RealClimate logo


Forced Responses: Jan 2018

Filed under: — group @ 1 January 2018

This is a new class of open thread for discussions of climate solutions, mitigation and adaptation. As always, please be respectful of other commentators and try to avoid using repetition to make your points. Discussions related to the physical Earth System should be on the Unforced Variations threads.

601 Responses to “Forced Responses: Jan 2018”

  1. 451
    Killian says:

    One of the forms of knowledge I embrace, and that permaculture embraces, that help me analyze what others fail to see. I suggest you all learn relying on scientific irmation can lead to ultimate failure: Science is always behind reality in terms of evidence and certainly in terms of proof.

    http://www.macleans.ca/society/how-western-science-is-finally-catching-up-to-indigenous-knowledge/

  2. 452
    Killian says:

    Relying solely on scientific information… phone typing…. grrr…

  3. 453
    Killian says:

    #447 Thomas said nigelj, MAR, peanuts!

    I paraphrase…

    Thomas, I literally had the thought while posting earlier, “Thomas, care to step in here?”

    Good ears. Or, strobg evidence if the Human Neural Network.

    Either way, kudos. Nice back story, too.

    Feel better, old man

  4. 454
    Killian says:

    #436 nigelj

    I give up on you. After this latest, it is clear you are both the proverbial rock and a liar. There will be zero kindness for you going forward.

    1) You claimed some doom and gloom about only about 50 years of cobalt left

    Doom and gloom? Are you delusional? I used one resource to illustrate that issues with resources exist and that limits to resources are a determinant of sustainability. There was no doom and gloom, no attempt to sway any mind to a negative state. What an intentionally biasing characterization to make. You have no honor.

    with no understanding a) this is only known reserves b) it omitted billions of tons of cobalt in sea water and c) the 50 years of reserves is at “todays prices”.

    Lies and unintelligent gibberish. I stated a time period at current rates of, I believe, increase. That’s a scenario, peanut, not a claim aka prediction. It is neither; it is mathematics.

    Your B? I did not omit something THAT DOES NOT EXIST. Shush, little peanut.

    Your C: No isht, sherlock. EVERY calculation of consumption is based on, partly, prices. But I used current rate of use which implies, must imply, a price point to allow that. You never even sniffed theoildrum, so shush, little peanut.

    You understand nothing you speak of here, quite literally. You are a shame on this site.

    2) You claimed metals degrade in quality after recycling just a few times. A simple google search shows they can be recycled indefinitely. And you are the person claiming to be an “expert” in sustainability.

    No. I claim it is my area of expertise. Not the same. Keep up. And, lie. I never said anything like it. Not now, not ever. Metals can only be understood as all metals in your sentence, and I have never made such a statement, even in childhood. I said all metals have LOSSES every time they are recycled. Each metal has it’s own life cycle with regard to being recycled and its integrity. I have never said different. Lie hanging yourself.

    3) You claimed the high atmospheric CO2 recently must be due to human causes

    No, liar, I did not. I posted in 2015 that EN would raise temps and affect the Arctic Sea Ice, etc. Part of those and subsequent posts were discussions that ENs tended to raise CO2 rates abnormally by 1 to 2 ppm. I even noted that rises over given numbers would indicate instability in the Arctic CH4, but those numbers weren’t surpassed.

    What I said was that the high CO2 indicated the supposed lull in emissions is not trustworthy and that I doubted it. I do not recall making a declarative statement about it. What I did do was list a series of numbers that were the full CO2 change numbers and neglected to account for the differential.

    All already fully discussed, but you are a liar hanging on your own petard.

    4) You claimed you never accused me of lacking expertise in regenerative farming, then wrote a paragraph under this where you accused me of that exact thing.

    One is PAST, the other PRESENT. Holy crap…

    5) You have too much confirmation bias, in the way you look at research.

    You are not intelligent enough to even begin to assess that. Given my accuracy, objectively, you are incorrect.

    6) You claimed hunter gatherers were an idyllic, peaceful, society.

    Flat-out lie. I have never said that. Ever. Not here, not elsewhere. I have said the patterns of SUSTAINABILITY found there must be copied. I said they are happier, healthier, more intelligent than we and have less mental illness. This has also already been gone over in detail with your repeating the same Straw Man and me refuting your lies. Own petard.

    I posted links showing there’s no consensus over this.

    You posted links to support your Straw Man. Because own petard.

    7) You claimed to to have predicted a vast range of trends accurately in science, economics and other areas, and to have never made a bad prediction. Nonsense, you may have a good intuition, but you don’t have enough information or processing power for that level of reliability.

    Oh. My. God. You are proving me wrong about things you have zero knowledge of now? Neat trick. Sorry, peanut, but that’s a level of arrogance I have never seen before. And, yeah, I actually do have that “processing power.” Track down Joe Dale and ask him about my White Paper on warehouse management software that FCI, Inc. ignored and what it cost the company in earnings and laid off staff.

    It’s not that I am a genius; so far as I know I am not. But I can, and regularly do, analyze a very wide range of things accurately. 3M SLR by 2100 anybody? Record low ASI in 2016=17? More CH4/clathrate/permafrost melt than expected? And on and on. What have you predicted/scenarioed? Nothing. Yes, I know you claim ’08, but nobody believes you. Oh, and bitcoin? Almost bought in 2010, too, at $0.39. $100 would have made me a millionaire. Like I said, I am a knower, not a doer. An analyst, not a maverick nor entrepreneur.

    learn some humility.

    Oh, Jesus…

    I removed most of the insults because own petard.

    Shush, peanut.

    P.S. PLEASE tell me where else you post. Licking my chops…

  5. 455
    Killian says:

    #438 nigelj dribbled onto his bib Anyone with half a brain could have predicted bitcoin would go well up in price, then crash. …I don’t believe anyone could predict the gyrations with any remote level of accuracy, so Killian Im dubious of your predictions. You probably got lucky.

    You and your Straw Men. Without them, you’d have little to say. Gyrations? To wit, I predicted one rise at one specific time, and as of today that purchase would still be worth 450% profit.

    You sure got me there!!!

    You’ll be horrified to learn one of my students, and now a friend, too, was worried about his stocks after the first recent sell-off. After the second day I looked at the chart and advised him of a bottom of around DOW 23000, give or take, then a rebound. Go look at the chart: Dipped just below 24000 before the current bounce. Know how? I looked at the long-term trend. If you drew a line through it it hit around 23k. That was just eyeballing, though. We were on the phone and I was checking as we talked. Had no straight edge to really nail it down. Still… Not hard if you know crashes/corrections usually fall back to trend, which I do.

    I have no current prediction because nobody has asked me and I have not examined the charts, read any news since then, etc. (Beware October, though.)

    Just shut it, dude. You’re burying yourself under an avalanche of stupid.

  6. 456
    Thomas says:

    nigelj, re “recent co2 – it was largely el nino.”

    In 2017 it wasn’t.

    In 2018 it isn’t.

    In 2016 & 2015 maybe 0.75 to 1 ppm tops – that’s it. So using the word “largely” is inaccurate and painting an incorrect picture, imho. To say Partly or about one third would be somewhere in the ballpark.

    The rest is bau increasing growth of man made caused CO2 Plus non-defined negative feedbacks from agw/cc …. see what I mean?

  7. 457
    Thomas says:

    oops there I go again …. non-defined ‘positive’ feedbacks from agw/cc ….

  8. 458
    Killian says:

    #439 Thomas said PS Killian (or anyone that’s interested) re loss of the GBR and People cannot “imagine” what agw/cc impacts are or what they look like and the implications of that once they arrive.

    Putting aside that Reefs are the nursery for over ~30% (can’t recall exact figure) of critical species that lead to catchable ocean fish species eaten by humans for a moment consider this.

    The QBR is in QLD Australia located on both sides of the Tropic of Capricorn. (iow there is a specific kind of regional climate/s there).

    The GBR is 2,300 kilometres long, and it’s +10,000 years existence means it has been a protective barrier to that 2,300 kilometres of coastline, basically “forever” as far as the Holocene is concerned.

    That whole region is subject to regular extreme weather events known as Cyclones. These are extremely destructive forces.

    Two words: No hysteresis. (Ever wonder why after all the myriad times I have made that statement here no scientist nor lay person has ever responded in any way? What could they possibly say?)

    Two more: Jeremy Jackson.

    Two-part word: Bio-diversity.

    Two words: Ocean acidification.

    Two words: Extreme events.

    Two words: Oceans dying.

    But don’t worry, we have centuries. No need for simplification. Oh, and I am always wrong. Everything I say is nonsense.

    ;-)

  9. 459
    Scott says:

    @444 killian
    You asked clarification of CVS, BeCCS, and BCCS

    My apologies. You are correct. There’s a big difference.

    CVS is carbon capture and storage. It is fundamentally a chemical and industrial process usually at an electrical power plant. They capture the CO2 from the stack and direct it into deep underground wells or caverns. This tech is largely experimental, expensive, and inefficient. Further it can’t pull past emissions out of the atmosphere.

    BeCCS is like CCS but instead of capturing fossil fuel CO2 emissions, biofuels are grown, primarily corn, then CCS at the electrical power plant burning those biofuels. This technology is only theoretical and currently nonexistent except in models.

    Both of the above are based on obsolete systems. They are the last gasps of the failing antiquated industrial models, doomed to failure before they are even birthed! This is because the climate atmosphere and the entire carbon cycle is fundamentally a complex biological system. This is why I call BeCCS neoluditte. It’s the newest shiniest most technologically advanced buggy whip, but still a buggy whip in the age of cars.

    The true advancement is BCCS, which is the biological process by which new fertile soil is made and it sequestered 5 to 20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr while building that soil via the LCP (liquid carbon pathway).

  10. 460
    Thomas says:

    446 Mr. Know It All, I very much DID answer your question/s. You just do not like the answer. You have always had the FreeDumb to learn to answer such questions yourself. They really are simple questions anyway with quick easy answers. You also have the Freedumb to learn how to ask better questions.

    It’s all on you Pal.

    Have you noticed my long-winded responses I often to do here? have you noticed how you never ever get a long detailed genuine response from me? That means something. What could that be? ;-)

  11. 461
  12. 462
    nigelj says:

    Killian @445

    The great thing about your page long posts is I have learned I don’t need to read them past the first couple of sentences. Because you don’t really say anything.

    “nigelj said Phlegm and gastric juices and effluent, all basting a goodly helping of hypocrisy!”

    I almost like the first part of that statement. Reminds me of the creature in alien.

    How does it now feel to be the recipient of the bile you give other people on a daily basis?

    All I expect is people to be able to justify their big claims with something of substance. This goes for Zebra as well.

    So who’s a smart cooky eh? I’m not so sure its you.

  13. 463
    nigelj says:

    Thomas @447

    Thank’s and you have an interesting history, and I hope your health improves. Overall I think you are one of the good guys fwiw. We agree I think on many issues, and sometimes we disagree strongly.That doesn’t matter to me, adults have to be able to disagree without taking huge offence. But you must know that.

    In regard to MA Rodger, hes a scientist or possibly an engineer, just guessing. They are picky people and natural born sceptics, and have to be. People can’t excuse blatant mistakes just for the sake of “solidarity with the cause”. But he does get things confused a little sometimes. Nobody’s perfect – me included.

    Im more of a generalist with a varied university background. I like joining the dots, the intersectionality thing. But I have a sceptical streak, hopefully the healthy sort. Maybe it sometimes goes wrong on me.

    Regarding Killian, I do see the wood for through the trees. I’m actually partly on board with the simple life idea, because I think its inevitable in some form either by choice, or it will be forced on humanity. But if people want to say we have to make huge 80% cuts to consumption, I think I have a right to ask for some reasonably robust proof, and not simply be called ignorant.

    There are times I think people deserve to be called idiots, but I mostly keep the thought to myself. Unmoderated websites just become shouting matches, and the focus slowly shifts from factual comment and interesting opinion, to crap.

    Its a tough one. A good shouting match does release tension, and Im no saint you should see what I say to my computer, but it can overtake internet threads.

    Likewise climate denialists should be locked up really, but I believe in freedom of speech, and I assume you do. How do we reconcile this? Man, its a frustrating one, but I come down on the side of free speech, gritting my teeth.

    But there’s no place for blatant personal abuse and well off topic ranting. Its unpleasant and gets boring and distracting.

  14. 464
    Thomas says:

    AGW/CC Impacts – Extreme Weather events Broome WA
    I recently posted link to science info regarding Rosby Cells/Polcar Vortex involved in these Cyclones
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-20/broome-smashes-annual-rainfall-record-after-less-than-two-months/9462962

    eg Broome has officially endured its wettest year on record after more than two years’ worth of rain fell on the Kimberley in the past two months.

    Tropical Cyclone Joyce in January, flooding less than three weeks later from a storm described as worse than a cyclone and then Tropical Cyclone Kelvin over the weekend have brought the rainfall total for the year so far to 1,502 millimeters, or 1.5 metres.

    That surpasses the previous record of 1,496mm set in (12 months of) 2000.

  15. 465
    nigelj says:

    “You can’t solve problems like this if you ignore human nature. You have to use it to achieve your goals. Witness the Russia trolling attack on the US…they very effectively exploited already existing biases and fears to move things in the desired direction. They nudged.”

    That’s right, and calling people spammers and non quantitative thinkers or lying and ignorant, how well do you think that will go to “nudging things in the desired direction and persuading anyone of anything?”

    It ain’t gonna work, and especially when its a false accusation.

    And there’s a fine line between healthy positive and negative reinforcement, and the vile manipulation and appealing to the worst in people, coming from Putin and Trump.

  16. 466
    Thomas says:

    Summary of scientists of the basics on agw/cc in NC newspaper.
    This is quite above quality agw/cc communication to the public by scientists, imho
    http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article200881589.html

    However, my issue however comes after the But ….. regarding choices.

    “But the most dire consequences of climate change are not inevitable.”

    and
    but this means that every ton of carbon we do not release, because we choose renewable sources for our energy, or use energy more efficiently, or or stop destroying forests, makes the problem of global warming less severe.

    and especially this comment:
    In so doing, we choose what happens to our climate and we chose what sort of planet with bequeath to our children.

    OK well imho what they is totally false.

    Because WE collectively and to a great extent (99% of the time) do not in fact have a real choice in the matter.

    There are choices to do X or Y, obviously, but it is not WE who gets to make those choices. For only a very very tiny minority on this planet have the power, the authority, and the ability to make such choices.

    And that’s a fact too.

    Naturally, many many people cannot see this as clearly as they could, in regard to what these scientists said above, ie “But the most dire consequences of climate change are not inevitable.”

    I totally disagree about that unfounded belief, which I see as being quite delusional, or in other words another example of the Dunning Krugar effect (outside their area of expertise), and is seriously and glaringly Cognitive Dissonant.

    imho the very worst of known future consequences are inevitable.

    Remembering that I think their explanations as to what is happening re agw/cc now and it’s scientific and real world observational basis is first class – one of the better simple short summaries I have read and which I believe a majority of “average” people in society would find easy to understand and accept as valid.

    “But” then they sell them a Lemon of False Hope and falsely claim those readers have choices when they in fact do not to the degree that those choices could ever make any difference to how they live their lives nor have any effect on lowering current or future CO2/e forcings and temperature increases accelerating to any “noticeable” degree which might make a difference.

    What do you think about this newspaper article by ‘scientists’?

    Walter Robinson, professor of atmospheric sciences at NC State University, is a climate scientist. Lisa Falk is a geologist and teaches courses in Earth-system science at NC State. Justin Baumann is a doctoral student in marine sciences at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, who studies coral reefs.

    Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article200881589.html

  17. 467
    Thomas says:

    2018 CO2 ppm growth late february

    Now appears, all things being equal, that the second half, late Feb period is now heading towards ~409.30 ppm.

    IF this happens then it would place the back end of February at about +3.3 ppm above the 2017 Jan to Feb Avg of ~406.

    Not +4 ppm.

    That being said I have little confidence that it is reasonable to expect “all things being equal” at this particular point in time. So, wait and see for Feb and the rest of the year, and then wait and see right though 2019, and wash and repeat for 2020. That’s BAU and that’s what “all things being equal” typically looks like.

    Sad, but true.

  18. 468
    nigelj says:

    Killian @443

    “Ironically, this whole sub-thread is the result of YOU and NIGEL taking issue with me saying, “I don’t like that word. (intersectionality)” I had a good reason for raising the point. I”

    No I have never taken issue. I have twice said I don’t like the word (for the same reasons as you), but the underlying idea is valid and important. You don’t read what people say.

    I simply get tired with the bad tempered way you reply to people, Mike in this instance. Gives me a headache.

  19. 469
    nigelj says:

    Killian @454

    Watching you make excuses and try to defend yourself that desperately is amusing. Anyone that goes to that extent is both desperate and guilty. You forget things you say, but I don’t and others don’t. Nobodies perfect. Get over it.

    You are right about predicting stock trends like that. But its not rocket science.

    I would advise against buying bitcoin. My prediction is it has a LOT further to fall.

  20. 470
    Thomas says:

    AGW/CC long term Solution/s

    Following on from the report @466 there’s this really positive activity http://thesolutionsproject.org/impact-report/ and many other regions expanding renewable energy across the globe.

    versus this guy’s pov, Professor James Anderson @ Harvard.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/01/15/carbon-pollution-has-shoved-the-climate-backward-at-least-12-million-years-harvard-scientist-says/

    eg 2018-01 Chicago
    People have the misapprehension that we can recover from this state just by reducing carbon emissions, Anderson said in an appearance at the University of Chicago. Recovery is all but impossible, he argued, without a World War II-style transformation of industry—an acceleration of the effort to halt carbon pollution and remove it from the atmosphere, and a new effort to reflect sunlight away from the earth’s poles.

    This has do be done, Anderson added, within the next five years.

    “The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero,” Anderson said, with 75 to 80 percent of permanent ice having melted already in the last 35 years.

    “Can we lose 75-80 percent of permanent ice and recover? The answer is no.”
    [end quote]

    I like the former very much but it’s only addressing part of the systemic issues needing massive change quite quickly to occur (global and local ‘economics’ included), and so I suspect the latter is the firm trajectory, and more realistic for many reasons. (as he says without a WW2 level of footing across the 1st world nations first).

    I think it’s noteworthy how James Anderson puts the issue. and Kevin Anderson as well.

  21. 471
    Scott Strough says:

    My last post was auto corrected spell check. It should read CCS not CVS.

  22. 472
    Killian says:

    #159 nigelj said Killian says to me “you are rude in saying you disagree,”

    Good god almighty, what does a person say to that sort of silly statement?

    I keep thinking you can’t hit a new low, but then you do: That is not what that sentence means. Go back and read the original again, peanut. It means you are rude when you disagree, not BECAUSE you disagree. You are rude IN, not rude BECAUSE or rude BY.

    #160 nigelj Killian you are relentlessly abusive

    One more time: It is not rude to describe an unintelligent person as iunintelligent, a hypocrite as a hypocrite, lies as lies.

    Shut. Up. and all this ends. But you cannot. You will not. It’s an all-out illness at this point.

    nowhere near complying with this websites rules.

    Correct, you are not. Stop chasing me around this board and stop saying stupid crap so I don’t have to constantly correct you.

    Some climate denialists do deserve some real stick, but reserve it for them.

    You are one, imo. Soft denial is still denial.

    Killian, I very rarely get my comments deleted

    Join the club!

    That tells me all I need to know.

    Actually, if you understood logic, you’d know that tells you nothing about the quality of your posts nor whether you are rude and abusive, which you are. I’ll leave you to figure out your logical failings.

    All you are doing is scaring people off this website that might have something good to contribute.

    You think three or four of you constantly attacking my posts with lies, rudeness and logical fallacies is my fault, eh? Of course you do. And you assume they left, and that they left because of me? LOL… Typical of the quality of the logic of your posts. Again, identify your own fallacies for a change. Learn something.

    The tale is in the numbers: Look at the substantive posts I have made over the last six months and how often you and the rest of the Peanut Gallery have responded to them vs. stupid, petty, bullshit responses you make AFTER I respond to some rude or stupid crap one of you have posted.

    Go ahead. I dare you.

    Do yourself a favor: Never engage me again. it’s the only way your ego will not get beaten down. You do not belong on this site.

  23. 473
    Killian says:

    #159 nigelj said Killian says to me “you are rude in saying you disagree,”

    Good god almighty, what does a person say to that sort of silly statement?

    I keep thinking you can’t hit a new low, but then you do: That is not what that sentence means. Go back and read the original again, peanut. It means you are rude when you disagree, not BECAUSE you disagree. You are rude IN, not rude BECAUSE or rude BY.

    #160 nigelj Killian you are relentlessly abusive

    One more time: It is not rude to describe an unintelligent person as iunintelligent, a hypocrite as a hypocrite, lies as lies.

    Shut. Up. and all this ends. But you cannot. You will not. It’s an all-out illness at this point.

    nowhere near complying with this websites rules.

    Correct, you are not. Stop chasing me around this board and stop saying stupid crap so I don’t have to constantly correct you.

    Some climate denialists do deserve some real stick, but reserve it for them.

    You are one, imo. Soft denial is still denial.

    Killian, I very rarely get my comments deleted

    Join the club!

    That tells me all I need to know.

    Actually, if you understood logic, you’d know that tells you nothing about the quality of your posts nor whether you are rude and abusive, which you are. I’ll leave you to figure out your logical failings.

    All you are doing is scaring people off this website that might have something good to contribute.

    You think three or four of you constantly attacking my posts with lies, rudeness and logical fallacies is my fault, eh? Of course you do. And you assume they left, and that they left because of me? LOL… Typical of the quality of the logic of your posts. Again, identify your own fallacies for a change. Learn something.

    The tale is in the numbers: Look at the substantive posts I have made over the last six months and how often you and the rest of the Peanut Gallery have responded to them vs. stupid, petty, bullshit responses you make AFTER I respond to some rude or stupid crap one of you have posted.

    Go ahead. I dare you.

    Do yourself a favor: Never engage me again. it’s the only way your ego will not get beaten down. You do not belong on this site.

    But, of course, the peanut keeps prattling:

    #462 nigelj said Killian @445

    The great thing about your page long posts is I have learned I don’t need to read them past the first couple of sentences. Because you don’t really say anything.

    Well, they are responses to you, so how could there be anything of real value? You’re unbelievably pointless. Like this one. Why post it? What is wrong with your head? Page-long? Yes. IN RESPONSE TO YOUR INANiTY, peanut.

    My god…. he really does not get it…

    All I expect is people to be able to justify their big claims with something of substance.

    Sigh… your inability to understand is not others’ lack of quality in their posts.

    So who’s a smart cooky eh? I’m not so sure its you.

    Yeah, it is, peanut. You seem to be missing the point of some of Thomas’ posts. He’s telling you you are full of crap, you don’t get it, and your constant nipping at my heels, lies, etc., is invalid.

  24. 474
    Killian says:

    nigelj, saying “thanks” for the following is truly amazing. You just got spanked, hard, and think you got a big, fuzzy hug. Perhaps separating it out will help you understand.

    I can help nigelj I think buy pointing out that when it comes to Killian that nig is totally missing the forest for the trees. I can authoritatively say that my unique direct personal experience and first hand as well as scientific and economic/business knowledge and expertise.

    Of course, nigelj has every right to reject that out of hand, and that’s fine by me if he does so, or if anyone does, no matter what the reason.

    But I say this bluntly, I was DOING what Killian speaks about BEFORE he even knew anything about what he does in fact speak expertly about today.

    Elsewhere you ask for, maddeningly or foolishly, depending on my mood when I ponder the ridiculous comment, **proof.** (If Thomas wishes to help you understand the enormity of your error here, and what it reveals, yet again, about your chops, he may, but I will not be stooping so low.)

    Anywho… Thomas gives you what is called anecdotal *evidence* (hint, hint, hint) for what I am trying to help people understand.

    To lose Killian form these pages, like the hundreds of others who have passed though here only to soon disappear forever soon after having packet of peanuts endlessly criticised and ridiculed them here relentlessly

    He’s talking about you, MA, et al. Get it? And saying my posts here are the opposite of how you describe them, by implication, in saying

    (as on other like websites) will be RCs, and readers, and niglej’s loss, not Killians.

    While MAR is attacking and ridiculing comments by Killian here about 2C in another place he is going gangbusters attacking agw/cc deniers/skeptics about THE FACT how dangerous 2C is, and the rising CO2ppm projections (and the IMPACTS of that) via scientific refs and so on. Go figure! :-)

    He’s calling out MA’s hypocrisy. Get it?

    Everything is not always as it seems folks.

    He’s saying you, et al., don’t get what I’m saying.

    Many talk the talk, here and elsewhere. Speaking for myself alone, I know for almost 30 years now I have been both talking the talk, walking the talk, and walking the walk….and have never stopped learning from those more knowledgeable, more experienced and more wise than I am from one day to the next. “Listen to others, they too have their story”, and I do that in spades. That’s only one of my Principles. I note Killian also has his Principles.

    He’s saying there is talk, and then there’s germane, useful talk, and that you have to do more than that, and that he has done more, based on a set of principles, and notes I work within principles and draws a parallel between what he perceives of my behavior and his… that you don’t “get.”

    Or so I see it. As he said, he’s too polite by half.

    Learn something, nigelj, about yourself.

  25. 475
    nigelj says:

    Killian @473

    “One more time: It is not rude to describe an unintelligent person as iunintelligent, ‘

    Killian can’t even spell, and he accuses people of being unintelligent. I’m laughing so hard I’m going to crack a rib.

    “You think three or four of you constantly attacking my posts with lies, rudeness and logical fallacies is my fault, eh?’

    Actually I can think of at least 8 people who have attacked your posts and far more viciously than me in most cases. Ray Ladbury. K McKinney, MA Rodger, BPL, Zebra, Al Bundy, Alan100, Mr KIA. There are many others but I cant remember the names. They have all done it on more than one occasion. I suspect they just gave up on you after that. And most of their criticisms are perfectly logical.

    Its not to suggest they disagree entirely with everything you say, and they often point that out. But you cant even handle the slightest criticism without blowing a fuse.

    “Peanut Gallery have responded to them vs. stupid, petty, bullshit responses you make AFTER I respond to some rude or stupid crap one of you have posted.”

    Actually nobody has told me I’m rude or post crap apart from you. Mal Adapted said I was polite. Plenty of people tell you that you are rude and post crap, including all 8 I mentioned above.

    First rule of science: Make accurate observations. Learn it.

  26. 476
    Thomas says:

    #463 thx nigelj, nice chat. I believe that anyone posting on sites like this one are already frustrated or they wouldn’t be here. That frustration comes from different forced variations but frustration is always a lower form of anger. It doesn’t take much for that to be triggered and erupt eventually. None of us are perfect and we all have fluid degrees of tolerance from one day to the next. we also have our own preferred wheelbarrows we are pushing, and when others appear to be kicking our wheelbarrows over with little respect well that pushes our buttons. This, I believe is normal, iow everyone is normal and being human. eg when one has a gut full of those who a Trump personality may represent and they can’t get to him or them, well they hit out at the nearest available person to slap when they feel their efforts are being undermined. things like are, imho, the trees that are getting in the way of people here who are all concerned about the forest. sorry to everyone if that’s too ‘poetic/metaphorical’. This entire subject of agw/cc is tough hard going. anyone involved deserves to be commended. Most do bother. I do not know the solution either, I wish I had a magic wander and we could sing Kumbaya together to celebrate the successful ending of dangerous AGW and having stopped all the Impacts. Despite appearances I wish everyone well, even antiagw/cc action brigade like Trump and Tony Abbott and all their Supporters and rabid Deniers, the poor ignorant twats!

  27. 477
    Thomas says:

    typo … Most people do NOT bother if they care, and the rest just do not care.

  28. 478
    nigelj says:

    Killian @474

    Regarding Thomas. He is basically claiming I should not criticise your views because you 1) you rightly believe agw is a problem and 2) Have reduced consumption and live by example.

    Firstly I have nothing personal against you or Thomas, and I admire your lifestyle choices a lot.

    However I don’t think either of you two guys entirely “get it”. I’m not saying you are entirely wrong about your philosophy, but its absurd expect people not to make criticisms of some aspects from time to time. That is just normal discussion, and it doesn’t mean we reject your views completely in principle. If you don’t get that, you start to make me wonder about your basic level of comprehension of everything.

    We have to be careful not to turn this website (or any other) into an echo chamber, where everyone agrees all the time and pats each other on the back. This will not look good to the public, and its the same criticism we make of climate denialist website echo chambers with their lack of self scepticism of their beliefs. Some disagreement is healthy, as long as we agree on basic worries and concerns about the environment, and the basics of agw and that its a serious concern. If you don’t understand this concept, I’m left wondering about your level of understanding.

    Thomas wanted climate denialists banned from websites. Tempting I admit, but word of this would soon get around, and the general public would quickly decide the entire climate science community was quite mad, untrustworthy, and they would be even more sceptical of agw climate change. Its a really obvious free speech issue!

    The main criticism I have made of your posts is really that I disagree that we should cut consumption by 80 – 90%. I think its out of proportion to the problem, the “cure is worse than the disease”, its too harsh on people, and in some cases almost impossible, and it would be hard to get public buy in on any scale. I think a 25% reduction makes sense overall. You haven’t really provided any robust proof of 80% cuts in the way of some maths model, just asked me to trust your instincts and talked about resource limits in a general way. I’m perfectly happy to accept you have better than average insight, but I need to see hard proof by way of science and modelling etc. Call me fussy and demanding if you want.

    I think I have the right balance of belief, and also some healthy scepticim, as opposed to the illogical climate denialist version of ‘scepticism’.

    If you don’t get what I’m saying, I don’t care so much. I get some things wrong sometimes, but Im “comfortable in my skin”. Frankly I’m more interested in what others think, because at least they aren’t abusive.

  29. 479
    Thomas says:

    And then there is #474 Killian’s review, which is 100% correct in his breakdown or my intent and meaning, as well as that I have been way too polite and patient here over years.

    I’m all out of patience though … which means I am pretty much done with it all. But I am grateful that most of what I have said over the years is archived for others to maybe stumble upon in the near future.

    and fwiw the feedback I get from my 30 something sons and their social group, as well as what I hear from the younger millennial (teens) I meet now and then is 100% confirmation i have been on the right path for decades and say things in a way that they can easily understand and connect with in their own ‘real lived’ Lives. again anecdotal feedback .. sorry no peer reviewed paper to prove that, so maybe it should be just ignored (and or ridiculed by all scientists and holders of PhDs), yeah? (smiling)

  30. 480
    nigelj says:

    Killian @473

    Calling people unintelligent, ignorant, idiots and liars is always abusive regardless of whether you might think its true or not. Its highly personal and hurtful, leads to fist fights, and adds nothing to the debate. It never proves someones claim on the science or whatever either right or wrong.

    I dont call people these things, although I sometimes think them.

    Its particularly galling as you cant really know if these things are true. Its very hard to be sure people are lying, mostly it amounts to a missunderstanding or mistake. Notice nobody else on this website accuses me of lying, even people I criticise. I dont tell lies about what people post. I may sometimes misinterpret them. My conscience is clear.

    In comparison there’s nothing wrong with saying you disagree or someone is being a bit silly in what they say.

    We dont want to be too “pc” over the issue or excessively polite but there’s actually a pretty obvious difference between blatant abuse and criticism.

    Just my opinion. I have seen numerous people who talk like you have their comments deleted form websites.

    I also admit I have got stuck in to a few climate denialists on this website impolitely. I usually actually end up regretting my harsh choice of language.

    There’s enough bile and aggression on the internet, please don’t add to it.

  31. 481
    nigelj says:

    Just a modification to my comments on not banning climate denialists. I think climate denialists should be banned, or have their commented deleted, in certain situations: Breaking basic website rules obviously, and if they just spam the website with big claims not backed up with links to reputable science sources of some kind. This sort of posting is basically just propaganda.

  32. 482
    nigelj says:

    Thomas @476, yeah well said, I have to agree totally.

    People are invested in various things, and don’t like criticism. That’s natural. I don’t like criticism either. A sense of humour helps.

  33. 483
    Al Bundy says:

    Nigelj: Most days, imho, I am way too nice, both here and in the real world. But, whatever.

    Killian: Oh, me, too. Me, too… …Really, not insult, just creative response… …I think you mean cackling [in response to nigelj’s Killian cracks me up laughing]… …Please. A monkey could… … Most can’t handle the truth, is all. Like you… …There are real ^$$holes on this site… …You add nothing here but word length and distraction… …I have never said I am infallible…. …I cannot at this time think of anything in the last ten years that would qualify as wrong… …I know few as forthright about their faults as I am… …You think I am motivated by ego… LOL… wow… you’re a worst [sic] analyst than I thought… …Good thing I don’t have to try, and good thing I am no [sic] arrogant.

    AB: You exude humility, sweetness, and niceness. Perhaps you should change your handle to “Mister Rogers in Candyland”. By the way, the first rule of insults is to not make elementary errors while hurling an insult and the first rule of informing others about your superiority is to let someone else do the talking. (I can ignore these rules because I’m God and theirfour supernacherally purfekt inn evree whey.)

    ————

    On BECCS – One of the first steps with BE is to stop burning slash except in power plants, woodstoves, or in some other productive way, with all of the ash returned to the forest. This would mimic nature’s way, which is the periodic use of low-intensity fires to thin the trees and clear deadwood and scrub while adding nutrients to the soil. I’m with Scott about the CCS part. It’s shiny and pretty and probably of minimal viability. Note that it drops efficiency by about 20% and increases non-carbon pollution. Plus, the only way folks have been able to make the math even kinda sorta work is to use the CO2 to EXTRACT MORE OIL!!! Scientific American noted that “The Scurry Area Canyon Reef Operators Committee oil field, better known as SACROC, near Snyder, Tex., has slurped 140 million metric tons of liquid carbon dioxide (CO2) since 1972—80 million metric tons of which has stayed trapped in the reservoir.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/enhanced-oil-recovery/

    So, 120% * 60 / 140 = 51%… and then add in whatever the otherwise unrecoverable oil spews AND whatever leaked out in transport AND whatever leaks out in the future AND whatever emissions the transportation equipment itself spews and Houston, we have a problem because CCS appears to INCREASE carbon emissions.

    On reefs – I’m not sure that they’ll be gone so soon. Yes, current individuals will die off, but transplants from higher temperature reefs, such as in the Red Sea, and genetically modified individuals might start new rebuilding – assuming algae doesn’t take over and pollution doesn’t poison… Man, to resort to “maybe they’ll survive for at least a while” when talking about the ocean’s nurseries sucks.
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2131313-corals-that-grow-faster-in-warm-water-could-beat-climate-change/

  34. 484
    Killian says:

    #470 Thomas said [Re:] AGW/CC long term Solution/s

    Following on from the report @466 there’s this really positive activity http://thesolutionsproject.org/impact-report/ and many other regions expanding renewable energy across the globe… I like [the solutions project] very much but it’s only addressing part of the systemic issues needing massive change quite quickly to occur (global and local ‘economics’ included)

    I’ve spoekn here about this issue of tech saving us from tech to not belabor the point too much here. It’s enough to remind people of Tainter’s premise that problems arising from complexity are not solved by greater complexity, Bucky Fuller’s admonition that to change a thing (system) create a better one rather than fighting the old one, and Einstein’s observation that you can’t solve a problem with the same thinking that created it.

    These three ideas form a nested rubrik of logic that *should* be at teh forefront of all solution seekers, but is not.

    Well-meaning slower suicide from people who can only see one part of the problem.

    All the while, you note, Thomas, the urgency of some scientists, which echoes my own of the last ten years.

    People have the misapprehension that we can recover from this state just by reducing carbon emissions, Anderson said …Recovery is all but impossible, he argued, without a World War II-style transformation… to halt carbon pollution and remove it from the atmosphere, and a new effort to reflect sunlight away from the earth’s poles.

    This has do be done, Anderson added, within the next five years.

    “The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero,” Anderson said, with 75 to 80 percent of permanent ice having melted already in the last 35 years.

    A quibble first: Receding horizons. If we count the ice from 1953 to now, those percentages are higher. There is already virtually no old ice left, just a little multi-year ice. In terms of volume, we are already past the 80% threshhold that serves as a proxy for “ice-free.” We are, in fact, already at the level of ice-free in that context. Luckily, area is the most important measure for albedo, and that runs higher, proportionally, than volume. But that is not saying much given the context and conditions.

    These guys are right. The urgency is real because the risk is existential, something too many on this sight pooh-pooh. Rather than looking at what must be done, they instead lazily fall back to what they, and others, from their perspective, are willing to do, as if because that is all they are willing to do, the planet will wait for them.

    There is only viable pathway that reflects the risk assessment accurately: Simplification.

    I think it’s noteworthy how James Anderson puts the issue. and Kevin Anderson as well.

    Indeed. When the risk is existential, the alarmist is the wise man, the sanguine the fool on the hill.

  35. 485
    Killian says:

    This may be the most self-deluded string of posts it is possible to read, anywhere on the planet. nigelj may not be functioning in the same reality. Which universe is he from, I wonder…?

    Thomas 447

    nigel 468 469

    my 472 473 474

    nigel 475

    Thomas 476

    nigel 478

    Thomas 479

    But let me annotate and paraphrase for clarity:

    Thomas 447 You guys are making a big mistake in your constant harassment of Killian.

    nigel 459 468 469 Petty harassment of, and stupid crap about, Killian; delusional self-assessments

    my 472 473 474 nigel, you engage in petty harrasment of, and stupid crap about, Killian; delusional self-assessments

    nigel 475 spelling errors equals intelligence, and typing a word correctly, then nis-typing isn’t a typo, it’s a spelling error, cause I’m nigel. And none of us like you!!

    Thomas 476 People get frustrated and angry; nigel, stop looking at trees.

    nigel 478 No, Thomas likes me and told me to be nice to you. You guys (who know a heck of a lot more than me, are wrong, Because!)

    Thomas 479 No, I said what Killian correctly explained, and your abuse of him is damned stupid. He knows more than you do, but you keep getting your undies in bunches over minor points and personal dislike of the man. I have lost patience with this stupidity of yours.

    But nigel heard you love me, Thomas, and see my brilliance! You’re right, Killian is bad!

    One word: Wow.

    This is incredibly delusional. Or is it all an act? To keep suggesting non-solutions, changing nothing systemically, are solutions and attacking someone offering the only pathway out…?

    Delusional or denialist? Honestly not sure. In the end, it ends up having the same effect, so matters little.

  36. 486
    Thomas says:

    New info from James Hansen, just sharing it.

    Rock Dust in Farming: A Potential Strategy to Help Close the Climate Gap
    19 February 2018
    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20180219_RockDustInFarming_NewsRelease.pdf

  37. 487
    Killian says:

    #479 Thomas said And then there is #474 Killian’s review, which is 100% correct in his breakdown or my intent and meaning, as well as that I have been way too polite and patient here over years.

    He still can’t hear you, Thomas. It’s time for a new Forced Responses so we can leave this spewing of his behind and get back to useful conversation.

  38. 488
    Thomas says:

    #478 nigelj, re He is basically claiming I should not criticise your views

    No, that’s not what am or was saying at anytime.

    nor am I saying that you should not defend yourself when feeling under attack and being verbally ‘abused’ either, nor do I say anything about killian feeling he is under attack and dealing with what he considers ‘lies or abuse’.

    My focus and my interest is 100% about agw action and communication, and the facts as they are… especially HOLISTICALLY and SYSTEMICALLY in reality.

    The rest, arguments & personality clashes and mis-communications on text forums (here and every where else), imho is just fluff and bs. even when I do it myself. ROTFLMFAO ;-)

  39. 489
    Thomas says:

    #478, oh gosh, I didn’t read it all ….

    “Thomas wanted climate denialists banned from websites. Tempting I admit, but word of this would soon get around, and the general public would quickly decide the entire climate science community was quite mad, untrustworthy, and they would be even more sceptical of agw climate change. Its a really obvious free speech issue!”

    Please don;t be offended but that is total bollocks Nigelj. It’s even untrue. Neoliberal Koolaide is quite tasty and enticing but 99% of the time it is flat out wrong.

    If the crazy mad insane agw/cc science denialists have something to say then they can go run their own damned irrelevant websites. They do not belong on The Conversation, or RC or The Guardian either …. TG has a new rule a while ago, any climate science denialism and egregious trolling by deniers will be DELETED … and eventually banned from the site.

    Their Moderators specifically asked users to report such garbage and help them get the lunatics of the comments boards.

    That is NOT a “free speech” issue at all, nothing to do with it.

    And fwiw, the only place i make posts to now and for a long time is here on RC. when I talk crap I appreciate my posts being sent into the cyberspace trash bin…. it gives me a chance for a do over. nothing wrong in that. That’s not an infringement on my free speech rights … not one little bit.

    cheers

  40. 490
    Thomas says:

    The general public would wise to quickly decide the entire climate science DENIAL community was quite mad, and untrustworthy, and Psychopathic delusional nutcases …. from Trump down and including many who are bloody scientists or hold PhDs in all types of disciplines.

    Forest Trees Nigelj …. forest trees! ;-)

  41. 491
    Thomas says:

    sorry, correction …. from Trump & Obama & the Clintons down …. for the Democrats are overall equally insidious and a clear and ever present danger to the world.

  42. 492
    Thomas says:

    Looming AGW/CC impacts in Europe — Future heat-waves, droughts and floods in 571 European cities by Selma B Guerreiro et al
    However, the high impact scenario projects that most European cities will see increases in both drought and river flood risks. Over 100 cities are particularly vulnerable to two or more climate impacts. Moreover, the magnitude of impacts exceeds those previously reported highlighting the substantial challenge cities face to manage future climate risks.

    More frequent and hotter HW Heat Waves are expected for all European cities. Southern cities see the largest increase in the number of HW days (as much as 69%). On the other hand, central European cities, where both infrastructure and populace are generally not adapted to extreme heat, see the largest HW Temp max increases (up to 14 °C, far above estimates from other studies). Southern European cities will also see an increase in drought conditions in all scenarios and a fundamentally different climate in the high impact scenario with future droughts up to 14 times worse than the ones in the historical period.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaaad3

  43. 493
    Thomas says:

    483 Al Bundy. for the record “Nigelj: says xyz”

    that was said me, not nigel. I have also said i am way too patient as well as way too nice. And at times like this a dead set pedant for accurate facts and reasonable conclusions based on those facts and not on “misinformation/errors or distortions” .. be it from ‘science’ wording or news papers or pollies or PhDs even. :-)

  44. 494
    Cody says:

    There was a frequent poster / editor @ The Oil Drum, back at the turn of this decade, who wrote as: Gail the Actuary. Just one of her fave topics was the relationship twixt Big Oil, & the private pension systems. Further, she maintained, that an economist’s chop @ the physical notion of ‘Net Energy’ was what supported a great deal of key things in the World Economy. Such as pensions.

    One place that RC folks draw the ire of ‘ordinaries,’ that is, amd it is completely MY definition here: intelligent church-going folks who stay informed and involved but for whatever reason, have yet to partake of the RC ‘cool-aid,’ like so many I respect here, and like I so totally did, way back in 19 & 79.

    Thus, take BHO, and how he ‘played the McCondo blow out. Just let his Justioce Department beat the Hell out of BP. Pensions in England did suffer. BP lost a huge fraction of the wealth it had built up in over a Century of providing gasoline’s magic, for little mor edenero than distilled H2O. (Even Prius drivers hit that pump, so they need oil boys too!) This earns climate preservationists Bad Vibes. The guys that went out and drilled the Relief wells, were part of an unprecedented Armada > 100 boats, all dancing atop an A-bomb of venting methane per 72 hours. Hairy dangerous. Hollywood makes a movie but like big burns and depicts the guys on the platform when all Hell broke loose. But the Heroes were the men who volunteered to float W/all that unburnt gas.

    Obama acted like the “President of Real Climate”. Not the president of all of the American folks.

    https://ourfiniteworld.com/about/

  45. 495
    Thomas says:

    “Watching the Winter Arctic Sea Ice Extent has gone from boring to horrifying in just a few short years.”

    Start here and scroll down if interested in the Arctic situation today.
    https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2223.msg142861.html#msg142861

  46. 496
    nigelj says:

    Thomas @489, ok my mistake. You just wanted climate denialists banned from here and the guardian etc.

    However I just repeat my prior comment, because nothing changes and you should have inferred that. Its a mistake to ban climate denialists from here, it will give the website a very bad name, and many in the public will see it as trying to shut down peoples views. Its excessive censorship.

    Instead as per my other comment, they should only have their comments deleted from here if its spamming, abusive or they are unable to back claims up with some solid references to published science. That is a more subtle approach.

    Anyway its easy shooting them down (metaphorically speaking).

  47. 497
    nigelj says:

    Killian @485, no I never interpreted Thomas comments that way.

    You are entitled to your opinion on how to save mankind, and websites like this need “alternative views”. However its your opinion and a few others, and nothing more. Its not backed up with anything substantial and a science website requires modelling etc.

    And my citicicisms are more than “minor nitpicking” on my part. So Thomas has got that wrong.

    But good luck. Do your thing. Its admirable and preferable in some ways to the dubious “invisible hand of the market” Thomas talks about. Society should at least ensure alternative communities are allowed to do their thing. If yours is the correct path it will gain traction eventually so what are you worried about?

    However I think we can forge a better path, half way between the current over commercialised neoliberal mess, and the very small scale structures as Killian is generally proposing. I think things will naturally go in this path. That is an alternative just as much as yours is. So to say I oppose “all restructuring” is just rubbish. There are many paths.

  48. 498
    nigelj says:

    Thomas

    “The general public would wise to quickly decide the entire climate science DENIAL community was quite mad, and untrustworthy, and Psychopathic delusional nutcases …. from Trump down and including many who are bloody scientists or hold PhDs in all types of disciplines.”

    Yes to that. Couldn’t come soon enough. But where have I suggested otherwise? We have to help convince the public and shouting probably wont do it. We have to wear them down.

    I agree with most of your criticisms of Americas foreign policies but dont start idolsing Russia for gods sake. Putin is not the worlds friend.

  49. 499

    After a day away, I checked out #s 450-492.

    Well, that’s five minutes I’ll never get back. Some links from Thomas that may or may not be worth checking, a sensible comment from Scott Strough and from Al (but nothing I didn’t already know) and gobs and gobs and gobs of ad hom BS. (Though not technically, as in most cases the insult and defensive reaction didn’t even pretend to be in support of a substantive point.)

    Onwards, and, hopefully, upwards.

  50. 500
    Thomas says:

    Here’s a good quote of positive insights from a fellow rc traveller, which I hope he won’t mind if I highlight the key words (trigger words not to be missed).

    2) Can you think of something good to say about global warming?

    [Something] more ‘cosmic’: global warming provides an existential challenge to humanity which, if successfully met, would see us structure our societies more rationally and sustainably, with due consideration for the real-world effects of our growing technological prowess.

    That’s a necessity if we are to continue as a technological society. In crisis, there is always opportunity. Face this crisis honestly, and we’ll be better able to face related issues (including, IMO, the importance of using scientific guidance constructively in setting public policy.)
    [end quote]

    Obviously, opinions vary widely as to the precise delineation between what’s destructive and constructive.

    498, are you trying to scare me about Putin or Russia? People say that generating fear about anything, agw/cc included, is counter productive.
    I am reasonably certain I do not idolise any nation or leader across the board.

    RE: “We have to wear [the public] down.”

    I believe one needs to help lift people up. Needs to speak to them honestly like the adults they are. To not do so is disrespectful and would be lying to them.

    Hoi! Please leave me out of it.

    I offered a few sanguine tips and told a cpl of ‘stories’. What you guys choose do with that has nothing to do with me.

    RE: “You just wanted climate denialists banned from here and the guardian etc.”

    yeah, any public venue where the operators/owners have the inherent legal right to decide who gets to address the crowd.

    If they wanna sit on soap box in the public square and speak, go for it. Newspapers and online forums/spaces have every basic right to decide which “letters to the editor” they choose to Publish.

    It’s always been that way ….. Publishers get to decide which books they publish, print and sell. Just because it is now so technologically friendly that any disturbed idiot can ‘get published’ all manner of idiocy is besides the point.

    Publishers are publishers and they carry a heavy responsibility – most of whom have not been trained nor proven competent in the ‘art’.

    If I ran an open website carrying ISIS propagander, then as a publisher I would be shut down. How come Facebook (etc) isn’t? At least until IT can Prove beyond reasonable doubt (in the Public’s best interest) that their AUTOMATED TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM and Human employees are competent enough to stop ALL examples of ISIS propaganda and the lies about AGW/CC science and looney anti-science knowledge denialism appearing on their “Publishing space”.

    Principles. Everyone has rights and responsibilities in a community, not only the individual. The freedom of the individual is no more valuable or more important than the everyone’s right to freedom and life. That’s the primary narcissistic neoliberal lie being sold these days.

    That ‘lie’ is anti-freedom, anti-society anti-community, and anti-life basically. Now, my tip is go have a look at who the agw/cc deniers are and what ideas and products they are ‘selling’ to the public.

    Or put another way, almost anyone can build a church and invite people in. But they have no right to shove it down everyone else’s throats.

    RC and everyone else like that has the inherent right to temper my own bullshit and I totally accept that. Some cannot. :-)

    And imho the ‘community’ has an inherent right to not go to WUWT or listen to what they might think and say. That’s why I do not go there and why I am ‘here’.

    Like I know the mormons exist, they do not need to knock on my door and tell me. I am not interested in them or DDS, KIA, Victor, or Peter Carson.

    Principles?

    cheers