Update at end (23-Apr-2015)
I thought for a long time about registering to be an organ donor. There are thousands of people in Canada on dialysis, waiting for kidneys. The cost to the health care system and taxpayers to have a patient sick and on dialysis is huge. And that doesn’t even touch on the cost to the patients waiting on the kidney, both in financial and human terms.
I was already registered to be an organ donor at death, but the greatest chances for a successful transplant are from living donors. We all have two kidneys and can function perfectly fine with one. I am very fortunate that by accident of birth, I am relatively healthy and live in a free and prosperous country… and wanted to do something to possibly help another that wasn’t so lucky.
So I registered and went through all the questionnaires, compatibility review, diagnostics and testing, and follow ups, and consultations, and retesting. (They are very thorough, as you would expect… nobody wants a worn out kidney that doesn’t match, or carries a payload.) And it is quite interesting. I learned things about medicine I didn’t know previously… like blood type compatibility is not always necessary for a donor match. Or that in donor chains, one anonymous donor can set off a chain that results in up to 4 successful transplants. Medical science is amazing!
After an ultrasound I was told I had what looked like I had kidney stones. But nothing serious; so far, so good. I moved on to the next stage which is testing kidney function and CT scan. Kidneys work like a charm. But the CT showed I had multiple cysts on each kidney. After consultations, the transplant team advised me that I wouldn’t be a good candidate for the donor program because of the risk of future polycystic kidney disease. So I have to see a nephrologist and talk about a management plan to keep an eye on things and make sure I don’t lose any kidney function…
Even though I was declined from the donor program, I am now aware of a potential problem that I otherwise wouldn’t know about. And I can monitor the condition to make sure if anything starts going wrong, I’ll know BEFORE I get seriously ill.
The point of this little story is that I want to encourage others to please consider registering for living donor programs. Your gift may never be needed, or you may give a sick person another chance at living the kind of healthy, carefree life most of us take for granted. Or, as in my case, they may find that you aren’t suited to be a donor, but you get a head start on managing something that you otherwise may not have known about until you were sick.
Thanks for your time!
Follow up: I’ve received permission to post the other half of this story. Theresa Richarz (@treericharz) was my potential partner in the LDPE program. This is an update to her side of this story: https://www.facebook.com/theresa.richarz/posts/10155437777395545
This is my response to the column written by Miranda Devine (Jihadis fill atheist void) in the Sydney Daily Telegraph, March 18, 2015:
Personal anecdote and supposition may be sufficient for you to ‘believe’ (you don’t really, but I’ll come back to that), but some people like evidence to back up claims. It is the reason to believe. These people are known as rational. Belief without reason is irrational.
Let’s not forget reasoned doubt, skepticism, is the very backbone of science. What has given you all the comforts and conveniences you enjoy today? Not religion, not god. Religion ALWAYS fights change. Christianity has fought change for 2000 years. It only adapts AFTER the critical mass of society moves on without it. Then it attempts to regain it’s footing with ingratiating acceptance of what people long before reasoned was true. Religion burned ‘heretics’ at the stake for hundreds of years. Many of these people committed no crime other than try to learn about their world instead of unquestioned acceptance of dogma. Thankfully we progressed, very slowly, to where we now understand biology, chemistry, physics, etc… none of which were explained by the bible, and ALL of which religion fought. So no thanks to religion, you live in modern comforts and type up your drivel on marvels of modern electronics.
And you do NOT believe as the bible commands. Do you wear mixed fibers? Do you eat shellfish? Are you accepting of other cultures and religions? Do you tithe? Ever enjoy sex out of wedlock? If you TRULY believe the word of the bible, you KNOW it commands horrible death as punishment for things that are of no consequence to anyone else, except a vicious and irrational deity. Rational people discarded the bible and religion as guidance when they realized it made no bloody sense… except as a manual for abuse and hatred in lust for power.
Hate gays? There is a religion for that!
Want to own slaves? The bible or quran will allow it.
Looking for permission to kill imagined enemies? Allahu akbar. Amen.
Consider women inferior to men? Well pick one; ALL religions agree.
The perfect, omnipotent and omniscient God created man in his image, let him run amok, was dissatisfied with the results, and drowned everyone/everything on earth in a fit of rage, except ONE family we are all descended from. I guess he didn’t see that coming… and then couldn’t fix it. But don’t worry… it didn’t actually happen. It’s just a fable about morals… Morals? Rage, genocide, and incest are moral?
So we get to your ridiculous comments about a young man who is dead and can’t speak for himself. Was he driven to act out of atheism? You explicitly state he converted to Islam. You destroy your own argument right out of the gate. There is no reason to refute anything else. You did it yourself.
Please, in the future, try to understand your source material and NOT write out of blind, malicious bias. Isn’t it what Jesus would want you to do?
The following is in reference to a recent article in Slate penned by Lawrence Krauss, “If You Don’t Accept That Climate Change Is Real, You’re Not a Skeptic. You’re a Denier“.
Unfortunately, Dr. Krauss, we are all, even prominent and respected scientists like yourself, subject to bias. And in this case you are either ignorant of contrary data, or bias leads you to discount it to maintain your position. Even the IPCC WG1 AR5 report, in evaluation of climate models (Chapter 9, Box 9.2, page 769) states that what they call the “hiatus” in warming can’t be explained, and 111/114 models, or 97%, overstate warming compared to real world observation. This gives the appearance of a systemic bias in the models in favor of an AGW/co2 hypothesis.
As Richard Feynman said, “If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong”.
Well, the IPCC… hardly an impartial organization… admits it “disagrees with experiment”. 31,000+ scientists have disputed the AGW/co2 hypothesis in The Oregon Petition. Prominent NASA astronauts, scientists, program directors, etc, have decried the politicization of NASA and their positions on climate change. Even the “97% of scientists” claim quoted ad nauseum in the media has no scientific basis, wrongly classified papers, and has been discredited as marketing. Indeed, peer-reviewed studies suggest a majority of scientists may also dispute what is constantly called the ‘consensus’ position. No, that does NOT mean these studies should be taken at face value and exclude those that are contrary. That would be cherry-picking. What it does is introduce DOUBT about what we are told is “settled” or “consensus”.
Further, there seems to be a deliberate attempt by you to conflate skepticism of AGW/co2 hypothesis with climate change denial, and to deride any opposition to your one sided view as unscientific. By these standards many eminent, credentialed and respected scientists that accept climate change and that man has a role, but are unconvinced of the claims that man is almost solely responsible, would be declared ‘deniers’. Among them are contributors to IPCC reports such as Judith Curry and John Christy. These are not ideologues. They are pragmatists that accept much of the AGW/co2 climate change narrative, but draw the line at politics and deliberate deceit in the name of self interest directing the narrative away from science and into bias and extremism.
Many accept climate does change (we are only 12,000 years out of an ice age after all) but aren’t convinced we can say with any certainty what is man’s role. And for the record, not ONCE have I ever heard a skeptic claim climate does not change. I have never heard a skeptic claim certainty in this area at all. In fact, it is the proponents of the AGW/co2 hypothesis that say we can stop looking, we already have the answers, and suggest we can stabilize the climate by reducing co2 emissions… in effect outing themselves as both closed minded, and climate change deniers.
Add to this the never ending stream of apocalyptic warnings that have yet to materialize, the shrill and repeated claims that defy any cursory scientific examination (deep ocean heating, ocean acidification, polar bear extinction, more common and catastrophic storms, 50% decline in wildlife since 1970, rapidly melting Antarctic ice, etc…) and there is an ever expanding portfolio of reasons to be not just skeptical (ALWAYS a reasonable position), but wary, and even cynical. And this is a tragedy. Polarization has taken the place of data and analysis. It means we are NOT directing resources according to need, and are setting policy based on at best a wet-finger-in-the-wind guess, and at worst, deliberately misrepresented or outright fraudulent claims.
This is not to say man doesn’t have a role in climate change, or that co2 plays no part. But you can’t say that either of these things are true, or quantify them with any degree of certainty when the models used to make the assertions can’t accurately predict experiment… in this case real world temperature readings. What you CAN say when experiment doesn’t match the prediction is that the hypothesis is flawed, incomplete, or wrong.
I’m not a scientist, but I AM a skeptic, and I understand something of the scientific method. And making assertions that are based on models that are shown to overstate warming at a 97% rate is in direct opposition to the scientific method. Unless, of course, you can show why Feynman was wrong all along and models override experiment. In short, when considering the weight of ALL evidence, to assert that questioning your position is unscientific is itself unscientific, and unbecoming a scientist of your reputation and stature.
After posting on a amateurish climate blog, I received a bunch of replies that are full of <sarcasm> charm and wit </sarcasm>. One of these posters in particular (aptly named dumboldguy) seems to have lost his composure altogether… To describe his replies as obsessive or irrational does not do justice; they really need to be seen. I’m posting the replies and links to the original source.
Please note that I don’t in any way hold these up as typical, or as examples, of the larger community of folks backing the co2 climate warming hypothesis. Some of these replies are definitely special, even among the more vocal proponents.
My original post is here:
How reputable do you consider the IPCC? A lot? Some? When they agree with your conclusions?
According to the IPCC WG1 AR5 report, chapter 9, page 769, Box 9.2, on evaluation of climate models, they admit there has been little to no warming (0.04C per decade) for at least 15 years. This while co2 emissions have risen rapidly… 25% of all co2 man has ever produced since ’98. They also admit 111/114 climate models overstate warming compared to real world observation, a 97% failure rate. O sweet irony.
Not only is there no apparent causation, there is not even correlation between warming and co2 emissions. Without any established correlation, it is impossible to assert there is causation. No short term, local variation or anomaly changes that. Period. To say otherwise plants both feet firmly in the dogma camp.
“If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it is WRONG” ~~ Richard Feynman, Nobel winner for physics, 1965
Another Feynman-quoting, pick out a line on page 769, spout the same old BS denier troll arrives. Boooring! Such bald assertions he makes as he “goes where no other denier troll has gone before” and “plants both feet firmly in the dogma camp”. Still booooooooring!
What might be interesting is the derivation of that “toadliquuor” handle. Is that a play on words and you really do “lick toads”, presumably those with psychedelic skin secretions to power your forays into denier land? What part of the toad do you lick? Does the toad like it? How do you know?
Or do you drink the beer named Toad Licker? Or are you a fan of the band of that name? Here’s a great video from toad licker land. I love it, maybe you will too. <*Link to video removed*>
It is quite simple: the DATA shows no correlation, hence causation can not be asserted. This is science. Your opinion of that is entirely irrelevant.
I’m not claiming knowledge. I’m saying any claim that human emissions of co2 are responsible for warming climate is NOT supported by either observation OR climate models.
You stick with the belief even though evidence contradicts it. This is the very definition of dogma. So it is reduced to nothing more than simple speculation, or a wish.
The hypothesis as it currently stands is flawed. This isn’t something you can change by tossing insults or being childish. It takes enough courage to acknowledge the flaws, and correct them, before we can move forward and learn what other factors are influencing climate, and what the ramifications are for humanity.
You claim no knowledge? Does that mean you can’t tell us why the arctic sea ice is melting away, sea level is rising, and 2014 is going to be the hottest year on record? Fine, since we have no confidence in what you parrot to us (we’ve heard it all before), we can continue to ignore you.
How about telling us what “other” factors are influencing climate, and what the “ramifications” are for humanity? Fine-sounding but non-specific BS is not “data”, T-L.
And how about talking to us about toadliquor? Did you enjoy the toad licker video? Is it true that “All toads are worth licking, but some taste better than others”?
Arctic ice is largely marine ice and waxes and wanes. It is currently near recent historical coverage.http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/Marine ice melt has no effect on sea levels as it only displaces water equal to it’s own volume.
Sea levels are rising, but there are also several factors that can influence that; temp, mineral content, glacial melt (may be geothermal causes as in Antarctica), depletion of aquifers, etc. And shifting wind patterns and ocean currents can ‘push’ more water to some locations than others. In some areas water levels are lower. Pre satellite era measurements are often suspect because they don’t account for geophysical movement, such as land rebound from ice age that continues in some areas.
As for 2014 being “warmest” on record, you need to define what “record” is. It has been much warmer than it is now in the past. And it has been much cooler. And with both lower and higher co2 concentrations. Even the medieval warm period was likely as warm as now. There is no such thing as a stable climate. There never has been. We’ve had 5 million years of ice ages with interglacial warming periods between. And all without industrialization and a large human presence, other than the last couple of hundred years. And satellite data, such as that from UAH shows 2014 is eclipsed by ’98 and ’10, and roughly equal to ’07. http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2014/October2014/Oct2014graf.jpg
“Other” factors are what should be investigated. As previously stated, co2 levels don’t align with temp. Even the IPCC says so. We know that methane and water vapor have much more powerful greenhouse effects than co2. We know the ‘pause’ aligns with the Montreal protocol that banned certain CFCs. Doesn’t mean they are the explanation. But we don’t figure it out by saying “We’ve got the answers we want. Put the instruments away and go home.” Especially when both real world observation AND climate models refute the co2 hypothesis.
Non-specific BS may or may not be data that is relevant. How do you know? And if it isn’t investigated, you will never know. But all this is extraneous to the assertion that co2 is a climate driver. Current hypothesis on this is a dismal failure. Period. So if you are to continue supporting that position, you need to show a link between temp and co2 that even the IPCC says is not there.
Or I guess you could continue to ignore it and ask childish questions that have no bearing on the issue as a deflection… Your choice…
A veritable Gish Gallop of the same old BS, with the patented distortions, misinterpretations, and just plain lies of the denier. I’m too busy with real life tonight to address all of it, but I will address it in pieces, the first being Toad Licker’s opening (and false) bald assertion:
“Arctic ice is largely marine ice and waxes and wanes. It is currently near recent historical coverage.http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/Marine ice melt has no effect on sea levels as it only displaces water equal to it’s own volume”.
I asked T-L about “arctic SEA ice”, not “arctic ice”, which could be construed to include the Greenland ice sheet and permafrost. It is not just “largely” but almost totally “marine” ice (except for some calving icebergs). A careful reading of the link T-L provided shows that it is more than a bit disingenuous to say it is “near RECENT historical coverage” (some non-specific cherry- picking there?). It happens to be on the low end of “recent”, and depending on how you define “recent” quite low.
Note also the use of the term “coverage”, which means “extent”, and is always used by deniers to obfuscate the real measure of Arctic sea ice—-VOLUME—–which is declining exponentially.
And of course note the inclusion of “true” statements in the first and third sentences of that paragraph. That’s the standard propagandist’s trick of speaking truth and lulling the listener into nodding yes and saying “Uh-huh, That’s right, Yep”, so that the BS can be slipped in the middle and (hopefully) swallowed along with the truth. Who can argue with “melting marine ice has no effect on sea level because it only displaces its own volume”? DUH! (Of course, that’s not strictly true, as Crock followers know, it’s a bit more complicated).
All that aside, my major complaint is that I asked T-L the following—–“Does that mean you can’t tell us why the arctic sea ice is melting away?”—-and he DID NOT answer that question but simply blew smoke. Why is that? Is he afraid of the “data”about how serious the Arctic sea ice situation appears to be? Why is is melting and showing a consistent trend of doing so if temperatures are not rising?
He continues in the same vein with his other NON “answers” to my questions—-slinging BS that requires many more words to rebut than it does for him to put it out there, and that’s another denier trick. Real life calls, but I’ll be back (although most Crockers don’t need me to point out T-L’s BS to them).
In the meantime, try not to laugh at his sea level BS, his “no warming” BS, and the wonderfully crazy “CFC Hypothesis”. Any straw that can be grabbed to obfuscate is fair game!
Once again, as I stated previously, it matters not what you believe or want to believe. It’s totally irrelevant. The matter at the core is this:
Is there reasonable doubt that co2 is a primary climate driver. I’ve shown, linked to evidence, that indeed there is. Even the IPCC, a political organization founded to investigate “the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”, hardly an unbiased role, recognizes such.
You can rant and rave about what answers I can or can’t provide about sea ice… or any other topic… but why would you? You have access to the internet. If you actually WANT to investigate the truth, it is at your fingertips. Look.
Now you could examine the same evidence and come to a different conclusion; entirely possible and reasonable. But as with most dogmatics, you aren’t interested in information that may conflict with your bias. This is why you run this little obfuscation line about me answering your questions. Because confronting the truth of the IPCC admissions and the UAH satellite data, and many other contrary sources leads to conflict with your closely held opinions… your BELIEFS. And the only way you can deal with that is with cognitive dissonance.
So what is left to you is to ignore what doesn’t conform to your narrow view and continue with your misdirection, obfuscation, insults and outright weirdness. Is an opinion that can’t withstand scrutiny really an opinion you want to hang on to?
Ice melts because the temperature exceeds the freezing point. Period. Ice levels are not constant. They never have been. Not at either pole. That ice melts is not evidence that human activity caused it to melt. It is evidence that the temperature is above the freezing point of water. You haven’t shown it is linked to human activity, just that it happens. Well, sorry, but that ice melts is well known. It happens naturally every spring. The process reverses every winter. No human intervention is required.
And I didn’t posit that there was a “CFC Hypothesis”. If you are going to use quotes, quote what I actually said which was the opposite. Not good enough to misrepresent? You actually need to lie? That’s weak, pal. And for the record, CFCs parallel temps much more closely than co2 does… as you could see here if you looked:https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-study-says. No that doesn’t imply causation, as I said before. But co2 doesn’t correlate nearly as closely and you are all over that as if your world would end if you are wrong.
Again, without correlation, there can’t be causation. Do you know of some magic formula where causation happens without correlation? I don’t expect you to answer to that… It would require honesty, which would require more introspection than I suspect you are capable of. <*Link to video removed*>
Here’s Toad Licker, launching on yet another torrent of BS before we can find time address his earlier “load”. In the true propagandist model, T-L is trying to bury us in BS and hoping we won’t have the time to respond. A time-honored tactic among deniers and other BS artists. Ever deal with a high pressure salesman? Same tactic—-keep the customer off balance and keep hammering until he “buys”.
Lesliegraham did respond and I’m sure speaks for all Crockers who are tired of trolls like Toad-Licker. I am still busy with real life today and only looked in on this thread in passing.
I will comment here only to say three things:
1) That lesliegraham is correct, and the best place to look for evidence of that is to see what Skeptical Science has to say about any of T-L’s BS. That’s where you can find the “debunking. disproving, and shredding” of all of it. I for one am tired of reading all the evidence, (which has been accumulating for years), never mind having to put it all down to feed a troll.
2) T-L gets on his high horse over my comments about the “wonderfully crazy CFC hypothesis”, and insists that he “….didn’t posit that there was a “CFC Hypothesis”. The very fact that he stated emphatically that “We KNOW the ‘pause’ aligns with the Montreal protocol that banned certain CFCs” is the equivalent of positing a hypothesis that CFC’s cause global warming. And adding the qualifier “Doesn’t mean they are the explanation” doesn’t alter that fact. The seed is planted. What “we all know” is that there was NO pause, and that CO2 DOES correlate with temperature rise on Earth. (T-L thinks that we don’t know that 93+% of the heat has been going into the oceans).
Note too what SkS has to say about Lu’s work—-they’re not impressed.http://www.skepticalscience.com/CFCs-global-warming.htm
3) Notice also all the “messenger attacking” and “ad hominem-ing” that T-L is engaging in here. Not much science. Perhaps because the science is not with him?
And tell us before I go, T-L, how many toads have you licked today?
And is it true that all toads are lickable, but some are more lickable than others?
My words are in black and white, and I never stated CFC is a candidate hypothesis. I went further and stated outright that correlation does NOT imply causation. Your attempt to assert something else is classic strawman.
You neglected to explain how there can be causation w/o correlation. Failing that, you could explain why the IPCC is wrong when they state there has been no warming (0.04C per decade) for at least 15 years while co2 emissions rose sharply, and also when they say 111/114 climate models overstate warming.
This is actual data. Please, do explain how real world data is wrong, but the modeled hypotheses that overstate warming in 97% of cases are right.
Where is the messenger attacking or ad homs? Who keeps asking stupid, childish questions about my name as if that is relevant? Have you noticed your OWN handle?
This isn’t difficult. There are simple points you could address to clear this up stated above. But it seems you deliberately want to avoid that.
Again, I doubt you will respond to these points. If you could without betraying your adherence to dogma, you would have by now.
Redskylite joins in:
Toadliquor – After cherry picking tiny little portions of the IPCC AR5 report, you dismiss the organisation as a “political organization”.
Even if I dismiss the IPCC (which I certainly do not), the World Bank has just issued a report based on other studies which confirms our worst fears on Global Warming.
World Is Locked into ~1.5°C Warming & Risks Are Rising, New Climate Report Finds
“Today’s report confirms what scientists have been saying – past emissions have set an unavoidable course of warming over the next two decades, which will affect the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people the most,” World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim said. “We cannot continue down the current path of unchecked, growing emissions.”
I keep line charts of NASA’s monthly GISS data for both Land Surface and Land/Sea Surface, both charts are steadily rising on the way up to the 2°C bar (together with CO2 atmospheric concentrations), I understand the physics of the radiation blocking effect by GHG, there is no doubt about it. It is no longer debatable.
Your denial is endangering people across the world.
I am not ranting and raving, I have listened to learned scientists (such as Gilbert N. Plass, Richard B.Alley, Roger Revelle, Svante Arrhenious and many others) and LEARNT. That’s how humans work by acting on the latest and best of our knowledge available.
Please read this World Bank report:
My reply to Redskylite:
You accuse me of cherry-picking, yet disregard the IPCC when the data disagrees with your preformed conclusion.
The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific organization. Period. It’s mandate is to investigate “human-induced” warming. This is a conclusion before they even begin.http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
The World Bank? Isn’t this supposed to be about science? What degree of confidence do you suggest is appropriate for ‘science’ decrees from a ‘bank’?
As posted earlier, satellite data from UAH and others disagrees with models. And this is the whole point: Real world measurements contradict models. So which is wrong, the real world or the models? If the models are wrong, the hypothesis is wrong. And this raises doubts that in a rational world require further investigation.
This blather about something not being debatable is an explicit display of bias, and an attempt to shutdown discussion. In what other area of science would this be acceptable? When is it ever acceptable to say “We know enough. Stop trying to find answers.”? This smacks of religiosity. Your questions are dangerous… Such unbridled hypocrisy!
What is dangerous is trying to shutdown discussion while forcing a vision that is not backed by science. And no amount of name dropping makes bad science good.
Back to dumboldguy:
The licker of toads makes another of his moronic bald assertions (note the finality and irrefutable nature of the “Period” he inserts).
“The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific organization. Period. It’s mandate is to investigate “human-induced” warming. This is a conclusion before they even begin.http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf”
A look at the link that supposedly will prove that there was a “conclusion before they even began” shows this statement of the “role” of the IPCC, first stated way back when and reaffirmed several times since:
“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies”.
I’m sorry, but I fail to see how the licker of toads can interpret that to mean that the IPCC is “a POLITICAL organizatiion, not a SCIENTIFIC organization”. The word “scientific” appears three times in that statement, while “human induced” appears only once, and then in the context of assessing and understanding its scientific basis. Politics and political are words that appear not at all, are not even implied, and cannot be inferred (other than that the UN is a body made up of “political” entities who live by “policies”).
How about some real evidence, T-L. Yes, the group WAS formed to investigate “human-induced” climate change, and it keeps reaching ever-more frightening conclusions base on the unfolding science. How is that “political”? What IS “political” is the efforts by people like you to deny the truth of AGW.
Yep, this is all just more denier horsepucky thrown against the wall by T-L, and it’s so weak that it bounced right off. T-L is losing it—-watch for him to become even more frenzied and frantic in his efforts to deny truth.
Redskylite with the anger accusation, always a classic:
O.K ToadLiquor – You reject the advice and warnings from the IPCC and World Bank, plus scientists like Richard B. Alley and David Archer.
You dismiss the obvious signs from NASA, NOAA and JMA.
Admit it you are in denial and what comes after denial – Anger, please direct it away from me and at yourself when it comes.
Redskylite decides to expand on his comments:
“The World Bank? Isn’t this supposed to be about science? What degree of confidence do you suggest is appropriate for ‘science’ decrees from a ‘bank’?”
The World Bank report is based on a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climatic Impact Research a highly reputable scientific organisation funded by the German Federal government.
“As posted earlier, satellite data from UAH and others disagrees with models.”
I am very sceptical of the UAH data – John Raymond Christy is a well known contrarian and speaker/ member of the Marshall Institute – a conservative thinktank with a highly anti AGW agenda.
My own spreadsheet program shows a clear upwards trend to a +2°C using the NASA GISS data later on this century, and unlike (UAH) I trust this organisation and data.
If you think spreadsheets are not appropriate for climate science, then have a word with the UAH and Roy Spencer (who favours simple one dimensional EXCEL climate models.)
Just for once put yourself in the place of an Alaskan or Pacific Islander that is going to lose their land by you “debatable science”.
“I told them once we build the sea wall, everybody’s going to get comfortable and say we don’t need to relocate anymore,” said Tony Weyiouanna, Clifford’s cousin and president of the Shishmaref Native Corp. “But they don’t see the other problems. The sea level’s rising. It’s going to happen eventually.”
Reply to Redskylite:
What your opinions are don’t matter. You are claiming absolute knowledge. I’m pointing out flaws and contrary evidence. If you choose to discount evidence solely because you disapprove of the source, that is prejudicial AND cherry picking. And you may want to read up on Pascal’s Wager.
Poor dumboldguy is a tad repetitious:
Let’s peck away some more at T-L’s BS. Let’s look at this small bit.
“As for 2014 being “warmest” on record, you need to define what “record” is. It has been much warmer than it is now in the past. And it has been much cooler.
And with both lower and higher co2 concentrations. Even the medieval warm period was likely as warm as now. There is no such thing as a stable climate. There never has been. We’ve had 5 million years of ice ages with interglacial warming periods between. And all without industrialization and a large human presence, other than the last couple of hundred years. And satellite data, such as that from UAH shows 2014 is eclipsed by ’98 and ’10, and roughly equal to ’07″
All that BS can be found on page 289 of the Handbook for Denier Trolls. It has been warmer, it has been colder, CO2 is up, CO2 is down, glaciers come, glaciers go, tide comes in , tide goes out—-all of this can be heard in the denier echo chamber at any time, and the only words of any significance in the whole pile of BS are “the last couple of hundred years”, and more specifically the decades since WW2, and particularly the past couple of decades where the effects of AGW have become more extreme and obvious. Deniers love to take us all over the historical landscape with their “but-but-buts”, even millions of years into the past, but the fact is that the RECORDS are piling up on us right NOW, and the only explanation for them is AGW. Hey, T-L. You never did address the question of Arctic sea ice decline. What do have to say about my favorite video clip on that topic? <*Link to video removed*>
Ubrew shows up with ‘proof’:
“the DATA shows no correlation, hence causation can not be asserted.”
1) you’re not referring to global warming, but atmospheric warming. Since global warming is ocean warming, when the ocean hiccups, the atmospheric catches pneumonia. Here is what the climate models look like when the El Nino effect is added back in:
2) you’re referring to data less than 30 years old, so why are you making conclusions about climate on that basis?
“any claim that human emissions of co2 are responsible for warming climate is NOT supported by… observation”
Say, since you’ve ‘demonstrably’ upended global warming as a cause of recent warming, what does your Ouija board say is causing warming? Because we’ve been warming dramatically since around 1880:
Is it the Sun? Cow farts? Cosmic Rays?
Here are all the hockey sticks since 1880: human fossil fuel emissions. atmospheric CO2 content. climate forcers (solar+CO2+aerosols). Surface temperature.
You were saying something about ‘no correlation’?
Reply to ubrew:
Models. See previous posts re: 111/114 climate models overstate warming. Once again, as previously stated, I’m highlighting uncertainty. And you can’t claim the answer is co2 with any degree of certainty with so many apparent inconsistencies.
It isn’t up to me to present an alternate answer any more than it is your call to mandate a decision. And to frame it such again displays bias and a complete disregard for science. Research continues precisely because the answers are NOT known.
And we DO want answers… don’t we? Isn’t that the whole point, to continue learning more about the myriad of inputs and their interactions?
dumboldguy finally goes full Dumb Old Guy with a vengeance:
As expected, the toad licker doubles down on his “feigned superiority” ploy. Dumb is as dumb does, I guess. I wonder if E-Pot left behind the perfumed sleeve hankie for T-L to sniff in feigned disdain?
Yes, he will most certainly win friends and influence people here by defining “drivel” for us and accusing us of spouting same. And he boasts of being able to do “much better” at ad homming and insulting? Bring it on, T-L! Show us how big a flaming anal orifice you really are! We know you are one—-it’s obvious—-but we can still be convinced that you are a far bigger one than you have shown us to date.
This licker of toads (yuk!) has thrown all his horsepucky against the wall and hopes it sticks. He is trying to help it stuck by distracting us with his insults and ad homs, and trying to ignore redsky, jpc, lesliegraham, and others who see him for what he is—-another lying POS denier troll that wastes our time. Will he respond to them? I doubt it (other than to insult them). He has shot his load with his original parrotings from the denier troll handbook—all he can do now is repeat them (endlessly) until they magically become truth.
PS T-L, In case you aren’t aware of what a “flaming anal orifice” is, here’s the link.http://www.GFYS.com
My LAST reply to dumboldguy:
“Flaming anal orifice”? Really? So you are going full rabid ad hom now? No need to refute anything I said when you have a witty retort like that in the toolkit… Well I guess that’s settled. Can’t fight that kind of logic. You win.
I finished with that nutjob, but he’s not finished with me:
When dealing with the depradations of flaming anal orifices like you, “full rabid ad hom” is the only way to go. Anything else gives you a legitimacy that you don’t deserve. (And in this virtual world we spar in, we can’t shoot you). It’s time to trot out Alice and the Duchess (You’re the Duchess and all Crockers are Alice, in case that’s not clear)
“I quite agree with you,” said the Duchess; “and the moral of that is–‘Be what you would seem to be’–or if you’d like it put more simply–‘Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.’”
“I think I should understand that better,” Alice said very politely, “`if I had it written down: but I can’t quite follow it as you say it.”
“That’s nothing to what I could say if I chose,” the Duchess replied, in a pleased tone.
“Pray don’t trouble yourself to say it any longer than that,” said Alice.
(Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Chapter 9)
And the message there to you is that we would be glad to refute your “logic” if you ever displayed any. We are instead forced into the tedious task of pointing out that there is no logic and no truth to the convoluted and dishonest denier horsepucky and drivel you spout in such quantity.
(PS I eagerly await your response to my “refutation” of your drivel about the IPCC not being a scientific organization
I might as well give lesliegraham1 some publicity:
Stop dodging the question.
How many toads do you lick on a daily basis.
This is the only thing of interest to us in your “posts”.
jpcowdrey sets me straight:
“Again, I doubt you will respond to these points. If you could without betraying your adherence to dogma, you would have by now.”
Begging the question much?
Read this, toad:
When you think you’ve understood it, and why it refutes your small sample size, statistically insignificant notions of lack of correlation, get back to us.
A simple analogy: The flight of the typical dandelion seed does not correlate well with the force of gravity. This does not prove that gravity does not act on dandelion seeds.
I agree with jpcowdrey:
This seems to be addressed to me.
Some observations about your blog post:
1) You accept climate models are incomplete
2) Expected surface warming hasn’t happened
3) The missing heat is claimed to be found in deep oceans
It seems we at least we agree we need to keep working on refining the science… and this is because there are still questions. Science is still trying to understand the relationships between the myriad of inputs required to come up with a functional system for ACCURATE predictions. As it should.
And this is all I’ve tried to make clear; that making assertions of knowledge is both premature and counterproductive.
And once again, Feynman captured it brilliantly: “If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it is WRONG”
jpcowdrey disapproves of my agreeing:
None of your observations reflect anything I can discern from my post.
1. All models are incomplete. That doesn’t make them useless.
2. Warming in the nineties was was more than expected. Less warming in the 21st century, if one ignores the obvious cherry-picking, averages out to be much the same as what was expected.
3. One hypothesis was that warming was going into the ocean deeps. Newer evidence is that the ‘missing heat’ is an artifact of underestimated heat content of the southern oceans.
Agree with jpcowdrey again:
Again, you seem to be in agreement. Models are incomplete… new hypothesis… And this logically leads to a conclusion that there are unknowns. If there are unknowns you can’t subsequently claim we have answers that are somehow magically beyond any further discussion or investigation.
greenman3610 also corrects me:
Don’t pretend that because you distort the meaning of a headline on a news item that you apparently did not read, that somehow NASA research supports your views. The article quotes Josh Willis. I know Josh, he’s a friend. I’ve interviewed him numerous times. There is no doubt in his mind about climate change and human caused warming, and he would call you out for being either a liar, an ignoramus or both.
The article plainly resolves the supposed issue you are trying to create.
“Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up. Some recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down.
Landerer also is a coauthor of another paper in the same journal issue on 1970-2005 ocean warming in the Southern Hemisphere. Before Argo floats were deployed, temperature measurements in the Southern Ocean were spotty, at best. Using satellite measurements and climate simulations of sea level changes around the world, the new study found the global ocean absorbed far more heat in those 35 years than previously thought — a whopping 24 to 58 percent more than early estimates.”
Josh Willis here: <*link to video removed*>
My retort to this name dropper:
Who is arguing that climate doesn’t change? I question whether you are building a strawman, or are you that thick? Nobody is arguing that climate doesn’t change. I am pointing out that failures in models and contrary data mean the hypothesis that co2 is THE primary climate driver is questionable. You are claiming absolute knowledge that evidence contradicts. Try a little humility.
dumboldguy is back. Hooray!:
Yes, Greenman, try a little HUMILITY!! After all, Toad Licker sets us such a good example in the humility category that he is entitled (no, actually, in his mind he is REQUIRED) to give you orders on your own blog.
Stop building those pesky STRAWMEN!!
Stop being so downright THICK!!!
I have just finished reading a 14 comment back-and-forth between Toad Licker and Boxing Pythagoras on R-L’s blog. It was fun, because B-P was beating T-L’s brains in just as we do here on Crock. Suddenly, Toad Licker spewed a huge ration of BS in the last comment in the string and BANNED BOXING PYTHAGORAS for having the temerity to make T-L look bad. LOL
Toad Licker’s exact words to Boxing Pythagoras:
“….you can pat yourself on the back over being the first waste of time so annoying as to be blocked from further comment. Good show, good bye, and good riddance”.
So beware, Greenman. If you continue to be “a waste of time so annoying” to T-L, he night just ban you from your own blog.
dumboldguy is a little bit obsessed. I think he likes me:
Where’s Toad Licker? We haven’t heard from him for a while. Can we hope that we’ve driven him off and he will now sow his confusion and denial on some other site?
In case Crockers are unaware, toadliquor has a website on which you can really explore who he really “is” https://toadliquor.wordpress.com/
I posted a comment there but it’s “awaiting moderation”. We shall see if he has the (parts of the toad he licks most) to allow it to appear.
As suspected, he’s just another narcissistic self promoter with few original thoughts that merely posts excerpts from other folks. His “climate change” page is particularly revealing. The following list appears in one of his posts there:
“Additional sources of information:
Dr. Tim Ball – http://drtimball.com
Dr. John R Christy – http://nsstc.uah.edu/aosc/
Professor Ian Clark – http://mysite.science.uottawa.ca/idclark/clark.html
Piers Corbyn – http://www.weatheraction.com/
Judith Curry – http://judithcurry.com/
Richard Lindzen – http://www.cato.org/people/richard-lindzen
Patrick Moore – http://ecosense.me/
The Great Global Warming Swindle – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ”
Yep, our friend T-L really wants us to look at things in a fair and balanced way. That’s why his “sources of information” list consists of nothing but the biggest deniers on the planet. Hypocrite and liar!
dumboldguy continues his obsession with comments on my blog:
Brenda nailed you, Toad Licker. She gets it. And it doesn’t take any special “literacy, information, or profundity” to point out to the world what a “shameful” flaming anal orifice you are and how your tired denier “claims” have all been debunked.. (We shouldn’t ignore your profound narcissism in putting up this website, either. It takes someone with a special set of personality disorders to go to these lengths to inflict themselves on the saner world).
PS You never answer the questions many others have put to you during your forays onto other blogs. Is it true that “all toads are lickable but some are more lickable than others”?
PPS My particular question is—“How do you explain the exponential increase in the melting of Arctic sea ice? If the world is not warming, why is the ice in one of its coldest regions melting? Where is the heat coming from?” Explain this. <*link to video removed*>
More dumboldguy on my blog:
I posted a reply to this—-it was “in moderation”—-now it has disappeared. Have I gone the way of Boxing Pythagoras and been banned because I “annoyed” Toad Licker? Stay tuned, folks, and see if T-L is really the hypocrite he appears to be.
<*I did delete it. It was complete insanity*>
I did a blog bit on “cherry picking” here. And voila! Like magic, my newest ‘fan’ shows up to… well… to cherry pick.
dumboldguy is dumb while picking cherries:
Toad Licker is doing a stand-up comedy bit here. He begins his mindless rant against cherry picking by demonstrating to us—–wait for it——how to cherry pick!. It could be simple laziness, but he uses the Wiki quote of Somerville in a way that Somerville would likely not approve of. Anyone who wants to see the more nuanced kind of thinking that Somerville is capable of should visit
He sets us up for the punch line(s) even more by quoting the Free Dictionary. (He likes the way it sounds).
Actually, this line says it all about Toad Licker’s abilities and the legitimacy of his comments on climate science. “Obviously ‘climatology’ is a very broad field and includes many disciplines of science, so of course I don’t have an in depth understanding of all the material”..
Yet he can babble on about:
“I try to look at and analyze all data to the best of my ability….”
(Which is quite limited—-he shows NO science knowledge and merely parrots others).
“….digesting what I can from all angles shows obviously conflicting claims….”
(How can it be “obviously conflicting” to someone who is unqualified to assess the evidence? A non sequitur there)
“….On the other hand….”
(setting up false dichotomies and straw men)
“….We know the earth has been much warmer in the past than it is now…”
(True but irrelevant. It has been colder too. Toad Licker is like Goldilocks, “cherry picking” the “just right” evidence to support his BS).
“….Over the last 15-18 years, CO2 emissions have skyrocketed while temperatures have stagnated…..”
(A BIG LIE appears in his blatherings, and he cherry picks his mass of supporting evidence. The only “eminent scientists” he ever cites are charlatans and deniers who, like him, nibble around the edges of truth nit-picking and going “but-but-but” in an attempt to create confusion and uncertainty)
The Licker of Toads says he “looks at all evidence and says it is inconclusive”?. I call BS on him. He is a denier plain and simple, with a specialty in sounding reasonable and stressing “uncertainty”. He wants us to believe that the evidence for AGW is “inconclusive”?. It is a measure of his dishonesty (and self delusion) that he keeps saying this.
I will again ask him to comment on some real science. (I’ve posed these same questions to him at least 3 times now) Why is Arctic sea ice in exponential decline? If the globe is not warming, where is the heat coming from to melt the ice? How can temperatures have “stagnated over the past 15 years” when the past 15 years have seen the greatest sea ice loss? <*video link removed*>
Time and again when discussing my skepticism over climate and the CO2 hypothesis, those that adhere to that story line accuse me of “cherry picking” data… Here are some thoughts about that:
Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a practice known as “cherry picking” and is a hallmark of poor science or pseudo-science.
— Richard Somerville, Testimony before the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, March 8, 2011.
– to choose something very carefully. (As if one were closely examining cherries on the tree, looking for the best.)
– to choose only the best people or things in a way that is not fair (usually in continuous tenses)
As a skeptic, I try to look at and analyze all data to the best of my ability. Obviously ‘climatology’ is a very broad field and includes many disciplines of science, so of course I don’t have an in depth understanding of all the material. I suspect even among scientists, few do. But digesting what I can from all angles shows obviously conflicting claims, some with fairly straightforward evidence, others much more convoluted… some based on observation or sensor data, some based on models. So where does this leave us?
– There is no doubt climate changes
– CO2 levels are rising
– Some of this is attributed to human activity
– CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas
On the other hand:
– Climate has always been variable
– Most of earth’s history has been warmer than now, and for much of it life thrived
– Over the last 5 million years, ice has repeatedly advanced and retreated
– Human industrial activity is roughly 200 years old
We know the earth has been much warmer in the past than it is now. It has also been much colder. Even the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were nearly as warm or even warmer than today, depending on the narrative. CO2 levels have also been both higher and lower than today, totally independent of human industrial emissions.
Recent attempts to describe the climate have concentrated on establishing a link between warming and human industrial emissions of CO2. Computer models have attempted to plot the interactions between various inputs, but always revolving around the hypothesis that CO2 is the primary driver behind warming. These models often forecast sharp warming in conjunction with increased CO2 emissions from emerging economies, and often predict disastrous consequences. The problem is that the warming predicted by models has not happened. Over the last 15-18 years, CO2 emissions have skyrocketed while temperatures have stagnated. This is recognized by no less an organization than the IPCC. In their recent WG1 AR5 report, chapter 9, the evaluation of models states that there has been a 15 year pause in warming, and that 111/114 models overstated warming in predictions compared to what was actually observed, a clear indication of systemic bias. In addition, UAH satellite observations contradict warming claims based on ground based stations. And NASA has reported deep ocean warming that was hypothesized to explain “missing heat” hasn’t happened. This is especially significant because the IPCC and NASA especially are often quoted for stories on impending doom related to CO2 driven warming.
So getting back to cherry picking, I see all these contrasting and contradictory puzzle pieces, and it points to a flawed hypothesis. This doesn’t mean CO2 doesn’t play a role in warming. It doesn’t mean warming isn’t happening. It doesn’t mean I deny climate change. It doesn’t mean I claim to have all the answers. It means I see no direct link established between human CO2 emissions and a warming climate.
Those that say that I am cherry picking invariably exclude that section of the IPCC report while accepting the rest of their claims. They dismiss climate studies by eminent scientists and deride them as “deniers” simply because the conclusions they come to are at odds with the CO2 hypothesis. They gloss over the UAH data while accepting data from models that the IPCC admits have a 97% failure rate. I ask, who is cherry picking?
I look at all evidence and say it is inconclusive. Fans of the CO2 hypothesis exclude data to confirm a one sided verdict. Again, who is cherry picking? I contend I don’t have nearly enough for a bias confirmation pie… but someone does.
This petition can be found here…
My comments added to my signature follows:
I signed this to make it known this petition is ridiculous and the petitioners’ education has obviously failed them to this point. It states clearly, “Bill Maher is a blatant bigot and racist” and provides no evidence to back this inflammatory and libelous claim. What IS clear is the petitioners are against any opinions critical of religion.
As young adults that are the future of the USA and the world, if behooves you to read and understand the constitution and bill of rights. There is NOTHING more unAmerican than attempting to censor or stifle the speech your don’t agree with. If you aren’t American, and hate the freedom America grants, why are you there? Whatever your nationality or background, ask yourself… if YOUR opinions can’t withstand scrutiny and challenge, why are you holding so tight to them? What are YOU afraid of? Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion. Read Supreme Court Case – Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), majority decision, written by Justice Hugo Black, and then rebut it. If you don’t think you have the depth to do so, withdraw your idiotic petition and stop embarrassing yourselves.
To other signatories supporting this garbage, shame on you. Independent thought, critical examination of issues, freedom of conscience… these are the solutions for the future, not following BS causes led by know-nothing loudmouths with agendas that run counter to your rights, that play fast and loose with facts, and are (likely willfully) ignorant of the law.
I too often see certain elements on twitter say something to the effect of:
If you say “I have black friends” you are secretly racist
If you say “I have Muslim friends”, you are an Islamophobic bigot
How is this logical? If someone has no friends of different background, and makes no claim to acceptance of others’ racial, ethnic or religious background, by this logic they would be less likely to be a racist or bigot. Is it more or less likely that a racist will have friends of a different racial background? Is it more or less likely that an opponent of Islam will have Muslim friends? The answer is obvious in both cases: It is LESS likely. The only friends that are evidence of racism or bigotry would be friends that are racists or bigots. It is plainly obvious that one with friends of different racial, ethnic, or religious backgrounds is likely to be more tolerant, not less. Of course this doesn’t mean that an individual can’t harbor some resentment or bias. Humans are complex like that… like when they repeat statements that are obviously illogical in an attempt to shift the burden of a losing argument, smear others and avoid tackling their own biases.
If the left or right has legitimate criticisms of the other side for making illogical attacks and fear mongering (and obviously both do), then why engage in the same nonsensical tactics? I can criticize elements within ANY community or group that don’t behave in a manner that is conducive to a healthy society. This does NOT mean I criticize all members of that community or group. And saying so makes no more sense than saying criticism of the KKK proves anti-white bias. This is the result of allowing ideology to over ride common sense. It is a failure to think independently. It is a failure to reason. If you consider yourself ‘better equipped’ to tackle such issues than your ideological opponents, then prove it by not stealing from their toolkit.