RealClimate logo


The Bore Hole

Filed under: — group @ 6 December 2004

A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.

1,933 Responses to “The Bore Hole”

  1. 301
    Dan H. says:

    cccpo,
    I think it is to keep the rest of you in line. lol.

  2. 302
    Dan H. says:

    John and Jim,
    Why are always assuming that people misunderstand when they post an opinion which differs from your own? John, do you really beleive that AGW will lead to stronger and more frequent La Ninas, resulting in global cooling? I find that to be quite a stretch.
    Jim, I am not sure to what you are alluding, but you seem to be unsure about the temperature trends measured recently .
    Martin, you are just out in left field. Extrapolating back 2000 years based on 130 years of data is just as ridiculous as ectrapolating forward 100 years based on 20 (you may want to review the previous graph).

  3. 303
    Titus says:

    In days gone by we had “Natural Philosophers”. Scientist of all shapes and forms would collect the data and build the knowledge bases. The natural philosopher would do the understanding, perspective and communication.

    How about re-introducing this and then scientist could work unhindered on their research?

  4. 304
    Titus says:

    How about if scientist could work unhindered on their research and not have to deal with all this denier attention?

    In days gone by we had “Natural Philosophers”. Scientist of all shapes and forms would collect the data and build the knowledge bases. The natural philosopher would do the understanding, perspective and communication.

    How about re-introducing them.

  5. 305
    William says:

    The climate skeptics present data and papers that dispute the amount of warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

    The mechanism most often presented is planetary cloud cover increases or decreases in manner to resist a change in planetary temperature. The scientific question is how much warming.

    Do you believe there is no possibility that they could be correct and the IPCC incorrect?

  6. 306
    William says:

    The climate skeptics present data and papers that dispute the amount of warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
    The mechanism most often presented is planetary cloud cover increases or decreases in a manner to resist a change in planetary temperature. The scientific question is how much warming.
    Do you believe there is no possibility that they could be correct and the IPCC incorrect

  7. 307

    120 Brian Dodge,

    If you read carefully you should realize that I am criticizing the manner of presenting a case, where illogical statements serve to weaken the case. A first chicken little, a second chicken little, and a third chicken little might result in orders to shoot chickens. I am suggesting that a ‘chicken little event’ is an event with an accompanying ‘worst since 1930 etc. descriptor’.

    However, from your probability illustration, I do see your point, and were there to be many extreme events each year to work with, and twice as many extreme events in present years than in the past, that would carry weight.

    Perhaps there are some analyses of weather events that make the case as I would hope to see it made.

    Obviously you see obviousness in your observations. I am not there yet, though I do recognize a serious underlying problem due to excess of CO2. So much so that I am working to build motor vehicles that would dramatically change things; also I have been pursuing ways to capture CO2 from the air and ways to generate electric power without the excessive waste of heat that we now are doing.

  8. 308
    Girma says:

    Martin Vermeer (#118)

    130 years of global temperature record is a very small in the earth’s history. In calculus, any small change can reasonable be approximated by a straight line.

    The main point is that IPCC projections of 0.2 deg C per decade warming is wrong as shown in the following graph.

    http://bit.ly/cIeBz0

  9. 309
    Dan H. says:

    Gneiss,
    I think you meant 1917. I calculated the statistics to be very poor for a correlation. I am curious as to your choice of a “modern period”, because by my calculations the highest rate of changes occurs starting at 1971. Using earlier or more recent years results in lower rates, with 1986-2011 being zero, and every years since showing an increase in the breakup day advance (breakup occurring later in the year). At this point, I would not say that the rate is fast enough to be worrisome (to answer Greg’s concerns), but it is still a very entertaining venture and worth watching scientifically.

  10. 310
    AdderV says:

    It is getting increasingly funny to read the “news” on this site. Same old, same old. Regurgitations and backstabbings, no real substance though. Denialist ? Get real, there is no such thing as a climate denialist. I know that the climate is changing, so i recognise climate change. But as soon as I start to question the science behind it I am suddenly a denialist. This article and the book in particular just adds to the infantile behaviour you are so well known for. And you call your selves grown ups and “scientists” even. The last I doubt very much.

  11. 311
    RalphieGM says:

    How do I say this politely? Climate has had its 15 minutes of fame.

  12. 312
    Dan H. says:

    Secular,
    You are arguing semantics here. The average Joe on the street does not care if you use the words scenarios, forecasts, projections, or predictions. They are basically the same logic; under scenario A, event B will occur. Are you denying that several “scenarios” have been presented by scientists which have not materialized in recent years?
    What worse case scenarios have been exceeded? Temperatures are rising slower than predicted, sea levels are rising less than predicted, sea ice is receding less than predicted. Oops, sorry, should say less than scenarioed.
    It is precisely statements of yours that are causing people to withdraw from the climate change movement. There are a number of us who see these changes occurring, but are yet willing to conclude that they will accelerate in the future. Somehow, we are lumped together with the “deniers.”

  13. 313
    Dan H. says:

    Kevin,
    To be fair, it may not necessarily the fault of the researchers involved, but of the reporting media. We all know that the more newsworthy items are those with the biggest scare impact. That being the case, if 10 different researchers present 10 different dates for an ice-free Arctic, which do you suppose the media will run with? Exactly. The average Joe does not know about the other nine. The sea ice is a quote from Louis Fortier of Arcticnet as recently as Nov. 17, 2007.
    http://www.arcticnet.ulaval.ca/news/y2007.php
    Do accounts of an ice-free Arctic by 2060 or 2040 make as much noise in the press?
    The hurricane issue most likely falls on Al Gore’s shoulders due to his movie. Some hurricane experts (i.e. Dr. Gray) have stated that no climate trend is observable.
    I disagree with your statement about conservatism. Many of their scenarios appear to be on the high side.

  14. 314
    Dan H. says:

    312.Secular,
    You are arguing semantics here. The average Joe on the street does not care if you use the words scenarios, forecasts, projections, or predictions. They are basically the same logic; under scenario A, event B will occur. Are you denying that several “scenarios” have been presented by scientists which have not materialized in recent years?
    What worse case scenarios have been exceeded?

  15. 315
    Drew says:

    “As Arnold Schwarzenegger said about the diversity of views of climate scientists, if your child is ill and 98 out of 100 doctors call for life-saving surgery and 2 say it is not necessary, your decision is obvious.”

    If 98 out of 100 star sign readers tell me I should make x decision over y, I ignore it all and make a decision based on the best information available.

    Part of your analysis confines explanations to require being whole. To equate the cartoon illustrating of Dr Spencer with filling in gaps by magical thinking is pretty disingenuous. It isn’t a requirement to create a fully functioning and complete theory for it to still be useful e.g. Einsteins theory of relativity… and… climate modeling for instance. No explanation is better than a bad explanation because it suffices.

    As the authors of the IPCC reports know, explaining to a non-scientific audience requires making it digestible to politicians. I wouldn’t call them dishonest or question their integrity or scientific credibility because of graphs which can be skewed in a certain light to look dishonest. This is no different than writing books for public consumption. The statements are skewed in a certain light to look dishonest. I wouldn’t draw conclusions from these things.

  16. 316

    Dan H. and OKSkeptic,

    In #55 the Animist told us that his electric lawn mower is powered by wind because he buys it from his utility. Let’s demonstrate to him that he is mistaken.

    He might be imagining that there is a dedicated windmill that stands ready to run when his grass is growing tall, and begins to spin as his lawn mower is turned on.

    Maybe he thinks the wind will just blow a little harder when his mower starts.

    Or maybe he thinks the electricity he uses in his lawnmower will be something that is diverted from otherwise worthy activities. This is closer to the truth, though still not quite right, though it illustrates the situation better. So let’s imagine electrons are diverted. Since the otherwise worthy activities will still want to continue, in spite of the Animist’s needs, there will have to be some way of keeping them happy. So some other source has to step up, just the same as it would have for the Animist if he did not hold the paper saying he bought wind. The net effect for the environment is zero. The net financial effect is that the Animist was separated from some of his money.

    Perhaps we will be less encumbered by ‘Animist the Thought Manager’ while he ponders over this.

  17. 317
    Dan H. says:

    @150 Kevin,
    To be fair, it may not necessarily the fault of the researchers involved, but of the reporting media. We all know that the more newsworthy items are those with the biggest scare impact. That being the case, if 10 different researchers present 10 different dates for an ice-free Arctic, which do you suppose the media will run with? Exactly. The average Joe does not know about the other nine. The sea ice is a quote from Louis Fortier of Arcticnet as recently as Nov. 17, 2007.
    http://www.arcticnet.ulaval.ca/news/y2007.php
    Do accounts of an ice-free Arctic by 2060 or 2040 make as much noise in the press?
    The hurricane issue most likely falls on Al Gore’s shoulders due to his movie. Some hurricane experts (i.e. Dr. Gray) have stated that no climate trend is observable.

    @148 Secular,
    You are arguing semantics here. The average Joe on the street does not care if you use the words scenarios, forecasts, projections, or predictions. They are basically the same logic; under scenario A, event B will occur. Are you denying that several “scenarios” have been presented by scientists which have not materialized in recent years?
    What worse case scenarios have been exceeded?

  18. 318
    Mike M says:

    You can compare me to a lizard but maybe even lizards can look at the RSS and UAH which both show no net global warming for over a decade. Unless a warming trend re-establishes itself in some major way in the near future, you and every other climate scientist being paid to study this stuff will have painted yourselves into a corner and forced to admit that there is a serious flaw in AGW theory. If it does not warm then there will be more and more people like me realizing either that “climate catastrophe” was either GROSSLY overstated, (to be kind), or, worse, it was a politically motivated and funded agenda of deception. With the potential for a popular backlash that that may ultimately evoke, I know that I certainly wouldn’t want to be the last AGW climate scientist standing to take all the blame.

  19. 319
    Dave Parker says:

    Republican factory owners killed your family and friends in the catastrophic blizzards, floods, tornadoes, massive wildfires and other climate change that has been wiping out the bible-belt. This is the Climate Change that their factories created. This is the Climate Change that the Republicans lie about not existing. This is the Climate Change that they program their constituents to deny exists. This is the Climate Change that killed people, destroyed homes, further destroyed the economy that the Republican factories emissions caused so they could make profits by killing those people. Republicans deny Climate Change at all costs in order to keep their factories from having to pay to stop it. The Climate Change that is destroying massive pats of our country can no longer be hidden or denied.

  20. 320
    Drew says:

    @richard pauli

    Funding is beyond inadequately low for dementia research yet there are only so many people who can do the research and so much they can be paid thanks to bureaucracy picking winners and losers; Statistics in Australia when I was writing my last report on Alzheimer’s showed costs of dementia were 99.7% of the cost not including all the ‘free’ support of family and caregivers. Funding doesn’t grow on trees and there’s only so much you can squeeze into a field before other fields of inquiry suffer.

    Environmental alarmist trumpeting resounds over issues such as aging populations and there is in essence no research funding provided. It is provided, but it’s like a kick in the teeth compared to the funding received by environmentalism. It is up to researchers to provide evidence for the urgency of their case and CAGW has stripped research funding possibilities elsewhere. Climatology went from 0 to 60mph in record time. Don’t be upset about funding for Climatology; There are plenty of broke teachers, nurses and other researchers who do apparently unimportant work and can’t get paid more than enough for subsistence and an extra apple on their birthday. I won’t cry for environmentalists and climatology because they cornered the market on sensationalism in no small part thanks to the part media played.

  21. 321
    Drew says:

    @richard pauli

    I said 99.7% of the costs but left out what the cost was for, it is the caregiving and support costs. The other 0.3% is for research.

  22. 322
    Dan H. says:

    Ray,
    Why the attitude? Any scientists worth his weight should be able to answer questions regarding his work without resorting to verbal attacks. This is another of the reaason why so many people are being forced away from supporting AGW. This is not science, and you are doing a real disservice to your own cause.

  23. 323
    Dan H. says:

    @150 Kevin,
    To be fair, it may not necessarily the fault of the researchers involved, but of the reporting media. We all know that the more newsworthy items are those with the biggest scare impact. That being the case, if 10 different researchers present 10 different dates for an ice-free Arctic, which do you suppose the media will run with? Exactly. The average Joe does not know about the other nine. The sea ice is a quote from Louis Fortier of Arcticnet as recently as Nov. 17, 2007.
    http://www.arcticnet.ulaval.ca/news/y2007.php
    Do accounts of an ice-free Arctic by 2060 or 2040 make as much noise in the press?
    It is less a case of misrepresentation, than over-representing the fringe element.

  24. 324
    Dan H. says:

    Kevin,
    Part of the psychology may be attributed to the media. We all know that the more newsworthy items are those with the biggest emotional impact. That being the case, if 10 different researchers present 10 different dates for an ice-free Arctic, which do you suppose the media will run with? Exactly. The average Joe does not know about the other nine. The sea ice is a quote from Louis Fortier of Arcticnet as recently as Nov. 17, 2007.
    http://www.arcticnet.ulaval.ca/news/y2007.php
    It is less a case of misrepresentation, than over-representing the fringe element.

  25. 325
    Jonathan Bagley says:

    The best way to convince people of your claims is to produce evidence which can’t be pulled apart. Insulting them with “denier” and “Big Oil” nonsense and engaging in high school debating society behaviour doesn’t work.

  26. 326

    OKskeptic

    When you stumble into the cheering section for the Oakland Raiders, its best to shut up about how the 49ers are better.

  27. 327
    UL O'Malley says:

    Who is denying the existence of the ever increasing papers cited in the NIPCC Report at http://www.nipccreport.org/

    Who is denying the existence of the InterAcademic Council Report on the IPCC showing conflict of interest, political interference, bias, poor treatment of uncertainty and a management team totally unable to conduct a “scientific assessment” http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/

    Who is denying that the scientific method requires theories to make predictions into the future that are then independently tested against observations and experiments.

    Where is the list of successful predictions by the climate models?

  28. 328
    Dan H. says:

    Thank you flxible for the acknowledgement. At least someone has an open mind besides Rod B.

  29. 329
    Timster says:

    @ SecularAnimist # 36

    “People who are deliberately lying, for money — LOTS of money — and who don’t care about the consequences to others, are immune to reason.”

    Sounds pretty much like the climate science community to me.

  30. 330
    Dan H. says:

    Philip,
    While temperatures have increased recently in the Artic, there has been no long term change in the Antarctic. Consequently, while Arcvtic sea ice has declined and Greenland has experienced an increase in melt, Antarctica has witnessed no change. Even the GRACE measurement to which you attest only show a small melting in West Antarctica, which pales compared to teh growth in East Antarctica.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v469/n7331/full/nature09740.html
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/03/02/science.1200109
    http://www.climate4you.com/Polar%20temperatures.htm
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/SsVi1wt_-vI/AAAAAAAAAqI/WsuehEAgV74/s1600-h/weatherAntarcticIceTrend1.jpg

  31. 331
    Dan H. says:

    Philip,
    Here is possible answer to your question about clouds. We can see if it will be tested over the next few decades.

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/09/decadal-variability-of-clouds/

  32. 332
    Dan H. says:

    Gavin,
    Thanks for confirming my belief that you are not interested in open dialogue, but merely trying to promote your own viewpoint on others. You passed the test, but failed the course. And to think, I was directed here because someone thought this a good source of open debate!

  33. 333
    Dan H. says:

    Sorry Phil,
    But you are wrong. I am operating based on the best scientific evidence available. However, when someone calls CO2 a pollutant just because we are changing the atmospheric concentration, and not realizing the benefits therein, I have to object. By that definition, everything becomes a pollutant, and the words becomes meaningless.
    I was following your reasoning quite well until you blew it with your last paragraph. Your brain apparently has reflexive pathways which allows you believe on faith every tidbit which confirms your preconceived notion of climate, and to reject that which does not. Some of us are not so reflexive, but which to examine the scientific evidence become drawing conclusions.
    Calling that which you find inconvenient, misinformation, is just a defense mechanism because you cannot handle the possibility that the evidence may represent the truth, relative or not!

  34. 334
    Jeff Jones says:

    I am a first time poster

    [And yet your IP # is identical to that of one “Dan H” whose comments have been relegated to the “Borehole” because of repeat trolling. -moderator]

    as this site was recently recommended as a good source of the latest climate information. I have only been here a few weeks, and followed the last three threads. However, what I have found is less science than I had hoped, and more insults, vulgarities, and censorship. Is this normal for this site, or did I just arrive at a bad time. Please advise as I am not ready to abandon this site just yet. Lastly, are the key words always so difficut?

  35. 335
    Vendicar Decarian says:

    “His pet dog, John, still tied to his kennel, was lying dead in a burrow it had dug” – whatever

    Slimeball. It was his responsibility to care for his pet, not to leave it to die of starvation, tied to a post.

    His choice was between an unnecessary evacuation and the slow and agonizing death of his pet.

    He chose to let his pet die.

    I curse him, and wish for his death to come soon and painfully.

  36. 336
  37. 337
    AK says:

    “‘Climate Change Denial’ is a useful book and resource for THOSE WITH AN OPEN MIND – for instance JOURNALISTS” (emphasis mine …)

    Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!

  38. 338
    Ron R. says:

    John Mashey at 10:55 AM,

    Hey! Where are my comments?!

    Maybe if I do this:

    nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear
    nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear
    nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear
    nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear
    nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear

    Yes, that should do it.

    [congratulations. -moderator]

  39. 339
    Jonas says:

    Denial !

    – more than just a river in Africa !

    I suppose those who are sceptics would consider warmists as being in denial of a non-AGW warming earth. But, from my own perspective I think we need to show some respect to others with a different opinion. Even if they are scientifically incrrect. Remember, to challenge is to improve !

    When Einstein was asked to prove his theory of relativity by the many sceptics of the time, he came up with a brilliant proof test. He asked the sceptics to wait for the next total eclipse and take photos of the stars adjacent to the eclipsed sun and then photgraph the same star group at night when the eclipse had passed. He proposed that light passing close by the sun would be delfected by the theorised warped space and the relative distance between the stars would change between the two images. Of course the rest is history.

    To prove or disprove AGW is much more complicated. To my knowledge there is no conclusive proof either way. Of course it’s not just enough to say CO2 causes warming in a test chamber. You need to look at cloud forcings, aerosols, ocean currents, solar forcings, and other feedbacks.

    Until such time comes as we have an Einstein type proof test we will only be an AGW theory and those sceptical views will persist.

  40. 340
    Dan H. says:

    Ray,
    True, ID is not a scientific theory for the reason explained. However, ID (or genetic engineering as it is sometimes called) has been used to explain the deficiencies in evolution. Until scientific study can fill the voids, ID (or some other explanation) will remain.

  41. 341
    Rod B says:

    Ray, evolution can not make verifiable predictions either. Now where are we?

  42. 342
    magnus says:

    If this is supposed to be an argument for believing in AGW it can just as well be used in the othervway. I can propose that all that claim that GCR is not driving climate are deniers. Just as true as your claim.

  43. 343
    Paul Latham says:

    It is easy to pronounce that the so-called deniers who are supposedly advocates of ‘denialism’ are guilty of serious lapse in
    the understanding of AGW-climate change, whereas in fact they refuse to believe the hypotheses and theories that have been published in the academic papers and hold an alternative viewpoint.

    You cannot hold that hypotheses are the equivalent of scientific fact. Incontrovertible evidence has to be presented as ‘proof’ of
    a theory or hypotheses to become scientific fact and therefore the truth about the subject. If you doubt this I suggest you check the definition of ‘proof’ in a good quality English dictionary.

    I sense a deep frustration among those who would wish AGW-climate change to be a scientific fact and not hypotheses.

    You cannot accuse ‘denialists’ to be such unless they refuse to believe in the truth. As I have said hypotheses are not truth but theories.

    I believe those who revert to hyperbole in the discussions and debate about the causes of climate fluctautions are deeply unhappy people and I feel rather sorry for them in consequence.

    Consider this: the Theory of Darwinism,(and also Mendel’s Theory for that matter)or the explanation for the evolution of the species,is accepted in America and in Britain but is not generally accepted in Europe. Why? because the Dutchman Hugo de Vries published his own version of Darwin’s selection mechanism in 1901-03 as ‘The Mutation Theory’ in which mutations break the standard pattern of Mendel’s Theory since mutations are random changes in contradiction to the hereditary characteristics according to the rules that Mendel discovered.

    My point is that to be a true scientist you must always keep an open mind to new ideas otherwise you end up with a dogma that may just turnaround a bite you hard when you least expect it to! So no more accusations about ‘deniers’ please.

  44. 344
    Eric says:

    Who were the signers? Why not sign in the memorandum itself? End of the day it feels like Tiger Woods giving a tennis lesson. They’re the best at what they do but what they do is not climate…

  45. 345
    Eric says:

    @ccpo

    You sound like a fanatic. You are ascribing faults in those you disagree with while committing the same faults yourself. The truth is usually found somewhere in between arguments. With the current feedbacks we’re experiencing c02/temperature wise, observed not modelled, I’m confident we’ll have transitioned to ‘greener’ technologies by the time an alarmist scenario would have the chance to take root.

  46. 346
    Henry Macwhirr says:

    The concept of the Anthropocene is a parody of Vernadsky’s noösphere. Lyndon LaRouche is not a billionaire, as anyone who follows your links can quickly ascertain. Your systematic misrepresentation of LaRouche’s views is analogous to the way that AGW advocates manipulate data. And of course, the most obvious fraud perpetrated by the AGW gang is to demand that solar and galactic effects that are orders of magnitude larger than any human activity be simply excluded from analysis.

  47. 347
    Kevin says:

    I think actions against global warming are the bigger damage to health. The end result of higher gas prices and carbon taxes is to have people living in more clustered areas to share heat. This means more in cities, more in apartments, and smaller apartments, as well as smaller cars. Suppose a child gets sick. They are more likely to spread this disease rather than stay at home far away from others. Similarly for any disease outbreaks.

  48. 348

    17,18 Snapple

    From words you quoted, I think the Pope was talking about living in peace.

    Astronauts brought up how people fight for energy and marveled about solar panels in space, as if they had anything relevant to say.

    Somehow you brought this around to an assumption that the Pope was on the same side as Dr. Mann, whatever that might be.

    Maybe he is, though I would tend to believe he is more of a humanist than a climate absolutist or an environmental absolutist.

    We also might look further into what the Nobel 17 meant by fundamental transformation and innovation in all spheres. I take that to mean there is need to look further than the obvious and often flawed solutions that seem to be most popular here among the realclimate folk.

  49. 349
    kramer says:

    And what would this “fundamental transformation ” be?

    Let me guess:
    -A global government to manage the world’s resources and hence by proxy, manage the economies of all nations of the world.
    -Redistribution of wealth from rich countries to poor countries.
    -Transfer of technology from rich countries to poor countries.

    In short, the failed NIEO that fizzled out in the 80’s.

  50. 350
    Luboš Motl says:

    Holy cow, what a gang of senile communist nutcases and parasites. All the “dreams” written in the “memorandum” make Marx look like a realistic balanced moderate visionary in comparison.

    Decouple growth from consumption of resources? Sure. Global egalitarianism? Sure. Stop the primary process that has been happening to the climate for billions of years – climate change? Sure.

    I wonder how senile a former Nobel prize winner must become to come to Stockholm and sign a petition manifestly drafted by one of the green folks who are detonating insufficiently green-excited children at school.

    I am against euthanasia but in the case of the participants of the Stockholm monstrosity, I think that there should be an exception.