Brent Thread

By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can’t move comments in MT, so I’ll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Lotharsson
    September 25, 2010

    Sunspot gullibly swallows:

    > You must be asking how can GISS show any temperature readings at all north of eighty degrees if they don’t have any data? The answer is simple, they make it up.

    Apparently sunspot is blissfully unaware of how one can construct a reasonable global average temperature without needing a thermometer on every square metre of the earth’s surface.

    Firstly, sunspot can’t even use Google to find the [GISTEMP webpage](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) that includes the following:

    > A global temperature index, as described by Hansen et al. (1996), is obtained by combining the meteorological station measurements with sea surface temperatures based in early years on ship measurements and in recent decades on satellite measurements.

    Hmmmm, to some readers that would that suggest they actually have data for the regions that sunspot’s source claims they have no data for, and that sunspot’s source of claims was in fact “making it up”. Some readers might even use Google or something to find the [following webpage](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/), and read the text about Ocean Data inputs.

    Secondly, sunspot appears unaware that the main GISTEMP page also points out [my emphasis]:

    > The analysis method was documented in Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), showing that the correlation of temperature change was reasonably strong for stations separated by up to 1200 km, **especially at middle and high latitudes**.

    sunspot’s homework is to determine what the distance from 80 degrees N to 90 degrees N is, and how it compares to 1200km.

    sunspot’s auxiliary homework is to **think** about what the means for the claims he’s been touting and then publicly correct any bogus claims.

    Unfortunately it’s odds-on that he fails.

  2. #2 John
    September 25, 2010

    >For the most part I avoid using the expression “ad hominem” which you Global Warming obsessives bandy about when criticised. I imagine an impartial reader of this site murmuring, “If John’s arguments are so strong why must he resort to language like moron, fool, liar, troll etc?” If anything such language is counterproductive, and so I don’t complain.

    Nice way to distract from Milloy being a tobacco shill.

    The words “moron”, “fool”, “liar” and “troll” describe so well your foolish lying and moronic trolling.

    If any people have qualms I’ll point them to the posts in which you posted under different names (that’s trolling), declared you held positions you didn’t actually hold (that’s lying), held inconsistent positions based on whatever you’d read that morning (that’s moronic) and repeatedly describing scientists as “shit head shinny arse’s [lacking] any idea how to survive in the environment, most of [who] wouldn’t know what the sun felt like on their vitamin D deficient, lilly white, blubbery carcasses” (via Sunspot) while claiming not engage in ad hom attacks.

    What a moronic troll.

  3. #3 John
    September 25, 2010

    >For the most part I avoid using the expression “ad hominem” which you Global Warming obsessives bandy about when criticised

    Except you used it here.

    Why do you lie Brent?

  4. #4 Wow
    September 25, 2010

    > Why do you lie Brent?

    [deniers gotta deny](http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html)

  5. #5 Wow
    September 25, 2010

    > Sunspot gullibly swallows:

    There’s a reason why deniers are often [teabaggers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests#February_1.2C_2009_tea_bag_campaign).

    They’ll swallow ANYTHING.

  6. #6 Brent
    September 25, 2010

    SteveC (1094): My point about Roger Harrabin was that he has a (very reasonable) bee in his bonnet about uncertainty in science, and the way the media report it. IMHO he deserves credit for his honest rethink, and for identifying one of the philosophical fault lines which separates the two camps. Your lot, and Jehovahs Witnesses, and Trots, know the future with absolute certainty and, when it doesn’t happen, have the talent to change it. (Lotharsseons; “He IS the Messiah! I should know; I’ve followed a few!”; “Capitalism contains the seeds of its own downfall”. Birds of a feather, deluded together.

    Bravo to Harrabin for identifying this key theme of the Great Debate.

    P.S., it’s so cold that my lad’s watching telly wrapped in a blanket. Is that weather or climate?

  7. #7 Brent
    September 25, 2010

    Lotharsson (1099): No, silly billy, it’s Harrabin-of-the-Beeb who has a degree in English! Mine is in Production Engineering.

    John (1102): Comprehension ain’t your strong suit either! ‘For the most part’ is not the same as ‘Never’. I’m flattered that you crossreference my writings so thoroughly. So time consuming! Do you have a ‘mancrush’ on me?

    Wow (1104): You’ve nicknamed our friend Sunspot ‘gullbilly’. That’s a new’un on me. Is a gullbilly a backwoodsman who lives on the coast? Tell us a bit about yourself, Wow!

    Jeff Harvey (1095): You usually reserve your chatroom activities for weekdays when they’re paying you at the Uni. It’s Saturday, Jeff! Are they paying you overtime now, or are you skiving on your own time?

  8. #8 Dave R
    September 25, 2010

    >Your lot know the future with absolute certainty

    You’re a liar, as [anyone can see for themselves](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-5.html).

    >it’s so cold

    [Back around the goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2805438).

  9. #9 Dave R
    September 25, 2010

    Brent [September 15](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2799856):
    >In short, the IPCC __acknowledges great uncertainty__

    Brent [September 25](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2818861):
    >Your lot __know the future with absolute certainty__

  10. #10 chek
    September 25, 2010

    Dave R., to paraphrase, “I share your fury at the obscene fra*d that is” Brent.

    Although “degree” and “Engineer” are almost as funny.

  11. #11 Brent
    September 25, 2010

    Dave, by “your lot” I mean zealots like yourself who are “plus catholique que le Pape”. Could it be that “your sort” so desires the “end of days” that you add to the IPCC’s discomfiture? They write LOSU = low (that is, Level of Scientific Understanding) and you say, “The science is settled”. With a fanbase like you lot no wonder they’re under pressure!

    In the case of aerosols – including volcanic – the LOSU is designated “low” (hey, Dave, what’s your LOSU? Any qualifications?). And yet, in the GISSTemp Homepage http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
    which Lotharsson kindly linked to (#1100), there appear three darling little volcanosVolcanos raining on the Global Warming parade. These were in 1963, 1982 and 1991, presumably Agung, Chichon and Pinatubo. Mister Hansen’s nest of Warmista Vipers seem to be saying, “it gets warmer and warmer, but pesky volcanos knock two tenths of a degree off and set us back”.

    Now, these babies were mere firecrackers compared to Krakatoa (1883) and the mighty Tambora in 1815 which belted out TEN TIMES as much crap as the worrisome Pinatubo, and caused harvest failures on the other side of the world.

    As a driver of climate, your CO2 has some serious rivals in volcanic and solar influences. It’s irrational to attribute the bulk of global warming to CO2 when the IPCC admits that the effects of its rivals are poorly understood. My guess is that the relative ‘volcano holiday’ of the last two centuries, plus the Svensmark effect, explain the few lousy tenths of a degree warming since 1860. If there’s a repeat of Tambora, and if the lengthening sunspot cycle presages a new Little Ice Age, you lot will have to find a new scare story to support.

  12. #12 Shorter Brent
    September 25, 2010

    [Shorter Brent](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2819160) …and then you’ll be really, really sorry. You just wait and see.

    Until then, here’s some Plimer inspired gobbledegook, from me, Brent, the English graduate engineer stockbroker.

  13. #13 Brent
    September 25, 2010

    Chek, you’re correct: I am a polymath. But the English degree is Roger Harrabin’s and not mine (Lotharsson has comprehension difficulties).

    Question for you: How are cooling periods since the Industrial Revolution best explained?

  14. #14 Chris O'Neill
    September 25, 2010

    Bent:

    If there’s a repeat of Tambora, and if the lengthening sunspot cycle presages a new Little Ice Age, you lot will have to find a new scare story to support.

    Are you holding your breath Brent? Hope so.

  15. #15 Brent
    September 25, 2010

    Chris, the many ups and downs of climate suggest a rough equivalence of warming and cooling drivers. By enquiring why you Warmists are quick to acknowledge the warming influences, yet slow to acknowledge downticks (whether of known or speculative origin) I am slowly coming to understand the asymmetric mentality.

    Scary as Eyjafjallajokull was, it was tiny compared to the eruptions our forefathers had to endure. “Holding my breath” for Tambora II? Mate, I doubt if Tambora pays much attention to my hopes and fears!

    AGW is hubristic: we know that we have the power to destroy much of nature, and rightly feel guilty about our species destroying rhinos (to name just one example). I see the AGW myth as a tragic waste of the public’s ‘green awareness’. The gigantic resource being frittered away in combating this chimera would be so much better spent on real issues.

    In my work as a QE, much of my effort is spent on retargeting effort to get more ‘bangs for our buck’. I suspect that the likes of Jeff Harvey, an influential advocate, could put his schmoozing skills to great benefit if only he would drop the carbon dioxide bollix and throw his weight behind, say, habitat preservation. If I had his networking skills I’d launch a charity called “Shoot a Rhino”. We’d give away tamper-proof digital cameras and pay people ten dollars for every unique photo of a rhino. We’d make it more profitable for rhino poachers to photograph rhinos than to kill them. Diverting half a percent of Britain’s windmill budget to such use would do some real good.

    Man can no more command the climate than it Canute could command the tides. He ordered his throne to be placed at the tideline in order to illustrate the futility of such hubris. The IPCC and its obscene gravy train is a menace to the very ecosystem it purports to protect because we’re barking up the wrong tree.

  16. #16 Lotharsson
    September 25, 2010

    > …know the future with absolute certainty …

    Liar, liar, goldfish pants on fire. You’ve been corrected on this point *numerous* times. Perhaps you should reflect on how much of your argument survives if you take away your lies.

    > No, silly billy, it’s Harrabin-of-the-Beeb who has a degree in English! Mine is in Production Engineering.

    > Lotharsson has comprehension difficulties.

    ROFLMAO! I am Brent therefore I project!

    If you comprehend what I wrote, I allowed for the possibility that **your poor communication** was misleading on this point. And lo and behold, it was.

    > As a driver of climate, your CO2 has some serious rivals in volcanic and solar influences.

    Goldfish. And demonstrating further communication difficulties – or perhaps merely sloppy thinking – by incorrectly focusing on “driver of climate” instead of the current topic – “drivers of climate **change**”. Volcanoes and the sun are not currently driving change, and haven’t done so for some time.

    > …the many ups and downs of climate suggest a rough equivalence of warming and cooling drivers.

    Goldfish. And stupid claim to boot.

    > Man can no more command the climate than it Canute could command the tides.

    Assertion from religious belief. Argument by exaggerated strawman.

    > …because we’re barking up the wrong tree.

    …says Brent **with certainty** despite not having a robust case, and after accusing others of (wrongly) “…know[ing] the future with absolute certainty”.

    *I am Brent therefore I project.*

  17. #17 Dave R
    September 25, 2010

    >you say, “The science is settled”.

    [Back around the goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2766758).

    >Svensmark

    [Back around the goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2816296).

    >If there’s a repeat of Tambora, and if the lengthening sunspot cycle presages a new Little Ice Age

    [Back around the goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2540746).

  18. #18 John
    September 25, 2010

    >John (1102): Comprehension ain’t your strong suit either! ‘For the most part’ is not the same as ‘Never’. I’m flattered that you crossreference my writings so thoroughly. So time consuming! Do you have a ‘mancrush’ on me?

    Why do you hate gay people?

  19. #19 John
    September 25, 2010

    >…says Brent with certainty despite not having a robust case, and after accusing others of (wrongly) “…know[ing] the future with absolute certainty”.

    Remember, Brent has declared the science “settled” based on nothing more than his religious faith that it’s the sun.

    Shorter Brent: “The science is NEVER settled unless it settles in my favour, which it will when the Sun is proven to be the current driver of climate far off in the future…”

  20. #20 MFS
    September 26, 2010

    Bent:
    >It’s the sun!

    Others:
    >Solar activity is decreasing while the temperature increases, your statement is illogical.

    Brent:
    >It’s the urban heat island effect in the arctic!

    Others:
    >Back up your claims. If it’s UHI then why is arctic ice vanishing?

    Brent:
    >It’s the sun!

    Others:
    >Goldfish. The sun is at historically low activity and the temperature at historic highs.

    Brent:
    >Brrr! I had to use a blanket today!

    Others:
    >Weather is not climate.

    Brent:
    >It’s the sun!

    And so on and so on ad infinitum

    And so we go on and on and on…

  21. #21 Bernard J.
    September 26, 2010

    Brent.

    Forgive me if I am rendered dubious over [your claim to be a polymath](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2819197).

    My hot pal suggested to me that your boasting might be a math ploy calculated to intimidate those with whom you disagree. He pointed out that it is amply hot across an unlikely large part of the planet, that temperatures map hotly across whole continents, that it’s the type of palmy hot that is only assuaged with a malty hop beer.

    Indeed, my wealthy and unscrupulous climatological friend quaffs such brew whilst he sits in the shade of his French chateau. The other day, he spoke to me by ’phone of how he watched a moth play by the light of a lamp as the setting sun coloured crimson the mountain that he affectionately refers to as “my hot Alp”, in acknowledgement of its receding snowline. He thinks that he may know you, because he grumbled “Ha! My plot to commit the greatest scientific fraud of all time has been discerned by that dastardly Brent. Damnation! What if he is somehow able to convince the world’s sceptics and thereby halt my op?”

    He concluded though that if you are the Brent that he knows, there is no way that you are a polymath, no matter how much one rearranges the concept.

  22. #22 MFS
    September 26, 2010

    Hi Brent,

    Hey, I’m glad you’ve finally found a polymath within yourself. Only 4 months ago you were despondently searching for them when [you said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2489769):

    >“The first is a conjecture by the brilliant Herschel, a man with the lost art of combining intuition with calculation. Oh, polymaths, where are you today? I suspect that the IPCC Armageddon Myth is a consequence of compartmentalisation in science, of narrow-and-deep expertise.”

    Now, I have to say, I almost snorted my tea through a nostril when I read your claim to be one, I laughed so hard! You’re not a polymath, Brent, you’re a [Google Galileo](http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/google-galileo-five-reasons-we-know-your-are-not-a-scientific-genius/) whose every claim (rehashed directly from WTFUWT and other denier claptrap websites) has been comprehensively demonstrated to be trash. You have been repeating yourself and your oft-discredited claims since March, when [you said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2318845):

    >”Whilst much of the supporting logic of the AGW hypothesis is watertight, I doubt the overall conclusion.”

    And you’ve been contradicting yourself even since.

  23. #23 Chris O'Neill
    September 26, 2010

    Bent:

    I doubt if Tambora pays much attention to my hopes and fears!

    In that case you doubt that it’s likely anyone will need to find a new scare story. Looks like the rest of your life is all set out. You must really be looking forward to spending the rest of your life lying.

  24. #24 SteveC
    September 26, 2010

    Brent @1105:

    My point about Roger Harrabin was that he has a (very reasonable) bee in his bonnet about uncertainty in science, and the way the media report it. IMHO he deserves credit for his honest rethink, and for identifying one of the philosophical fault lines which separates the two camps. Your lot, and Jehovahs Witnesses, and Trots, know the future with absolute certainty (blah blah blah)

    Sorry, remind me which of the IPCC reports it is that states there is no uncertainty. And remind me again which of the many respected specialists in the multi-faceted field of climate science have said there is no uncertainty. And once you’ve done that, try to reconcile that reality with your blanket black-and-white generalisations.

    And FYI, “my” lot are predominantly biologists trying to learn about a different discipline. I am not, nor am ever likely to be any kind of expert in climate science. But having seen many like you sowing seeds of FUD in the conservation debate, I know what you are and what you stand for.

  25. #25 Dave R
    September 26, 2010
  26. #26 Lotharsson
    September 26, 2010

    > Forgive me if I am rendered dubious over your claim to be a polymath.

    I find it hard to believe he’s even a monomath – although perhaps he actually did well in his Engineering degree and job, and is merely hopelessly incompetent at everything else he has demonstrated at Deltoid?

  27. #27 chek
    September 26, 2010

    I agree – Bernard J has proved himself A Gaming Rank of the thread

  28. #28 chek
    September 26, 2010

    Brent on the other hand is just a rank gamer.

    (sorry – the second sentence didn’t paste into 1126. duh!)

  29. #29 Michael
    September 26, 2010

    Brent, being rather like Tim Cutin, just loves the attention, even if it’s disdain.

    Science will have no effect on Brent, but ignoring him will.

  30. #30 Wow
    September 26, 2010

    > Why do you hate gay people?

    > Posted by: John

    You see it a lot from Right Wingers with a Religious Bent (pun intended) who are Actually Gay but Hide In The Closet.

    The most vociferous anti-gay politicians are frequently found out hiring a rent boy to “help them with their luggage” on their holidays. Or after giving up a high profile political career, say “actually, I’m gay, I just agreed to anti-gay policies against my wishes because I was doing what The People wanted, not what I wanted”.

    In short: Bent is soooo gay.

  31. #31 Wow
    September 26, 2010

    > Wow (1104): You’ve nicknamed our friend Sunspot ‘gullbilly’. That’s a new’un on me.

    It’s a new one on me too, since you won’t find “gullbilly” anywhere in post 1104.

    However, insanely dribbling Bent imagines whatever needs to be imagined at any one time. As can be shown with his posts and his are they/aren’t they on IPCC being certain on the future. Since there’s no truth in anything he says and he’s not tied to reality, he can make it say whatever he wants it to say by just being nuts enough.

    After all, from Bent’s POV, sanity is a one-trick pony, whereas if you’re good and insane, the sky’s the limit.

    Bent is certainly reaching for the sky in cloud-cuckoo land.

  32. #32 Brent
    September 26, 2010

    Bernatd J (#1120): Excellent posting! My family is looking alarmed that I’m chuckling at the screen.

    Lotharsson: Your ‘monomath’ also deserves to be mentioned in dispatches.

    Wow and John: Look at how your co-religionists manage to be scathing and witty at the same time. Calling people fibbers and benders just doesn’t cause the offence you would wish. Only our friend Chek matches you two for ‘unintentional humour’: his discussion with himself on the subject of race hatred (#698) was cringetastic!

    SteveC (1123): Nobody’s claiming that the IPCC’s report avoid discussing uncertainty. In #1110 we agreed that it’s the groupies like the Deltoid Bunch who possess supernatural foresight and greater certainty than TV evangelists.

  33. #33 adelady
    September 26, 2010

    ” In #1110 we agreed… ”

    Who agreed?

    Not me, and I didn’t see anyone else with their hand up saying, Me, Me, Me too.

  34. #34 Dave R
    September 26, 2010

    >Nobody’s claiming that the IPCC’s report avoid discussing uncertainty. In #1110 we agreed that it’s the groupies like the Deltoid Bunch who possess supernatural foresight and greater certainty than TV evangelists.

    Liar. Nobody here has made any claim to “know the future with absolute certainty”. If you wish to dispute this then quote them. Otherwise explicitly withdraw the claim and apologise.

  35. #35 luminous beauty
    September 26, 2010

    [adelady,](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2820126)

    It’s Brent’s narcissism (a necessary component of his socially reinforced pathology) coming to the fore, expressing itself as projection. It is more in the character of religious faith with which he clings to the viral meme of ‘global warming is a religious belief’ than there is any objective reason for thinking it so.

    As it is said, “What a tangled web we weave…”

  36. #36 chek
    September 26, 2010

    It’s quite interesting the way the person without any rational explanation (or even framework) when challenged is the one attempting to tar others with the religious belief brush. I was going to use the ‘p’ word but I see LB has beaten me to it.

  37. #37 luminous beauty
    September 26, 2010

    [chek](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2820300)

    It isn’t just the projection, it’s the denial, the narcissism, the low affect, the lack of empathy and infantile hostility, not to mention the D-K effect, that all raise serious red flags concerning Brent’s emotional stability.

    What gives some hope is his persistent banging his head against the wall here, exposing his irrational thought processes, revealing the inner conflict between recognizing the repressed deep emotional pain his denial is inflicting on his psyche and clinging to the superficial and delusional fear of ego loss. This shows he is sub-consciously aware he has a problem. The first step in dealing with it, is admitting to oneself and others that one has a problem.

    So, how about it, Brent. Are you ready to man up? I’m rooting for ya.

  38. #38 Brent
    September 26, 2010

    Adelady (#1132): All right, I was wrong to write “we agreed”.

    My point was that the IPCC acknowledges that nobody understands nuffink about cloud albedo (they say ‘somewhere between 0.3 and 1.8 W/m2 of cooling’), and yet the True Followers of Gore who infest this chatroom believe in Global Warming. Er… you DO all believe, doncha? Adelady, you KNOW that Australia must one day be evacuated, don’t you?

    Governments are basing billion-dollar policies on such vagueness. Imagine if a finance ministry said that between 3m and 18m people were liable for tax, or the defence ministry said that it had between 3 and 18 submarines at sea. The health ministry has beds for somewhere between 3000 and 18000 patients.

    Good news: In today’s Independent there’s an advert by Oxfam: “CLIMATE CHANGE… while we have to listen to all the hot air being spouted about climate change thousands of people are dying”. Yessssss! Git in th’hole!.

    More good news: Labour’s new leader kept schtumm about your favourite fantasy: it’s becoming The Great Unmentionable in polite circles.

  39. #39 Brent
    September 26, 2010

    Luminous Beauty (1136): Thank you for sychoana…. psycoanal… physch…. telling me what’s wrong with me.

    Could it be that you and your Unsceptic friends have BWGNS? That’s Beardy Wierdy Gullible Numpty Syndrome.

  40. #40 MFS
    September 26, 2010

    Another day of no data, evidence or references, and lots of hot air from Brent.

    How unsurprising.

  41. #41 Lotharsson
    September 26, 2010

    > …they say ‘somewhere between 0.3 and 1.8 W/m2 of cooling’), and yet the True Followers of Gore who infest this chatroom believe in Global Warming.

    What part of “climate sensitivity is very unlikely to lie outside of 2-4.5 degrees C” do you think is invalidated by the uncertainty on cloud albedo? Oh, wait, wait! I know this one! You’re insisting on not seeing the forest for the trees again because the forest strongly disputes your case…

    > In #1110 **we** agreed…

    Given the lack of evidence that other commenters agreed thusly, the most charitable explanation is that “we” consists of Brent and his (imaginary?) friends. It’s a shame that none of them has a clue about science…

    I think it’s time to leave them to have a good time together, which consists primarily of making shit up to make themselves feel good, telling themselves how much cleverer they are than the kids who won’t play with them, and trying and failing to invent witty new putdowns for the others.

    Bye, bye, Brent. Enjoy your thread.

  42. #42 luminous beauty
    September 26, 2010

    [Brent](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2820686)

    It is unfortunate you respond to my sincere concern for your well being with such an inappropriate attempt at humor and childish insult. I assure you the symptoms I list are genuine and as real as a heart attack. Please understand that I’m not being judgmental of you as a person. The mental illness from which you suffer, and those who love you must likewise suffer, is common and treatable.

    Please seek professional help.

  43. #43 adelady
    September 26, 2010

    No, I don’t think Australia will be evacuated. I do think that cities like Adelaide and Perth will have a lot of houses built, and many retrofitted, to live partly or entirely underground. The way they currently do in Coober Pedy.

    I might add that this isn’t so bad. Having spent a little time in Coober Pedy, the one thing you don’t need is air-conditioning. The indoor temperature is fine, and the airflow is guaranteed by the structure.

  44. #44 Chris O'Neill
    September 26, 2010
    In #1110 we agreed…

    Who agreed?

    I think that’s the royal “we”. Brent is delusional after all.

  45. #45 sunspot
    September 27, 2010

    hahaha,

    looomie & slothy, monosymptomatic carbon dioxide psychosis is an illness.

    It has parallels to delusional parasitosis.

    You may have problems adjusting to the realization that the syndrome that you have is only “propaganda of planetary pyrochemical apocalypse” and is now only apparent in an infinitesimally small percentage of the population.

    There is help !

    Obsessive-Compulsive and Phobic Neurosis and Their Therapy, Popović M., Milovanović D. (Lek, Ljubljana, Book, 1981)

  46. #46 sunspot
    September 27, 2010

    WAH WAH wow,

    check this out,

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/w0i

    brent, its easy to see that little jonny is infatuated with you, sorta reminds me of a blowfly buzzin yer butt when you have a crap out in the bush !

  47. #47 Wow
    September 27, 2010

    Bent’s boyfriend runs to his defence with a “look at the monkeys” shot.

  48. #48 MFS
    September 27, 2010

    You know, sunspot, you truly are a great example of the logical strength of denier arguments.

    I think your contributions, combined with those of Tim Curtin, Brent, Dave Andrews… really are what sets Deltoid apart. It showcases what a bunch of nutters the denialosphere is made of better than any other blog.

  49. #49 sunspot
    September 27, 2010

    m fess you are almost correct,

    I did indeed lower myself to the murky waters of the scaremonger’s !

    However I did enjoy it, however self-flagellation is out of the question.

    denialosphere ? nope ! thats your mob !!

    You all deny all science that hasn’t been whitewashed and filtered by your IPCC gods.

    Denial is bringing your mob undone

  50. #50 Wow
    September 27, 2010

    Note again how spots projects his insistence on religious belief being the only belief possible and makes everyone believe in God (though not the “righ” one, since he thinks that’s YHWH).

    Also note that he projects his own tribal method of operation on everyone, not thinking that people may agree with facts because they are true, rather than they are in the same tribe.

  51. #51 chek
    September 27, 2010

    Sunny said: “I did indeed lower myself to the murky waters of the scaremonger’s !”(sic)

    The “scaremongers” (note it’s a plural, not a possessive) I would contend those who tell the dim and poorly educated that fossil fuel dependence must not change. And you buy that.

    “However I did enjoy it, however self-flagellation is out of the question.

    Yet you continue to return with every contrarian piece of junk you think supports you, when it is always shown to either not support you, or be total junk. I would conclude that like Brent, self abasement is very much on your agenda.

    “You all deny all science that hasn’t been whitewashed and filtered by your IPCC gods.

    The science of AGW is coherent and supported by every National Academy of Science of every major country and despite years of trying, your TV weatherman and mining engineer gurus have not changed or modified a single principle. That’s why they’ve reverted to simple-minded smears and lies that can be propagated by the likes of you.

    “Denial is bringing your mob undone”

    I tend to think that the corporate strategy of smearing AGW, in addition to their numerous other crimes, will be their own undoing. Somehow I can’t see humanity willingly entering a new dark age in order to maintain unlimited privilege for the decadent irresponsible few. History shows us that numerous times.

  52. #52 luminous beauty
    September 27, 2010

    >I did indeed lower myself to the murky waters of the scaremonger’s !
    However I did enjoy it, however self-flagellation is out of the question.

    _Now he worships at an altar of a [stagnant pool_](http://www.bobdylan.com/#/songs/license-to-kill)

    _And when he sees his reflection, he’s fulfilled_

  53. #53 Brent
    September 29, 2010

    Hi, folks! I’m sorry I’ve been neglecting you lately. We have had some great fun together, haven’t we?!

    Unfortunately, I have quite a serious issue to resolve with Volkswagen gearboxes, and with BP shares going through the goldarn roof, I don’t have as much time to chat with you and battle against your bonkers brainwashed beliefs in Burnageddon.

    Please let me know if the world does start warming! Bleedin’ heating is on AGAIN. Costing me the Earth, so to speak. It hardly seems five minutes since we had a good ol’ laugh together at the chilly Spring in England. Still, I’m sure it’s roasting hot where you guys are, and that the seas are lapping round your ankles. Good luck with that!

  54. #54 Ansafone
    September 29, 2010

    Hi Brent,

    There’s nobody here to take your call which is likely to be the same fact-free, substanceless, pointless, uninformed drivel as usual.

    Please call back in the unlikely event somebody gives a fuck.

    Thank you.

  55. #55 Stu
    September 29, 2010

    Nobody cares, Brent.

    Nobody cares.

  56. #56 Brent
    September 29, 2010

    Good point, Stu.

    The global warming thing goes away, like a puff of wind, as if ’twere never invented. Like Esperanto, like fear of anarchists, like communism, it wafts away from lack of substance.

  57. #57 Ansafone
    September 29, 2010

    Hi Brent,

    There’s nobody here to listen to your call for attention right now.

    To be honest it’s unlikely that your usual [uninformed](http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2010/heatrecords2010.jpg) dribble will be of any interest to anyone who pays [attention to events.](http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/28/1california-prop-23-los-angeles-heat-wave/)

    Please call back later in the unlikely event anybody will ever give a f-uck.

  58. #58 John
    September 30, 2010

    Yawn.

  59. #59 Brent
    September 30, 2010

    Ansaphone (or do we know you by some other name, eh?),

    Thanks for linking to the table of record temperatures.

    The people of Wilmington must have been crapping themselves about global warming back in 1900 when the thermometer hit a mighty 77.7F. Is the new 2010 record – 77.8F – holy merde! – significant?

    Having discovered WAWS (Warmists’ Asymmetric Worry Syndrome), I’d like to ask you this: (a) What has the pesky planet been playing at during the lull of past 110 years? (b) Which is more alarming: the temperature drop from 1900 to 1955, or the temperature rise from 1955 to today? And (c) When you see your child on a seesaw do you become alarmed for his/her safety during ascents or descents, twittering, “Eek! Phew! Eek! Phew! Eek!”

    Oh, I need the advice of you expert extrapolators. The BP shares I bought at 298p last June have today surged to 430+. Should I assume that the trend will continue, or should I set a trailing stoploss at, say, peak-minus-20p? At this rate of increase they will be worth zillions in a few years (yay!), but I am concerned that market forces may dampen the growth (bah!).

    Change of subject: Did anybody catch the Royal Society backpedalling frantically today? You can just imagine the discussions in the backroom: “Gentlemen, if the pesky planet refuses to warm up as predicted, we’ll have egg on our faces. They’ll be sniggering at us and saying we’re not fit to clean Hooke’s boots. Whaddya say we lose the Science is Settled And We’re All Gonna Fry statements?”

  60. #60 Stu
    September 30, 2010

    BP shares were worth about 500p last June. Do you not mean this June?

    Hey, do you think if there had been shares in Soviet nuclear power they’d have bottomed out around May/June 1986? Everyone loves profiting from a good disaster. Actually, on second thought, I don’t think I’ll bother talking to you about ethical trading. Oh, and re: the rest of your post?

    Nobody cares, goldfish.

    Nobody cares.

  61. #61 Ansafone
    September 30, 2010

    “It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years.

    Whilst the extent of climate change is often expressed in a single figure – global temperature – the effects of climate change such as temperature, precipitation and the frequency of extreme weather events will vary greatly from place to place.

    Increasing atmospheric CO2 also leads to ocean acidification which risks profound impacts on many marine ecosystems and in turn the societies which depend on them”. – [The Royal Society](http://royalsociety.org/climate-change/)

    Never take what Peiser’s GWPF and Montford (aka The Benny-Hill Show) say at face value. And if you do take anything from them, be sure to count your fingers afterwards.

    p.s. Yes indeed, I usually post as sunsplat but I couldn’t find my crack dealer today.

  62. #62 Wow
    September 30, 2010

    I suppose the problem is if nobody throws Bent a bone, he goes and infects the other threads with sockpuppets.

    Stupidity is like nuclear power. It can be used for good or bad. But you don’t want to get any of it on you.

  63. #63 Brent
    September 30, 2010

    No, Wow – if that is your real name – it’s undignified enough for people to hide behind pseudonyms without having multiple ones, presumably expressing multiple views. My name is Brent. What’s yours?

    My cyberstalker John found postings I had written elsewhere precisely because I can’t be arsed to skulk like you do. In those postings I have consistently wondered at the mindset of Warmist Jeremiahs, at the asymmetric readiness to yell about warming and whisper about cooling, at the dumb numerological extrapolation which turns a few lousy degrees of uptick into a century-long roasting, at the dimly-understood interrelation of complex factors causing climate change.

    My workload prevents me from exchanging pleasanteries you Warmistas quite as much, but I’m grateful to you all for helping forge my ideas in the furnace of your gratuitous insults. The concept of the twin battlefield – sensitivity and feedback – was far from clear before. Thank you! Also, I hadn’t previously realised how strongly you believers believed. So reminiscent of religious fundamentalists with whom I have crossed swords in the past! When Montaigne wrote “Nothing is so firmly believed as that which cannot be proven”, he left us with a valuable insight into human delusion.

    As you shiver through the coming winter (hopefully with many a blizzard!), keep the faith brothers. Keep imagining the tarmac melting and it will cheer you up.

  64. #64 chek
    September 30, 2010

    Brent said: “Nothing is so firmly believed as that which cannot be proven”, he left us with a valuable insight into human delusion”.

    ..and yet Brent is the one consistently unable to back up or reference anything he says. Fascinating self-insight there, Brent. Now that you’ve recognised your condition perhaps you could act on it.

  65. #65 MFS
    September 30, 2010

    I love Brent’s old fashioned obsession with peoples real names.

    Get a life.

  66. #66 John
    September 30, 2010

    >Nothing is so firmly believed as that which cannot be proven”, he left us with a valuable insight into human delusion”.

    >I think we both believe that the sun is the major driver of climate, although explaining the precise mechanism lies in the future.

    Whatever.

  67. #67 Stu
    October 1, 2010

    >I’m grateful to you all for helping forge my ideas

    Maybe the forge is too hot, all your ideas have melted together into some unrecognisable runny mess.

  68. #68 Wow
    October 1, 2010

    > it’s undignified enough for people to hide behind pseudonyms without having multiple ones

    Shall we bask in the reflection of this glowing irony?

    The SockPuppetMaster thinks he’s undignified but doesn’t know it.

    Classic projection, classic moron.

  69. #69 Chris O'Neill
    October 1, 2010

    Bent:

    Montaigne wrote “Nothing is so firmly believed as that which cannot be proven”, he left us with a valuable insight into human delusion.

    Actually, there is something more firmly believed than that which cannot be proven i.e. that which has been disproven. Delusional Brent has provided us with a few examples of that.

  70. #70 John
    October 1, 2010

    >No, Wow – if that is your real name – it’s undignified enough for people to hide behind pseudonyms without having multiple ones, presumably expressing multiple views.

    Strange words coming from someone who once sockpuppeted in other threads as a “warmist”.

    Remember when I caught you out on that one Brent?

    The less said about “Tnerb” the better.

  71. #71 Brent
    October 1, 2010

    Johnny, you’re right, “tnerB” was a pseudonym, and it took a massive intellect like yours to decode it. With your razor-sharp mind you exposed my secret identity. tcepseR.

    As for the Montaigne thing, we might add Aristotle’s insistence on the primacy of honest observation. If he were with us today he’d be banging the table and demanding that people walk outside to see the world with the mark-one-eyeball, he’d hear all the poppycock about Greenland melting and yell, “bloody well GO there! Unchain yourselves from your silly electronic screens and EXPERIENCE that-of-which-you-blather!”. He’d ask Jeff Harvey if he’d ever SEEN the Pied Flycatchers he pontificates about.

    Plato, on the other hand, would back youse guys up. He’d talk about his “Plato’s Cave” concept, where we dimly perceive what’s going on outside by watching shadows play on the wall before us. Plato would say, “Yes, dear Warmists! Only YOU have the superior insight; only you can interpret these fleeting glimpses of reality. To those without the gnosos the shadow looks like a few lousy tenths of a degree; to us Special Ones it’s imminent Ahotalypse!”

    I’d grab ‘im by the toga, spin ‘im round, and say, “Oi, Plato! No! You may be able to talk the hind leg off a donkey, and all credit to you for inventing dialectic, but OPEN YOUR EYES, YOU PILLOCK.”

    (Final word to Aristotle, live from Greenland: “Greetings! This glacier has retreated so much that a Viking settlement has become exposed. Hah! Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!”)

  72. #72 Stu
    October 1, 2010

    I only dropped back into this thread yesterday.

    Has Brent developed a drinking problem?

  73. #73 chek
    October 1, 2010

    Careful Brent, if you wave your arms much harder you’ll achieve lift off.

    By the way, did you see that the arctic was circumnavigated by a fibreglass yacht this season? Never been done before, no icebreakers or nothing. Can’t remember what the boat was called – don’t think it was Plato’s Cave though.

    You might like to compare the area of the entire arctic ocean to the area around your Greenland glacier, not that you’ll understand of course. Your blind idealogue gene probably won’t let you.

  74. #74 Ian Forrester
    October 1, 2010

    Brent said:

    “Greetings! This glacier has retreated so much that a Viking settlement has become exposed. Hah! Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!”

    Brent did you just make this up or did you copy it from some dishonest website? It is absolute rubbish but typical of the drivel that emanates from your mouth and you confuse with reality.

  75. #75 Lee
    October 1, 2010

    How typical of Brent, to use something that never happened as his example of the things one should go and actually observe in the world.

    There is no farm in Greenland emerging from under a glacier. That claim was debunekded years ago.

    What there is, is a farm under the sands. The story of that farm is that it was covered by glacier outwash which buried it, under sand, not under the glacier. Probably a standard glacial event, liek failure of an ice dam or some such. It was cold enough at the time that the sand rapidly froze into permafrost – rapid enough that vegetation and animal wastes under the sand were not subject to freeze-thaw cycles,a dn were remarkably preserved when teh farm was exposed in the last decade.

    The farm came to light when the sand thawed enough (get that – its was cold enough to freeze into permafrost, now it is warm enough to thaw – and the thawed sand eroded and uncovered the farm.

    The basic elements of this is all very well known. The only excuses for getting it wrong at this late date, by someone who claims to be interested in and studying global warming, are willful ignorance or dishonesty

  76. #76 Brent
    October 1, 2010

    Ian, Aristotle’s visit to Greenland was a poetic exaggeration intended to (oh, Goddddddd, these warmists have the figurative sense of a Walnut Whip) illustrate the perils of mucho theory and poco observation. Look up “Greenland: origin of name and emergence of Viking habitation” and you’ll see that, as the cycle returns us to similar conditions to those the Vikings enjoyed, (oh, Goddddd, he won’t get it….)

    I concede that Aristotle is unlikely to visit Greenland.

    Chek, I assume that your mention of the fibreglass circumnavigation implies that this was the first time in history. Certainly, nobody since Cabot’s 1497 attempt at the Northwest Passage could have done this. The satellite record is a tad short, so we cannot know how small the polecap was in, say, the Medieval Warm Period. If it was – say – 80% of today’s size in the 9th Century, might some adventurous Asians or Vikings have pulled it off?

    St. Brendan’s 5th Century jaunt in an ocean-going coracle is interesting. They were surprised by a “mountain of crystal floating in the sea”. (Where’s the loathesome John when you need ‘im? “Well, duuuh! It must have been an iceberg, moron…”) I’m surprised that Brendan was surprised. We can speculate that during those warm decades the Irish had no concept of an iceberg. If Brendan had sailed during the later Little Ice Age, when the seas were freezing around the British Isles, he’d have twigged.

    Speaking of warm-cold-warm, have you seen the good work by Joe d’Aleo on the ocean cycles (AMO & PDO) and global temperatures?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/30/amopdo-temperature-variation-one-graph-says-it-all/#more-25646

    True, correlation is not causation, but this is such a good match that several decades of cooling now seem likely. It looks like a sine wave, fer Chrissakes! Now, if the AMO & PDO are, in turn, the result of solar variation, we’re in business. I can see Pachauri’s next career a-coming, heading up the UNAIAA (Anti Ice Age Authority), pumping gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere to save us all from freezing.

  77. #77 adelady
    October 1, 2010

    ” …pumping gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere to save us all from freezing.”

    How could that work? If gigatonnes of CO2 can’t warm the climate from it’s 1900 state, how could it possibly warm this climate enough to fend off an ice age?

  78. #78 Brent
    October 1, 2010

    Adelady, you’re right, it wouldn’t work. CO2′s effect on temperature is real but minimal. My suggestion that it might remedy a New Ice Age is of course a mockery. Those who claim that CO2 is today ‘clogging the radiator’ must also want to wheel it out as the solution to any repeat of the Little Ice Age if coming decades are chilly.

    When, in the mid-1970s, there were fears that a new Ice Age had begun, CO2 was advanced as the ‘blanket’ to keep us warm. I forget the name of the Scandinavian nutcase who came up with this harebrained scheme, but his bonkers ideas have been adopted, reversed and recycled by scaremongering Watermelons who say that this one-time saviour is now a villain, that CO2 doesn’t keep us cosy but is about to overheat us.

    This is gas-ism. Oxygen doesn’t get all this opprobrium!Nitrous oxide is said to be a laugh. Sulphur dioxide stinks (according to some… in THEIR opinion… how very judgmental). So why is poor old carbon dioxide the pariah of gases? How very unfair. (Cue John…)

    My crack about pumping gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere is a sneer at those who believe we can geoengineer. Yes, man can destroy species and habitats. No, we can’t engineer the climate. These b*stards who have hijacked the green agenda and diverted squillions of dollars to fighting carbon dioxide are a gross evil. The pulic’s green good will (I mean, the public’s tolerance for green taxes) has been perverted and betrayed: such vast resource could have been put to enormous benefit in habitat and species conservation.

    When the orang utangs, the tigers, the rhinos (this is shorthand; these three are mere posterchildren) are all gone we will curse the black hearts of these Harveys who conned us into hating energy companies when logging companies were the real enemy. I wonder if Jeffy Baby has teak in his dining room; I wonder if he produces CO2.

    This isn’t the first time that society has engaged in a hysterical convulsion. Today we look back open-mouthed at society-wide craziness from past decades and centuries. Our descendants will be highly amused that on our watch we quaked in fear of a gas that everybody breathes out and every plant uses, and simultaneously stood by impotent as the elephants died.

  79. #79 chek
    October 1, 2010

    Aww Brent, it’s so cute watching you stick both feet in your mouth and march on regardless, blustering away to your toecaps hoping nobody notices as you disappear down your own gullet leaving behind nothing but a pitiful echo.

  80. #80 Chris O'Neill
    October 1, 2010

    Go back to your Volkswagen Brent.

  81. #81 adelady
    October 1, 2010

    “…. hijacked the green agenda and diverted squillions of dollars to fighting carbon dioxide are a gross evil.”

    Where on earth did the ‘green agenda’ get ‘squillions’ of $$ from? And then ‘divert’ it to fight carbon dioxide?

    Organisations, $$ numbers, $$ reallocations, please.

    And not one penny of the dollars in question should be attributable, by any money trail, to routine meteorology or the rocket science of satellites for shipping or air transport or agriculture or communications. (Presumably any link to the military would be undetectable anyway.)

  82. #82 Loathsome John
    October 2, 2010

    Brent hates me because I use his own words to hang him. That must hurt.

    Brent, obviously when I mentioned “Tnerb” I was being sarcastic. You still managed to ignore the unassailable fact that when you trolled in another thread under a different name and with different views you were engaging in behaviour you yourself describe as “undignified”. This is the dictionary definition of hypocrisy.

    Why are you so full of hatred Brent? Maybe you should spend less time angrily banging out sarcastic replies full of erring, muttering characters and more time reading the Ar4 report you obviously haven’t read.

    I can’t imagine what passers-through might think. Us with our science and reasonable answers, or you with your ridicule, hatred of science and bone-headed contradictory repition.

  83. #83 John
    October 2, 2010

    This one is funny enough to repeat:

    Brent now:

    >Nothing is so firmly believed as that which cannot be proven”, he left us with a valuable insight into human delusion”.

    Brent then:

    >I think we both believe that the sun is the major driver of climate, although explaining the precise mechanism lies in the future.

  84. #84 Brent
    October 2, 2010

    John, have you fallen for me? I’m flattered, but I’m spoken for.

    Before Newton, your sort would scoff at the notion that the moon surely caused the tides, whilst explanation of the precise mechanism lay in the future. Similarly, in Darwin’s time, the precise mechanism of heredity lay in the future. The sun affecting climate? You betcha!

    Sorry to shoot you down after all your work poring over my postings. Hey, why don’t you try saying something substantive yourself? You know, a few paragraphs of interlinked ideas in your own words. At the moment your postings are reactive.

    I understand your need to believe that the world will get ever warmer. Go on, John, be brave and explain your beliefs to us as persuasively as you can. This will look you smarter than “Brent, with whose postings I am intimately familiar, is wrong” does.

  85. #85 Tim Lambert
    October 2, 2010

    All right folks, it’s over. Since Brent has refused to follow the rules I made for him here and repeatedly used a sock to post outside this thread, he is now banned. He’s had way more than enough time and space to make some sort of case here and failed.

    This thread is now closed.