aTTP

"Huh? I was just commenting on how I'm no longer surprised that people who frequent (postively, that is) a site where the norm is to malign, insult, and make all sorts of accusations of misconduct against those with whom they disagree, start clutching pearls when anyone with whom they disagree says anything that they regard as remotely unacceptable.
Apr 11, 2016 at 8:46 PM | ...and Then There's Physics"

Perhaps you could have a private word with Entropic Man? Is that what Lewandowsky advised you on, when you have co-authored with him, and other MudSlingers

"Clarity of meaning in IPCC press conference" Authors : Peter Jacobs, Hunter Cutting, Stephan Lewandowsky, Miriam O'Brien, Ken Rice, Bart Verheggen

In line with Entropic Man's allegations, and follow the money, just who benefitted financially from this team of experts?

Goodness gracious. Just read or re-read yesterdays and last night's posts. What did I unleash? I am reminded of a rugby match where two players initially square off, followed by alterations all over the field. We have a most tolerant referee.

I also am sin binning myself regarding EM

Despite my, and other people's, resolve not to debate with EM, I believe we all owe him a debt for keeping this thread going, and keeping it lively. This must constitute one of the longest threads here, and on geology sensu lato. Who'd have thought it possible. Credit must also go to Dung for initiating it.

Alan,
I was simply surprised that you would get so worked up about EM supposedly maligning an unidentified colleague, when you're on a site where there are probably plenty of examples of potentially malicious comments about identified colleagues.

golf,

In line with Entropic Man's allegations, and follow the money, just who benefitted financially from this team of experts?

aTTP. As I have said on another thread, when I complained about the tone of debate on this site, one can always hope for improvement. I have discovered, by reading past threads on this site (many of which I would have loved to contribute to) and comparing it with others, that this is one of the liveliest but also one of the most courteous.

You were correct to call me out about my final post directed at EM, I should not have called his mental health into question. I did it because I was concerned that he seemed to be compounding his error by making additional scurrilous accusations, which (in my view) was hardly wise.

So I apologize to EM for making unnecessarily unkind comments.

(See EM, it's not that difficult).

Alan,
I did not realise that you had commented on the tone of the site. I have too, at times, with little success :-) I am impressed by your response. It is rare to see such a response and I often wish it were not. It's pretty easy to get frustrated and to say things one later regrets (I've done so many times). A more charitable approach to others would improve things markedly. I do try, but I don't always succeed.

aTTP

It is good when opponents can meet on a level playing field - even if altercations (not alterations, as in 6.38am
: damn spell checker) erupt all over it.

So long as we don't play hockey!

Failure to resolve the well documented 8200 y event is one of the reasons Marcott is not considered robust by many Paleoclimatologists.

The 8.2 ka event, was first discovered in the Greenland ice core GISP2, where high-resolution analyses indicate that over two decades temperature cooled about 3.3°C in Greenland (Alley et al., 1997; Kobashi et al., 2007). There is clear evidence from lake and ocean sediments that European climate was affected, with temperatures dropping about 2°C. Evidence exists from speleothems, ocean sediments and an ice core that parts of the tropics became drier. Shrinking of tropical wetlands in a drier climate might also explain the 10-15% drop in atmospheric methane that is recorded in air bubbles of Greenland ice cores (Alley et al., 1997).
See also:-
Hu et al. (1999), sediment data from Deep Lake, Minnesota
Von Grafenstein et al. (1998), stable isotope data from Ammersee in Germany
Hughen et al. (2000), sediment grayscale from core PL07-58PC in the Cariaco Basin
Dean et al. (2002), varve record from Elk Lake, Minnesota
Lachniet et al. (2004), speleothem δ18O and δ13C measurements from Venado Cave, Costa Rica
Ellison et al. (2006), sediment data from Core MD99-2251 in the North Atlantic
Thomas et al. (2007), high resolution δ18O measurements from Greenland ice cores
Kobashi et al. (2007), methane and δ15N measurements from the GISP2 ice core

Maybe someday you will summon up the courage to publicly own your opinions under your real name. That is something I decided to learn from Anthony Watts

This would be the same Watts who for years allowed Dave Stealey to moderate (delay, edit, delete) threads while the same Dave Stealey posted as 'Smokey', a vociferous and outspoken mouthpiece for the WUWT party line on the very same threads?

I struggle to imagine a clearer case of double standards, even Steve McIntyre had the grace to confess to his 'Nigel Persaud' sockpuppet once it was exposed.

Odd choice for a champion of online integrity.

If I were to mention names like Soon, or Lomborg, or Ball, or Happer, or Plimer, or Salby, or even Pielke or Curry or Lindzen

Soon - coauthor of a paper so flawed, half the board of the journal who published it felt constrained to resign.
Ball - co-author of the ludicrous 'Slaying the Sky Dragon' nonsense. Sued the Calgary Herald for libel, but dropped the suit when the defendents claimed 'The Plantiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.” Truth being a defence against libel.
Plimer - claims inter alia, that volcanic CO2 emissions are higher than manmade.
Salby - according to NSF displayed 'a pattern of deception [and] a lack of integrity" in his handling of federal grant money' Dismissed for misuse of resources and professional misconduct. Believes net natural CO2 emissions are greater than manmade. Shall we say, a 'minority' viewpoint? LOL.

Not many Galileos, there.

Phil Clarke you seem to be implying, from your criticism of others with opposite beliefs, that human CO2 emissions exceed natural ones. Categorized by you as a "minority position". Given that the entire biosphere emits CO2 at night, how can this be so? What explains the huge yearly variations in atmospheric CO2? Surely humankind does not down tools seasonally in the northern hemisphere?

Please consider these questions to be rhetorical.

Alan,
What are you suggesting? Net human emissions do exceed net natural emissions. The rise in atmospheric CO2 is almost entirely anthropogenic. Are you disputing this?

I should perhaps, have been clearer, by 'net' I mean natural emissions minus natural sinks, which are in rough, if dynamic, equilibrium, the carbon basically moving between the reservoirs of ocean, biosphere and atmosphere until sequestered in long term stores, such as carbonate rocks.

How powerful is a small three-letter word that I in my hubris missed. Phil is correct, it is a minority position. It would seem to be my day for apologies and groveling.

Um, defamation is all about reputation, hence perceptions are important. The fuller extract reads

50. The Defendants (the Calgary Herald) state that the Plaintiff (Ball) never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming. The particulars of the Plaintiff's reputation are as follows:

(a) The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming;

(b) The Plaintiff has published no papers on climatology in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as a Professor in 1996;

(c) The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media; and

(d) The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.

Ouch. Ball was suing for defamation and loss of earnings to the tune of 325K, but faced with this robust defence, he folded.

Statement of Defence

And why not? Human consumption of fossil fuels has risen exponentially; CO2 rise has not

If you genuinely dispute the anthropogenic origin of the rise in CO2, you need to explain

1. Where has the manmade CO2 gone? We know, with good accuracy, how much coal, oil and gas has been consumed and by how much this will raise concentrations. In fact the observed rise is considerably less as some of our 'excess' has gone into the oceans and other natural reservoirs.

2. Why the proportion of atmospheric CO2 with the isotopic signature indicating fossil fuel origins has increased?

I see that someone has been reading Sceptical Science..... Yawn

Ah, yes, Diogenes, the first cynic.

I name James Hansen, whose latest paper is subjected to ridicule by various folk, and Michael Mann, whose papers were made for wiping. His latest paper seemed to use proxies used by Soon, except he used them better. Climate science never stops giving. And the accepted climate scientists never stop talking. Just fuck off, Hansen.....

Phil, I would do what most warmuvists do, make shit up. That's what Hansen does. You can get some serious tattoo time while you work amongst yourselves to resolve what the problem is.

Just fuck off, Hansen....

Diogenes

Regrettably the changes in the climte system are not are not imaginary. Greenland is one example. The Indian heatwave is another.

Take off your Zaphod Beelebrox danger-sensitive sunglasses and look at the reality.