Yes. There isn’t much to add to that, the heading actually says it all.
Funny how such posts serve to draw out the trolls. Sometimes I wonder why I even reply to their comments – why I allow them to goad me. I have nothing to prove to them; those who read my blog regularly know my background, and those who are drawn only by a single post must be pretty professional lowbrows to presume the post has no history, no previous posts that relate to it. But it’s in fact revealing to watch them in action.
They latch onto something in the post (some statement made in irony), and use that to take the whole comment line off-topic. They trot out their well-worn arguments and links (that they re-use on every blog they invade – I know because I recognize those answers). The arguments may have nothing to do with the post itself, or only touch it marginally… like the two trolls on the vaccine post who concluded that I must not know about the rabies vaccine and the usual procedure, because I mentioned that there’s a commercial push to vaccinate all newborns against Hep B (which is an STD), but not against rabies. The point was not the rabies vaccine but the herd mentality. But if that’s too complex to discern for a blog troll, he must really think me stupid to believe him an MD.
Similarly a while back I reblogged an article from some or other newspaper, that the Arctic ice cap had been recovering.
By posting this I managed to trigger a climate troll who then turned into an instant expert on Arctic and Antarctic sea ice. All the argument Climategaters always trot out, were launched at me, and then said troll made the mistake of directing me to a website where every objection a climate “denialist” can raise, is answered with a standard, rehearsed answer… a no-brainer for those who want to win an argument. The website was titled “how to win an argument against” and I found a whole series of those, by googling that phrase. The “series” even includes how to win arguments against those who don’t believe in the Young Earth philosophy (heck I can’t get myself to call it a “theory”).
Let me try another piece of bait.
Apparently the ozone hole is recovering?
I did not read the article. Let me repeat this for those who missed it: I have not read the article I’ve just linked to. Because this is a thought experiment. I’ll be making some predictions.
I predict that either
1) the recovery of the ozone hole (which must be measurable or UN wouldn’t report on it) is credited to human intervention and reduction in emission gasses. This in an era of unprecedented greenhouse gas emission: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/9/9/un-co2-levels-risingfasterthanexpected.html (pls note it’s the same UN reporting on this).
Or, in the article I did not read,
2) the recovery of the ozone hole is credited to natural increase in ozone production driven by lightning, and by solar UV irradiation.
In the case of 1), it means that somehow, in an era of the fastest ever rate of emissions in history, we have managed to bring our emissions under control to a large enough extent that the ozone hole is recovering. As you see this is a clear contradiction.
In the case of 2) it would mean that somehow, the ozone hole recovers naturally despite our emissions being higher than ever before. Could that lead one to conclude that the ozone hole’s mechanisms are larger than all humankind’s emissions put together (and that, one step further, we perhaps didn’t cause it in the first place)?
Now I sit back and wait. With some luck one of those experts will come swimming by and explain to me how this works, precisely, and why my conclusions (that human emissions don’t influence the ozone hole as much as we thought) are wrong. “It’s not as simplistic as that”… fine then: enlighten me? I’m rather curious how the climate “consensusists” will deal with this apparently obvious discrepancy.
But oh, so predictable… (* sits back and waits… *)