December 2011 Open Thread

Comments

  1. #1 Jeffrey Davis
    December 2, 2011

    re: 600ppm CO2 and Antarctica

    Water doesn’t change state because of CO2 concentrations. Water changes state because the temperature has risen or fallen around 0C.

    34 mya was a much different world geologically. The Isthmus of Panama only formed 3 mya. In the world Antarctica formed, ocean currents were far different.

  2. #2 Wow
    December 2, 2011

    > I really hate it when it’s cold. Don’t you?….

    I really hate it when it’s hot.

    After all, in the cold you can wrap up warm and turn the fire on.

    In the hot, there’s only so much you can take off before you’re bleeding.

    PS if you don’t like the cold so much, eff off to Spain. Unless you’re going to let those currently living in Spain to come to your neighbourhood because you now have their climate, you’re just being selfish.

    And I hate people who are selfish. Don’t you..?

  3. #3 P. Lewis
    December 2, 2011

    Er, yes Jeffrey, as the ice on my windscreen attested to this morning when the air temperature hovered around 0°C. And as it likely did around this time of year 20 years or so ago when CO2 levels were about 30 ppm or so less than they are today when temperatures hovered around 0­°C. And as they surely will should frost days continue to be a feature at this time of year in my locale in 15-20 years’ time when CO2 levels will be about 30 ppm higher than now. No argument.

    But though I’m not so naive that I know there are likely wrinkles in all research findings that will cast sufficient doubt on these conclusions that will require further investigation to clarify, I’m presuming Pagani et al know all about the points you raise and have taken account of them (a dangerous assumption on my part without reading the full paper, I have no doubt).

    Are you supposing, perhaps, that they haven’t taken account of these things in arriving at their conclusions?

  4. #4 Wow
    December 2, 2011

    > Water changes state because the temperature has risen or fallen around 0C.

    And temperature rises or falls based on (among other things) GHG concentrations.

    > IF the MWP or the Roman Warming period were indeed as warm or warmer than current temperatures

    They’re not, so the hypothetical has no more worth than the one “IF man had wings, then…”.

  5. #5 Chris O'Neill
    December 2, 2011

    Andy:

    yep, ice has been melting in the Arctic and the Northwest Passage has been open (like it has been countless times in the past).

    When was the last time it was open 5 years in a row?

  6. #6 Chris O'Neill
    December 2, 2011

    crem:

    Even the landmark NAS panel (which largely supported the hockey stick) concluded that BCPs are a poor proxy

    No, they didn’t conclude they are a poor proxy. They just pointed out they are affected by rising atmospheric CO2. This problem can easily be avoided either by compensation or by just using the proxy record from before atmospheric CO2 started rising IF compensation doesn’t work.

    and should not be used for temperature reconstructions.

    The NAS panel said they should be avoided (not must be avoided) for the above reason. That doesn’t mean they should be avoided if the above reason doesn’t apply.

    And yet they remain a staple of recent work.

    For good reason as I point out above.

  7. #7 Berbalang
    December 2, 2011

    I noticed an earlier comment that said David Duff had been posting here for two years. I was wondering just when did David Duff start posting and what was it he posted?

  8. #8 Jeffrey Davis
    December 2, 2011

    re:100

    One of my points is that the absolute level of cO2 concentrations isn’t an apt metric for much of anything. The chief assumption behind repeating an experiment is that all other things are equal. But then and now are very different. The change in the ocean currents effected by removing easy flow between the Atlantic and Pacific created a very different world between 30 mya and the present.

    The precis of the paper refers to the fact that CO2 levels were declining during Antarctic glaciation. The decline in CO2 — rather than the absolute number — appears to be the point of the paper.

  9. #9 Wow
    December 2, 2011

    > One of my points is that the absolute level of cO2 concentrations isn’t an apt metric for much of anything.

    And that’s wrong.

    I hope this has cleared things up for you.

  10. #10 Composer99
    December 2, 2011

    crem:

    I don’t know if you’ll stick to your flounce or not.

    However, it should be noted that you were the one saying graphs in Mann et al 2008 showed the medieval climate anomaly was comparable to today’s global mean temperature anomaly.

    What I have been saying (and you can see other people, doubtless more educated than I, saying the same thing) is that the paper and the revised supplemental graphs do not support your contention.

    I may be incorrect about the global vs. Northern Hemisphere nature of the reconstructions in Mann et al 2008, however that is irrelevant as to whether the paper supports your claims or not.

    As far as the Briffa data being “cropped” (I assume you are referring to Fig 1 from the PDF on gkss.de), once again, I do not see how you can actually claim that it is getting cropped around 1940, particularly given the low granularity/resolution of the X axis. Frankly I suspect you’re using the “eyecrometer” rather than referring to data. Trying to extrapolate scientific wrongdoing from this graph strikes me as a fruitless exercise in conspiracy-theory-mongering rather than valid scientific criticism.

  11. #11 J Bowers
    December 2, 2011

    28 crem — “Ok, even if this is true (which seems unlikely), are you saying the Fig 1 in the paper (not the the cover graphic) does not cut off the Briffa reconstruction at 1940?”>

    I am. A tiny portion of the Briffa mustard/ochre coloured curve is just about visible in Soon.EosForum.20032.pdf.

  12. #12 J Bowers
    December 2, 2011

    Actually, I take that back. I gridded it again and it does cut off around 1940.

  13. #13 Dave R
    December 2, 2011

    Berbalang @ 104:
    >I was wondering just when did David Duff start posting and what was it he posted?

    [This one](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/distributing_mockery.php#comment-204752) from 2006 seems to be the earliest.

  14. #14 Dibble
    December 2, 2011

    “Who sent all the “skeptical” cretins here?” @92

    They were invited by David Duff in a comment he made at the failed TV weatherman’s blog, asking for support for his thread starter.

  15. #15 Composer99
    December 2, 2011

    J Bowers:

    Thanks for the clarification @109.

    What did you to do grid the curve again and find the cut-off (for the Briffa et al 2001 data)?

    As I suggested to crem upthread, given the jumble of curves at that end of the graph, simply eyeballing it does not appear conclusive.

  16. #16 chek
    December 2, 2011

    Indeed [he did](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/30/hide-the-decline-worse-than-we-thought/#comment-814825),
    fully expecting Anthony “accept whatever result” Watts and his team of world class oafs to come to his rescue “like the US cavalry”. By which I presume he means in the clean-cut, dust-free vaudeville style of Hollywood movie myth, rather than the Big Government instrument of native American genocide.

  17. #17 Andy
    December 2, 2011

    I’m back – hi guys!

    Wow: “PS if you don’t like the cold so much, eff off to Spain. ”
    Well, I’ve been told to “eff off”. That just about sums up the intellectual level of argument from the warmists.
    I also notice I’ve been called a “sceptical cretin”. Once again warmists have descended to personal abuse.

    Chris O’Neill: “When was the last time it was open 5 years in a row?”
    Probably about the same time that the Vikings settled Greenland…

    Jakerman: One of the links you supplied was great – it admitted that climate change projections are ‘somewhat limited’ i.e. unreliable (a bit like Hansen’s laughable ABC scenarios)

    Wow: “Since the trend over two points has an infinte variance, this would be rather impossible to proclaim over two years, Andy.”
    If I had been talking about two years, then fair enough. Actually, I was talking about the temperatures that have flat-lined for more than a decade (the lack of warming that the Hockey team couldn’t ‘account for’)

    Bernard J: “So why aren’t all university emails immediately uploaded to the respective institutional web pages? Why can’t Joe Public just walk in off the street and demand access to every computer and hard drive on campus?”
    Whilst Joe Public can’t “walk in off the street” they can request to see emails held by a public institution using FOI. Whether their application is successful or not depends on how much that particular university has got to hide…
    (by the way Bernard, calling me names such as “idiot” is really not very classy)

    John: “It’s currently the warmest November here in the UK for many, many years
    Nothing to worry about, obviously. I’m sure it’s going to start cooling any day now.”
    It sure will John, winter’s coming here in the UK – it’s how the seasons work (why not Google ‘seasons’ if you’re not sure)

    Ian Forestter: “Andy doesn’t seem to understand that this hot spot is not a finger print of AGW but is only indicative of a warming climate whatever the cause.”
    This is just superb Ian. You’ve basically admitted that the lack of a hotspot denotes a lack of a ‘”warming climate”. As AGW was supposed to result in a warming climate, doesn’t the missing hotspot mean that AGW is almost inconsequential?

    All of you warmists seem morbidly afraid of a small amount of warming. You seem to think that this warming is going to cause such things as increases in the number of storms (research has shown the frequency of storms hasn’t increased) and other things such as catastrophic sea level rise (the current tiny rate of sea level rise is actually decreasing).
    You really should be afraid of excess cold. By way of example a study of US death rates between 1979-2002 churned out the following results:
    Deaths from extreme heat: 8589 Deaths from extreme cold: 16313 http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-deadliest-natural-hazards-for-the-united-states-—-extreme-cold/ (I hope the link works. Apologies if it doesn’t – you’ll have to Google it)

    Whenever the globe has been warm (Minoan, Roman, Medieval Periods and the 20th/21st Century) we have seen society and technologies flourishing. Whenever it’s been cold we’ve seen collapsing civilisations and the spread of disease (the Dark Ages).

    Besides, if it gets a bit warm you can always flick on the air-conditioning :)

  18. #18 David Horton
    December 2, 2011

    Just when you think the duffers of this world have, out of shame and embarrassment, slunk away and shut up, back they come once again. Same old arguments, same old mistakes, same old ignorance, same old stupidity. They have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. When will the point come that they disappear back into their new world order security bunkers and let the adults get on with clearing up the mess we are making of this planet?

  19. #19 Adam
    December 2, 2011

    @Wow , I agree that there is no evidence that the MWP and Roman Warming periods were not as hot as today.
    I am suggesting that logically the presence of old ice today AND the rate of ice loss observed due to recent temperatures should be further logical proof.

  20. #20 Andy
    December 2, 2011

    David: “Just when you think the duffers of this world have, out of shame and embarrassment, slunk away and shut up, back they come once again. Same old arguments, same old mistakes, same old ignorance, same old stupidity. They have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. When will the point come that they disappear back into their new world order security bunkers and let the adults get on with clearing up the mess we are making of this planet?”

    Oh dear, you really have taken in by ‘Big Green’ haven’t you. Whilst the city traders at their ‘Carbon Exchange’, Al ‘private jet and massive power-sucking house’ Gore, Wind Farm Subsidy Barons, Greenfleece, and Third World Despots make billions (nay trillions) by keeping the likes of you morbidly afraid of a trace gas, real eco-tradegies pass you by. Tragedies such as desperately needed food crops replaced by wretched ‘biofuels’, the over-fishing of our oceans, and the destruction of the rainforests.
    Besides, if you warmists were really serious about stopping the production of man-made CO2 you’d be stood in Tiananmin Square telling the Chinese to stop building coal-fired power stations. But you’ll never have the courage to do that as you find it far easier to sit in front of your computer in the comfortable West tapping on a plastic keyboard that’s been made using that liquid you love to rail against: oil.

    Me? I love the opportunities oil and coal has given us in the West. Particularly the chance to fly to warmer more exotic countries all around the world (just like the IPCC crew flying to their many junkets such as the one in sunny Durban)

  21. #21 Andy
    December 2, 2011

    J Bowers: “Actually, I take that back. I gridded it again and it does cut off around 1940.”

    Kudos to you J Bowers for admitting when you are wrong. Not many people these days have the strength of character to admit their mistakes.
    You are the epitome of a superb sceptic.

    Isn’t it rather scandalous that they’ve chopped Briffa’s graph off at 1940? Smacks of censorship to me.

  22. #22 Andy
    December 2, 2011

    Chek:”rather than the Big Government instrument of native American genocide.”

    Oh dear, self-flaggelation and collective guilt for something that happened over a century ago.
    Why are you warmists so hung-up on white guilt? Haven’t we moved on since then?

    Besides, David was just using it at as a turn of phrase. He wasn’t suggesting he wanted to commit genocide. A bit like when someone uses the phrase ‘an eye for an eye’ it doesn’t really mean they want to poke someone else’s eye out.

    Now, being told to “eff of” is an entirely different matter…

  23. #23 Rattus Norvegicus
    December 2, 2011

    Gavin just posted a response to someone who asked about this graph over at RC:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/unforced-variations-dec-2011/#comment-221072

  24. #24 ianam
    December 2, 2011

    116 = 49, conspiratorial crackpots and morons who fancy themselves, Dunning-Kruger-like, to be “skeptics”.

  25. #25 Rattus Norvegicus
    December 2, 2011

    Take home message (click on the published version link) is that the graph was smoothed using 40 year period, so that last viable date for the Briffa recon is 1940 since the original cut off in 1960. There really is nothing here.

  26. #26 chek
    December 2, 2011

    Oh dear, self-flaggelation and collective guilt for something that happened over a century ago. Why are you warmists so hung-up on white guilt? Haven’t we moved on since then?

    Missing the point as is the usual oafish way, watch out for that projection y’all, yee haw.

    In any case the acceptance of your smug, blathering proposition would be conditional on how many native American friends one has or on one’s origin, you presumptuous moron. Even if it does take a history lesson to understand why their traditional voting preference is Republican.

    Still, at least that last point can be successfully changed these days with the help of barrel-scraping, reality-denying cretins like Watts as R candidates.

  27. #27 caerbannog
    December 2, 2011

    (Re: Posted by: Rattus Norvegicus | December 2, 2011 5:27 PM)

    Regarding that cluttered fig 1, deleting the problematic time-series would made virtually no visible difference at all.

    Aside from that minor issue, the bottom line is that the SB 2003 paper was so flawed that anyone unable to identify at least one of the several obvious “show-stopper” methodology blunders in it is completely unqualified to comment on the matter in the first place.

  28. #28 Andy
    December 2, 2011

    Wow: “Since the trend over two points has an infinte variance, this would be rather impossible to proclaim over two years, Andy.”

    I did try to post a reply to this earlier but the mods held onto it (not a criticism of the moderators, I think they’ve been very tolerant of my comments)

    Anyway, in reply to Wow’s assertion, I wasn’t talking about two years, I was talking about the lack of warming for over a decade (that’s the lack of warming that Trenberth fretted about).
    It amuses me that warmists panic at the thought of a warming globe, so you think they’d be happy that the warming has stopped for the moment. Instead, they seem to get even more upset and shouty. Perhaps warmists are Armageddon-junkies: never happy unless we’re all doomed.

  29. #29 caerbannog
    December 2, 2011


    Anyway, in reply to Wow’s assertion, I wasn’t talking about two years, I was talking about the lack of warming for over a decade….

    OK, so we have another WUWT incompetent who flunked Statistics 1A… yawn…

    BTW, Watts attended college 1975-1982, but never managed to get a degree. Remind you of someone else? Here’s a hint: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjIH1jdx2_A

  30. #30 chek
    December 2, 2011

    (that’s the lack of warming that Trenberth fretted about

    When will you deniers ever get to understand the concept of ‘context’? For the umpteenth time, Trenberth was complaining about our ability – as in capacity – to monitor the planet’s heat budget adequately.

    Playing stupid wordgames may work over in Anthony’s wannabelieve la-la land, but it doesn’t work elsewhere where folk know better than to fall into well-worn denialist tropes appealing to single figure IQs, like Duffs.

  31. #31 Andy
    December 2, 2011

    Caerbanog:”Ok, so we have another WUWT incompetent who flunked Statistics 1A… yawn…”
    What do you mean?
    Again I say: despite all the hand-waving about infinite variance between two points, the last decade’s temps have flatlined. Are you denying they have? Even Über-Climate-God Phil Jones once admitted they had.
    As for degrees, I have one in Mathematics (BSc Comb Hons Aston University, Birmingham, England)

    Check: “for the umpteenth time, Trenberth was complaining about our ability – as in capacity – to monitor the planet’s heat budget adequately.” Alright, let’s pretend just for the moment that I believe the SkepticalScience website’s spin that Trenberth was talking about heat budgets. If we can’t monitor the planet’s heat budget properly, why do climate scientists have the nerve to suggest their models are able to make accurate predictions (Hansen’s ABC scenarios being pretty useless, for example)?
    BTW I thought Trenberth’s rather-too-convenient excuse that the missing heat must be somewhere in the ocean depths really laughable. Talk about clutching at straws!

  32. #32 John
    December 2, 2011

    >Third World Despots make billions (nay trillions)

    Oh lordy. The things deniers believe.

    Notice as Andy’s arguments have been torn to shred he’s resorted to memes that show him up for the ideologically driven right-wing shill he is.

  33. #33 Andy
    December 2, 2011

    Check:”you presumptuous moron. ”
    Another blinding piece of finely crafted argument from Check.

    Right, I’m off to bed again. But just before I go, many warmists on this thread have predicted catastrophic death to all by extreme heat. However, many studies have shown that more people die yearly from extreme cold than extreme heat. Goklany (2007) found that between 1979 and 2003, deaths from extreme heat in the US totalled roughly 8600, whereas deaths from extreme cold totalled just over 16300 (that’s the kind of science I like – use of real-world empirical evidence rather useless models).
    Besides, if it gets too hot I just flip on the air-conditioning ;)

    Goodnight all….

  34. #34 John
    December 2, 2011

    >Even Über-Climate-God Phil Jones once admitted they had.

    Where?

  35. #35 John
    December 2, 2011

    >that’s the kind of science I like – use of real-world empirical evidence rather useless models

    Then you’ll be fascinated by Mann’s hockey stick and the BEST project.

  36. #36 caerbannog
    December 2, 2011


    Are you denying they have? Even Über-Climate-God Phil Jones once admitted they had.

    Yep — you flunked stats 1A.


    As for degrees, I have one in Mathematics (BSc Comb Hons Aston University, Birmingham, England)

    I can trump you there — so BFD.

  37. #37 Dave H
    December 2, 2011

    Andy, here is an exercise for you.

    Tell me, does a test for no trend over the past decade pass at the 95% confidence level?

    To save you the time, the answer is: it does not.

    The question put to Jones was engineered by Lindzen, passed to Watts, and forwarded to the BBC. It was based on finding the largets possible time period that would *just barely* fail a statistical significance test. Now, I don’t know about you, but it strikes me as profoundly unscientific to look for the answer you want to find in that way. Cherry picking, you might say. Add one more year to the data and you got > 95% significance. Take the same starting point Jones was given and run it to the present day and you get > 95% significance. That you did not get > 95% significance was a direct consequence of the length of time they chose to look at in relation to the year-on-year variability of cilmate. Any longer, and Lindzen/Watts could not make the same claim.

    So, basically, you are exercising a serious double standard. If the question that was put to Jones – that you crow about here – was in any way meaningful, is it not relevant that the trend since that start date is now unequivocally positive? But you don’t do that – instead you move the goalposts again to just the last decade.

    If I measure the height of a child on two consecutive days, I won’t find a statistically significant difference. Yet, amazingly, children manage to grow up.

    Perhaps one day you’ll realise you’re being conned.

  38. #38 John
    December 2, 2011

    Andy’s blathering about a “pause” he cannot define seems an excellent time to regurgitate this graph. Andy will be delighted to know it shows six pauses and therefore is proof of the UN/Al Gore scam to give trillions to the Third World.

  39. #39 Dave H
    December 2, 2011

    Shorter Andy @131

    Rather than spend any time forming a coherent argument, I’m just going to beat this strawman to within an inch of its life.

  40. #40 chek
    December 2, 2011

    Another blinding piece of finely crafted argument from Check (sic).

    Nope, merely yet another caustically crafted highlighting of pig-ignorance from Watts’ finest. Appealing to the notion of civility is a privilege you morons have yet to go a long, long way to earn.

  41. #41 Ian Forrester
    December 2, 2011

    Andy boasted:

    As for degrees, I have one in Mathematics (BSc Comb Hons Aston University, Birmingham, England)

    Mmm must have been a long time ago, BS in fact where BS stands for “Before Statistics”. Or did you just think that statistics was too boring so you just skipped the statistics classes? Whatever, I wouldn’t be boasting about having a degree in mathematics after what you have posted here. You can get away with that sort of nonsense on blogs where intellectual gnats congregate but not where the science level is much higher.

    Your other posts just show a complete lack of knowledge about what climate science is all about. I’d stay with the wattsuphisbutt crowd, your ignorance will be welcome there.

  42. #42 Andy
    December 2, 2011

    Sorry, I was going to go to bed, but I couldn’t resist one more thing:
    John:”Oh lordy. The things deniers believe.
    Notice as Andy’s arguments have been torn to shred he’s resorted to memes that show him up for the ideologically driven right-wing shill he is.”
    John, are you denying that third world despots haven’t been syphoning off oodles of aid that have been meant for the deserving poor in their country? Are you denying that The Goracle hasn’t made a business out of AGW alarmism (and a complete fool of himself as well)?

    I would like to think my arguments have had some sort of positive effect, judging by the shrill, abusive, and vitriolic comments that have been thrown at me by the warmistas on this thread. BTW I’m a shill for nobody, right or left. I walk my own path, thank you very much. Your presumptuous comment that implies hatred for right-wingers actually suggests you’re one of those self-righteous foaming-at-the-mouth naively idealistic socialist watermelons. But I hope that’s not the case, as I’d hate to be so rude about someone I’d never met.

    Right, I really am off to bed. I’m looking forward to the unseasonably warm weather that we have here in the UK right now. With any luck, I won’t have to turn my central-heating on tomorrow, as my energy bills have really hit me in the pocket since the idiots in the Tory party decided to make us pay subsidies to erect yet more of those massively inefficient wind-powered generators.

    Good night, once more…

  43. #43 John
    December 2, 2011

    Andy, Gore donates any money he makes to his foundation, and your contention is that Third World despots are going to make *trillions* of dollars.

    Trillions of dollars!

    Just who is the alarmist here?

    >BTW I’m a shill for nobody, right or left.

    A fabulous lie.

    >Your presumptuous comment that implies hatred for right-wingers actually suggests you’re one of those self-righteous foaming-at-the-mouth naively idealistic socialist watermelons

    Because these are *exactly* the words of a free thinking rebel unencumbered by ideology. How dare I suggest that someone who espouses right-wing ideology in lieu of scientific evidence is right-wing. The gall!

    >I’d hate to be so rude about someone I’d never met.

    No such scruples when slagging off Al Gore, but the right’s hatred of Al Gore for popularising the science for the layman knows no bounds.

    Have a good sleep Andy. See you in ten minutes.

  44. #44 bill
    December 2, 2011

    I don’t get it.

    Why bother to argue with some attention-seeking, smug, serially-wrong conflict-entrepreneur? The demonstration value of refuting this stuff ain’t exactly high! And anybody who’s stupid enough to be taken in by this stuff already has been…

  45. #45 Andy
    December 2, 2011

    Sorry, I was going to go to bed, but I couldn’t resist one more thing:
    John:”Oh lordy. The things deniers believe.
    Notice as Andy’s arguments have been torn to shred he’s resorted to memes that show him up for the ideologically driven right-wing shill he is.”
    John, are you denying that third world despots haven’t been syphoning off oodles of aid that have been meant for the deserving poor in their country? Are you denying that The Goracle hasn’t made a business out of AGW alarmism (and a complete fool of himself as well)?

    I would like to think my arguments have had some sort of positive effect, judging by the shrill, abusive, and vitriolic comments that have been thrown at me by the warmistas on this thread. BTW I’m a shill for nobody, right or left. I walk my own path, thank you very much. Your presumptuous comment that implies hatred for right-wingers actually suggests you’re one of those self-righteous foaming-at-the-mouth naively idealistic socialist watermelons. But I hope that’s not the case, as I’d hate to be so rude about someone I’d never met.

    Right, I really am off to bed. I’m looking forward to the unseasonably warm weather that we have here in the UK right now. With any luck, I won’t have to turn my central-heating on tomorrow, as my energy bills have really hit me in the pocket since the idiots in the Tory party decided to make us pay subsidies to erect yet more of those massively inefficient wind-powered generators.

    Good night, once more…

  46. #46 Chris O'Neill
    December 2, 2011

    Andy:

    Chris O’Neill: “When was the last time it was open 5 years in a row?” Probably about the same time that the Vikings settled Greenland…

    Two questions:

    1. How do you know?

    2. In the unlikely event that it did happen then, was the Southern Hemisphere then as warm as it is now?

  47. #47 John
    December 2, 2011

    >Posted by: John | December 2, 2011 7:37 PM

    >Posted by: Andy | December 2, 2011 7:47 PM

    Exactly ten minutes. I have a gift.

  48. #48 FrankD
    December 2, 2011

    Adam@116,

    I think its quite a good question, but a bit more subtle than your phrasing, because your wording implies other equivalencies that are not in fact equal. Melting billions of tons of ice takes time, and the Arctic sea ice has not yet reached equilibrium with our current temperatures. That is, even if we rose no further (and we will) we would still see further ice loss “in the pipeline” just to achieve equilibrium.

    Your original question hypothesised that similar temps in the past would produce similar melting. That is not correct – the MWP – not globally as warm as today but regionally warmer than average – lasted several hundred years, long enough for the ice volume / temperature ratio to achieve equilibrium. The current period of warming has not reached that equilibrium position, partly because it has not been as long as the MWP, but mostly because we are *still getting warmer* and the ice melt has not yet caught up with recent (last couple of decades) warming. There is a lot of warmer water in the oceans to flow into the Arctic in coming years and the annual sea ice minimum will continue to shrink, regardless of short term temperature changes.

    That means that your hypothesis is wrong, but in the opposite direction to what one might think. You use the null hypothesis to conclude that MWP temps were not as high as today. Which is correct, but IMO a weak conclusion – the same temps in the MWP as today would not produce the SAME ice loss, but MORE ice loss, as per the above.

    So I come to a conclusion that is a bit different. Because ice loss then was less than now (witness the recent loss ice shelves that survived the MWP), and we still have more melting to come with existing temperature levels (quite apart from further warming in future), we can say not only the the MWP was not as warm as today, but was in fact *significantly* cooler.

    *Current* temperatures commit us to and Arctic virtually free of ice in summer within the next 50 years; there are some good reasons to consider the possibility of that state occurring within the next 10 years. With time and further temperatures rises, we are virtually certain to see *year round* ice free conditions by around 2100. That regime has probably not existed at any time in the last 4 million years.

  49. #49 chek
    December 2, 2011

    Alright, let’s pretend just for the moment that I believe the SkepticalScience website’s spin that Trenberth was talking about heat budgets.

    I’ve a better idea. Let’s pretend for a moment that partial quotes from emails furnished and explained to you by professional liars don’t mean shit, and that clarifications from the people misrepresented are by definition more satisfactory than the former. Why, such a state of affairs would mean that Anthony would be out of a job wouldn’t he, and you’d need your juvenile, prurient fantasies to be stroked by Alex Jones and David Icke or similar instead.

    If we can’t monitor the planet’s heat budget properly, why do climate scientists have the nerve to suggest their models are able to make accurate predictions (Hansen’s ABC scenarios being pretty useless, for example)?

    So according to wattbot logic everything must be absolutely perfect before it’s of any use? What are you trying to do – drive us back to the stone age? Do you even live in the real world at all?

    And for your information, [Hansen's B & C scenarios](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-intermediate.htm) have tracked what were future events pretty impressively for a 20+ year old model, which is pretty much all that can be expected of a model. Although no doubt failed, fat-butted ex-weatherman Watt’s ignorant criticisms carry far more weight with you than anyone with acclaimed and recognised expertise in the subject.

    Oh, and lest there be any confusion regarding the civility issue, I’m not trying to change your third-rate, conspiracy fizzled mind, I’m illustrating what a moron you are to third parties.

  50. #50 bill
    December 2, 2011

    Andy, now just wipe up your mess and turn that light out, please.

    In the morning, if your wrist’s not too sore, you can learn how to use blockquotes.

  51. #51 Richard Simons
    December 2, 2011

    Andy @129:

    As for degrees, I have one in Mathematics (BSc Comb Hons Aston University, Birmingham, England)

    Are we supposed to be impressed?

    Earlier in same comment:

    the last decade’s temps have flatlined.

    At least your degree should mean that you can answer this question, which no denialist seems to have attempted. Select any period of years ending at the time you think global temperatures flatlined. Calculate the trend for that time, using any set of global temperature measures you prefer. Using any procedure you like, can you show that the last decade’s temperatures are statistically significantly lower than those predicted from the trend you calculated? Only when you have done this are you justified in claiming that temperatures have flatlined.

  52. #52 Lotharsson
    December 2, 2011

    > As for degrees, I have one in Mathematics (BSc Comb Hons Aston University, Birmingham, England.

    Ask for a refund.

    Or at least ask for a free remedial course in the statistics of trend detection in noisy signals:

    > Again I say: despite all the hand-waving about infinite variance between two points, the last decade’s temps have flatlined.

    Then come back here and use your new-found knowledge to correct several of your errors, and then head over to Watts’ place and correct their misconceptions.

    I bet you don’t do any of this, especially since amongst other things you appear to have delusions about reality:

    > But just before I go, many warmists on this thread have predicted catastrophic death to all by extreme heat.

    And you fail at logic:

    > I would like to think my arguments have had some sort of positive effect, judging by the shrill, abusive, and vitriolic comments that have been thrown at me by the warmistas on this thread.

    But at least you’re mildly amusing, in an OMG-the-DK-is-strong-in-that-one way.

  53. #53 Lotharsson
    December 2, 2011

    > …can you show that the last decade’s temperatures are statistically significantly lower than those predicted from the trend you calculated? Only when you have done this are you justified in claiming that temperatures have flatlined.

    I would interpret “flatlined” to mean stopped rising, for which I suspect the test would be even more stringent than that.

    But the point remains: most denialists simply cannot allow themselves to base their arguments on statistically significant trends that isolate signal from noise, because doing so explodes their arguments in a way that even *they* might comprehend. (Witness Alex Harvey on the “Trick to hide the context” thread ducking and weaving to avoid defining how one detects a “pause” in global warming.)

  54. #54 Richard Simons
    December 2, 2011

    Andy @ 115

    “When was the last time it was open 5 years in a row?” Probably about the same time that the Vikings settled Greenland…

    I just came across this, which indicates otherwise.

  55. #55 Ian Forrester
    December 2, 2011

    Andy might get away with his dishonesty and obfuscation on non-science sites such as Wattsuphisbutt but not here.

    He makes some ridiculous claims about the difference between deaths caused by extreme cold and extreme heat. He quotes a ["paper" by Goklany (2007)](http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_23.pdf). Let’s have a look at this paper and check it out.

    First of all it is not a peer reviewed paper but is published by an outfit called “The Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change” which was established:

    as a response to the many biased and alarmist claims about human-induced climate change, which are being used to justify calls for intervention and regulation.

    The “paper” claims to use data from the CDC WONDER data base to show that extreme cold killed more people in the US than extreme heat. However, if we look at [CDC data](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5407a4.htm) we find that the death rate from extreme cold has fallen by 50% since 1990. Could this have anything to do with global warming?

    [CDC are predicting](http://www.cdc.gov/climatechange/effects/heat.htm) that global warming will result in an increase in deaths caused by extreme heat.

    The sad part of all this is that Andy, who considers himself to be educated, can be so wrong. The question always remains, “Is he just ignorant of what is going on around the world or is he deliberately passing on bogus and dishonest information?” Only Andy knows the answer to this question but I am sure many reading this blog will have formed their own answer based on his arrogant manner.

  56. #56 Adam
    December 2, 2011

    @FrankD
    Thanks Frank. You actually phrased my logic better than I did.
    I have not seen this logic used to dismiss the MWP at all yet it seems pretty sensible.

  57. #57 Scribe
    December 3, 2011

    Thanks, Andy, for coming onto this blog and offering up your bum for a good spanking. Apart from giving many readers a lot of entertainment, your abject lesson may be educational for others of your ilk. Be sure to link here again from the Anthony Twatts site.

  58. #58 GWB's Nemesis
    December 3, 2011

    “As for degrees, I have one in Mathematics (BSc Comb Hons Aston University, Birmingham, England”

    A degree in Combined Honours is not a degree in Mathematics.

    Was that a lie or do you not even understand your own qualifications?

  59. #59 Bernard J.
    December 3, 2011

    >by the way Bernard, calling me names such as “idiot” is really not very classy.

    Even when it’s in the context of a Shakespeare quote?

    And even when it’s true?

    I rest my case.

    Moving on:

    >All of you warmists seem morbidly afraid of a small amount of warming. You seem to think that this warming is going to cause such things as increases in the number of storms (research has shown the frequency of storms hasn’t increased) and other things such as catastrophic sea level rise (the current tiny rate of sea level rise is actually decreasing).

    and

    >Anyway, in reply to Wow’s assertion, I wasn’t talking about two years, I was talking about the lack of warming for over a decade (that’s the lack of warming that Trenberth fretted about). It amuses me that warmists panic at the thought of a warming globe, so you think they’d be happy that the warming has stopped for the moment. Instead, they seem to get even more upset and shouty.

    and especially

    >…that’s the kind of science I like – use of real-world empirical evidence rather useless models…

    Given all of the above statements made by you, Andy, you should be champing at the bit to enter into a legally binding wager with me, based on [one of the alternative options I describe here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5784133).

    The basis is completely empirical, and if you truly believe that there is no “catastrophic” global warming occurring, it should be very profitable for you.

    I will put the wager options to David Duff too, in order to see how willing he is to stand by his claims. In Duff’s case though I will most definitely insist that he deposits his sum in an escrow account – given his advanced years I want to be assured that I don’t have to fight his estate for what is mine, when I win.

  60. #60 ianam
    December 3, 2011

    by the way Bernard, calling me names such as “idiot” is really not very classy

    Being the sack of dishonest stupid troll shit that you are isn’t very classy.

  61. #61 ianam
    December 3, 2011

    Alright, let’s pretend just for the moment that I believe the SkepticalScience website’s spin that Trenberth was talking about heat budgets.

    Why bother pretending, when the site has a link to Trenberth’s own comments in which he says so? And his post links to his paper, which is clearly about that. So calling this “spin” and pretending that there’s some reason to think that Trenberth wasn’t talking about that isn’t very classy … rather, it is corrupt to the core; it shows you to be despicable garbage.

  62. #62 Olaus Petri
    December 3, 2011

    Oops, Andy walked right into the camp meeting with a sober mind and, surprise, surprise, the evangelistas started to speak in tongues. The level of hate you deltoids carry…must be painful.

    But who said catharsis was pleasant?

    The hiatus of warming is a scientific problem that a sceptic mind find interesting. Want to join in? :-)

  63. #63 Dave H
    December 3, 2011

    @Olaus Petri

    There is no hiatus. You’re peddling turgid groupthink.

    The skeptical mind finds your contribution uninteresting.

  64. #64 Olaus Petri
    December 3, 2011

    Dear Dave,

    Tell that to Dr. Jones. :-)

    And thanks for displaying your harmonious inner self.

  65. #65 David Duff
    December 3, 2011

    Hold everything! I bring you Good News/Bad News. Well, it’s Good News for most of us but I do realise, and sympathise, that it is Bad News for the tiny collective of HAFs (Hot Air Fanatics) still clinging to the tattered tenets of their religion – despite the mounting evidence. Anyway, from my blog (“An ill-favoured thing, sir, but mine own”):

    The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment claimed that “there is strong evidence” of sea-level rising over the last few decades. It goes so far as to claim: “Satellite observations available since the early 1990s provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage. This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at the rate of 3mm yr-1, significantly higher than the average during the previous half century. Coastal tide gauge measurements confirm this observation, and indicate that similar rates rates have occurred in some earlier decades”.

    Almost every word of this is untrue. Satellite altimetry [no, me neither, but it's obviously the dog's bollocks!] is a wonderful and vital new technique that offers the reconstruction of sea level changes all over the ocean surface. But it has been hijacked and distorted by the IPCC for political ends.

    In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: “We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend”.

    Well, if it isn’t tree rings it’s altimetry, either ‘hide the trend’ or ‘boost the trend’. Still, at least we don’t have to sing ‘Tootle-oo to Tuvalu’!

    The words of Nils-Axel Mörner which you can read in this week’s Spectator or, when the link comes up in a few days time, try here:
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator/

  66. #66 John
    December 3, 2011

    It’s a “hiatus” now. One and a half years ago it was “cooling”. In another one and a years it will be “we never said it wasn’t warming, we just don’t agree that it’s causedd by man”. In fifteen years it will be “it hasn’t warmed since 2020″. And so on.

  67. #67 John
    December 3, 2011

    It’s interesting that Duff should bring up Tuvalu.

  68. #68 Marco
    December 3, 2011

    Duff, try, just for once, to be a little bit skeptical, will ya?

    I mean, who believes a moron (pun intended) who claims the *IPCC* does something, while the sea levels are actually recorded and studied by a range of university groups (and funnily enough, I don’t think there’s any British group involved). The IPCC doesn’t do anything but provide a framework for scientists to summarise the science of climate change and help inform the governments on what is happening, what may be expected, and what policies may be adopted and what their impact will be.

    (and in case anyone wonders, I am quite aware that the Duff will not be swayed by any facts, but who knows, maybe someone who thinks he might have a point is reading this).

  69. #69 lord_sidcup
    December 3, 2011

    Monbiot and Lynas are having a lot of fun at the expense of Morner and The Spectator:

    [The Spectator runs false sea-level claims on its cover](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/dec/02/spectator-sea-level-claims?commentpage=last)

    The Spectator have really made arses of themselves, and so too now has David Duff.

  70. #70 bill
    December 3, 2011

    Arses indeed! Daft old farts really should learn to know when to shut up. He won’t, of course.

    That cartoon they used for the cover is a classic – it’s about 50 years out of date, for a start, with the, well, I guess it’s a ‘scientist’, as some wicked headmaster from Beano. Which is about the intellectual level. Oh, and it’s not, um, funny. ( Would go well at WUWT then! That house cartoonist of theirs doesn’t even qualify as third rate.) But then, there really is something strikingly kitsch, dated, and anachronistic about the whole denier enterprise. It’s a revolt by guys who tuck their shirts into their underpants!

    Homeopaths and dowsers, eh? And ‘the Hong Kong of the Ancient Greeks’? Idiot detector on-the-blink, then, David? We’ll enjoy the defense of the indefensible…

  71. #71 Scribe
    December 3, 2011

    ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
    Ah, Nils-Axel Mörner

    1. √ Purveyor of “high-grade woo” (love that phrase)
    2. √ Relies on non-scientific publications to promote his denialism
    3. √ Retired geologist, not a climatologist; has 1 (one) debunked published study to his name in the field
    4. √ Thinks there is a worldwide conspiracy by scientists to promote lies about climate
    5. √ Linked to swindlers like Ian Plimer and “Lord” Christopher Monckton
    6. √ Charlatan

    Is this the homunculus to whom the Duffer refers? Figures.

    BTW, heads up, News Corp. has a new piece out on how sea levels are not rising (yawn).
    ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

  72. #72 David Duff
    December 3, 2011

    But did they tilt the altimetry or not?

  73. #73 Lotharsson
    December 3, 2011

    > The words of Nils-Axel Mörner which you can read in this week’s Spectator…

    Gullible troll remains gullible. News at 11.

  74. #74 Lotharsson
    December 3, 2011

    From that News Corp opinion piece Scribe linked to:

    > In his new guide for students, How to Get Expelled from School, Plimer asks: “If the science of human-induced global warming is so strong then why is it necessary for the climate industry to engage in fraud, exaggeration, obfuscation, personal attacks, spin and the demonising of dissent?”

    Teh irony, it burns like … like … er, like an iron sun?

  75. #75 Bernard J.
    December 3, 2011

    >Teh irony, it burns like … like … er, like an iron sun?

    Aw, crap Lotharsson, don’t say that – you’ll invoke the Hissink, and then we’ll have a critical mass of Teh Stupid on this thread…

    And [Miranda Devine](http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/stars-party-as-we-burn/story-e6frfhqf-1226213210427)?! As a demonstrably talented scientific ignorant, she makes a very poor newspaper hack. Objective Fact and she may have once met at a party, but it seems that OF didn’t bother to keep her number.

  76. #76 Andy
    December 3, 2011

    Hi, I’m back! Just spent a lovely night curled up with the wife: I’m an impoverished high school maths teacher whereas she’s a multi-millionaire. Her dad made an absolute packet running carbon-belching delivery trucks up and down the length of Britain. Ain’t life grand!

    Now, where can I start?

    John: “It’s a “hiatus” now. One and a half years ago it was “cooling”. In another one and a years it will be “we never said it wasn’t warming, we just don’t agree that it’s causedd by man”. In fifteen years it will be “it hasn’t warmed since 2020″. And so on.”
    Similar to ‘Global Warming’ becoming ‘Climate Change’ when the warming stubbornly refused to appear, which went on to become “Climate Disruption” so that pretty much anything could be blamed on CO2. Some people even tried to blame earthquakes on CO2 – superb!

    ianam: “Being the sack of dishonest stupid troll shit that you are isn’t very classy.” Ooh dear, you seem to be getting your knickers in a twist, don’t you? I love it when people accuse others of being ‘trolls’ just because they’ve visited a blog and made comments that others don’t like. Calling someone names suggests your on the defensive and are lashing out in desperation.

    GWB’s nemesis: “A degree in Combined Honours is not a degree in Mathematics.
    Was that a lie or do you not even understand your own qualifications?”
    Well, all those lectures I sat through discussing second order partial differential equations sure weren’t about Sociology or hairdressing. Actually, I must admit to missing quite a few lessons as I was too busy getting drunk, sleeping with young women, and scuba diving. But I still got an Honours, so I can’t be all that thick!
    BTW I took a Combined Honours in Mathematics and Business Administration (they were completely seperate of each other), so now I can understand the rather weak maths the warmists post up, and see through the money-making scams that the likes of Al Gore puts up. Superb!

    Scribe: “Thanks, Andy, for coming onto this blog and offering up your bum for a good spanking. Apart from giving many readers a lot of entertainment, your abject lesson may be educational for others of your ilk.” I think I’m having more fun watching warmists such as yourself throwing your toys out of your pram and descend to the level of sweary abuse (janam being a case in point)

    Richard Simons: “At least your degree should mean that you can answer this question, which no denialist seems to have attempted. Select any period of years ending at the time you think global temperatures flatlined. Calculate the trend for that time, using any set of global temperature measures you prefer. Using any procedure you like, can you show that the last decade’s temperatures are statistically significantly lower than those predicted from the trend you calculated? Only when you have done this are you justified in claiming that temperatures have flatlined.”
    Personally, being a visual animal, I like a good graph. This one is pretty good:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2002/plot/gistemp/from:2002/trend
    Seems pretty flat to me. (but I’m sure you’ll find some hand-waving way to say it’s a complete fabrication)

    Ian Forrester: The “paper” claims to use data from the CDC WONDER data base to show that extreme cold killed more people in the US than extreme heat. However, if we look at CDC data we find that the death rate from extreme cold has fallen by 50% since 1990. Could this have anything to do with global warming?”
    Nope, people have obviously spent the last twenty years using technology to help them deal with the cold. Anyway, why not celebrate a decline in deaths – you warmist hate to hear the good news! Unfortunately, there are still more deaths from extreme cold than extreme heat in this world. Show me some data that says otherwise.

    John: “Trillions of dollars! Just who is the alarmist here?”
    Okay, I was getting a bit carried away, but the numbers are still staggering:
    In 2011, the US will have spent about $10.6 million a day to ‘study, combat, and educate about climate change’.
    http://climatequotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/cc-funding2011.pdf
    The National Science Foundation really went for broke: they requested $1.616 billion!
    Between 1989 and 2009, the US spent $79 billion on the climate industry (nice work if you can get it)
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

    Speaking of cash, I’ve noticed that a few wamists on this blog have leapt to Al ‘millions of degrees below the earth’s crust’ Gore. He’s not such a paragon of virtue and has plenty invested in the Green Machine. Here are some of the companies he has a financial stake in: Amyris (biofuels), Altra (biofuels), Bloom Energy (solid oxide fuel cells), Mascoma (cellulosic biofuels), GreatPoint Energy (catalytic gasification), Miasole (solar cells), Ausra (utility scale solar panels), GEM (battery operated cars), Smart (electric cars), and AltaRock Energy (geothermal power).
    That private jet and massive house don’t pay for themselves, do they?
    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/11/gore-admits-financial-reasons-advancing-global-warming-hysteria#ixzz1fTVO8S62

    John: “Andy’s blathering about a “pause” he cannot define seems an excellent time to regurgitate this graph. Andy will be delighted to know it shows six pauses and therefore is proof of the UN/Al Gore scam to give trillions to the Third World.”
    Nice graph John, but I prefer this one as it puts all the panicking about global temps into perspective: http://www.planetseed.com/files/uploadedimages/Science/Earth_Science/Global_Climate_Change_and_Energy/Related_Articles/global_temp2.jpg

    MH: “David Duff, what is “the cause”? What is its manifesto and goals? Just asking..”
    It’s the one Mike Mann keeps referring to in his emails e.g. “I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause.”

    Bill: “Andy, now just wipe up your mess and turn that light out, please.
    In the morning, if your wrist’s not too sore, you can learn how to use blockquotes.”
    Thanks Bill, now it’s accusations of self-abuse from a warmist. I’m afraid I didn’t need any of that as I had my lovely wife lying next to me last night. Sorry I don’t know how to use blockquotes, but I’ll get along just fine.

    Lionel A: “Of course the fact that much of the country is facing a drought come next year, in spite of the flooding in other parts, has gone over your head, which I guess most aspects of a complex topic such as this do”
    This quite a nice little graph that shows current droughts in the UK are not bucking the trend of the last 120 years:
    http://www.groundwateruk.org/pi/cache/cache_640_Thames_rainfall_deficiencies.jpg
    This graph seems to show the UK getting wetter, not drier:
    http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/49128000/jpg/_49128164_rainfall_graph.jpg
    So Lionel, what’s it going to be – too wet or too dry? Make your mind up. Whatever you decide on, I’m sure you’ll blame it on global warming (whoops, sorry!) Climate Change

    Right, I’ve had enough for now.

    Toodle pip!

  77. #77 Lars Karlsson
    December 3, 2011

    If anybody is interested in Mörner, then there is always [this piece by him in the LaRouchian publication 21st Century Science and Technology](http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf).
    Ick!

  78. #78 David Duff
    December 3, 2011

    But did they tilt the altimetry or not?

  79. #79 Lotharsson
    December 3, 2011

    > Aw, crap Lotharsson, don’t say that…

    No Hissink invocation intended – I had a vague memory of [this classic reference](http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2009/05/ian-plimer-and-iron-sun.html) by Plimer.

  80. #80 David Duff
    December 3, 2011

    And by the way, Monbiot’s less than impressive counter-attack based as much on Mörner’s apparent belief in dowsing as anything else seems to ignore the fact that some of the world’s greatest thinkers have believed in oddities. Newton, for example, believed in God as well as alchemy, although I am not sure which Monbiot would find more ridiculous.

    Incidentally, apologies for the repitions above brought about by the vagaries of the operating system on this highly, er, scientific site!

  81. #82 Ian Forrester
    December 3, 2011

    Outhouse peter gets it all wrong. It’s all explained at [wottsupwiththat](http://wottsupwiththat.com/2011/12/03/hiding-the-decline-down-under-inconvenient-papers-censored/)

  82. #83 Marco
    December 3, 2011

    David, the obvious answer to your question is “no”. Möron lied.

  83. #84 Dave H
    December 3, 2011

    @Olaus Petri

    Another one who’s wrong about Jones. Quelle surprise.

  84. #85 Lotharsson
    December 3, 2011

    Duff, anyone with a few brain cells and access to a search engine can find out that [*Morner and/or Monckton* tilted the altimetry](http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-myth-16-bizarro-world-sea-level.html) to create a graph that claimed no sea level rise. And then accused others of doing so – without, AFAIK, providing any evidence – in order to help fool the gullible.

    And in that endeavour they certainly succeeded.

  85. #86 Andy
    December 3, 2011

    What a shame, I’d written up a superb little post replying to all the vitriolic abuse, shrill threats of imminent armageddon, and some really rather silly ‘statistics’ from various outraged warmists. It had web-links aplenty and some extremely rather witty repartee from me (even if I do say so myself). However, the mods didn’t let it through. It may have been because I didn’t post the urls in the form that mods would want. Never mind, they needn’t bother posting it now. I thank them for letting so many of my other posts through.

    Anyway, I’m afraid I’m going to leave this thread for good as I have far better things to do with my time right now: I’m going to sit and watch the sun go down with my family around me, marvel at the power of nature, bless the wonder of the technology that surrounds me, and be thankful that I live in the West and have access to ‘instant on’ light and warmth, all because of those marvelous resources: oil and coal.

    However, before I go (and stand back and wait for the torrent of warmist abuse that will no doubt ensue) I would like to tell you about something that happened to me the other day:
    At the school where I teach Maths, the Geography teacher and I were both agreeing that the Global Warming hysteria was just silly. At that point, the Science teacher told us we, “couldn’t say that” as she had to teach the kids all about Climate Change. Patently, children aren’t allowed to see a different point of view in Science lessons anymore. So much for the scientific method. In my lessons, I tell the kids to be skeptical of everyone, including myself, and make their own minds up.
    Subsequently, when I was in the Science teacher’s classroom, I looked at the worksheets she was using to teach the Climate Change module. Of course, they were full of warnings of imminent catastrophe unless the kids turned off the TV at night, their Dad stopped lighting the barbeque, and Mum started driving a Prius. What amused me most however, was that the worksheets had been sponsored by a big multinational: BP. There they were, with their new cuddly green leaf logo stamped across every worksheet.

    Seeing an oil company sponsoring dire warnings of imminent death confirmed my belief about the AGW nonsense being a complete scam. Companies, charities, universities, carbon traders, and Al Gore are all making a fortune from this Global Warming nonsense and you lot really can’t (or refuse to) see through the scam. While you wet your pants about tiny changes of temperature measured in tenths of a degree, worry yourselves silly about barely noticeable changes in sea level measured in millimeters, and panic about miniscule CO2 level changes measured in parts per million, these climate scammers are laughing all the way to the bank.

    If you remember one thing, remember this: companies aren’t your friends, they just want your cash, and they’ll say anything they want if they think it means you’ll hand over your dollars.

    I will leave you with a quote from a far greater man than myself, the late and great Hal Lewis, which comes from his letter of resignation from the APS. It is a quote I think of nearly every day:
    “…my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame..It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

    Well said Hal.

    Adieu, warmists, it’s been a blast.

    Andy

  86. #87 Dave H
    December 3, 2011

    I imagine David Duff signing off all his missives with a flourish, content in the delusion that – once again – he has skewered his online opponents deftly and decisively.

    A hero in his own mind.

    Quite sad really.

  87. #88 chek
    December 3, 2011

    content in the delusion that – once again – he has skewered his online opponents deftly and decisively.

    … and every time he clicks on ‘Post’, a spring loaded custard pie hinged on his belt pops up to splat him in the face.

    Given his pristine 100% failure rate at scoring any points ever, and total and utter inability to address every consequent debunking, that’s some powerful masochistic driving force. Or maybe he just likes being splatted in the face by his own pies.

  88. #89 Andy
    December 3, 2011

    Hey Mods,

    Why have suddenly stopped my posts getting through?
    It makes it seem like I’ve just slunk off, tail between my legs.
    Please at least post my last comment (or tell me why you won’t) – you’ve been really even-handed before then.

    Thanks,

    Andy

  89. #90 Andy
    December 3, 2011

    Right, the mods stopped my last two posts, but they let my message to them get through, so let’s hope I can sneak this one through.

    I just wanted to say that watching you warmists get your knickers in a twist about tiny temperature rises measured in tenths of a degree, get all worked-up about minuscule sea-level rise measured in tenths of a millimetre, and fret about minute changes in CO2 levels measured in parts per million has been great fun.

    Right, I’m off now.

    Adieu, warmists, it’s been a blast.

  90. #91 ianam
    December 3, 2011

    Will the despicable sack of stupid shit stick the flounce?

    And you’ve got to love David Dunce’s argument that people who believe in dowsing are credible because Newton believed in God and alchemy. Tilt!

  91. #92 Muzz
    December 3, 2011

    I can’t believe the stunning idiocy of “Warmer temperatures are nicer anyway” coming back again. That’s not regular D-K. That’s got some supercharged Eurocentric arrogance mixed in for added fun.
    They’ve never heard of people dying in heat waves around the world? Flocks did in Pakistan not so long ago (before being flooded all to hell). India too. Heck, New York city has a big enough problem with this annually and it’s been known to snow there the previous winter.
    Now and then you even see Australian deniers pull this one out. Not just great evidence of parroting group think. Confirmation they are in some sort of well serviced “facility” for the rich but variably capable.

  92. #93 John Mashey
    December 3, 2011

    Since this an open thread, maybe someone would like to talk about something other than jousting with D-K’d trolls.

    Q: Has Jo Nova ever said anything about funding for The Skeptics handbook?

  93. #94 ianam
    December 3, 2011

    The hiatus of warming is a scientific problem that a sceptic mind find interesting. Want to join in? :-)

    http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/09/19/19climatewire-by-storing-more-heat-oceans-create-hiatus-pe-73136.html

    The “missing heat” needed to balance the Earth’s energy budget may be lurking in the deep oceans, a new study finds….The study also predicts that the continued warming of the climate will be punctuated by brief periods when the rate of warming slows, stops or even reverses, slightly…. “We will see global warming go through hiatus periods in the future,” said the study’s lead author, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “However, these periods would likely last only about a decade or so, and warming would then resume. This study illustrates one reason why global temperatures do not simply rise in a straight line.”

    Denial such as we get from gits like Olaus Understanding what’s happening during such warming hiatuses will help scientists and policymakers weigh the merits of policies to fight climate change and determine which natural events are driven by warming….”We know the ["missing"] energy has to be somewhere in the climate system because if you look at the top of the atmosphere, you have a net imbalance — more energy coming than going out,” Easterling said of the hiatus periods. “This paper gives you a physical mechanism as to why that’s happening. … The energy goes down in the ocean, and sooner or later, it’s going to be released to the atmosphere, and that’s what’s really critical about this.”

  94. #95 ianam
    December 3, 2011

    I can’t believe the stunning idiocy of “Warmer temperatures are nicer anyway” coming back again.

    No depths of idiocy from deniers should, by now, be unbelievable or even surprising.

  95. #96 chek
    December 3, 2011

    John, surely that would mean either following or researching her blog, one of which I don’t and the other is accompanied by an uneasy sense of trepidation, at least without the pre-flight shots.

    Should you have any other slightly less unpleasant tasks, such as perhaps might entail wading eyeball-deep through a Coleridgean lake of pig slurry, I’d be happy to favourably consider them.

  96. #97 bill
    December 3, 2011

    I’m calling QED on David Duff.

  97. #98 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    December 3, 2011

    John Mashey:

    I remember, very vaguely, her blog mentioning that the printing of the Handbook at a recent Heartland conference was funded by an “anonymous” source. But I’m too lazy to actually look that up… :)

    — frank

  98. #99 Scribe
    December 3, 2011

    I’m calling QED on David Duff.

    Seconded.

    BTW, from dictionary.com:
    duff  [duhf]
    noun Slang
    The buttocks or rump

    verb (used with object) Slang .
    1. to give a deliberately deceptive appearance to; misrepresent; fake.
    2. British . (in golf) to misplay (a golf ball), especially to misjudge one’s swing so that the club strikes the ground behind the ball before hitting it.
    3. Australian . a. to steal (cattle).
    b.(formerly) to alter the brand on (stolen cattle).
    4. to cheat someone

    Perfect!

  99. #100 Chris O'Neill
    December 3, 2011

    Dumb as a Duffer:

    the repitions above brought about by the vagaries of the operating system

    Operating systems, natural variations. Ever the blame-shifter.

Current ye@r *