The Climate Change Debate Thread

[Tombo]

Must have been a full moon last night. That or there was a break out at Arkham Asylum; All the crazies were out.

Yet another lesson for Ibis the economic illiterate. It matters not whether you pay tax on fuel at the pump. It is a tax on the use of oil. Doing the exact opposite (giving people a partial rebate on the price of petrol) would be a subsidy. Oil gets this exact opposite to a subsidy treatment nearly everywhere (in places like Iran it does indeed attract genuine subsidy).

And nice to see yet another "clean bill of health[SIZE="1"](TM)[/SIZE]" provided to the IPCC. Just curious. How is it possible that such a report has credibility when:

1. It included in its authorship partcipants in the IPCC
2. It included gross errors in its analysis (e.g. repeated the same error on Amazongate that the IPCC made i the first place)

And the most strange thing indeed. Supposedly Climategate and all the related 'gates mean nothing(it is amazing how such virtuous organisation seems so prone to innocent and supposedly irrelevant mistakes ), but at the same time Climategate was a "game changer":

'Climategate' was 'a game-changer' in science reporting, say climatologists | Environment | The Guardian

You guys inside that cozy little "consensus" really need get your story straight.

[owedtojoy]

Must have been a full moon last night. That or there was a break out at Arkham Asylum; All the crazies were out.

Yet another lesson for Ibis the economic illiterate. It matters not whether you pay tax on fuel at the pump. It is a tax on the use of oil. Doing the exact opposite (giving people a partial rebate on the price of petrol) would be a subsidy. Oil gets this exact opposite to a subsidy treatment nearly everywhere (in places like Iran it does indeed attract genuine subsidy).

And nice to see yet another "clean bill of health[SIZE="1"](TM)[/SIZE]" provided to the IPCC. Just curious. How is it possible that such a report has credibility when:

1. It included in its authorship partcipants in the IPCC
2. It included gross errors in its analysis (e.g. repeated the same error on Amazongate that the IPCC made i the first place)

And the most strange thing indeed. Supposedly Climategate and all the related 'gates mean nothing(it is amazing how such virtuous organisation seems so prone to innocent and supposedly irrelevant mistakes ), but at the same time Climategate was a "game changer":

'Climategate' was 'a game-changer' in science reporting, say climatologists | Environment | The Guardian

You guys inside that cozy little "consensus" really need get your story straight.

Strange that the Guardian, usually a stalwart on all things environmental, is now the Gospel, not the communist rag it is usually to the denialists.

Strange also that Fred Pearce, author of the piece, is trying to sell a book about Climategate/ Denialgate, whichever you like, and he likes to show off his "neutralist" credentials.

No scientist changed his or her mind because of Denialgate. The planet did not start cooling becuase it believed the faux-"scandal" generated by the illegal hack, and its aftermath in the Murdoch media, Fox News and their abettors in the Denialsphere.

Chris Mooney summed it up in his review of Pearce's book in New Scientist:

In truth, climategate was a pseudo-scandal, and the worst that can be said of the scientists is that they wrote some ill-advised things

The climate scandal that never was - 30 June 2010 - New Scientist

[myksav]

Originally Posted by Tombo
Must have been a full moon last night. That or there was a break out at Arkham Asylum;

Well, this proves that Tombo lives in the alternative world of DC Comics. In which it's always a full moon.

By the way, the next full Moon for this planet is on the 26th.

[Tombo]

Strange that the Guardian, usually a stalwart on all things environmental, is now the Gospel, not the communist rag it is usually to the denialists.

Strange also that Fred Pearce, author of the piece, is trying to sell a book about Climategate/ Denialgate, whichever you like, and he likes to show off his "neutralist" credentials.

No scientist changed his or her mind because of Denialgate. The planet did not start cooling becuase it believed the faux-"scandal" generated by the illegal hack, and its aftermath in the Murdoch media, Fox News and their abettors in the Denialsphere.

Chris Mooney summed it up in his review of Pearce's book in New Scientist:

In truth, climategate was a pseudo-scandal, and the worst that can be said of the scientists is that they wrote some ill-advised things

The climate scandal that never was - 30 June 2010 - New Scientist

No, the Grauniad is still an error strewn pile of dung. [note MOnbiot's laters travails ]

However, in this case it was the source of the quote from one of your alarmist brothers who said that

"Climategate was a game changer".

Instead of just throwing up more "it doesn't matter garbage", why not address the point.

Why do some alarmists [Hulme] think Climategate was a big deal? It is decidely off message, non?

Is Hulme now a "denier"?

Come on, why does an extremely well credentialled, card carrying, warmy alarmist say you are wrong?

Come on, according to which warmy alarmist you ask it is either a "Game changer" or "pseudo-scandal", it can hardly be both. Why is aone warmy alarmist right and the other wrong?

[Tombo]

Warmy alarmist modellers at play:



http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-07-02/

Needed to add

"and we'll take an extre $10 million of taxpayers' money to do it."

[sharper]

You know Tombo we can all read wattsupwiththat.com just as easily as you can.

[Tombo]

You know Tombo we can all read wattsupwiththat.com just as easily as you can.

I thought WUWT was verboten, so I took the liberty of sharing.

[sharper]

I thought WUWT was verboten, so I took the liberty of sharing.

I'm not referring just to this article but your pattern of sharing whatever happens to be the top story on WUWT when you're online. There's no pattern or relevance to what you post, just whatever happens to be on there. We can all ready the site as easily as you.

[Tombo]

I'm not referring just to this article but your pattern of sharing whatever happens to be the top story on WUWT when you're online. There's no pattern or relevance to what you post, just whatever happens to be on there. We can all ready the site as easily as you.

But you'll have your warmy club membership card revoked.

[sharper]

But you'll have your warmy club membership card revoked.

I read WUWT regularly. I know most "skeptic" arguments better than most skeptics. Unlike your good self I don't simply read in order to reconfirm what I already thought.