Another Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. Civil discussion and no coarse language please. Side discussions and idees fixes to the sandpits, please. If you would like to receive my (hopefully) regular email news, please sign up using the following link
http://eepurl.com/dAv6sX You can also follow me on Twitter @JohnQuiggin, at my Facebook public page and at my Economics in Two Lessons page
John Quiggin 
GB up against “For the first time, a climate model matches the geological evidence out of the box—that is, without deliberate tweaks made to the model. It’s a breakthrough for our understanding of past warm climates,” Tierney said. Old temp refusniks will argue this like GB.
Graeme Bird says; “But this climate stuff is all lies from start to finish.”
Smith9 to the rescue; “But if that is true, that means that what he is telling them about climate change is a lie, including his claim that what everybody else is telling them is a lie….And if it is false, it means everything they are told about climate change is true.” Tricky GB.
GB; “There is no getting around this. Sorry you had to hear it from me.”
A flood of crocodile tears?
GB; “I looked into it really solidly 2005-2008. Nothings changed in the interim.” Crystalised knowledge is much mire dangerous than prevention.
“Study of ancient climate suggests future warming could accelerate
…”Another way of stating this result is that the climate of the Early Eocene became increasingly sensitive to additional carbon dioxide as the planet warmed.
“We were surprised that the climate sensitivity increased as much as it did with increasing carbon dioxide levels,”
“It is a scary finding because it indicates that the temperature response to an increase in carbon dioxide in the future might be larger than the response to the same increase in CO2 now. This is not good news for us.”
https://m.phys.org/news/2019-09-ancient-climate-future.html
I hooe this helos GB. Lucky this is not The Conversation.
When other arguments fail to convince, I say “Follow the money”. Real northern hemisphere governments, and real corporations based in the countries they govern, are spending real dollars, roubles, kroner, etc., on, and having real diplomatic stoushes over, access to the resources and sea lanes in the Arctic that are becoming accessible because the sea ice is melting. These are not lentil-guzzling lefty-greeny types that are engaging in this behaviour, but governments and corporations who are doing so on the basis of a very firm belief that climate change is real and is creating profitable opportunities for them.
“krone[r]”
Surely not the socialist Scandinavian comrades?!
I am shocked, shocked.
“.this climate stuff is all lies from start to finish. There is no getting around this.”
A fabricator identifies falsehoods and calls for truth, without demonstrating any ability to determine the difference between falsehoods and truth.
(3) affects those at the far right of the political spectrum much more significantly than those at the far left. ”
Who Said or What Said? Estimating Ideological Bias in Views Among Economists
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330845922_Who_Said_or_What_Said_Estimating_Ideological_Bias_in_Views_Among_Economists
CO2 warming boosters really need to go back to the drawing board to find out what “evidence” is.
Do satellite photos documenting the disappearance of arctic sea ice over the last 40 years count as evidence?
GB perhaps you might answer a q instead of denying without ANY references… “what advantage do you envisage by replacing fossil fuel with renewables?”
GB, Here is your last referenced expert… “In 2019 she stated that she would not “bother with” peer-reviewed journals, in favor of publishing her own papers so that she could editorialize and write what she wanted.[7] ” – she said, fading to irrelevance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
Rog & Nick, listing below has very fine grained responses. I think GB fits ‘The temperature record is simply unreliable”. I am trying now to be denier informed instead of denier reactionary.
“How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming
“Below is a complete listing of the articles in “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic,” a series by Coby Beck containing responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming.
“There are four separate taxonomies; arguments are divided by:
– Stages of Denial,
– Scientific Topics,
– Types of Argument,and
– Levels of Sophistication.
“Individual articles will appear under multiple headings and may even appear in multiple subcategories in the same heading.
“Stages of Denial
There’s nothing happening
Inadequate evidence
There is no evidence
One record year is not global warming
The temperature record is simply unreliable
…
https://grist.org/series/skeptics/
There is no denial you just don’t have the data. When I used to look at the rigged data and took it seriously there was a tiny, beneficial, but clear warming signal. Now that we no the data is rigged we cannot see a warming signal that is global. Thats just a fact.