Thursday, 10 December 2009

Gravity is a Hoax!!!

Here’s a link to an irresistible cartoon from Mark Fiore. It shows that it isn’t just the Climategate emails that show scientists in a human light. Using the same sort of logic as a lot of the denier maroons who are trumpeting the Climategate emails as some sort of proof of conspiracy, cover up and fraud, Fiore “proves” that gravity, matter, Earth and our solar system are hoaxes too.

Edit - originally I couldn't embed this Flash animation – it's really worth going to the website as a bonus. Look at the rest of Mark’s cartoons too.



Anonymous said...

December 15, 2009
Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Nick Palmer said...

Part 1

Naughty, naughty cherry picker! Here is the section directly after your article extract finishes:

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

Here is another extract from the article:

Dr Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice, but he said he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020.

He added: “I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this,” he said. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore’s office.”

Al Gore got things slightly wrong but overall he was well "in the ballpark". The ice is going rapidly (far more rapidly than IPCC predictions from as far back as only 2007). Idiot/evil deniers bang on about the uncertainty in computer predictions and try to use this as some sort of argument that there is no problem - well, that cuts both ways. The uncertainty can go (and actually is right now) the other way. Real world observations since 2007 say that warming is happening faster and stronger than expected - ice is melting far faster and methane is being released from the tundra - none of which was "scheduled" yet.

You must understand that some scientists, when they are being difficult, could state, as an example, something along these lines - "there is no evidence that *insert some new high-tech nuclear experiment here* will extinguish the solar system" - sounds reassuring, right?

If you immediately ask the same scientist this question - "is there overwhelming evidence, accepted by every credible scientist in the world, including you, that if *said hi-tech nuclear device* is operated that there are 999,999 in 1 million chances that it will extinguish the solar system" he could answer yes and just feel that he was being precise in his language. The operatively deceptive bit is "will" (i.e. 100.000% chance) versus 99.9999% chance. Maybe you don't believe that some scientists could get so pernickety about language, but that would show you don't know scientists well enough.

The denial movement ruthlessly exploit this tendency of many scientists to be bad communicators so they can spread a twisted and highly biased (AKA barefaced lies) barrage of propaganda. If you're not familiar with the idea that you are being fooled by professional liars and PR spin doctors and extremist think tanks/lobbying organisations then you have virtually no chance of knowing what to believe.

Nick Palmer said...

Part 2

Your linked article finishes with:

Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man...

This is not what Lindzen believes, either in private or public. I suppose you could twist it to mean that the reporter took Lindzen to mean that as the natural greenhouse effect due to natural levels of CO2 and water vapour is about 33 degrees C, and the measured effect due to man so far is a fraction of that, that what the reporter said was correct.

Even the high end IPCC predictions of a disaster scenario of a 6-7 degrees C increase is only caused by a 20% contribution by man. This would still be Armageddon. What the reporter wrote was highly misleading.

I quoted Lindzen's own unedited words, in a letter to the JEP (Aug 2009), which follow - but you have to comprehend both English, logic and science to get his meaning:

He said this in his presentation to "Facts or Faith?" - a conference on global climate change in Stockholm in 2006. It represents his views although if you read denialist blogs or literature, they ruthlessly cherry pick his other statements to give the impression that he does not hold these views. Deniers lie to you!! - brazenly, repeatedly - they use the same "arguments" over and over again, even when these have been comprehensively demolished a thousand times. They repeat them, not so much because they truly believe them but rather because this propaganda has been proven to fool the average person who doesn't know enough to make a reasoned judgement.

Lindzen's un-cherry picked views:

"What is truly agreed (albeit with some controversy)

1. The global mean surface temperature is always changing. Over the past 60 years, it has both decreased and increased. For the past century, it has

probably increased by about 0.6 ±0.15 degrees Centigrade (C). That is to say, we have had some global mean warming.

2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its increase should contribute to warming. It is, in fact, increasing, and a doubling would increase the greenhouse effect (mainly due to water vapor and clouds) by about 2%.

3. There is good evidence that man has been responsible for the recent increase in CO2, though climate itself (as well as other natural phenomena) can also cause changes in CO2.”

Al Gore popularises climate science for the general public. In his presentations, he goes beyond the consensus view. No doubt this is because he thinks that people should know what credible climate scientists fear could happen. The consensus view is only what the vast majority of scientists agree on as essentially rock solid. This doesn't mean that the research, the evidence and the observations do not support more dangerous outcomes, just that these interpretations are not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Global warming theory is the result of 10's of thousands of man-years work and observation by climate scientists stretching at least back to 1896 and before when the basic science was worked out.

You may fondly imagine that posting some dubious, arguable, criticism of Gore's latest popular presentation is some sort of devastating blow to climate science - if so, then your own judgement and knowledge is rather badly lacking.

Anonymous said...

An interesting short video from the Copehagen conference. Actions speak louder than words.

Shelly said...

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

That is the wording of a petition signed by 31, 486 American scientists, 9,029 of whom have PHD's, all of whom hold formal qualifications.

Mr.Palmer, May I ask which professional qualifications you hold relevant to the issue of climate science? I hold none, but I do have an ability to calmly and clearly view both sides of the debate, without feeling the need to resort to the mockery or name-calling of those with whom I may choose to disagree.

You however are so fanatically one-sided in your interpretation of information I can only assume you are in some way a professionally qualified expert on the subject of climate change?

Nick Palmer said...


An interesting short video from the Copehagen conference. Actions speak louder than words.

Assuming you are an innocent about the denialists, you might have gained the impression that in the video that you linked to, you saw a bona fide journalist innocently asking a proper question being threatened by goons and suppressed. What you actually saw was a planned act of disruption using false figures, statements and interpretations - all of which can be verified as such, with a bit of research. It was a bit of a parish hall meeting moment, wasn't it?

The "journalist" in question was actually Phelim McAleer who is a denialist film maker who has a bit of a history of disrupting Q&A sessions by asking a seemingly reasonable question and then going into an unstoppable barrage of rhetoric until his microphone is cut off to enable other questioners to get a look in.

He is well known for this tactic and was recognised before he started in this video, nevertheless they allowed him to fire away until it became obvious that he had not changed his usual approach.

I wish I could see into the minds of people like McAleer - I would like to see if they truly believe their spiel and, in that case, why they can't ever seem to absorb it when their gross errors are corrected. Alternatively, if they know that what they say is true they must have some underlying political ideology or prejudice so strong that they think it justifies lies and misrepresentation in order to sway the public's minds away from truth and towards highly dangerous and reckless ignorance.

I agree that the security guard was menacing, but such people can be like that.

Nick Palmer said...

Part 1
You have dredged up a very old and highly deceptive canard called the Oregon petition which was instigated by the deniers, Seitz and Singer. I realise that it looks convincing to the innocent, but it was deliberately crafted as a piece of propaganda in order to mislead. Although Seitz is now dead, he was notorious for being one of the people who helped organise the successful campaign of disinformation, by the tobacco companies about the link between smoking and cancer. Even after the tobacco company's own scientists told them, in internal memos, that the science was solid, the companies still carried on with their lies and deceit until the pressures of reality got too great.

Perhaps you didn't realise, but the identical tactics are being used by the climate change denialist industry today - because the tobacco industry's tactics worked to confuse the public, delay legislation etc.

Here is a partial copy of an email exchange I had recently with one of the chief local deniers, Senator Sarah Ferguson. Although she styles herself as an "independent thinker", she sure relies on regurgitating a lot of classic, previously disproved, denier garbage.

To Sarah F. (and others)

...This is Singer and Seitz's old "Oregon" petition. The operating deceits in this one (highlighted by me with explanation) are here:

This is the text of the petition:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth
Although the wording is slightly ambiguous, even Hansen could have legitimately signed this one and still could (this petition dates from the 90's). Surprised? Read on.

Part 2 follows

Nick Palmer said...

It is, nevertheless, a piece of crafted denier spin designed purely to obfuscate and confuse the gullible, amongst which are many of the PhDs who were suckered into signing this...

The science delineates a range of possibilities depending on the figure for climate sensitivity (3 deg C for each doubling of CO2 - the "3 degrees" includes the amplifying effects of the known feedbacks). The range of outcomes cover the spectrum from nothing much to out and out catastrophe, via serious. The probabilities assigned to each roulette wheel spin do not favour us getting lucky.

My explanations:
"will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating"
By falsely insinuating that the IPCC etc position states that we are 100% certain we are headed for climate hell in a hand basket, when clearly the science doesn't say this, they thus enable even scientists who know what they're talking about to sign the petition, let alone the vast majority who are not climate specialists and thus have little more intrinsic credibility than you or I. Had they used the IPCC probabilities instead, or even just said "may" instead of "will", then they wouldn't have been able to launch the petition. Without their weasel words and phrases, the case made by the petition no longer exists.

"and disruption of the Earth's climate."

Had they substituted "or" for "and", one would have thought that their petition would have been far less deceptive and would have got far fewer knowledgeable signers - but they then couldn't even have launched it including the words "There is no convincing scientific evidence" at the beginning. Because there is an overwhelming amount. Without their weasel words and phrases, the case made by the petition no longer exists

"that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth"

More weasel words. True as far as it goes but only beneficial if the other factors governing plant and animal success etc. are optimised too, such as temperature, water, seasonal stability and nutrients. Without these other vital factors, the heating effects of CO2 are highly likely to reduce global fertility, to our enormous detriment. As you know, hundreds of millions of years ago there was far more CO2 in the atmosphere than now, and there was far more plant/animal life in far more places - almost pole to pole. The sun was, however, a lot less bright so the extreme greenhouse effect didn't cook the planet. The conditions were very conducive to life, which thrived spectacularly. It would be a very wrong-headed conclusion to jump to if one took this to mean that increasing CO2 could lead to generally increased plant growth again except in limited areas.

Nick Palmer said...


You wrote

Mr.Palmer, May I ask which professional qualifications you hold relevant to the issue of climate science? I hold none, but I do have an ability to calmly and clearly view both sides of the debate, without feeling the need to resort to the mockery or name-calling of those with whom I may choose to disagree.

Firstly the very fact that you say "clearly see both sides of the debate" clearly indicates to me one of two things. One: If you don't realise that all the calls for "debate" are a manufactured denialist technique to delay and obfuscate (c.f. tobacco industry techniques, in particular Philip Morris) then you have been suckered by the propaganda. Two: If you do realise, then you are part of the denialist industry yourself.

The basic science has been known for well over a century and is not just "settled", it is certain. Deniers try to sucker the public into believing the whole thing was cooked up by Al Gore a few years ago to make money. You must believe that deniers are either mad or bad or both. The two "sides", in the "debate" you seem to think is justified, are not equivalent in terms of rationality, truthfulness, integrity or responsibility. It truly is a battle between truth/knowledge/intelligence and lies/ignorance/stupidity.

I cannot understand people like you who get all upset by apparent "mockery and name calling". When I call these low life "names", I am not insulting them, I am describing them. The general public need to know that they are being consistently lied to, ruthlessly misled, and made fools of by people with motives so twisted and irresponsible that they deserve all the opprobrium that can be hurled at them. Then we get people like you who get all prissy when these people get described as exactly what they are. What do you care more about? Some inappropriate code of speech conduct or the fact that these highly dangerous individuals, if they succeed in turning too many people's minds, will likely prevent us heading off accelerating damage to the climate, which would not stabilise for many thousands of years. What about the concomitant severe impacts on the future of civilisation (read Jared Diamond's "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed); your children and their descendants; the planetary eco-system; our ability to grow enough food to support maybe half our current population finally the massive extinction of marine species?

Why do you apparently "choose" to give credence to liars and deceivers and spin merchants when, if you bothered to research, instead of getting your memes from popular media, you would see how you are being deceived at every turn by professional lobbyists with no morals or sense or accountability?

As far as formal paper Climate change qualifications go, I have none but I was calculating the obvious non-sustainability of our consumer lifestyle over 40 years ago. I was lobbying the IDC to seriously uprate insulation standards in the early eighties because I knew all about climate science then. I have been described as having an encyclopaedic knowledge of climate change, and in particular the massive campaign of deceit of the denialist industry.

Finally, I helped with the research into a book about climate change which showed ordinary non-expert people how to safely and reliably make a good decision, by cutting through the fog of lies and misdirection, to make up their own minds objectively, which was published in July. Chiefly, the method involves assessing the credibility of your primary sources and performing a risk assessment when the outcomes are not certain. The sections about avoiding your own "confirmation bias" are particularly good and can be applied generally in life, not just to climate change.

Nick Palmer said...

Hmmm. I have received a comment which I will not be publishing. This is a first for me.

Shortly after (on Senator Syvret's blog) I corrected the "Katy" persona, who had criticised a global warming post I did and then went on to claim that in "her" experience I didn't post comments that didn't support my posts (a blatant lie - because I have always posted every comment I receive, often making long replies) someone - "irmahoerner" - posted a message saying something like "nice to see you........."

The dots were a clickable link which brought up what might have been an Asian child pornography site, judging by the pictures on the front page. I thought Firefox, as well as my virus/spam/filter checker, was supposed to flag dodgy links like that in advance, not to mention Google blogs protection? Anyway, I am sure "Katy" will be happy now that I have deleted a comment without publishing it. I will also post this comment about the incident on Senator Syvret's blog, because of his huge readership, to let people know of what might be, in ascending order of probability, a "black op" in progress - or some pathetic little troll with delusions of grandeur, attacking what they see as a threat - or a complete, but timely, coincidence.

Katy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nick Palmer said...

Edit: "Katy" has deleted "her" previous post but, for what it's worth, this is what "she" said:

Katy has left a new comment on your post "Gravity is a Hoax!!!":

"Mr. Palmer,

I've just seen your other message on Senator Syvret's blog. So obviously you realise your mistake.

Can I please ask, and I've done the same on Senator Syvret's blog, that you don't publish my previous message. I've just realised that by describing to you how to see the trail of the real spammer on Google, it could direct people to the porn if they read the comment here.



"Katy" commented on my blog:

"I've just seen your other message on Senator Syvret's blog. So obviously you realise your mistake."

There was no mistake - try reading it again, but this time try it with basic English comprehension switched on.

You also wrote a previous comment which you asked me not to publish because you were worried that it may lead to people being able to follow the links to the dodgy websites. Fair enough. You have a heart/brain in there somewhere.

However, here is your previous comment with the relevant info "redacted".

"Katy" wrote:

"Since I last left a message here I haven't bothered with your blog, and hadn't intended to again. Then today I saw the veiled accusation you had made against me on Senator Syvret's blog.

I've left the following message in response over there.

Mr. Palmer.

Go to Google and type into the search box "*********" and "***********". You will see that same person has spammed a number of completely unrelated blogs with the same "nice to meet you" message you received.

You have a cheek accusing others of underhand behaviour, especially with the disgustingly offensive nature of your insinuation toward me. And do not insult my intelligence by claiming you were not accusing me, because there was no other reason for you to bring my name up in discussion about that link. None whatsoever.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I'll expect a public apology from you as soon as you've read this, both here and on your blog."

Seeing insinuation against yourself, disgusting or otherwise, can all be in the mind of the beholder. I merely listed possibilities.

You "have a cheek" to act all affronted. A bloody cheek. Remember, I publicly caught you out in a blatant lie - a piece of libel - where you told the world that:

"especially when in my experience on your own blog you have shown a refusal to publish comments or evidence which serve to oppose your viewpoint."

and I pointed out that, so far, I had published everything I had received, pro or anti.

Perhaps as Senator Syvret says, the "Katy" persona really is that notorious PJ troll who has allegedly been guilty of tons of underhand behaviour over a long period.

Perhaps "Katy" thinks it justified for "her" to do loads of some type of nasty behaviour and then, when "she" believes "she" sees somebody else doing something similar once, "she" comes over all high and mighty and thunders loudly from "her" pulpit in mortally offended tones with high moral dudgeon. There is a term for this type of personality which I leave for others to guess but hypocritical, although it fits, isn't strong enough.

"Katy" - if your true initials are JH, why don't you post with your real name instead of all that nonsensical multi-avatarism?

As far as "insulting your intelligence" goes, I have no need to do that - you have kind of proved how un-smart you are by saying:

"because there was no other reason for you to bring my name up in discussion about that link. None whatsoever."

None? Read it again with basic English comprehension switched on this time.

Anonymous said...

noticed only 14 comments from your last 7 posts(9 from you)
thought i'd bump up your numbers!

you are a complete plank

my 12y/o grand niece has more
understanding of science than you display.

get over yourself

your venomous invective makes you unelectable.

Nick Palmer said...

"Anonymous" wrote

you are a complete plank

my 12y/o grand niece has more
understanding of science than you display.

Really? She must be an exceptional genius.

What a completely pointless, content-free, intelligence-free post you came up with. There's little doubt that you are the mendacious "Katy" persona again snapping at greater heels, like a yappy small dog.

Anonymous said...

Nick Palmer, you posted on Senator Syvret's blog "What is the matter with you weasel people?" about we don't like being called "weasel people" by pseudo-scientific, ultra-dogmatic, deluded, unelectable, Marxist freaks like you?

How you ever dared to consider yourself electable is beyond me.

The more you verbally abuse people, the further you push us away. One day, you might learn that.

Anyway, I'm just off to take my Porsche for a completely unnecessary burn up BECAUSE OF your comments. Have fun ranting at my comment, I won't be sticking around to read it.

Nick Palmer said...

If you're the person who posted that ridiculous "debate" comment, linking to long disproved garbage, then you are stupid. Simples.

Your knee-jerk response was to attack someone who clarified your mental state by pointing out how idiotic your post was - using reputable evidence, instead of the mindless, weasel approach you used.

The whole episode speaks volumes about your values, your judgement, your ability - it's not good news for you!

Anonymous said...

Hey Nick,

Looks like someone's been talking shit all along:

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown:

The Weasel People

Nick Palmer said...

You are clutching at straws as usual except this time, astonishingly, there actually is a real straw to clutch at.

Congratulations - it must feel nice to be right... once. After all those countless other times you, and people like you, swallowed whole the most appallingly stupid propaganda and worse still were so apocalyptically thick and irresponsible that you believed it and had the nerve to pass it on.

One inconsequential strike in a thousand isn't a very good success rate to put on your C.V. (what is your job, BTW?).

This story is about an actual mistake that has come to light. Perhaps, commenter, you ought to consider why this was not spotted by the denialosphere "auditors" like Wattsupwiththat, Climate depot, Mckitrick, McIntyre etc who spend their lives busily "discovering" phantom problems with climate science and thereby constantly misleading millions. They didn't spot a real mistake!!! Just shows you the calibre of the deniers with their weasel approach - there actually was a tiny something real there and they missed it! What a bunch of maroons!

What this news does not do is put any dent at all in climate science and the other many and varied dangers from climate change. It only dents one single solitary prediction that 80% + of the Himalayan glaciers will have gone by 2035 - thus the Indian sub-continent may not be a multi-billion person disaster zone by then as the land dries up. The glaciers will still be melting rapidly, and the rate will still be accelerating, and the sub-continent's fate will still be the same, just not as quickly... unless the new predictions aren't right either and the actual melting rate will be faster than predicted.

It's good that the IPCC will respond to the anti-science crowd by updating their out-of-date discussion of melting ice and will look again at these glacier predictions from the 2007 report and re-evaluate them.

They should also re-evaluate their 2007 predictions about sea-level rise, which real world evidence suggests were very optimistic and that we will actually get much more than they said back then.

* Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100

* Nature sea level rise shocker: Coral fossils suggest “catastrophic increase of more than 5 centimetres per year over a 50-year stretch is possible.” Lead author warns, “This could happen again.”

* High Water: Greenland ice sheet melting faster than expected and could raise East Coast sea levels an extra 20 inches by 2100 — to more than 6 feet.”