Sunday, March 30, 2008

'Raising awareness' with ad hominems

Sounds like Lorrie Goldstein gets more than his fair share of ranting emails from the Kyoto crowd.

In today's column (Let's clear the air here), Goldstein lays out his stance on global warming and climate change, which I find to be moderate, non-partisan and entirely reasonable:

For more than a year now, having done a fair bit of research about the issue on my own, I've been writing critically about global warming. During that time, I have stated the following:

That I accept the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the Earth is warming unnaturally and that it is "very likely" human activity is the cause.

That, regardless of global warming, it's important to conserve energy and to burn fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) as cleanly and efficiently as possible, not just for environmental reasons, but for geo-political ones. The less we have to rely on Mideast oil, the greater our security will be.

I've said Canada, as a resource-rich country, should be a leader in the responsible use of fossil fuels and government subsidies to the oil industry -- unnecessary when oil costs more than $100 a barrel -- should be re-invested into Canadian research and development of new sources of renewable energy and clean technologies.
I've said if Canada imposes a carbon tax, presuming a majority of Canadians favour this, it must be done in concert with the U.S. and our other major trading partners, so as not to damage our economy.
I've argued it must be truly revenue neutral, providing already overtaxed Canadians with realistic ways of moving toward a carbon economy...

Then he goes on to explain why he doesn't support the Kyoto protocol which, as he agrees with Harper, really is a 'socialist, money-sucking scheme'. Worse, it is not realistically designed to lower man-made GHG emissions due to the exclusion of certain countries such as China and India, and the fact that the U.S. has not ratified the treaty "dating back to the Bill Clinton/Al Gore administration".


Also:
...Climate hysterics, led by environmental radicals and opportunistic politicians, who screech that every time there's an extreme, or even unusual weather event it's "proof" of man-made global warming, don't know what they're talking about. They constantly confuse "weather" and "climate."

They don't understand the difference between man-made global warming and the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, which keeps us all from freezing...



...Kyoto isn't an environmental plan. It's a plan to transfer wealth from the First World to the Third and damage the American economy in particular...

As if we need that right now! As we can already see, a worsening U.S. economic situation can seriously impact our economy - especially in Ontario.


Please read the whole article. It's a no-nonsense approach to a very highly-charged, political argument. Yet the emails still pour in calling him names for this moderate stance.

Maybe that's because when they've run out of facts, then name-calling is the only thing left to fall back on.


Or is it?

They could always try locking him up.

* * * *

Update: Great somewhat-related post here at Mesopotamia West - How to Appeal to Liberals.

26 comments:

Wayward Son said...

"Goldstein lays out his stance on global warming and climate change, which I find to be moderate, non-partisan and entirely reasonable:"

Sorry after spending years denying that global warming was occuring, the likes of Goldstein and Harper don't get to lecture the rest of us about what is moderate and reasonable. If it wasn't for those who Goldstein hates constantly making noise on this issue he would still be completely in the on this issue.

"Maybe that's because when they've run out of facts, then name-calling is the only thing left to fall back on."

Name calling? You mean like "Kyoto Kult?"

Gabby in QC said...

We all need a chuckle once in a while ...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gNrGhekg8GI&feature=related

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Name calling? You mean like "Kyoto Kult?"

That wasn't an ad hominem. It is a fact. If it makes you feel better, I'll change the spelling.

Greg said...

I only disagree with Goldstein in one aspect. There is in fact no human caused global warming, proven by the fact that we have now had 10 years of either cooling, or steady temperatures. The models that Kyoto alarmists used to scam the world all predicted a steady rise. Why can't they admit their models are wrong, and let's start preparing for the inevitable continuing cooling. That is after all more dangerous to all life.

Alberta Girl said...

"Sorry after spending years denying that global warming was occuring, the likes of Goldstein and Harper don't get to lecture the rest of us about what is moderate and reasonable"

Um Wayward, sorry but you and your ilk DO NOT get to lecture me about what is moderate and reasonable. For the last few years, the left has been lecturing and tut-tutting those of us who have lived long enough in this world to have seen the "climate" change many times over. Global warming has given way to global cooling and back again.

Sorry if it makes one a little cycnical when those with an agenda take the rest of us to task.

Man is certainly having an impact on this globe, how could he/she not. But maybe we need to look at the whole picture. Mother Nature is a cyclical beast. The law of nature is what goes up must come down.

This past March in Albeta is like the March's I remember - some cold days, very little snow, mostly sunny and spring like. The past six March's have been bitterly cold, -20's for the whole month, lots of snow (much like they are getting down east this year).

So what does that mean Wayward - does it mean global warming in the west and global cooling in the east. What exactly does it mean.

Well Wayward - it means the climate "changes" spring will come, followed by summer and on and one.

Do I believe in "global warming" as presented by the left, the Fruit Fly Guy, The Failed President and the Kyoto Cultists? Not on your life.

Do I believe in climate change - yes, because is is a natural occuring phenomonen.

Why don't you actually do the level of research on the whole "global warming" issue that Lorrie has done and then see if you aren't just a little bit skeptical.

Or you can continue to believe the headlines without doing your own thinking on the matter and stay in the dark thinking that every warm up and cool down is the prognostication of doom.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Gabby, thanks for the laugh!!

Roy Eappen said...

The left has decided yet another debate is over. Its better to smear their opponents.

Gabby in QC said...

Glad you enjoyed it, Joanne.

Lefties are usually anti-corporation and anti-profits, yet they have embarked on this Kyoto Kult (please don’t change it, Joanne) and expect everyone else to adhere unquestioningly to their exhortations and reprimands.

Well, I hate to break it to them, the “greening” projects are just more good ol’ capitalist marketing tools.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/41392
"Westport Wash & Wax proudly bills itself as the only solar-powered carwash in the state of Connecticut. The proprietors, brothers Craig and Scott Tiefenthaler, have just covered the roof of their business with 18 panels. The total cost: $21,000, with the state's taxpayers footing 60 percent of the bill.

This sort of behavior drives economists and global-warming skeptics to distraction. Even with the massive government subsidy, it'll take seven years for the owners to recoup their investment. And on sunny days, the panels provide only enough juice to run the shop's refrigerators and lights. "To run my main motors, I'd need a city block of solar panels," says Craig."

Hey, if more people buy more "energy-efficient" appliances BUILT IN CANADA, it's OK by me.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

yet they have embarked on this Kyoto Kult (please don’t change it, Joanne)

O.K. It's changed again. ;)

Gabby in QC said...

I just had an “aha!” moment:

http://tinyurl.com/23extf VIA http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/wblogolitics

“France's ambassador to Canada was in Calgary on Wednesday night to present Klein with the Legion of Honour for his role in nurturing ties between Alberta and France, which invests in the province's oilsands.”

I wonder what Mssrs. Dion and Duceppe, who constantly accuse the Conservatives of favouring “les petrolières” have to say about that!?

Rositta said...

I guess they'll have to lock me up then. Anybody out there offended by the new commercials using small children to berate us? ...ciao

Alberta Girl said...

"I guess they'll have to lock me up then. Anybody out there offended by the new commercials using small children to berate us? ...ciao"

ME!!!

hunter said...

I do everything I can to preserve the piece of earth I live on, that is why Conservatives have conserve in their name. We are naturally more in tune with our environment.

Why are most farmers conservative? They work with the earth everyday, it is their life, they understand nature and are closely tied to it. They know that CO2 is not a pollutant, it is necessary for good crops.

Then you have the latte sipping city dwellers, they think food comes from the freezer section of the supermarket. They support Kyoto because it is cool and trendy, not because it makes sense. They are non-thinkers, they are followers, they have never had an independent thought in their sorry little lives. They are unproductive, they have never shoveled sh*t in their lives, and never actually plucked the chicken they are about to eat.

They talk big, and do nothing. Why haven't any of these Kyoto Kult Kritters invented a car that runs on garbage? They can't, they don't have the brain power to do much more than protest.

Think I'm being too tough on the lefties? Try finding an intelligent NDP supporter, I've tried, haven't found one yet.

Ruth said...

Hunter - you are so right about the farmers. Thanks for saying it.

Wayward Son said...

Greg – “I only disagree with Goldstein in one aspect. There is in fact no human caused global warming, proven by the fact that we have now had 10 years of either cooling, or steady temperatures.”
Yes 1998 was very warm with the huge el-Niño spiked global temperatures. In fact at the time scientists said that year was so out of whack that it was an indication of the types of temperature that would be common 20 years down the road. Since then we have two years with matching temperatures so they were right, although perhaps as usual too conservative. 8 or 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have still occurred in the last 10 years. It takes some real idiocy to claim that temperatures are either cooling or steady. If scientists based their science on a single year starting point 10 years ago, they would rightly be dismissed completely. The same goes for when deniers pull their crap.

“The models that Kyoto alarmists used to scam the world all predicted a steady rise. Why can't they admit their models are wrong, and let's start preparing for the inevitable continuing cooling. That is after all more dangerous to all life.”
Their models predict a slow steady rise which is happening just as their models have predicted.

Alberta Girl “Um Wayward, sorry but you and your ilk DO NOT get to lecture me about what is moderate and reasonable. For the last few years, the left has been lecturing and tut-tutting those of us who have lived long enough in this world to have seen the "climate" change many times over. Global warming has given way to global cooling and back again.”
Um AG, I couldn’t give a crap what the left lectures, I care about what the science says – its is unanimous and strong enough that anyone who actually bothers to look into it, instead of just trying to track down conspiracy theories, quickly understands how strong that evidence is. Doesn’t matter how skeptical they are – such as Goldstein, the skeptic society, skeptical inquiry etc – if they look into it anyone can quickly tell not only how overwhelming the evidence actually is, but also how quickly they can recognize how ridiculous the lies of the deniers are.
And scientists never said that we were heading towards global cooling. Those who believe such nonsense can go back and research the science journals from the 70s. If they do so they will find that the only mention of global cooling is the science journals mocking Newsweek for doing a cover story on global cooling based on poor science. Even then you will find lots on global warming, not global cooling.

“Sorry if it makes one a little cycnical when those with an agenda take the rest of us to task.”
Science’s agenda is science and evidence, nothing else. Those with the agenda are those spreading non-science and nonsense both on the left and right.
“Man is certainly having an impact on this globe, how could he/she not. But maybe we need to look at the whole picture. Mother Nature is a cyclical beast. The law of nature is what goes up must come down.”
Science has been looking at the whole picture and they understand it very well.
“So what does that mean Wayward - does it mean global warming in the west and global cooling in the east. What exactly does it mean.”
It means the same thing that it did a year ago. The global temperature continues to slowly rise and claiming that it is not due to one area having a season or two at traditional temperatures is as ridiculous as claiming that a freak weather event proves global warming. Something Goldstein and I agree on.
“Why don't you actually do the level of research on the whole "global warming" issue that Lorrie has done and then see if you aren't just a little bit skeptical.”
I have likely done 100 times the research that Goldstein has done. It was about 15 years ago that my father and uncles (conservative farmers – who by the way have been embarrassed these last couple years by the conservative position on global warming to the point of several of them either not voting or voting for another party ) showed me the evidence for global warming on their farms. I have easily read hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers on global warming as well as just about every book skeptical of global warming (until about a year ago when I stopped bothering reading the nonsense) and I have had the pleasure of watching most of the prominent deniers evolve their position from one of denial to one of acceptance. I am sure that I could do the level of research that Goldstein did in a weekend which I suspect – based on the timing and positions that resulted from his research – consisted of reading Lomborg’s book “Cool It.” Not, that there is anything wrong that. Lomborg is a brilliant man who I have long admired. The solutions I support are much closer to the way that Lomborg advises us to deal with climate change, than the Kyoto protocol.
“Or you can continue to believe the headlines without doing your own thinking on the matter and stay in the dark thinking that every warm up and cool down is the prognostication of doom.”
I don’t care about the newspaper headlines, I read the most prestigious science journals in the world: Science, and Nature. Both of them have peer reviewed articles on global warming almost every week.
Roy – “The left has decided yet another debate is over. Its better to smear their opponents.”
There is little sense paying attention to the likes of Milloy. He is a shill for oil and tobacco. I would stick to those who have some credibility such as Lomborg, Spencer and Christy and the Pielke’s.
Anyways, I only got to first sentence of your link Dr. Roy where Milloy said:
“By any standard, atmospheric physicist Dr. S. Fred Singer is a remarkably accomplished scientist.”
Hilarious. Singer will say whatever those who are paying him tell him too. Whether that is that cigarette smoke is actually good for you, or that global warming is not happening, or that it is happening but we are not the cause, blah, blah, blah. How many times has he changed his position on global warming? Even the respectable global warming critics consider Singer to be a complete embarrassment.
Gabby – “Lefties are usually anti-corporation and anti-profits, yet they have embarked on this Kyoto Kult (please don’t change it, Joanne) and expect everyone else to adhere unquestioningly to their exhortations and reprimands.”
The scientists are not lefties (or righties for that matter), nor are the best solutions all lefty ones. Part of this tragedy is that “righties” have been so busy trying to convince themselves through manipulating evidence and tracking down nonsense to confirm their belief that global warming is a conspiracy theory that the issue became solely left wing. Go back to Montreal and it was Mulroney, Thatcher and Bush Sr. who were ones pushing for a solution, while many on the left were screaming that this whole global warming was some colonialist conspiracy to keep the third world from developing. Since that time more and more from the right decided that they were more interested in the bizarre ranting of some pretend scientists on Exxon’s payroll than actually attempting to understand the science.
Hunter – “They talk big, and do nothing. Why haven't any of these Kyoto Kult Kritters invented a car that runs on garbage?”
A car that runs on garbage would most likely be a very poor idea – significant emissions many of them very toxic especially at the comparatively lower combustion temperatures of a car engine. A much better solution is more and more efficient hybrids in which each model uses a lower percentage of gasoline and a higher percentage of electricity, with the increasing electricity needs coming from nuclear fission in the near term, while in the long term mostly from nuclear fusion supplemented by more efficient solar and wind.

Alberta Girl said...

"Those who believe such nonsense can go back and research the science journals from the 70s. If they do so they will find that the only mention of global cooling is the science journals mocking Newsweek for doing a cover story on global cooling based on poor science. Even then you will find lots on global warming, not global cooling."

Well Wayward, I don't know how old you are, but I was actually around in the 70's and remember quite clearly being taught that we were entering another ice age and the biggest proponent of that theory was none other than the Fruit Fly Guy himself.

I realize you have tried to impress us with your apparent learned mind, but you are focusing on only certain parts of climate change. Why don't you try listening to Dr. Tim Ball or any one of the multitude of true climate scientists who debunk the whole kyoto/global warming as junk science.

I know, I know - they are in the pockets of BIG OIL - what a bunch of hooey, wayward.

Why don't you get down off the pedestal you have put yourself on and do a bit more reading on the other side - open your mind and think about things.

Like I said, Wayward, I have seen climate change backwards and forwards - that is what it does.

So instead of jumping on the global warming bandwagon and playing like we are helping Mother Earth by turning off a few lights, why don't we focus our attention on the things that will really matter in this world.

For instance, why don't you talk to your farmer relatives about not clearing every stick of trees off their land or draining every slough so they can manouvre their big machinery around their fields, or working on reparian practices for our water sources.

There is soooo much more to our climate that turning off some lights or driving an SUV is not going to make a hill of beans in Saving our Planet.

Moderate and Reasonable, Wayward, is using common sense and weighting ALL sides of the debate, listening to the real scientists, not just jumping onto the left wing band wagon. Moderate and Reasonable is realizing that the science that says that 8-9 of the last 10 years have been the hottest is bunk.

Hopefully you will do that when you get a bit older.

Anonymous said...

http://www.alternet.org/water/77501/ these are 2 alternet articles that, oh I dont know who or what a person is to believe .the last link should be the one most intrested as the guy really should know ....katou
http://www.alternet.org/environment/80508/

Wayward Son said...

Alberta Girl - "Why don't you try listening to Dr. Tim Ball or any one of the multitude of true climate scientists who debunk the whole kyoto/global warming as junk science."

I figured that a comment this ignorant was coming. I would love to listen to Ball if he had anything to say, but he doesn't. First he is not a climate scientist, although he claims to have earned the first PhD in climatology in Canada. He didn't earn the first and in fact he doesn't have a PhD in climatology. Other than that when was the last time that he published anything (on climate change or otherwise)? I think about 1984. Furthermore I have listened to Tim Ball in interviews and I understand fully why he avoids publishing, because what he says is so easily proved wrong that I have no doubt that he knows full well he is lying, but doesn't care. It is pretty simple if Tim Ball actually believes the nonsense that comes out of his mouth he should write it down - publish it, so that way the rest of world can see how wrong the 99.99% of real scientists are. Of course we know that isn't going to happen because when Tim Ball speaks he bases his talks off getting even the simpliest science completely wrong and he knows he can get away with that in his lectures and interviews because he understands that his audience doesn't have even a basic amount of science knowledge that would allow them to see through his lies.

I would love to see your list of other climate scientists who debunk global warming. Oh gee who is going to be on it? The other professional deniers who went from being funded by big tobacco to being funded by big oil. Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen.

Wayward Son said...

Alberta Girl - "Moderate and Reasonable, Wayward, is using common sense and weighting ALL sides of the debate,"

I agree. I have and still do that. You on the other hand know so little that you think Tim Ball is an authority.

"listening to the real scientists,"

Really? What real scientists have you listened to. So far it appears to be zero.

"not just jumping onto the left wing band wagon."

Haven't jumped on the left wing band wagon, but nice to see that you have your seat on the right-wing conspiracy nonsense band wagon.

"Moderate and Reasonable is realizing that the science that says that 8-9 of the last 10 years have been the hottest is bunk."

Bunk? Says who? Not even the most known climate skeptics in the world such as Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer or John Christy would deny the obvious scientific facts.

Do you actually look into anything you say, or do you just regurgitate Tim Ball's lies?

Alberta Girl said...

"You on the other hand know so little that you think Tim Ball is an authority."

And there you have it Wayward, With that one sentence, you have shown that you have been snookered by the pseudo-scientists.

Tell me, Wayward, if Tim Ball is such a dolt WHY will none of the scientists who espouse the Global Warming Theory debate him. The challenge is out there.

If he lies then you would think that the global warming scientists, any of them, would gleefully debate him to out his lies?

It is obvious that your reading has Not been well rounded, Wayward.

Have fun in the dark.

Wayward Son said...

"And there you have it Wayward, With that one sentence, you have shown that you have been snookered by the pseudo-scientists."

Good logic there. Me actually listening to the 99.9% of scientists is being snookered by pseudo-scientists. I think that you should look up what pseudoscience is - as a hint it is a body of knowledge that is claimed to be scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method and lacks supporting evidence or plausibility. That fits the global warming deniers to a T. They have not provided any evidence to support their claims. They do not publish research to support their claims. They are more interested in public relations than evidence.

"Tell me, Wayward, if Tim Ball is such a dolt WHY will none of the scientists who espouse the Global Warming Theory debate him. The challenge is out there."

Several months ago I waited in anticipation for the debate between Prof Dressler and Tim Ball. Ball didn't show. Furthermore Dressler has continued to make himself available to debate Ball anytime, with no luck.

"If he lies then you would think that the global warming scientists, any of them, would gleefully debate him to out his lies?"

Actually it doesn't work that way. It is very hard for people to debate Holocaust deniers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, young earth creationists etc. Global warming deniers belong in the same group. The reason why it is hard is because the debates never actually have anything to do with facts or evidence. The conspiracy theorists know that their best strategy is to continually change the subject, rapid fire claims (in which their is no chance to answer one question before a completely unrelated one is asked, and then another unrelated one etc) and throw out wild acusations out of the blue.

There is a reason why someone like Micheal Shermer who is the head of the skeptic society and founder of skeptic magazine does extremely well debating young earth creationists, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, holocaust deniers and global warming deniers, whereas experts in those fields do less well. That is because the experts spend their time examining the evidence and pay little attention to the baloney that conspiracy theorists spout because it is a waste of their time, and they have to spend a lot of time preparing not to debate global warming or the holocaust or whatever the topic is, but how to debate conspiracy theorists. Whereas Shermer is not an expert in any of those fields but is an expert in debating conspiracy theorists and understands how they work because in each case their tactics are the exact same.

"It is obvious that your reading has Not been well rounded, Wayward."

Well at least, unlike you, I have read something. It is pretty simple - let me know when the first global warming denier comes up with a single piece of evidence.

Alberta Girl said...

"Several months ago I waited in anticipation for the debate between Prof Dressler and Tim Ball. Ball didn't show. Furthermore Dressler has continued to make himself available to debate Ball anytime, with no luck."

Roy Green has a standing invitation for any global warming theorist to come on to his show and debate Tim Ball. None have taken him up on it.

We will have to agree to DISAGREE on this one wayward.

Call me a denier if you will, but I believe the so-called science used to produce the theory of global warming is flawed and has been manipulated to show something that is not happening.

And as to your comment about changing the subject, I just had to laugh about that one because it is the global warming theorists that I would lump in with the 9-11 conspiracy theorists.

The wonderful thing about the internet is that you just have to type in a topic and voila, up comes lots of data to support the fact that the last 10 years have NOT been the hottest.

Try typing in "temperatures in the 1930's" and see what comes up. Might give you some interesting reading.

Wayward Son said...

"Roy Green has a standing invitation for any global warming theorist to come on to his show and debate Tim Ball. None have taken him up on it."

Never heard of Roy Green. Don't care. Tim Ball said he there to debate Dressler - never showed up.

"Call me a denier if you will,"

I do.

"but I believe the so-called science used to produce the theory of global warming is flawed and has been manipulated to show something that is not happening."

I have been waiting for a denier - andy denier - to show how the theory of global warming is flawed and how it is being manipulated. So far nothing.

"And as to your comment about changing the subject, I just had to laugh about that one because it is the global warming theorists that I would lump in with the 9-11 conspiracy theorists."

Completely wrong. Most of the more prominent founding 9/11 conspiracy theorists are longtime global warming deniers. For instance Alex Jones who is considered the father of the 9/11 conspiracy movement has been making global warming denial videos for years. You can also mark him done for being prominent in the other conspiracy movements I mentioned above. He is far from the only one. Many have ties to multiple conspiracy movements. Many denied that there were any health risks from smoking, etc. It is fairly simple they represent a denial of evidence, whether it be denial of the evidence for global warming, cigarettes and cancer, 9/11, the holocaust. One big happy family which all grows from the same rotten core.

"The wonderful thing about the internet is that you just have to type in a topic and voila, up comes lots of data to support the fact that the last 10 years have NOT been the hottest.

Try typing in "temperatures in the 1930's" and see what comes up. Might give you some interesting reading."

One great thing about the internet is that it is easy to find lies. No years from the 1930s are in the top 20, let alone the top 10 - none. We are talking about global warming. Maybe I should highlight the world GLOBAL. That the US had some hot years in the 1930s does not mean the whole world was hot - because it wasn't.

Here is the 20 hottest years up to 2005. (1998 is listed as the second hottest, but it is actually the hottest - although considered a statistical tie with 2005. Since the time this was published 2006 has been ranked #2 and 2007 #8 so essentially the consensus is that the 10 hottest years globally are, in order:

1998
2006
2005
2002
2003
2004
2001
2007
1997
1990

Again, almost no prominent climate skeptics deny this (Lindzen, Michaels, Spencer, Christy etc) - they can't it is their in plain black and white. The conspiracy theorists though they can and will deny anything and everything.

Wayward Son said...

forgot to leave the link:

http://homepages.wmich.edu/~karowe/UCS%20global%20warming%20fact%20sheet%20January%202006.pdf

Alberta Girl said...

Well Wayward - for every Stat you pull up showing that it exists, I can pull one that shows it doesn't.

http://amerpundit.com/2007/08/09/nasa-revises-temperature-data-1998-now-behind-1934-as-hottest/

"Today, the GISS admitted that McIntyre was correct, and has started to republish its data with the bug fixed. And the numbers are changing a lot. Before today, GISS would have said 1998 was the hottest year on record (Mann, remember, said with up to 99% certainty it was the hottest year in 1000 years) and that 2006 was the second hottest. Well, no more. Here are the new rankings for the 10 hottest years in the US, starting with #1:

1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939

Three of the top 10 are in the last decade. Four of the top ten are in the 1930’s, before either the IPCC or the GISS really think man had any discernible impact on temperatures. "

This debate will not be settled on Joannes Blog (not that we wouldn't love that, Joanne), I note that you dismiss, rather haughtily, I might add, anything that negates your view of the theory.

If your guy is so gung ho to debate Tim Ball, have him go to the Roy Green Show on Chorus radio and set it up.

Anyhoo Wayward, this is repititious - we will not agree on this so - at the risk of you saying I am "changing the subject", I am ending this exchange.

Wayward Son said...

"Well Wayward - for every Stat you pull up showing that it exists, I can pull one that shows it doesn't."

Those are for the US. It clearly shows that if you click to the link where the blogger got his info. Furthermore the top 11 US temperatures didn't change, they just got rearranged. For instance before the change Hansen had always referred to 1998 and 1934 in the US as a statistical tie, although it showed 1998 as ever so slightly warmer. After the change 1998 and 1934 are still a statistical tie, although it shows 1934 as ever so slightly warmer.

The blog article gets much wrong because it seems to like most Conservatives believe that the whole world consists of the US.

"This debate will not be settled on Joannes Blog (not that we wouldn't love that, Joanne), I note that you dismiss, rather haughtily, I might add, anything that negates your view of the theory."

No I negate it because I took the time to seriously research what the deniers say and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

"If your guy is so gung ho to debate Tim Ball, have him go to the Roy Green Show on Chorus radio and set it up."

He already set up a debate with Ball and Ball didn't show. If Ball wants to debate then he can set it up this time. Experience, leaves me suspect that Ball is more interested in making people think that he will debate anyone, but the reality is he won't in the end.