Ravishing Rattie. I understand that much of the land reclamation work in Bangladesh is both funded and supported by technical support from the Netherlands.

a little gem stolen from Tim Ball speaking of WG-2: 'This report identified all the negative effects of warming like a cost/benefit analysis that only considers the cost'.

Try reading it for yourself, even one of the summaries, then come back and report on Ball's honesty.

Sorry, Phil, all the ARs are arsed.
========

Charged with determining man's role in climate, they quickly came to actively suppressing natural change. And then things got even worse when the financiers and politicians saw opportunities for further corruption. They've been an extraordinarily costly and destructive mistake.

But you are a true believer; I'll not persuade you.
==============

When Phil Clarke accuses others of lying, he probably is.

Neither Phil Clarke or EM know why sea levels were higher in the past.

Nobody can explain how Gergis 2016 got through peer review, and received such high praise from 97% of Climate Science experts.

The Paris Agreement can simply be declared void ab initio.

Plus ca change.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/01/fact-check-failures-by-ucsusa-scientists-amplified-and-abetted-by-pliant-media/

Apparently someone is expressing dissatisfaction with the quality of Climate Science

Golf Charlie

Neither Phil Clarke or EM know why sea levels were higher in the past.

Actually it is trivial. There is a relatively constant amount of water on Earth. Some is frozen on land, some is liquid in the oceans.

Warmer global climates have less land ice and more liquid water, so sea level is higher.

Colder global climates have more land ice and less liquid water, so sea level is lower.

Any forcing which changes temperature will change sea level.

There are a few extra complexities. For example, you only get ice ages and -120 M sea levels when there is land or an enclosed ocean at both poles and large permanent land ice sheets can form.

Radical Rodent

Start by providing evidence for the first statement in your 4.12 post and continue until the last statement in your 4.48 post.

I will take as inaccurate any statement for which you cannot produce supporting evidence.

Radical Rodent

You really do not understand science, do you?

I would appear to understand science better than you.

Only someone ignorant of science would write

blockquotee>yet more proof of AGW

Science does not do proof.

EM, so if it is so simple, what has caused sea level to rise and fall in the past? Do you think the steady rise in sea level is anything to do with man, and do you think we can halt it?

I see the old sea cliff of Portsdown Hill most days, along with Portsmouth, Hayling Island, and occasionally Thorney Island aswell. They are all glorified mud flats left exposed following a drop in sea level, much like Bangladesh.

When in history was the correct sea level?

com.ibm.isd.DEV_Confused_DGT.qed

Kim, anyone relying on Dr Ball for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is a naïve fool, in my opinion. There exists a long history of medacity and his statements about WG2 are so easily falsified that it really is not worth the effort and yet here you are parrotting them without the benefit of a hint of scepticism. Not a good look. As for the corruption of the IPCC process, well, it is real

The drafting of reports by the world’s pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For many months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel’s reports are extremely conservative – even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be.

Then, when all is settled among the scientists, the politicians sweep in and seek to excise from the summaries anything which threatens their interests. While the US government has traditionally been the scientists’ chief opponent, this time the assault was led by Saudi Arabia, supported by China and Russia

The scientists fight back, but they always have to make some concessions. The report released on Friday, for example, was shorn of the warning that “North America is expected to experience locally severe economic damage, plus substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from climate change related events”(3). David Wasdell, an accredited reviewer for the panel, claims that the summary of the science the IPCC published in February was purged of most of its references to “positive feedbacks”: climate change accelerating itself.

This is the opposite of the story endlessly repeated in the right-wing press: that the IPCC, in collusion with governments, is conspiring to exaggerate the science. No one explains why governments should seek to amplify their own failures. In the wacky world of the climate conspiracists, no explanations are required. The world’s most conservative scientific body has somehow been transformed into a cabal of screaming demagogues.

http://www.monbiot.com/2007/04/10/the-real-climate-censorship/

Em, correction for you. Climate Science is incapable of providing proof.

Climate Science keeps trying to find proof and fails. What was the point in Gergis 2016? Has anyone of the 97% of climate scientists actually thanked the non climate scientists who found the flaws that all the expert climate scientists including peer reviewers couldn't?

If Climate Science does not need proof, then every penny spent on proving it, and writing reports about it has been a waste of money. Taxpayer funding should halt, as there is nothing to prove.

If you want to resort to Lewandowsky philosophy about what climate science does not need to do, please continue. After all, if all taxpayer funding for climate science stopped, would anybody notice? Or care?

Nothing will ever be missed about climate science once it is returned to niche corners of academic research.

Heh, Monbiot, AKA Moonbat. Read the small example @ gc's 10:13 comment.
==========

McIntyre is not a professional scientist, but a retired Canadian mining engineer. Neither is he - not that it should matter; play the ball, not the man - an oil-industry lobbyist, or career contrarian, or knee-jerk libertarian, or right-winger of any kind. 'In American terms,' he will let slip once, 'Canada would be a blue state along the lines of Massachusetts; Toronto would be a liberal city in a blue state; and I live downtown in one of the most liberal constituencies in the city. None of this is unrelated to my political views.'

His expertise being in mining, he knows a dodgy prospectus when he sees one. He sees one in the Mann paper that provided the infamous hockey stick. Out of curiosity at first, for the hell of it, he decides to 'audit' the numbers behind the AGW theory, and finds himself carrying on when he realises to his concern that no-one else is.

He is the perfect foil for these rude, arrogant, amour-propre-sensitive, increasingly macho men. He is unfailingly, superhumanly polite - confirming my theory that politeness is actually a great way of annoying people, in particular the people who don't deserve any. At times he will show the humility of a monk in his dealings with the AGW proponents - or perhaps say that of Chesterton's Father Brown. In contrast to the policy on Real Climate, the pro-AGW website the Mann-CRU gang will set up to respond to him and others, where opposing views disappear into a memory-hole [see below], the only people he censors on his website Climate Audit are his own supporters, when he feels they have transgressed the rules of polite debate and are insulting his opponents. No invective. No venting. Just the facts, Ma'am. Once in a long while when particularly frustrated and goaded he will indulge briefly in satire, calm but lacerating; when he does it's like when you punch a Buddhist monk in the face, thinking they won't hit you back, and they just nod and smile, so you keep punching them, and they keep smiling, and then you punch once too often and all of a sudden there's a blur of movement and they've kicked one of your kidneys out, still smiling.

Of course, in obedience to Gore Vidal's dictum that the ascetic is always accused of licentiousness, the philanthropist of being a miser, the Mann-CRU axis - the Hockey Team, as they dub themselves - will with a straight face and perfect indignation accuse McIntyre of being unmannerly and impudent in his pronouncements and his communications with them, his terse calm formal requests for data to enable him to replicate their work, a basic requirement of respectable science. He will be called a gadfly, a dilettante. His Majesty James Hansen, originator of the theory of manmade global warming, will say, of his refusal to engage with him and his like, that he will not 'joust with jesters'.

They will refuse his requests for data. They will stall and give him the runaround. They will use every excuse in the book, break the rules of scientific ethics and the laws of the land. They will call him names and spread lies about him. It doesn't matter. He wins in the end and will kill their hockey-stick, the forged sole fingerprint of man's responsibility for fluctuations in the mighty machine of nature, the badge of breath-taking arrogance and breast-beating species guilt, not once but, due to its continued miraculous resurrection, again and again and again.

And for the sake of the example to future generations, if we win this fight, we should take an infinitesimal fraction of the money we would have pissed away chasing a demon that is one of the basic building blocks of life and erect a statue to him somewhere, on the burned-out ruins of the CRU campus would be good, slapping him briskly across his blushing Canadian face every time he says no.

http://michaelkelly.artofeurope.com/cru.htm

Clipe. A wonderful image - "statue to him somewhere, on the burned-out ruins of the CRU campus", although his presence within an intact building devoted to doing good science might be more appropriate and fitting.

A Mass extinction event for Climate Science, now seems inevitable. They have failed to evolve and adapt, as their original scare stories have failed, and all the new ones are just awash with old debris.

The King Cnuts never wanted to know why sea levels have been going up and down in recorded history, let alone the previous millions of years.

Climate Science has had so much money, they can afford to build their own floating bunker to survive the coming flood. NOAA's Ark can then be towed and left mid Ocean, for 40 years, and 40 more years, so that the rest of the population can get on with living, and Climate Science can be forgotten about, apart from people writing essays about the dangers of letting selfish lying idiots rule the world.

RR. My post regarding the Dutch in Bangladesh was just meant to be informative, for interest only. I actually thought it to be a simply wonderful development.
These stories of sea level doom keep appearing and keep getting knocked down. They keep being resurrected because sea level rise is really the only viable scare story that AGW has with the potential to cause humans real harm, but it is untrue and therefore won't.

Tim 'First Climate Phd in Canada' Ball again? The linked piece is typically full of Ballsups, such as the claim that the term Climate Change was introduced in 2004, when the IPCC was formed a decade earlier. (Check out also the infamous Frank Luntz memo). He thinks Stonehenge was built during the Holocene Optimum, which occurred 6,000 years earlier, he claims temperatures during construction were warmer than today using a debunked graph of the Greenland GISP2 ice core of Alley et al, firstly he gets the dating wrong, secondly Alley himself says using the data in this way is ' stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible."

More balls from Balls. I refer you to my words at 12.49.

ACK, the Dutch have been the experts in reclaiming land from the sea for 5-600 (?) years. They have adapted and modified techniques and materials over the centuries, and over the most recent decades, have really applied themselves to modern technology on a large scale.

Sailing/boating on the inland waterways in Holland is highly recommended. You can moor up your boat, and walk downhill to the shops!

You can motor along on still days and marvel at the number of modern windturbines standing idle. Occasionally the Dutch Tourist Board turn on the wind generators, producing a nice gentle sailing breeze, which is very nice of them to be so considerate.

Phil Clarke 12:05, perhaps your credibility would be improved if you applied your talents to addressing the lies and fabrications of climate science, as that is where all the money has been going. How much money was spent fabricating Gergis 2016, peer reviewing it, and lavishing praise on it?

And for what useful purpose,? Other than to shore up the previous lies and fabrications that you also praise so highly.

If as Entropic Man states, climate science does not need to prove anything, then what was the point of Gergis being funded to produce anything at all?

How many man-portable combined wind and solar powered electricity generators could have been supplied to remote areas of the world, to purify water for drinking, for every £10,000, £100,000, or £1,000,000 wasted on the Gergis fiasco?

Radical Rodent

Thank you for your invitation to discuss your statements in more detail. I think I shall decline.

Radical Rodent, Climate Scientists have had decades of experience in not proving Climate Science. They should be allowed to continue, just without taxpayer funding.

Obviously if there is 3% of climate science that is worth taxpayer funding, 97% of climate scientists have proven themselves incapable of identifying it. They are now getting a bit alarmed, about the lack of funding to prove there has not been a lack of warming, whereas the rest of the world is enjoying the climate.

Phil Clarke wants to tell lies, Entropic Man thinks it is upto everybody else to spend their time and money working out where the lavishly funded climate scientists got it so wrong.