Narratives: or The anatomy of a climate contrarian

Let’s continue the Hockey Stick Open thread, as suggested by skip, under a new title.

A great place to pick it up is skip’s most excellent response to a comment from crakar. He totally nailed all of crakar’s various diversions and strawmen.

This thread is about how and why people choose their positions in the faux climate debate.

Skip said:

I would be prepared to bet all the tea in China that every study I produce that supports my views would be rejected by you in an attempt to support your own views of AGW

If you keep citing weak, partisan crap like Inhoffe and Singer (see below), you will probably get to keep your tea, especially since your demonstrated history is to cite things you clearly have not even read.

And of course you couldn’t cover that bet, Cracker, which is why you make it so glibly. But that’s ok; I’m American and drinking little tea is part of our legacy of rebellion against the Crown. You Commonwealth folks prize it more than we do.

Note: some of the following text has been copied from an article, an article which expresses my views on the IPCC.

From the very beginning, the IPCC was a political rather than scientific entity, with its leading scientists reflecting the positions of their governments or seeking to induce their governments to adopt the IPCC position. In particular, a small group of activists wrote the all-important Summary for Policymakers (SPM) for each of the four IPCC reports [McKitrick et al. 2007].

You of course lifted this from one of Fred Singer’s reports (he copied and pasted from one to the other so I don’t know which.) The absurdity of this source is manifest. He cites the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine survey (let me know if you want to debate the validity of that joke), includes as a contributor Zbigniew Jaworowski (Lawrence Solomon’s “ice core man”, a quack who has been debunked into orbit), and your good mate Christopher Monckton. Not exactly an all star list of first rate intellects or scientific credentials. (I can’t speak to the others, to be fair.) I am also aware that some claim that Singer’s book, *Unstoppable Global Warming . . .*, has been shredded, but since I have not read either his book or these critiques I would have to take a wait-and-see approach to that. It might have been discussed on the “medieval warm period” thread. You tell me, Craker; I honestly don’t know.

While we are often told about the thousands of scientists on whose work the Assessment reports are based, the vast majority of these scientists have no direct influence on the conclusions expressed by the IPCC.

False. Their *research* is the underpinning of the summaries.

Those [reports] are produced by an inner core of scientists, and the SPMs are revised and agreed to, line-by-line, by representatives of member governments. This obviously is not how real scientific research is reviewed and published.

We’ve been through this. The IPCC report is not “research”. It’s a *research summary*, the essential conclusions of which are *agreed* to by an overwhelming majority of scientists who specialize in climate science and many of whom contributed to the report. If you understand the process of collaboration and co-authorship you would understand that a small number of report writers is a *practicality*, not a cover-up.

The IPCC’s FAR 1990 reported without much analysis claimed that temp changes were “broadly consistent” with GH models, it arrived at a climate sensitivity of 1.5 to 4.5C
The IPCC’s SAR 1996, Its SPM contained the memorable conclusion, “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” The SAR was heavily criticized,

Of course. Some people don’t want to believe it.

point 2 was supposed to highlight the hypocrisy of Al Gore. We had a prime minister some years back that owned shares in a pig farm, this particular pig farm benefitted from a change in gov policy and the PM was forced to sell his shares or resign. If PM Rudd stood ready to earn squillions from CO2 taxes via personal interests he would be drummed out of office because he would have a conflict of interest. As Al Gore stands to earn squillions from the very threat that he warns us about, people may be excused for thinking he has an ulterior motive. As per point 1 Skip you can disagree if that is your want but it does mean you are right and I am wrong.

Narratives at full throttle: “One of ‘your’ guys is bad. This (somehow) proves I’m right.” I don’t actively agree or disagree. I am indifferent. If Al Gore snorts cocaine while listening to death metal and engaging in sexual congress with barnyard animals it *has no bearing on our disagreement*. This is a total red herring, Craker.

In regards to unintended consequences, if you believe wholeheartedly in the IPCC and its associated apocalyptic scenarios

I don’t “believe” in them as certainties, Craker, and neither does the IPCC. They are prospective *threats*–possibilities, risks against which we should prudently hedge, especially since the supposed “costs” associated with said hedging are also associated with collateral benefits. I’ve said this again and again; you just ignore me (see below).

then maybe you will accept the case for drastic times calls for drastic measures, I on the other hand are not like you.

Set up a straw man and start torching, Craker. Translation of the above: “Now that I’ve established that you believe something ridiculous ‘wholeheartedly’, allow me to contrast my practical minded self with your silliness.” Its extremely important for you to believe that I support cloud seeding (or that my position requires me to, were I only clever enough to see it), isn’t it Craker? Keep that narrative cranking, baby. I’ve told you I really don’t know enough about it (I’ve only read a couple of articles and they focused on the politics and philosophy of it) and that my proposals for acting on climate change are far simpler (tweak the incentives to reward reduced use and investment in alternatives–but this is for another thread.)

I have seen the results of poorly planned and thought out actions of well meaning scientific bodies (cane toads etc) I am sure you can share some examples from your country

[and so on about the folly of environmental tinkering].

Granted. But this is the same lame guilt-by-association. And you’re off on a soliloquy launched by nothing but your repeated refusal to accept what I say at face value: *I’m not supporting proactive environmental manipulation.* In fact, I’m supporting the reverse.

To wit:
. . . [after listing off several examples of human’s dicking up the environment through ill considered efforts at conscious manipulation] So we now have a ticking time bomb in our midst’s, unintended consequences Skip.

I agree that’s both very possible and very bad. And *human carbon emissions* might *also* be one of those, Craker! The only difference between the human activity of raising the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and these failed experiments you mention is that our emissions were never intended for any environmental or other benefit. They were strictly for our convenience. If you can see the folly of unintended consequences for these other programs (which were localized), how is it that AGW–a potential worldwide phenomenon–escapes the same scrutiny for potential damage? Its because of narratives, Craker. You don’t *want* to see it (my attribution).

3, Consensus, what is it? Well it is a group of people that agree with each other. Nothing more nothing less, if there is a consensus does this mean we automatically assume they are right? Of course not, science is not done by a show of hands is it. History is littered with incorrect consensus, so lets not confuse scientific fact with appeal to authority ok.

When you travel on aircraft, drive a car, live in a code-approved home, or accept modern medical care, you are taking your chances with a scientific, peer reviewed consensus. And that’s what I’m doing, Craker, when I say we need to hedge against risk and act to prevent the potential long term damage of AGW. This is a recurring theme in my experience with debating deniers: Any element of uncertainty (which is unavoidable in science) is interpreted as an excuse for inaction. Your above logic amounts to, “We can’t be sure AGW fears are founded [and I agree we can’t, strictly speaking], so we should assume they are *not*. Fire up the Hummer.”

Also you asked for quotes and I gave them, now you say they are no good. Toll says IPCC alarmism is preposterous and a small warming would be OK (less deaths in Germany etc).But this is no good now, now you change the rules,

Wrong. You were claiming that your link proved your outrageous claim that, “”one by one self respecting scientists are turning away from the AGW theory and declaring themselves as sceptics.”

I showed simply that it does nothing of the sort. The ham-handed quote of Tol (who does *not* support Inhofe’s position on the AGW position or how policy should handle it) was an example of this. It is you who has changed the goalposts, now changing your claim about the link to it contains experts “who all spoke poorly of the IPCC.” (whatever exactly that means, and in any event its not the same thing, Craker. Beating me to the punch on the *accusation* of goal moving does not change the fact that it was you who sucked it in closer to yourself when I caught you red-handed “dogma propping” (more on this below.

you ridicule meteorologists in post # 77

Not with regards to meteorology, but I question their relative credibility in commenting on climate issues, yes.

but in post #42 you use them to prop up your own views.

Wrong. I only pointed out the survey results for their field because in my experience deniers lean heavily on sources from that specialty. They are not mentioned to support *my* views, but only to show that on average they do *not* support yours. The 97 percent figure for climate scientists was the money finding.

I do find it hard to follow your train of thought sometimes Skip.

You would have a fun conversation with my wife.

I counted 28 IPCC employed scientists that spoke poorly of the IPCC, 10 from Never A Straight Answer and 4 from NOAA plus a host of other scientists etc who all spoke poorly of the IPCC. No, someone did not use the exact phrase “AGW is a crock of shit”

Nor had anyone who has studied climate science from that list ” turn[ed] away from the AGW theory and declar[ed] themselves as [a] sceptic . . .”

you were looking for, granted but I believe my point is made.

The new or the old one?

By the way there is no such thing as a Climate scientist,

I think we’re getting closer to the key issue here. Convince yourself of this and you can believe (or disbelieve) just about anything, I can imagine. Its like saying there are no “medical researchers”, “aerospace engineers”, “design engineers”, or anything else where we have a vested interest in learning about the biological and physical worlds because, after all, all of them, like climate studies, “cover many fields and there is not one person in the world that could profess to be a master of them all.”

Also you may have got a little confused (my fault) “Also i would like to add, this link as a demonstration to both you and Eric that the masses are made to accept the AGW propoganda, a statement which you have both have lambasted me for making.–Craker”

This was referenced to the link showing Antarctic sea ice. I wanted your thoughts as to why the masses are only told about melting ice and not freezing ice.

I confess not to understand the science of this at a technical level. However, a sophisticated understanding of AGW recognizes that its effects are non-linear. If increased precipitation from AGW causes increases in Antarctic ice, then that’s the way it is. This is no more impressive than pointing out that some glaciers are increasing their ice mass, because you would not expect such glacial declines to be linear. But save this for another thread; I’m not your man on this issue, I admit. But your use of this as a silver bullet looks like blatant cherry picking of anything that comforts your narrative.

To finish off (did I cover everything Skip?)

See below.

So in summary, You believe in the IPCC conclusions.

Well, I think we should act on them, yes.

whereas I reject some aspects of it.

Which aspects do you not reject?

You believe in the computer model predictions out to 2100 whereas I reject it due to our lack of understanding of the climatic processes.

I am willing to act on those models to hedge against risk.

You believe and take refuge in the comfort of the consensus

We’re homing in on the core of this narrative interpretation on which you appear to lean so heavily. I have repeatedly explained in a manner that continues to apparently confound you that I do *not* take comfort in the consensus. It seems very, very difficult, Craker, for you to conceive of someone being convinced of something for reasons other than they *want* it to be true. I have a fairly strong hunch as to why.

I will repeat my real “narrative” for you benefit:

“*Based on the results of a scientific process and its *overwhelming* consensus, we believe that AGW is real, and very possibly dangerous enough to merit actions that are socially and economically tolerable–and undeniably beneficial in other ways.*”

Only one of three things could be going on here, Craker:

(1) I’m lying about my narrative. I’m just *pretending* to be worried about long term AGW, and really the thought of AGW destruction and/or socialistic oppression to address it gives me a big, fat Woodrow, and this conditions me to ignore excellent evidence that it is wrong, or

(2) I’m telling the truth about myself but I’m *deceived*. I’m an automaton who just dumbly “accept[s] the AGW propaganda” and who “believe[s] [my] politicians past and present will to the best of their ability make decisions with [my] best interests at heart regardless of their conflict of interests . . .” Along with the other drones, I do this to the detriment of prosperity, freedom, etc., or

(3) I’m telling the truth about myself–AGW and deniers’ apparent obstinacy about it is distressing to me, and thus I have *no reason* to block out information that would relieve me of this fear. As a result, when I reject the likes of Singer, Monckton, etc., it is because I think *they’re full of shit*, Craker. I would *rather* believe them, but I can’t. I have investigated the issue and I know the overwhelming reasons to fear AGW.

I understand that from halfway around the world you can’t know for sure, of course, which of these is true. But what makes more sense? Have you done *anything* even approaching what I have done to give the denier side a fair chance? Have you done anything like read three books picked by the other side and explained in detail why they are wrong? (My 46 page essay is at your disposal.) My guess, Craker, is that you have not. My perception is that you troll the net looking for things that you think confirm what you hope is true, regardless of their credibility, as this recent Inhofe debacle shows. You’re fishing for “proofs”–for confirmations of your narrative. I call the process “dogma propping”: “Here’s someone who says I’m right. Maybe I don’t really know what it says, but it proves me right.” And the by the way, this is in purist conformity to experiences I’ve had with other debates with deniers. The last guy once tried to send me a link with the *caveat* that he wasn’t even endorsing it. It’s a concession: “My proof is somewhere–maybe here; maybe not–I’m not saying either way. But read it just in case it proves me right.”

Whereas I realize a consensus means nothing when searching for scientific truth.

Then, to put WAG’s point another way: Give me an example of what means “something”. A key problem you must confront at some point, Craker, is that AGW is either true and dangerous or its not. When deciding whether to act on it, what do we have to go on *other* than the scientific consensus? You’ve got to take your chances with something, and I’ll throw my chips in with the IPCC. You prefer Monckton and Singer, and it looks like you prefer them simply because they say what you want to hear.

You believe your politicians past and present will to the best of their ability make decisions with your best interests at heart regardless of their conflict of interests whereas I reject this notion completely.

Straw man. You have every opportunity to ask me my opinion of the role of government and the potential pitfalls of engaging it (or not) to solve social/political/environmental problems, but you’re not interested in that. You want to *tell* me what I think. Why? It looks like you need to believe what you wrote above because, again *it fits your narrative*.

You believe in the AGW theory and are not prepared to consider any other option regardless of the implications

I just considered another option: The possibility that your link to Ihofe’s list was proof that, “”one by one self respecting scientists are turning away from the AGW theory and declaring themselves as sceptics.” You were just blatantly fishing and hopoing at that point. Since you didn’t deliver, yes, I am still stuck for now with my trust in the scientific consensus.

whereas I reject the theory of AGW based on a lack of evidence, if such evidence does comes to light then I will reconsider my position.

What evidence would that be for a bloke who says “a consensus means nothing when searching for scientific truth”? What would it take, Craker–a lunar billboard with a sign from God? An epiphany a la Homer Simpson? (“Spider pig . . . Spider pig . . . does whatever a spider pig does . . p. )Forty days of fasting and prayer? You tell us you’re unimpressed with a consensus even as you tell us all you need is evidence. If it is true that climate studies “cover many fields and there is not one person in the world that could profess to be a master of them all,” then as laymen we have to rely on secondhand sources in formulating our view. If not a consensus of them, then what? What would it take, Craker?

Skip you can break all this down into a simple Freudian exercise if you want but the above facts will not change for you. I on the other hand not constrained by preconceived beliefs have the ability to change my point of view.

Borderline hilarious. I repeat my questions from above.

The best example that immediately springs to mind is the missing hot spot, the mere fact that the hot spot does not exist clearly falsifies the theory of AGW, if the hot spot suddenly appeared for all to see then I would seriously consider the theory of AGW to be very robust and highly plausible.

I don’t know what this issue is but if there’s a thread on AFTIC point it out to me.

You and all of the dart throwers here do not care that the hotspot is missing, you yawn and wave your hand nonchalantly and then point to Arctic sea ice, sea level rise or show photos of polar bears.

You reject studies that do not conform to your beliefs not by any scientific measure but by simply labeling the author as a nutjob and a liar, thus shielding your belief system from the real world because that’s where you feel most comfortable.

Or in your case, if the document does not support your claim.

Yes, it is a screen full, for sure, but well constructed and thorough.

Crakar, you said you were working on a response, post it here.

While we are waiting for crakar to respond to skip’s actual arguments, how about we deal one at a time with his 5 diversionary tactics? I will schedule five threads over the next five days so we can focus on each point, please stay strictly on topic.

Point 1: the geological record and the past 70 years.

Point 2: the models only have 16 parameters, it’s not enough and they are failing.

Point 3: the Argo ocean temperature product shows cooling oceans

Point 4: sea level rise has dropped from 4ft/century over the last 10000yrs to just 8 inches in the last century

Point 5: peer reviewed literature all shows CO2 has a residence time of 7 years in the atmosphere, the IPCC says 100.

I know they were just offered as a fallback dodge of Skip’s uncomfortable dissection, and he has been answered on them all numerous other places here, but lurkers should not see them go ignored.

75 thoughts on “Narratives: or The anatomy of a climate contrarian

  1. Crakar.
    We are not even, because I answered your question at post 82 on ‘Phil Jones to step down etc’. As to your continuing, you are probably correct – there isn’t a lot of point. Your answer to my question seems to be that you don’t know and you have no evidence, and you violate the restriction against carrying on about MWP/LIA.
    Good job. Up to your usual standard.


  2. Mandas,

    Seeing how we live in the same town (though i suspect you are a crows supporter) and to stop you from throwing this back at me (along Skips line of thought) i will continue.

    But first, i read post 82 and you did in fact sort of, kind of answer my question stretched over two paragraphs which is why i missed it. So in summary you are saying we dont know the temps before the invention of the thermometer, i dont agree. The studies i showed use a range of proxies from all over the world and the evidence strongly suggests that the MWP and LIA did in fact exist, granted the maginitudes most probably varied from one location to another but there is sufficient evidence to show it did exist.

    Back to my version of events as requested.

    So we have an unknown force that caused the temps to drop from around 1300AD (MWP) and into the LIA and then back up again from around 1700 until today, so lets call this “something”.

    What caused this “something” to do this? we do not know but what we do know is that the temps have been rising now for about 300 years.

    Unfortunately the proxy record cannot discern the temps from one year to the next so all we get is something that looks like smoothed data if you like, but with the instrumental temp record we can see fluctations from year to year which then enables us to see the 30 year oscillations.

    These oscillations are driven primarily by the PDO, other factors drive/have an effect on the magnitude of the PDO, ENSO, AMO, Indian Di pole, solar, GHG etc etc.

    So lets look at the instrumental temp record a bit closer, the temps cycle in a 30 year period (note: all dates are approx)from the late 1800’s to around 1910 the temps dropped, from 1910 to 1940 the temps went up, from 1940 to 1970 the temps dropped again, from 1970 to 2000 the temps went up and from 2000 to now the temps have not risen, more on this in a moment.

    So what we can see is the temps have risen for 300 years and the last 100 odd (instrumental record) we see a 30 year cycle, so we have a “somethng” driving the temps up, when the PDo turns negative the temp rise stalls and then drops a bit as it is fighting against the “something”, when the PDO turns positive this pushes the temps up and adds to the something.

    So temps rise more than they fall, and as if on cue the PDO turned negative around 2000 and now the temp rise has stalled, so according to history we should see another 20 years of flat to falling temps as we have seen before.

    More to come.


  3. I may live in Adelaide, but I am not FROM Adelaide. Fair enough – I called you a creationist but don’t accuse me of being a Crow’s supporter (although by your vitriol you are obviously a Port supporter). I don’t even like AFL – I am from Sydney.
    I think you are confused about the whole MWP/LIA thing. We are discussing global mechanisms, not local or regional, and there is no evidence that MWP/LIA is global – in fact, the opposite is more likely (but once again, not confirmed).
    You may – for example – want to read this:

    Click to access i0044-7447-29-1-51.pdf


  4. Now everything i have said so far is accepted science (well we can disagree on magnitude of MWP etc) but you get my drift.

    So in the end what we disagree on is a few tenths of a degree and where it comes from.

    Firstly we need to try and figure out what has caused the temps to rise from 1700, because if you look at the dates i gave above we can see trend.

    Figures taken from HADCRUT3 show from 1880 to 1910 we see a -0.10 C change in anomoly.

    1910 to 1940 +0.5C
    1940 to 1970 -0.1C
    1970 to 2000 +0.5C

    Now remember these dates are taken around the PDO change, you can protest the exact dates and the temp changes if you want (and feel free to offer alternatives)but not much will change the trends will still be there.

    Now if we go with the premise that increasing CO2 levels will cause increasing temps (AGW in a nut shell) we have a problem dont we.

    1880 to 1910 temps hardly changed and either did CO2, OK so far so good, 290 to 300ppm respectively (10ppm).

    1910 to 1940 300 to 310ppm respectively but the temps went up by about half a degree (10ppm).

    1940 to 1970 310 to 323.98 respectively (14ppm)and the temps went down, how can this be?

    1970 to 2000 323.98 to 368.27 respectively (45ppm)and the temps went up by half a degree gain how can this be?

    2000 to 2009 368.27 to 385 respectively (17ppm)and the temps have not risen, once again how can this be?

    It is obvious that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere bears no relavence to what the 30 year temp trends are doing and it is more likely that internal and external factors are at play and not CO2. What these factors are i am not sure of but i suggest the sun plays a larger role than what the IPCC give it credit for.

    Now you can respond to what i have written and we can take it from there if you like.


  5. My sincerest appologies to you Mandas, no i do not follow port i follow Geelong, you see like you i am not from these parts. If you follow rugby i have always followed the rabbitohs not sure why but i do unfortunately.


  6. So, if I can summarise your argument against anthropogenic climate change – which I assume is contained in your previous post.
    CO2 and temperature do not show a direct correlation (ie temperature does not increase in direct proportion to increases in CO2), therefore it must be something else.
    Is that it? Seriously? Or have I misread your post?
    You don’t suspect for a minute that their may be other factors at play which modulate the increases in temperature?
    I must confess that I accept that changes in the composition of atmpospheric CO2 will change temperatures, but even I wouldn’t suggest that it is the only factor. Climate is a little more complicated than that.
    Please come up with a better argument.


  7. I just did, i accept it was a little long winded but sometimes thats the way it is.

    I have shown that over a period of 120 years that there is no correlation between temps and CO2, a doubling of CO2 would in theory add 1.1C as we have not doubled CO2 yet (1750, 275ppm) then the effects of CO2 would be less than 1.1C. This small change in temp would be swamped by the myriad of other factors that effect climate.

    Your assertion is that increasing CO2 WILL cause the temp to increase via this small effect of increasing CO2 plus a major positive feedback from WV. As per the data i have presented there is not a shred of evidence that supports your view.

    If there is please provide empirical evidence to the contrary. Shant be too hard for you if it exists.


  8. Actually no, you have shown nothing of the sort.
    You have not shown there is no correlation between CO2 and temperatures. What you have suggested is that there is no DIRECT correlation between CO2 and temperatures – and that is a reasonable suggestion – but it has nothing to do with anything, and certainly does not prove your case or disprove the case for anthropogenic climate change.
    As I stated, and you agreed, there are a myriad of confounding factors influencing the relationship between CO2 and temperature. It is easy to demonstrate a causal relationship between the two – and you can have a causal relationship without direct correlation (because of confounding factors), and you can have correlation without causality (coincidence).
    However, once you have demonstrated causality (and only a fool would suggest there is no causal relationship between CO2 concentration and long wave radiation absorption), then any variations in correlation are caused by those confounding factors. Some have relatively major influences (eg water vapour), some have relatively minor influences (eg sunspot activity), but the more you know about them and how to adjust for their effects, the better you are able to make predictions about correlation. That’s the science of climatology, and that’s what climatologists have been spending decades researching.
    BUT – there is absolutely no doubt that increasing CO2 concentrations will increase long wave radiation absorption (ie heat). The actual changes in global temperature will be modified by confounding factors and there will not be a smooth correlation showing temperature increasing in direct proportion to increases in CO2. There will be regional and global factors, and there will be variations from year to year and decade to decade, but the long term trend will continue to go up in response – just like we are observing.
    If your whole argument is that lack of correlation demonstrates that the case is flawed, then you have no argument at all.


  9. Mandas,

    So we both agree there is no direct correlation between co2 and temp but you claim that this proves nothing.

    Ok so lets throw that out, what empirical evidence do we have left to either prove or disprove the case for AGW?

    You then jump to correlation between CO2 and OLR, i think we are in agreance that to double CO2 we will get about 1.1C increase in temps then we need to double it again to get the same response, this is because CO2 increases have a diminishing return.

    “If your whole argument is that lack of correlation demonstrates that the case is flawed, then you have no argument at all.”

    No this is not my whole argument, simply put correlation does not prove causality but without correlation there can be no causality, correct?

    You have oversimplified the whole process and claim that CO2 is going up at the same time temps are so therefore there is a correlation ergo CO2 is causing it.

    Some questions:

    1, What is the lag between CO2 increase and temp rise in time? Eg days, weeks etc (is this known?)

    2, As stated above CO2 cannot account for all the warming predicted by the IPCC (doubling CO2 etc) so how do we get the rapid temp rises predicted? (I am looking for empirical evidence here, is there any?)

    3, As shown in previous post the temp fluctuations can be seen to follow a trend in line with the PDO these fluctuations are obviously influenced by sun enso etc. So if the -ve PDO can stop GW by dropping the temp over a 30 year period does this then show that the forcing from CO2 is rather weak? EG 1940 to 1970. Therefore the temp rise from 1970 to 2000 (+ve PDO) is primarily caused by more powerful forcings?


  10. No – you appear not to have read my post at all.
    I do not agree – and nor did I say – anything specific about doubling CO2 leading to a 1.1C increase in temperature.
    And I specifically said that you CAN have causation without correlation and vice versa. That is a fundamental tenet of statistics that should not need explaining (even though I did explain it). I’ll say it again. Confounding factors are important – especially in complex systems.
    And I never oversimplified things – I specifically said things were complicated – and I never drew any conclusion about correlation between CO2 and temperatures. You are trying to build a strawman then tear it down. The only conclusion you can reasonably draw from my post is that increases in CO2 concentrations leads to an increase in long wave radiation absorption (that is a fact, not a deduction), but that confounding factors will have an influence and you need to understand their effects before you can draw conclusions about the INDIRECT correlation between CO2 and global temperature (that’s a deduction that every climatologist agrees with by the way). However, I did say that the overall trend in both was up (but once again, that’s a fact, not a deduction).
    So, if you are going to argue with me, at least read what I say and respond on that basis – don’t make up your own words. In that context, your questions are meaningless, because they are based on things that I haven’t even claimed.
    Try again.


  11. Skip,

    I just finished reading your post, wow and what a post it was. I dont know what was worse the examples you gave in an attempt to show my *bullshitting* or the character assassinations you used for filling.

    So in summary you are no longer going to talk to me because in your opinion i bullshitted to you 3 times.

    I am sorry you feel this way Skip but you might be right it may be for the best i will not respond to any of your posts and you can do the same for me.


  12. Mandas,

    Firstly i am not trying to argue with you, and i did read your post but you have confused me some what, are you saying that CO2 does not need to correlate with temps to be a causality?

    You then spoke about CO2 and OLR absorption which is why i mentioned doubling CO2 etc.

    I agree with you when you say that an increase in CO2 will lead to more absorption of OLR but there are limits to how much extra OLR will be absorbed. Even so this will only lead to a small increase in temps, not enough to cause the temp rise predicted.

    What happens next is what i am asking of you to explain.


  13. Crakar and Narrative Construction, Update III

    We recently had one of the most remarkable exchanges with Peter of Sidney and Crakar (what is it with Aussies and AGW denial?), and the outcome was so poignant that I felt it merited its own comment here on Narratives.

    Coby had emerged from the sidelines to ask Peter the following question:

    Peter, if I may ask, what evidence would you accept as convincing that GHG’s have caused the majority of recent warming? –Coby

    The response:

    Coby it’s not up to me to prove the AGW thesis. Please show me the evidence and the scientific community will look at it. At the moment there is no such conclusive evidence. If there was, we and the rest of the world wouldn’t be having this debate. –Peter of Sydney

    (Besides being a blatant dodge, this answer is mind-bogglingly inane:–“Someone disagrees with you; therefore you’re wrong.”) Peter has since vanished—perhaps in embarrassment (I hope so for his sake).

    This is a subject dear to my heart: that deniers in my experience can identify no hypothetical state of affairs in which they would concede AGW. So at this point I ran with what Crakar so revealing called Coby’s stupid question (I have learned that Crakar’s attempts at insult are directly proportional to how badly he realizes he’s being cornered).

    Crakar at this point played what he still apparently thinks is his ace (or knows is not an ace but he still feels that a bad answer is better than no answer)—the nonlinearity of temperature patterns in the industrial era (#16). Dhogaza suggested to Crakar that his recalcitrance on this inane issue stems from the fact that . . . random variation isn’t allowed in your little head, is it? But I think this has been explained to Crakar too many times for lack of understanding to be the issue so I am starting to suspect . . . well. I’ll get to that. Anyway, I wrote an extensive response to this in #29:

    Please answer the bloody question, mate. (This goes for you too, Peter). What, *hypothetical* (without anyone claiming it exists) evidence *would* convince you–that AGW is both real and threatening?

    Now it gets really interesting. In Crakar’s *astonishing* response, he first repeated Peter’s dodge (#32):

    First of all the onus of proof is on you to prove your theory correct, the onus of proof is not and never should be on me to prove you wrong. What you are asking me to do is prove a negative.–Crakar

    This of course, is a shameless dodge.

    At some level Crakar understands the distinction between being asked to identify what *would* constitute adequate *hypothetical* evidence versus being asked to produced the evidence itself. I know he knows this, so this evasion is quite revealing; we’re getting close to the inner torment that is Crakar’s AGW denial.

    But believe it or not it got even worse thereafter in 32, with Crakar absolutely disintegrating into a maelstrom of straw men and red herrings:

    “ . . . There will be less snow causing more warming[he couldn’t get his causal model right]. We now find snowfall records are being broken in the US and low and behold this is caused by AGW . . . now i mentioned empirical evidence before . . . morons like Gore running around. . . PM of the UK claiming we have 50 days to save the planet . . . idiots claiming the GBR in Queensland is going to die . . . AGW is/will cause farming production to reduce and yet this year was the second highest tonnage on record . . . Hurricanes (we call them cyclones) are supposed to get worse . . . bombarded by booga booga stories . . .

    Then, after insisting that models cannot accurately predict climate (which of course, perfectly, they cannot, so its yet another straw man), Crakar then defaulted to what he thinks is his evidence *against* AGW (repeating claims that have been debunked over and over but he either forgets or, more likely, its just Crakar again dodging when he knows he’s being pinned): CO2 increases historically leading temp increases, missing hot spot, lack of recent warming, a completely vague reference to climate sensitivity uncertainties.

    But what of course Crakar *never* did was *answer the question*.

    He *never* explained what he would accept as convincing proof that AGW is both real and threatening. The reason, of course, is obvious:

    *Crakar has no answer*.

    If an overwhelming consensus of *scientists*, an easily and commonly understood property of CO2, the overwhelming evidence of *overall* warming—whatever the complexities of climate impacts over time—does not convince Crakar, then of course (and Crakar realizes this at some level), *nothing* will. He doesn’t want to believe it so he just won’t. (Analogously, one anonymous denier whom I’ve referred to on these pages as “D. Nyer” once put it, “It comes down to believing what you want to believe.”) He, and Crakar, actually regard that as a legitimate epistemological posture. The only difference is that D. Nyer admits it, either because he his unaware of or (knowing D, more likely) indifferent to how absurd it sounds.

    But Crakar is clever enough to realize that he cannot simply tell us what, at some level he realizes is, the truth. If just admits that he’s going to deny AGW no matter what anyone says (which is of course the case), then he’s admitting that AGW denial is a religious tenet for him, born basically from his political allegiances. He’s a conservative, so he has to deny AGW. It is really quite that simple and embarrassingly dogmatic, but he cannot admit that.

    So what does he do instead? He dodges.

    Just like he has dodged the question before, and just like he will dodge this post now, Crakar dodges. He cannot answer the question, he has never answered the question, nor will he *ever* answer the question.

    He can’t.

    Finally, in the process of narrative construction—convincing yourself of something you desperately wish to believe for whatever ulterior motives—some people, like Crakar, would rather make a bad argument then no argument. This is why he repeats inane points like non-linear temperature trends, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, its snowing in the Northeast US, etc.

    Its narratives pure and simple. For Crakar, the objective quality of the argument is irrelevant; he doesn’t need to convince us. He only needs to convince himself.


  14. Very relevant to this forum/thread and the psychology of AGW denial.

    I’m about a third through Drew Westen’s *The Political Brain*–an examination of research showing the overwhelming potency of various emotional attachments and biases in explaining voting behavior and political values.

    What I shudder at/love about this forum is you can watch the process unfold in print when our denier contributors e respond to arguments–and how they arrived at their positions.

    There are too many examples to enumerate, but think of, for example Crakar’s (whatever happened to him?) fixation on Al Gore. For him, Al Gore has an inherently negative connotation, so he thinks he has “hurt” the AGW “side” by attaching Al Gore to it.

    I’ve also seen it in my exchanges with “D. Nyer”–an anonymous denier friend–who responds to scientific arguments with a concatenation of labels and insults: “man hating . . . eco-think . . . socialistic . . . . evil”. Because the sources he relies on have successfully fixed this association in his mind–believing in global warming is to be a tree-hugging pinko–it successfully prevents the penetration of any factual arguments against his position.

    This is one of the key findings of the psych research: Controlled experiments show that *rational* considerations are overwhelmingly overpowered by emotional ones when people evaluate candidates, policies, general positions.

    Its a disturbing read but pretty clearly correct and something those of us on the AGW side better face and accommodate–how I’m not sure.


  15. Recent posts on other threads have again highlighted, at least for me, the importance of Crakar as a anti-role model, a microcosm of the intellectual dishonesty that one must somehow acquire to deny the reality and/or threat of AGW.

    Crakar: Direct Question:

    Do you think you are up to having a discussion with me on what intellectual honesty is–and is not? Yes or No?

    I predict you will not answer Yes or No.


  16. I know—narratives. (Yawn.)

    As I indicated in the other thread, recent posts there are, I think, better suited for the Narratives thread.

    The amazing thing about some of our denier friends on this forum is their ability to freely advertise the flaws in their thinking over and over again. This was recently the case on the “More Conspiracy Theories from Lindzen” thread over the past couple of days.

    In Crakar’s last few posts on said thread, he has resumed the proclamation of himself as the Noble Skeptic: The rest of us are devotees of a closed “religion” (AGW), and he is Galileo illuminating the darkness of our Papal dogma with his Torch of Knowledge. Behold the light-bearer’s own words:

    I touched on religious beliefs when fending off another attack from Skip in the other thread regarding his question. The fact is i will never be able to answer his question [what would it take to convince Crakar that AGW is both real and threatening?] because to answer it requires belief.

    . . . When hassled by the God botherers i ask them “what evidence do you have that God exists”, they reply they have none but they simply believe.

    . . . if you believe in AGW then you will allow yourself to accept any theory thats supports your beliefs no matter how ludicrous they are and until you accept this you will never understand why i reject it.

    . . .you [Skip] simply believe the consensus which is quite OK by me but you must understand i need more than simple belief thus i will never be able to answer your question in a way in which you find satisfactory.

    Crakar on Lindzen Thread #80


    The point i was trying to make was that a group of scientists have put up their hands and said we all agree that increasing CO2 levels will end life as we know it if left unchecked (consensus). Some people here (thats you) have said well thats good enough for me, i believe this group of scientists to be correct.

    Crakar on Lindzen #97

    The astonishing thing with Crakar is his perfect inversion of reality. He is able to convince himself (or at least make it look like he’s convinced himself; he might just be bullshitting—one can never be sure) that denying a *scientific* consensus is as valid and virtuous as denying a *religious* one.

    It is simply obvious that Crakar has, at best, suspended his understanding of what science is in regard to AGW, and at the very worst doesn’t understand science *at all*. The scientific process is the one human endeavor that is—as much as anything can be—the *antithesis* of religion, and in fact was developed by our dead white male ancestors as the cure for dogma.

    This utter inversion of reality by Crakar was further evidenced in this amazing commentary after Mandas’ definitive exposition on the flaws of the Nils-Axel Mörner paper on sea-level rise:

    Mandas has shown his hand and while he was trying to sound like an expert even though he admitted he wasnt he was simply regurgitating what was written in another study. Crakar on Lindzen #106

    How does a denier do these things–twist acceptance of a current scientific consensus as unthinking adoption, and dismiss a detailed analytical critique as evidence of the same? The answer of course, is narratives. Crakar tells himself this fantastic story (“I’m the enlightened one who opposes dogma; the AGW believers are the dupes for climate ‘religion’”.).

    For the record and the interested reader, the following things have been *proven*–repeat–*proven* on this forum:

    (1) Crakar will cite things he has not read.
    (2) Crakar will change his story as to what a particular un-read citation supposedly proves.
    (3) Crakar will adopt a non-scientific argument and then attempt to cover his tracks.
    (4) Crakar will plagiarize something that is *not even correct*–and then when called out to acknowledge it, will apologize, supposedly on behalf of his accuser’s “feelings.”(As if he’s doing the other guy a favor by admitting his own transgression.)
    (5) Crakar will default to a checklist of red herrings when cornered (Al Gore . . . Australian liberals . . . early 20th century cooling . . . record cold in B.F. Somewhere . . .)
    (6) Crakar routinely advertises the ideological basis of his denial, parroting talking points about AGW “religion”, despicable “liberals”, and “environmentalists”.

    Yet despite this staggering record of intellectual dishonesty and incompetence, Crakar asks us to believe that his AGW denial stems from a stolid resistance against blind acceptance. We should trust *him*, not scientists, because he is righteously inoculated against “simple belief”. Its amazing. Its horrifying. It’s the blinding power of a delusional narrative.


  17. skip

    I have to suggest that sometimes it feels good to stop beating your head against a wall, even though you may think it is important that the wall be brought down, and the only tool you have available is your head.

    In the case of our friend, I have definitely decided that, it doesn’t matter how hard I hit the wall, it will NEVER come down, because it is built very solidly of that most impenetrable substance, faith. Faith that he is right and everyone – no matter how expert they are on the subject – is wrong. Faith that – no matter how much evidence he is shown – the evidence will never be good enough because it runs counter to the dogma of his belief. Faith that the only thing that will prove him wrong is something that is not even predicted by the theory (ie the four horseman of doom arriving and civilisation ending). And since that will never come to pass, then how can he possibly be wrong?

    At first I thought it was important to present the evidence. To rationally answer every question and to show that the uninformed opinions of the bloggers who were cut-and-pasted for our viewing pleasure were simply wrong. I believe I have done a pretty good job of that – of presenting the science, of finding papers from journals and of dissecting and analysing information. I must admit, I have seen some benefit to myself – I am a lot more educated on the subject by the extra reading and research I have conducted, and I would be quite happy if others had benefited from some of the information I have presented. Unfortunately, you are very correct with your views on narratives.

    Those who are implacably opposed to the facts and theory of AGW will remain unconvinced no matter what evidence is presented. But I have come to realise that they do not matter – and crakar is one of these people. He will NEVER be convinced, and it is therefore a complete waste of time even trying to convince him. However, there are REAL sceptics who are worthwhile conversing with, because a REAL sceptic can be convinced that his position is wrong if he is shown the evidence. A sceptic is like a scientist, indeed all good scientists are sceptics, because they are perfectly happy to be shown that their original views were incorrect if it means the science had advanced. That is what being a sceptic really means, and why I will NEVER call anyone from the deniersphere a sceptic. I have used the unflattering terms ‘members of the flat earth society’, and more straight forward, ‘fucking moron’, because that’s what these people are.

    There are some moderate sceptics here who are happy to be shown and accept the evidence. SBN is one, because his questions and posts appear to be genuine requests for information and I am happy to respond to any of his posts. Even maxwell, who I believe is closer to denier than sceptic, appears to have a good grasp of science and at least presents quite intelligent views that require some thought to respond.

    So, I have decided on my course of action. I stated it quite clearly on another thread, and I am not going back on my word, no matter how much I am provoked. I will not, under any circumstances, respond to any more of crakar’s nonsensical, fundamentalist rantings. It is a waste of time. But I am very happy to debate the subject with anyone who wants to have a rational discussion and ask intelligent questions, and I might even keep a few bullets in reserve to fire at some of the more extreme deniers who I feel deserve a bullet. But I will waste no more time, effort, or ammunition and someone who is just impervious to rational thought.


  18. Those who are implacably opposed to the facts and theory of AGW . . . and crakar is one of these people. He will NEVER be convinced,

    . . .no matter how much I am provoked. I will not, under any circumstances, respond to any more of crakar’s nonsensical, fundamentalist rantings. It is a waste of time.

    I feel your pain, Mandas, but is that even the point? Months ago I had to decide how I would approach the Crakar Issue—do you respond to his absurdities or ignore them? I concluded that its important to respond. I want Crakar to keep posting and I want the average reader of this blog to see his absurdity for all it is. Crakar is like an unwilling Messiah in a way—adopting the most ignorant *imaginable* posture in the face of crushing evidence and reason—and committing every conceivable intellectual error in the process of espousing it. Its amazing in a way. If I were to start posting on AFTIC under a false moniker (“Skripar”?) for the purpose of *pretending* to be a half-wit denier, I couldn’t do half the job Crakar does. And if the Indonesians ever try to invade Oz I would recommend camping out in Crakar’s foxhole. I swear that guy will keep spraying lead for an hour after his heart stops.

    I agree with you about SBN, although Max and I had a pretty ugly falling out a couple of days ago. Blame me if anyone for his absence, but at one point with him I wanted to echo the words of Quint (Robert Shaw) in *Jaws*: “Well, it proves this much Mr. Hooper [Mr. Maxwell] It proves that you wealthy college boys don’t have the education to admit when you’re WRONG.” Sorry if I alienated one of your favorite sparring partners, but I got sick of him trying to pull rank on me to cover the fact that he was bullshitting on the Richard Tol issue. That irked me. I’ve had a gun in my face and crack deals sealed over the hood of my car. Anyone with money can go to a whorehouse for sympathy and deference. But if you want your ass kissed because you can operate a mass spectrometer, don’t show your ass on A Few Things Ill Considered.


  19. skip

    I understand your position about having a useful foil to present the denier ‘viewpoint’ which can then be shown to all and sundry to be incorrect. And I have often felt that it would be more useful to continue to respond with logic and rationality, plus providing links to REAL science to show the fallacy of the opninions of know nothing morons with agendas like Joanne Nova and Anthony Watts. Its probably just my own selfishness and maybe I am being a touch sensitive, but I become a little (no – a lot) frustrated sometimes when I provide absolutely incontrovertible evidence for something, only to have it either ignored or thrown back as not being in accordance with the dogma of the flat earth society. You know the type of thing to which I refer, and the matter of the Morner paper was the last straw from my perspective.

    I once spent a long weekend on the Gold Coast in Australia, and there was an evangelist standing at the entrance to the main beach preaching to all and sundry how they were wicked and would all go to hell unless they accepted Jesus etc. I thought it would be a bit of fun to jump up on the wall next to him and debate – which I did for half hour or so. It certainly drew a crowd – much larger than were hanging around when he was speaking by himself. It certainly was a lot of fun for a while – because I am very familiar with the bible and I could speak with authority and tear down every one of his arguments. The plus side of the debate was that the people who were listening (those with an open mind at any rate) could see the stupidity of his arguments – they just didn’t stack up to scrutiny. That is the usefulness of crakar and I can understand your views in this regard.

    The down side (and this is where I am coming from here) is that after a while it just ceases to be fun. Fundamentalists like that who just refuse to accept the facts (yes, facts – not opinions) even when they can see them for themselves will never be convinced, and after a while you just stop debating them because it is simply pointless. The people who come in here and post and who are genuine sceptics will ask questions and make points, and when we respond to them they actually read the information we provide and are swayed by evidence. They might have doubts and more questions, but at least their minds are not closed cesspits.

    I know this from my own experience. My views on climate change have changed considerably over time, from being a disbeliever, to a sceptic, to openly accepting the facts of the matter. I still have many questions, and I am trying to resolve those by asking questions and doing a LOT of reading. I am not a ‘disasteralist’ (if that’s a word) from a purely human perspective – we are not all going to drown under rising sea levels or have to wall ourselves into air conditioned buildings to escape the extreme heat – but as a wildlife scientist I recognise the impact that climate change will have (and is having) on the global ecosystem. In that respect at least climate change is already a disaster from which there is no hope of recovery – its just that few people are prepared to accept that very uncomfortable truth. Many species around the world are simply ‘dead men walking’, and it is only a matter of time before we see extinctions and trophic collapse in many ecosystems.

    So, I will continue to post and debate with posters, including deniers, because I agree it is important to get the message out to those who will listen. But I will be selfish with regard to crakar. He IS a fundamentalist moron with views akin to a creationist, and I have far better things to do with my time than waste it trying to educate the uneducatable.


  20. I dont think i have ever read more bullshit crammed into so few posts.

    I thought i had seen/read it all but no there are new depths of hypocrisy around the next corner. We had a poster that had more general knowledge of climate than anyone here so therefore we dont debate him on science we resort to semantics to prove our point.

    But what is the point? Well i think this statement sums it up “But if you want your ass kissed because you can operate a mass spectrometer, don’t show your ass on A Few Things Ill Considered.”

    No dont indeed because here we are well beyond debating right from wrong, fact from fiction. The only thing around here being debated is religious conviction, no wonder Max pulled the pin, you ought to be ashamed of yourself Skip.

    The latest gaping hole in the theory has recently been discussed which also goes along way to bringing religious conviction to the surface, for any newbies out there i will hit the high points.

    For some time now we have had two competing theories, one is of course issued from the IPCC and the second from Lindzen/spencer and others. The main difference between the two is the sign and magnitude of the theoretical feedbacks induced by increasing CO2. In short Lindzen etc predict a modest warming to doubling CO2 of between 0.5 and 1C whilst the IPCC predict anywhere from 3C to 8C or more of warming (depending on scenario).

    The IPCC have been kind enough to provide a prediction of heat build up and where this heat will be seen. This provides us with a tool to measure (falsify) the accuracy of the theory and the models. Unfortunately for the IPCC when the measurements were taken over 50% of the heat could not be found.

    It should be noted at this point that up to around 2002 the data apparently matched the predictions but since then the planet has cooled or at least not warmed whilst the prediction called for a continual heat build up.

    So of the two competing theories which one has more merit? If you cannot account for over 50% of the heat then is it possible the theory which calls for a very high +feedback (3 to 8C) is incorrect? and the theory which calls for a very low +ve or zero feedback to be more correct?

    Not to be out done Trenberth who is a mover and shaker in IPCC circles defends his theory by usurping the old one with three, yes thats right three new theories to explain why the old one got it so badly wrong.

    Theory #1.

    There are problems with the way we process data.

    In other words what he is saying is the lost heat is really there but we cant see it because between reading what the thermometer says and printing a pretty graph the temp data is being adjusted down by mistake, obviously this has occured since 2003 and not before)

    Theory #2

    There are problems with the way we calibrate the equipment.

    In other words what he is saying is the lost heat is really there but we cant see it because our satellites, ARGO bouys and our land based thermometers have errors in them due to incorrect calibration, once again this error must have only arisen since 2003.

    Now remember we are talking about OVER 50% OF HEAT WHICH IS MISSING, i ask you all does this make sense? Of course not and even Trenberth knows it which is why he came up with a third theory.

    Theory #3

    All the heat has gone down to the bottom of the ocean where we cannot measure it.

    In other words this is just a guess by Trenberth as he clutches at straws to keep his reputation and grant money gravy train on the tracks.

    If this theory is to be believed then one would have to say that the heat (missing 50 plus%) would have been seen accumulating in the atmosphere then this missing heat would have to be seen accumulating in the upper ocean before it disappeared of the radar as it sunk. On the other hand if we combine all 3 theories then one could argue the missing heat we cant actually see did in fact transition from the atmosphere to the upper and then to the lower oceans its just that we did not see it. But if we cant see it then how do we really know it was there?

    Did Trenberth provide any evidence for this? Did he provide any evidence at all for any of his new theories? Of course not, he did not provide one shred of evidence to support any of this. Of course it should be noted that he has never provided any evidence to support his intial theory of +ve feedbacks which was supposed to produce all this heat that he cannot find.

    So if Trenberth got his ocean heat biuld up theory wrong is it possible he fas over cooked the +ve feed back theory as well?

    So in the end we have a theory that has been proven to be wrong and is now supported by a multitude of once again unproven theories and in comparison we have a theory that in essence claims the missing heat is in fact not missing because it never existed to begin with (Lindzen etc).

    The above posters “believe in AGW” and like all people who believe in a cause they abandon logic and common sense, try convincing a life long believer in God he is wrong and see how far you get.

    In the end it all comes down to the same thing, notice how many times they attempt to slander me with name calling? fundamentalis moron, creationist, flat earther to name but a few. In the end they will believe any peice of crap thrown to them if it means they can maintain the faith.

    I have been busy going over the space shuttle columbia accident report (lessons learned exercise), its not as interesting as operating a mass spectrometer i know but it is far more interesting than having to read the latest pile of dog shit from the usual contributers.

    Oh and before i go i see the Arctic is doing quite well best April numbers since 2002, when did the prophecy predict it would be ice free?

    Keep on belevin’



  21. We had a poster that had more general knowledge of climate than anyone here

    He never made that claim.

    so therefore we dont debate him on science we resort to semantics to prove our point.

    He pulled a Crakar–he cited as an authority something he didn’t even understand/read. That was a small infraction in and of itself. Not admitting it when *politely* called on it–that was intolerable.

    you ought to be ashamed of yourself Skip.

    Compared to what?


    For the record and the interested reader, the following things have been *proven*–repeat–*proven* on this forum:

    (1) Crakar will cite things he has not read.
    (2) Crakar will change his story as to what a particular un-read citation supposedly proves.
    (3) Crakar will adopt a non-scientific argument and then attempt to cover his tracks.
    (4) Crakar will plagiarize something that is *not even correct*–and then when called out to acknowledge it, will apologize, supposedly on behalf of his accuser’s “feelings.”(As if he’s doing the other guy a favor by admitting his own transgression.)
    (5) Crakar will default to a checklist of red herrings when cornered (Al Gore . . . Australian liberals . . . early 20th century cooling . . . record cold in B.F. Somewhere . . .)
    (6) Crakar routinely advertises the ideological basis of his denial, parroting talking points about AGW “religion”, despicable “liberals”, and “environmentalists”.

    I have any number of things to ashamed of. At least none of the above are among them.


  22. Oh my giddy aunt!

    It must frustrate you so much that others refuse to believe as you do.

    So now Max is gone you turn your guns on me again and list 6 intolerable sins and so i must be punished in the eyes of God.

    The problem with you Skip is simple, you do not have an opinion on anything because you lack the understanding to have one which is why you believe in what the consensus tells.

    Since you have no understanding of anything your only avenue for debate is to attempt to set linguistic traps, you ask the same stupid question over and over again, a question that is not designed to promote debate but to simply create an argument which is why no matter how many times one tries to answer the answer is not accepted. Or you simply argue about semantics in a vain effort to look knowledgable and important.

    The bottom line is you have no opinion, no opinion on anything thus we have nothing more to debate. You can shove you imaginary list of sins where the sun dont shine for all i care.

    You can now sit there with your nose pressed against the monitor patiently waiting for the next crakar or Max or whoever to come along.


  23. you do not have an opinion on anything because you lack the understanding to have one which is why you believe in what the consensus tells.

    Wow. You really nailed me there. Let me guess, Crakar: You think *you*–a proven plagiarist/dodger/distorter (see above)–*have* the “understanding to have” an opinion? Is this what you think? Is this what you *really*, really think?

    I beg an answer to this one.

    Perhaps you’re right, Crakar. Perhaps I should be brave and ignore reality and show my mettle by holding an “opinion” *against* the scientific consensus.


  24. And what or who’s reality would that be Skip? Would it be Trenberths reality, the one with over half of the estimated heat missing and now presumed lost?

    Or would it be some other reality which claims to foretell an ice free Arctic summer by 2013?

    It could be Al Gores reality but if it was then you could afford an 8.8 million dollar 9 bedroom, 8 bathroom mansion with ocean views. Cover the cost of all those airfares as he jet sets around the world to tell everyone how bad GW really is. Maybe it is not his reality after all?

    How about the computer model reality, you know the ones that could not predict the temp decline in the past decade or maybe even the ones that could not predict record cold winters and record snowfall.

    I think the reality you are talking about is the one you have constructed for yourself and that is the only reality you need to be concerned with.


  25. Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. — Demosthenes

    Crakar and Narratives update:

    Watching what’s transpired the past week or so on the “Models” and “Climate Skeptic” threads it seems an installment on Narratives is called for. (Well, at least that’s *my* narrative.)

    Crakar in some ways you’re just too good to be true, but I have a concern, I guess–and a confession to make: After reading some of your recent posts and the exchanges around them I went and looked up the attributes of “pathological liar”.

    That’s the bad news; the good news is that while you have a couple of the attributes, you definitely don’t have them all, far as I can tell. (And besides, I’m guessing all of us have at least a few of the attributes of any disorder you might think of.)

    But mate, whether you’re consciously and/or pathologically lying or not, there are some remarkable outcomes that came out of these exchanges:
    (1) Completely dodging the fact that you’ve never produced a reference for your alleged IPCC numbers as repeatedly requested by Chris,
    (2) failing to acknowledge that once again you’ve been nailed dogma-propping a source that holds no water (the faux Amazon-gate) reference. (I mean, come on, man. You need to give that one up and quit dying a death by a thousand Mandas posts.)
    (3) What I just noticed from late May above, in which you challenge . . .

    . . . Trenberths reality, the one with over half of the estimated heat missing and now presumed lost?

    “Missing . . . presumed lost . . . “.


    And of course followed by the straw men of non-imminence of zero arctic ice extent, the short-term drawbacks of climate models (groan) or Al Gore (agonized,reeling groan).

    Again: Incredible.

    My experience with you, Crakar, is consistent with my discussions with other people who argue against AGW by citing or even plagiarizing quackery they have not read (that’s right; you’re not the only one so don’t feel bad) because it conforms to ideological preference.

    I don’t know enough cognitive psychology to comment, and I am aware that self-deception is strongly associated with addictive personality disorders, but I also wonder:

    *Can self-deception itself be the addictive substance?*

    I mean really, think about it: Lying to yourself is cheap when there’s *nothing directly at stake for you*. Come on, Crakar, you have to admit its true in principle. The worst punishment you’ll ever suffer for deceiving yourself about AGW is the factual vivisection you’ll suffer at the hands of someone like Mandas. No food comes off your table; Geelong won’t lose any more games, there are still plenty of fluffy, pretty sheep around . . .

    I think I see this a lot with AGW deniers. They’ve learned instinctively that they can, by many measures, simply “get away” with being dishonest. So Crakar thinks Chris Monckton is a credible source of climate information. Monckton is a complete charlatan of course. But from your perspective, Crakar, what difference does it make? Ultimately, none at all!

    It would be a different deal if you were lying to yourself about whether there was a rotten bridge under your feet as you crossed a canyon, because your self-deception results in your own very tangible injury or even death. Not so AGW. You can deceive yourself, deceive yourself some more, keep on deceiving yourself, throw in some self-deception for good measure, and then, just when the rest of us think its over, start in on the *real* self-deception. Because no matter what the truth is, it will never affect *you*.

    Maybe that’s the key problem that sustains the narrative of AGW denial. Unlike many other aspects of life, there is no consequence to the denier for being wrong. He won’t live to see the effects of his denial.

    In the end, self-deception about AGW is attractive to a denier because its both cheap and addictive. Its like drinking a magical variety of gin in which the epoch hangover engendered by self-indulgence is passed on to people alive in 2097.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s