Sometimes, it gets exasperating for me. It’s like arguing with a recording. Long time compadres of the climate wars would recall a time when I was a regular commenter at WUWT. This blog and other interests have kept me from commenting very much over there of late. That, and the fact that there is nothing new from the warmista. The argument is over, and the warmista have lost. About the only ones who haven’t realized it yet, are the warmista and the soon to be disappointed cleptocrats.
Still, I do try to keep up with the goings on at WUWT. So when Chris Monckton had a post over there, I thought I’d read the comments. Time was, a Monckton post would bring out some very challenging and thought provoking warmista comments.
Sigh, not anymore. It was an excellent post, and well worth the read, but the comments….. well, there’s a lot of them. Many are typical of skeptic comments, a few quibbling about the impact solar variance has on our temps and energy balance, others giving props to Monckton, etc…..
But, the quality of the warmista comments is shameful!!! There’s only about 3 or 4 warmists commenters on that post. Usually, by the time I get around to reading something insipidly stupid in the comments, it’s already been responded to. And, sometimes, I decide it isn’t worth my trouble.
The thing which is irking me today, is that the arguments of the warmista haven’t changed! It doesn’t matter that they’ve been thoroughly refuted and debunked, like a horrible recording they just keep repeating the mantra as if nothing has been said or discovered about their talking points.
The handful of alarmists, once the snark is removed offered almost no content and what little they did, had already been destroyed.
For instance, one pinhead decided to pipe in about what good global temp coverage NOAA has. The commenter said, “I suggest you familiarise yourself with the work of the NOAA, we’ve got pretty good global temperature records going back the 1850′s and detailed country records well before that.”
Hadely’s rendition of the same idiocy. Source
It’s such an incredulous assertion, no one should have to regard it. However, this is what got us to where we are in the first place, so I’ll repeat for the umpteenth time how stupid this assertion is. The lunatic alarmists can claim whatever they wish, but it doesn’t change historical reality. It turns out, the Siouan nations, simply weren’t that good at recording their temperatures. It may have had something to do with the lack of thermometers. Coincidentally, the same difficulties were had in several other places around the world. Little places like South America, Africa, central Asia, and the like. Never mind the whole big bloody oceans around the world! In the 1850s, we probably had less than 10% global coverage and it wasn’t evenly distributed. Anyone believing we could derive a global temp average from thermometer readings from the 1850s is either a serial liars or completely ignorant of history. (Deriving an energy balance equation from our temps is another form of dishonesty, but of a different sort.)
In a similar comment, but, from a different commenter, we get the oft repeated lie ….. “We have ocean heat content data showing the planet gaining heat during the last decade at twice the rate of the two previous decades.” —- What made that comment so absurd, was that Monckton, in an attempt to clarify some things commented about this.
Mr. Neven asks about the 3000 automated bathythermograph buoys I mentioned. These are the Argo buoys, first deployed in earnest in 2006. There are now 3674 of them, though the full complement was originally 3000. They are run by the ARGO project, to which they report autonomously by satellite every so often. Between them, they have now taken more than 1 million temperature and salinity profiles at various depths up to 2000 [feet]. This quantity of profiles sounds impressive, but – as Willis Eschenbach has pointed out in an earlier posting – it is the equivalent of taking a single profile at a single location in the whole of Lake Superior less than once a year.
Though the ARGO project has insufficient resolution to be useful, it has a greater resolution than any previous system of measurement. What it shows, according to Dr. David Evans, who has analysed the data, is that the rate of increase in ocean heat content is four and a half times less than the models had predicted.
This information is easily verifiable. I won’t bother boring readers with the details. The buoys started to be deployed a few years prior to 2006, but that’s when they achieved their coverage goal. But, the point is ARGO is insufficient, but it’s much better than anything preceding it. There really wasn’t anything preceding it. Sometimes, they tied a rope to a boat with a sensor at the end and took a temp reading at a certain depth that way. There were a couple of other techniques, but they weren’t uniform, the coverage was horrible, and irregular. Still, the commenter was undeterred. We have no idea what the Ocean Heat Content was 30 years ago.
What is it about the warmista? Do they honestly believe that skeptics are as stupid as they are? Or are they simply repeating a lie in hopes that one or two readers will come to believe this nonsense if the lies are told often enough? It seems like in the past I would have left a nice, and patient comment explaining these things, but it seems for now, I just don’t have the patience for cordial dialogue with these nutters.
suyts space 
Like you, I used to really enjoy reading the warmistas at WUWT back when they actually put forth thought provoking arguments that got me following their links and references to understand how they arrived at their conclusion. In the last few years, they’ve become lazy and boring. They don’t provide links or references anymore.
Today’s warmistas just make nonsensical statements like “2012 will likely be the hottest year in history for the United States!” They seem to be forgetting the global part of global warming and the and the climate part of climate change. They’re just not challenging or even entertaining any more.
Right, it’s just no fun arguing with imbeciles.
My view is that we as scientists will never win the argument. We win when the CAGW people all suddenly decide to not talk about it anymore. So the lack of climateer comments is a good sign.
Monckton’s thesis that we need a rat-hole for the escapees from the CAGW ideology (or religion?) is not true. We just need to leave them enough space to talk about something else. Anything else. Guns, abortion, Syria, fiscal cliffing, anything! OK, not Benghazi, we’re not allowed to talk about that, but anything else!
Mr Obama has been carefully not talking about CAGW or any of its synonyms. Will he backflip and bring in a carbon tax as some pundits are saying? Seems unlikely. If he has stopped talking about it it usually means its political leprosy.
Yeh, the game is up, the nutters just don’t realize it, yet. The politicians don’t want to talk about it because it forces them to take a stand and justify their position. As much as they’d like to create new bureaucracies and taxes, the CAGW position isn’t defensible. It was built on too many lies, like those two insidiously stupid graphs above.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Your responses to these nutters serves to educate people who are new to the climate change blogs(like me a few years ago).
Yeh, and that’s probably what’s bothering me. Typically, I try to be a bit more cordial for the benefit of people reading the comments, new to the discussion.
James.
The warmistas haven’t evolved any new thought provoking scientific ideas that break themselves out of the old rehashed, repackaged, remodelled so called evidence that has has lead to a narrow mantra that goes in an ever diminishing circle. Yes they are a dying breed of fanatics that history will not judge well. But in the meantime they have caused no end of grief to true scientific exploration. The last of them still have powerful friends who can and will try for the death blow to the people/nations through regulation, control of free thought and financial ruination of the worlds economy.
The UN, the EU, OBAMA, and SOCIALIST come readily to mind.
There’s more to be done, keep on with your important work.
Dave.
Yes, they have caused and are causing horrible grief to humanity. There’s still much to do.
James, Ikarus62 is like a broken record. The only way to get a fact into his brain is with a pick axe. He once pestered us at notrickszone over a week.
I actually never get tired of presenting facts to that kind of broken record guy. I know I won’t convince him of anything but I’m thinking of it as a service to passers by.
And interestingly during arguing with one of the slayers on the thread I found Wien’s displacement law; from which I was able to deduce that the two absorption bands of CO2 – one at 4.3 µm and one at 15 – correspond to Planck spectrum radiation peaks at 600 K and 200 K. While most things on Earth obviously have the peak of their blackbody or greybody radiation between 250 and 300 K.
Meaning, the bulk of IR photons never get absorbed by a CO2 molecule. Now ain’t that peculiar.
Yeh, but they’re all broken records!! And, yes, they’re not going to change their mind, it’s for the readers.
And yes, you’re absolutely correct, the bulk of the IR isn’t effected by CO2. It’s really irrelevant to our energy balance.
Turns out they’ve been the same since Plato. Icarus62, Keynes, Malthus, Plato… general control freaks; an ancient evil – so old it must be genetic.
“Keynes was not just an economist. Between 1937 and 1944 he served as the head of the Eugenics Society and once called eugenics ”the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists.” And Keynes, we should add, understood that economics was a branch of sociology. So let’s be clear: Keynes thought eugenics was more important, more significant, and more genuine than economics.
Eugenics — or the control of reproduction — is a very old idea.
In The Republic, Plato advocated that the state should covertly control human reproduction:
“The best men must cohabit with the best women in as many cases as possible and the worst with the worst in the fewest, and that the offspring of the one must be reared and that of the other not, if the flock is to be as perfect as possible. “”
http://azizonomics.com/category/environment/
More specific link:
http://azizonomics.com/2012/05/25/keynesianism-eugenics/
Yes, evil has been with man for a very long time.
That WUWT commenter said, “we have pretty good temp global data records…” Well how come your US temp records SUCK??
It is really worth it to print these charts out below and circle the data points with a marker to see how “shameful” the NASA US temp history is and how it has been changed.
Look at the current NASA temp chart of US temp anomalies.
found here > http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif
Find 1933. It’s a little bit warmer than 1930. Now look at 1998. 1998 was the year of the Super El Nino and a very warm years in the US by all accounts.
Look at the C scale on the left and 1933 was about 1.7C above “average” and 1998 was 1.9C above “average”. Average being 1951-1980 as labeled on the graph.
So in 199 1998 was .2C above 1931 “according” to NASA and their recent compilation of the data.
Now, let’s turn the time machine back. Let’s look at the same graph, from the same people, but let’s look at their graph as “it was” in 1999.
Go here > http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
and you can see the same kind of graph with the last data point being 1998, the article was written in August 1999. The article basically states the globe has warmed since 1880 but the US hasn’t really warmed very much. In fact, Hansen writes “How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature?”
Now let’s look at THAT graph as it was in 1999.
The title below that graph also show the 0 line as the average from 1951-1980. So it is the same scale.
Now find again the data points for 1933 and 1998.
In THIS graph 1933 is 1.5C above 0 (average) and 1998 is about .9C above 0.
So in this graph 1933 was .6C warmer than 1998. And that is what the article is all about. The paper this came from (peer-reviewed of course) is footnoted and available online free with a click.
BUT???? The US temp chart as it is today shows 1998 .2C warmer than 1933, while the 1999 chart shows 1998 .6C cooler than 1933. That’s about 1.5F. So somehow the data was changed,
Somehow between 1999 and today the US temp graph was completely changed! That’s their “pretty good data”
In about 2000 the research budget of NASA started to rise after years of stagnation; and it is known that today they cash in 1.2 bn USD for climate change research. My hunch is that James Hansen had the task of creating the data necessary to justify this spending spree because it coincides with his change of mind – before 2000 he declared 1934 the warmest year in the CONUS; even warmer than the 1998 El Nino year; after 2000 he had a different opinion.
The budget item is called “Earth Science” in NASA speak. maybe other people find better data than me.
NASA budget 1995 to 2008:
Click to access nasa08hf1.pdf
Yeh, I should post that blink graph of Steve’s more often.
The blink of ok, but going to the links, printing the graphs out, and circling those data points really hammers in how drastically this data has changed, which was okay from 1933 to 1999, but somehow it was ALL changed since then. The last 4 yearshave been completely “average” in the US, not above normal. One of these days I’m going to hand plot those points on excel myself and create a new graphs to show apparent this fraud is.
That’s a good idea, I might just do that one day as well!
However please do not forget the price that these religious wackos will/have/are costing us in loss of business/employment, and extra fines (taxes) leveled on us all for living in an (historically) economically successful country.