course not, and yet you are. Democrats cannot use the word “libertarian” but they want all the joys of being libertarian — choosing for yourself what you will do and not do.

          So it is with marijuana. While you are mistaken about the harmless nature of marijuana, to me that aspect of it is inconsequential. If you burn out your brain cells, damage your DNA and otherwise step down a few rungs on the evolutionary ladder so much the better for me and my offspring.

          But when society is required to feed you, clothe you, shelter you and fix your hurts because of your poor choices; or when my traveling is endangered because you are operating a ton of moving metal while impaired, then I start to care.

          “And the only insane thing about the climate war is the denier rhetoric.”

          That’s it? For a moment there I thought you were worried about something significant.

          • Your arguments make as good a case for reinstating prohibition as for continuing the drug war. And you utterly ignore the political devastation in Latin America. I repeat: we have destroyed Mexico. Between the drug war and NAFTA we, the US, set in motion the massive immigration from a hell hole of our making. You don’t think drivers should smoke grass? Well neither should they drink. But when all of Hollywood preaches the coolness of drugs and tens of millions of Americans are convinced, it’s not fair to Latin America to destroy their countries in order to keep potheads or drunks off the road.

            The economically sound way to combat drug traffic is to compete with it, to flood the market with drugs, to drive the price and the dealers and the users into the gutter. Rather than drive Latin America into the gutter.

            And you think the drug war is not “anti-capitalist”? Would you claim as well that the British opium trade was NOT capitalist? I’d be curious to hear by what definition of capitalism you would defend such a claim. –AGF

            • AGF, mixing morality and economics, writes many things. I also mix morality and economics but, as with mixed drinks, different proportions.

              “Your arguments make as good a case for reinstating prohibition as for continuing the drug war.”

              Yes. They are all drugs with social consequences for their use and abuse (since so many people do not make a clear distinction between use and abuse). A quick review of history shows that citizens frequently wish to abuse drugs and governments just as often try to prevent it, since drug addicted persons cannot be governed, cannot govern, and often cannot feed, clothe and shelter themselves or anyone else.

              “And you utterly ignore the political devastation in Latin America.”

              Failing to mention it on a climate blog should not imply ignoring the political situation in central America or anywhere else. After all, I notice that you failed to mention that the gravity on the moon is only 1/6th that of Earth.

              “I repeat: we have destroyed Mexico.”

              Don’t blame it on me. First of all, Mexico is still there and has one of the largest cities on Earth. It is unclear to me how allowing free trade of dangerous drugs would improve Mexico.

              “Between the drug war and NAFTA we, the US, set in motion the massive immigration from a hell hole of our making.”

              I doubt a migration has ever existed southward from the time of Hernando Cortez to the present. It was a hell-hole for most of the Aztecs. When was it ever otherwise?

              “You don’t think drivers should smoke grass?”

              It would be more precisely stated that I think drivers should not {smoke, drink, or inject} any kind of incapacitating agent; or distract themselves with passengers, television viewing, texting. (“don’t think” says nothing about what I do think).

              “But when all of Hollywood preaches the coolness of drugs and tens of millions of Americans are convinced, it’s not fair to Latin America to destroy their countries in order to keep potheads or drunks off the road.”

              I do not understand “fair” and pretty much only children and leftwingers use the word. Perhaps you mean “just, equitable”. But that simply moves the goal; what is “just” and what is “equitable” and how is it relevant? Justice requires a law and a judge. From what ultimate source comes the law and who is the judge? In my experience, advocates of equality tend to consider only one side of the equation; “what do I get”, and ignore or deprecate the other side, “what do I contribute?”

              “The economically sound way to combat drug traffic is to compete with it, to flood the market with drugs, to drive the price and the dealers and the users into the gutter. Rather than drive Latin America into the gutter.”

              I see — drive everyone into the gutter. I would be more persuaded if you used a libertarian argument rather than economic. The example you suggested for my study, the British East India Company, apparently drove 12 million (or so) Chinese into the gutter. Is that “fair”?

              If killing someone is bad, rather than trying to stop it, encourage everyone to join in the action, driving down the price of guns and bullets. Flood the market. You might actually have a point since the places with the most widespread gun ownership and cultural affinity (the mountain states of the western United States, or Switzerland) tend also to have the lowest gun violence because these cultures have stabilized and adapted to the near omni-presence of these weapons.

              “Compared to other racial/ethnic groups in the U.S., American Indians/Alaska Natives have the highest rates of alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, and hallucinogen use disorders and the second highest methamphetamine abuse rates after Native Hawaiians. Consequences of substance abuse in this population have been significant. For example, a more frequent association between alcohol use and suicide has been observed among AI/ANs compared to the general U.S. population. In addition, high rates of traumatic exposure have been identified among AI/ANs with alcohol use disorder”
              http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3042549/

              “And you think the drug war is not anti-capitalist”?

              Yes. Inasmuch as the “drug war” has cost billions of dollars, that money has obviously gone into someone’s pockets, thus stimulating certain parts of the economy. But that isn’t capitalism per se. Neither is it anti-capitalism. To be sure it alters the free market but capitalism and free market are different things.

              “Would you claim as well that the British opium trade was NOT capitalist?”

              Nearly everything Britain did with its colonies was capitalistic if I remember right.

              “I’d be curious to hear by what definition of capitalism you would defend such a claim. –AGF”

              I define capitalism in the most basic, Adam Smith sort of way. Invest capital (money, usually), usually in machinery in Adam Smith’s example but in modern terms investment would include knowledge and skill development, then use that investment in skills and machines to make something and sell it; thus increasing one’s “capital”.

              It broadly overlaps political systems but capitalism is not a political system. Socialists might well decide to make factories and sell stuff; Sweden being an example. Even the USSR was capitalistic with respect to other nations (internally it was a command economy rather than a profit seeking economy).

              Free markets don’t remain free; companies also seek monopoly as did the British East India Company, or more recently, DeBeers. It is still capitalism.

              Suggestions to legalize drugs as a revenue stream reveals a disdain for the problem of 12 million drugged Chinese by the British East India Company, versus a disdain for the problems caused by forbidding it. Either way it is a “doom”.

              “In addition to the drain of silver, by 1838 the number of Chinese opium addicts had grown to between four and twelve million and the Daoguang Emperor demanded action. Officials at the court who advocated legalizing and taxing the trade were defeated by those who advocated suppressing it.”
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_opium_in_China

              “Opium: The Downfall of Imperial China. We tend to think of the drug problem as a modern phenomenon. But a century ago, illegal drugs brought an end an empire that had lasted for thousands of years.”
              http://www.historywiz.com/downfall.htm

              Same source:
              “The British introduced opium to China in 1825, and soon, not surprisingly, Chinese began to be addicted to the drug. The emperor outlawed the possession, use, and trade in opium, but the profits were so immense, that an illegal trade quickly developed. The East India Company in India supplied all the opium the Chinese wanted and the Chinese government was unable to stop the smuggling. The balance of trade gradually reversed.”

              This reflects an economic outlook, possibly also the underpinning of the United States war on drugs. Americans send enormous amounts of money southward creating an imbalance of trade. The moral outlook is the incapacitation of Americans.

              Inasmuch as it is a profit oriented production and consumption system, it is capitalistic. Capitalism is “amoral”, neither moral nor immoral.

  28. @ Michael 2 on July 1, 2015 at 1:23 pm

    Quixotic. You’ll find hundreds of Wow’s posts in the past few threads here and dozens of instances where he has been proven either dead wrong or dishonest or both, and in not one of them has he owned up to anything. He would rather invent an inaccessible source than admit error. In his mind it is not possible for a skeptic to be right about anything, or at least not permissible to acknowledge it. Your patient is a veritable pathological liar. His only virtue is that he gives us fodder by which to expose the whole climate scam. They all suffer from the same mental climate disease–they can never rest till all are zombies. Good luck with the cure.

    Regards, –AGF

    • agfosterjr says “Your patient is a veritable pathological liar.”

      I started out with a ten pound trout on two pound line. Sometimes you reel him in, sometimes you let it play out.

      “Good luck with the cure.”

      That, too. Some genuine sympathy exists. Inside every narcissist is a wounded soul. I combine sport and compassion; I’m not sure that’s a good combination. It just happens. I start out sporting, assuming everyone is doing the same, then when I realize the magnitude of the problem I start to feel something like pity, empathy, sympathy, encouragement. Not sure what exactly, probably all of these at the same time. In my Navy career I enjoyed or hated hundreds of different people and managed a great many none of whom I chose. Between natural skill and Navy training in such things I learned to gauge personality types and effective strategies.

      “Wow” isn’t your normal boilerplate narcissist. A narcissist usually boasts of himself while putting others down. Narcissists will also usually respond to barely detectable criticism in predictable ways but not this one. Wow has claimed nothing for himself, no boasting that would make him easy to “out”. He only puts others down; but notice how much projection exists — his inner soul is practically crying by the ways he describes others. “Helped, I’m trapped inside an NPD!” except that it isn’t the usual NPD.

      So he’s more of a nihilist which you may recall was very popular in Europe ten years ago or so probably during his formative years. But he cannot escape his human need to belong to something — but how exactly do you “belong” to “nothing”? Hence the confusion. He persists because he seeks an answer. He engages me because I probably have it without even knowing what exactly it is but these conversations will help him find it for himself.

      When he disappears that will be my clue he has found his answer.

    • Yeah, right. Dozens.

      Of course, dozens of those are you going “No, the planet is COOLING!!!!”. IOW you define “wrong” as “Doesn’t agree with me”.

      Meanwhile, how many hundreds of your errors are there?

      • Wow says “you define wrong as Doesn’t agree with me.”

        That’s a pretty good definition and very nearly true in all cases.

        “how many hundreds of your errors are there?”

        None. Had I made any you would be quick to point them out.

        • “Had I made any you would be quick to point them out.”

          Uh, I have.

          If you had any sense of shame you wouldn’t make shit up like that.

          If you had any sense at all, you’d not make up arrant nonsense like that which is found false in a perusal of this short blog alone.

          • Wow writes “you’d not make up arrant nonsense like that which is found false in a perusal of this short blog alone.”

            Clue inventory: Unusually literate in obscure word usage. I haven’t seen “arrant” in a very long time. “Perusal” is a bit more common but not among cellphone toting teenagers.

            • Erudition scares you.

              Why?

              Evidence of your inadequacy causing anguish?

            • Wow says “Erudition scares you. Why?”

              That’s pretty funny coming from you. It means literally “free from rudeness”
              https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/erudition

              “Evidence of your inadequacy causing anguish?”

              Your questioning is improving. Your sentence seems incomplete but English write differently. Anyway, yes, I am concerned about my inadequacies, not that you have identified any. To remedy my knowledge inadequacies I read from many sources. Noise somewhat cancels out. Thank you for being noise.

            • erudition/ˌɛrʊˈdɪʃ(ə)n/
              noun
              the quality of having or showing great knowledge or learning; scholarship.

              ====

              what did you think it was again?

              LOL!

  29. agfosterjr on June 29, 2015
    at 8:14 am

    I can’t let the obvious falsehoods, straw men, and mischaracterizations agfosterjr posted stand.
    For instance:

    “Democrats are that dumb twice over: they not only think you can eliminate drugs by outlawing them…”

    NO, exactly the opposite. “Democrats” are generally in favor of legalization and decriminalization while replacing incarceration with rehabilitation. How many decades of experience and sociological studies do we need to see before we realize that what works should be what’s done? It’s better for families, society, and it’s CHEAPER. The for-profit corporate prison lobby is naturally against efforts to reform drug policy in this country. Liberals tend to place pragmatism above ideology. If what works happens to coincide with an ideological bent, then so be it.

    “…but they think you can eliminate guns by outlawing them.”

    Again, NO. Some may entertain such magical thinking from time to time, but realists on the left know that strong gun control legislation is the way to go. You already know the specifics. The domestic weapons manufacturing lobby and their various “useful idiot” factions are against gun control that makes sense and saves lives.

    And Michael 2, you’re no better:

    Michael 2 on June 29, 2015
    at 10:21 am

    “I do not know any Republican that thinks this, although I suppose some must exist. It is like a climate “forcing”, a repression, it has an effect and works very well on law-abiding citizens that might otherwise be tempted to destroy their lives on addictive, life-destroying substances.”

    And we wonder why this insidious and costly trillion dollar “war on drugs” was first forced on us, and then allowed to persist for the last 50 years.

    “It isn’t 100 percent effective and was never claimed to be. It needs only to be more effective than its cost, but the true cost of drugs is no easier to find than the true cost of carbon.”

    The facts on how much arrest, incarceration, and subsequent recidivism has cost all of us lo these many decades are at your fingertips. The facts on much more effective and beneficial to society decriminalization and treating drug abuse not as a criminal issue but a health issue are at your fingertips. There is no need to express your feelings or impressions on this issue.

    “Democrats, on the other hand, do seem to be as you describe, actually believing you can “uninvent” guns by banning them, magically making them disappear.”

    They may “seem” to be that way, but in actuality no, they aren’t.

    • Jim Spriggs, what fairy tale do you live in? Which presidential campaign can you identify that included ending the war on drugs in its platform? Which senator or congressman–R or D–can you name who voted for defunding DEA? (and not just on ending medical marijuana raids) Nothing but BS from you, bud. –AGF

      • The fairy tale that scares the shit out of you: REALITY!

        You have this insistence on false dichotomy because you’re just too fucking dumb to manage anything other than two extremes.

        Drugs: either 100% illegal or Free Heroin For Everyone!
        Guns: either No regulations or NO HANDGUNS FOR ANYONE BUT GUBMINT!

        Hence your petulant demands for impossible things to prove things that have never been asserted.

        • Wow says “Hence your petulant demands”

          I am glad to see you back from vacation.

          • Wasn’t there a comic-con on recently?

            • How would I know, Colon?

              You know better about it than me, apparently.

            • Did mummy ground you?

            • No, your mummy wants be back again, as soon as she can get you out of the basement and out to the cinema or whatever for a few hours.

  30. Fascinating that you can review a book without having read it. What a talent.

    • To whom are you referring, Kit?

      • Apparently kit is trying to protect steyn and he denial industry by insisting that you can’t comment on quotes from a book unless you are reviewing the entire book.

        Or something like that.

  31. When fellow propagandists–like William Connolley–take up arms against you, you know you’re bad: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/07/03/well-write-a-bloody-paper-abou/
    Honor among thieves, to be sure, but this should give anyone and everyone an inkling of just how hopeless sloppy BB is–he has never had a student who so miserably failed to do his homework as BB here has.

    Oreskes is without doubt, a professional liar, and BB cheers her on. And what was Oreskes’ reward for lying? A post at Harvard. When the Pachauri’s and Oreskes and Mann’s of the world are feted and honored and promoted, there’s something rotten in Denmark. When BYU’s principal climate evangelist willfully remains in the middle of the rot, there’s something wrong at BYU.
    –AGF

    • That,without doubt, is the dumbest and least sane thing you’ve said ever.

      See if you can top it.

      • Where’s the flyswatter?

        • Two years earlier: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/11/10/nierneberg-concluded-oreskes-i/

          • Nope, I’d call that post a 0.4, where 1.0 is “the dumbest, most insane thing you’ve ever said”, obviously this will be recalibrated if you produce a new “most insane and dumb thing you’ve said ever”.

            Try again.

            I have faith in your insanity and idiocy. You can do it.

        • Nah, that was just a non-sequitur. Weird, but not insane or ignorant.

    • From that link to stoat:

      Who [Oraskes] (no doubt quite unfairly) is mainly known for her analysis showing that there are few if any proper paper disagreeing with the std.assessment of climate change. And before you call me a total apostate, let me point out that (apart from a slight carelessness with which she described her search terms) that paper is essentially correct, and valuable.

      • WOW: Naomi Oreskes is a geologist and historian. Her commentary is thus reasonably authoritative when she is speaking or writing on geology, as for instance her book on the history of plate tectonics.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes

        • Did you know that wood is made from paper, Loco? And that the sun is a long way away from earth, burning hydrogen and helium in a nuclear fusion reaction?

          • Wow “Did you know that wood is made from paper?”

            No. Paper is made from wood. However, I have no objection to you viewing it the other way round.

            “And that the sun is a long way away from earth”

            I do not understand your unit of measure. As I understand it the sun is only 1 A.U. from the Earth, or 0.000005 parsec distant.

            “burning hydrogen and helium in a nuclear fusion reaction?”

            Burning is a chemical reaction; so no, I do not know that hydrogen and helium are “burned”. However, I have no objection to you viewing it that way.

            • “Burning is a chemical reaction”

              Nope, *oxidisation* is a chemical reaction.

            • WOW says, (regarding my claim of “Burning is a chemical reaction”)

              “Nope, *oxidisation* is a chemical reaction.”

              You amuse me by your incredible lack of scientific knowledge combined with a willingness to repeatedly demonstrate it.

              “Combustion or burning[1] is a high-temperature exothermic redox chemical reaction ”

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion

            • Yeah, right, you think you can get away with saying that oxidisation isn’t a chemical reaction….

            • Wow says “Yeah, right, you think you can get away with saying that oxidisation isn’t a chemical reaction”

              Well I think I’ve had enough fun for a while with this participant who appears to be a quark shy of a full lepton.🙂

            • So you do think that you can get away with it.

              Sorry, your incapability at science is noted.

              Run away now, I’ve finished with you.

  32. Indeed, Oraskes said that Crayfish is a terrible thing to eat, being tasteless and difficult to cook and Stoat, a lover of many shellfish says she’s wrong.

    And agrodeiufhui points this out why?

  33. And why would anyone want to go to the cited links when they can simply read “Wow’s” brilliant synthesis? –AGF

    • It was better than yours, which

      a) never quoted what it said
      b) made claims unsupported by the content of the link

      I guess that’s why you’re butthurt over my comment, though: I f’ked up your attempt to make baseless claims “supported” by a link.

  34. No limits to their depravity: John Cook posts fraudulently under the names of professional skeptics: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes-why-does-john-cook-of-skepticalscience-and-the-97-have-to-use-identity-theft-in-his-research/

    Don’t go thinking Wow here is the bottom of the heap! –AGF

    • No limit to your bollocks, is there, nasty.

      Balls deep, and going deeper.

  35. And one WUWT reader links us to this CNN piece from yesterday, featuring the lying SkS propagandist, John Cook: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/22/opinions/cook-techniques-climate-change-denial/index.html
    All this needs no commentary. –AGF

    • Linking to a crackpot site visited only by the insane and conspiracy theorists of the most fringe society since Raelians isn’t really proving a damn thing.

      Other than how nuts you are.

      • So, CNN featuring John Cook is a “crackpot site”? How right you are! You make my day🙂

        • Sorry, Loco, the link was to OPINION.

          Which was the opinion of a crackpot even more whacked out than Tom Cruise.

          Deniers are completely fabricating “identify theft”.

          But you don’t care, do you.

          • Also note denier nasty’s claim here:

            ***And one WUWT reader***

            WUWT.

            Crackpot site.

    • “All this needs no commentary.”

      Which you’ll give anyway. And, as with the Oraskes BS you posted earlier, is entirely unsupported by the evidence in that link you gave.

  36. A little more on the rogue’s gallery: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/24/you-dont-have-to-be-venal-weird-and-creepy-to-work-in-climate-science-but-it-certainly-helps/

    • Yeah, sorry, do you have anything intelligent (or even indicating intelligence exists in your brainpan) to say?

      You don’t have to be an immoral money grubbing moron to believe climate science is a scam, but, well, actually, you do.

  37. A reconstruction is a model. What are you ranting about Bickmore?

    • But it isn’t a model that predicts anything beyond its endpoints, which is what Steyn seemed to think one should expect.

    • A reconstruction isn’t a model, tom.

  38. Re “Mathematical Model” from Wikipedia:

    A mathematical model is a description of a system using mathematical concepts and language. The process of developing a mathematical model is termed mathematical modeling. Mathematical models are used in the natural sciences (such as physics, biology, earth science, meteorology) and engineering disciplines (such as computer science, artificial intelligence), as well as in the social sciences (such as economics, psychology, sociology, political science). Physicists, engineers, statisticians, operations research analysts, and economists use mathematical models most extensively. A model may help to explain a system and to study the effects of different components, and to make predictions about behaviour.

    Mathematical models can take many forms, including but not limited to dynamical systems, statistical models, differential equations, or game theoretic models.

    etc.

    The Hockey stick is clearly a statistical model, albeit a fraudulent one. But, it is a model.

    As far as whether it predicts anything, the inference is that the 20th century rise in CO2 was in some way directly correlated with a rise in temperature. Since we know CO2 will keep rising the [indirect] prediction is that the temperature will keep rising. Put a French curve on the hockey stick graph and eyeball what GM was supposed to be in 2015. It has failed to live up to its prediction.

    Steyn is a music and theater critic, and a damn good one. He also does a pretty good job at understanding the science involved in this controversy. Your hair splitting over the use of the term “model” is pathetic.

    • You say, “the inference is…”, but whose inference? How was it made? Was it made by applying the statistical model that generated the HS? No. It was made by ignoramuses saying, “Look, it’s going up! Therefore, it must keep going up at exactly the same rate!”

      Don’t blame Mike Mann for your own shortcomings.

      • The primary ignoramus saying “Look, it’s going up! Therefore it must be going up at exactly the same rate!” is Al Gore. That was the argument he made in “Inconvenient Truth”. Whether Mann explicitly made predictions is a red herring; every fanatical alarmist has used it to make dire predictions.

        • “The primary ignoramus saying “Look, it’s going up! Therefore it must be going up at exactly the same rate!” is Al Gore”

          No, the only ignoramus saying that is you here.

          Of course, its the same whine and whinge every denier tries on for size at some point.

          NOWHERE does Al Gore say what you claim. Not even an analogue of it.

          “That was the argument he made in “Inconvenient Truth”. ”

          No it wasn’t. You’re making up what you want to be in there out of thin air, anger and hope.

          “Whether Mann explicitly made predictions is a red herring; ”

          Then it’s a red herring YOU brought up and are STILL ARGUING FOR.

          Not our problem you bring up red herrings and argue them,

          “every fanatical alarmist has used it to make dire predictions.”

          The only fanatical alarmists are deniers like yourself. This rant of yours is merely the latest example.

        • Yes, can you point out where Gore says any such thing? My impression was that he used the HS as one point in a larger argument that involved… stuff like physics.

      • Barry, PCA is a statistical method for producing a cohesive data set from disparate and irregular data points found. It isn’t a statistical model, really. You can make the argument “it sort of is, though” because it makes an assumption on how reality and measurement methods of reality can combine to produce what was measured and therefore work back from the measures you have to what reality would have been to produce this.

        However, using PCA doesn’t make the hockey stick a statistical model any more than binomial statistics makes the payouts at casinos a statistical model.

        Neither is guilt proven by DNA analysis a model merely because the chances of it being a mistaken match are from statistical models of genetic differences in humans and the DNA analysis.

        • I don’t mind giving Steyn a little latitude on the use of the term, “model”. But when he said 21st century reality didn’t live up to the model, it was clear that his misconception went well beyond nonstandard usage of that word.

          • Except it made NO PREDICTION.

            A model is needed for that, even if the model were “it will keep going in a straight line”.

            But applying that “model” doesn’t make the HS a model. And if that “model” were incorrect, then the problem isn’t the HS, it’s applying THAT “model”.

            So tom applies “french curve” (whatever the hell he means by that), but that “model” doesn’t work isn’t the fault of the HS, it’s the fault of his applying a PREDICTION that really had bugger all going for it. If you assert that the “model” is “follows CO2” then that’s wrong, but again the HS isn’t wrong, the model is. And that model isn’t the one that the climatologists use. Only dumbass deniers use that model. ACTUAL climate models use much more than CO2 levels.

            There’s the wave model of light, but that doesn’t make the diffraction patter from a diffraction grating a model, Barry. Not in the least.

            The HS isn’t a model.

            And nothing about it makes predictions, so the ONLY way a prediction can be made by Steyn or whoever is by ADDING it.

            And the errors in prediction are caused by Steyn or deniers like tom applying one, then insisting that the HS is wrong because they’re dumbasses.

            • In response to Wow’s argument about model vs reconstruction.

              I agree with Wow to the extent I understand this discussion.

              A reconstruction attempts to glean historical information from spotty and contaminated sources, the idea being that noise will cancel out to a degree depending on how many independent sources are used, and a “signal” will amplify across sources while noise cancels out.

              A model is, in its simplest form, a function (in mathematical terms). You input a date and it spits out the temperature; it can see backward but more importantly forward in time (in this context of climate science where time is the independent variable).

              The main problem with the hockey stick reconstruction as I understand it is the simple problem of running to the end of the data. A 40 year rolling average has to stop 20 years before the end of the data. If you don’t, then you must pad the average and that is an invention; depending on how you do it you will indeed get a hockey stick out of “red noise” since the very last output will include 20 more copies of itself if merely padded out. It will amplify the trend but always at the bitter end.

              If you use a function to pad the data, then your reconstruction contains a model although not itself being a model.

            • Too early,kid. I’m still having fun demolishing the trolls who at least believe the shit they spout.

              No need for someone who just pretends to talk.

            • Well, loony, nothing there equates to what the HS is.

              Nope, it’s not a 40 year running average. Nope, it isn’t extended to cover “the missing last 20 years”, so no, the HS isn’t a model by virtue of not doing what you claim a model has to do.

              Another example of your utter failiure.

              Well, my job is done now, all that remains is for you to pretend words mean something other than their language meant and fake a universe where you weren’t wrong after all.

            • Wow writes “Well, my job is done now”

              Thank you, thank you! I’ll be a bit slow around here without you, but then, it hasn’t been all that informative *with* you.

              Instead of declaring what the hockey stick is not, perhaps you would describe what it is in some detail. Oh, but your job is done. That’s okay, plenty of other places to read about the hockey stick.

            • Wow writes “Well, my job is done now,..”

              So it is a job! I doubt you’ll name the employer but since your job is done, there’s no harm in doing so.

            • English. Not your first language, is it.

              Nor second. Or third. Fourth is way out.

              Missed Bilingual by two, didn’t you, dearie.

              Bitchslapped again, aren’t you. LOL!

            • Wow asks, or suggests, not sure what…

              “English. Not your first language, is it.”

              Ambiguous. You have a “not” and an “is” in the same sentence, although I seem to be abusing the word “sentence” to suggest you have written such a thing.

              You could ask a question: “Is English your first language?” but even that is ambiguous since a child born in London but raised in Kiev since the age of 3 probably speaks Russian but his first language will have been English.

              Thus a better question, and more relevant, would be “Is English your current primary language?” and if it is, the answer is yes, and if it isn’t there’s no telling what will be the answer; perhaps “nyet”.

              But if instead of asking for such a bit of trivia you wish to make a statement, then it is better to simply make a statement:

              “English is not your {first, primary} language”

              In which case you are either correct (unlikely) or incorrect (more likely).

              But you are not bold enough to simply make a statement, and you don’t want to ask a question, so you sort of blend them together into something that probably doesn’t have a name.

          • Barry, I also think you missed out (or didn’t acknowledge anyway) that even if PCA were called a model, it being used on the data to produce the hockey stick STILL doesn’t make it a model, any more than the fact you can use binomial statistics on polling data makes the polling results a model.

    • Yes, you quoted Wikipedia on models.

      Now what does that have to do with the Hockey Stick, which isn’t a model and isn’t one defined per quoted definition?

      “The Hockey stick is clearly a statistical model,”

      Nope, it isn’t, its a reconstruction.

      “As far as whether it predicts anything, the inference is that the 20th century rise in CO2 was in some way directly correlated with a rise in temperature. ”

      Even if your inference could be inferred, it doesn’t mean the Hockey Stick predicts anything.

      “Put a French curve on the hockey stick graph and eyeball what GM was supposed to be in 2015”

      That is YOUR model. That you made. NOT the Hockey Stick.

      Because the hockey stick isn’t a model.

      “He also does a pretty good job at understanding the science involved in this controversy”

      Nope, he’s helplessly incompetent at it. Blinded by ideology and the unearned accolades afforded anyone blind enough to spout politically favoured denial of the science.

      “Your hair splitting over the use of the term “model” is pathetic.”

      It doesn’t matter if every single hair was split (this is a claim you’ve made out of thin air, by the way), it still doesn’t mean the hockey stick is a model.

      • Good grief. A reconstruction is a statistical model. Not a numerical model, but a model nonetheless.

        • A reconstruction is not a statistical model.

          It is not model.

          Your quote of Wikipedia doesn’t indicate ANY support to your claim it is a model.

          Because it isn’t a model.

  39. Whatever one calls the “hockey stick,” it was an imaginative piece of pseudoscience, preemptively rejected in its precursorial forms by the glaciological community at large (e.g., Grove and Switsur, 1994), debunked by the statistical community at large (Climate Audit), exposed as inept and fraudulent by “Climategate,” but championed till now by lying proponents of junk science such as we find in Wikipedia and by other screaming liars who have never had the slightest devotion to real science. The gist of the stick was to depict that the present was warmer than the MWP, by relying on the most specious sort of dendrochronology grafted to the recent temperature record, and by ignoring just about everything that was previously known or believed about climate history, as well as what continues to be learned about it from any geological specialty one can name–nobody believes in the hockey stick.

    But the fact that no competent scientist on the planet puts stock in the stick remains irrelevant as long as business and politics conspire to address the non-problem through spurious solutions that only cripple the foolish democratic nations while dictatorships shrewdly pay only lip service to remedial action. Types like “Wow” here, John Cook, Lewandowsky, Oreskes, etc., have devoted their lives to ensuring the poor remain poor while claiming to save them from a conspiracy of Big Oil (propped up by me and you), and from all the normal climate disasters your gas and natural gas have supposedly brought upon us.

    Nor “Wow” nor Oreskes nor Cook nor any other climate propagandist has ever had an honest or well-intended thought in their lives. This has been shown hundreds of times over in these threads in spite of BB’s worst intentions. You take climate alarm seriously at your own peril. –AGF

    • Yeah! Listen to AG Foster!

      Cuz there was a Medieval Warm Period that shows the Hockey Stick was a FRAUD, even though the Hockey Stick doesn’t get rid of the MWP at all.

      And cuz M&M can make their computer program show how once in a while using something sort of akin to Mann’s technique, they could get some spurious Hockey sticks–about one out of ever 10,000 tries, or something like that. And they never managed to show that it would change Mann’s overall results much.

      And who cares that a large number of other scientists–ones who actually specialize in paleoclimate reconstructions–have come up with very similar results using different statistical techniques and different data sources? They can’t be COMPETENT scientists, because AG says so!

      • Plus everyone is a LIAR who disagrees with AG, because the black helicopters are coming!

        • Hell, if you think agronasty is a retard for his insistence that there is a dichotomy: Agree with him or be a lizard alien out to take over the world, look at the multi-sock-wearing freddie/kai/trollbot over at “Illconsidered” on scienceblogs.

          Nasty here isn’t even good at being ridiculous.

          That doofus is likely a 12 year old (at least when starting there). Nasty here is probably in his late 60s/early 70s

      • I’ve “conversed” with several denier trollidiots over this “red noise will cause hockeysticks” before, each one who claimed (and there were several) that they’d done it were asked very nicely to provide their program doing this.

        EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM told me to write my own and I’d see it myself.

        NOT ONE could give me the program they’d used, despite having claimed they wrote one themselves and personally verified it happened.

        I kept insisting they did it, even did my own and found no such effect on the run I did, requesting that I get their code because “obviously” something must be wrong with my code if their showed it and mine didn’t. After all, they hadn’t been *lying* about their actions, had they?

        Again and again “Write your own” was the response.

        Eventually they left and came back some weeks later pretending that this had never happened.

        (remembering back, at least a few said *random noise* would produce a hockey stick too. A program like that I’d written a few times myself in university and in work to test programs showed no hockey stick EVER)

        So, Nasty, do you HAVE proof that the hockey stick is a fraud, or do you just not care one whit about the facts of the matter and wish to proclaim fraud so that you can pretend to have some point?

        If so, where is it?

        • Wow writes “If so, where is it?” with regard to a program to demonstrate red-noise-to-hockey sticks:

          I suggest https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/hockey-stick-cps-revisited-part-1/

          It has actual source code and pointers to data. The argument, particularly as discussed in the reader comments, seems simple enough to comprehend. You choose from an enormous number of proxies (over a thousand) those that correlate with an instrumented period of temperatures. That procedure seems reasonable but the counter-argument is that a noisy proxy could inadvertently correlate over a short period of time while being random or spurious over the long run. That also seems reasonable.

          At any rate, the fact of correlation also ensures phase alignment and the instant of perfect phase alignment is also going to produce a peak since everywhere else the variations are going to partially or entirely average out to zero.

          The same phenomenon can be demonstrated on an oscillosope with random noise as its input. Setting a non-zero trigger level will force phase-alignment exactly at the trigger point and the result looks nearly identical to a hockey stick. Depending on where you set the trigger you’ll get an “up” or a “down” hockey stick.

          Choosing only certain proxies in phase alignment at the end of their period achieves the same result as an oscilloscope that forces phase alignment at the start of a measurement period (ie, the trigger).

          • It isn’t there, loony.

            There’s code to do SOMETHING ELSE, but no “red noise” generating hockey sticks.

            So, no I can’t “try there”.

            This is a denier trope: link to somewhere and pretend it’s relevant or says what they claim when it patently does not.

            • Wow says “There’s code to do SOMETHING ELSE, but no red noise generating hockey sticks.”

              This would be a good time to reveal what the code does, rather than what you believe it fails to do. I understand the description perfectly and do not need the “R” code.

              Generate a thousand series of random numbers but filtered so that instead of white noise it is somewhat bandwidth limited.

              Choose a few hundred of them that correlate with the training sample (the instrumented record).

              Average those samples.

              You’ll get a hockey stick but it might go up and it might go down; but all you’ve done is synchronize the ends, magnifying whatever direction they all happened to be going at that time. Those that were going somewhere else were cast out already.

              I believe this group needs more than your denial to change the direction of the evidence and arguments.

            • Wow, I should mention so I will that being able to generate hockey sticks from red noise is not “bad”; it is a phenomenon worthy of study. If the instrumented record does actually show a rise, then it seems reasonable to correlate the proxies that also show the rise. Where the strategy is weak is that the correlation is valid (IMO) only over the same period over which you correlate instrumented readings and proxies.

              As nearly everyone interested in this topic knows, the Bristlecone Pine proxy was going down where the instruments were going up, hence the famous “hide the decline” comment.

            • The link says what it does, moron.

              And it explicitly says it doesn’t create “red noise”.

            • Wow writes “And it explicitly says it doesn’t create red noise.”

              I suppose so. For that you’d need a different source.

            • Yes, you would need a different source to get what I asked for.

              Proving your claim that I could go to that link was yet another lie.

              You really don’t care, though, do you. Lies don’t matter. Trolling is all you want.

      • I feel rather proud to be listed with Stephan, Naomi and John, Barry, how about you?

        Of course, you have written columns in media and have a blog that many visit, so you’re a lot closer in the visibility stakes, so it’s not such a big leg up to be given equal measure in the ranting of an insane denier idiot as it is for me.

    • It does matter what you call the hockey stick when you’re pretending you’re informed opinion on it is informed and not wild speculation issued with complete disregard for the reality.

      You know, like in a libel case.

      Like the one Steyn is in.

  40. Here is Mann’s hockey stick: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf
    See if you can find a MWP. Here is a modern, updated (but still highly inventive) version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf
    BB and Wow obviously don’t know the difference.

    The deportment of BB, Wow, John “Luboš Motl” Cook, Pachauri, Lewandowsky (not to mention BB’s heroes, minister of propaganda Oreskes and the Up-side-down Mann, et al and etc.), raise long forgotten theological questions: were the climate alarmists born totally depraved or was this the result of the mature exercise of free will? And how many angels could dance on the top of Wow’s head? No need to tread lightly on that thick skull, or to fear disturbing the brown matter lodged firmly within. –AGF

    • Yes, we can’t find a strong MWP.

      What proof is there that there should be, moron?

      • Wow writes “Yes, we can’t find a strong MWP.”

        We? How many of you are in there? 😉

        “What proof is there that there should be”

        Archaeological Finds in Retreating Swiss Glacier
        http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/18/archaeological-finds-in-retreating-swiss-glacier/

        • Ah, right.

          You DO know that that claim is bollocks, right?

          Given the ice is well over 100,000 years old, well beyond the MWP, what do YOU think happened?

          Here;s a tip: if you want to find links to reputable sites, don’t pick ones that have frequent claims of mass world conspiracy by morons who claim to have cured AIDS. They don’t have any quality control on their submissions.

          • Wow “Given the ice is well over 100,000 years old, well beyond the MWP, what do YOU think happened?”

            Thank you for asking!

            It’s simple. The “new ice” is at the top pushing the “old ice” along through the valleys. During the Roman Optimum and MWP, the old ice melted faster than new ice pushed it, so the terminus moved uphill. During such times, farmers and miners worked the land. Then during the Little Ice Age, more “new ice” was formed pushing the terminus of “old ice” downhill, covering up the mines and farms.

            Now, the terminus is moving uphill again as “old ice” melts faster than “new ice” replaces it. This process revealed artifacts including mines that were created in a previous retreat of the terminus. The ice doesn’t actually retreat, it only flows downhill, but the terminus or point of melting is moving uphill.

            • “It’s simple. The “new ice” is at the top pushing the “old ice” along through the valleys. ”

              Therefore the ice over those “medieaval” forests (actually not, much later) were never snowed on.

              Since there’s no snow there now, and the above claim you’ve made shows there was no snow before, it proves nothing about a warming or cooling trend, nor about any LIA or MWP existing worldwide.

              Since it makes no proof of any relevant claim, your assertions have been baseless.

            • Wow writes some things.

              By the way, thank you for your prompt response. I appreciate this opportunity to almost have a discussion.

              “Therefore the ice over those medieaval forests were never snowed on.

              That seems unlikely but I have no proof either way. It would be difficult to prove whether snow fell on ice while the ice covered forests. It is more likely that snow fell on everything during winter.

              “Since there’s no snow there now…”

              Ja, it’s summer.

              “and the above claim you’ve made shows there was no snow before”

              Non sequitur. I have made no claims that there was no snow before (before what?).

              “it proves nothing about a warming or cooling trend”

              This is your strawman argument and it will proceed the way you wish it, but only for the duration of one comment. Then it is my turn.

              “Since it makes no proof of any relevant claim, your assertions have been baseless.”

              All I am here is words. All you are here is words. You prove nothing here, I prove nothing here.

          • Yeah, having been crushed you now go to the aforementioned “I’ve had my fun, I’m off now!”.

            It doesn’t work: your “argument” is still proven as empty as your head.

            But it probably helped some poor soul out there who thought you might have had a point, so I’m happy with having destroyed your argument.

            • Wow writes “But it probably helped some poor soul out there who thought you might have had a point”

              Yes, that is why I write.

              “so I’m happy with having destroyed your argument.”

              That’s not for you to say. That is for the poor soul out there to say.

              Consider a court of law and who decides when an argument is successfully or actually destroyed. The prosecutor does not decide this (although he may declare it). The defender may declare it. Not even the judge is the judge of such things. Only the Jury decides when an argument has been destroyed, and the jury right here right now are the readers of this blog.

              Consider also the futility of destroying arguments. It’s stupid. What do you suppose will take its place?

              Suppose you take pleasure in burning a field of wheat; but in its place grow nothing but allow weeds. Is that a good thing? Is that a thing in which to take pride? For you, maybe so.

              While you imagine yourself destroying arguments, perhaps you would develop your character a bit and start offering something of value. I consider it unlikely but, as you have observed, I write for the poor souls out there who might remember the most persuasive writing in the past 300 years has offered something to think about.

            • Hey, I had my fun. Go find your own.

            • “Wow writes “But it probably helped some poor soul out there who thought you might have had a point”

              Yes, that is why I write. ”

              Then here’s an idea that you can follow. Stop writing bullshit that gullible people may think has a valid point in it, then BOTH of us can save effort.

              Or is it that you’re doing this because you WANT to put such wasted effort into posting on the internet?

              It is, isn’t it.

              Heh. I enjoyed that.

            • Wow asks (sort of) “is it that you’re doing this because you WANT to put such wasted effort into posting on the internet?”

              Inasmuch as I am somewhat libertarian, one can reasonably assume that if I am doing something, I want to; for if I didn’t I wouldn’t in the case where liberty exists. You, on the other hand, seem compelled to it.

            • So can’t or won’t stop posting?

              If it’s won’t then your whining complaints are kind of pointless, given they’re self inflicted.

              If it’s can’t, then you need to go see a specialist.

            • Wow, in response to Wow: “So can’t or won’t stop posting?”

              Your question is unclear as to both topic and addressee.

            • Wow, in response to Wow, asks someone “So can’t or won’t stop posting?”

              Assuming for a moment you are referring to my comment immediately preceding yours, please read it again for it contains the answer you seek.

            • so “can’t” I presume.

        • Another tip for you (aren’t I helpful to you morons!). Don’t choose the same insanity argument as agro nasty here does:

          http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/matt-ridley-goes-to-serengeti-and-tells.html

          it only further cements your lack of ability.

        • “What proof is there that there should be”

          Well, given you showed no evidence there should be, “None” was the answer you were supplying.

    • By the way, there was no difference between them because they were the same file.

      Dumbass.

  41. Here is Mann’s hockey stick: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf
    See if you can find a MWP. For a modern, updated (but still highly inventive) version, see the next post, or add ” https ” here: ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf
    BB and Wow obviously don’t know the difference.

    The deportment of BB, Wow, John “Luboš Motl” Cook, Pachauri, Lewandowsky (not to mention BB’s heroes, minister of propaganda Oreskes and the Up-side-down Mann, et al and etc.), raise long forgotten theological questions: were the climate alarmists born totally depraved or was this the result of the mature exercise of free will? And how many angels could dance on the top of Wow’s head? No need to tread lightly on that thick skull, or to fear disturbing the brown matter lodged firmly within. –AGF

    • AG, look on the left side of the graph, where the temperature is somewhat higher than in the middle. There’s your MWP. Mann’s contention was only that it probably didn’t get as warm (in terms of a global average) back then as it is now. As you can see, the Pages 2k reconstruction agrees quite well with Mann’s data.

      • Well, that’s what Nasty here means: there’s not the huge MWP he “remembers” (being told to complain about), so therefore “it was ERASED!!!”.

        The fact that there wasn’t much of an MWP is never going to be accepted to the idiots.

        And they likewise won’t accept that a larger global MWP means that climate sensitivity is much higher than the IPCC claims.

        Why?

        Because they aren’t using anything other than hate, bile and ignorance to make their case.

        ABC.

        Anything
        But
        Coal

        • Sober today, are we? Tell us pray, how does a pronounced MWP indicate a high climate sensitivity? That’s a new one to me. You’re good for no end of giggles–like BB. –AGF

          • Because for the climate to change with such little change in forces you need a climate that has a high sensitivity to change.

            Duh.

            • I’m afraid your momentary sobriety doesn’t do you much good. When we speak of “climate sensitivity” we usually mean in response to CO2 or other GHGs. If you want to talk about natural forcing, be my guest. You would only be making a case for natural variability which the MWP and LIA naturally do. That’s why Mann et al have gone to such lengths to make them disappear. They want to claim that GHGs are the only forcings that matter, that modern warmth is unnatural and unprecedented. Climate science 101. That’s why the hockey stick is such a piece of ridiculous propaganda, and has had such a short life span except among the dupes. Like you. –AGF

            • AGF says “and has had such a short life span except among the dupes. Like you.”

              I have a doubt that WOW is a dupe. Wow does not disconnect, never changes his mind, does not deviate from his story line. He is unusually careful to say nothing of substance. He isn’t here for debate. He doesn’t even care who is right so long as it isn’t you or me. He’s a bit like my father who will change sides instantly and act like he has always been on the side to which he has just changed.

              Maybe he is paid by the post but but it doesn’t matter. It means he is a sounding board and you can publish reams of denier material to which he will dutifully respond suggesting the next topic.

              For students of human behavior he is a case study, not all there, and I mean that scientifically — the parts of human behavior that can be invoked by debate and discussion are not there. He isn’t even single minded; he’s no-minded. What exactly does he believe? I do not know, I think he has never written his beliefs and motivations. They don’t matter to him. YOUR beliefs matter to him.

              Come to think of it, I *have* seen that behavior. When a person wants to believe you, he will test your commitment to your belief and your foundation to that belief. In this instance it is no different than religion. How strongly do you believe in your religion, why do you believe it, are you willing to be ridiculed and outcast for it? If so, then maybe it is a worthy belief.

            • “When we speak of “climate sensitivity” we usually mean in response to CO2 or other GHGs”

              Unless you’re using the royal “we”, no, “we” don’t.

              If you are, then you’re still wrong, *we* don’t.

              “If you want to talk about natural forcing, be my guest.”

              CO2 forcing IS natural.

              Tell me, dickbrains, how do YOU think CO2 produces warming?

              And in what way is it not natural or different from ANY OTHER forcing?

              How do YOU explain how a high sensitivity to, say, solar radiation, does not equate to a high sensitivity to CO2?

              Because you are 100% clueless on this, but I want to see it for myself, rather than you just insinuate that there’s something magically different that means climate sensitivity isn’t a problem with a massive MWP.

              Instead of insinuating based on your blinded ideology driven hope, lets see your reasoning.

              Or was there no reasoning in your post?

            • AG–Wow is right about this, although it is correct to say that people often use the term in discussions strictly about CO2. See this:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

              See any of the IPCC reports for long discussions about natural forcings.

            • Actually, Barry, only when talking about climate sensitivity to a doubling (or whatever increase or decrease) to CO2 is “climate sensitivity” referring only to climate’s sensitivity to CO2.

              Climate sensitivity is “what net increase in forcing in W/m2 gives what increase in average global temperature” and being defined by a change in W/m2 means it isn’t comapred to CO2.

              Indeed, in models, the effect is CO2e doubling leads to a certain W/m2 forcing, which is either direct (no feedbacks) or total (including all positive and negative feedbacks known or attributable).

              http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/forcing/

              or see RadiativeForcing on wikipedia.

              And linked from that wiki link, Climate sensitivity is defined:

              “Climate sensitivity is the equilibrium temperature change in response to changes of the radiative forcing.”

              But you rather forced my hand there, I wanted dipshit here to flail about or fail to address entirely the inanity of his claim here and then point him to the facts.

            • Even when you maintain I act drunkenly, I still manage to spank your bitch ass all around the town when you pretend to know something about climate science.

      • New to this stuff, I see. The MWP has been generally characterized (except among climate quacks) as peaking at around 1200AD after rising for several centuries as depicted in this 1990 IPCC chart:
        http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.science-skeptical.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/lambh23.jpg&imgrefurl=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/&h=252&w=480&tbnid=xVVj31C84o8VuM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=183&usg=__3tFERgmqAR0XqWhPCh8aZRiGGWE=&docid=dXan9KyOsHrPdM&itg=1&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ9QEwAGoVChMIyqykzbqGxwIVQTeICh2meA3J
        The MWP was followed by the LIA which also doesn’t show up on the hockey stick. If you see a MWP and LIA somewhere in that hockey stick why don’t you tell us where one ends and the other begins. See, BB, the names MWP and LIA were not arbitrary designations, pulled out of thin air to describe nondistinctive points on a fairly straight line–they were real, qualitatively distinct climate regimes. You are talking gibberish as always. –AGF

        • “peaking at around 1200AD”

          Only in a small region of Europe, Nasty.

          Not globally.

          Elsewhere it was cooler than average. And the overall average was lower because of this.

          You DO know that averaging lower numbers with one higher number gets you a lower number than the high one, don’t you?

          • Round and round we go. I provided dozens of links in the previous thread that show a global MWP and LIA, e.g., Patagonian glaciers that covered up MWP forests. Whether or not you were in a drunken stupor you ignored it all and continue to ignore it. I only argue with fools like you so that curious bystanders can gauge your stupidity and move on. –AGF

            • No you didn’t.

              When was the pategonian MWP?
              What was the proof of pategonian MWP?

              You claim “dozens of links” yet not one claim supporting your assertions above.

            • Still waiting for Pategonia, weirdo.

        • The LIA DOES show up on the Hockey Stick, JUST LIKE THE MWP DOES.

          Evidently you’re not bothering to look at the graph at all and are just parroting what lies the denial industry feeds you.

          Both MWP and LIA are there.

          Your claims they don’t exist are pure lies, untainted by any smidgeon of honest doubt or reason.

          • Well then the same goes for you, you moron. If you can distinguish between the MWP and the LIA on Mann’s original hockey stick tell us where one ends and the other begins. Here’s what you have to do, first grader: look at the link I gave so you can see Mann’s hockey stick; compare it with revisions (rejections) of the stick; compare it with the 1990 graph. The dumber they are the more they spout. –AGF

            • Go here, already been done:

              http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

              By eyeball:

              MWP 900-1200
              LIA 500-1800

              So.

              Your turn, asshat.

            • Wow says “Go here, already been done: http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

              Once or twice a year I go to SkS. I think my quota is filled for the year. I prefer for you to make the argument right here, restated in your own words expressing your understanding.

            • MWP 900-1200
              LIA 1500-1800

            • Looney bin, I already “made my evidence”.

              MWP 900-1200
              LIA 1500-1800

              Since all I was asked was where the MWP and LIA were, that’s my answer.

              Dumbass.

            • Poor feeble minded Wow ignores Mann’s graph and shows us an unrelated T reconstruction which actually shows the MWP and LIA. And Wow thinks he’s defending Mann, like BB.

              Wow, you incredibly stupid moron, the challenge was to use Mann’s graph to show us a demarcation between the MWP and the LIA. Mann’s hockey stick is largely rejected by Moberg 2005 in that he does not eliminate the LIA or MWP. Just as propagandist Connolley rejects much of propagandist Oreskes, so propagandist Moberg rejects much of propagandist Mann. (But the science is still settled.)

              But Moberg retains much of Mann’s propaganda: the present leaves both the MWP and the 1940’s in the dust, which is utter BS. Only through unwarranted adjustments to the record can the present be made to surpass either, and as we are fond of pointing out, all the real evidence–tree lines, C14 dating of buried forests, archaeological finds left by melting ice such as Michael 2 pointed out above (none of which Wow or BB will ever look at)–all point to a MWP which we haven’t begun to match in modern times.

              But when dealing with irrational climate religionists all such real evidence is irrelevant. How many scientists who were writing still more papers to explain the “pause” had the rug pulled out from under them when the pause suddenly disappeared from two of the major temperature records? Such preposterous absurdities as were never heard of the history of modern science are everyday fare with climate science. –AGF

            • Poor nasty. Doesn’t realise that the MWP extended beyond the end of the graph so I showed one that included a longer range.

              But he hasn’t got anything else to whine about because I identified as demanded by the petulant little brat the MWP and LIA.

              Aaaaawwww.

            • “Only through unwarranted adjustments to the record can the present be made to surpass either”

              You mean like removing the removing of Pategonia data that you did, right?

              Because with pategonia included, the warmest time in Europe was cold in Pategonia, and when it was warm in Pategonia, it was cold in Europe.

              Like there’s some sort of “moving around of hot warn airmasses”. If only there were some known mechanism to do that. Like some sort of Pacific Oscillation of weather on a decadal scale. A PDO sort of thing. If only we knew that sort of thing could happen, we’d know why that sort of thing could happen in the past too, and therefore explain why the MWP disappears almost entirely when you do a global average.

              Oh, that’s right. We DO!

              Sorted.

            • Hey, AND where is your evidence that climate sensitivity to CO2’s warming effect is unrelated to climate sensitivity to any other warming effect?

              You’re not just making shit up then abandoning it without even TRYING to make a case for it, are you?

            • “the challenge was to use Mann’s graph to show us a demarcation between the MWP and the LIA.”

              And I answered. The challenge for you is to find something that explains your blindness.

              “Mann’s hockey stick is largely rejected by Moberg 2005”

              But your “in that…” doesn’t actually make it a rejection of MBH98/99

              Moreover, Moberg2005 also shows a much much lower MWP and LIA, and both at about the same place and size as MBH99 does.

              And it shows the current temperature range as being much higher than any time previously.

              Given you accept Moberg2005, why do the conclusions not change your assertion?

          • And I’m still waiting on your pategonia data, nasty.

            • Like I said, the previous thread has it all (Wow never looked at it of course). Like I said, nearly all glaciologists accept a global MWP and LIA. Wow should be an Obama advisor. Here’s what Wow ignored, and always will (as will BB, Obama, and every other dupe of the alarmist quacks):

              agfosterjr on May 18, 2015
              at 9:25 am

              “One glacier,” says the clueless Wow. Is he so ignorant or so dishonest? And yet he is typical of the hysterical fanatics. Let’s see, here’s Mendenhall Glacier:http://juneauempire.com/outdoors/2013-09-13/ancient-trees-emerge-frozen-forest-tomb#.Ujsn03_iSeZExit Glacier:http://www.nps.gov/kefj/learn/nature/upload/The%20Retreat%20of%20Exit%20Glacier.pdfThe already mentioned Jorge Montt Glacier:http://www.clim-past.net/8/403/2012/cp-8-403-2012.pdfBering Glacier (p.ix):https://books.google.com/books?id=TlZG658NZYcC&pg=PR9&lpg=PR9&dq=dating+glaciers+by+forest+remnants&source=bl&ots=lBo_ZDTd1C&sig=jfPiGmWGUMLizGBrvwJA6TPBUgM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7PZZVZikINiwogShs4CYDg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=dating%20glaciers%20by%20forest%20remnants&f=falseEight glaciers from Prince William Sound (all with forest remnants):http://web.cortland.edu/barclayd/publications/1999b_Holocene.pdfA collection of Canadian glaciers:http://www.uwpcc.washington.edu/documents/PCC/menounos_2009.pdfFive Patagonian glaciers:http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222560014_Little_Ice_Age_fluctuations_of_small_glaciers_in_the_Monte_Fitz_Roy_and_Lago_del_Desierto_areas_south_Patagonian_Andes_ArgentinaAnd Holocene remnants generally (from western Canada), including MWP (Table 2):http://www.uwpcc.washington.edu/documents/PCC/menounos_2009.pdfAs the last reference illustrates, not all glaciers reveal MWP logs when they retreat, as the MWP was not warm enough everywhere to allow sufficient glacial retreat to produce a forest. The LIA was the coldest period since the LGM. If it had not mercifully come to an end over a century ago we would not be here arguing. Fortunately it ended, leading to benevolent warming off and on till now. Let us hope it continues, and let us hope that people pay less attention to the irrational “Wows” and Oreskes of the world. –AGFBy: agfosterjr on May 18, 2015at 9:25 amReplyAs for the promised Glaciar Jorge Montt:The Jorge Montt Glacier on the north end of the Southern Patagonian Icefield got lots of coverage a few years ago when time lapse video was released showing its record breaking retreat–82 feet per year (http://vimeo.com/33238262 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRhnLtFZxso). Some of the coverage made mention of Rivera’s explanation of fjord bathymetry being mainly responsible for the anomalous rate of retreat–the glacier floats for miles in deep water. But I have seen no MSM coverage of the beech logs discovered in 2010 by Rivera, et al, apparent remnants of a beech forest that got covered up in the LIA:2011:http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/7/3131/2011/cpd-7-3131-2011.pdf2012:http://www.clim-past.net/8/403/2012/cp-8-403-2012.pdfIn fact the only mention I have seen of it outside the initial reports is here:http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/03/gergis-two-medieval-proxies/and here:P Gosselin in NTZ:http://notrickszone.com/2011/10/16/tree-rings-show-little-ice-age-and-medieval-warm-period-were-global/And later, here: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/retreating-glacier-in-patagonia-uncovers-400-year-old-forest/Precipitation over the ice fields varies between 4 and 8 meters of water equivalent per year. This is not the Antarctic desert. A core drilled at Pio 11, one of three glaciers which is growing rather than receding went down 50 meters, at which point ice lenses were replaced by water:http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/6/5291/2012/tcd-6-5291-2012.pdf18O and deuterium analysis gave an age for the 50m core of 6 years (!), in agreement with estimated precipitation. Extrapolating from this core and calculating from currently measured precipitation it appears likely that the Patagonian Ice fields are only two centuries old, give or take a century, that they clearly date from or since the LIA, and that at low elevations ice from the LIA covered up some small beech forests.And of course all this shows that the MWP extended to the SH and that the hockey schtick is a sham. –AGFBy: agfosterjr on May 18, 2015at 9:55 amReplyTo clarify, the ice fields themselves may have survived the MWP at higher elevations, but the ice itself has such a high turnover that it is nearly all quite young, just a few centuries old. –AGFBy: agfosterjr on May 18, 2015at 9:58 amReply

              “One glacier,” says the clueless Wow. Is he so ignorant or so dishonest? And yet he is typical of the hysterical fanatics. Let’s see, here’s Mendenhall Glacier:
              http://juneauempire.com/outdoors/2013-09-13/ancient-trees-emerge-frozen-forest-tomb#.Ujsn03_iSeZ
              Exit Glacier:
              http://www.nps.gov/kefj/learn/nature/upload/The%20Retreat%20of%20Exit%20Glacier.pdf
              The already mentioned Jorge Montt Glacier:
              http://www.clim-past.net/8/403/2012/cp-8-403-2012.pdf
              Bering Glacier (p.ix):
              https://books.google.com/books?id=TlZG658NZYcC&pg=PR9&lpg=PR9&dq=dating+glaciers+by+forest+remnants&source=bl&ots=lBo_ZDTd1C&sig=jfPiGmWGUMLizGBrvwJA6TPBUgM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7PZZVZikINiwogShs4CYDg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=dating%20glaciers%20by%20forest%20remnants&f=false
              Eight glaciers from Prince William Sound (all with forest remnants):
              http://web.cortland.edu/barclayd/publications/1999b_Holocene.pdf
              A collection of Canadian glaciers:
              http://www.uwpcc.washington.edu/documents/PCC/menounos_2009.pdf
              Five Patagonian glaciers:
              http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222560014_Little_Ice_Age_fluctuations_of_small_glaciers_in_the_Monte_Fitz_Roy_and_Lago_del_Desierto_areas_south_Patagonian_Andes_Argentina
              And Holocene remnants generally (from western Canada), including MWP (Table 2):
              http://www.uwpcc.washington.edu/documents/PCC/menounos_2009.pdf

              As the last reference illustrates, not all glaciers reveal MWP logs when they retreat, as the MWP was not warm enough everywhere to allow sufficient glacial retreat to produce a forest. The LIA was the coldest period since the LGM. If it had not mercifully come to an end over a century ago we would not be here arguing. Fortunately it ended, leading to benevolent warming off and on till now. Let us hope it continues, and let us hope that people pay less attention to the irrational “Wows” and Oreskes of the world. –AGF

              By: agfosterjr on May 18, 2015
              at 9:25 am

              Reply

              As for the promised Glaciar Jorge Montt:

              The Jorge Montt Glacier on the north end of the Southern Patagonian Icefield got lots of coverage a few years ago when time lapse video was released showing its record breaking retreat–82 feet per year (http://vimeo.com/33238262 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRhnLtFZxso). Some of the coverage made mention of Rivera’s explanation of fjord bathymetry being mainly responsible for the anomalous rate of retreat–the glacier floats for miles in deep water. But I have seen no MSM coverage of the beech logs discovered in 2010 by Rivera, et al, apparent remnants of a beech forest that got covered up in the LIA:
              2011:
              http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/7/3131/2011/cpd-7-3131-2011.pdf

              2012:
              http://www.clim-past.net/8/403/2012/cp-8-403-2012.pdf

              In fact the only mention I have seen of it outside the initial reports is here:
              http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/03/gergis-two-medieval-proxies/
              and here:
              P Gosselin in NTZ:
              http://notrickszone.com/2011/10/16/tree-rings-show-little-ice-age-and-medieval-warm-period-were-global/
              And later, here: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/retreating-glacier-in-patagonia-uncovers-400-year-old-forest/

              Precipitation over the ice fields varies between 4 and 8 meters of water equivalent per year. This is not the Antarctic desert. A core drilled at Pio 11, one of three glaciers which is growing rather than receding went down 50 meters, at which point ice lenses were replaced by water:
              http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/6/5291/2012/tcd-6-5291-2012.pdf
              18O and deuterium analysis gave an age for the 50m core of 6 years (!), in agreement with estimated precipitation. Extrapolating from this core and calculating from currently measured precipitation it appears likely that the Patagonian Ice fields are only two centuries old, give or take a century, that they clearly date from or since the LIA, and that at low elevations ice from the LIA covered up some small beech forests.

              And of course all this shows that the MWP extended to the SH and that the hockey schtick is a sham. –AGF

              By: agfosterjr on May 18, 2015
              at 9:55 am

              Reply

              To clarify, the ice fields themselves may have survived the MWP at higher elevations, but the ice itself has such a high turnover that it is nearly all quite young, just a few centuries old. –AGF

              By: agfosterjr on May 18, 2015
              at 9:58 am

              Reply

            • Scores of posts, not one about pategonia.

              Go on, you were making that claim up, weren’t you.

            • Wow, noticing that things have slowed down, tries to revive the thread by commenting: “And I’m still waiting on your pategonia data”

              As there is no such place as “pategonia” you’ll be waiting a long time😉

              “Go on, you were making that claim up, weren’t you.”

              How is he supposed to answer “were you weren’t you” questions?

            • They haven’t slowed down.

              For example your posts. Pointless as they are, being a compulsion for you to type them.

              But no, your insanity isn’t contagious and the post I wrote was accurate in its content: A continued request for the nonexistent so far proofs of pategonia’s MWP.

              Despite a score of posts.

              Indicating that, as suspected, no such evidence has EVER been posted by Nasty.

              To which your posts have added, as usual, nothing.

            • “Like I said, nearly all glaciologists accept a global MWP and LIA. ”

              But that was a lie. At least in the context of the MWP and LIA you claim should (but isn’t) there.

              ““One glacier,” says the clueless Wow.”

              Yes, you gave only one glacier.

              As to your “long list” (a very short list, don’t you know how many there are?) of single glaciers:

              http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j017

              “Fortunately it ended, leading to benevolent warming off and on till now.”

              It ended nearly a hundred years ago. We’re long past it.

              Meanwhile, we’re a lot hotter than it was BEFORE the LIA, therefore the current warming isn’t “coming out of the ice age”.

              And the rest of the screed does no better.

              Oh, where is your data on Pategonia, by the way. Not one link to that…

            • Wow asserts that he is hotter: “Meanwhile, we’re a lot hotter than it was BEFORE the LIA”

              I am not hotter. I wasn’t mortal back then and even if I was I don’t remember it.

              My question for you is how you are personally impacted by being a lot hotter. If you are not impacted, then this whole conversation is pointless. If you ARE impacted by being hotter, what are you going to do about it? If nothing, then this whole conversation is pointless.

            • Wow writes “Oh, where is your data on Pategonia”

              Progress at last! You have capitalized Patagonia. I have no data on Patagonia. I suspect you have no data on Patagonia.

              I’d love to visit Patagonia. Or at least when I was younger I would have loved to go there. I might still like it but might not survive the experience.

            • This will help you.

              http://www.academia.edu/3770473/Remedial_instruction_in_english

            • Wow writes “This will help you.
              http://www.academia.edu/3770473/Remedial_instruction_in_english

              No. The author doesn’t even capitalize his own name. Sentence structure therein is fragmented with incomplete clauses (look at the very last sentence). If you have used that as a resource I can understand your own lack of expertise.

              Besides all that there’s something wrong with it. Firefox goes to 100 percent CPU utilization and hangs. Obviously it is trying to do something bad but doesn’t know how to do it to Linux.

              I was going to post the bad example but it got stuck before I could copy an example sentence. I will try again with Javascript turned off and maybe it will allow me to post an example.

            • I am back. The headline for the page is

              “Remedial instruction in english”

              English should be capitalized. I wonder if YOU wrote that page? Anyway, with Javascript disabled none of the text is visible.

            • Strange that you would cite a Philippine university for an English remedial course but at least your reference makes more sense now (your cite includes this cite).

              http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/academics/programs/undergraduate/ced/bse-eng.asp

              The parts of the Philippines that I have visited were spectacularly beautiful. I can see why the United States was reluctant to return it.

              “But the question remains: why do you try so hard to prove that there is no pategonia?”

              No, the question doesn’t remain, it is the first you have asked it.

              Your question is faulty. I have attempted no proof.

              You also have the cause and effect reversed. It is not my job to disprove the existence of “pategonia”, it is your job to prove its existence and its properties.

              Now if you were to ask why I mention the non-existence of “pategonia” I will remind you that I am pedantic and you deprive yourself of authority by your misspellings and failed capitalization.

            • Learn how to spell, Loco:

              The name Patagonia comes from the word patagón used by Magellan in 1520 to describe the native people that his expedition thought to be giants. It is now believed that the people he called the Patagons were Tehuelches, who tended to be taller than Europeans of the time.

              The Argentine researcher Miguel Doura observed that the name Patagonia possibly derives from the ancient Greek region of modern Turkey called Paflagonia, possible home of the patagon personage in the chivalric romances Primaleon printed in 1512, ten years before Magellan arrived in these southern lands. The hypothesis was accepted and published in the New Review of Spanish Philology in the 2011 article.

              But the question remains: why do you try so hard to prove that there is no pategonia?

            • Wow, it is customary when quoting a source to indicate that you are doing so, and include the cite or link. Otherwise it seems that you have suddenly become able to spell and capitalize Patagonia, when further down you suddenly revert to your preferred form “pategonia”.

              It is also known as plagiarism when you copy and paste someone else’s words as if they are your own writing. But that’s how you got through school so far. Google makes it easy to find stuff but it also makes it easy to spot plagiarism.

              This was your source:
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonia

            • If that page won’t work on your browser, try

              http://web.richmond.k12.va.us/Programs/FederalPrograms/AdultContinuingEducation/Programs.aspx

              to get some help for your problem.

            • Wow suggests “http://web.richmond.k12.va.us/Programs/FederalPrograms/AdultContinuingEducation/Programs.aspx to get some help for your problem.”

              Thanks. At the moment I seem to have no problems for which a school district in Virginia is a suitable resource.

            • Of course you may not be able to enroll there, so you may find this resource useful:

              http://englishteststore.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11403&Itemid=1

              There was another link that structured it around reading comprehension from year 1, which would be ideal for you, but the copyright notice said it was only for use by teachers.

            • Wow suggests more resources: “There was another link that structured it around reading comprehension from year 1, which would be ideal for you, but the copyright notice said it was only for use by teachers.”

              I appreciate that you chose not to spam this blog with teaching references. Maybe we can get back to something climate related or at least Mark Steyn’s genius legal gambit.

            • “I appreciate that you chose not to spam this blog with teaching references.”

              Why are you so ANGRY when all I’m trying to do is HELP you?

            • Wow, in reply to “I appreciate that you chose not to spam this blog with teaching references.”

              says “Why are you so ANGRY when all I’m trying to do is HELP you?”

              Projection. I have expressed appreciation and admiration for such skill as you are able to bring to bear. It is you that is angry. I seek to make you more angry so that we can punch through the barrier of your social media indoctrination and have a real conversation. I make you angry by going “off script”, expressing appreciation when your script calls for me to make an angry response.

              You are so tightly bound to your script that you respond as if I had acted angry.

            • “Maybe we can get back to something climate related”

              It really wouldn’t work until you’ve managed reading comprehension to at LEAST the fifth grade. Probably seventh would be useful.

              So get at it and we’ll see you when you’ve gotten to, what, third grade level?

            • Wow says “It really wouldn’t work until you’ve managed reading comprehension to at LEAST the fifth grade. Probably seventh would be useful.”

              A person often cites the age or achievement level with which he is most familiar. You chose to emphasize fifth grade, looking up to seventh. I have dangled a great many baits to see if you will rise to a real conversation. Nope, just teenage social media stuff coming from you.

              But think about it — it is *amazing* that this is possible and routine! Instant global communication. I still marvel at it. If this planet avoids World War 3 it will be because we can insult each other every five minutes seven days a week. Well, five in your case when you have access to a computer.

            • I’ll say this in baby talk because you can’t have done any reading comprehension work to get beyond that yet.

              You go read and learn.

              Come back when you know lots.

              Such as when what you say is climate related or at least Mark Steyn’s genius legal gambit.

              Which is what you wanted to go to.

              But didn’t.

              Because you need to learn how to read.

              It starts with “See Spot Run”.

              We will wait. Don’t worry.

              And we’re all here just to help.

            • Oh and you need to learn what projection is and how it can be evidenced.

              Nowhere in that post was I angry. And for ANGRY to be a projection rather than a description of your post I was quoting it would have to be angry words.

              The words I used were all loving and gentle words.

              Remember, we’re all here for you in this difficult time of Early Learning. There is no shame, your parents let you down. It’s *not your fault*.

      • Bickmore,

        You say that “Wow is right about this”. Which of statements of Wow’s are you endorsing? Because he makes two that are at odds.

        First, Wow claims that there was no pronounced MWP which of course is evidence of anthropogenic global warming because it shows recent temperature history to be anomalous.

        But Wow also claims that *if* there was a pronounced MWP that it would still be proof of global warming because it would show the climate to be unstable and susceptible to any forcings.

        Heads I win, tails you lose.

        So which statements do you agree with? First, second or both?

        • Both, Loco nutbar. And they aren’t mutually contradicting. They deal with two cases and their results.

          One, the fact of the matter, MWP was not globally pronounced, only regionally evident over a range of times.

          And the hypothetical of if there were found to be evidence of a pronounced global MWP, which means climate sensitivity is high, the absolute OPPOSITE of your claims on the climate.

          Indeed this proves you hold several contradictory “truths” at the same time, two of which are

          a) there is a pronounced global MWP
          b) the climate sensitivity is low

          However you don’t understand because you don’t WANT to understand so that you can continue to complain about the facts and evidence without feeling yourself how broken your morality is.

  42. And the same without the links:

    See ““Merchants of Doubt” for Mormons” (previous BB post):

    agfosterjr on May 18, 2015
    at 9:25 am

    Fools like Wow can never learn, but there are very few so stupid as to be unable to learn from Wow’s stupidity. –AGF

    • Wow presents an interesting puzzle. His resistance to change suggests he isn’t here to learn, or teach, or preach; but to blow off steam, to balance a humdrum existence likely as a student or maybe adjunct in a college in England. In the book “1984”, George Orwell proposes that society needs a daily “two minute hate” to keep them focused.

      IN the winter school months he hasn’t posted a single comment on Saturdays or Sundays in the past three years. Also during those months he has a distinct daily pattern where he posts from 1200 UTC to 1900 UTC with sharp cutoffs except on Tuesdays nothing after 1630, and a chunk taken out of the middle of his Thursdays. That spells class times, student probably with no access to computers on weekends.

      Summer months, different story. Intense posting 7 days a week for the first three hours daily and less thereafter until bedtime. He has an entirely different summer life versus winter life. That could be student wanting to be seen as “big” or a teacher hopelessly confined by the constraints of a politically correct education system and just needs to argue with someone as a way to think through problems.

    • Well, that was an asinine and empty claim, containing only bile hate and unreasoning fear.

      I’d call it about a 0.7. Could do better.

      • The psychiatrist has just been graded by the patient. Next thing you know the doc’s pay will be determined by the grade. –AGF

        • agfosterjr writes “The psychiatrist has just been graded by the patient.”

          I suspect that is a common experience. With easy access to online psychiatric information it is very easy to mimic a behavior pattern and achieve a desired diagnosis and plenty of good ADA reasons for doing so.

          Among the most grandiose delusions I’ve seen in my life are those who pronounce error on someone famous. They have nothing better but will assert that someone famous was in error implying superiority without having to produce proof.

          With Google only a few clicks away, even a 12 year old can run with wolves, pronouncing errors on other people while noticeably lacking in personal contributions.

          “Next thing you know the doc’s pay will be determined by the grade.”

          Coming soon to a hospital near you. Online doctor rating sites exist and a poorly rated doctor may have some difficulty finding patients.

        • You what?

    • None of which gave ANY proof of a global MWP nor of a warmer MWP than current temperatures.

      The “conversation” (such as it was) wasn’t even about pategonia. Yet you claimed that you’d proven it with scores of links to pategonia.

      Except that would have had to have been scores of repeats of one that doesn’t do anything of the sort.

  43. Lets take one paper produced by nasty here as supporting his case.

    “P´o XI, the largest glacier of the Southern Patagonia Icefield, reached its neoglacial maximum extent in 1994 and is one of the few glaciers in that area which is not re-treating.”

    Hmm. “One of the few … not retreating”.

    Also:

    “On the northern CMM plateau glacier thickness varied from 70 to more than 300 m.”

    Hmmm. Divide 70 or 300 by 50 and multiply by the 6 years to supply 50m of snow…. Surely nasty isn’t saying that this glacier is younger than ME?!?!?!

    But NOWHERE in the paper does it show any MWP in Pategonia.

    If his claims were NOT that this proves a global MWP, maybe his posting of a link to this paper would be excusable.

    But it is, so it isn’t.

    The fact that his links didn’t support his claim is very much a denier “trick” (in the actual “fake the shit out of this” sense of the word).

    So nasty, your BEST PROOF of a global warming period in the medieval period of Europe is a list of precipitation rates for the 21st century….

    • This one gets its first repeat…. so far…

    • Wow writes “Hmm. One of the few … not retreating”.

      Hmm indeed. One glacier is not retreating. Others are retreating. How can that be in the case of global warming? Perhaps warming isn’t actually global. It wasn’t then, it isn’t now.

      • “How can that be in the case of global warming?”

        Ice melts.

        Did you forget?

        • Wow, in response to Michael 2, writes “Ice melts.”

          Sometimes. Sometimes it sublimates.

          I suspect you might have a point but it is not clear as to what it is.

          My point is simple enough. One glacier cannot just decide to NOT melt. Obviously it is not getting the same heat as other glaciers. That means warming isn’t global.

          Or it means something else. Your turn…

          • Ice melts. This is a fact.

            I am sorry you forgot this and are embarrassed.

            Why do you care so much about proving ice doesn’t melt?

  44. Lets look at the other one, behind the denier “interpretation”:

    “Glaciar Jorge Montt (48 20 S/73 30 W), one of the main tidewater glaciers of the Southern Patagonian Icefield (SPI), has experienced the fastest frontal retreat ob-served in Patagonia during the past century, with a recession of 19.5 km between 1898 and 2011.”

    Oh dear.

    This one, however, DID include some tree ring data for more than the last handful of years.

    Unfortunately, it doesn’t show any sort of MWP or LIA. The latter could be forgiven since this is from trees that were covered in the LIA, but it doesn’t show a MWP.

    And only lasts 275 years. Far too short to show anything of a MWP.

    Another attempt to “prove” a pategonian MWP failed.

    • Also note this one got included twice by virtue of being repeated on two denier blogs so far.

      You wouldn’t be padding your count out illicitly, would you, Nasty? That sort of fraud is VERY BAD.

      • Oops. Make that three times repeated now.

    • Wow, quoting a source of spelling of Patagonia,
      “Glaciar Jorge Montt (48 20 S/73 30 W), one of the main tidewater glaciers of the Southern Patagonian Icefield (SPI)…”

      continues to spell it with an “e” “Another attempt to prove a pategonian MWP failed.”

      Besides the trivial but persistent spelling issue, I wonder why you are trying to disprove an MWP. Why does it matter to you?

      Why do you think anything you write, or anyone else writes, is proof?

      • Why are you trying to prove a global MWP?

        If you believe nothing anyone writes is proof, why do you keep trying to write something as proof of something?

        If you cannot prove anything, why do you keep trying?

        If you think that to post a counter requires a reason to post to be stated, where is yours?

  45. On to the fourth of the three actual ones.

    This one references the IPCC. So really can’t be showing anything different to what the IPCC shows.

    I note that even the excerpts taken don’t show a LIA. Have your denier chums given up on the LIA already???

  46. menuous gets several repeats. Looks like we only have a half dozen or fewer ACTUAL pieces of evidence, two thirds of which have been irrelevant to the claim, one third “proving” no LIA at all.

    Unfortunately, it’s Canada.

    Last I looked, it wasn’t near enough to Pategonia nor even the Southern Hemisphere for Continental Drift to have moved it there by then. Even if it were to be going directly there. Even though that would require it going over the entire USA. Something that would have been mentioned in geography if it had occurred, I’m sure…

    So that’s another half dozen down, not one piece of evidence of ANY MWP in the south….

  47. OK, Prince William Sound.

    That’s in Alaska. Same problem as Canada.

  48. Mendenhall Glacier: Alaska. Not Pategonia.
    Exit Glacier: Alaska.

    So, now, we have all “some number” of links, not one of which shows a global MWP or a SH MWP.

    The majority of them are repeats, so that “some number” is a lot lower than the link count. Quite why they needed to be repeated time and time again escapes me unless it’s done to pad the numbers to appear to be a much bigger list than it actually is.

    Or that Nasty has never visited any of them, just repeated their existence and taken them on blind faith. Not inquired because unlike the truth, this is a like he LIKES.

  49. Try going here first.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

    And don’t rely on denier blogs for your first port of call…

  50. The problem is it’s the Wows of the world who are controlling the political debate and deciding on the disastrous solutions to the imaginary climate problem. Careful how you vote, wherever you are. –AGF

    • Why is it a problem unless it’s because it interferes with the nasties of this world taking over the debate?

      I note you have zero comeback on your “evidence” being completely lacking.

      No evidence of a global MWP being higher than any of the hockey stick graphs in the IPCC, none of which are notably different from MBH98.

      All your links are retreads making no claims as to a warm global MWP therefore are no evidence against MBH98.

  51. In copying and pasting twice over the links do get jumbled. Here they are in a slightly more pristine form, as in BB’s previous thread. Any curious will readily see that “Wow” has invented everything–all the links report glaciers from the MWP or earlier–only the first has no logs as young as the MWP.

    Mendenhall Glacier:
    http://juneauempire.com/outdoors/2013-09-13/ancient-trees-emerge-frozen-forest-tomb#.Ujsn03_iSeZ
    Exit Glacier:
    http://www.nps.gov/kefj/learn/nature/upload/The%20Retreat%20of%20Exit%20Glacier.pdf
    Jorge Montt Glacier:
    http://www.clim-past.net/8/403/2012/cp-8-403-2012.pdf
    Bering Glacier (p.ix):
    https://books.google.com/books?id=TlZG658NZYcC&pg=PR9&lpg=PR9&dq=dating+glaciers+by+forest+remnants&source=bl&ots=lBo_ZDTd1C&sig=jfPiGmWGUMLizGBrvwJA6TPBUgM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7PZZVZikINiwogShs4CYDg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=dating%20glaciers%20by%20forest%20remnants&f=false
    Eight glaciers from Prince William Sound (all with forest remnants):
    http://web.cortland.edu/barclayd/publications/1999b_Holocene.pdf
    A collection of Canadian glaciers:
    http://www.uwpcc.washington.edu/documents/PCC/menounos_2009.pdf
    Five Patagonian glaciers:
    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222560014_Little_Ice_Age_fluctuations_of_small_glaciers_in_the_Monte_Fitz_Roy_and_Lago_del_Desierto_areas_south_Patagonian_Andes_Argentina
    And Holocene remnants generally (from western Canada), including MWP (Table 2):
    http://www.uwpcc.washington.edu/documents/PCC/menounos_2009.pdf

    All these glaciers have uncovered remnants of ancient forests which grew when the world was much warmer, before the LIA just a few centuries ago. That’s why glaciologists reject CRU’s temperature reconstructions generally, as far back as Groves and Switzur 1994: http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Glacial.pdf

    …and continuing till the present. –AGF

    • Thank you for those informative links.

      • Come on now. You haven’t even learned how to read properly yet.

        Get to at least fifth grade before making pronouncements on how “informative” a link is when you haven’t done anything other than count them.

      • You’re welcome. Here’s more stuff: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

        • Ah, nope, sorry, that site is in the fiction section.

          Likely they too confuse “The ice there is retreating which entered there in the LIA” with “There was a hotter MWP”.

          This, however, is not the case.

          Try somewhere that can be relied upon to at least vaguely follow the facts, not make them up.

        • Thanks for the link to co2science.org. I didn’t know about that site so I have added it to my list of Global Warming shortcuts/links. My project of the moment is going through Monckton et al Irreducibly simple model since my understanding of math is adequate for the purpose. As others have written it is a good primer on the topic.

          • Come on, we all know you still can’t read.

          • Oh dear, you ARE a card!

            “a good primer on the topic.”

            Well, others have written it’s a load of shit. For some reason, the proof that provides is not enough for you to accept.

            Anyone can do the simplest model. Indeed Arrhenius did one himself with pen and paper, no computers in those days.

            Single Column Model.

          • For Barry, that “monckfish incredibly stupid model” there’s a huge problem with it. It relies on a massive magic number put in right at the beginning:

            It asserts that the maximum value for the closed-loop gain – or feedback factor g – allowed by process engineers designing electronic circuits intended not to oscillate under any operating conditions, is 0.1.

            That is a figure put IN to their “model”, not one produced BY the model.

            And that gain is what the model is supposed to be producing!

    • “Mendenhall Glacier:”

      A repeat of your earlier claim.

      “Exit Glacier:”

      A repeat of your earlier claim.

      “Jorge Montt Glacier:”

      A repeat of your earlier claim.

      “Bering Glacier (p.ix):”

      Oh, appears to be a new one.But still has the problems of being in Alaska and not the southern hemisphere, so can’t show a southern MWP. But doesn’t show a Northern MWP either.

      “Eight glaciers from Prince William Sound”

      “A collection of Canadian glaciers:”

      A repeat of your earlier claim.

      “Five Patagonian glaciers:”

      Oh, at last, some from pategonia! But the problem is the paper doesn’t show an MWP.

      “And Holocene remnants generally (from western Canada), ”

      But it is still a repeat (menuous). Which was a repeat before. Which was itself a repeat and from a post that posted it several times.

      And still has the problem it’s in the north so can’t show a southern MWP. But the paper, as seems to be the case in every one you’ve given, doesn’t give a MWP temperature chart.

      But all of these glaciers are included in this study:

      http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j017

      and none of them disagree with it. Nor do any disagree with MBH98.

      So your “scores” of links turn out to be mostly repeats. No, you don’t get to count the same thing fifteen times and call it “over a dozen pieces of evidence”.

      Naughty boy.

    • “And Holocene remnants generally (from western Canada), including MWP (Table 2):”

      Um, downloaded it to look at this MWP data, and table 2 doesn’t have it.

      At all.

      Not even a smidgeon.

      Go look for yourself.

    • “as far back as Groves and Switzur 1994”

      Except nowhere in that link is there ANY SHRED of evidence for your claim “That’s why glaciologists reject CRU’s temperature reconstructions generally”.

      Not a single shred.

  52. For example, the Holocene1999b paper starts with:

    Abstract: Tree-ring studies at 13 glacier forefields in western Prince William Sound show ‘Little Ice Age’ glacial fluctuations were strongly synchronous on decadal timescales. Cross-dated glacially overrun trees at eight sites indicate ice margins advanced in the early (late twelfth through thirteenth centuries) and middle (seventeenth to early eighteenth centuries) ‘Little Ice Age’.

    ===

    Proof of MWP: Nonexistent.

    • Here’s Wow on Aug. 1, above, 0309 hours:

      “The LIA DOES show up on the Hockey Stick, JUST LIKE THE MWP DOES.

      “Evidently you’re not bothering to look at the graph at all and are just parroting what lies the denial industry feeds you.

      “Both MWP and LIA are there.

      “Your claims they don’t exist are pure lies, untainted by any smidgeon of honest doubt.”

      Then at 0903 hours he sends us to this link, to prove the hockey stick has the MWP: http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

      And now he says proof of the MWP is “nonexistent.”

      Make up your mind, Wow, you’re chasing your tail, as always. But first you need to learn to define your terms, and think and write with a little precision. Tough, I know. –AGF

      • “Then at 0903 hours he sends us to this link, to prove the hockey stick has the MWP: http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

        Yes. Your problem is what?

        “And now he says proof of the MWP is “nonexistent.””

        Yes, the proof in your cited sources for an MWP is nonexistent.

        Your problem is that you’re an idiot?

        • We have to keep it very very simple for a true believer. Wow, imbecile, does Moberg’s hockey stick show a MWP or not? Is it wrong or not? If it’s wrong why did you link to it? If it’s right, why do you say there is no evidence for a MWP? Is anybody on the planet as stupid as Wow? Yes, a whole lot of climate change fanatics. –AGF

          • Yes, you do have to keep it simple because complex lies are harder to maintain and result in a more fragile lie.

            “does Moberg’s hockey stick show a MWP or not?”

            Yes, it does.

            “why do you say there is no evidence for a MWP? ”

            Because I wasn’t talking about Moberg 2005. I quoted the paper I was talking about. Reading comprehension at the preschool level is a problem you have too, is it?

            But, hey, show us where in Holocene1999b there is a hockey stick and an MWP.

            If you think there’s some MWP proof in that paper and it does exist, show us where.

            • “Holocene 1999b”? Do you mean MBH99 (Mann’s original HS)? The BS is so deep around here you need a snorkel. I guess you mean Wiles et al 1999, titled: “Tree-ring-dated ‘Little Ice Age’ histories of maritime glaciers from western Prince William Sound, Alaska.” Definitely no HS there–the HS never was anything but BS and this is legit science. A MWP? Well to some extent the MWP is defined by the LIA: the MWP ended when the LIA began. And just as the LIA is not exactly synchronous everywhere neither is the MWP. But all these papers speak of LIA glacier advances and the trees they destroyed. And while not every temperate coastal gets covered by a glacier at the same time, it is just as reasonable to speak of MWP forests as of LIA glaciers. Some forests survive the LIA and some glaciers survive the MWP. The two charts in Wiles 99 definitely do show periods of forest growth between 1000 and 1750 AD. And that certainly doesn’t disagree with Grove and Switsur 94.

              All this is of minor relevance. The original HS had no LIA either, and all glaciologists accept the LIA. Mann was a quack. –AGF

            • No, I meant Holocene199b. If I’d meant something else, I would have USED different words. It is how you tell one set of things from another: you use different words for them.

            • No, I meant Holocene1999b. If I’d meant something else, I would have USED different words. It is how you tell one set of things from another: you use different words for them.

              (missed off the 9)

            • “The original HS had no LIA either”

              It’s been pointed out several times now that it does in fact have an LIA.

  53. Well then what is it? The URL for Wiles99 includes “1999b_Holocene” (
    http://web.cortland.edu/barclayd/publications/1999b_Holocene.pdfA ) but, 1) we certainly don’t go around using ephemeral URL’s to identify papers, and 2) if Wiles99 is what you meant then say so–I already addressed that possibility.

    I can only deduce you are a climaphobe whose phobia drove you insane. You should let Michael 2 help you. –AGF

    • We do use ephemeral URLs to identify papers.

      You did.

      Not your fault, though, since URL is a part of the HTML language and used specifically to refer to other content.

      But the fact remains: we DO use ephemeral URLs to identify papers.

    • “The two charts in Wiles 99 definitely do show periods of forest growth between 1000 and 1750 AD. And that certainly doesn’t disagree with Grove and Switsur 94.”

      The two charts don’t show an MWP, either. And doesn’t disagree with MBH98 or 99.

      • What the charts show is the dates of forest growth, which forests were covered by glaciers, and have only in recent decades been uncovered by ice. What this proves to any creature with multiple brain cells is that wherever this occurred the temperature was warmer for longer than in recent decades. Periods that were warmer than the present are called “warm.” When the forests grew during the Medieval Age the forests and their warmth are termed “medieval,” hence the “Medieval Warm Period.”

        So who are the real “deniers” here? You, Mann, BB, Oreskes, Pachauri, Hansen, Gore, etc. –AGF

        • And no, we do not use URL’s to identify papers–only to link to them. If you can’t figure that out, what can you figure out? –AGF

        • “What the charts show is the dates of forest growth,”

          Trees grow above the snowline. So their growth doesn’t show us the temperature.

          And the MWP can’t be identified unless you have a temperature reading.

        • “What this proves to any creature with multiple brain cells is that wherever this occurred the temperature was warmer for longer than in recent decades. ”

          Nope. It only shows it was warmer than the LIA.

          Which is why the paper only talks about the LIA and when it was.

        • “Who are the real deniers here?”

          You are, nasty.

          You are.

  54. Wow: “Trees grow above the snowline. So their growth doesn’t show us the temperature.”

    Wish you could convince Mann of the second half of that non sequitur; the skeptics agree. Latitude and elevation of tree lines certainly is T dependent. Glaciers are mostly T dependent (but also precipitation dependent); their growth and decline generally correspond to T variability (hence all the fuss, Wow). Therefore when glaciers crush trees in many places roughly concurrently we conclude a lowering of temperature, an LIA, a climate regime of lower temperatures than the preceding regime, a relatively warm regime, a “warm period.” Whatever one calls it, the glaciers of the LIA destroyed forests which grew for centuries, and it will take a while for those forests to grow back, if they ever do. We are fortunate the LIA came to an end, and that we are possibly returning to an extended warm period like what preceded it, the long, irregular, MWP. The T trend of the 20th century was primarily a recovery from the LIA, as LOD and Glacier Bay rebound indicate. –AGF

    • What nonsequitur?

      I was talking about your claims on that paper, not MBH98.

      MBH worked out temperatures from the ring growth of trees that were good proxies of temperature. They used measurements.

      YOU just claimed “the forest growth”, which

      a) isn’t the tree growth, it’s the forest growth
      b) isn’t a measurement
      c) isn’t converted to a temperature
      d) isn’t selected to be a good proxy of temperature

      because it wasn’t attempting to find the temperature of the recent past.

      The only problem here is one of your own refusal to think.

    • Talking of removing the MWP, your remaining drivel is going on about the LIA and has removed the MWP from discussion.

      If your only “proof” for an MWP is “It was warmer than the LIA”, then you have just removed the MWP.

  55. Wow: “MBH worked out temperatures from the ring growth of trees that were good proxies of temperature. They used measurements.”

    Thermometers, no doubt? –AGF

    • Nope.

      Read MBH98 before you try to tell anyone it’s wrong.

      • Well how did they use “measurements”? You know, proxies and measurements are sort of mutually exclusive. But what I find funniest about MBH98 is the pleading of “skilful reconstruction” over and over. Nobody else used any skill like he did. But the glaciers started melting over a hundred years ago–right at the bottom of his trough. Junk science, universally rejected by all…except BB and you. –AGF

        • “Well how did they use “measurements”? ”

          They got the measurements and made a graph of the temperature vs time and that produced a hockey stick.

          That’s how they used the measurements.

          What they didn’t do was go “Well, there were more forests in the middle ages than today, so it must have been warmer!” like you.

        • Also, since you seemed to have missed it last time:

          MBH worked out temperatures from the ring growth of trees that were good proxies of temperature. They used measurements.

          YOU just claimed “the forest growth”, which

          a) isn’t the tree growth, it’s the forest growth
          b) isn’t a measurement
          c) isn’t converted to a temperature
          d) isn’t selected to be a good proxy of temperature

          because it wasn’t attempting to find the temperature of the recent past.

          The only problem here is one of your own refusal to think.

          • “MBH worked out temperatures from the ring growth of trees that were good proxies of temperature. They used measurements.”

            Like with a tape measure or sumpthin?

            • Yes, something like a tape measure.

        • “But the glaciers started melting over a hundred years ago–right at the bottom of his trough”

          No they didn’t.

          • “But the glaciers started melting over a hundred years ago–right at the bottom of his trough”

            Yes they did.

            • “Yes they did.”

              No they didn’t.

  56. From your Western Canada paper, nasty:

    Dendrochronological dating (Rey-nolds, 1992; Luckman, 1995, 1996b; Robinson, 1998) show that Robson, Peyto, and Stutfield glaciers advanced into forest during the periods AD1150–1350, ca AD1246–1375, and after AD1272, respectively. Robson Glacier advanced ca 550 m at 2–3 m/year (Luckman, 1995). The similar ages and wide distribution of these sites are strong evidence for a regional period of glacier advance between AD1150 and 1350, during which glaciers reached to within 500 m of their LIA maximum positions.

    When was your MWP?

    Peaked around 1200AD, didn’t you say?

    Yet glaciers were advancing in Canada….

    • Wow says “Peaked around 1200AD, didn’t you say?”

      Yes, I didn’t say. Were you to ask, but you didn’t, I would suggest AD 900 to AD 1100 plus or minus a few hundred years. It was around AD 950 that Eirik Rauthi discovered Greenland; but he was something of a fugitive as well as an explorer, and his son Leifur discovered America, except of course didn’t know it by that name.

      But since you didn’t ask I don’t make these claims except as a suggestion of my MWP. Your MWP can be anything you wish it to be.

      • You’re getting even worse at reading, child.

  57. Oddly enough (or not) the same happened in Europe between 1050 and 1150, as Grove and Switsur state right in their abstract, but that doesn’t detract from their overwhelming evidence for a MWP.

    “No they didn’t.” –says Wow, categorically. Wow, when glacier moraines can be dated (which is quite often), they tell us precisely when the glacier began a retreat, and that is usually between 150 and 300 years ago, long before Mann’s latest T min. Glacier National Park in Montana is exceptional: 1860-1880 http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/climate_glaciers.htm –together with some glaciers in New Zealand.

    Here’s what the same authors you mentioned have to say:
    “4.4.1. Definition of the Little Ice Age
    The Little Ice Age (LIA) includes the glacier advances of the past
    millennium, more specifically those beginning during the 12th and
    13th centuries, achieving maximum extents in the 17th–19th
    centuries, and ending near the beginning of the 20th century. The
    events are broadly synchronous across the Cordillera of the
    Americas from Alaska through Canada to Patagonia (Luckman and
    Villalba, 2000).”

    Got that? Maxima in the 17th to 19th centuries. Maximum means the point at which they start melting–faster than they grow, of course. And where is Mann’s LIA max? 1900. So again, make up your mind. Are you going to defend Mann or Moberg? They disagree substantially you know. Moberg’s LIA max (T min) is about 1700, in line with the glacial evidence. Mann is a lone maverick, pretty much abandoned by alarmist and scientist alike. Those who insist on standing by him are looking sillier all the time.

    “MBH worked out temperatures from the ring growth of trees that were good proxies of temperature. They used measurements.”

    Phrenologists used rulers too. Density measurements are more indicative of rainfall than T. –AGF

    • Oh right, I see. If glacier are retreating, that’s proof of an MWP, and if glaciers are expanding, that’s ALSO proof of an MWP.

      Yeah, right.

      Talk about fake “science”! It’s not science, NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE, it “proves” your case! It’s UNFALSIFIABLE!!!!

      • Wow writes “If glacier are retreating, that’s proof of an MWP, and if glaciers are expanding, that’s ALSO proof of an MWP.”

        By Jove, I think you’ve got it! In order for there to be a warm period, glaciers must retreat and then advance. In order for there to be a cold period, glaciers must advance and then retreat.

        • Since those glaciers were advancing throughout the MWP you propose, and they are now retreating, you’ve just proven that it’s now warmer than the MWP.

          By quite a lot.

          “MWP”: Glaciers growing 2-3m/year
          Last few decades: Glaciers retreating faster than 2m/year.

          That’s a lot warmer.

    • “But the glaciers started melting over a hundred years ago–right at the bottom of his trough.

      “No they didn’t.” –says Wow, categorically.”

      And your claims in this post prove my point.

      Some did? Some didn’t. YOUR claim was all of them did, at the same time.

  58. “The MWP was followed by the LIA which also doesn’t show up on the hockey stick. ” says nasty July 31, 2015 at 5:21 pm

    “But the glaciers started melting over a hundred years ago–right at the bottom of his trough.” says nasty about the same hockey stick graph August 10, 2015 at 3:26 pm

    Nasty, if the hockey stick doesn’t show the LIA, how can you claim it’s in the wrong place?

    • Perfect imbecile. Moberg’s modified HS does show an LIA; Mann’s doesn’t. Pick one, idiot. –AGF

      • “Mann’s doesn’t. Pick one, idiot”

        Yes, pick one, idiot.

        You were talking about Mann’s HS when you claimed it didn’t have one. And now you claim that his HS has an LIA where all the glaciers were melting.

        ***I*** am not picking ***ANY***.

        YOU are the one picking one, and your defence of the indefensible is to now pretend that I’ve been talking about both of them.

      • Here is a larger selection of what you wrote, you goggle-eyed paedophile:

        “But what I find funniest about MBH98 is the pleading of “skilful reconstruction” over and over. Nobody else used any skill like he did. But the glaciers started melting over a hundred years ago–right at the bottom of his trough”

        But you NOW say “Moberg’s modified HS does show an LIA; Mann’s doesn’t”.

        As defence against me quoting how you’ve made the quote that there’s an LIA in Mann’s HS AND a quote that Mann’s HS DOESN’T have an LIA.

        • I told you and BB a week ago to identify when Mann’s LIA started. You didn’t. You couldn’t. There isn’t one. Only the end of a straight line of steady declining. But what’s the use of arguing with brain dead zombies? None. –AGF

          • AND…glaciers don’t start melting at a T min.

            • I shouldn’t have said that–they’re always melting, and a retreat usually does occur at a T min. –AGF

            • agfosterjr writes “I shouldn’t have said that–they’re always melting, and a retreat usually does occur at a T min. –AGF”

              I like your precision in language. In the English vernacular “melting” is synonymous with retreating (a short form of “melting back”). A glacier that does not melt must advance until the entire Earth is covered at which point the only vapor left to freeze is that which sublimates from the exposed surface.

            • “I shouldn’t have said that–they’re always melting”

              Hell you shouldn’t have said a shitload of things. They’ve all been AT LEAST as wrong as that you now retract.

          • “I told you and BB a week ago to identify when Mann’s LIA started. ”

            1) We did.
            2) This still doesn’t explain how you believe there is no LIA AND YET glaciers all melted right in the middle of the LIA on the graph.

            “You didn’t.”

            We did. See August 1, 2015 at 9:58 am

            ” You couldn’t.”

            We did. See August 1, 2015 at 9:58 am

            “There isn’t one.”

            Then how could you claim that h”te glaciers started melting over a hundred years ago–right at the bottom” if there isn’t an LIA?

            ONE of those statements AT LEAST is wrong.

            Which ones?

          • “Only the end of a straight line of steady declining.”

            Go look at the graph again. There isn’t ANY “straight line of steady declining” in the graph.

            Hell, should I have said “LOOK THIS ONCE”?

  59. MWP 900-1200
    LIA 1500-1800

    By: Wow on August 1, 2015
    at 9:58 am
    ==========================================
    You get that ^^ from this >> (blue)?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf

    What are you smoking? –AGF

    • “You get that ^^ from this >> (blue)?? ”

      I already told you once, moron.

      “the end of a straight line of steady declining.”

      You get ^^ from >> ??

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf

      • You’re nuts. (But we knew that.) You’ll note moreover there is a T difference of less than 0.2C between your arbitrarily drawn MWP and LIA. –AGF

        • “You’re nuts”

          It’s always projection with you denier retards, isn’t it.

          “there is a T difference of less than 0.2C between your arbitrarily drawn MWP and LIA. ”

          Yes.

          So?

          • So? So you have gone 90% of the way to defining the MWP and LIA out of existence, as Mann’s chart intended to do. Mann tried to get rid of the MWP, and LIA. You and BB won’t let him. You see MWP’s where there aren’t any. And you think you are defending Mann when you dream up a MWP on his chart. Mann can’t win for losing. And you see a MWP that starts in 900 when Mann’s chart doesn’t go back that far. Visionary. –AGF

            • “So you have gone 90% of the way to defining the MWP and LIA out of existence”

              Nope, I haven’t.

              If you believe that it should have been 2 degrees difference, you’re insane because 3 degrees is the difference between green fields and a mile thick glacier of an ice age.

              You need to prove what the difference was. You have failed entirely to do so, indeed all you’ve managed to do is prove that it may not even exist.

              Glaciers grew, and a large proportion of them, during this “MWP” according to your provided proof of the existence of the MWP and LIA.

              Running Monckfish’s Incredibly Stupid Model would give you less than half the difference: less than a tenth of a degree. Go on, run it yourself and see.

              Even Moberg2005 gives a difference around 2x that of MBH98/99, about 0.4 degrees. Given that other reconstructions are either solely Northern Hemispheric, close to, but slightly above MBH, and that none of them go as high as Moberg, even if you posit that MBH is a low outlier, it is only reducing “what really happened” by 30% or less. No worse than Moberg’s inflation of it.

              At 0.2 degrees, climate sensitivity would be about 2.5C per doubling CO2e. At 20 degrees, climate sensitivity would have to be about 25C per doubling. Moberg’s value would be something over 5C per doubling. At ~3C per doubling, the most likely value, MBH would be under-reporting the difference, but not by much.

              But you have failed entirely to show that the MWP is there, what its height was or when it happened. “Somewhere within this thousand year range” doesn’t show anything other than temporary regional, not global, warming.

              So stop with the histrionics. Start providing evidence.

            • Antarctic ice cores show T variability of about 10C, e.g., Vostok:

              …which shows what gibberish is your talk of climate sensitivity (but at least you’re talking about CO2 now): 60ppm corresponds to 10C, which is how we know that CO2 is governed by T, not T by CO2.

              And now after insisting nonsensically that MBH99 shows a MWP, you deny the MWP in the face of real world evidence. You flip flop by the hour. All it takes is one clueless idiot like you with a billion dollars to buy up a whole lot of news print and fool a billion people. –AGF

            • “Antarctic ice cores show T variability of about 10C,”

              Really?

              What was the global average? Or do you think ice cores in vostock tell you the temperature in tel aviv?

              “60ppm corresponds to 10C,”

              Which means that going from 280ppm to 560ppm which is 2×60 and therefore 20C. Which means a climate sensitivity about seven times HIGHER than the IPCC best estimate.

              ” which is how we know that CO2 is governed by T,”

              No it doesn’t. See calculation above.

            • “you deny the MWP in the face of real world evidence.”

              Those vostock curves don’t show any MWP. Your “real world evidence” shows no MWP.

            • That should be 280ppm to 560ppm is about 4x60pp, change or 40C. ABOUT 15 TIMES the IPCC best estimate.

            • The T constructions for Vostok are based on 18O measurements, which vary according to condensation T wherever the clouds form that eventually snow over the Antarctic desert. So yes, they depict the SH equivalent of Tel Aviv T.

              Your climate sensitivity talk remains gibberish, but all those dire predictions are also based on such gibberish. Obviously the ice core equivalence has no relevance to the fossil fuel controversy –causality cannot be inferred, let alone a quantitative correlation.

              A MWP at Vostok? You’re right of course, for ridiculously wrong reasons: the MWP is hardly a pixel on the Vostok graph. But such comments accurately reflect your understanding of the problem and of math in general. I’m not sure sobriety becomes you. –AGF

            • “The T constructions for Vostok are based on 18O measurements,”

              How many were in Israel? Australia? France? China? The USA? Argentina?

              “So yes, they depict the SH equivalent of Tel Aviv T.”

              No they don’t.

              “Your climate sensitivity talk remains gibberish”

              Only because they’re using your gibberish claim “60ppm is 10C”.

              “A MWP at Vostok? You’re right of course,”

              Then your claim I am avoiding “real world evidence” of the MWP is unsupported.

            • “Obviously the ice core equivalence has no relevance to the fossil fuel controversy –causality cannot be inferred, let alone a quantitative correlation.”

              So obviously the CO2 at the time of these cores must be some magical version of CO2 that isn’t absorbing at IR ranges like all the CO2 we have today, whether fossil fuel produced or natural.

              What is this magical force, then, and where did you discover it?

            • Wow asks “What is this magical force, then, and where did you discover it?”

              It is “an energy field created by all living things, that surrounds and penetrates living beings and binds the galaxy together”

              Since it is everywhere, discovering it tends to be a gradual process of awareness rather than an abrupt discovery such as picking up a nugget of gold from a riverbed.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Force_%28Star_Wars%29

            • “let alone a quantitative correlation.”

              You were the one who brought in a qualitative correlation: one that leads to nearly 50C for a doubling of CO2.

              “Antarctic ice cores show T variability of about 10C,”

              Remember?

              Oh, by the way, where IS the Antarctic and where IS Vostock?

              I thought the latter was in Russia, the northern hemisphere, and the former was in the southern hemisphere.

              But maybe continental drift puts the Eurasian continent at the other end of the planet 10,000 years ago…?

            • Wow asks “where IS the Antarctic and where IS Vostock?”

              The antarctic is a region encompassing the south pole and including the continent of Antarctica. I am pleased that you noticed the subtle difference.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic

              Vostok is a research station in Antarctica. I have not heard of Vostock so you’re on your own for that one. Anyway, ice cores were drilled at Vostok Station:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_Station

            • Wow questions the location of the Vostok ice core: it must be in Russia. And his spelling still indicates he’s sober. Time to give it up. –AGF

            • agfosterjr “Wow questions the location of the Vostok ice core: it must be in Russia.”

              Vostock is in the Ukraine, Vostok is in Antarctica. This is very easy to find out so I wonder at Wow’s purpose in persisting in error.

            • “Wow questions the location of the Vostok ice core”

              Yes I do. You question the IPCC.

              So what is wrong with questioning, and is this only bad if others do it?

              Come, answer now.

            • Wow, I never have taken you seriously but now it’s safe to hope nobody will take you seriously. Have you ever heard of google, or the internet, or Wikipedia? Or of naming settlements or scientific stations after cities and people?

              Let’s see, the movie “Ice Station Zebra” must be fiction because zebras don’t live on ice. And sure enough, it’s fiction. See? Such is a Wow argument together with vindication. –AGF

            • I notice you either could not or will not answer my questions.

              What is wrong with questioning, and is this only bad if others do it?

              Come, answer now.

          • Wow writes “It’s always projection with you denier retards, isn’t it.”

            I do not know how to respond to comments in the form “it is .. is it not” but I accept the invitation to write something stimulated by the word “projection”.

            I suspect it is human nature to project; that is to say, to map one’s own experiences and expectations onto one’s observations.

            Projecting is inevitable. How can you imagine that everyone else is honest and truthful if you are not? Conversely, an honest and truthful person may have difficulty maintaining any kind of awareness that others are neither simply because in each case the concept of the other way is alien.

            Because I am polite and honest; you will imagine that it is really exceptionally clever deception because that is your projection. I, on the other hand, project onto you a non-existence capacity for dialog and interesting conversation. I don’t learn otherwise because I cannot; same with you.

            • You, above: “Because I am polite and honest;”

              You, August 11, 2015 at 6:01 pm “I use only one handle per blog and I am consistent.”

              Yet you posted here as Michael, Michael_w and Michael2.

              Honest?

              Hell no.

            • Wow asserts “Yet you posted here as Michael, Michael_w and Michael2.”

              You illustrate the problem very well, thank you. Your belief overwhelms evidence and you draw conclusions from your beliefs. You live in your own world but that is what I have explained is true for everyone.

              Methods sometimes exist to help discover truth, but sometimes these methods work only where the subject (you) is not aware of those methods and thus carefully manipulating the evidence.

              In the end it doesn’t really matter whether every person you have ever engaged is the same person or a great computer. What matters is what you do. I am just words on a computer screen.

              I mean, really, what difference does it make whether I am, or am not, all of these Michaels?

            • The evidence is there. Your claims are lies.

            • “I mean, really, what difference does it make whether I am, or am not, all of these Michaels?”

              You asked questions like that before.

              When they were asked of you, you didn’t even acknowledge the query’s existence.

              And here you are, yet again JAQing off.

              Yet more dishonesty. Which is the point, really.

            • Wow says “You asked questions like that before.”

              That is true of pretty much everyone. I note that you do not answer:

              “what difference does it make whether I am, or am not, all of these Michaels?”

              What is your (relevant, on topic) answer?

              I acknowledge it may take some introspection on your part. I can see where in some cases it might matter depending on your actual purpose in being here, a purpose that might not be consciously visible or known to you.

            • So we both agree you’ve asked stupid questions that you do not even deign to acknowledge have been unanswered but just as urgently in need of answering yourself.

            • Wow, dodging a question, says something incomprehensible: “you do not even deign to acknowledge have been unanswered….”

              Say what? Skip all that Zen stuff and just explain why it matters that all Michaels are, or are not, the same Michael. It is your assertion. Now I insist that you support your assertion.

            • So dodging the question is a bad thing. Even for you?

              If so, there are plenty of dangling queries you’ve abandoned.

              If not, why should it be bad for me.

              Oh, by the way, it’s obvious you haven’t increased your reading comprehension skills as requested. As I’ve said time and time again, you do not have to feel like a failure because your reading age is so low. Poor education is not a sin. Nobody here is judging you because of your lack of it.

              We only want you to get better.

  60. I believe the hockey stick was a complete fraud.

    • Then I know you’re a clueless idiot.

  61. Models make projections based on assumed future forcings and their timing like aerosol releases, volcanoes, CO2e emissions, solar output and so on.

    But if you redo the models to date with no other change than instead of guessing at what those events would be, you use the actual emissions, actual volcanic events, actual solar output and so on?

    Well the models would track temperature readings like this:

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/10/2015-global-temperatures-right-in-line-with-climate-model-predictions

  62. Hey, lets go with “polar temperature anomalies give the entire global anomaly equivalent” for a bit, just like this moron denier wants us to with Vostock (and, yes, I’m keeping that spelling, Mickey).

    What does that core graph show? An anomaly above “present day” which for paleo work, is the baseline around 1950.

    And the core graphs give us a peak of maybe 2C above that baseline.

    What does today’s polar temperature anomaly look like compared to that?

    Go here:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/seas_cycle.html

    and go with the defaults. What do you see?

    Large polar areas seeing +2.2C anomalies.

    Higher than the high point of the last peak on those vostock curves. What’s worse is that we have 800 years of further warming to look forward to if we take only those vostock curves as our sole evidence for how the climate will change at 400ppm CO2.

    And that would lead, again if we only use those vostock cores as our evidence, no models, only measurements, to about 20C of warming. Blowing past ANY warm peak on those graphs.

    • Wow logic (no kidding): I get in the last post–I win the argument.

      • I know you are not kidding, you REALLY DO think that this is a serious response that is supposed to answer the problems I pointed out.

        However, merely because you believe this to be a serious answer does not mean it IS a serious answer. Or any form of answer.

        Denier “logic” (no kidding): I get to say any old shit and if it is negative about you, no matter what it says, it refutes any argument you have made.

        Unfortunately for nutbars like yourself, you are incorrect.

      • agfosterjr notices how the game is played: “Wow logic: I get in the last post–I win the argument.”

        He is welcome to the prize bestowed upon winners of blog arguments.

        • Snnrkkkk.

          Well, count two against your claim of being honest.

          And count one against “polite” too.

  63. Steyn’s book is going to kill him in court.

    The ONLY way it could work is if all Steyn had been given and all that person had available who gave it to them were the bare absolute quotes he put in his book.

    This is not the case.

    When read in the original case rather than the quote mine of the book, his claims fall over flat.

    Worse, it shows that he has deliberately edited to lie by omission.

    EVEN WORSE it shows that he is doing so for financial gain: selling the books and begging donations.

    When it comes to smoking guns, this book of Steyn is a howitzer.

    • Wow writes “Steyn’s book is going to kill him in court.”

      I see you are still counting your chickens before they’ve hatched.

      With that kind of talent perhaps you have predicted the end of our argument.

      • I am not a farmer, so there are no fertilised eggs to hatch.

        And anyway, it’s easy to count eggs before they hatch. They stay still. Easy to count.

        • Wow writes “it’s easy to count eggs before they hatch.”

          I knew that you and I could agree on something!

          • OK.

            So we agree it’s easy to count eggs.

          • If your post was only because you want to have the last word, not that you were trying to say anything substantive, say so. Indeed if you make the post contain only the request, then there are no claims to refute and a reply is saying, even if not literally, “no, you can’t”.

            Of course, if others make a claim, or you do yourself, responding to the claim, especially to correct it, is fair game.

            NOTE: if you do post a “I just want to have the last post here”, you get the 590th post. A round number.

  64. Thanks for the laughs. Reading climate kooks and true believers defend the faith is amazingly predictable. Apocalyptic claptrap throughout history seems to always take the same arc. This blog is a great example of that.

    • Climate kooks like agrfwiufehu, for example?

      Alarmists like Rethuglican politicians wailing about how it will cause the collapse of society if we stop using coal?

      True Believers like yourself, unable and unwilling to see reality?

      Yes, this blog as you coming along and being great examples of that.

  65. The appropriately named “Climate Asylum” does appear to be a blog that supports the mentally ill and other “flat earthers” who will believe anything they are told as long as that information inevitably leads to bigger, more powerful government and less personal freedom. You wanna talk about rubes? Who else but a single digit IQ rube would think that anyone who actually believes the CO2 is seriously harming the planet would think that it’s OK to leave a giant carbon footprint as long as you plant some trees or trade carbon credits? Only idiots believe this garbage. But that’s not the worst part. The worst part is that the rubes don’t even know or care that they’re hurting the world’s poor by condemning them to energy poverty. Ha Ha, we have all the energy we need but you’re not going to get it! Sorry 3rd world losers! You must live and die in poverty so the planet can live!

    • You’re absolutely right, Drew, you don’t seem to realise that you’re describing yourself.

      Coal is not energy. Burning stuff for heat and light is stone age technology. Nuclear power is not available at all, and for very good reasons (e.g. Boku Haram).

      And if you want to help the third world lift themselves out of poverty, two things right off the bat can be done NOW:

      1) They’ve paid their loans. Many times over. So annul them now.
      2) Stop subsidising your farming, crushing the export and home market of the third world.

      What they do have is the lack of any infrastructure built around centrally operated systems, so demanding that they can only use fossil fuel power means demanding they spend money on that infrastructure first. And securing it.

      Whereas, as can be seen with the use of mobile phones rather than POTS, a much cheaper and quicker option that is far easier to keep going and secure is to build local generation using MODERN technology rather than minor adjustments to centuries old engineering.

      Oh, by the way, care to show where those who realise reality and accept that AGW is a part of it have said anywhere that they want the third world to die in poverty so the planet can live?

      I mean you’ve nicked enough secret emails that any evidence of this should be at your fingertips, right? So where is it? Or is this merely another fantasy you dreamed up?

  66. The “hockey stick” graph is wrong.
    There is a vast body of evidence to show why it is wrong, showing that the Medieval warm period did happen, etc.
    There is also evidence that Mann knew it was flawed long before his methods were exposed.
    I find it remarkable that so many of the Believers in AGW are still trying to defend this charlatan.

    • Tell it to the several groups of scientists who have repeatedly replicated the HS graph using different kinds of data and different statistical techniques.d

      • Bickmore,

        I’m answering here because I want to be sure you see my response.

        Thank you, I was assuming you were using the phrase “later piece” to refer to the “slapstick farce” blog post but I needed to be sure.

        I wasn’t calling you dishonest. I was pointing out that you were accusing Steyn of talking without doing his homework which is exactly what you’ve been doing.

        For example, a quick Google search shows Steyn linking to a piece in the NYT by Richard Muller a few months before the “slapstick farce” posting. As you can imagine Steyn delights in quoting Muller, a global warming believer who nonetheless has harsh things to say about Mr. Potato-Head.

        http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/359731/times-climbs-hockey-stick-mark-steyn

        http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/opinion/a-pause-not-an-end-to-warming.html

        It is in this piece that **Muller** advances the idea of the Hockey Stick as a failed predictor of future temperature trends.

        “As for the recent plateau, I predicted it, back in 2004. Well, not exactly. In an essay published online then at MIT Technology Review, I worried that the famous “hockey stick” graph plotted by three American climatologists in the late 1990s portrayed the global warming curve with too much certainty and inappropriate simplicity. The graph shows a long, relatively unwavering line of temperatures across the last millennium (the stick), followed by a sharp, upward turn of warming over the last century (the blade). The upward turn implied that greenhouse gases had become so dominant that future temperatures would rise well above their variability and closely track carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.”

        And Muller quoted himself from his 2004 piece in Technology Review,

        “Suppose… future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously — that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small — then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.”

        Muller was bemoaning that the HS was modeling natural climate variability at far too low an amplitude and suggesting too strong a correlation between global temperatures and CO2.

        After reading this article then it was perfectly reasonable for Steyn to refer to the HS as a failed climate model. A climate model that strongly suggested a continuing upward trend when in fact a prolonged pause in temperatures has been observed. Since Steyn in previous and subsequent writings also correctly described the HS as a climate reconstruction using proxies, his model reference in no way indicates that Steyn had a poor understanding of the issues involved. If anything it would seem that Steyn, by doing his homework, has a good understanding of the controversy surrounding the HS.

        I’d also like to point out how the Muller article shows you can be a strong believer in global warming and still maintain that Mr. Potato-Head is a crappy scientist. Belief in global warming and in Mr. Potato-Head are not the same thing.

        • “that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small — then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey.”

          1. Muller forgot to take into account the error bars. If he had, he could not have said what he did. (Things like that have never stopped Muller from shooting off his mouth before he had the facts, however.)

          2. Look at the chain of “logic” he uses. It’s all about “mistaken” conclusions that someone might come to if they read more into the HS than is actually there.

          3. Didn’t Wow try to explain to you, at some point, that people who are desperate to have a giant MWP are shooting themselves in the foot by implying that climate sensitivity is really greater than we thought? That’s exactly what Muller is saying here.

          4. In other words, Muller was saying he thought the handle of the HS should be more wiggly. And guess what? Subsequent studies, using more data points, better coverage, and different statistical techniques, have come up with wigglier hockey sticks, that nevertheless still fit nicely within Mann’s original error bars. My conclusion is that the panels were right–Mann maybe could have done a couple things better, but they wouldn’t have made much difference to his results without quite a bit more data to play with. Given that he was the first to try what he did, his work has held up remarkably well.

          5. So I conclude that Muller was (as usual) being a jackass trying to make himself look like the Honest Paragon of Science by unjustly trashing what other scientists have done. What a jerk. Then Steyn came along, and didn’t quite understand what Muller was saying, and repeated it in garbled fashion, so that it came out sounding idiotic, rather than merely pedantic.

          • Pretty accurate summary.

            He’s really a “Judith Curry” lite, here, though. He got a LOT of attention and adoration as a “skeptic”, but he wasn’t dishonest enough to actually lie about what he found (like McI et al) or refuse to say what he concluded (Curry). But having done so, he lost almost all of that attention and adoration. Indeed, the ones who adored him before now loathe him as a “turncoat” or “Fifth Columnist” who never WAS skeptical, but pretended to be to scam Tony into supporting him.

            This has led to him trying to keep some limelight, especially now that the result, confirming all the other Hockey Sticks, is a “Meh”. Which rather refutes the denier fantasy that the scientists all agree because that’s where the money is.

            He also, much like Curry (and possibly because they’re BFFs or something), has something *personal* against Mann. Possibly why he thought there’d be something wrong with it in the first place. So he HAS to find a reason to continue to be “right” in thinking him a bad man.

            Hence his nitpicking mountain-making molehill obsession about what might hypothetically happen if someone were dumb enough to get the wrong idea and think it supported.

          • 1. I’ve posted a link to a YouTube video of Muller discussing the HS error bars. What’s more in the video Muller mentions that he was a referee for the National Academy of Sciences investigation into the HS. That study also, as one would expect, looked at the uncertainties.

            I don’t see how Bickmore’s accusations have any merit.

            • And I’ve posted where Muller says he was wrong in his claims about the HS being fake.

              Nothing seemed to phase you about that, and you still believe that the HS is fake.

              Why, then the apparent wonderment that your bullshit isn’t convincing anyone?

            • Wow writes “Why, then the apparent wonderment that your bullshit isn’t convincing anyone?”

              Inasmuch as there’s only 3.5 people here and all have decided long ago it is self-evident that the primary motives of each are not being discussed and all these secondary motives are powerless to change the primary motive.

              It would be more fruitful therefore to discuss primary motives such as why you have chosen your side. I understand the need to support your team whether they are winning or losing, but especially when they are losing.

              A continuation of this conversation would be more interesting if you revealed why you chose your team in the first place.

            • Oh dear. Are you, too, living in the same self-concocted fantasy land as Loco nutbar? Is the problem NOT that you’re just uneducated, but that you’re a cloud-cuckoolander?

          • 2. What is Bickmore’s argument here? That everything is so clear that no one could ever have a disagreement about the Hockey Stick? Even among warmists themselves?

            • No, it;’s that Steyn’s claims are so batshit that his only defence left is that he’s too dumb to know what the hell he’s talking about.

              Read the article some day.

          • 3a. Actually that is the exact *opposite* of what Muller is saying here. The new talking point is that a visible MWP implies greater climate sensitivity causing predictions of future warming to be too low.

            But Muller is complaining that the HS implied an over-estimation of climate sensitivity so that CO2 forced warming would be so dominant as to swamp any natural fluctuations. If you click through to Muller’s 2004 Technology Review article he speculates about a decade long pause or even cooling trend.

            I’d love to see an example of someone who, when the HS was unveiled, declared that their fear of global warming had diminished because the absence of an MWP showed the climate to be stable and less sensitive. I certainly don’t remember anyone saying that.

            • No, Muller did not claim that.

              You’re doing a Steyn.

              Since no significant CO2 change happened, the presence or lack of MWP doesn’t make any claim about CO2 sensitivity. If there WERE an MWP, then due to most of the effects of natural features being so as to COOL the climate the CO2 sensitivity would be higher to compensate for the greater cooling from other forcings.

            • You’re lying again you little sack of monkey crap.

              I summarized Muller’s statements. You’re just lying out of your ass as always.

            • Your summary is wrong, however. Not even Muller agrees with you.

          • 3b. I’m sorry but this new story that the reappearance of the MWP supports global warming is so much hogwash.

            For years the global warming crowd argued that it was the flatness of the HS shaft that provided the best evidence for their position. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s a letter undersigned by the entire hockey team.

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003EO270003/pdf

            But when the MWP started to rise once again in the climate reconstructions, the warmists changed their story. Why now the MWP was evidence of an unstable climate and therefore just more proof of global warming! Heads I win, tails you lose.

            When a theory is supposedly supported no matter what the data or evidence show, then that theory is not science.

            It’s junk science.

            • Then your “theories” about an MWP, where if glaciers are increasing it proves the MWP and if glaciers are decreasing it proves the MWP is junk science.

            • the flatness of the hockey stick was not the important thing, it was the steepness of the blade.

              you are doubly wrong because the link you give shows the several hockey sticks, therefore cannot be basing its claims only off the MBH98 paper.

            • Where did I say anything about the MWP and glaciers?

              C’mon you lying little turd! Show where I said anything like that.

            • Wrong again jerkwad!

              It was the flatness of the HS shaft that all the warmists touted.

              Can’t you read? I already posted the link you pig.

              http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003EO270003/pdf

            • You’ve tried this dance before. I post the evidence, you ignore it.

              The evidence is here, written by you, on this thread.

            • That link doesn’t say what you claim, moron.

          • 4. Muller correctly treats error bars as something bad therefore the smaller the better. If your climate reconstruction’s error bars are so ginormous as to hide the entire MWP then your study is of little or no value.

            Bickmore on the other had seems to treat error bars like a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card. They can be used to cover a wide range of possibilities so you can be “right”. Like a weather forecaster who always predicts snowfall to be between 1/2 inch and two feet. He’ll always be “right” but what good are his forecasts?

            • Even with error bars, it’s warmer today than at any period in the record, and the recent warming is faster than at any time period of the record.

              Since this was the claim of the HS paper, the size of the error bars does not make the HS useless.

          • 5. I’m sorry but “How dare you criticize my hero!” is not that compelling of an argument.

            • Since nobody is making that claim, except possibly you, so what?

            • BAHAHAHA!

              This coming from you with your creepy need for approval from your surrogate daddy-figure, the stupid schlub Bickless.

            • Insane laughter is still not proof of your claim.

          • 3c. You just got finished berating me for engaging in a “feud” with Wow-for-Brains. You told me that Wow is “troll-baiting” and “wasting my time” and advised me to “give up” arguing with him so as to preserve my sanity.

            And now you’re wagging your finger and demanding to know why I haven’t internalized Wow’s MWP climate sensitivity argument.

            I wish you could make up your mind.

            • Cart before horse, retard.

              You’re putting the cart before the horse.

            • Well I don’t know in this context what’s supposedly the horse or the cart.

              But I’m 100% certain that you’re the horses’ ass!

            • You never know what the *text* is, never mind the *context*, nutbar.

              So what are you pretending to be reality this time?

            • Well which is it jerkwad? Is Bickless telling me to ignore your nonsense or not?

              Answer the goddamned question you sack of monkey crap.

            • He’s telling you you’re a raging insane nutbar, Loco.

    • The “hockey stick” graph is correct.
      There is a vast body of evidence to show why it is correct, showing that the Medieval warm period did not happen worldwide as deniers claim, etc.
      There is also evidence that McIntyre et al knew it was correct long before his methods to pretend there was an error were exposed as ridiculously flawed by subsequent rebuttal papers no denier has any knowledge of at all.
      I find it remarkable that so many of the Believers in Magical Fairy Dust are still trying to defend this ridiculous charade

      • “There is also evidence that McIntyre et al knew it was correct long before his methods to pretend there was an error were exposed…”

        THEN SHOW YOUR GODDAMNED SO-CALLED EVIDENCE!

        Lying sack of monkey crap!

        • Their selection of 1% of the “red noise” graphs that were MOST hockey stick like.

          • Wow writes “Their selection of 1% of the red noise graphs that were MOST hockey stick like.”

            Yes. The process is a feature of principle components analysis.

            • If it were, why did they have to select 1% rather than 99% of them? And why would it produce a much smaller hockey stick than MBH98/99 did, if it were “a feature of PCA”?

              And how do you know it is a feature of PCA? Guessing?

            • Wow writes “If it were, why did they have to select 1% rather than 99% of them?”

              There is no “they”. PCA does the selecting mathematically. That is the whole point of PCA (and other techniques). You have a large number of proxies and a single instrumented record. Which proxies are most similar to the instrumented record? PCA is one of several techniques but it isn’t just a selector (ordinary correlation can do that), it is a transformation to enhance the signal properties of two or more data sets. It amplifies similarities and the most deviant of the transformations becomes the principle component.

              “why would it produce a much smaller hockey stick than MBH98/99 did, if it were a feature of PCA”?

              The hockey stick must exist in at least one of the original data sets while all other data sets must be random or nearly so. This will elevate the significance of the non-random data set. However, “short centering” can elevate the significance of the other data sets that are random over their entire span but correlated over a short span.

              That this can be done is trivial but suggests that some of the proxies are mostly random. Indeed, when PCA is done correctly the “hockey stick” is no longer the First Principle Component (but still in the top 5).

              PCA in brief:
              http://astrostatistics.psu.edu/su09/lecturenotes/pca.html

              This next link explores the application of PCA to climatology:
              https://climatesanity.wordpress.com/tag/principal-component-analysis/

              “The basic idea of principal component analysis (PCA): PCA is used to determine the minimum number of factors that explain the maximum variance in multiple data sets. In the case of the hockey stick each data set represents a chronological set of measurements, usually a tree ring chronology. These chronologies may vary over time in similar ways, and in theory these variations are governed by common factors. The single factor that explains the greatest amount of variance is the 1st principal component. The factor that explains the next greatest amount of variance is the second principal component. etc. In the case of the hockey stick, the first principal component is assumed to be the temperature. With this assumption, understanding how the first principal component changes with time is the same as understanding how the temperature changes with time.”

              “The data centering, or mean subtraction, (step 3 in the above list) is where one on the hockey stick controversies arises. McIntyre and McKitrik showed that Mann did not subtract the mean of all of the points from about 1000 year data sets, but rather, he subtracted the mean of only the last 80 or 90 points (years). They claim that this flawed process would yield a 1st principal component that looks like a hockey stick, even when the proxy data was made up of simple red noise.”

              RealClimate, while vaguely acknowledging the criticism, reports that even when PCA is properly done, the hockey stick is still present in the first five principle components, its just not the first principle component. What exactly that means I leave to your imagination; it tells me something else is stronger than temperature but says nothing about what that thing might be.

              http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/

            • There is a “they”. The ones who wrote the paper.

              They DO exist, you know.

              And, yes, they DID have to select 1% of the graphs because they didn’t show anything like a hockey stick.

              The shape is NOT an inherent part of PCA.

              Stop being a moron.

            • Wow “Stop being a moron.”

              An interesting philosophical question. Is stopping a stop a go?

              If a person stops being a moron, does that make him smart?

              Why is there air?

              Quite a lot depends on what the definition of “is” is.

            • “RealClimate, while vaguely acknowledging the criticism, reports that even when PCA is properly done, the hockey stick is still present in the first five principle components, its just not the first principle component. ”

              The first five of WHAT?

              Go on, a little further and you’ll discover where you buggered it all up.

  67. “The hockey stick must exist in at least one of the original data sets while all other data sets must be random or nearly so. ”

    What other data sets?

    Do you have the slightest clue what you’re talking about?


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: