Denier is playing the pity pot routine because my tone, which was certainly derisive, was not appreciated. However, I didn’t much appreciate Denier’s arrogant tone in that first cheap-shot comment. And that’s what that comment was, a pompous cheap shot, a case of “Watch me teach these climate lovers a quick lesson. I’ll show them.” Sorry, but THAT smug approach to a very complicated issue is getting crushed into dust every time, if I have anything to say about it, anyway.

We’ll call it even.

When statements are as ignorant as your original, they get “bullied” right off the blog. Don’t like it? Don’t make ignorant statements. Pretty simple rule, really.

I agree with the use of quotation marks there and think it is worth stressing that being corrected on factual errors by others – especially really dumb factual errors such as those Denier made – is NOT bullying.

It is not even close to bullying – especially if it is done politely without name-calling or abuse.

Yes, I was a bit vague but then so is Phil’s post

I cited the exact vague sentence in your comment, so you can do the same with Phil’s post to fill the rest of us in on exactly where Phil was vague, rather than be an abusive bully who can insult blog articles that others find very informative, but can ‘t be bothered to give specific examples backing up your bogus, defamatory claims.

I was referring to the lack of major US hurricanes between 2005 and 2012 but I admit that that is irrelevant…

And here come the unending, pointless clarifications, ladies and gentlemen. Rather than just admit the original statement was grossly inaccurate, we get to witness the Dance of the Ceaseless, Inconsequential Distinctions. AKA the Subject Change Salsa.

“Uh, yeah, uh, despite what I first said, I really only meant, uh, let’s see, hurricanes that made US landfall, uh, that were, ummm, major, and, uh, maybe only in these few states over here, or perhaps those over there, and, yeah, uh, the past 100 years was what I meant, not ‘recent years’ like my original comment stated, and blah, blah, blah.”

There have been 15 major hurricanes since May 2006, Denier. Since you have elected yourself the Official US Oracle of Major Hurricanes, what number would it have to be to impress you? 20? 30? 50? Hmmm?

See, Denier, the rest of us realize that you only need a tropical storm to do billions of dollars of damage along hundreds of miles coastline and however many square miles inland. You don’t need 110+ mph winds to ruin countless lives. But you keep the major hurricane subject change hope alive, my friend. Dare to dream.

…but then so is picking just one hurricane.

You would be the only one with blinders firmly in place doing that, Denier. The rest of us recognize that Sandy is part of a larger, disturbing trend (get this, Denier…you might wanna take a seat while the drums are still rolling…) IN RECENT YEARS.

If you would prefer to look at the long-term trend, say over 100 years…

No, I prefer to stay with specifics of your original, misinformed comment. Subject changes are your business, not mine.

I quote from the NOAA website: “there is no long-term trend in the number of landfalling hurricanes since 1900”

It’s really unfortunate for you and your first, completely spurious statement that NOAA doesn’t say “in recent years,” huh?

When statements are as ignorant as your original, they get “bullied” right off the blog. Don’t like it? Don’t make ignorant statements. Pretty simple rule, really.

First, I am amazed that my simple little comment has elicited such a nasty (and bloated) response.

Citation needed.

Who was being “nasty”, and what exactly was “nasty” about what they said?

It is ironic that you criticise me for not using my real name, then hurl a torrent of abuse in my direction,

Abuse? What abuse?

including: “uselessly vague”,

Factually accurate, not abuse.

“denier”,

Accurate ipso facto your comment. Even if not accuarate, how is it “abuse”?

“embarrassing drivel”, “Woefully Clueless”, “The Miserably Misinformed”,

Factually accurate, factually accurate, and – wait for it – yes, factually accurate.

Or are you genuinely so ignorant or stupid that you think 98% of the world’s climate scientists (that’s several thousand unusually intelligent people) are labouring under a misapprehension?

“tell us what rock you’ve been hiding under”, etc.

Yes, there is no excuse for splashing your level of ignorance on the internet. If you don’t know and don’t care to find out for yourself, why not keep quiet?

This is one of the reasons I don’t (generally) use my real name.

Actually, James Evans’s post was far more accurate than was your own, including those terms you have mis-labelled as “abuse”. The phrase that springs to my mind is “if you can’t stand the heat . . .”

Perhaps you should reconsider using your real name on here as you could be perceived as a bully.

Could be, perhaps, by one who cannot face being wrong.

It’s OK, you carry on believing whatever it is you want to believe. Just do us one favour, if you wouldn’t mind. Stop voting.

While I’m here, please stop using the term “denier”.

Do you have a more accurate alternative to suggest?

What else should we call someone who denies what the overwhwelming prepoderance of evidence shows to be a real phenomenon?

Climate change advocates bleat this alarm “You see? We’re changing the climate! Don’t you see?” Okay, I get it. How do you correct it? Fascist hell? Say goodbye to any hope of having a global economy? Try a bunch of seat of the pants “terraforming solutions” that may make matters worse? Fact is that the planet is not being destroyed, nothing is wrong with the planet… the only thing that is changing is whether humans will be able to live in the prevailing environment in our current numbers tomorrow and it is presumptuous to suppose that we can do anything to “solve the problem” except to go extinct or deliberately and massively reduce our population load. Bottom line: say goodbye to anything you recognize as a way of life. No wonder there are so many people in denial.

What on Earth are you blathering about?

Did you make any effort at all to find out what technologies a low-carbon future might encompass?

If you could be bothered to look, there are many projects addressing the issue of what to do about it, some of them already being implemented at scale, others running pilot-plant tests, and others still only theoretical. There are three basic approaches : (1) increase efficiency; (2) generate electricity from renewables; and (3) geoengineering.

Regarding (1), there are already cars available in Europe that can do 60 – 80 mpg with little or no compromise on performance (diesel or petrol-electric hybrids); incandescent light bulbs are no longer available to buy in the UK (you have to buy energy-efficient fluorescent ones instead); and so on.

Regarding (2), there are about 7 or 8 diferent ways of getting power from non-fossil fuel sources without having to wait for ITER to solve all of the problems of high-temperature plasma physics. Wind farms are just one of several approaches that are being tested or investigated. Additionally, electric vehicles are available to buy in Europe, although they don’t yet match up to the internal combustion engine in terms of performance and endurance. But bear in mind this is young technology – it took at least 50 years for the motor industry to get from its humble beginnings to what we might consider to be a half-way decent car. By using electricity for transport, you open up the possibility of carbon-neutral personal trasnport (well, not counting the bicycle, which has always been carbon-neutral).

Regarding (3), carbon-capture and storage is being tested at pilot scale in several places, ocean fertilisation is being tested (albeit in a rather slapdash way); and other options are being investigated on paper at least.

Certainly there is no need for talk of “fascist hell”, nor any reason to say goodbye to anything except profligate waste.

First, I am amazed that my simple little comment has elicited such a nasty (and bloated) response. It is ironic that you criticise me for not using my real name, then hurl a torrent of abuse in my direction, including: “uselessly vague”, “denier”, “embarrassing drivel”, “Woefully Clueless”, “The Miserably Misinformed”, “tell us what rock you’ve been hiding under”, etc. This is one of the reasons I don’t (generally) use my real name. Perhaps you should reconsider using your real name on here as you could be perceived as a bully.

Had there actually been a “relative lack of hurricanes in recent years”—whatever that uselessly vague statement means in the end—it might have been predicted and/or caused by AGW.

Yes, I was a bit vague but then so is Phil’s post; I was referring to the lack of major US hurricanes between 2005 and 2012 but I admit that that is irrelevant – but then so is picking just one hurricane. If you would prefer to look at the long-term trend, say over 100 years, I quote from the NOAA website: “there is no long-term trend in the number of landfalling hurricanes since 1900″.

Thank you for your kind words of encouragement.

@VinceRN :

I’ve asked you before (in # 87) and still had no answer – you have claimed people here were attributing hurricane Sandy solely and directly to Global Overheating.

Please can you quote a line where someone actually made that specific claim?

Because I don’t think anyone is actually saying what you are claiming they’ve said.

@91. VinceRN :

This is what happened. You guys interest [sic] all sorts of silliness that I never said, and you continue to do so.

For example?

Who and what have we said about you here that is “silly” exactly?

Yes, global warming causes all that you say, I agree with you completely. You even agree that we don’t know exactly what caused that storm. That’s all I said. I never claimed anything else about it.

Sadly it isn’t all you said.

For instance in comment #84. you wrote :

(1)You are putting your politics ahead of science and skepticism and attacking me because what I said doesn’t sound like what your politics dictate must be true. (2) I am a skeptic, about everything. Many people on the internet, including you, are claiming that this storm was undeniably caused by global warming, I am skeptical about that. (3) I say we don’t really understand the mechanism well enough to make such a claim. As far as I can tell most climate scientists would agree with that.

(Numbering added for reference.)

and in comment #39. you typed :

(4)There are records of bigger, much bigger, storms in pre-industrial times. (5)The hurricane that hit Galveston in 1900, the great hurricane of 1780, and many, many others. (6) Weather and extremes of weather happen with or without global warming and there is no particular reason to pin this one on global warming.

Others have since pointed out quite reasonably and calmly in my view that there are problems in those paragraphs and arguments. For instance let me counter each of those separate claims you made as numbered :

(1) No, that’;s your attribution of motives and not, I think, what people are doing. -Certainly I am primarily motivated by things other than politics here. I think youhave got this science wrong because it is something I formerly got badly wrong and have becoem quite interested and passionate about.

(2) I’m skeptical about your claim that that is what people – such as myself -are actually claiming. Hence the bolded question in this comment.

(3) The mechanism and basic understanding of HIRGO is pretty well understood in fact and has been studied and confirmed since Svante arrhenius in the 1890′s or so. Most climatologists do understand the mechanism in broad detail quite well if not the specific regional flow on effects.

(4) Maybe so -but so what? What are you implying by that and why do you wish to emphasise that so heavily? It carries connotations of a “oh its nothing to worry about, happens all the time naturally” vibe.

(5) 1900 was not pre-industrial.

(6) Well, yes and no. We can’t say any single event was directly caused by HIRGO but the probability and trend and nature of Sandy are very much consistent and suggestive of Sandy being one likely consequence of HIRGO taking effect. This last sixth point is the main one really – and has me wondering why you seem so intent on disputing it and claiming other people are saying something other than this pointedly nuanced and qualified statement when they’re not?

As for being a skeptic about everything, I will say yes, even about gravity. That doesn’t mean I believe that gravity doesn’t exist, it means when I hear claims about understanding exactly what gravity is I approach them with skepticism. As far as I’ve heard science hasn’t really cleared that hurdle. Skepticism doesn’t mean you disbelieve everything, it means you don’t take claims at face value without thought.

Fair enough.

But HIRGO theory has cleared the hurdle of being well-establishing, multiply confirmed scientific fact. The idea that hurricanes are made stronger and more frequent due to HIRGO is something there is a very good scientific basis for saying and a little or even a lot of work has been done to show this.

I’ve asked you before and ha dno answer – youcliame dpeopel here were attributing hurricane Sandy solely and directly to Global Overheating.

Please can you quote a line where someone actually made that specific claim?

Because I think

MTU (87) said: “Actually I don’t think he did claim Sandy was exactly and precisely caused by HIRGO.”
Noen is a “she”, mate.

Oops! D’oh! Thanks Nigel, sorry Noen.

Must remember to check my gender assumptions. Mea culpa.

@102. Denier :

“…something looking very much like this has been predicted by climate scientists.”
Did the same climate scientists also predict the relative lack of hurricanes in recent years? Maybe that was caused by AGW as well.

Citation needed. Your source and supporting evidence for that claim is what exactly Denier?

Read again what #104. James Evans has written :

” .. 2012 is presently tied for the 3rd most active N. Atlantic cyclone season on record (and it’s not over), as were 2011 and 2010, with each year having about 20 or more named storms. In fact, you have to go all the way back to the 1990′s before you get to a season that had single digit cyclone numbers, despite the fact that some of those post-90′s years had strong Atlantic wind shear/El Niño conditions that inhibit cyclone formation.”

Are you going to say that’s wrong and, if so and most importantly, what evidence do you have to support your contention? I’m guessing not much.

While I’m here, please stop using the term “denier”.

Bit hard when that’s what you’ve – aptly it seems – chosen to name yourself mate.

Also see the BA’s post titled ‘I’m skeptical of denialism’ posted on this blog on the 9th of June , 2009, 2:00 p.m. which is linked in the sidebar on the right under blogroll here & in my name for this comment as well. It provides the Bad Astronomer’s reasons for using that term and why Dr Phil Plait considers it appropriate. It makes a good case in my view although I personally prefer to use Climate Contrarian instead.