Why do Climate Denial and Racism go Hand in Hand? Continued.

March 24, 2015

Famously climate denying Senator Ted Cruz announced for  President this week.

Above, see   Senator Cruz’s extravagant praise for one of the 20th century’s most prominent Southern racist segregationists, Jesse Helms. There’s a little well-documented history there for those too young to remember.

I’ve posted before on the link between racism and climate change denial, and I’ve noted that Senator Jim Inhofe is to climate denial as Strom Thurmond was to civil rights.  Both clung to outmoded and terribly destructive irrational prejudice, long beyond what reason would dictate. Even Thurmond softened his racial rhetoric in later years – while Inhofe has grown only more bombastic and shrill.

Here is yet another example, in Senator Cruz open admiration for Jesse Helms. Maybe there’s an answer to this in the way the denialist brain functions, that’s an area for further research.

151 Responses to “Why do Climate Denial and Racism go Hand in Hand? Continued.”


  1. “We on Crock like to warn each other about skunks, and pointing out that someone looks, walks, and smells like a skunk is just being neighborly.”

    And we skeptics are just returning the favor.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      What “favor” is that, RC? You deniers are the ones stinking up the place, so the “skunk” analogy is a valid one. An inane eight word reply like yours just wastes our time. It’s as meaningful and childish as “Your mother wears combat boots”.

      Did it make you feel good to say it? It certainly doesn’t make you look smart.


  2. Maybe I should have gone with “dead fish” killed by the boiling ocean for you warmists. Anyway, just being neighborly. How much more response do you want? I’ll answer any questions you have. You know how neighborly and helpful we skeptics can be, right?

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Answer two questions.

      Why are those who call themselves skeptics unable to comprehend that they are more properly called deniers?

      What kind of personality disorder drives people like you to behave the way you do on blogs like this?

      (this is a test, and it will be graded, and it will count)

      • David Clark Says:

        dumboldguy—–Why are those who call themselves skeptics unable to comprehend that they are more properly called deniers?
        ME— Because genuine science is based on skepticism not denial. We are skeptics because we have yet to see actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. Most of us recognize that 1) Climate is always changing for the last 4 billion years; 2) although it does not show up in the data, CO2 probably has some minor effect on temperature.

        dumboldguy—–What kind of personality disorder drives people like you to behave the way you do on blogs like this?
        ME—- Since when is the pursuit of truth a “personality disorder”?
        Let me ask you:
        Do you deny that the rate of the current warming is statistically indistinguishable from earlier warm periods (which had far less of man’s CO2)?
        Do you deny that Minoan, Egyptian, Roman and Medieval times were probably warmer than recently (without man’s CO2)?
        Do you deny that CO2 follows, not leads temperature.
        Do you deny that man’s CO2 has never been proven to cause dangerous warming?
        Of course if you admit any of the above, you admit that there is NO EVIDENCE that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming.


  3. Because skeptics are not more properly called deniers.

    No personality disorder —just a clear understanding of science and math. Sometimes we just feel obligated to get truth out there in spite of the name calling, personal attacks, etc. It’s just who we are and what we do. (I did check the DSM V and so far as I can tell, no, no such disorder.)

  4. Gingerbaker Says:

    ME—I am very much up to speed. The simple fact is that the models failed to forecast the pause.

    You think you are up to speed? It is to laugh.

    There.Was.No.Pause.

    Fourteen of fifteen warmest years are all in the 21st century!

    https://www.wmo.int/media/?q=content/warming-trend-continues-2014


    • Really? The IPCC disagrees. Kevin Trenbreth spent a great deal of time trying to explain the heat went into the ocean or it moved around. It is fascinating that some people refuse to give up the original idea even when the real climate scientists say there is a pause.

      The graph that your page shows (https://www.wmo.int/media/sites/default/files/pr_1_1_0.png)
      quite clearly levels off at 2000. Your “proof” shows there’s a leveling.

      Fourteen of fifteen warmest years can mean this:
      Temperatures
      53.2, 53.4, 53.1, 53.6, 53.6, 53.7, etc.

      That is not warming, it’s leveling, but the years can still be the warmest.

      Also, there are error bars in these calculations that make claims of warmest years questionable. If you have a plus or minus .5 degree error bars, then a calculation of 53.2 and 53.4 are not actually statistically significant. The errors in the calculations could cause the difference.

      • Gingerbaker Says:

        You are out of your mind.

        “WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “Analysis of the datasets indicates that 2014 was nominally the warmest on record, although there is very little difference between the three hottest years,” said Mr Jarraud.

        “Fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have all been this century. We expect global warming to continue, given that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the increasing heat content of the oceans are committing us to a warmer future,” he said”

        NOBODY says there is a pause in warming. The only pause anybody spoke about was a SUPPOSED pause in the increasing rate of warming. But we now know this SUPPOSED pause was false, an artifact based on the fact that the temp record upon which the graph was based did not include enough Arctic data points. Ironic since the Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else on the planet.

        To claim that there has been a pause in actual greenhouse warming is truly moronic. Do you think the laws of physics have suddenly changed? Do you think the atmospheric [CO2] has miraculously gone down? Do you think that the greenhouse effect has suddenly stopped working?

        No??? Then, tell us – please tell us – where all that heat has disappeared to? Cloud Cuckoo Land? If you are going to claim that global warming has stopped, you have an intellectual obligation to explain the mechanism.

        And what is this bullshit about a “leveling” taking place? You do realize that 1998 – the year your supposed pause started, was an outlier year? It was cherry-picked for the simple reason it was by far the hottest year in a while.

        Tell me, are you honest enough to admit that if 1997 or 1999 was used for the start of the so-called pause – there would be no “pause” to even be seen? Just like there is no “pause”, there is no
        “leveling”.

        Every fracking year since 2006 has actually been warmer than 1998! And the TREND – warming – has been steady since 1970. If you are under 30 years old, you have never lived in a month cooler than the 20th century global air average. Never.

        read this if you honestly want to learn about the record of warming: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/12/04/a-pause-or-not-a-pause-that-is-the-question/#more-7284

        But somehow….. I don’t think you are that honest.


        • Gingerbaker:
          http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-pause-due-to-pacific-says-trenberth.html
          http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/27/ipcc-climate-scientist-global-warming-pause-could-last-30-years/

          Kevin Trenbreth would be a nobody, correct?

          Your own graph shows a leveling. Can you not read your own graph?

          No, the laws of physics have not changed. However, incorrect calculations of various climate components can lead to improper reporting of the energy budget. Again, the energy budget is based on the idea that we KNOW what CO2 does outside of a black box, which we do not.

          You really don’t understand “statistically significant”.

          I read Tamino. And Real Climate, occasionally Unskeptical Science and numerous other such blogs, not to mention the Rreal research papers, which is where all the information is, not on blogs. On blogs, you are reading someone else’s interpretation.

          There was no cherry-picking, though I have learned that accusations from both sides could make enough cherry pies to feed the world. People throw out the accusaton because they have no actual scientific response. It is what we call a coincidence that 1998 was the start of the pause. If the temperature had not leveled off, as your graph clearly shows, it would have been whatever year the leveling off occurred.

          • Gingerbaker Says:

            ” Again, the energy budget is based on the idea that we KNOW what CO2 does outside of a black box, which we do not.”

            Bullshit.

            The energy budget is based on satellite measurements of [how much sunlight energy falls on Earth from the sun] minus [how much energy is reflected back out harmlessly into space].

            It is measured, accurately and reliably, in watts. The more [CO2], the less gets reradiated into space.

            And that energy, as I said, has to go somewhere. Most of it warms the oceans. A small part of it heats the air, and causes 14/15 of the hottest years to be in the 21st, not the 20th century.

            You go around quote mining the IPCC and Trenberth as if they would ever agree with you in a billion years. You are a polemicist, interested only in winning an argument, not discovering the truth. And your understanding of science, statistics, and rhetorical standards is even worse than mine.

            You don’t understand shit about the topic.

            And, as usual, you fracking deniers are wasting everyone’s time arguing about FACTS. Facts which you are too obtuse to grasp for whatever psychological problem you possess. You don’t have any standing to argue about facts with actual scientists, who understand this stuff 1000 times better than you.

            I hope you are a young person, who will be around in forty years to see what the fruits of your quixotic internet crusade into stupidity will bear. Just know that it is your ilk, the poseurs, who will share the most responsibility for the suffering to come. I hope you live long enough to recognize the blood on your hands.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I was living “real life” yesterday and spent no time on Crock. Gingerbaker did a fine job of responding to the latest crop of flaming anal orifices to appear on Crock—-David and Needs to Check Reality (and where is BOB A?). Why GB and Andrew bother is beyond me—-this crop of deniers brings nothing new to the discussion, and all their parroted crap has been debunked many times over. I will second GB, particularly on the following.

            “Bullshit.” (at the PHD level—Piled Higher and Deeper)

            “You go around quote mining the IPCC and Trenberth as if they would ever agree with you in a billion years. You are a polemicist, interested only in winning an argument, not discovering the truth.”

            “You don’t understand shit about the topic.”

            “And, as usual, you fracking deniers are wasting everyone’s time arguing about FACTS. Facts which you are too obtuse to grasp for whatever psychological problem you possess. You don’t have any standing to argue about facts”.

            “I hope you are a young person, who will be around in forty years to see what the fruits of your quixotic internet crusade into stupidity….I hope you live long enough to recognize the blood on your hands”.

            “Error bars my pilonidal cyst-encrusted ass! None of you people in the denierosphere understand statistics at all. None….Error bars! Jesus H. Christ”.
            (OUCH—I had one PN cyst many years ago and can’t image being “encrusted” with them. Perhaps David can enlighten us? His PN cysts are all in his brain, though, so maybe not)

            As far as “not understanding shit” and error bars, look back to David’s parroted-from-the-Troll-Handbook BS in another comment.

            “Climate is always changing for the last 4 billion years”, says David.

            Climate is weather patterns over a long period of time, and weather takes place in the atmosphere. “Climate change” is a concept that has real meaning only in the context of living things, more specifically those who live in the atmosphere, and even more specifically, those like man who can talk about it and study it.

            Oxygen appeared ~2.5 billion years ago, “animals” ~1.5 billion ago, land life ~500 million ago, and man just “yesterday”. What kind of “error bars” should we apply to David’s “always changing for 4 billion years”?

          • David Clark Says:

            Ginger—The energy budget is based on satellite measurements of [how much sunlight energy falls on Earth from the sun] minus [how much energy is reflected back out harmlessly into space].
            ME—And the result of that subtraction is a tiny fraction, very possibly in error.

            Ginger—And that energy, as I said, has to go somewhere. Most of it warms the oceans. A small part of it heats the air, and causes 14/15 of the hottest years to be in the 21st, not the 20th century.
            ME—And in the 1940, most of the warm years were the last few. Happens every time at a peak.

            Ginger—You go around quote mining the IPCC and Trenberth as if they would ever agree with you in a billion years.
            ME—Trenberth could not explain where the missing heat was going. You guys still can’t.

            Ginger—You are a polemicist, interested only in winning an argument, not discovering the truth.
            Truth: The earth has has no statistically significant warming sine 1998.
            Truth: Co2 FOLLOWS temperature in Al’s ice cores and all other time frames.
            Truth: Several earlier warm periods were warmer than now.
            Truth: Man’s CO2 has never been proven to cause dangerous global warming

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Truth? Actually more denial of truth. And your constant “is too , is not, is too, is not….” is not a very high level debating tactic.

            You are a mindless BELIEVER, David—-you wouldn’t recognize truth based on fact and rational analysis if you stepped in it. I’m sure you are a registered Republican—-true?

          • David Clark Says:

            Again you show you have no facts to support you claims by hurling insults and attacks instead of providing facts.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            You are becoming a broken record (or for those who are to young to remember”records”, a digitally recorded sound bite on a chip).

            Dumb, and boooooring! ZZZZZzzzzz……!

          • dumboldguy Says:

            …a digitally recorded sound bite on a chip
            …endlessly repeated
            …and repeated
            …and

            Dumb, and boooooring!
            …boooooring!
            ZZZZZzzzzz……!


          • Gingerbaker: And a happy BS to you, too. Last time I checked, there was considerably more to the energy budget than sunlight in/sunlight out. If only it was that simple.
            14 out of 15 hottest is meaningless if they are are statistically identical.
            You seem to be a polemicist also, only interested in spreading the good word about impending disaster. I’ve taken classes on climate change (the university science type, not skeptic ones), read many research papers and so forth. Guess the truth does not lie in research and reading and classes?
            I understand a great deal about the topic, which seems to be very annoying to you.
            Since I have no idea if you have the slightest understanding of science, math or statistics since you only spout true believer quotes, I can’t address my understanding of this versus yours.
            I’m wasting no one’s time–I’m discussing climate change. You are free to leave the discussion at any time. This is not mandatory.
            Nice little “I hope you are punished for not being among the faithful” there at the end. Hope you got some kind of emotional satisfaction out of it in your sad little “we’re all going to die from climate change” life. I know I’m completely happy with my life and have no worries about “blood on my hands” or destroying the future of the earth. It’ll all work out just fine in spite of your burning desire to punish those who are not among the faithful.

            Dumboldguy: I just have no idea where to even start with your tirade. So much venom, so much anger. May I suggest an anger management class and then perhaps we can have an actual discussion?

          • David Clark Says:

            Reality check — “Dumboldguy: I just have no idea where to even start with your tirade. So much venom, so much anger.”
            ME—That anger probably indicates the alarm industry knows it has no facts to support its argument and so has to scream louder as their alarm money is in danger of going away.
            here is a pretty good post on how non-scientists can tell the alarm movement is purely crap:
            http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2015/03/differences-between-real-science-and.html

          • dumboldguy Says:

            No, David. The narcissistic “ME” is wrong yet again. My anger grows out of having to read ignorant crap from fools like you and Needs A Reality Check.

            Those who are “screaming louder so that their support money doesn’t go away” are actually the denier charlatans listed in your link. They are part of the “denier industry”—are you?—-do you take money to be a denier troll?. Do you think we don’t know who Carter, Franks, and Deming are? They take money from Heartland, coal companies and the Koch brothers to spout denier crap and distort the science of climate change—-they are not climate scientists but geologists and hydrologists and merchants of doubt, and you are an ass-kissing suck-up acolyte that isn’t smart enough to see how badly you’re being used.

            Anyone who would characterize that clip as “….a pretty good post on how non-scientists can tell the alarm movement is purely crap” is a moron. Why don’t you go away? Post on WUWT or other denier sites where those sitting in the circle of ignorant parrots will nod their heads in mindless agreement and compliment you on how smart you are.

            JFC, you are both making me angry and boring me to death.

          • David Clark Says:

            dumboldguy —- My anger grows out of having to read ignorant crap from fools like you and Needs A Reality Check.
            ME—–You are fitting point 4 perfectly–“AGW, on the other hand, intimidates and SMEARS SKEPTICS as “non-believers”, equating them to holocaust deniers and treating them more like the Church treated Galileo.”

            dumboldguy —- They take money from Heartland, coal companies and the Koch brothers to spout denier crap and distort the science of climate change
            ME—– Peanuts compared to the big money — government cash to the climate alarm industry – $8 BILLION in 2010 – probably much more now: “Funding for climate change activities reported by OMB increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, and is organized in a complex, crosscutting system. “ From US GOVERNMENT: http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/318556.pdf
            Don’t miss the part about the $26.1 billion as funding for climate change programs and activities.

            dumboldguy —- and you are an ass-kissing suck-up acolyte that isn’t smart enough to see how badly you’re being used.
            dumboldguy —- Anyone who would characterize that clip as “….a pretty good post on how non-scientists can tell the alarm movement is purely crap” is a moron.
            ME—– Well you do fit point 4. And you do not appear to have any actual facts and data on your side. Why don’t you prove me wrong by showing some actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            David, you logic is hard enough to follow without you referring to “point 4’s” from somewhere. A time-date stamp would help us track that down so we can see the context.

            DENIERS (not “skeptics”) are very hard to intimidate because they are mindless “believers” and willing to die for their half-assed “beliefs”. And stop playing the victim and whining about being “smeared”—-the truth is that deniers like you are a “smear” on the meaning of Homo Sapiens and the concept of rationality.

            Also stop trying to divert attention from the fact that the three people at the top of your moronic link DO in fact “…take money from Heartland, coal companies and the Koch brothers to spout denier crap and distort the science of climate change”.

            And another moronic link to a 95 page document that has NOTHING to do with climate change science. It’s all about how the government manages and allocates the $$$ it devotes to the topic, and has many “two-edged swords” in it that make clear that AGW IS a problem that needs to be addressed. Before you pick out a link from your Troll’s Handbook of Handy Obfuscatory Bullshit to try and divert and distract, you should really know what it’s all about.

            Thank you for repeating my assertions that “….you are an ass-kissing suck-up acolyte that isn’t smart enough to see how badly you’re being used…..” and
            “….Anyone who would characterize that clip as “…a pretty good post on how non-scientists can tell the alarm movement is purely crap” is a moron”.

            The “actual facts and data” that prove my assertions are evident with every exchange you have with us, and I hope you don’t leave before your credibility is totally destroyed at your own hand. You’re doing well so far.

            You ask “Why don’t you prove me wrong by showing some actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming?”. Why bother? You have your handy Handbook for Denier Trolls that you quote from, you refuse to accept that your “talking points” are old and stale and have been debunked many times over.

            I’m not going to play whack-a-mole with you as you look things up that you don’t understand. Let me just say in the simplest terms that the work of climate scientists seems to have eliminated nearly all “natural” causes for recent climate change and has determined that man’s recent and massive exploitation of fossil fuels has caused the CO2 levels in the atmosphere to rise from 250-280 ppm to over 400 ppm in a very short time, and that in turn has led to the phenomenon called AGW—-warming of the planet caused by man’s activities.

            You don’t buy that? OK, then explain just a few things for us—what is causing the following:
            1) Accelerated sea level rise.
            2) Exponential decline in the volume or Arctic Sea Ice.
            3) Record high temperatures around the globe—-surface, air, and ocean.
            4) The near disappearance of mountain glaciers.
            5) Accelerated melting of the Greenland ice sheet.
            6) Destabilization of the Antarctic ice sheet and possible runaway glacial flow.
            7) The continued northward migration of plant hardiness zones.
            8) The continued northward migration of plant and animal species.
            9) The accelerated melting of permafrost and the release of methane from seabed clathrates.
            10) The increased frequency of extreme weather events—floods, droughts, wildfires—-that can be explained by AGW.

            I could go on and on, but that’s enough for you to tackle—-deal with any 5 for a start. Perhaps my biggest question for you is “Why does every new discovery and new piece of research on AGW seem to be nothing but ‘bad news and getting worse’, and all you anal orifices have to counter with is old tired talking points, nit-picking, and “but-but’s”? Where is the proof that the planet is NOT warming because of man’s mistakes?

            PS Have you ever looked at Guy McPherson’s blog? A bit way out on some things, but all to correct (and getting more so) on many

            http://guymcpherson.com/2014/01/climate-change-summary-and-update/

          • David Clark Says:

            dumboldguy —- David, you logic is hard enough to follow without you referring to “point 4’s” from somewhere.
            ME — Sorry about that – I posted the link earlier: http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2015/03/differences-between-real-science-and.html

            dumboldguy —- DENIERS (not “skeptics”) are very hard to intimidate because they are mindless “believers” and willing to die for their half-assed “beliefs”.
            ME—- You fit the pattern of the typical climate alarm industry spokesperson by hurling insults instead of facts.

            dumboldguy —- Also stop trying to divert attention from the fact that the three people at the top of your moronic link DO in fact “…take money from Heartland, coal companies and the Koch brothers to spout denier crap and distort the science of climate change”.
            ME—- That “moranic” 95 page document is a US government report saying that the government gave the alarm industry $BILLIONS which is huge compared to a few million than might be going to the skeptics (not deniers). Those $BILLIONS WILL disappear when the climate alarm fraud finally collapses. That is why the profiteers are panicking now – they can foresee having to find another gravy train as the climate scam gets exposed.

            dumboldguy —- You don’t buy that? OK, then explain just a few things for us—what is causing the following: [items 1-10 left of brevity]
            ME– Setting aside that several of those items are simple not true, which one(s) do you claim are due to man’s CO2 and are dangerous.
            BTW, which of those things did not occur previously in the Holocene before man’s CO2 became significant (about 1950 per IPCC)

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Point 4—–http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2015/03/differences-between-real-science-and.html

            “Real science relies on skeptics to make progress. Many real scientists spend their careers try to disprove accepted wisdom. AGW, on the other hand, intimidates and SMEARS SKEPTICS as “non-believers”, equating them to holocaust deniers and treating them more like the Church treated Galileo:http://business.financialpost…”

            Following the link to the financial post piece there provides the icing on the cake of “Point 4”. The cake is half-baked denier BS, and the icing does not improve the flavor. It is all plucked from David’s list of “talking points” and he has again embarrassed himself by posting something he probably hasn’t read and surely didn’t understand it he did.

            dumboldguy —- DENIERS (not “skeptics”) are very hard to intimidate because they are mindless “believers” and willing to die for their half-assed “beliefs”.
            ME—- You fit the pattern of the typical climate alarm industry spokesperson by hurling insults instead of facts.

            That is NOT an insult, David, but a FACT. YOU and the other deniers that visit Crock are living proof of that. And the “bald assertions” (look it up in Logic for Dummies) that you spout here are not FACT, but unsupported opinion that you parrot.

            dumboldguy —- Also stop trying to divert attention from the fact that the three people at the top of your moronic link DO in fact “…take money from Heartland, coal companies and the Koch brothers to spout denier crap and distort the science of climate change”.
            ME—- That “moranic” 95 page document is a US government report saying that the government gave the alarm industry $BILLIONS which is huge compared to a few million than might be going to the skeptics (not deniers). Those $BILLIONS WILL disappear when the climate alarm fraud finally collapses. That is why the profiteers are panicking now – they can foresee having to find another gravy train as the climate scam gets exposed.

            David displays his reading comprehension deficit yet again. The “moronic link” I referred to is not the “95 page document”. You need to get on the right page, David.

            dumboldguy —- You don’t buy that? OK, then explain just a few things for us—what is causing the following: [items 1-10 left of brevity]
            ME– Setting aside that several of those items are simple not true, which one(s) do you claim are due to man’s CO2 and are dangerous.
            BTW, which of those things did not occur previously in the Holocene before man’s CO2 became significant (about 1950 per IPCC)

            Nice try, David, but I asked the questions and you can’t just evade them. “Several of those items are simple (sic) not true”
            (A “bald assertion” if ever there was one. Which ones are not true?)
            “…which ones are dangerous”? (All of them).
            “….which are due to man’s CO2”? (READ MY LIPS. I will again ask YOU to explain the causes of any or all of them if they are NOT “due to man’s CO2”—-98% of climate scientists, the National Academy of Science, The Royal Society, and the pentagon seem to agree that CO2 and other GHG from man’s activities are the ONLY thing that seems to be causing the excess global warming at present).

            As for the Holocene, there have been minor warmings and coolings, but the last 10 to 14 thousand years have been stable compared to what occurred during the climate swings during the ~130 to 150 thousand year cycles of the five ice ages over the past 800,000 years. That’s why human civilization was able to develop. Stop parroting clips from your Troll Handbook and actually study something for a change. You will find that many think we are now in what is called the Anthropocene, which is characterized by AGW cancelling the effects of the Malinkovitch cycles and thereby postponing the next ice age (and maybe the one after).

            Actually, David, since you seem to be virtually uneducable by self or others, and are trapped in your stupid “YOU-ME” excuse for argument, why don’t you follow Bob Armstrong out the door instead and leave us in peace. We are getting tired of your ignorant BS.

          • David Clark Says:

            dumboldguy – “Point 4″. The cake is half-baked denier BS, and the icing does not improve the flavor. It is all plucked from David’s list of “talking points” and he has again embarrassed himself by posting something he probably hasn’t read and surely didn’t understand it he did
            ME—You are fitting the mold of point 4 perfectly by hurling insults and attacks instead of providing evidence.

            dumboldguy – “….which are due to man’s CO2″?? …..-98% of climate scientists, the National Academy of Science, The Royal Society, and the pentagon seem to agree that CO2 and other GHG from man’s activities are the ONLY thing that seems to be causing the excess global warming at present).
            ME—Again you claim that some authority has the evidence, but you just can’t seem to actually find it. (This is logical fallacy known since ancient times)
            I ASK: Show actual evidence that mans’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Why should I “provide evidence” when you don’t? My comments contain far more science than do your bald assertions, which are simply opinions with NO substantiation.

            I “can’t seem to find the authority”? We have wasted too much time on you already, and I am not going to play troll games with you. What “98% of climate scientists, the National Academy of Science, The Royal Society, and the pentagon” have said about climate change has been much discussed here and on other sites. Go find it and tell us what’s incorrect about any of it.

            YOU ASK: “Show actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming”. LOL, but you are persistent.

            I ASK (AGAIN) that YOU explain just a few things for us—what is causing the following if it’s not AGW due to CO2?—-and not with BS links to denier sites, but in your own words—explain the science—pick any five. After YOU do that, I will answer SPECIFIC detailed questions from you:

            1) Accelerated sea level rise.
            2) Exponential decline in the volume or Arctic Sea Ice.
            3) Record high temperatures around the globe—-surface, air, and ocean.
            4) The near disappearance of mountain glaciers.
            5) Accelerated melting of the Greenland ice sheet.
            6) Destabilization of the Antarctic ice sheet and possible runaway glacial flow.
            7) The continued northward migration of plant hardiness zones.
            8) The continued northward migration of plant and animal species.
            9) The accelerated melting of permafrost and the release of methane from seabed clathrates.
            10) The increased frequency of extreme weather events—floods, droughts, wildfires—-that can be explained by AGW.

          • David Clark Says:

            You have made 10 claims. Which of those Shows that MANS CO2 IS CAUSING DANGEROUS GLOBAL WARMING?
            Note that warming, melting and sea levels say nothing about the cause. It is up the the climate alarm industry to show that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming.
            We are still waiting.


          • dumboldguy: Cute play on my handle there. You’re very clever. Angry and unable to argue the science of AGW, but clever.
            And there he dives into conspiracy theory and paid trolls. I would love to see an actual accounting and not just fairy tails spun by climate change advocates. Actually, I’ve always believed the problem to be that the skeptics have a more convincing argument and they get more mileage for the money they collect than warmists. Have you ever looked at the budget for Greenpeace? It exceeds the GDP of a small country.
            We don’t go away because science is about discussions, facts and learning. If this is not about learning and instead about preaching to the faithful, it needs to be renamed “Climate Chapel”. If you change the name to that, I’d be happy to go away. (Seems you don’t like people who don’t “nod their heads in mindless agreement and compliment you on how smart you are” either.)

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I won’t waste the time to reply to this “more of the same” BS. Reread my comment, especially about the link—-that’s REALITY. Choose to get in touch with or or continue to demonstrate your ignorance—-makes no difference to me.

            (PS to Crockers. We are going to have to have more Demented Rooster suits made and start buying perfumed sleeve hankies by the dozen).


          • dumboldguy–So it is true that you need people to agree with you just as you accuse skeptics of. Your true colors.
            I am in touch with reality. As for your link, if my taking college level courses on statistics, climate science, calculus, and reading research papers on the subject is not sufficient to convince me your “reality” is real, why would you think any link you provide would magically do so? I understand the science and I understand the flaws in the theory. Unlike warmists seem to believe, merely explaining the theory does not mean you are going to convince people. It’s not self-evident. Plus, insulting people that disagree with you pretty much assures no one will ever listen to your viewpoint. But, hey, it’s your gig. Maybe you don’t want anyone to believe.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            To Needs a Reality Check

            How old are you anyway? You sound like a college-age kid at best. And your boasting of “taking college level courses on statistics, climate science, calculus, and reading research papers on the subject” is laughable to someone who has two degrees in science from the 1960’s, took statistics and calculus courses as part of them, and has been studying environmental issues of all kinds for 50 years, with emphasis on climate change over the past 20. Are you even 20 years old yet?

            I have read hundreds of books and even more “research papers” on science issues. I had subscriptions to Scientific American and Natural History when I was a high school freshman (maintained them for decades) and had a personal science library at home that took up 20+ feet of shelves. When I retired, I donated it to my former colleagues’ departmental library and got a nice tax write-off for it.

            What you obviously haven’t taken is a note-taking course, or you’d be able to keep straight such things as that it was Gingerbaker that provided the “link”, not me, and I never even mentioned his link. I was addressing David Clark’s idiotic link in my comment, not GB’s. Or perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem. You can take courses to improve that, if that’s your problem. I didn’t need to, because I took an extensive series of tests in the 60’s and found that my reading skills were at the 98-99% level. I did take some logic and composition course, which probably explains why my comments are more “reasoned” and literate than yours. You can take courses to overcome your deficits there also.

            You say “I understand the science and I understand the flaws in the theory”? To paraphrase Gingerbaker, you don’t know OR understand shit!. You prove that by saying “….warmists seem to believe merely explaining the theory means you are going to convince people. It’s not self-evident”. It IS self evident to those with the necessary science background and the open-mindedness and rational thinking skills necessary to put the “web” of evidence together. YOU do not belong to that group. You are a poseur, a lightweight, an ignorant braggart, and All Hat, No Cattle.

            I insult you NOT because you disagree with ME, but because you beg to be insulted with the crap you post here and your Demented Rooster attitude. You don’t disagree with accepted science on AGW, you reject it, and do that because you are an ignorant BELIEVER who has some psychological disorder that drives you to listen to charlatans and intellectual whores rather than the 98% of climate scientists who speak truth, and whose “viewpoint” I agree. One can argue about what constitutes an “insult”. Calling an ugly woman “ugly” may be true but is impolite, unkind, and uncalled for. Saying all that I have said about you is perhaps impolite and unkind, but it is certainly “called for” in this forum.

            “But, hey, it’s your gig”, you say?? Is that a popular phrase today among “young scholars” like you? We worried about “gig lines” in the USMC, but I doubt you wear shirts with buttons.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            “….the 98% of climate scientists who speak truth, and whose “viewpoint” I agree WITH”.

            Sorry, all. It is hard to get motivated to proof read carefully when speaking to fools like Reality. Kind of like cleaning up presents from the dog world in the yard—-you know, get it over with and try to forget the smell?


          • dumboldguy: It’s impolite to ask people how old they are. Let’s just say I shared space with dinosaurs. It seems, however, that you may have shared space with even older dinosaurs than I. Cool.

            It’s kind of hard to follow “conversations” when there’s little or no substance to the entire exercise. My apologies for mistaking Gingerbaker’s link for yours.

            Really, I disagree with you and you are God of this subject so I must be wrong. Sorry, don’t buy the God title for you. You have yet to actually address anything about science, so it’s kind of hard to tell what the heck you are God of.

            No, you insult me because I disagree with you, plain and simple. It threatens you that someone might not believe the same thing you do and you strike out and belittle people to make yourself important. I don’t really object to this–small, insecure people have to do whatever it takes to deal with the world. I understand.

            I’m flattered that you think I’m a naive college student. Thank you so very much. It’s not often I get that title. So sweet of you.

            Let’s not get into how I’m dressed–that’s just too creepy.

            You would certainly know about crap and stench–I bow to your superior knowledge.

            Have a nice day, old guy! 🙂

          • dumboldguy Says:

            It’s impolite to waste our time with inane maunderings rather than address the points being made. I’m nearing 75, and I developed very good “crap detectors” and spend a lot of time with young people during my professional career. Using “Cool” and speaking of “sharing space with dinosaurs” is juvenile.

            There’s little or no substance to the entire exercise because YOU have driven it with your denier troll BS. Your idea of an argument is to copy some BS out of the denier handbook and repeat it until everyone accepts it. Your apology for the GB link error is not accepted. Get your shit together and make sense or go away.

            “…you are God of this subject so I must be wrong. Sorry, don’t buy the God title for you. You have yet to actually address anything about science, so it’s kind of hard to tell what the heck you are God of….”

            Another juvenile remark that no grown up “dinosaur man” would make. Gingerbaker and AndrewF have tried to talk science with you and gotten nowhere. I won’t waste the time. I will instead spend my time punishing you for the success you and your fellow trolls have had disrupting this thread and distracting us from the topic HOW RACISM AND CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL GO TOGETHER.

            “No, you insult me because I disagree with you, plain and simple. It threatens you that someone might not believe the same thing you do and you strike out and belittle people to make yourself important. I don’t really object to this–small, insecure people have to do whatever it takes to deal with the world. I understand”.

            “Thank you so very much. It’s not often I get that title. So sweet of you.
            Let’s not get into how I’m dressed–that’s just too creepy.
            You would certainly know about crap and stench–I bow to your superior knowledge”.

            Blah, blah, blah. Defensive, more than a bit projective, and really just more juvenile whining, especially that pathetic second paragraph (a very weak attempt at “snark”). And I don’t think you ARE “a naive college student”, I said “you SOUND LIKE a college-age KID at best”. Learn to read. What that says is that you may actually be in high school.

            Have a nice day, old guy! 🙂

      • andrewfez Says:

        If I had a set [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10] with an error margin of say 5, I’d still say there was an increasing trend happening. To say the difference between 2 and 1, or 8 and 7, is only 1, but the error margin is 5, therefore there is no trend, seems a bit odd or illogical.

        • Gingerbaker Says:

          Exactly. That error bar can also go up – something which the deniers never consider. And the significance goes up when we look at longer time intervals, of course. The -> trend <- when looked at over several decades is highly significant.

          • David Clark Says:

            If the change is less than the error bars, you simply DO NOT KNOW if the change is real.

            Only the crappy, tampered with, ground data shows recent years as the warmest.

            “Un-adjusted” (actual thermometer readings) show the 1930s much warmer.

            Satellite data shows 1998 still the warmest.

            Here is the actual UN number with the uncertainty:
            “As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012; 0.05 [-0.05 to 0.15] C per decade), which begins with a strong El Nino, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951-2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] C per decade). {1.1.1, Box 1.1}“
            From bottom of pg 2 of : http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

            Note the uncertainty of “[-0.05 to 0.15] C per decade” — that MINUS SIGN that means the earth may have cooled since 1998 or may have warmed – they don’t know because the amount of warming they claim (0.05C) is less than the uncertainty (+/-.1).


          • Gingerback: Climate change questioners are all about error bars. It’s one of the major objections to the conclusions of AGW.


        • Edrewfez:
          It seems illogical, but it is correct statistically. There is a difference, yes, but the difference can be due to measurement error. That is what the error margins tell you. That the measurement is not exact and could account for difference. Few if any of the measurements in climate change are actual measurements. Many are interpolations and many are calculated. Unlike physical science, climate science is based on probability and there is always uncertainty when dealing with probability functions.
          In your sequence, where the differences are over 5, you could claim a real trend. Up to 6, there is no difference. After 6, there appears to be.

          • andrewfez Says:

            I see. So any point inside the confidence interval is equally probable then? There’s no diminishing probability when one travels from the middle of the bar outward, as if one were modulating the confidence interval from 50% to 75% to 90% to 95% for each point?

            Hmm, this reminds me of something: A suite of surface temp model runs, all being equally probable, and some showing no recent surface warming for a decade or two. Or further, the suite taken as a whole, and one drawing a horizontal line from near the upper boundary of the left side, say, starting at 1998, and ending near the lower boundary of 2015. Would not that horizontal line be just as valid as a diagonal one with an upward slope?

            How do you reconcile that anything within the confidence interval is fair game, but perhaps reject that same notion, when it comes to the confidence interval on the AR4 runs?

  5. Gingerbaker Says:

    ““Un-adjusted” (actual thermometer readings) show the 1930s much warmer.”

    Here we see the ‘reasonableness’ of deniers: it’s always a conspiracy when they don’t like the numbers.

    oh…. and

    Error bars my pilonidal cyst-encrusted ass! None of you people in the denierosphere understand statistics at all. None

    Error bars! Jesus H. Christ.

    • David Clark Says:

      As to adjustments: Seems that balloon measurements also show the adjustments are fraudulent. Just like the hockeystick, most claims of extreme weather being caused by warming, and failed predictions of doom (end of snow, ice free arctic, etc., etc….).

      Deniers that understand stats:
      Edward Teller (father of the H bomb)
      Tim Ball (retired climatologist)
      Steve McIntyre (stats expert who debunked hockeystick))

      The alarm industry would be much more believable if they didn’t tell so many obvious lies. On the other hand lies are all they have as Al Ice cores show CO2 FOLLOWS temperature, the hockeystick got broken and warming stopped 15 years ago.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        The denier industry would be much more believable if they didn’t employ low grade morons like you to troll sites like Crock and spout BS. You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel when you mention Steve McIntyre and especially the laughable Tim Ball—two more Heartland whores and self-anointed “climate experts” with NO climate science expertise. Ball WAS a geographer and McIntyre’s “debunking” of the hockeystick has been debunked many times over by an army of real climate scientists. You need to tear that page our of your Handbook for Trolls—it’s WAY out of date.

        “As to adjustments: Seems that balloon measurements also show the adjustments are fraudulent. Just like the hockeystick, most claims of extreme weather being caused by warming, and failed predictions of doom (end of snow, ice free arctic, etc., etc….)”

        More BALD ASSERTIONS, which topic I have mentioned elsewhere. Again, David, no one is interested in your ignorant opinions, which are just clips from the Troll Handbook. Give us some science, and by that I do NOT mean a parroted denier link. IN YOUR OWN WORDS, answer the 10 questions I posed to you about what was causing certain things to happen if it wasn’t CO2.

        And you mention Edward freaking Teller?!! And you append “father of the H bomb” as if we didn’t know that? And you don’t realize that being “father H” gives him NO credibility as a climate scientist or commenter? Teller died in 2003 at the age of 95, and was long past his peak. He was senile enough to apparently sign the Oregon Petition. When are you going to cite the Petition as “evidence”? When you do, be sure to mention the Teller contemporaries and deniers (and merchants of doubt) that signed it—-Dyson, Seitz, Jastrow, Nierenberg, Stewart—-all senile old farts with no more business signing it than Teller had.

        The denier industry would be much more believable if they didn’t tell so many obvious lies. Like this one—“Al Ice cores show CO2 FOLLOWS temperature, the hockeystick got broken and warming stopped 15 years ago”.
        All untrue. You can find the truth on these BALD ASSERTIONS all in one place—-skeptical science.

        • David Clark Says:

          dumboldguy – All untrue. You can find the truth on these BALD ASSERTIONS all in one place—-skeptical science.
          ME—Now I get it — you are so totally misinformed because you trusted a climate propaganda site. That site is run by a psychology prof and has an oil company guy in its management.
          It is the source of the most famous 97% of scientists lie. First they analyzed abstracts of published papers so the claim is actually 97% of published papers which is far different than 97% of scientists. (The actual claim if you had bothered to even read the abstract should be around 30% (they threw out 60 some $ of the responses) then mis interpreted many of the papers they looked at.)

          • dumboldguy Says:

            YOU—-are so freaking and incredibly stupid that a retarded brick could outsmart you in a heartbeat. I will say yet again—YOU DON”T “GET” SHIT—because you are a denier troll and aren’t paid to “get” truth, only to spew bullshit, and what you spew is on the third-grade level at best.

            Another series of bald assertions—first that I am “totally misinformed because I trust a climate propaganda site”. Sorry, but SkS is not a “climate propaganda site” except in the minds of deluded anal orifices like you that would like to see it go away. If you read anything but the pre-packaged lies of the denier blogosphere, you might have come across the following on Wiki:

            “Skeptical Science has become a well-known resource for people seeking to understand or debate climate change, and has been praised for its straightforwardness.[20] Marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg has described it as “the most prominent knowledge-based website dealing with climate change in the world”,[21] and The Washington Post has praised it as the “most prominent and detailed” website to counter arguments by global warming skeptics.[22] In September 2011, the site won the 2011 Eureka Prize from the Australian Museum in the category of Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge.[23]”

            SkS is on of the most highly respected sites and best sources of info on climate change denial in the world (if not THE best), and you telling lies about it only proves what a desperate anal orifice you are. You say:

            “That site is run by a psychology prof and has an oil company guy in its management.”

            BLATANTLY false on all counts. John Cook is trained as a solar physicist, and there are NO “oil company guys” on staff. There are a couple of dozen qualified scientists, computer folks, and journalists listed, though. NOT ONE psychology prof or oil guy—-go here and see for yourself, and when you do, I expect a retraction from you: https://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php

            You show your stupidity and carelessness when you launch into “It is the source of the most famous 97% of scientists lie”. Are you too stupid to know that no one is going to call up every so-called “climate scientist” in the world and ask them questions? That would bring out the Moncktons. They operated on the assumption that they could be sure someone was a climate scientist if they published a paper in the field, and that it would be valid and generally accepted if it had gone through peer review. They gathered up all the published papers and analyzed them on that basis, rejecting only those that were from dubious sources. You have misunderstood and jumbled up what they actually did, and the number is actually higher than 97%.

            Take a look at what James Powell did in a similar study—-he found that only 24 of 13,950 papers on climate change rejected global warming. http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

            Finally, here’s what Wiki had to say about the study you call a lie. “In May 2013, Cook and other contributors jointly published a paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters (ERL) examining the scientific consensus on global warming in peer reviewed papers published between 1991–2011.[11] The paper was the top downloaded paper for that week across all articles published in all of the Institute of Physics’ journals,[12] and was widely cited across hundreds of newspapers, magazines, blog posts, and scientific papers from around the world.[13] It also ranked as the 11th most-discussed scientific paper of 2013.[14] The paper was awarded the ‘Best article of 2013′ prize by the editorial board of ERL.[15]”

            Of course, you don’t know the truth of that because you only frequent horseshit denier blogs and suck up garbage there. When you do come to a site like Crock, you ignore the truths here and play your troll games. The truly sad thing is that you aren’t even smart enough to know when you’ve had your brains beaten in and that you should “fold ’em” and leave. Why don’t you join Bob “Strom” Armstrong and go away?

          • David Clark Says:

            dumboldguy —- BLATANTLY false on all counts. John Cook is trained as a solar physicist,
            ME—Then why does his page at the university say “John is currently completing a PhD in cognitive psychology”
            http://www.gci.uq.edu.au/john-cook

            dumboldguy —- and there are NO “oil company guys” on staff.
            ME—- From SKS: “Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area”. Well that “private environmental consulting firm” is Tetra Tech, whose web site says this: “We support oil and gas exploration and production, gathering pipelines, transmission pipelines, compressor/pumping stations, processing facilities, refineries, storage facilities (above ground and below ground), and rail, truck, and marine terminal import and export facilities.”
            The SKS site used to say Nuccitelli worked at Tetra Tech, but they probably decided to hide that fact and removed it from the web site.

            dumboldguy —- You have misunderstood and jumbled up what they actually did, and the number is actually higher than 97%.
            ME—- You need to read the actual paper’s abstract. You will find they tossed out 66.4% of the papers had NO OPINION and only 32.6% “endorsed AGW”. Further the survey was of abstracts, NOT scientists.

            So you can see how you were wrong on Cook, SKS & Cook’s 97% paper.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            More maunderings from the anal orifice. John Cook has degrees in physics and solar physics, has written TWO books on climate science and climate science denial, started SkS seven years ago and is now taking the next step and studying psychology so that he can better understand denier anal orifices like you. Only in your demented world would that make him a “psychology prof”. Grasp at straws much? From your link:

            “John is currently completing a PhD in cognitive psychology, researching how people think about climate change. He is also developing a Massive Online Open Course (MOOC), Making Sense of Climate Science Denial”

            Yes, you DO grasp at straws. as evidenced by your maunderings about Nuccitelli. Guess what, fool? Working at a consulting firm that has oil companies for clients does not make Nuccitelli an “oil guy”any more than working at the SAME firm with their MANY wind power clients makes him a “wind guy”. You probably decided to hide that “wind” fact, and didn’t tell us because you are a propagandist that seeks to smear anyone who fights against climate denial rather than discuss the science.

            Pay close attention to this, because I am not going to explain it again, You need to get help with your reading comprehension problem, reread your Logic for Dummies book, and seek help from a mental health professional for the various personality disorders that make it impossible for you to think rationally. The fact that you seem to be just plain stupid can’t be remedied—-there are no “smart pills for you to take. Sorry about that.

            I HAVE read the actual paper’s abstract, the actual paper itself, and many articles and comments about it here on Crock and on other sites. I DO understand the methodology and what they concluded—YOU DO NOT, as is evidenced by this comment:..

            “You will find they tossed out 66.4% of the papers had NO OPINION and only 32.6% “endorsed AGW”. Further the survey was of abstracts, NOT scientists”.

            From the SkS website article discussing the study:

            “The 97% Consensus Results. Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming”

            If you didn’t have so many cognitive and emotional deficits, you would understand that they did NOT “toss out 66.4%”—they identified 33.6% (about 4,000+ out of the original 12,000) as papers that EXPRESSED A POSITION ON ANTHROPOGENICGLOBAL WARMING, and that 97.1% ENDORSED HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING. The object of the exercise was to determine what %-age of the papers EXPRESSING AN OPINION supported AGW, not what the %-age was of papers that merely mentioned climate change. Of the papers that expressed an opinion, only 2.9% said global warming was not man caused. That breaks out to ~110 papers against the 4000. Other studies like Powell’s showed a greater proportion of scientists endorsing AGW.

            The “Further, the survey was of abstracts, NOT scientists” statement is meaningless. Scientists communicate their work through publishing papers. When 97.1 % of those papers support AGW, that means 97.1% of the scientists who wrote them support AGW. Those that wrote papers that mentioned climate change but have no opinion pro or con AGW have nothing to contribute, just as scientists who are not working in the field at all and have never published on climate science at all have no business doing things like signing the Oregon Petition.

            As for “So you can see how you were wrong on Cook, SKS & Cook’s 97% paper”. Since I was 100% correct, the only appropriate answer to that is that the Demented Rooster Suit fits you well. Keep strutting around the barnyard crowing about your imagined victories—it’s quite entertaining

            So you can see how you were wrong on Cook, SKS & Cook’s 97% paper.

          • David Clark Says:

            dumboldguy —- The object of the exercise was to determine what %-age of the papers EXPRESSING AN OPINION supported AGW
            ME— Then why do the warmers say 97% of SCIENTISTS instead of “Of those papers expressing an opinion, 97% supported AGW at least to some extent”

            And they usually imply the opinion is that we are doomed by CO2, instead of mentioning that many said man is, at least to some TINY EXTENT, contributing to warming, a statement that most of the most adamant skeptics would agree with and is meaningless.

            Hopefully you see the misrepresentation in the way the result is usually stated. Where is Cook in correcting the mis-impression?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            People say “97% of SCIENTISTS support AGW” (actually it’s now up to 98%) because it’s TRUE, just like “Sun comes up every day” and “Tide comes in, tide goes out”. Deniers want to nit-pick and play semantic games with wording of single sentences rather than address the total meaning, which is obvious to anyone with a brain that knows how to read (you may not qualify). Other studies have come to the same conclusions. It is now accepted fact that “98% of climate scientists…..etc”

            There is no misrepresentation. Cook HAS commented on the issue, and the problem is not “mis-impression” (sic) but the “misunderestimation” of their own intelligence by the deniers (to quote a “Bushism”).

            (I will again warn you that I am tiring of answering your moronic maunderings. You are close to getting cut off.)

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Another meaningless link. To the financial pages of an obscure Canadian newspaper—to a column by a guy who really has nothing to say. The column is talking about a public opinion poll of the PUBLIC, not scientists. Except for the “grabber” headline, it says NOTHING about any “little ice age”. I don’t think David even read it—-he just looked at the headline and plugged it in because it “sounded good”. Typical denier behavior—-throw bullshit against the wall and hope it sticks rather than deal in facts.

            As far as “BTW, dumboldguy, SOME scientists say Earth’s 19th Little Ice Age has begun”, I would be glad to see a link to any source that gives evidence of ANY scientists saying that. Failure to do so will likely result in you getting cut off. I am getting REALLY tired of you, David. I do not enjoy playing with unpleasant and stupid little children. You give nothing in return for my efforts to educate and entertain you.

            (And is David aware that “little ice age” was just a cutesy name for a phenomenon that was not really a global ice age but a period of localized cooling mainly in North America and Europe? No glaciation, no drop in sea level).

          • David Clark Says:

            dumboldguy —- Another meaningless link. To the financial pages of an obscure Canadian newspaper
            ME—-Apparently you missed this part:
            “His latest study, published in Thermal Science, delivers this week’s second whammy. It continues the analysis he has long pursued, which consistently arrives at the same conclusion: Earth is now entering a new Little Ice Age, Earth’s 19th Little Ice Age, to be precise. Abdussamatov has been quite confident of his findings for what might strike some as odd reasons: His science is based on that of the giants in the field — astronomers like Milutin Milankovitch, who a century ago described how tilts in its axis and other changes in the Earth’s movements determine its climate, and William Herschel, who two centuries ago noticed an inverse correlation between wheat prices on Earth and the number of sunspots generated by the Sun’s cycles. (Hint: the more energy from the Sun that Earth gets, the more warmth Earth receives, the more abundant the wheat crops, the lower the price of wheat; the less energy from the Sun, the less warmth, the more wheat crop failures, the higher the wheat price.)”
            http://business.financialpost.com/2015/03/27/lawrence-solomon-global-warming-doomsayers-take-note-earths-19th-little-ice-age-has-begun/

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Yes, another meaningless link. I did not MISS that part but rather IGNORED it.

            First, because it DID appear in the financial pages of an obscure Canadian newspaper in a column written by a charlatan who used it as a “hook” for an article that was NOT on “ice ages”, but on the public’s attitude towards climate change. Apples and oranges and blatant propaganda and fear-mongering. You and the denier blogosphere went nuts for Dr. A’s “work” because it was what you WANT to hear, not because it has any validity.

            I have seen his “study” as well as much commentary on it, ALL of which disputes his methodology, his findings and even his sanity. I doubt you can even explain what a Milankovitch Cycle is, since you’ve never spoken any science here—-you are just a “coupon clipper” and a “cut and paster” parrot of the same old shit from the denier world. You know NO science.

            In actuality, we should be in the early stages of the next BIG ice age, since they’ve appeared pretty regularly at 130 to 150 thousand year intervals for the last 800,000 years.

            Many MORE scientists than one nutty Russian have speculated that AGW has negated the Milankovitch Cycle, and that the next ice age (and the one after) may not occur or will be very much delayed. All the things that I asked you to explain if CO2 is not causing warming are the things that make them think this. Dr. A has been spouting his crap for a number of years now, and if it had validity, the little ice age should have started to appear, as he predicted. Instead, all the things I cited are with us. How can we be going into a little ice age if all the ice is melting? EVERYWHERE!

            I am still getting very tired of your failure to post anything here but denier troll bullshit. You waste our time. DNFTT time us fast approaching. 10-9-8-7-…….

          • David Clark Says:

            dumboldguy, You have made 10 claims. Which of those Shows that MANS CO2 IS CAUSING DANGEROUS GLOBAL WARMING?
            Note that warming, melting and sea levels say nothing about the cause. It is up the the climate alarm industry to show that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming.
            We are still waiting.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I have made not “claims” but 10 FACTUAL STATEMENTS about what is occurring on the planet right now. 98% pf all climate scientists say that this is due to man’s activities and CO2. I have said several times that the burden is on YOU and the deniers to explain the causes of these evidences of WARMING if it is not due to CO2 and other GHG.

            You have finally said something that is true, purely by accident, I’m sure….”blind squirrel finds an occasional nut”etc.

            “Note that warming, melting and sea levels say nothing about the cause” DUH!

            It is up the the climate denial industry to show that man’s CO2 is NOT causing dangerous global warming. They can do this by giving alternate explanations for all the phenomenon that ARE attributed to AGW by scientists. We are still waiting.

            (And I am tiring of your little game, David. You are either a moron, a head case, or a game player. You say little of substance, and I am approaching DNFTT time with you. Be warned—-either up your game or I will cut you off)

          • David Clark Says:

            dumboldguy —- You have finally said something that is true.. “Note that warming, melting and sea levels say nothing about the cause” … It is up the the climate denial industry to show that man’s CO2 is NOT causing dangerous global warming.
            ME–NO IT IS NOT – It is the climate alarm industry making the claims as to attribution and it is their job to prove it. You can’t just wildly throw out assertions and expect the other side to disprove them.

            dumboldguy —- They can do this by giving alternate explanations for all the phenomenon that ARE attributed to AGW by scientists.
            ME—– Very simple: Those items that have occurred before are most likely caused by whatever caused them before (ie: before man’s CO2 increase). Only after YOU identify the cause of earlier extremes and show that cause is NOT the cause of the current extreme, can you logically introduce a new factor, CO2. “Before” includes all of the Holocene.

            dumboldguy —- I am approaching DNFTT time with you.
            ME— what is DNFTT

          • dumboldguy Says:

            “You can’t just wildly throw out assertions and expect the other side to disprove them”, you say? LMAO! If any long time Crockers are reading this, they are rolling in the aisles at the irony and total cluelessness of that statement. That’s all you have EVER done here.

            Your other “ME” statement shows how ignorant you are of the science of global warming, the methodology of scientists, logic, and rational analysis.

            “Only after YOU identify the cause of earlier extremes and show that cause is NOT the cause of the current extreme, can you logically introduce a new factor, CO2”, you say?

            JFC, Lord love a duck, and WTF do you think all the climate scientists have been doing for the last 50 years? EXACTLY THAT—-ruling out all the “old” causes of warming—-that’s why 98% now believe AGW is real.

            “What is DNFTT?”, you ask? It’s an acronym, and if you weren’t such a lazy and ignorant POS who is FOS and whose reasoning powers are FUBAR, you would have looked it up instead of asking.

            And this post moves you even closer to midnight on the DNFTT doomsday clock.
            10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3- Say your prayers.


  6. This will be my last post here . I do want to be absolute clear that I DENY utterly that CO2 at even 10x its current few hundred ppm is or would be anything but a boon to life on earth .

    Dumb Old Guy said

    IMO, most blacks would rather have the NAACP, CORE, SCLC, the Urban League, or the many smaller black professional and business groups speak for them than Harry.

    You mention CORE . Apparently you don’t know that Roy Innes and CORE have worked with Paul Driessen , http://www.eco-imperialism.com/ , one of the most eloquent voices chronicling the damage done to the poor and the less developed world by enforced energy poverty .

    Roy has a great island bred self-respect and disgust when he sees American “blacks” play their “yes massa , just give us our daily bread” plantation role ,

    I see it was his son , Niger , who wrote the intro to Paul’s book .

    Someone mentioned the notion I had for the hole 0911 created in my neighborhood at the time . I lost a great mulatto friend in the WTC : http://cosy.com/y01/d0911/JohnPerry.htm .

    Finally , Ted Cruz understands what a statist fraud the war on CO2 is : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX6nDrqUKKA#t=104 .
    But I would never vote for him . He’s a zionist — which is the same sort of supremacist tribalism as any other racism . It was disgusting to watch all but 60 of those elected to represent US kowtow to a foreign thuggish theocrat . I will not vote for for any of Netanyahu’s niggers no matter how much we might agree on other issues .

    • dumboldguy Says:

      “This will be my last post here”, says Bob. Praise the Lord, Hallelujah, and good riddance !!!. Let’s hope it’s true—-it is very hard for narcissistic folks like Bob to “give it up”. I think that Peter would likely have banned him anyway for the racist comments he made here in his “goodbye”. To wit:

      “…lost a great mulatto friend in the WTC”? MULATTO? Isn’t that what racists used to call folks who are bi-racial?

      “I would never vote for (Cruz) . He’s a zionist — which is the same sort of supremacist tribalism as any other racism . It was disgusting to watch all but 60 of those elected to represent US kowtow to a foreign thuggish theocrat . I will not vote for for any of Netanyahu’s niggers no matter how much we might agree on other issues”.

      Zionism is “racist supremacist tribalism”? NETANYAHU’S NIGGERS? Anti-semitism anyone?

      Goodbye Bob—-Please DO let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. You need a good concussion to help muddle your thinking even more. And thank you for proving Peter’s point that climate denial and racism DO go hand in hand.

  7. Gingerbaker Says:

    David Clark said:

    “Ginger—The energy budget is based on satellite measurements of [how much sunlight energy falls on Earth from the sun] minus [how much energy is reflected back out harmlessly into space].

    ME—And the result of that subtraction is a tiny fraction, very possibly in error.”

    A tiny amount? It is the heat equivalent of 400 Hiroshima bombs per second. Every second.

    What a maroon.

    David Clark said:

    “Ginger—And that energy, as I said, has to go somewhere. Most of it warms the oceans. A small part of it heats the air, and causes 14/15 of the hottest years to be in the 21st, not the 20th century.

    ME—And in the 1940, most of the warm years were the last few. Happens every time at a peak.”

    It’s not about particular decades, you nutsack. It is about a continuous increase of the Earth air/land temperature record whose TREND is consistently upward in a very statistically significant way.

    But, if you really want to talk about decades, every decade since 1960 has been warmer than the previous decade.

    And the TREND has been consistently positive for the last 115 years.

    The ’40’s!! That’s a good one.

    David Clark said:

    “Ginger—You are a polemicist, interested only in winning an argument, not discovering the truth.

    Truth: The earth has has no statistically significant warming sine 1998.”

    That is a false statement. Even if we are talking about just surface/air temps, it is as of this year a false statement. But we know where most of the energy budget heat went – in the oceans.

    Which are heating rapidly. Despite melting a shitton if ice.

    Which makes you not just a pathetic polemicist, but a lying pathetic polemicist.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Shhhhhh! David hasn’t been here for a couple of days and I thought we had driven him off. Don’t encourage him to sling more ignorant and demented BS by speaking truth to him.

      In addition to you calling him a “a lying pathetic polemicist”, I was a bit less “elegant” and called him “a lazy and ignorant POS who is FOS and whose reasoning powers are FUBAR”.

      DNFTT or we’ll have to destroy him yet again.

      • David Clark Says:

        Shhhhhh! David hasn’t been here for a couple of days and I thought we had driven him off. Don’t encourage him to sling more ignorant and demented BS by speaking truth to him.
        ME—No, I just got tired of trying to correct people who don’t know enough basic science (and logic) to recognize skepticalscience.com for the propaganda site that it is.
        Plus excusing describing 30% of abstracts as 97% of scientists.

    • David Clark Says:

      David Clark said: —-And the result of that subtraction is a tiny fraction, very possibbly in error.”
      Ginger—–A tiny amount? It is the heat equivalent of 400 Hiroshima bombs per second. Every second.
      ME–Yup, like I said a tiny amount. IF you want to really see the truth put you nukes and the energy in BTUs – you will find atom bombs are tiny compared to earth things like incoming radiation.

      Ginger—-It’s not about particular decades, you nutsack. It is about a continuous increase of the Earth air/land temperature record whose TREND is consistently upward in a very statistically significant way…..And the TREND has been consistently positive for the last 115 years.
      ME—-Yup Ever since the “little ice age– the coolest years in sevral centuries, we are now warming. We might even get as warm as the Roman times, but probably not as the sun has shifted to a state similar to the little ice age.

      Ginger—-But we know where most of the energy budget heat went – in the oceans.
      Which are heating rapidly. Despite melting a shitton if ice.
      ME—- NASA says otherwise: “The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.” http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-study-finds-earth-s-ocean-abyss-has-not-warmed/

      Ginger—- Which makes you not just a pathetic polemicist, but a lying pathetic polemicist.
      ME—-You continued tossing of insults shows that you know you have no argument.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Way to go, GB. You woke him up and he’s showing us yet again how ignorant of science he is and how weak his reasoning abilities are. I’m done with him and have put him on my DNFTT list.

        He’s nothing but an intellectual onanist. You should have left him in the dark under the bridge, mumbling to himself and jerking off,


  8. […] I’ve pointed out the commonalities between racism and climate denial several times. […]


  9. […] posted in the past that anti-science politics and racism have gone hand in hand. The same is true in regard to  homophobia. Homophobia and racism, long staples in the dog-whistle […]


  10. […] again, the parallels between climate denial and racism in the US right wing are prominent in the news. This week, the uncanny similarity between right […]


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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

%d bloggers like this: