I can't do this any more

Not me - I'm going to keep going. I'm talking about a commenter on this thread:

And as far as being dedicated progressives, we sit in the dark with the electric lights turned off for an hour once a year and call it radical. We are embarrassing ourselves.

...

I can't do this anymore. CO2 was our Iraq War of lies and fear mongering.

Does anyone else feel bad about condemning childrent to DEATH BY CO2? It's not progressive. Let's move on, PLEASE!!!!!

Update on Jan 9, 2011 by Bishop Hill

Looks like the commenter in question has posted the same thing elsewhere. Rather dents his credibility IMHO.

Comments

[Simon Hopkinson]

I'd be lying if I said that I was expecting this day to come *this soon*, but I certainly have been expecting reason and rationality to return. Environmentalists are, more usually, the first to reject religion and favour science. Once an environmentalist reasons correctly that their cause is religious rather than scientific, they *will* modify their support for that cause.

It's just really a case of breaking the back of the delusion of righteous sacrifice. There are, as I have always said, other important causes needing the effort and attention of environmentalists and conservationists. From reforestation to ending cruel sports, there are noble goals within the greenery movement. CO2 demonisation and mitigation simply aren't among them.

Now I worry that we're going to jinx this progress by discussing it.

[Richard Drake]

Great find - if 'Meme Mine' is saying anything like we think he is (or she is). With a name like that, and having played no part in the blog community at environment.change.org, it's hard to know if he/she is a veteran environnmentalist or a wind-up. But like Simon I assume the former and take it as a sign of much more to come.

And phew, Bishop Hill is, despite everything, going to keep going. Two great bits of news.

[HaroldW]

Thank heavens this blog will continue...the headline gave me quite a fright.

As for the article, I almost agree with the lede:
"I have often thought about the power of film to bring about social change, but this concept really hit home for me when I saw how quickly Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth brought a basic understanding of global warming to such a large portion of the world."

There is one small correction to be made -- add the prefix mis- to the word understanding, and I would agree fully.

[Sam the Skeptic]

I feel sorry for Dan Johnson trying to inject a little sanity into the argument while Nazor and his pal play the warmist version of "bad cop, bad cop" with him. They're so well primed with all the data that can be spun to mean what they want it to mean while sounding oh so plausible with it.
Address one point and they accuse you of not addressing another while they quote sources that are mainly advocative rather than objective. And as you quote one set of figures to one the other comes back with a partial rebuttal of something you didn't actually say earlier.
But since the three of them (plus meme mine) seem to be the only ones posting, is anybody actually listening?

[Robinson]

Hey, I bet that Nazor guy has a composting toilet. Ewwwwwwww.

[HauntingtheLibrary]

Phew! Excellent post, Bish, but please, don't do that to me! My heart just sank for a moment.

Cheers,

HtL.

[Adam]

I think mememine is getting a bit repetitive
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/global-warming-is-our-iraq-war-of-lies-and-fear/

[Simon Hopkinson]

Ahh, now that's interesting.

[Kevin]

Confession is good for the soul.

[Green Sand]

ToP Headline:-

"I can't do this any more"

For that you deserve a slap!

[Cthulhu]

Mememine is one of yours and has been since 2007 when he showed up on the internet. A very prolific spreader of the message that AGW is a fraud, etc using variants of the userid "mememine" wherever he goes. Here's me and him back in 2008 on topix forum when he went by the handle "Mememine69":
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warming/TPK1T48AE5VSD60N3/p27

I bump into him all over the internet, he's almost as prolific as me. Interesting to see he's learning to tone down his "I have been converted" arguments to sound more convincing. Still a little too much caps lock and punctuation though.

[Richard Drake]

He's not one of ours because he believes in deception.

[Jiminy Cricket]

This is O/T but... I do not think you will find a bigger piece of craven propaganda... get your hankies out...

"We have 10 years..."... environmentalism as a religion...

Home

It reads like a liturgical chant for environmentalists... Yet... it is financed by a luxury goods manaufactuer, and has their brands displayed in the first minute of the film...

I was sent this by a friend in NY, a Serbian lady. She asked for my opinion... not sure she is prepared for my truthful answer...

[Jack Cowper]

I would be careful about such postings. There is a guy on the Richard Black blog who goes under the name of Wolfie Woods who purports to support "Sceptic's need some form of state sponsored re-education" and that the like's of the Khmer Rouge - Pol Pot give a good model on how the population could be controlled in the interests of the environment - I personally believe this guy is a sceptic having a laugh at the alarmists. I cannot believe anyone could be this stupid. It would not surprise me if this was the work of the same person.

[el gordo]

Not so much the village idiot, more likely a practicing jester.

[Richard Drake]

Jack Cowper:

I personally believe this guy is a sceptic having a laugh at the alarmists ...

Whether such a pseudonymous actor advocating extreme violence is

1. a genuine sceptic
2. an agent provocateur seeking to discredit the sceptic cause
3. more than one agent provocateur acting under a single name

gets very boring to speculate about - because if someone is using pseudonymity to increase darkness and confusion they can be doing pretty much anything and can then claim anything about themselves to seek to discredit you, if you question them.

This is quite different from 'bender' (in which case I know Steve McIntyre knows the guy and respects his reasons for not wanting to give his real name) or 'tallbloke' (who I assume is just as genuine, based on his excellent input to Judith Curry's blog) or 'HauntingtheLibrary' above (who one assumes is intimately connected with the fine blog of the same name). And many others that we feel that we've come to know and love over the years.

But despite the good and the charming in pseudonymity one doesn't have to go far in the blogosphere or in the history of Wiki to see its costs.

Even if Meme Mind and those like him is in some people's minds a sceptic just having fun it's worth asking how effective such deception is in advancing the cause.

As effective as Pc Mark Kennedy and his infiltration of the green movement perhaps?

Or as effective an activist against Obamacare as Jared Lee Loughner. (Note that after the killings the repeal of Obamacare has been postponed.)

OK, the last is an extreme case. But not everyone who wants to be thought of as a sceptic is advancing the cause - or seeking to do so.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Another O/T but of interest... that Independent story from March 2000, with Dr. Viner...

Well the Independent are obviously embarrassed by it... so I fairly weak attempt at justification...

Steve Connor: Don't believe the hype over climate headlines

Hype? When has the Independent ever used hype for an environmental story?

[Retired Dave]

Sam the Skeptic

re your comment on getting bogged down with AGW zealots.

I have come to the conclusion that Jo Nova (link in the right frame here at Bish) is absolutely right in her downloadable Skeptics Handbook now in loads of languages. Joanne is one bright and ballsy lady.

She says don't argue - it is warmists who have a theory - just keep demanding the basic evidence. Sceptics don't have a theory to prove - they do. Her advice in the first few pages of the handbook is right IMHO.

Anyone who hasn't seen this resource can download here - it is aimed at ALL so those of a more scientific bent may find it basic - but that is its strength.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/

Warmists have produced advice to counter the Skeptics Handbook. see Jo's page on the subject here

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook/

All well worth a read if you have not seen it.

[Sam the Skeptic]

Retired Dave ...
Thanks for the link.
I'm an occasional visitor to Jo Nova's blog and have read her Skeptics Handbook (probably time for another look though).
I agree with the theory. It is the climate science community that has come up with a new hypothesis. It is up to them to provide the evidence that "this time it's different". Unfortunately as we all know, that is a counsel of perfection when it comes to facing the trolls (which is why I try to keep away from the most infected sites) or even people like Nazor whose every comment is shot through with a sort of arrogant superciliousness which suggests they are so superior to the rest of us because they just know how "right" they are, even if they're wrong.
It means that in essence it is impossible to win an argument with them; all the more reason to ignore them. But if we do that they win by default.

[Robin Guenier]

Sam the Skeptic:

You say "it is impossible to win an argument with them [the arrogant warmists]" I fear you're right. I'm trying here - but I don't expect to get anywhere so it's probably a ridiculous waste of my time.

FYI my latest response ("awaiting moderation") is as follows (apologies for its length):

Zachary:

Apologies for my impatience, although I suggest the solution is to post non-abusive comments ASAP and to respond when you have time. However, I appreciate your response although, unfortunately, you’ve still failed to respond to my clear request for a reference to empirical evidence supporting the positive feedback hypothesis. If you’re so sure that “it is clear we are in for much more warming than [about 1 deg. C]" and that “the science disagrees with [me]”, one would expect you to find it easy to identify such a reference. So why not do so?

This (identification of empirical evidence supporting the positive feedback hypothesis) is the key issue in climate science: although empirical evidence supports the view that the world is warming (and has been for about 300 years), that CO2 causes atmospheric warming (simple physics really – a doubling of concentration causes an unthreatening temperature rise of about 1 deg. C) and that Man’s emissions have therefore probably contributed to that warming in recent years, it does not appear to support the view that continued emissions will cause increased temperatures and thus dangerous climate change. Therefore, the crucial and unresolved question is whether or not feedback effects will have this effect: if not, continued emissions would not be a significant problem. This key question is not resolved by the IPCC report. And it’s about the IPCC findings that the consensus referred to your long “cut and paste” is said to be in agreement. So, even if science were done by consensus, this one wouldn’t help you.

But science is not done by consensus: that “this must be true because lots of important people say so” (i.e. consensus) is BS (and, yes, that means Bad Science). The great achievement of the Enlightenment was to break free of such BS by developing the Scientific Method by which Good Science is done by observation and measurement of the real world – i.e. by empirical evidence. Yet, despite my unambiguous request for a reference to such evidence supporting the positive feedback hypothesis, you have failed to provide one. (And just in case you don’t know what empirical evidence looks like, I suggest (again) that you look at the real-world evidence painstakingly assembled to demonstrate, for example, the smoking/cancer link – evidence the tobacco industry had, yet disgracefully didn’t publish.)

Your problem I think is that there is no such evidence. Thus it’s significant that when, a few months ago, Ralph Cicerone and Martin Rees, presidents respectively of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, wrote a letter to the Financial Times, they noted this: “Uncertainties in the future rate of this rise [referring to the warming trend I mention above], stemming largely from the ‘feedback’ effects on water vapour and clouds, are topics of current research.” So you see: even these eminent scientists accept this key matter is unresolved.

And, until it is resolved, there will continue to be uncertainty about whether or not continued emissions would cause dangerous climate change. You'd be wise, I suggest, to acknowledge that.

[Cthulhu]

"She says don't argue - it is warmists who have a theory - just keep demanding the basic evidence. Sceptics don't have a theory to prove - they do. Her advice in the first few pages of the handbook is right IMHO."

I disagree (but then I wouldn't wouldn't I?). The question is whether the untested elevation of CO2 levels to 500ppm and beyond is safe. In that light the position Jo Nova takes is akin to saying we should assume it is safe unless it is proven dangerous. Whereas actually there is a good case for saying we have enough information indicating danger that the burden is on proving it safe, just as a drug company would have to prove the safety of a drug before release.

In this light being unable to pin down climate sensitivity and related uncertainty in the science would count as a strong argument against elevation of CO2 to 500ppm.

[BBD]

Cthulhu outlines the precautionary principle:

In this light being unable to pin down climate sensitivity and related uncertainty in the science would count as a strong argument against elevation of CO2 to 500ppm.

But de-emphasises the alternative position (eg Nova) which is that unless and until the observations support a high climate sensitivity those who argue potential catastrophe should not be afforded uncritical acceptance.

Especially when that extends to economically destructive decarbonisation policies of zero merit when measured against the realities of the changing global emissions profile.

[Retired Dave]

Cthulhu

Blind alley - you have an idea that 500 ppm is bad and some poor models that have not been close to skilled yet. Because of that, every day someone tells us something new is down to climate change.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - but a very poor one, which is why all the others are taken as multiples of it. It doesn't adsorb LW efficiently (only 3 very narrow bands ) and 90% of its effect as a GHG is in the first 30 ppm.

We don't see a problem and would like to spend the billions on other things, many of them environmental and on adapting to a slow and possibly beneficial slight warming. Also perhaops helping the poor of this world not line the pockets of the rich cheerleader of CAGW.

I think the article that puts it closest for me recently is this.

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/case-doing-nothing-about-global-warming

I reckon foot soldiers will keep up the line longest, but already some AGW proponents at the top are framing exit strategies.

The sort of thing that drives me to be a sceptic (always a very healthy position for a scientist) are things like the attempt to deny/erase the MWP and Mini ice-age plus items like this

http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-news/2190-britains-exam-board-accused-of-brainwashing-pupils-with-inaccurate-climate-graph.html