Comments stockypig has made

  • Andrew Dessler

    I am a professor in the Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University. My research focuses on the physics of climate change, in particular, climate feedbacks.

    A Professor in Bullsh*t, Tedious Personal Attacks and Tripping Over My Own Feet whilst trying to shove an ice core up my ....would be more appropriate.

    I haven't posted much but I have read alot and you Dessler have about as much credibility as a scientist as David Beckham. The IPCC report is now 2-3 years out of date in a rapidly moving field yet you are still incapable of discussing new data, new ways of interpreting old data or anything else about your supposed work. I wish I was paid as a Professor to basically blog about 'what a good chap I am' and 'what terrible bad boys those 'trolls' and 'deniers' are'. I'm out of here for ever, this site and your blog in particular adds absolutely nothing to my learning about climate science. I may as well go read The Sun.

    Stockypig

    On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 9 months ago 287 Responses

  • David Roberts

    You are so smug it is unbelievable.

    Why not continue to support your own scientific view rather than this distasteful name calling and mud throwing game that you play.

    You use analogies to describe that group and don't see the irony of who really is 'playing at school yard games'. I wonder if you'd be the bully at school....my way or the highway?.

    If you have so little regard for these people why not just ignore them  

    Stockypig

    On Skeptics and ressentiment posted 1 year, 9 months ago 6 Responses

  • Oh Steve Steve Steve

    Steve Steve Steve ..thanks for your lovely questions.

    When your wife is talking about the washing up and specifically trying work out how to use a thimble full of water to wash eight full eco meals do you then suddenly start talking about cricket?
    When your son mentions his ecowarrior school project do you then start talking about the wonderful exploits of lassie the dog?

    Probably no, so why do you insist on constantly peddling your views when they have absolutely zero all to do with any thread on any website that you visit?

    Its tedious (almost as tedios as my post here and most of my other posts). Just stop it please you big gherkin.

    Stockypig

    On Do Big Oil and Big Tobacco share a similar smokescreen? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 26 Responses

  • Open your mind

    There is an unfortunately long history in American politics of elevating the controversy after the science is settled.

    This is such bullsh*t. Actually its a wonderful thing about the US and the Western world that people question and continue to question issues...since if we always accepted the science as settled then look where we would be on any number of issues.

    In the pharmaceutical industry drugs are approved based on a certain amount of controlled data. This is only the start of the process of monitoring the data. Pharmacovigilance groups then monitor the data for years on end and if you know anything about this subject you would realise that a number of drugs have later been withdrawn because the fuller data set have presented a different story.

    So first quit with the science is settled cr*p and then why not open your mind a chink and understand that is it healthy to question science. If the AGW hypothesis is strong it will stand the test of time if it is weak then it will fall by the wayside.

    Stockypig

    On Do Big Oil and Big Tobacco share a similar smokescreen? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 26 Responses

  • Artic Sea Ice

    David Adam, environment correspondent The Guardian, Wednesday September 5 2007

    Dr Serreze said: "If you asked me a couple of years ago when the Arctic could lose all of its ice, then I would have said 2100, or 2070 maybe. But now I think that 2030 is a reasonable estimate. It seems that the Arctic is going to be a very different place within our lifetimes, and certainly within our children's lifetimes."

    The new figures show that sea ice extent is currently down to 4.4m square kilometres (1.7m square miles) and still falling. The previous record low was 5.3m square kilometres in September 2005. From 1979 to 2000 the average sea ice extent was 7.7m square kilometres. The minimum extent of sea ice usually occurs late in September each year, as the freezing Arctic winter begins to bite.

    The sea ice usually then begins to freeze again over the winter. But Dr Serreze said that would be difficult this year. "This summer we've got all this open water and added heat going into the ocean. That is going to make it much harder for the ice to grow back. What we've seen this year sets us up for an even worse year next year." The winter ice has already failed to make up for increased losses in the summer in each of the last two years.

    Christopher Booker's Notebook
    By Christopher Booker
    GMT 04/02/2008
    Last autumn the BBC and others could scarcely contain their excitement in reporting that the Arctic ice was melting so fast there would soon be none left.

    Sea ice cover had shrunk to the lowest level ever recorded. But for some reason the warmists are less keen on the latest satellite findings, reported by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on the website Cryosphere Today by the University of Illinois.

    This body is committed to warmist orthodoxy and contributes to the work of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Yet its graph of northern hemisphere sea ice area, which shows the ice shrinking from 13,000 million sq km to just 4 million from the start of 2007 to October, also shows it now almost back to 13 million sq km.

    Stockypig

    On Arctic expert predicts I will win $1000 this year posted 1 year, 9 months ago 3 Responses

  • What frustrates me

    "while others are more open to changing their minds once the evidence is in"

    Evidence is in - thats the trouble with the AGW camp. How on earth can you say that the evidence is in...which is fairly commonly stated? Climate science is immature. We have one earth, an open system, so controlled trials cannot be used to test the AGW hypothesis. And therefore to prove one way or the other is bl**dy tough...it requires hard work and alot of time on the part of scientists generating data ...and it requires a certain amount of guess work on the part of those that interpret the broad data set (because of the limited data so far and being an open system).

    So unless you believe the panacea that is the 'climate model' then the evidence is far from 'in'.

    So whatever the view (skeptic, alarmist etc etc), this is what frustrates me so much. We aren't in the position to predict AGW and we aren't in the position to predict an ice age so why not just accept that. One day we might understand better but until then why not keep the vast uncertainties in the picture.

    Stockypig

    On Do Big Oil and Big Tobacco share a similar smokescreen? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 26 Responses

  • Its a shame ...

    that Alfred the Gore doesn't know the difference

    Stockypig

    On Hansen throws cold water on cooling climate claim posted 1 year, 9 months ago 9 Responses

  • Red Herring

    This entire thread, starting with Mr Desslers first blog, is such a red herring.

    There is a very good reason why skeptics or anyone else wouldn't break down the majority of the IPCC report. Simply because most chapters represent scientific observations. There is no reason to question those observations.

    The only parts that you might consider questioning, which the skeptics do in fact question, are those parts of the report that interpret the data.

    Then the next question obvious question is how on earth you can practically challenge the way the data is interpreted, if you are a skeptic. Well its virtually impossible because it is a closed shop. Hence the vast amount of activity from skeptics in the blogosphere (or whatever you call it).

    Another point worth mentioning is that if you bias the reearch from the start (towards proving AGW) that won't necessarily mean that the data presented is wrong (and thus should be challenged). It is more likely to mean that data simply isn't included in the IPCC report that might question the AGW assumption.

    So in a nutshell, Mr Desslers first post is nothing more than proAGW propaganda

    Stockypig

    On The fourth IPCC report is still going strong a year later posted 1 year, 9 months ago 65 Responses

  • No carbon emissions

    1. Stop breathing
    2. Stop eating

    Stockypig

    On A new climate science paper calls for dramatic action posted 1 year, 9 months ago 26 Responses