JohnB

That's it? The military is trying to reduce costs and supply line problems?

Do you think that this is news? The military has always tried new things. If it works better or causes less supply headaches, they do it. If you are unaware of this fact then you know far less than the average roman legionairre, because they were all aware of the problem.

So they're trying some "Green" things, cool. Big whoop. Better insulation to reduce heating/cooling energy required is only sensible and vegetable oil for engines has been around since World War 1. Oh that's right, you lot were late for that one, never mind the rest of the world knew about and used substitutes for petrol. It's not your fault you're slow and are only working out what everybody else knew 100 years ago.

This doesn't in any way negate any point I made, or do your preconceptions have trouble when they meet reality?

And I have just replaced the halogen in the Dining room again. The suckers just do not last.

I am so stoked about the Curiosity Rover! Real knowledge is much more impressive than pretend...

Something of that size and complexity. It almost feels like the days of Apollo.

Klaatu Barada Nikto.

I've got all their albums. I've always liked their sound and the topics are interesting.

Hands up those who knew who Alfred Beech was before Klaatu sang about him?

First, as to your thread. Apparently you read the report differently than the people who wrote it intended it to be understood. You quote Roger Pielke on the subject, since you obviously didn't read the report yourself. Pielke is a meteorologist, not a climatologist.

Actually it's obvious that you read neither the report or the thread. Pielke wrote the literature that the report was based on.

As for the International Panel on Climate Change, here is their synopsis of the March 2012 report: "Geneva, 28 March 2012 Evidence suggests that climate change has led to changes in climate extremes such as heat waves, record high temperatures and, in many regions, heavy precipitation in the past half century, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said today.

 

"Climate extremes, or even a series of non-extreme events, in combination with social vulnerabilities and exposure to risks can produce climate-related disasters, the IPCC said in its Special Report on

Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX). "

If you are going to quote somebody, especially a press release or news article then you should provide a link. You provide no proof as is that such comments have actually been made. They probably were, but you should provide a link as proof, otherwise it's just your say so and that carries no weight around here.

However, and again, you are going by what a press release says, I'm going by what the person who wrote the papers on which the report is based has said. I somehow think that a person writing in the reviewed literature is more likely to be correct than some AAP reporter.

Do not assume that being a top mind precludes someone from writing a blog and/or being an activist. Those who are highly knowledgeable in a field are apt to make their opinions known. Often those opinions are strong and very advanced. For example, Dr. James Hansen heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Colombia University. His post graduate work in radiative transfer models lead to our current understanding of Venus's atmosphere.

 

Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology, his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to avoid dangerous climate change. In recent years, Hansen has become an advocate for action to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Dr Hansen is a borderline looney. Anybody who compares freight trains with the cattle cars heading for Dachau and Treblinka has a couple of kangaroos loose in the top paddock. His model that he used to spread the alarm is hopelessly wrong and as for the testimony back in 1988, that was very carefully stage managed to push a viewpoint and had little to do with any form of truth.

Dr Hansen is also regularly wrong on matters of scientific fact as evidenced by his recent article in the NYT. A response by Dr Martin Hoerling of NOAA is here. Further comment from Dr Pat Michaels is here.

Dr Michaels states;

Hansen is simply wrong.

 

Hansen claims that global warming is associated with increased drought in the US. This is a testable hypothesis which he chose not to test, and, because PNAS isnt truly peer-reviewed for Members like him, no one tested it for him.

 

I have [examined] drought data [that] are from NCDC, and the temperature record is Hansens own. His hypothesis is a complete and abject failure.

Note especially the reference to PNAS "pal review" that allows Hansen to publish any junk he wants.

Now to some more documentation pertaining to my assertions. From the Union of Concerned Scientists comes this: "In an era of globalized commodity markets, the devastation of the U.S. corn crop translates into a global grain shortage. But, equally important, the U.S. drought is just one of many extreme weather events around the world this year and their combined "domino" effect could put many at risk of higher food prices, if not a full-on food crisis." [http://blog.ucsusa.o...l-food-crisis/]

Remember, just because it comes from a blog, that doesn't mean that the information is weak.

True, sort of. However the "Union of concerned Scientists" is just a lobby and advocacy group. The only thing required to be a member is a valid credit card. I note that Anthony Watss dog is a current "concerned scientist", being a fully paid up member. I point you back to the statement by Dr Michaels (you know, a climatologist) who said;

I have [examined] drought data [that] are from NCDC, and the temperature record is Hansens own. His hypothesis is a complete and abject failure.

So a climatologist who examined the data (those things called facts) comes to a different conclusion than a lobby group does. As Gomer would say "Surprise, surprise, surprise".

As far as your quotes from the IPCC go, if read correctly you come away with the distilled truth that individual events that are coincident often do not show a provable cause and effect link, but when statistical information shows an overwhelming probability that such a link exists, it must be assumed to be so until there is proof to the contrary.

No, sorry. You don't get to reverse the scientific process. Claims require proof. If you say there is a link then prove it. It is not up to others to disprove your assumed link. The null hypothesis is that there is no link until one is proven, this is how science works. (Although it's odd that you call me a science denier while needing an education on science itself. It says a lot about you in my books) To illustrate the moral and logical stupidity of th argument put forward we only need to look at a courtroom. If we have statistical evidence that Joe Bloggs committed a crime, then by your argument we should find him guilty and incarcerate him until such time as "there is proof to the contrary". what a fascinating world you live in. Please keep it to yourself as civilised people work on the reverse principle of "innocent until proven guilty". You might prefer the laws and "logic" of the middle ages, but most people have rejected them.

Now, let's get to my military assertion. This is from the New York Times, August 8, 2009: "The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say.

"Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies."

The problem with such statements is that they are actually meaningless. All sorts of things could "topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions". From climate change through a flood to a plague of locusts or any other natural disaster you care to think of. Almost anything could have an effect, so don't read more into a statement than is there. Heck a change in American foreign policy or aid money could do all that. Even though we give less being a smaller nation, Australian policies and changes to aid could do the same in some areas.

The vital point to remember is that this society, our civilisation is the first to think about the future. Previous societies simply assumed that everything would stay the same, they thought that the climate didn't change, the stories of harsher winters were just grandpa stories (and everybody knows his memory is going). But we know that it does change and it can change very quickly, so it is right and prudent to consider the effect of any climate change on the geopolitical landscape of the planet. But we are much more in danger of trouble if there is cooling, not warming. A warmer world has longer growing seasons and more food, a cooler world has shorter growing seasons and less food that is of a poorer quality.

I haven't read the full article over at Dr Currys blog yet, but this appears to be an interesting comparison between the reconstructions of Dr Lamb compared to Dr Mann (of hockeystick fame). It's an effort to take the CET back past the beginning of the instrumental period using documentation from the era involved. There are some interesting quotes. The Rev Schallor in the Prussian Alps said in 1560;

There is no real constant sunshine neither a steady winter nor summer, the earths crops and produce do not ripen, are no longer as healthy as they were in bygone years. The fruitfulness of all creatures and of the world as a whole is receding, fields and grounds have tired from bearing fruits and even become impoverished, thereby giving rise to the increase of prices and famine, as is heard in towns and villages from the whining and lamenting among the farmers.

Cold is bad, warm is good.

The only people who are challenging these assertions are those who have agendas counter to the welfare of the human race. Follow the money trail. It always leads to those who wish to further the interests of fossil fuel proponents, and away from the harvesting of clean, renewable energy sources.

Wrong in so many ways. Would you accept that the only people backing renewables are those who stand to make money from it? Companies like GE who make turbines and Greenpeace who sell electricity in europe? And if you "follow the money" you'll see that Dr Hansen is making an absolute fortune picking up cash for appearances well above his actual salary. Frankly I'm bored with this bullshit of the oil funded denier machine. The best that you can do is point to exxonwatch or whatever and find a couple of million a year in funding. Exxon donated $20 million over 10 years, big bloody deal. Shell gave the CRU $40 million, Greenpeace has an annual budget of some $500 million worldwide and the WWF is around $800 million. The warming lobby could outspend the oil companies with what falls down the back of the couch. Absolute billions go to the warmers but you think that a couple of million is some sort of crime for the opposition. For crying out loud, even black hole formation is now linked to "Global Warming" (put those words into the proposal and watch the money roll in). Your side complains that they Heartland Institute has $80,000 to spend in a year while Dr Mann gets $2million in grants to study disease vectors in mosquitoes in a warming world. And he's a bloody dendrochronologist and has nothing to do with either insects or diseases. It's just insane.

So unless you are going to open your eyes and stop emulating a cyclops as to where the money is coming from and going to, then your argument is pointless.

Finally, anybody who categorically refers to environmentalists as "whackos" is a science denier. Prove me wrong.

I didn't actually call all environmentalists whackos, but some certainly are. Your argument is also flawed in that it assumes that environmentalists use science as a reason for thier stance. This is not correct;

It doesnt matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true. Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace

But let's look at some of the reasonable and sensible comments from some environmentalists;

Isnt the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isnt it our responsibility to bring that about?- Maurice Strong. Behind the formation of the IPCC.

What a wonderful future he's got in mind for us poor plebs. Probably slightly better than his friends envisage for the darker skinned peoples of this planet;

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are."- Michael Oppenheimer, major environmentalist. Funny how it's always the dark people who have to remain in poverty and misery isn't it?

Of course some would like the West to join the Third World;

"The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization...Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine." - Keith Farnish, environmental writer, philosopher and activist.

So are these people sane and reasonable or whackos? I think the majority vote would be the latter.

But you actually think it's about the environment, why not listen to what the people involved have said;

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore." - Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or….one invented for the purpose." - The Club of Rome.

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." - Daniel Botkin

No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world. - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister

Weve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. - Timothy Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator

"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect." - Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat

"The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope." - David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club

"The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to compliance - Dixy Lee Ray, former liberal Democrat governor of State of Washington, U.S

Honestly, this is easier than dynamiting fish in a barrel. I happen to think that people mean pretty much what they say, so if people say that they will use anything to accomplish their political objectives I think they will do just that. The tentative findings of some scientists have been used for political purposes by those with axes to grind or targets to achieve. To think otherwise is to think that all those who said that this is exactly what they are out to do are lying and that makes no sense at all. But you can find plenty more "interesting" quotes by very influential people here.

Pay special attention to the quote from H.L.Menken;

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."

Compare that to the current day where we are threatened with global calamity or some such that will bring disasters of biblical proportions, but if we listen to certain people and give them power and do as we are told, then we will be alright. But we have to grant them absolute power mind you, "Democracy" just isn't up to the task, outmoded concept that it is.

"Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task." - David Shearman, an IPCC Assessor for 3rd and 4th climate change reports (If that doesn't scare you then nothing will)

I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while. - James Lovelock, known as founder of 'Gaia' concept (Although he is now in my camp and not the warmers)

And some final thoughts from the leaders of the environmental cause (and the perennially wrong and quite insane Paul Ehrlich)

Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun. - Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." - John Davis, editor of Earth First! journal

"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing." - Christopher Manes, a writer for Earth First! journal

A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal. - Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor, and large CO2 producer

My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world. - David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." - David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club

"The addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the water supply. With limited distribution of antidote chemicals, perhaps by lottery". - Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University

"Third world nations are producing too many children too fast...it is time to ignore the controversy over family planning and cut out-of-control population growth..." - Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, mega-millionaire, and large CO2 producer (Yes, if only those sick and poor dark people would stop having sick and poor children, there would be more to go around big Al and his ilk) Frankly for that comment alone, I wouldn't p*ss on him if he was on fire.

These guys are whackos, I've proved you wrong. Either that or you agree with their racist and genocidal ideas, which makes you a very dangerous person. You can never tell when someone will move from "population reduction as a concept" to "population reduction by bullet".

I'll finish with the same thing I tell everyone else who comes on strong about overuse of resources, etc. Go find a nice tall cliff and jump off. By reducing the overconsuming West by one person you will free up resources that will allow nearly 30 third worlders to live. But it's so much easier to sit in air conditioning using a computer to tell the rest of the world how to live, isn't it? Yes, the world would be soooo much better if we stupid people would only listen to the universal wisdom of the self proclaimed gurus of the environment.

Give me a break.

So don't draw any conclusions from this illusionary contradiction. JohnB, you should be ashamed .

Would you rather we used Caribou instead? The result is the same.

From AP in 2009;

Across the tundra 1,000 miles to the east, Canada's Beverly herd, numbering more than 200,000 a decade ago, can barely be found today.

From wildlife spectacle to wildlife mystery, the decline of the caribou called reindeer in the Eurasian Arctic has biologists searching for clues, and finding them.

 

They believe the insidious impact of climate change, its tipping of natural balances and disruption of feeding habits, is decimating a species that has long numbered in the millions and supported human life in Earth's most inhuman climate.

Oooooh scary. The article goes on to tell of a really good report that details the decline of the Caribou, the Beverley herd and others. There must be a cause for concern, right?

Well, No. Fast forward to 20111 and we find;

A vast herd of northern caribou that scientists feared had vanished from the face of the Earth has been found, safe and sound -- pretty much where aboriginal elders said it would be all along.

 

"The Beverly herd has not disappeared," said John Nagy

They only miscounted back in 2009 by about 200,000 animals, just a tiny mistake. The problem was twofold; Firstly counting the animals from a chopper and secondly assuming with no evidence at all as to the truth of the assumption, that the herds always use the same breeding ground. I think it says an amazing amount about absolute blind stupidity that when the numbers weren't what they should have been, the first idea that popped up was decimation by climate change and not that they might have gone somewhere else. Nature is messy like that though, it rarely does what we expect or demand.

The point being of course that if the methods used can miscount brown animals against a white background by a mere 200,000 or so, can you please give me a reasonable and logical reason to even think that using the same methods will accurately count white animals against a white background?

As we Aussies say "Tell him he's dreamin'".

Then the scientist then try to satisfy the demand for predictions. They make predictions, and when these predictions don't come true, then the people on the sidelines turn and say the whole concept is bunk.

You see, I've always thought that this is part of a thing known as the "Scientific Method". You evolve a theory, make predictions based on that theory and compare the predictions to reality. If the predictions are wrong, then there is something wrong with the theory. If your theory is so poor that it constantly fails to match reality, then why would you believe that its predictions for 100 years are correct?

Would you believe a fortune teller that consistently fails to give you the weekly Lotto numbers but believe their Lotto predictions for 50 years from now? Here's an idea! It's bullshit, large piles of putrid cow dung. Enough bovine fertilizer to green the State of Texas. Especially since the prognostications of the climate modellers require a positive feedback of about a 2.4 multiplier to work. This feedback is not in the literature. It has never been observed in nature or the lab, it exists only in the theory of the climate model world. Put bluntly, there is more evidence for the existence of Bigfoot than for this multiplier. (At least we have people who claim to have seen Bigfoot and some photos. )

Without this multiplier there is no reason at all to think that temps will rise more than about 1.1 degrees for a doubling of CO2. IOW, there is no reason at all to either be worried or to "do anything" at all about a complete "non problem".

You also have the situation where the scientist, in their expert opinions, think that there may be serious consequences, but don't yet have to tools needed to confirm them. This does not mean that they are incorrect in their opinions. In any case, I would take the scientists opinion on climate over a politicians, just as I would take a doctor's opinion of my health over wall street banker's. The major quandary, is that by the time we get all the facts, all the information, and predictions accurate enough to convince the denialist, that it may be too late to change course. At this point, everybody looses.

Possible. It is also possible that these "experts" (and do read up on "expert" predictions v everybody elses and the track record of accuracy thereof) are wandering up the Phlogiston path and wasting everybodys time and money, condemning millions to disease, poverty and early death. The only way to break the poverty cycle is with cheap, abundant power and the only place that this can come from is fossil fuels. This is why China and India are happily watching the West self destruct and building as much cheap power as they can. People are dying in their tens of thousands right now from energy poverty. It's not "predicted", it's happening right now in dozens of nations and more energy is the onyl way end the carnage. But the oh so enlightened West wants these people to slow their progress and use expensive "renewables" instead.

I'll say it again. I no longer believe that it is a coincidence that part of the "answer" for every single "environmental problem" for the last 50 years has been for the people with dark skin to remain in disease and poverty. The racist and genocidal policies of the "Green movement" are an affront to any thinking and civilised person and must be fought at every turn.

But there is an easy way to tell that even the "experts" don't really believe what they are saying. If the situation is as dire as predicted and everybody needs to reduce their carbon "footprint", then why is it fine for some 50,000 people to fly to exotic locations each year to tell the rest of us to fly less? Copenhagen, Bali, Cancun, South Africa, Rio. Man, this is a good lurk to be on, isn't it? So that is one reason not to believe the "experts", the second is even simpler; Nukes are off the table. When those who are loudest intelling me that there is a problem actually start acting like there is one, then I'll listen. Until then they are just like a tele-evangelist preaching the "good word" before going off to meet his boyfriend somewhere.

If the looming disaster was really do dire as to require an all out planetary effort, as we are told it is, then why are nukes not allowed? Simply because it isn't about the environment and it never was. Even the UN now admits that it is about taking money from rich nations and giving it to poor ones. In general I have no problem with this, but I prefer if my government decides how much and when and to whom and not some unaccountable UN dickhead.

I'm not even going to go into their asking for 3% of world GDP and control of a military arm to "enforce" UN decisions.

But here's a thought experiment for you akh. Let's say we find a magical way to reduce CO2. So with the wave of the wand, CO2 is reduced back to 280 ppm and mankind no longer emits it as part of our society. What will the climate be like in 100 years? Will it be the same? Warmer? Colder?

If you could show that I've displayed "wilful ignorance" or spin or have misrepresented data to fit an ideology, you might have a point. But I haven't, so you don't.

Meanwhile Peter Gleick commits and admits to wire fraud and identity theft and still has his job. Think Progress (That's Joe Romm from your side, the guy who wondered when it would be alright to strangle "deniers" in their beds, nice people you hang with) plaster the pic of melted streetlights in Oklahoma over the net and your Bill McKibbon, that moron involved with 350 dot org and who Time called "the world's best green journalist" is blaming it on "Global Warming" rather than the dumpster fire they were next to. If global warming could actually melt glass, then the debate would really be over, wouldn't it?

But let's talk about "misrepresenting data" shall we? How about "97% of climate scientists agree...." that is really some 75 out of 77 persons of the more than 3,000 who answered the questions out of the more than 10,000 who were emailed it. Who is doing the spinning here? It sure as shootin' ain't the sceptics. The bit I really liked was where they screened out all solar scientists, people who might think the big yellow thing in the sky may have an effect.

Or polar bears? The natives who live in the areas, on the ground all year round say the numbers are up, the "scientists" who fly around in choppers counting white bears against a white background from around 1200 ft are saying the numbers are down. Glad you have such faith in the extremely keen eyesight of those aerial observers.

Or how about truncating data to minimise the divergence problem away? Yes, there's no spin there at all is there? If you have troublesome data, just rub it out and hope that nobody ever compares your graph with the originals.

Or we could talk about actual readings from real instruments not matching the model predictions, so it must be the instruments that are out. But to make things match we had to find a more accurate way of measuring temps at altitude than the thermometers on weather balloons. But what could be more accurate than the instruments carried by the weather balloons themselves? Of course! We'll use the ground speed as measured by radar as a proxy for temperature and all will work out well.

Would you rather talk about the constantly moving goalposts up in the arctic? Go back a few years and it was all about extent, (BTW, the arctic was predicted to be "ice free" this year, how's that one going for ya?) but the extent stopped it's decline, for whatever reason and now it's all about "volume". The handy thing here is that we can't really measure volume properly so we use the model predictions instead. Gee, what do you reckon the odds are that the model will agree with itself?

Should we talk about the 10 million plus "climate refugees" that would be driven from their homes by extreme weather and rising seas by 2010? Oh wait, that didn't happen either, did it? Doesn't matter we have the new prediction of 50 million by 2020. And we're ignoring the 4.5 billion that were supposed to have died before this year began.

We could talk about Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035 according to that font of all climate wisdom, the IPCC. I know you've been told that it was a typo, an accident. Well welcome to spinland sonny jim. The drafts and reviewer comments clearly show that this "typo" was picked up in every draft and complained about with every complaint being ignored. The "spin" is coming from the IPCC and nowhere else.

Or is spin and misrepresentation of data acceptable if it comes from one side of the fence?

Says it all, really.

That's what you get when you ship all your smart people to Australia as convicts.

I still don't think so. Its science for the sake of discovery. If science took the perspective that every study must have a applicable ramification, then many things would not have been discovered. Sometimes it is years later before anything "beneficial" or "revealing" comes from a study. The prediction is that CO2 increase is causing warming, and the CO2 increase is attributed to human activity. That is it. However, I am not saying there isn't more to the story.

 

As far as the temperature increase a result of CO2 increase and GCMs, there is work going on in the Antartic to see if the GCMs are doing a good job of prediction. It will be interesting to see how this factors into AGW. I wish I had access to the full article.

Fair enough. I have no problems with the idea of pure research either. The Antarctic is another piece of the puzzle. I do note that there is no mention of currents which were significantly different that long ago. North and South America weren't joined so there was a vast equatorial current operating to spread heat around the planet.

It was the concentrating on CO2 to the exclusion of all other things that made me sceptical at the beginning. When we look at climate and imagine a huge, 2,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, back in the 80s we had the border pretty much done. Then someone grabbed the piece called "CO2" and declared it to be the most important piece in the entire puzzle and all other pieces revolve around it. Well, 30 years on and we've got some more of the puzzle filled in, maybe it's time to admit that "CO2" is just a piece of the puzzle and the world doesn't revolve around it after all.

Well the black crows may lower albedo, provided they are in the open and not in the shade. But many crows spend time on similarly dark surfaces such as roof tops and asphalt roadways (they like road kill). The net albedo of the crow will be lower when in flight, due to increased surface area. But a crow in flight will provide a shorter path and less atmosphere for IR to escape, and will also block light from reaching ground level.

You forget that this is offset by the well known "Johnathan" effect whereby the upwelling radiation is reflected back to Earth from the undersides of the wings of the multitudes of circling seagulls thereby increasing the warming.

Norbert, the thing to remember is that air is free to circulate. Even though surface temps can get extremely high in deserts, there are photos of tank crews cooking bacon and eggs on the metal of their tanks during WW II, the air temp won't get that high. As soon as the air really starts to heat, it immediately starts to rise and move away from the heating surface, the ground.

emphasis added all that sounds a lot like it's CO2's fault that we're warming. Especially given that the sun's TSI has not been changing for at least 3 decades.

Go search if you want, but I doubt that you will find a post by me arguing that CO2 has no effect, indeed I've argued that any explanation that doesn't include a CO2 effect must be wrong. But having CO2 modify an existing trend is a far cry from saying "it's CO2s fault that we're warming".

And if you believe the IPCC, then TSI hasn't changed by more than .5 W/m-2 in the last 150 years. However what is a worry is the content of TSI. Incoming UV is changed to heat at the surface and radiated out. So if there is an increase in UV, even though the TSI stays the same, then there will be more UV converted to IR at the surface and a heating effect will occur. According to Section 2.2 of "UV Radiation in Global Climate Change; Measurements, Modelling and Effects on Ecosystems" there has been an increase in UV by a modest amount, some 10-15% due to ozone loss. This of course means an extra 10-15% UV energy that is converted to IR and helps to heat the planet. The referenced work notes that UV stopped increasing in the "late 1990s" and has been decreasing since which is perhaps coincidentally the same time as the warming stopped, or plateaued. So there is nothing, even in the theory, that suggests that there must be an increase in TSI for there to be warming, TSI can remain unchanged, but warming and cooling can result from changes in the content of the TSI.

I must remind people that the entire warming since 1850 is the result of a change in forcings equal to less than .8% of TSI at TOA, so an increase of 10% in UV is actually quite substantial.

@ akh and iNow. Cool it guys. It was mememine69s first post, you could at least have said hello.

Hi mememin69, welcome to SFN. Don't worry about the detractors. They're just upset that all the prophesised calamities of the cult of the Church of Gaia have failed to materialise. They are also correct however in their comments about terminology. The IPCC etc does couch its comments in a careful way, in fact all scientific papers do, it is only after the alarmists and reporters get hold of things does "might" become "will". The difference is that it will always fall to us sceptics to call out the BS artists from both sides, because the warmers will never call BS on one of their own. Commit wire fraud, Identity theft, whatever you want, and they will give you a free pass. Heck you can even be so monumentally insane as to claim that "Global Warming" is melting glass streetlights and they won't say anything. Truth is a somewhat lesser virtue than defeating the evil deniers.

Just remember to keep Popper on the one hand and Feynmann on the other and you'll be fine.

Seriously though, they are a good bunch here and the mods are fair. And there are a lot of really, really smart people here on all sorts of topics. Welcome, and have fun. (and if you're like most of us, you'll learn things too)

This is a perfect example of propaganda. The word "actual" is designed to make you think that Jefferson is the only person who understood history. First, by saying that "He understood actual history," it implies that even though others studied history, they didn't understand it like he did. Second, it says that there is actual history, which implies that there is some "history" which isn't "actual". This is a subtle denigration of the current study of history. It also says that others have studied fake history - that the lessons they took away from history are wrong because they went for the wrong history. A sentence like this is one of the most deceptive, propagandistic things a person can fall for.

Except for the above, I agree with your comment uncool. There really is an "actual" and a "fake" history. This doesn't refer so much to actual events, but to the reasons behind the events. The lack of female authors in literature until the last 100 years or so can be put down to the nearsightedness of males of the times refusing to believe that women could contribute or it could be because of a directed effort by the Patriarchy to force women to remain in a subordinate position. Real history is what happened, fake history is what you get after reviewing and interpreting history through the lens of ideology.

Those who understand real history understand that things happen because human beings are human, with all the frailties that this implies. If there is a corner that can be cut or a way to siphon off some cash into the right pocket then rest assured that somebody will find and exploit it. And it won't because they are black, or white, or male, or female, or short or tall, it will be because they are human and that is exactly what humans do. If you are going to set up the governance of a nation, then you had better base it on the knowledge of what people are and not on the ideological dreams of what they could be.

Also there is no need for subtle denigration. It has been my experience with history students of late that they are being taught ideology and not history. But that could just be my local university too, or it could be I was simply talking to morons.

Without a doubt the media is a huge issue. Whats even worse, is that so many journalists and bloggers are so lazy that they just rehash another new report. I have seen this multiple times where the report is released at one outlet, and then days later it trickles into other "news" sites, often watered down, and often with quotes out of context. I also think that 99.9% of the people out there do not understand scientific vernacular. They don't understand the language used and why it is used which contributes to the problem. Kudos to the NYT for responsible journalism.

Which is exactly why the way Dr Muller is going about things is bugging me. We saw the same thing last year when they had the big press thing for the earlier papers when they were submitted. AFAIK, all have been rejected after review. We get a media blitz on submission, but if the paper is rejected then it isn't a paper, it's not even an op ed, it's a nothing. By all means have a media circus on acceptance if you want, but not on submission.

The point is, that bringing in failed predictions clouds the study of AGW. Usually when AGW is discussed, skeptics bring in predictions as a "who cares" kind of tactic to detract from the topic. The skeptics may not be doing this intentionally every time, as they may view it as a logical extension of AGW studies. But, the studies do not need to make predictions in regards to humanity, it just needs to concern itself with AGW. Do you understand why? I think there is a place for predictions, but not within the study itself.

I think I see where you coming from with this, but I can't quite agree. The test, the only valid test, of a theory is to make predictions and compare them to reality. Temps have gone up about .8 degrees, some of this is sure to be natural, some will be from CO2, some will be from feedbacks, and there are possibly "unknown unknowns". The only way to solve the attribution question is to arrive at values for each of these factors and to feed those values into GCMs and then to compare the output to reality. If it doesn't match, then you have made a mistake. I can't speak for others, but I do see predictions as a neccessary part of theory development. Without it, how do you verify that the values you've arrived at for the forcings are actually correct?

There is also the point that very much intertwined is the political aspect of what to do about the AGW "problem". This begs the question "If it isn't a problem, why do anything?"

I think there is substantial evidence in support of GW, and the GW observed is actually AGW. What that means to us as humans on this planet; I don't think anybody will claim to know for certain. There is a lot of work still needed to be done in this area.

There is not "substantial evidence in support of GW", it is an observed fact. Just ask any historian. Anyone who claims the planet has not warmed in the last 150 years has zero credibility. All you have to do is read the reports from 150 years ago and compare them to now and I haven't heard of the river Thames freezing over in winter for quite some time.

I absolutely do understand the difference. But when most people discuss predictions regarding GW, they look at specific weather events for examples. Its very hard to view climate as a whole for examples. When people speak of dire consequences, they usually imagine extended periods of drought, abnormal rain fall, increased number and intensity of hurricanes, ect. These are weather events, not climate events. Weather and climate are linked after all.

They are most definitely linked but deciding on "good" or "bad" is another matter. For example in the last bout of warming (1975-2000) we saw an increase in hurricanes in the North Atlantic basin but a drop in most other basins. The Australian region has gone from rarely having less than 13 per year to rarely having more than 12. While it sucks for the people living on the East coast of the USA, I'm not in a particular hurry to reverse things to give them less hurricanes while we go back to annual devastation from cyclones. What we are seeing in climate change is simply a change in weather patterns. And in that, some people will win and some will lose. Our ancestors survived far greater changes so I'm sure that we will survive.

Except that none of those things have been shown to be part of the atmosphere or contribute to the greenhouse effect like CO2. If bicycles could be shown to be a greenhouse gas, then I would consider them as a cause. And if I engage in predictions, I might even suggest that we limit the amount of bicycles we dump into the atmosphere.

You just asked for something that correlated, please don't move the goalposts. How about crows then? A protected species in many nations their numbers have exploded with the advent of technology. Lots and lots of heat absorbing black birds? And I'm not even going to touch the "dumping bicycles into the atmosphere" bit. It's giving me wierd mental pictures and asking odd questions. "Is a 28 speed road racer a more potent GHB than a 21 speed mountain bike?"

There are quite a few areas of science that require proper applications of statistics. Biological sciences rely on them very heavily. Many biologist collaborate with statisticians and the biologists themselves must have a very good understanding of statistical application. There are biology degrees that are really statistics degrees with a focus on biological science. So, the thought that someone cannot be proficient in both is a flawed assumption; they are inseparable fields of study.

But there is the rub. Most climate scientists do not collaborate with statisticians. This was a point of the Wegman report, that for a science that relies so heavily on statistical analysis, there is surprisingly little collaboration with the statistical community. And then we finish up with the "special pleading". Decentred PCA is not a valid statistical approach according to the statisticians but according to the climate scientists it is in climate science. Sorry, but no. Mathematics works the same way for everybody, you don't get your own special rules. There is an old saying that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", I view that claiming maths or stats works differently in climate than they do in other fields as "extraordinary" to say the least, yet so far the evidence has not been forthcoming.

Part of the problem here (IMO) is that since climate science as a field is rather young, then for most in the field now, there was little idea as to what was required when they were training. Nobody knew 20 years ago that a secondary in Stats would be a good idea. This is changing and the new crop of climatologists seem to have a much better grounding in stats than their predecessors do.

Just as an aside and on weather there is this bit of work. After going through the historical documents the author arrived at "A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events". Some are scary, some are amazing and some are quite mystifying, but it does give a historical background to view current weather events against. As I have noted before on these forums, for a science that likes to use the word "unprecedented" a lot, there seems to be an amazing lack of historical knowledge in climate science.

We'll get you out with the bear for a while.

"My god it's a 50's fit! 50cc of rum and coke stat"....

50cc??? Mate, we need to have serious talk about drinkin', or maybe just have some serious drinkin'.

And always remember "When life smothers you in molasses, make Rum."

Riiiiiight. Asking for evidence to back up a claim makes me a "science denier". As that is the very essence of science your credibility has just gone down the "S bend".

And for proof, you provide some sort of op-ed blog piece? Try reading this thread which covers the most recent IPCC report about extreme events.

So how about the Pentagon claim? Or agriculture? Bearing in mind that there is a drought in the US and agriculture will take a hit in a drought.

Actually, since I use Gigabyte boards I haven't had a sound card in ages. Full surround sound is built onto the board.

swansont, I don't speak for idiots. The pure physics says that for a doubling of CO2 in a no feedback situation the rise will be about a degree. But it has to be remembered that this is only the starting point, the feedbacks could reduce ot amplify the effect.

My comprehension of the actual NASA report, not some news headline, is that the melt is unprecedented within the scope of the observation period. As in, we haven't observed an event like this before. It may be bad choice of words for those who are lazy, but if you actually include the context, which is the key to reading comprehension, then "right on time" and "unprecedented" are not contradictions. Same type of thing can be said of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. They typically occur in a cyclical fashion, but the magnitude of the events can vary greatly. And you are, like many others, ignoring the fact that NASA explicitly stated in the report that they are not making any correlation to GW or AGW. Why are you leaving that out?

akh, fair enough as far as it goes. My objection is this science by press release. If it happens every 150 years or so why even use the word "unprecedented"? An earth scientist would be well aware that "unprecedented in the scope of the observation period" means absolutely nothing when that period is so short. The simple fact is that people don't read full articles, they read the headline and the first couple of paragraphs. I would point out that a media person employed by NASA would be well aware of this fact and so it begs the question "Why write the release in a way that is deliberately deceptive for the majority of people?"

This release has been taken up be a lot of media and it would take an appallingly incompetent media person to write something that has been "misconstrued" by so many media outlets.

https://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_enAU330AU330&q=greenland+ice

Scientists at Nasa admitted that they thought satellite readings were a mistake after images showed 97% surface melt over four days

The Greenland ice sheet is melting at an "unprecedented" rate, according to NASA satellite data that shows 97 per cent of the vast mass is

The surface of Greenland's massive ice sheet has melted this month over an unusually large area, Nasa has said.

Edward Hanna: The ice sheet has been living on borrowed time for many years, with dire consequences.

Nearly the entire ice sheet surface was slush after a few days this month—the fastest melt yet seen by satellites. What does it mean?

Like I said, most people don't read past the headline and the first paragraph. And BTW, it doesn't look all that "slushy" to me. http://www.summitcamp.org/status/webcam/

And to be fair, at least the NYT got it right at the start of the article;

The extent expanded from about 40 percent to 97 percent over four days, a first in 30 years of satellite observations but in line with a historical ...

So you shift from AGW to problems with predictions and prediction models? This is about CO2 and AWG. Nice diversionary tactic, but I don't think that discussion belongs here. Stay on topic.

Rather than a diversion it is basic logic. If the increase in CO2 causes AGW but this has no negative effects, then why do you worry about it? Are you one of those strange people that wants to stop things for no better reason than they are happening? OTOH, if you think that AGW will have negative effects in the future then you are making predictions, aren't you?

As far as extreme weather, there is one heck of a drought through the majority of the United States right now.

Do you understand the difference between weather and climate?

I would have thought that warmistas would have learnt their lesson with the withdrawal of Gergis et al, but obviously not. akh, this paper is simply "submitted", it is yet to be even shown to be correct. You've heard of "peer review"? Well the idea is for the paper to undergo that review and then get added to the literature. The idea is not to have splashy press releases and interviews on Rachel Maddox before the damn thing is even reviewed.

But if you're interested, here's what Judith Curry has to say about the situation.

http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/30/observation-based-attribution/ Dr Curry is a hurricane expert and has worked with the BEST team.

Roger Pielke also wades into this pointing out that BEST have not redone the homogenization but have simply accepted previous efforts. Unfortunately this means that BEST has the same problems that others who use the USGHCN do.

I must also add that Dr Muller, while he may be great physicist, has moved from "idiot" to "partially educated" in the field of climate. It was only March last year that he worked out that the planet was getting warmer. This doesn't make him a "sceptic" who has changed sides, it makes him a "fool" who has been educated.

So in case you got clouded, the Berkeley paper has found that the best fit for the increase in temperature is the increase in CO2. The increase in CO2 is attributed to human activity. In other words, AGW. So, in order for this result to be invalidated, you need to produce something else that is a better fit. Can you do that? Do you have a better fit correlation?

You're arguing for curve fitting? Here? Do you understand that "Correlation is not causation"? And actually, if you want to play "curve fitting", how about pirates?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-fact-the-lack-of-pirates-is-causing-global-warming/

Or bicycles? Or any other damn thing that has increased or decreased over the last 150 years.

Moreover, its not just the paper and its findings, as these results have been demonstrated in many other papers. Its the fact that one of the major denialist tactics, to try to demonstrate that climate science is corrupt due to outside influences, is now shown to be an invalid argument against AGW. Its always been an invalid argument against AGW.

Um, no. Just because you want to claim something as "fact" doesn't make it so. There are quite a few areas of concern in climate science, perhaps the strongest is that in a highly statistical field so many know so little about statistics. I would also suggest that a climate scientists would not be the best person to review a paper containing "novel" or "new" statistical procedures, this is rightfully the domain of the statistician.

When we add to that the proven cases of illegal activity (although they are few) there is indeed cause for concern.

We can say that extreme weather events such as those you mention become more common as the climate warms, and we can say that human activity is making the warming trend worse, happen quicker, and will have downstream consequences,

iNow you keep making this claim and despite several requests have yet to provide any proof at all for an increase in these extreme events. How about some evidence, or stop making the claim.

Love that last one. I think it applies to more than just Detroit.

It tells us quite a few things actually and there is no need to spin anything.

1. This thread and the OPs concentration on who part funded the study tells us that personality and funding is far more important to warmistas than actual science is.

2. That this paper is being touted as some sort of be all and end all when it is only submitted and has yet to pass peer review shows that the story is important and not the facts. Science by press release is how it is supposed to be done according to the warmers.

3. Note also that the previous 4 papers from last year are still under review and have not passed.

4. Warmers love to ignore the GIGO effect. They are somehow surprised that people using the same datasets get the same answer. How good are the datasets from GHCN? Not very.

Since we can now use preprints and submitted articles I point to Watts et al 2012. A reanalysis od the raw data using the most moder techniques (you know, the ones recommended by the WMO) shows that spurious warming is introduced into the data by certain techniques.

But we already knew that, it doesn't take Watts to add to it. The recent Steirou Koutsoyiannis paper analysed the data as well.

We investigate the methods used for the adjustment of inhomogeneities of temperature time series covering the last 100 years. Based on a systematic study of scientific literature, we classify and evaluate the observed inhomogeneities in historical and modern time series, as well as their adjustment methods. It turns out that these methods are mainly statistical, not well justified by experiments and are rarely supported by metadata. In many of the cases studied the proposed corrections are not even statistically significant.

 

From the global database GHCN-Monthly Version 2, we examine all stations containing both raw and adjusted data that satisfy certain criteria of continuity and distribution over the globe. In the United States of America, because of the large number of available stations, stations were chosen after a suitable sampling. In total we analyzed 181 stations globally. For these stations we calculated the differences between the adjusted and non-adjusted linear 100-year trends. It was found that in the two thirds of the cases, the homogenization procedure increased the positive or decreased the negative temperature trends.

 

One of the most common homogenization methods, ‘SNHT for single shifts’, was applied to synthetic time series with selected statistical characteristics, occasionally with offsets. The method was satisfactory when applied to independent data normally distributed, but not in data with long-term persistence.

 

The above results cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4°C and 0.7°C, where these two values are the estimates derived from raw and adjusted data, respectively.

Concerning the Greenland thing, I tend to agree with climatologist Pat Michaels and think that NASA should spend some of its budget on a thing called a "Dictionary". I know, they're old tech to some but they can be really handy when you need to know the meanings of words and stuff, especially long (and very well loved) words like "Unprecedented". The press release it titled "Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt". Ooh, scary, boggity, boogitty boo. Yet in the release it says;

"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig

So it happens once every 150 years and this one is "right on time" but it is also "unprecedented". Give me a break.

ecoli, what have you got? The real questions are attribution and possible dangers. Can you provide proof of attribution? Nope. Since it is only logical that the warming from the LIA has been nothing but beneficial on what physical, provable basis is this going to change into a disaster? Bearing in mind that there is no evidence at all of the predicted increase in extreme events.

The truth is that you don't actually have any proof. That's why it's all pictures of polar bears and appeals to emotion and authority. There are model predictions, but these things can't model last years conditions properly yet.

We all know that "all other things being equal" temps will rise about 1 degree for a doubling of CO2. The doom and gloom merchants rely on a positive feedback of WV to increase this to 2 or 3 degrees. The idea is essentially sound, as the planet warms then more water gets evaporated and WV goes up. This feedback effect has never been demonstrated in either a lab or nature but is required for GCMs to work. Back in 2009 Sun, Yu and Zhang looked for but could not find this positive feedback. Dr Pielke covered that paper here. A more recent paper looking at the actual WV content of the atmosphere over the last 20 years has put a spanner in the works. Vonder Haar Et Al 2012 can't find an increase and is also discussed by Dr Pielke here.

Which means I have a question for you. How many times must the predictions be wrong before you consider that you might be barking up the wrong tree? The temperature rises haven't appeared as predicted, the extreme weather is nowhere to be seen, the predicted WV increase doesn't seem to be there. The only predictions got right are primary school level ones. In a warmer world ice melts, weather patterns might change. Some places will get more rain and some places will get less. Sh*t, I can get more specific predictions by reading the Horoscope section of the morning paper.

PS. akh, Welcome to SFN. But don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

Rigney, you need to understand the rules;

1. All Conservatives are racist and sexist. Progressives are not, simply by definition.

2. All conservative commentators are liars, from Fox news on down. All "Liberal" commentators are founts of wisdom and even handed truth.

3. Conservatives are dumb and can only repeat what Fox news says. This is deemed true by liberals even if the conservative doesn't watch Fox or Fox is not available in the conservatives nation.

4. If a conservative thinks a liberal commentator should "Shut up" it's because conservatives do not believe in free speech and desire some sort of Jackboot authority. (I've never actually found a conservative pundit suggesting a liberal one be silenced, but the liberals say that it is happening and since they would never lie it must be so.)

5. If a liberal wants a conservative pundit silenced it's because said pundit is spreading "hate speech", "misinformation" or "lies" or something. This is not an intrusion on free speech because preventing "lies" doesn't count as challenging "free speech". Free speech only applies to the truth and the truth only comes from one side.

6. When a rag tag bunch of conservatives have a demonstration with hand painted signs they are obviously an "Astroturf" group. When a highly polished group of Liberals come in a fleet of busses with professionally printed signs, their own newspapers and some of them have jobs in the Liberal campaign office, this is a "Grassroots" organisation.

Just like the "Laws of Physics" and the Universe, politics is so much easier to understand once you get the basic "Laws".

The insurance industry is making record payouts from extreme climactic events, the Pentagon now adjudges global warming to be the #1 security threat to the United States, and agriculture is taking record losses.

You make three claims in this sentence and at least 1 is totally false. (or is at least being misused) How about some proof?

Let's talk coal, for example Peabody energy in the years 2008 to 2010 made $1,008.2 million in profit and paid $71 million income taxes on that profit, for an average rate of 7%.

 

Exxon Mobil made a profit of $19,655.2 million during those years, paid $2,783.2 million income taxes on that profit, for an average rate of $14.2%. [ figures from Citizens for Tax Justice ]

Where in the report? Don't expect others to trudge through 71 pages to find the tidbits.

Top minds in the fields of economics and of anthropomorphic climate change agree that the best approach would be to heavily tax the carbon unearthed by the fossil fuel industry and then sold on world markets. Then we would use the revenue raised to promote renewable energy. This would serve to even the playing field and send us in the right direction of development. This backing comes from a diverse list that includes George Schultz, Michael Bloomberg, Stephen Chu, Paul Volker, Al Gore, Dr. James Hansen, Arthur Laffer, Lester Brown and even ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson.

Since commercial electricity generation from wind power has been around for some 70 years, when will it be "developed"? BTW, we have a bloody Carbon Dioxide Tax and it will do absolutely nothing for the environment. And if politicians and activists make it to your list of "top minds", then your bar is set way too low.

Then there is the subsidy of not having to pay for the disposal of their waste products, like all other industries must. One can't have a logical discussion about this topic without acknowledging that the prime waste product of the fossil fuel industry is CO2. Is this not so?

While it is so, it is also a silly point. The primary waste product of every human alive happens to be CO2. Shall we literally tax the air we breathe?

The upshot is this;

1. You've found something you don't like.

2. You've found some activists that agree with you.

3. You think that the thing you don't like should be taxed into extinction.

4. The money from that tax should be given to you.

5. You expect people to work their little butts off for gratis to ensure the success of your grand plan.

You have a grand plan to solve something that you cannot even demonstrate is in fact a problem. Also your solution will not solve the problem even if it exists. This is the vital point that activists simply do not get. Even if we went to fully renewable power tomorrow and scrubbed the atmosphere back to 280 ppm of CO2, the climate will still change. It will change whether we do nothing or kill off 3/4 of the population and all go and live in grass huts. No matter what we do, it will always change. You can no more stop climate change than you can stop the Sun rising tomorrow morning or stop the tide coming in.

The thing that never fails to amaze me (although I should be used to it by now) is that no matter what the "looming disaster" envisaged by the environmental whackos, it can always be solved by taxing somebody to death and giving the money to the aforesaid whackos. Honestly, it's as predictable as the "Consensus" position taken by a conference where they start voting on the "Statement" a month before the conference starts. (And they throw the voting open to internet yobbos)

And then we also have oddities like the Phobos Monolith.

It's perfectly normal to have large, rectangular objects in the middle of flat, dusty, bombarded smooth plains.

I don't know how old this Bob Newhart is, but it is pure comedy Gold.

"Look Willard I'm taking just as big a chance as you are. I mean it's my responsibility. If that thing goes off, it's me they're going to want to talk to not you, you know."

Does anybody else have some favourites?