Sorry, I don’t have to sign on with anybody – particularly Tim Lambert. He sounds to me like a typical dupe of the Oil for Food guys. Disproving a part of a statement doesn’t disprove it all. I think Bob has some good points. I’m sure Lambert does too, but there’s too much chaff to look through to find it. Quite a bit of truth by Roger here:
http://tinyurl.com/s5kdq

Including jackals supporting the “consensus” by nipping at heels and quoting a lot of trivia that doesn’t fit a coherent picture.

Benny – have (m)any of your nearest and dearest observed out loud in your vicinity that a side-effect of contemporary anti-depressants can be a blissful lack of concern with ordinary risks and dangers of life, a degree of disconnection from reality? Google for an abstract or two then cherrypick the ones that tell you what you prefer to hear.

OK, that paper didn’t work out, how ’bout this one?

Best,

D

Run out of arguments? Here are some more to help you calm down: “Our analysis suggests that annual average coral reef calcification rate will increase with future ocean warming and eventually exceed pre-industrial rates by about 35% by 2100. Our results suggest that present coral reef calcification rates are equivalent to levels in the late 19th century and does not support previous suggestions of large and potentially
catastrophic decreases in the future.

Ben I. McNeil, Richard J. Matear, and David J. Barnes: Coral reef calcification and climate change: The effect of ocean warming. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L22309, doi:10.1029/2004GL021541, 2004
http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~bmcneil/McNeil_et_al,2004.pdf

And remember: People who cry wolf too often won’t be trusted in the long run.

First Carter gets caught redhanded either cherrypicking data or making a dumb “point” (Tim is able to quote Carter’s own words to prove him a fool at best, more likely mendacious). Then just consider for a moment Carter’s language: “global warming devotee” … “tosh” … “many thousands of independent scientists” … “bandwagon” … “gravy train of the IPCC” … “alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change” … “larded with words such as” … “ignorance of scientific facts and principles” …

That dumpster of emotive bumf comes just from _two_ paragraphs by Carter, a geologist, trumpeting loudly on subjects that are well outside his area of understanding (I think of the various subdisciplines of climatology that require comprehension and capacity in the hard sciences that he does not have). You get to choose whether to sign on, with Benny, to the braying delusions of competence of this style of “skeptic”, or not.

FUD phrases:

1. silver linings
2. reassuring research findings
3. the doom-and-gloom brigade
4. glumness, negativity or apocalyptic trepidation
5. the empirical data…generally thought.

Words in comment: 55

Words/FUD phrase: 11

% of comment in FUD phrase: 61.818%

Historical Benny Peiser average: 17%

Uh…ahem.

Please excuse all the statistics. It’s baseball season & I wax poetic…

What john frankis said: Benny likes Google Scholar but doesn’t read the journals themselves, as we found out in the Oreskes debacle.

Certainly he may have read this *Front. Ecol. Environ.* paper he linked to, but I highly doubt he understands it, as it doesn’t support his tout (huh).

BTW (aside): I like how this natural sciences journal uses a sum-up box like the medical journals do. It allows us to look at the ‘nutshell’ right away and see that it disagrees with Benny’s tout/wish.

Anyway, open-mindedness is not the requisite to use this paper to make such a tout/wish, but simple-mindedness may be.

The question is: wilfull or näive misleader?

Best,

D

http://tinyurl.com/sxkue

P.S. “Benben”??? Somebody left the computer too close to the crib again…