APS and the Global Warming Scam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Naomi, I apologize for calling you a "birch."

Adam,

You called her a tree?

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

The basic equations of fluid dynamics are the Navier Stokes equations for which we do not have a general solution. There not even a general system of convergent approximations yet. Only a few restricted cases of the Navier Stokes equations yield numerical solutions that are known to converge.

From the Wiki article on the Navier Stokes equations:

The Navier–Stokes equations are also of great interest in a purely mathematical sense. Somewhat surprisingly, given their wide range of practical uses, it has not yet been proven that in three dimensions solutions always exist (existence), or that if they do exist, then they do not contain any singularity. (They are smooth.) These are called the Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness problems. The Clay Mathematics Institute has called this one of the seven most important open problems in mathematics and has offered a US$1,000,000 prize for a solution or a counter-example.^[1]

^{I told you turbulence and chaotic dynamics is a tough nut.}

^{Ba'al Chatzaf}

You don't need exact solutions of the equations in order to use them for calculation. The approximation methods we do have are sufficient for most purposes and are well-behaved enough that they work just fine except in the most extreme situations. Even then, you can average out anything too turbulent if you use an appropriate time interval. You don't have to be able to predict every little gust of wind in order to calculate the average temperature of a system over 10 or 20 years.

As I've said before, if you believe that the climate models are unfalsifiable, then you should present your reasons for believing so. It should not be so difficult if you actually have any good reasons for your belief.

When you deal with chaotic dynamics you need numerical algorithms that are guaranteed to converge. Such methods are not generally available with the Navier Stokes equations. That is why there is a million dollar prize for finding such methods.

We do not have tractable mathematical methods for chaotic and non-linear dynamics. That is the way it is.

I told you we do not have a well founded climate science, but you won't listen.

Models we have and they can be fiddled.

Ba'al Chatzaf

No, you most certainly do not. There are ways around the problem, such as using the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations,

May I remind you that the general 3-body problem for Newtonian Gravity has never been solved, precisely because of non-linear dynamics. Does that mean that our models of the solar system are unfalsifiable or that we do not have a viable theory of gravitation?

We have several theories of gravitation (classical-Newtonian and the linearzied approximation to Einstein's field equations from General Relativity. Both models are quite accurate for the solar system. Things get hairier for very strong gravitational fields. It is not clear the Einstein's theory holds up near black holes and Newton's theory definitely does not.

In any case we do not have anything this good for climate. Climate is very complicated. It is more than averaging weather.

And for weather, we have no really good theories. The best we can do is predict weather ten days out. Long term weather prediction simply does not exist.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Firstly, climatology is not about weather prediction.

Secondly, just because you keep repeating this claim over and over again, that does not make it true. Where is your support for this belief? I've asked you each time you said it, and each time you have failed and tried to ignore the issue.

If you do not have any good reason to believe what you believe, then just admit it.

EDIT: And don't think I haven't noticed the not-so-subtle backpedaling away from your original position.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Frantic!

Don't worry, Naomi, you'll have plenty of other opportunities to control and inflict pain on other people once AGW politically goes the way of eugenics. So calm yourself.

J

The left is looking forward to implementing anthropophagy/soylent green. They want it. It excites them. Maybe even sexually. They feel very empowered by the idea of it.

J

You can mock me all you like, but it won't change the fact that your belief has no basis in reality whatsoever.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Firstly, climatology is not about weather prediction.

This is true.

Climatology is ultimately about money and power.

Gobs and gobs and gobs of unearned money for an elite that is seeking as much power as it can get.

Supported by toadies and useful idiots.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No time to comment, but here is an IPCC dude--one of them--saying: "Away with the infrequent, massive set pieces. Away with alarmism – that has been tried for 25 years, with no discernible impact on emissions. Away with activists posing as scientists. Away with the freshman mistakes."

UN climate change expert reveals bias in global warming report

The climate change machine will probably start trashing this guy in the media now and bullying him backstage. I hope he doesn't cave, but the people behind this crap are vicious and they have lots of fanatics to do their bidding.

Michael

[Selene]

Naomi, I apologize for calling you a "birch."

Adam,

You called her a tree?

Michael

oops - I need to increase the font on my screen lol

[SoAMadDeathWish]

A little while back, I said this and I stand by it because the most recent posts demonstrate its truth perfectly:

What most people here are doing is engaging in conspiracy theory and irrational denialism because they don't like the possible public policy implications that AGW might have. Nobody here has presented a single bit of evidence that contradicts AGW, which is what they would do if they actually had a rational basis for being skeptical. Additionally they claim that because some AGW scientists are guilty of scientific fraud it must mean that all AGW science is fraudulent. This is not respect for science. It is the politicization of science. You are doing precisely what you accuse "the bullies" of doing.

Sad to say it, the only people who are guilty of politicizing and distorting science at this point are Objectivists. For whatever reason, Obectivism attracts a lot of cranks and frauds. It is hard to think of one area of human intellectual achievement that some well-known or prominent Objectivist has not denied. Everything from abstract mathematics and modern physics, to evolution and climatology has been accused of either philosophical or political corruption. These "skeptics" are shown to be completely uninformed about the subject they criticize every single time. That Dennis L. May character was just one among many supposed Objectivist "experts" who engage in this sort of nonsense.

Someone mentioned the Vatican earlier in order to ridicule climate science, but this is ironic when you consider that the Vatican currently engages in no science-denialism of any kind whatsoever. This is despite their explicit endorsement of faith over reason and belief in a god. For a philosophy that's supposed to be based on reality and reason, this is an embarrassment.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

EDIT: There was a video at the link of an interview with Elrich, but apparently someone has taken it down or there is too much traffic for the servers. Time will tell and a new copy of the video should appear somewhere.

I don't have an embeddable video yet, but you can see a segment (a little under three minutes) on the site in the link below where Paul Ehrlich says humans will be looking into cannibalism as a food source. There is also a transcript there of his words.

Interestingly enough, he gave his reasons for mankind's change of dining pleasure. In the near future there will be two and a half billion more people on the planet.

In other words, he's thinking about how to harvest them.

You can't make this shit up.

PAUL EHRLICH WARNS THAT PEOPLE MAY BEGIN EATING THE DEAD

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sad to say it... (blah blah blah)...

Go study propaganda. (I would start with Bernays, but there is a lot of good stuff out there.)

You keep trying to do it, but you suck at it.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The problem is nobody is making fun of any science. They are making fun of the useful idiots to the power machine like Naomi and her half-assed opinions.

That irks her.

All she's got is to keep yapping that nobody can prove a negative. But when she looks at evidence she doesn't like, she says that stuff doesn't count. Her answer to inconvenient facts is to mock, then whine that other people mock her.

Heh.

For anyone who has the stomach to go through a lot of really boring stuff about climate change, there is a thread on Solo Passion where a poster named Marcus curated the news items about the studies as they happened since about 2007. He stopped in 2013 because Perigo shut posting down for the site.

The Great Global Warming Swindle!!!

Of course, none of that counts to useful idiots.

Here's an idea. Maybe we should pass a new law or something.

EDIT: I want to make one thought clear for my own evaluation. I do not reject any science. I doubt anyone on OL rejects science. It's stupid to even think that people reject science.

I do reject people like Naomi telling me what science is and tut-tut-tutting about Objectivists (or anything for that matter) because, based on her posting behavior and values, she is not credible. I offer her posts as evidence.

We gave her plenty of chances to discuss matters honestly and objectively, but she always chooses the dishonest path and mocks when the evidence and arguments do not favor her position. When caught in errors that are not technical, she makes shit up to deny the error. It's a convenient way to not address the disagreements.

(Oh... she will name-drop at times and spew out jargon. But as Bob, for instance, has proven time and time again on technical issues, she ends up saying, "I didn't know that," or "I hadn't thought of that." It's good to admit this, but not if you keep mocking others because of your own lack of knowledge.)

Rather than argue with deceptive people who mock, I prefer to mock them right back (so long as they serve a purpose--otherwise I don't want them around me).

She comes to denigrate and mock OL people. She's going to get it back in double.

This is kind of a fractal microcosm of what is now going on in the macrocosm between the public and the AWG people. The lying liars who lie are starting to lose from all their sleaze. Once we get rid of these jerks, we can start to look and see what really exists with manmade climate change, if anything.

Michael

[Jonathan]

You can't make this shit up.

PAUL EHRLICH WARNS THAT PEOPLE MAY BEGIN EATING THE DEAD

At least Ehrlich appears to have learned to stop making predictions with specific dates.

I have to wonder what Naomi thinks of Ehrlich. Did he discredit himself long ago? Or is he deserving of the respect that he still gets from the "scientific" left? Are his failed predictions of mega-doom evidence that he might not be very good at science, or does Naomi buy into the spin that Ehrlich's only mistake was that he "underestimated" the doom?

J

[Jonathan]

Frantic!

Don't worry, Naomi, you'll have plenty of other opportunities to control and inflict pain on other people once AGW politically goes the way of eugenics. So calm yourself.

J

The left is looking forward to implementing anthropophagy/soylent green. They want it. It excites them. Maybe even sexually. They feel very empowered by the idea of it.

J

You can mock me all you like, but it won't change the fact that your belief has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Leftists don't actually believe in the eco-doom that they preach. Actions speak louder than words, and for people who are shrieking in hysteria about imminent catastrophe due to AGW, they're amazingly unconcerned about their personally not taking any voluntary actions themselves to eliminate from their own lives the alleged cause of the coming apocalypse. Here and there they take minor symbolic actions which cost them very little, and often those symbolic actions actually add to their carbon footprint when all things are considered, but generally, they not only exempt themselves from the "solutions" that they seek to impose on others, but they often use and waste significantly more energy and create more CO2 than the average person.

I'll believe that there is an actual "scientific consensus" on AGW when I see the leftist scientists and their followers and supporters eagerly voluntarily giving up the technologies that they claim are causing the imminent doom. I'll believe that they believe what they say when their actions match their statements.

J

[SoAMadDeathWish]

At least Ehrlich appears to have learned to stop making predictions with specific dates.

I have to wonder what Naomi thinks of Ehrlich. Did he discredit himself long ago? Or is he deserving of the respect that he still gets from the "scientific" left? Are his failed predictions of mega-doom evidence that he might not be very good at science, or does Naomi buy into the spin that Ehrlich's only mistake was that he "underestimated" the doom?

J

I didn't even know who Paul Ehrlich was until just now.

It seems that he only ever published his alarmist predictions in his own books and not in any peer-reviewed journal. No one in population biology takes his claims seriously.

Leftists don't actually believe in the eco-doom that they preach. Actions speak louder than words, and for people who are shrieking in hysteria about imminent catastrophe due to AGW, they're amazingly unconcerned about their personally not taking any voluntary actions themselves to eliminate the alleged cause of the coming apocalypse from their own lives. Here and there they take minor symbolic actions which cost them very little, and often those symbolic actions actually add to their carbon footprint when all things are considered, but generally, they not only exempt themselves from the "solutions" that they seek to impose on others, but they often use and waste significantly more energy and create more CO2 than the average person.

I'll believe that there is an actual "scientific consensus" on AGW when I see the leftist scientists and their followers and supporters eagerly voluntarily giving up the technologies that they claim are causing the imminent doom. I'll believe that they believe what they say when their actions match their statements.

J

I don't care what leftists do or don't believe or how they act in response to those beliefs. Leftists will believe a lot of stupid crap and do a lot of stupid things. I don't take my cues about reality from those idiots, and neither should anybody else.

I'm not asking anyone here to take me at my word. All that anybody who is interested in reality has to do to find the truth is to just study the actual science and simply look at the data. Forget about all this political bullshit for a minute and use your mind. If after you've looked at all the data, you still have serious doubts, then it would be a good idea to figure out why the scientists are getting it wrong.

However, I will point out once again, that even through this whole thread, despite having many opportunities, every AGW skeptic has failed to provide even a single good reason for being skeptical of the science behind AGW. That means that most people have not done their homework.

[Jonathan]

I didn't even know who Paul Ehrlich was until just now.

How could someone who is the serious student of climate science that you pose as being not have heard of Ehrlich?

It seems that he only ever published his alarmist predictions in his own books and not in any peer-reviewed journal. No one in population biology takes his claims seriously.

Do you mean "no one" other than Stanford University and the leftist media and Ehrlich's leftist "critics" who think that he hasn't gone far enough?

Since you've just now heard of Ehrlich for the first time, why are you claiming to know who does or doesn't take him seriously? Do you really believe that you can make us believe that you've had enough time to study the issue to come to a rational and informed conclusion?

I don't care what leftists do or don't believe or how they act in response to those beliefs. Leftists will believe a lot of stupid crap and do a lot of stupid things. I don't take my cues about reality from those idiots, and neither should anybody else.

I'm not asking anyone here to take me at my word. All that anybody who is interested in reality has to do to find the truth is to just study the actual science and simply look at the data. Forget about all this political bullshit for a minute and use your mind. If after you've looked at all the data, you still have serious doubts, then it would be a good idea to look at why the scientists are getting it wrong.

However, I will point out once again, that even through this whole thread, despite having many opportunities, every AGW skeptic has failed to provide even a single good reason for being skeptical of the science behind AGW. That means that most people have not done their homework.

I'll believe that you believe what you say about AGW when I see evidence that you've voluntarily changed your life accordingly. All the rest is just bluff and bluster.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

However, I will point out once again, that even through this whole thread, despite having many opportunities, every AGW skeptic has failed to provide even a single good reason for being skeptical of the science behind AGW. That means that most people have not done their homework.

Sure they have.

You just say it doesn't count when they do.

Who wants to engage someone childish like that?

Liar.

For the reader, let me unpack a bait-and-switch this poster does.

In a science article in a peer-reviewed journal, you generally have a section detailing the experiment or study (after an abstract saying what is intended), then you have a part called "discussion." This is where the scientist presents his or her conclusions about what the experiment or study proved or indicated. Often this part is nothing but speculation.

People can look at the first half of these papers and agree with the measurements, controls and so on, but they could also disagree with the conclusions the author presents (generally with climate change for variables being too numerous to control).

What AWG fanatics like to do is say that you are forced to agree with the conclusions if you happen to agree with the data. Then people like Naomi will harp on and on that nobody has proven anything because they can't prove a negative, i.e., prove conclusions are wrong that not even the pro-AGW people prove are right on their side. Data is one thing. Conclusions are another.

Disagreeing with a conclusion is not always (hell, not usually) disagreeing with the data.

She makes it seem like those who disagree with the conclusions are not looking at the data or are yokels who wouldn't understand it in the first place.

After splitting coma-inducing hairs, lying, spinning, and tut-tut-tutting, I think she wants to chalk up some kind of win (to make her feel good or something) by wearing others out.

I don't know what's to be gained by this. Nobody is changing their minds about anything by reading this crap (all sides). But who knows what goes on in the mind of a fanatic.

One thing is for sure. Bait and switch used to work with manmade climate change. It doesn't anymore.

Swat.

There goes another fly.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I didn't even know who Paul Ehrlich was until just now.

How could someone who is the serious student of climate science that you pose as being not have heard of Ehrlich?

Because he's a population biologist and not a climate scientist.

It seems that he only ever published his alarmist predictions in his own books and not in any peer-reviewed journal. No one in population biology takes his claims seriously.

Do you mean "no one" other than Stanford University and the leftist media and Ehrlich's leftist "critics" who think that he hasn't gone far enough?

Since you've just now heard of Ehrlich for the first time, why are you claiming to know who does or doesn't take him seriously? Do you really believe that you can make us believe that you've had enough time to study the issue to come to a rational and informed conclusion?

I said no one in population biology takes his claims seriously. And, no, neither does Stanford University, and I could care less about his leftist critics.

It's obvious that since he has never published his claims in a peer-reviewed journal, that none of his peers in population biology take them seriously.

SoAMadDeathWish, on 23 May 2014 - 2:13 PM, said:

I don't care what leftists do or don't believe or how they act in response to those beliefs. Leftists will believe a lot of stupid crap and do a lot of stupid things. I don't take my cues about reality from those idiots, and neither should anybody else.

I'm not asking anyone here to take me at my word. All that anybody who is interested in reality has to do to find the truth is to just study the actual science and simply look at the data. Forget about all this political bullshit for a minute and use your mind. If after you've looked at all the data, you still have serious doubts, then it would be a good idea to look at why the scientists are getting it wrong.

However, I will point out once again, that even through this whole thread, despite having many opportunities, every AGW skeptic has failed to provide even a single good reason for being skeptical of the science behind AGW. That means that most people have not done their homework.

I'll believe that you believe what you say about AGW when I see evidence that you've voluntarily changed your life accordingly. All the rest is just bluff and bluster.

J

Politically, I describe myself as a pessimist. I don't believe that AGW will be stopped, and am just enjoying myself while I can.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

However, I will point out once again, that even through this whole thread, despite having many opportunities, every AGW skeptic has failed to provide even a single good reason for being skeptical of the science behind AGW. That means that most people have not done their homework.

Sure they have.

You just say it doesn't count when they do.

Who wants to engage someone childish like that?

Liar.

I always present very good reasons for not admitting a certain claim. The article that Selene posted is not from an authoritative source, first of all, and it also quite obviously misrepresents climate science.

Ba'al has yet to give us any reason at all to believe that climate models are unfalsifiable.

For the reader, let me unpack a bait-and-switch this poster does.

In a science article in a peer-reviewed journal, you generally have a section detailing the experiment (after an abstract saying what is intended), then you have a part called "discussion." This is where the scientist presents his or her conclusions about what the experiment or study proved or indicated. Often this part is nothing but speculation.

People can look at the first half of these papers and agree with the measurements, controls and so on, but they could also disagree with the conclusions the author presents (generally with climate change for variables being too numerous to control).

What AWG fanatics like to do is say that you are forced to agree with the conclusions if you happen to agree with the data. Then people like Naomi will harp on and on that nobody has proven anything because they can't prove a negative, i.e., prove conclusions are wrong that not even the pro-AGW people prove on their side. Data is one thing. Conclusions are another.

Disagreeing with a conclusion is not always (hell, not usually) disagreeing with the data.

She makes it seem like those who disagree with the conclusions are not looking at the data or are yokels who wouldn't understand it in the first place.

After splitting coma-inducing hairs, lying, spinning, and tut-tut-tutting, I think she wants to chalk up some kind of win (to make her feel good or something) by wearing others out.

I don't know what's to be gained by this. Nobody is changing their minds about anything by reading this crap (all sides). But who knows what goes on in the mind of a fanatic.

One thing is for sure. Bait and switch used to work with manmade climate change. It doesn't anymore.

Swat.

There goes another fly.

Michael

That's simply false. No scientific paper whose data did not support the author's conclusion would ever pass the peer-review process.

Once again, I am also not asking anybody to prove a negative. The fact is that there are very good reasons and evidence for believing the claims about AGW. If anybody believes that the data and theories that support AGW are flawed in some way, then they must give their reasons for believing so. This is not at all the same thing as asking people to prove a negative.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Once again, I am also not asking anybody to prove a negative. The fact is that there are very good reasons and evidence for believing the claims about AGW. If anybody believes that the data and theories that support AGW are flawed in some way, then they must give their reasons for believing so. This is not at all the same thing as asking people to prove a negative.

This is a flat-out in-your-face lie (the part about her not asking people to prove a negative).

Liar.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No scientific paper whose data did not support the author's conclusion would ever pass the peer-review process.

Here is a perfect example of the bait-and-switch I mentioned.

Notice she did not say no conclusion that did not have roots in the data would pass the peer-review process. She said the data would not pass if it did not support the conclusion.

She is starting as if the conclusion is a fact.

Obviously. If the conclusion is about climate change, then data on rabbit reproduction would not be acceptable. It would not support the conclusion. If the data contradicted the conclusion, it would not be acceptable. That would undermine the conclusion.

Supporting the conclusion does not mean proving the conclusion. That happens sometimes, but not always.

And the conclusion can be speculation, especially when words like, "seems," "tend to," "more work needs to be done," etc. are appended. This happens all the time.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I hope this keeps going because every lie and every attempt at propaganda further distances the public from granting the climate-change control-freaks the power to enslave others.

The public is drifting off like an iceberg...

OL is small potatoes in the big picture, but on our tiny scale, this is happening, too. As our public is elite, who knows what decision-power silent readers have in their respective spheres of influence?

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Once again, I am also not asking anybody to prove a negative. The fact is that there are very good reasons and evidence for believing the claims about AGW. If anybody believes that the data and theories that support AGW are flawed in some way, then they must give their reasons for believing so. This is not at all the same thing as asking people to prove a negative.

This is a flat-out in-your-face lie (the part about her not asking people to prove a negative).

Liar.

Michael

No scientific paper whose data did not support the author's conclusion would ever pass the peer-review process.

Here is a perfect example of the bait-and-switch I mentioned.

Notice she did not say no conclusion that did not have roots in the data would pass the peer-review process. She said the data would not pass if it did not support the conclusion.

She is starting as if the conclusion is a fact.

Obviously. If the conclusion is about climate change, then data on rabbit reproduction would not be acceptable. It would not support the conclusion. If the data contradicted the conclusion, it would not be acceptable. That would undermine the conclusion.

Supporting the conclusion does not mean proving the conclusion. That happens sometimes, but not always.

And the conclusion can be speculation, especially when words like, "seems," "tend to," "more work needs to be done," etc. are appended. This happens all the time.

Michael

Hahaha... ok dude, whatever you say.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

No time to comment, but here is an IPCC dude--one of them--saying: "Away with the infrequent, massive set pieces. Away with alarmism – that has been tried for 25 years, with no discernible impact on emissions. Away with activists posing as scientists. Away with the freshman mistakes."

UN climate change expert reveals bias in global warming report

The climate change machine will probably start trashing this guy in the media now and bullying him backstage. I hope he doesn't cave, but the people behind this crap are vicious and they have lots of fanatics to do their bidding.

Michael

According to that article:

Richard Tol is a professor of economics at the University of Sussex and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He has been involved in the IPCC since 1994.

Note that he is an economist and not a climate scientist. He also did not criticize AGW or climate science itself, he merely argued that the economic costs of climate change won't be as bad as others think.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hahaha... ok dude, whatever you say.

Dayaamm, Naomi.

You keep giving me perfect examples.

I may have to start paying you since you are making my points for me.

Mocking is not an argument, but you have no answer for what I said.

So you try to laugh and think others laugh, too.

A religious perspective, including scientism, can blind you to your impact.

I don't want to convince you, though. Who am I to interfere with someone's religion?

My purpose is to display you.

The needle on the public opinion keeps drifting in a direction I like and you are helping it along.

I do hope you keep this up...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... he merely argued that the economic costs of climate change won't be as bad as others think.

Big fat lie.

Here is what he really argued as quoted from the article he himself wrote:

Three of the four installments of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which claims to show the state of the global climate system under stress, are now available.

All three show things are seriously amiss – although not necessarily with the climate itself.

. . .

Working Group I, focusing on climate change itself, released its findings last September. Compared to the previous report, of 2007, it quietly revised downwards its estimate of eventual global warming.

The first rule of climate policy should be: do no harm to economic growth. But the IPCC was asked to focus on the risks of climate change alone, and those who volunteered to be its authors eagerly obliged.

The IPCC became less pessimistic about climate change, although its press release would not tell you so.

. . .

When preparations started on AR5, the world hadn’t warmed for 13 years. That is a bit odd, if you believe the models, but not odd enough to merit a lot of attention.

By the time the report was finished, however, it hadn’t warmed for 17 years. That is decidedly odd, but hard to accommodate in a near-final draft that has been through three rounds of review.

. . .

The IPCC model – every six years a big splash of climate analysis – is broken.

Working Group 2, published in March, and focusing on the impacts of climate change, had a different problem. It lies at the heart of the previous IPCC controversy. The scientific literature now acknowledges that many of the more worrying impacts of climate change are in fact symptoms of social mismanagement and underdevelopment.

. . .

Authors who want to see their long hours of IPCC work recognized should thus present their impact as worse than the next one.

It was this inbuilt alarmism that made me step down from the team that drafted the Summary for Policy Makers of Working Group 2. And indeed, the report was greeted by the four horsemen of the apocalypse: famine, pestilence, war, death all made headlines.

April’s Working Group 3 had yet another problem. Its focus, climate policy, is a hot political debate in many countries.

The Summary for Policy Makers is drafted by academics, but approved line-by-line by government representatives. Every clause that could possibly be used against a government position, either in a domestic debate or in international negotiations, was neutered or removed.

There's more, too.

I just don't have time for nonsense.

And there's no need to obliterate a big fat lie. Just a few examples serve. Anyone interested can go to the article and see for themselves what more Tol argued that did not deal with just costs.

This keeps getting better and better.

Not only the public is drifting, apparently IPCC members are, too.

Michael

[Jonathan]

How could someone who is the serious student of climate science that you pose as being not have heard of Ehrlich?

Because he's a population biologist and not a climate scientist.

In all of your deep studies of climate science, you've never come across Ehrlich's views and his influence over the subject? Wow. I guess that's what happens when one has a hasty Google search/Wikipedia "education."

I said no one in population biology takes his claims seriously. And, no, neither does Stanford University, and I could care less about his leftist critics.

So, your position is that he is employed at Stanford as Professor of Population Studies and Biological Sciences, as well as President of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology, because Stanford doesn't take him seriously?

It's obvious that since he has never published his claims in a peer-reviewed journal...

Where did you get the idea that he has never published in a peer-reviewed journal?

...that none of his peers in population biology take them seriously.

You just now discovered who he is, and instantly you're an expert on what all of his peers think of him and his work?

Politically, I describe myself as a pessimist. I don't believe that AGW will be stopped, and am just enjoying myself while I can.

I'm not surprised. It appears that your notion of "just enjoying yourself while you can" includes the thrill of attempting to control others, inflict pain, and try to make them as pessimistic and miserable as you are. Typical AGW alarmist mentality.

J