April 2012 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Scribe
    April 20, 2012

    Need some light entertainment? How about a podcast to listen to, one that will have you giggling? Tune in to Jo Nova, author of the “Septic’s Handbook”(sic), at this page.

  2. #2 Betula
    April 20, 2012

    Wow @ 451 states…

    “You’re denying that the causation is appropriate and sufficient. You’re denying that EVERYTHING has to be inferred. You never saw the bullet leave the gun, you heard a bang, you heard “I’m gonna kill you” and the person who is dead has a bullet hole through them and the gun has a missing bullet and smoke powder”

    I ask Wow to provide a link of all the polar bears that have died from global warming, only to find out that I witnessed a murder…in more ways than one.

    And then this:

    “Tell me, what OTHER ways could polar bears die?”
    “Now PROVE they died that way.”

    I don’t know which dead polar bears we are talking about because Wow never provided the link I asked for while I was witnessing a murder. However, if I were to come across the extremely rare event of a polar bear being found dead in the water, I wouldn’t assume the causation without all the facts (unlike Wow).

    I would think that anyone with at least half a brain (unlike Wow) would know a polar bear could die/drown as a result of many different factors ie: A variety of natural causes, old, weak, sick, starving, caught in currents or storms, disoriented, injured in an accident or fight or from hunting, disease, rabies, parasites, environmental contaminants, shot with tranquilizer darts or any combination of the above…

    Wow, this might help. Check out this police report describing the murder scene…

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/05/16/where-are-all-the-drowning-polar-bears/

  3. #3 Wow
    April 20, 2012

    “I ask Wow to provide a link of all the polar bears that have died from global warming”

    And I ask for what evidence other than arctic sea ice melting means less is there is needed?

    I guess you proclaim nobody has ever died of smoking, they just died of lung cancer, right?

  4. #4 Jeff Harvey
    April 20, 2012

    Two articles just out today in Science: the first shows a significant effect of warming in the Meditteranean region on mountain plants, with a reduction in diversity:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6079/353.abstract

    The second provides definitive proof that most Himalayan glaciers are indeed shrinking rapidly since the mid 19th century:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6079/310.abstract

    Expect the anti-science non-peer reviewed climate change denial blogs to either ignore these studies or to bitterly attack them, as they so often do.

  5. #5 Wow
    April 20, 2012

    PS thanks for the blogroll. There’s five minutes of my life I’m not going to get back.

    Funny how they’re not able to read the reports, mind. Just enough to see “…polar bear numbers increasing…” whilst missing “some”.

  6. #6 Jeff Harvey
    April 20, 2012

    Betula youtwerp: go away. You don’t have a clue about what you are talking about. Whether ot not polar bears died due to climate change-induced drowning is NOT the point. The point is that future warming will decimate the bear’s habitat in the blink of an evolutionary eye. As I said yesterday, scientists make projections. You are stuck in reverse. You don’t understand basic ecology and yet for some reason you persist. Nobody here is folled by your stupidity. If you were to jump off a 100 story building and fall 80 floors, then look up and shout, ‘everything’s fine’, you’d be clearly wrong.

    The effects of ice loss on the bears will not be manifested so much in drownings but in a *per capita* loss in fitness. In other words, the bears are going to have to expend more metabolic effort to find prey, suitable habitat for hunting and reproduction. These costs will be borne out over time on demographic characters such as longevity and reproductive output. The deleterious effects of warming will be lagged temporily. This is because the animals are income breeders and have long lifespans combined with low intrinsic rates of increase. We are already seeing a demographic switch towards older bears as fertility rates decline. The numbers of bears is relatively stable – for the moment – but as these costs begin to impact the population we will see the populatiosn decline, as they appear to be beginning to do so in many areas.

    The same thing is happening to Loggerhead Shrikes in eastern North America. Dueto habitat loss in the north, compeition for wintering sites between migrants and resident birds in the south meant that many of the migrants were physiologically depleted when they headed north again the following spring. As a result, brood sizes began to plummet and mortality soon exceeded natality. However, the birds persisted for some decades before the effects were manifested more widely. Now the shrikes are heading for extinction east of the Mississippi River and north of the Ohio River. They were once found from the maritime provinces to the Gulf Coast and west to the Pacific Ocean. And this slow-motion extipration occured in a species which is much more R-selected than the Polar Bear.

    This may be all above your simple little head but population ecologists understand it well enough. Finally, rabies has been found in 1 single polar bear since the 1980s.

  7. #7 Betula
    April 20, 2012

    Wow @462 states…

    “I guess you proclaim nobody has ever died of smoking, they just died of lung cancer, right?”

    Now you’re imagining proclamations that don’t exist. Interesting.

    Wow, here are some numbers on deaths as a result of smoking:
    http://www.med.upenn.edu/cirna/pdf/USA_Figures.pdf

    Still waiting for some numbers on polar bear deaths as a result of climate change…

  8. #8 Betula
    April 20, 2012

    JH @463 states…

    “You don’t have a clue about what you are talking about. Whether ot not polar bears died due to climate change-induced drowning is NOT the point.”

    Obviously it is an important point, why else would the public be falsley led to believe they are currently drowning?

  9. #9 ianam
    April 20, 2012

    Betula, please explain to us how it would be possible that polar bears would not die if there were no Arctic sea ice.

  10. #10 ianam
    April 20, 2012

    Wow, here are some numbers on deaths as a result of smoking: http://www.med.upenn.edu/cirna/pdf/USA_Figures.pdf

    Prove that smoking caused those deaths. Funny how, when we post graphs, people like you simply deny what they claim.

  11. #11 Betula
    April 20, 2012

    JH @463…

    “Finally, rabies has been found in 1 single polar bear since the 1980s.”

    And how many polar bears have died from climate change induced drowning in that time?

    C’mon Jeff, no need for a diatribe telling me how you’re the only one who understands cause and effect in relation to the environment and Bengal Tigers. Just answer the actual question without inference.

    The answer is not something made up, it’s just a fact. If you want to talk about future projections that’s fine, but why is it so hard for everyone here to admit the present?

    Just answer it Jeff. Wow can’t do it but I know you can.

  12. #12 Betula
    April 20, 2012

    ianam @466..

    “Betula, please explain to us how it would be possible that polar bears would not die if there were no Arctic sea ice.”

    “If” I had claimed such a thing, I would explain it.

  13. #13 Betula
    April 20, 2012

    “Prove that smoking caused those deaths. Funny how, when we post graphs, people like you simply deny what they claim.”

    Because they aren’t projections, they are actual deaths.

    Still waiting for the actual polar bear death graph…

  14. #14 chek
    April 20, 2012

    Betula, it’s quite simple to understand really even for a layman like me.

    When an environment, whether jungle, forest, savannah or icy wastes over deep water disappears, the inhabitants adapted to live in that environment must adapt to new conditions or die when it disappears.

    The rate of anthropogenic climate change outstrips the ability of most species apart from fruitflies (who wouldn’t like the cold) to adapt, which limits their available options.

    Still, fuck’em,eh?
    What have polar bears ever done for you? (Apart from highlight your denier-blog fed, narrow minded, uninformed stupidity).

  15. #15 Jeff Harvey
    April 20, 2012

    Betula, Your posts are so utterly devoid of even elementary logic. From under what slimy rock did you emerge? Can you please go back there?

    Here are important terms in the science of population ecology relevant to understanding the demographics of a species that clearly you do not understand:

    – the extinction debt
    – temporal lags
    – r and k selection
    – recruitment
    – fitness
    – physiological trade-offs
    – area extinction models of exponential decay

    Instead, our resident twerp (you, as it turns out) seems to think that warming-induced drowning is the only climate-related threat these great predators face. Betula, its clear that your world view with respect to climate-change effects is apparently gleaned from some anti-environmental blogs. The Polar Bear situation is somewhat symbolic for the myriad of other studies already showing deleterious effects of warming-related effects on species and species-interactions. TAs I said in an earlier post, I am sure you would be one of those dorks who claims that the projected loss of tropical forests back in the 1950s was nothing to worry about because it had not happened yet. Again, you argue as if you are ten years old – or 110. Your marbles are clearly rattling around a pretty empty noggin.

  16. #16 chek
    April 20, 2012

    Betula, it’s quite simple to understand really even for a layman like me.

    When an environment, whether jungle, forest, savannah or icy wastes over deep water disappears, the inhabitants adapted to live in that environment must adapt to new conditions or die when it disappears.

    The rate of anthropogenic climate change outstrips the ability of most species apart from fruitflies (who wouldn’t like the cold) to adapt, which limits their available options.

    Still, fukc em, eh? What have polar bears ever done for you? I mean apart from highlighting your crass, denier-blog fed, narrow minded, uninformed stupidity.

  17. #17 Betula
    April 20, 2012

    JH…
    “Instead, our resident twerp (you, as it turns out) seems to think that warming-induced drowning is the only climate-related threat these great predators face”

    I never said any such thing, so what would cause you to think it? It’s pure speculation on your part, or more accurately, an assumption.

    You know the answer to the question, yet you don’t want to answer it. Why? I can only assume, but then I would be like you.

  18. #18 Chris O'Neill
    April 20, 2012

    It’s called humour Jeff

    because the Mackmoron didn’t really feel guilty about anything to do with Polar Bears at all. He was being ironic. You get the joke now, Jeff?

  19. #19 ianam
    April 20, 2012

    “Betula, please explain to us how it would be possible that polar bears would not die if there were no Arctic sea ice.”

    “If” I had claimed such a thing, I would explain it.

    Then you concede that it isn’t possible, and therefore there is no need for “direct evidence”. And if you don’t concede it, then you owe an explanation, because it certainly seems logical that the absence of Arctic sea ice would cause polar bear deaths.

    “Prove that smoking caused those deaths. Funny how, when we post graphs, people like you simply deny what they claim.”

    Because they aren’t projections, they are actual deaths.

    Yes, of course they are actual deaths, but you claimed they are deaths from smoking … now prove your claim. And unless polar bears are immortal, there are actual polar bear deaths, so those aren’t projections either. Your dispute is with the cause, and yet you make unproven claims about smoking causing people to die … how do you know that’s what killed them? That’s all I asked you, but like the piece of crap you are, you do nothing but evade.

    And as for projections, you just conceded that it isn’t possible for an absence of Arctic sea ice to fail to result in the deaths of polar bears … nothing more is needed when one thing necessarily follows from another. But you deny even modus ponens.

  20. #20 Bernard J.
    April 21, 2012

    Ah, so our resident Denialati are now experts of abstruse and arcane philosophy in the mould of Berkeley and Fossett, to wit…

    …if a polar bear dies as a consequence of the rotten and reduced sea ice, but no one is present to witness the mortality, does global warming actually exist?

    And Tom Fuller [wonders why scientists have short fuses](http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/dilemmas-in-science-communication/) when is comes to certain lay people’s mangling of logic and fact.

    It seems that one can drop a bear in the water, but one cannot make it survive there.

  21. #21 Bernard J.
    April 21, 2012

    This week [the Australian ABC is airing something interesting](http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/i-can-change-your-mind-on-climate/3963066):

    Ex-conservative senator Nick Minchin and ex-lawyer Anna Rose travelled the world introducing each other to supporters of their opposing positions on climate. The result is a documentary film to be broadcast on ABC television April 26 2012. It will be followed by a live studio debate.

  22. #22 Betula
    April 21, 2012

    ianam @476..

    “it certainly seems logical that the absence of Arctic sea ice would cause polar bear deaths.”

    Yes it does, I never said it didn’t. Has it?

    “Yes, of course they are actual deaths, but you claimed they are deaths from smoking … now prove your claim.”

    I never claimed anything, I provided a link that claimed it.
    Now see if you can provide me a link claiming the number of polar bears that have died as a direct result of climate change. I promise not to give you credit for creating the claim in the link.

  23. #23 Betula
    April 21, 2012

    Bernard…

    “…if a polar bear dies as a consequence of the rotten and reduced sea ice, but no one is present to witness the mortality, does global warming actually exist?”

    So Bernard, if you don’t know there is a mortality, you can’t claim there is one, yet, you can claim the cause. I can see the conversation now…

    Bystander: Hey, Bernard, what are you doing?

    Bernard: Writing a paper on the current mortality rate of polar bears as a result of melting ice.

    Bystander: How many?

    Bernard: How many what?

  24. #24 Bernard J.
    April 21, 2012

    Betula.

    That it completely escapes you how an ecologist can estimate mortalities, and even how s/he might ascribe them to particular causes, simply shows the depth of your ignorance.

    Go to school.

  25. #25 Ian Forrester
    April 21, 2012

    Bernard J said:

    And Tom Fuller wonders why scientists have short fuses when is comes to certain lay people’s mangling of logic and fact.

    Scientists have a lot longer fuses than dishonest Fuller. He has no fuse at all since he told me to “Bugg*r off” when [I exposed his series of lies over at Eli's place](http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2010/11/infra-digging-michael-tobis.html).

  26. #26 Scribe
    April 21, 2012

    Sen. Inhofe: Bible Proves Global Warming Is A Hoax

    I guess that’s it then, argument over. We lost guys. Them with the Bible proof got us beat.

  27. #27 bill
    April 21, 2012

    Ian Forrester,

    Now, that was a truly entertaining little diversion! I’m still chuckling…

    Becoming abusive when called to account; not generally regarded as a great indicator of veracity!

    On another note: Tim, have we perhaps all become too much for you? I find it hard to believe The Australian hasn’t printed anything Stupid for such a prolonged period…

  28. #28 bill
    April 21, 2012

    During this peaceful, Scandi-free / de-Betty-ed lull, connoisseurs may enjoy Piers Corbyn’s latest ‘robust’ exchange with the Met Office, Weather Forecasting in general, and The Independent.

    As a non-drinker of Coca Cola I was particularly impressed by his argument.

  29. #29 Marco
    April 22, 2012

    Bill, the delusion in the comments is also quite impressive.

  30. #30 Nick
    April 22, 2012

    I’d temporarily forgotten about Cranky Corbyn until this May forecast. I then compared his March forecast with the UKMet summary for that month. Corbyn was seriously,hopelessly wrong.

    Sounds like he’s thrown the full bucket of entrails at this one.obviously his need for publicity is greater than his need for quality results.

  31. #31 Jeff Harvey
    April 22, 2012

    Corbyn also predicted an exceptionally cold November-February period in western Europe (wrong on all counts; November was in fact the warmest or close to one of the warmest for most west European countries). His North American forecasts were equally wrong. He’s about as accurate as the ‘Farmer’s Almanac’, which even tries to pin down forecasts in week-long blocks. According to the Almanac, during my sled-hauling/camping expedition across Algonquin Park over 23 days with a friend in Ontario, Canada, we should have expected bitterly cold conditions and one or two major snowfalls (normal temperature was -7 C by day and -19 C at night). Instead, and to our benefit, it was mostly above normal temperature-wise and even rained on two occasions, something almost unheard of at that time of year in northern Ontario. The coldest night was -26 C, but most days it was 0 to -6 and -8 to -12 at night. Eminently bearable on a winter camping trip.

  32. #32 Betula
    April 22, 2012

    JH…

    “Instead, and to our benefit, it was mostly above normal temperature-wise”

    Jeff, you mean to tell me you benefited from climate change?

  33. #33 ianam
    April 22, 2012

    I never claimed anything

    You’re a flat-out liar. I’m done with you, you stupid sack of garbage.

  34. #34 Betula
    April 22, 2012

    Ianam, just for the record, I’m not the Surgeon General. It would be best to bring up your problem with her.

    http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/

  35. #35 Jeff Harvey
    April 23, 2012

    *Jeff, you mean to tell me you benefited from climate change?*

    Sure – for a few weeks. But the park’s flora and fauna most certainly won’t. They are found at the southern edge of the boreal forest zone, which is found on acid soils in the Canadian Shield. Climate warming is causing this zone to recede northwards, but the transition forests and the Carolinian forests to the south are found on very high pH soils on lime. They will certainly not be able to shift northwards very rapidly at all, if ever. There most certainly will be profound ecological consequences for regions bordering biome edges.

    Again, this is certainly well over your head.

  36. #36 John
    April 23, 2012

    Somebody tell these alarmist scientists that there’s no such thing as global warming. Look, they’re all getting worked up about so-called “methane” being released into the atmosphere from cracks in the arctic ice.

    >The researchers found significant amounts of methane being released from the ocean into the atmosphere through cracks in the melting sea ice. They said the quantities could be large enough to affect the global climate. Previous observations have pointed to large methane plumes being released from the seabed in the relatively shallow sea off the northern coast of Siberia but the latest findings were made far away from land in the deep, open ocean where the surface is usually capped by ice.

    What nonesense. Everyone knows it’s cooling/plateauing/coming out of the Little Ice Age and therefore absolutely nothing to worry about.

    As Karenmackspot said:

    >The IPCC is being proven wrong by the cold “CLIMATE” almost everywhere !!!!

    and since when is he wrong about anything?

  37. #37 Lionel A
    April 23, 2012

    Ian Forrester @482

    That is a very enlightening exchange WRT Fullers thought process limitations and that of others such as Richard Tol who wrote, in reply to Michael Tobis:

    You have reviewed the evidence and reached the conclusion that climate change is undesirable. That’s a perfectly respectable opinion, shared by a great many people, including me. But it is a political opinion.

    The fact that climate change will see a more rapid deterioration in the biosphere that we have evolved with and thus likely cause a massive disruption of food sources and other services supplied by same seems to escape his narrow little mind. Which is fairly typical of the whole denier camp.

    Meanwhile over at Skeptical Science we are informed that Knap Chippenberger has dropped more bubkas (or is it bubkis) by telling us that ““longer, more intense and more frequent heat waves” may actually improve the public health and welfare”

  38. #38 Marco
    April 23, 2012

    Lionel A, in a way Richard Tol is right. If you are, for example, someone whose ideology states that life does not matter, you do not care about massive disruption of food sources and other services.

    BTW, it’s Chip Knappenberger

  39. #39 robert day
    April 23, 2012

    I may be off topic (if you can be off topic in an open thread), but Sydney Deltoids may be interested to take part in the ABC QandA audience following the program “I can change your mind about climate” on Thursday. See http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/ for details.

    Everyone else from Australia might like to fill in their survey about attitudes towards climate change at http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/survey/

    Currently about 51% are “dismissive” and only about 30% “alarmed” or “concerned”.

  40. #40 Jeff Harvey
    April 23, 2012

    Knappenberger is another one of those dimwits who thinks that humans must be exempt from the laws of nature. In other words, that our ability as a species to adapt to heat waves and other extreme weather-related events is independent of the effects that these events will have on natural systems that sustain us in a huge number of ways via the direct and indirect services that emerge from them.But Tol isn’t a whole lot better IMHO. In exchanges I have had with him (he is Dutch, and I work here) he virtually admits that he has no knowledge of systems ecology. My question to like-minded economists is how they can therefore make estimates of the costs of warming on human civilization when they know nada about the link between the health and vitality of ecosystems and the effects that warming will have on them and the species that make them up. Economists ought to be working with ecologists to address these questions, and some indeed are (e.g. Herman Daly, John Gowdy, Geoffrey Heal, Stephan Viedermann, Thomas Bultman and others). However, many, like Tol, appear to be living in their own ivory towers and all-too readily dismiss the criticisms of their models from working on the natural economy.

  41. #41 Betula
    April 23, 2012

    JH…
    “There most certainly will be profound ecological consequences for regions bordering biome edges.”

    Jeff, I don’t doubt that plant zones are constantly shifting to some degree, but could you share some, if any, of the ecological consequences you experienced first hand?

  42. #42 Ian Forrester
    April 23, 2012

    Lionel A said:

    That is a very enlightening exchange WRT Fullers thought process limitations

    Fuller is a pathological liar as I showed over at the thread at [Rabbett Run](http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2010/11/infra-digging-michael-tobis.html). Whenever he was shown to be wrong, instead of admitting his error he confounded it with another lie over and over again.

    I just do not understand why people like Bart allow such dishonest people to pollute their blogs with such scurrilous behaviour.

    Fuller called me a liar and when I tried to show that I was correct Bart stopped me from posting by suggesting that what I was saying was slander. It was not slander since [all Fuller's lies could be documented](http://navysite.de/lst/lst1195.htm) by taking the time to source the actual facts of what he was describing. As can be seen from that link, the boat Fuller claimed to be on was nowhere near the location he claimed when he supposedly read a top secret signal telling the ship’s captain that Nixon had resigned.

    In my view, once some one has been shown to be a pathological liar everything they say from that point on should also be considered a lie unless they can back it up with honest and correct sources.

  43. #43 Lionel A
    April 23, 2012

    Marco @ 495 I know but I could have gotten it even more wrong as with Chip Krappenberger.

  44. #44 ianam
    April 23, 2012

    I just do not understand why people like Bart allow such dishonest people to pollute their blogs with such scurrilous behaviour.

    Because he’s the sort of fool who agrees with Keith Kloor that doubt about the science is the fault of “the Left”.

  45. #45 adelady
    April 23, 2012

    Back to Corbyn for a moment ….. “Sounds like he’s thrown the full bucket of entrails at this one”

    I let the video run without sound for a short while and something struck me. The total absence of any equipment or facilities more modern than a laminated map. I sort of understand, sort of, people who have doubts about modelling by computers. (Let’s leave aside the issue that Corbyn himself uses a non-computer ‘model’ all of his own.)

    But no computers even for keeping records or displaying maps and other graphics? Is he some kind of Luddite?

  46. #46 Billy Bob Hall
    April 23, 2012

    The ‘globe’ is cooling (again). Go figure.

  47. #47 ianam
    April 23, 2012

    Die, commercial spammer, die.

  48. #48 bill
    April 24, 2012
  49. #49 Bart Verheggen
    April 24, 2012

    ianam:

    I just do not understand why people like Bart allow such dishonest people to pollute their blogs with such scurrilous behaviour.
    Because he’s the sort of fool who agrees with Keith Kloor that doubt about the science is the fault of “the Left”.

    Huh? Now you’re seriously twisting what I think. Care to ask me something?

    Ian:

    My objection is mainly that Fuller’s military history is entirely unrelated to the topic of discussion and only serves to try to shoot his credibility down. I don’t like those kind of games, whether it concerns Tom Fuller or Bill Clinton or whoever. If someone smoked a joint when they were sixteen shouldn’t matter for their role in public office at age 50. Whether slander was the correct word in this context could be up for discussion, but it’s not a discussion I’m interested in hosting.

  50. #50 David Duff
    April 24, 2012

    Um, don’t like to mention it but have you noticed how it echoes in your ‘church’ these days? I think it might be due to the dwindling numbers in the congregation which is hardly surprising when even the High Priest legs it out as fast as he can in the face of reality:

    “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

    “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.”

    James Lovelock???!!! The inventer of ‘Gaia’???!!!

    Oh no, say it ain’t so!

    (Still, I did offer you an alternative apocalyptic vision to keep you happy, er, I mean miserable, as global warming sinks slowly in the west. Remember I warned about all that detritus being thrown ‘over the fence’ (so to speak) by our neighbours in space, well, yesterday Fox News was reporting that a meteor the size of a washing machine hit California. Yes, CALIFORNIA, the greenest of greenie lands! I was shocked, shocked, I tell you!

    Hello . . . hello . . . is there anybody there . . . ?

  51. #51 chek
    April 24, 2012

    Ah Duffer, there you go again, sinking to the levels of stupid (as usual) where Watts’ misdirection and dishonesty works best.

    All you have to do now is tell us all Lovelock’s contributions to the IPCC reports, and all about his climate science papers. Otherwise Watts is blowing it out of his arse (as usual) for riling up the stupids (as usual).

  52. #52 bill
    April 24, 2012

    Yeah, Duffster – call us when Mike Mann or Jim Hansen says something similar. Now; surely you’re due for a drink?

  53. #53 David Duff
    April 24, 2012

    You see, Mr. Lovelock, how the rats desert a sinking ship? Once you were worshiped – new-agers like Bill and Chek clinked their cymbals and danced with flowers in their hair and prayed to the Great Mother Gaia. Now you are despised, a traitor and, even worse, an unlearn-ed traitor – a fool, a man of no scientific worth. Yeah, yeah, I know, I know, they never said that in the past when you were forecasting doom ‘n’ gloom but, hey, that’s how congregations are these days, bit like Praesidiums and Central Committees the world over, one wrong word and you’re a non-person!

  54. #54 Karen
    April 24, 2012

    Anna Rose
    “Anna is co-founder and Chair of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) and is a former Environment Minister’s joint Young Environmentalist of the Year. Her passion for social and environmental justice was sparked at the age of 14″………….

    “She became a climate change campaigner after her grandparent’s farm in North Western NSW was affected by the Drought, and Anna connected the dots to climate change.”

    hahahaha, the farm is in central Australia, i.e. in the bloody desert !!!!

    and….she joined the dots that climate change made the drought at the farm in the desert !!!

    I’m thinking this moron is hidden behind the pseudonym of berenerd j

    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/s3418579.htm

  55. #55 chek
    April 24, 2012

    Surprisingly enough, Duff, your fey fantasies say more about you than anything else.

    Now, if you’ll kindly itemise all Lovelock’s climate science papers we can take a look at what exactly his alleged revisionism is all about.

    Oh that’s right – there aren’t any, and as usual you have nothing but huffing and puffing at Watts’ behest.

  56. #56 bill
    April 24, 2012

    I can say with complete honesty that I have never experienced the slightest urge to read anything by Lovelock.

    May I also say I’ve never read anything by Al Gore and I haven’t seen the movie.

  57. #57 Chris O'Neill
    April 24, 2012

    Gaia

    What journal was that published in?

  58. #58 David Duff
    April 24, 2012

    Karen, please, show some pity! At 14 we all think daft things because our minds are full dots and so we believe in chimeras like “social and environmental justice”, neither of which exist in the real world. But as you grow older you wise up, as our American cousins put it, although with ‘Greenies’ it can take a very, very long time – James Lovelock and his Gaia are 92 years old – I put it down to the increase in CO2!

  59. #59 Betula
    April 24, 2012

    Bill @511…

    “May I also say I’ve never read anything by Al Gore and I haven’t seen the movie.”

    I just checked the Alarmist’s cookbook. Sure enough, Bill just called Al Gore fat…

  60. #60 Mack
    April 24, 2012

    …fat assed charismatic crank with a D in science.

  61. #61 Karen
    April 24, 2012

    Lets face it Bill, if you had done any homework at all on cc you would switch side’s,
    tiz only your faith holding you to the cause.

    David, I pity them all.

  62. #62 bill
    April 24, 2012

    Well, that was witty.

    How dull you both are. Next.

  63. #63 David Duff
    April 24, 2012

    So what about this zero, or infinitesimal, global warming over the last 12 years when all the wiseacres tell us that CO2 is achieving record heights?

    As a well-known British admiral *didn’t* say:

    “Something wrong with our bloody thermometers today!”

  64. #65 jrkrideau
    April 24, 2012

    @498 betula
    I’m not Jeff but I live a couple of hundred km south of Algonquin Park.

    The apple trees in Southern Ontario budded early this year do to the warm weather, perhaps two or three weeks or so. Of course, in the last few days we’ve had unusual frost and snow so it looks like most of the apple crop is lost in much of Ontario.

    No information on the grape crops or other fruit crops. So Jeff may not have been inconvenienced but a few thousand fruit farmers have been.

  65. #66 lord_sidcup
    April 24, 2012

    ..zero, or infinitesimal, global warming over the last 12 years..

    Duff – when you say ‘zero or infinitesimal global warming’ what you actually mean in ‘zero or infinitesimal increase in surface temperatures’. Do you see your error? I somehow doubt you do.

  66. #67 John
    April 24, 2012

    >So what about this zero, or infinitesimal, global warming over the last 12 years when all the wiseacres tell us that CO2 is achieving record heights?

    What about it? Are you blind?

    Anyway, I thought Lovelock was the enemy. After all, he did want democracy to be “put on hold” to dead with global warming. What is it with deniers only believing what they want to hear?

    Speaking of which, how are those predictions of no sea level rise you made going? Still badly? I just can’t imagine what is causing it!

    Duff, wouldn’t you agree, like Karenmackspot, that the recent heat wave is proof of global warming? Your argument, like his, has always been that temperature is climate.

  67. #68 Bernard J.
    April 24, 2012

    Foulmackiekazzasunspot:

    >I’m thinking this moron is hidden behind the pseudonym of berenerd j

    This simply proves that not only are you supremely hypocritical, but that you’re not qualified (either academically or biologically) to think.

  68. #69 Karen
    April 24, 2012

    you did link to that abc changeyourmind garbage bernadette

    AND you do have a feminine style about you, did you notice the survey there ?

    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/survey/

    Judging by the result of the survey many warmers are cooling down.

  69. #70 Ian Forrester
    April 24, 2012

    Bart said:

    Ian:

    My objection is mainly that Fuller’s military history is entirely unrelated to the topic of discussion and only serves to try to shoot his credibility down.

    Surely credibility is very important in this whole discussion. One of the main reasons that climate change is being dissed by the general public is that they are continually fed lies by people like Fuller, Delingpole, Rose, Solomon, Gunter et al. As a scientist myself I find that honesty is absolutely essential. Anyone who is not honest should be anathema to scientists.

    Science used to be at the top of the class in terms of honesty when compared with the legal system, business, politics and even religion. The high standards of science are being dragged down by the likes of Ball, Michaels, Lindzen, Singer, Pielkie (Jnr), Spencer and Christy. Most of them had very mediocre careers as scientists but suddenly find the exposure that they longed for but could never achieve till they met the dishonest reporters mentioned above. That is where the dilemma in science communication has occurred, dishonest scientists groomed and promoted by dishonest journalists who see nothing wrong in embellishing their “stories” with made up bilge to enhance their feeble self respect.

    I have no respect for anyone who distorts the truth either for their own benefit or to cause a detrimental effect and harm to the world I and my future generations will have to live in.

    Thus I will take every opportunity afforded me to expose lies when I find them no matter who is telling them. If that does not suit you fine, I don’t need to post on your site.

  70. #71 John
    April 24, 2012

    Skeptical Science posted a great video of Naomi Oreskes explaining to former senator Nick Minchin, upfront, that the root of his denial is based in his ideology and not in science.

  71. #72 Chris O'Neill
    April 24, 2012
    Gaia

    What journal was that published in?

    Hello . . . hello . . . is there anybody there . . . ?

    Must have gone deaf or dumb.

  72. #73 David Duff
    April 24, 2012

    @John 522

    Funny you should mention sea levels – which, by the way, I did not forecast would rise, or fall come to that, because frankly I haven’t a clue about it one way or t’other – because I have just been looking at a U. of Colorado graph which seems to show sea levels virtually levelling off since 2006. Typical – “water, water, everywhere and not a drop to drink” or to add to dodgy hypotheses!

    And Lovelock was, is and never will be an enemy. He is, or was, simply a dotty old man with a bee in his bonnet. Finally, after 92 years he decided to take hisbonnet off, teh bee flew away, fresh air entered his brainbox and lo, another ‘warmer’ cools!

  73. #74 David Duff
    April 24, 2012

    @ Chris O’Neill:

    Calm down, dear, you don’t seriously believe that the only trustworthy scientific opinions are published in journals, do you? If so, you are in for some sad disillusionment. I was reading the other day the words of the head of research for one of the huge Pharmas who said that they followed up on 33 *published* papers alleging that this or that experiment indicated a cure for various cancers. When they attempted to replicate the experiments – 27 of them failed to work. Journals – heh!

  74. #75 luminous beauty
    April 24, 2012

    [Karen](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/april_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6262137) apparently believes an on-line survey somehow approaches the rigor of a scientific poll.

    How sad is that?

  75. #76 Betula
    April 24, 2012

    jrkrideau @520…

    “The apple trees in Southern Ontario budded early this year do to the warm weather.

    Did you mean weather or climate?

    “Of course, in the last few days we’ve had unusual frost and snow so it looks like most of the apple crop is lost in much of Ontario.”

    Same thing happened in 2008:

    http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/hort/news/hortmatt/2008/07hrt08a3.htm

    And if freezing and frost damage is so unusual, why spend all the time and money on technologies to prevent it?

    http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/724481/leading-edge-technology-to-protect-orchards-and-vineyards

    “So Jeff may not have been inconvenienced but a few thousand fruit farmers have been.”

    I think you should ask Jeff’s travel partner if frostbite is inconvenient.

  76. #77 Lionel A
    April 24, 2012

    Duff ol’ wise one WRT your #518 do you know which Admiral it was who didn’t say that and why?

    Never mind, our knowledge of climate change does not rely totally on the reading of thermometers don’t you know.

    What form of heat do thermometers NOT inform us about?

    Why is this important?

    And

    how do we know this is important, or to put it another way what factors in our world are changing, and at an increasing rate, that tell us that the system as a whole is storing heat faster than getting rid?

    What happens if this process continues to a conclusion? Hint Stefan-Boltzmann may help you there.

    As for the Lovelock quotes if Alex Jones and Marc Morono are pushing this then it is certain to be a valid point of view isn’t it. NOT!

    Sorry but I could not bear to listen to that Alex Jones UTube imitation of a vapid bull-horn, one of similar brand to that displayed by Morono – their tones are an insult to the human voice and more equivalent to those of howler monkeys.

    Sorry all howler monkeys for implying that you lack intelligence, is Duff amongst your number swinging through the canopy, he will let your side down if he is?

  77. #78 Lionel A
    April 24, 2012

    Duff @ 528 dropped this on the carpet:

    …I have just been looking at a U. of Colorado graph which seems to show sea levels virtually levelling off since 2006.

    Well maybe you would like to share the PRECISE citation of that with us, but I doubt you will for it is almost certain to have been excreted during a Monckton manoeuvre.

  78. #79 John
    April 24, 2012

    Stop lying Duff.

    >I did not forecast would rise, or fall come to that, because frankly I haven’t a clue about it one way or t’other

    Why are you lying Duff? You have consistently supported Morner’s conspiracy theories about tilted equipment and lies about the Maldives.

    You boasted that his projections would turn out to be accurate, even though his observations were fraudulent and obviously manipulated to serve his conspiracy theories.

    Funny how when you are wrong you suddenly have “no clue”. At last, you’ve said something I agree with!

    >because I have just been looking at a U. of Colorado graph which seems to show sea levels virtually levelling off since 2006.

    Oh, suddenly you DO have a clue!

    Except that your previous position was there there had been no sea level rise at all because scientists were tilting the equipment.

    Truth:

    >Willis said that while 2010 began with a sizable El Niño, by year’s end, it was replaced by one of the strongest La Niñas in recent memory. This sudden shift in the Pacific changed rainfall patterns all across the globe, bringing massive floods to places like Australia and the Amazon basin, and drought to the southern United States.

    >Data from the NASA/German Aerospace Center’s twin Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) spacecraft provide a clear picture of how this extra rain piled onto the continents in the early parts of 2011. “By detecting where water is on the continents, Grace shows us how water moves around the planet,” says Steve Nerem, a sea level scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

    >So where does all that extra water in Brazil and Australia come from? You guessed it–the ocean. Each year, huge amounts of water are evaporated from the ocean. While most of it falls right back into the ocean as rain, some of it falls over land. “This year, the continents got an extra dose of rain, so much so that global sea levels actually fell over most of the last year,” says Carmen Boening, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist. Boening and colleagues presented these results recently at the annual Grace Science Team Meeting in Austin, Texas.

    >But for those who might argue that these data show us entering a long-term period of decline in global sea level, Willis cautions that sea level drops such as this one cannot last, and over the long-run, the trend remains solidly up. Water flows downhill, and the extra rain will eventually find its way back to the sea. When it does, global sea level will rise again.

    So you are right, but as usual, so wrong. Where’s your scepticism?

    You’re an intellectual lightweight and a liar Duff.

    >Calm down, dear, you don’t seriously believe that the only trustworthy scientific opinions are published in journals, do you?

    Yes. That’s why the deniers gloat at length whenever they *do* get published, no matter how obscure the journal.

  79. #80 John
    April 24, 2012

    >Karen apparently believes an on-line survey somehow approaches the rigor of a scientific poll.

    Karenmackspot also believes that Al Gore is behind the tugnsten/gold bar scandal, that governments are keeping free energy down, that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist and that the UN is using global warming to install a New World Order.

    Amusingly I don’t see the other deniers here call him up on any of this. I know they have to stick together against the horrible alarmists, but it’s comical the way they look the other way when Karenmackspot’s sockpuppetry and past conspiritorial nutbaggery is brought to their attention.

  80. #81 Jeff Harvey
    April 24, 2012

    Betula,

    Its not called weather when the trend overt the past 60 years has shown warmer winters and springs in a large region. The it becomes significant. In western and southern Europe there have been even more dramatic changes over the past 50 years. And of course we have the biological data to prove it – range and altitudinal shifts, changes in seasonal phenology etc. As I have said Nature does not lie, it just responds.

    The trouble is, you deniers cannot make up your minds what you want to deny – that its warming or not or whether humans are responsible for it or not. You see, science is not on your side, and never will be, but the political and corporate establishment are. They don’t want things to change, they like the short-term status quo and are using every means at their disposal to ensure their minority views are what matter. Its too bad that schmucks in the general population – like you, Duff, Sunspot/Karen etc., are happy to be duped.

    As for Lovelock, the guy is 92 years old. His Gaia hypothesis, formulated along with Lynn Margulis in 1972, was groundbreaking at the time, in that it attempted to link various scales of organization in ecological systems, from individuals to communities to ecosystems to biomes. Given what we’ve learned since then, it was a remarkable contribution to the science of ecology. However, it shows you how desperate the deniers are when they cite a 92 year old scientist who is not saying now that humans are not driving climate change – he still thinks very much that we are – but that it might not occur as rapidly as he thought 10 years ago. One retired non-climate scientist mollifies his views and you sad lot are screaming from the rooftops? One down, another 500,000 plus scientists to go. And of all people Lovelock should realize that to force a system which operates over enormous scales out of sync takes more than a dozen years. In the long term, the rapid rise in atmospheric C02 concentrations will – indeed is – generate a rise in surface temperature, but in the short term (of which 12 years fits right into that category) there will be flux. Its too bad that the comic-book level educated deniers on this thread do not have a clue about the importance of scale in the Earth and life sciences.

  81. #82 Lionel A
    April 24, 2012

    Jeff @ 497

    Yes and Chip, as if on cue, has jumped in here Global Warming Causing Heat Fatalities , even managing to cite an article by he and Greening Earth has-been Michaels.

  82. #83 Betula
    April 24, 2012

    Jeff @536…

    “Its not called weather when the trend overt the past 60 years has shown warmer winters and springs in a large region.”

    So you’re saying jrkrideau @520 was wrong when he/she stated “The apple trees in Southern Ontario budded early this year do to the warm weather, perhaps two or three weeks or so”. What he/she should have said is….”due” to the warm CLIMATE. Got it.

    The good news is, it isn’t the early budding that damages the fruit, but the frost that follows afterwards. As the climate gets warmer, perhaps there won’t be any frost to damage the fruit. Of course, that’s just me speculating on a hypothetical.

    You continue with this:

    “In western and southern Europe there have been even more dramatic changes over the past 50 years.”

    I thought we were talking about Ontario? What happened to Ontario?

    Are you saying “the trend overt the past 60 years has shown warmer winters and springs” in Ontario? And if so, why didn’t you answer my question @498 regarding your Algonquin trip:

    “Jeff, I don’t doubt that plant zones are constantly shifting to some degree, but could you share some, if any, of the ecological consequences you experienced first hand?”

  83. #84 ianam
    April 24, 2012

    If the approach offered for consideration by GingerBaker were ever enacted, I would hope for Chip Knappenberger to be one of the first in line.

  84. #85 ianam
    April 24, 2012

    Calm down, dear, you don’t seriously believe that the only trustworthy scientific opinions are published in journals, do you? If so, you are in for some sad disillusionment. I was reading the other day the words of the head of research for one of the huge Pharmas who said that they followed up on 33 published papers alleging that this or that experiment indicated a cure for various cancers. When they attempted to replicate the experiments – 27 of them failed to work.

    Being dumber than dirt, Duff confuses the assertion that, for a claim to be trustworthy it must be published in a peer-reviewed journal, with the assertion that, if a claim is published in a peer-reviewed journal, it must be trustworthy … his news item (as well as the denialist crap that has managed to make it into peer-reviewed journals) only refutes the latter.

  85. #86 Geoff Beacon
    April 24, 2012

    ianam

    Here’s a trustworthy scientific claim that isn’t peer reviewed but from a very good climate scientist. It’s on the current state of climate models:

    5.              more forest fires

    We don’t do yet, but could be important for changing ecosystems response to climate.
     
    6.              melting permafrost

    [For COe,CH4] we don’t have in the GCM, but have some simple modelling of.
    Too early to show any results yet, but we plan to publish later this year.
    Bottom line is that both CH4 and CO2 will be released as permafrost thaws.
    The magnitude is uncertain, but likely to be significant.
     
    7.              increased decomposition of wetlands

    We have in HadGEM2 but didn’t enable as a fully coupled feedback,
    but we can diagnose changes in wetland extent and CH4 emissions
     
    I would add that although these things may be important, they are not always easy
    to quantify, model, initialize  and validate, especially 5-7.
    That is why is taking time to implement them.

    I’d say that although it’s not peer reviewed it’s very trustworthy.

  86. #87 Geoff Beacon
    April 24, 2012

    (My previous entry was the last time I’ll try and use markdown)

    ianam

    Here’s a trustworthy scientific claim that isn’t peer reviewed but from a very good climate scientist. It’s on the current state of climate models:

    5. more forest fires

    We don’t do yet, but could be important for changing ecosystems response to climate.

    6. melting permafrost

    [For COe,CH4] we don’t have in the GCM, but have some simple modelling of. Too early to show any results yet, but we plan to publish later this year. Bottom line is that both CH4 and CO2 will be released as permafrost thaws.
    The magnitude is uncertain, but likely to be significant.

    7. increased decomposition of wetlands

    We have in HadGEM2 but didn’t enable as a fully coupled feedback, but we can diagnose changes in wetland extent and CH4 emissions

    I would add that although these things may be important, they are not always easy to quantify, model, initialize and validate, especially 5-7. That is why is taking time to implement them.

    I’d say that although it’s not peer reviewed it’s very trustworthy.

  87. #88 Geoff Beacon
    April 24, 2012

    What’s this about?

    [Study Finds Surprising Arctic Methane Emission Source](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120424145145.htm)

    Perhaps it doesn’t exist because it’s not peer reviewed.

    …OK. I did use markdown here. I keep changing my mind. I can’t have one of those [Republican brains.](http://www.amazon.com/The-Republican-Brain-Science-Science/dp/1118094514)

  88. #89 bill
    April 24, 2012

    Geoff,

    I’m about a third of the way through Mooney’s book. Many of our Denier friends really should read it to find out why they are as they are; and why even overwhelming evidence can’t change them.

    If you think we’re pathologising you, guys, I can only say: nowhere near as much as your performance here is!

    Note the one-star ‘I didn’t read this book, but I did read the title and I know it’s crap’ reviews on Amazon there? Among the 4 or 5 star reviews from actual readers? Much like Mann’s, no?

    I rather enjoyed the one that says

    The only thing that is going to prevent Republicans from hating this book is that they’re probably not going to read it.

  89. #90 bill
    April 24, 2012

    ‘Karen’, is this you, perhaps?

  90. #91 Chris O'Neill
    April 24, 2012

    Dumb Duff:

    you don’t seriously believe that the only trustworthy scientific opinions are published in journals, do you?

    Yep, obviously still dumb. I wasn’t asking about whether this was possible. I was asking about Gaia. Dumb Duff misses the point again.

  91. #92 Fran Barlow
    April 24, 2012

    Those interested in supporting Grahame Readfern over at his blog on the Anna Rose v Minchin I can engage in a flawed debate on Climate Change can follow the link to do battle.

    I’ve had my say.

  92. #93 bill
    April 25, 2012

    More popcorn moments – more baaaad News for Murdoch and Cameron.

  93. #94 Lionel A
    April 25, 2012

    Fran @ 547

    I have had my say.

    Well done for stepping in there.

    But doesn’t it feel like swimming against the current – in the limited sense of the many replies from those who cannot tell the difference between the state of the cryosphere fifteen years ago and now or who think pointing to Marano as an arch-propagandist using scatter-gun Gish Gallops is a strawman – the DK is strong with that one as Yoda might say. How little some realise that they are proving Graham’s points – delta-kilo strong again.

  94. #95 lord_sidcup
    April 25, 2012

    Lord Lawson’s “educational” “charity” the Global Warming Policy Foundation has submitted its annual accounts for the period to Jul 2011. Membership fees total £14,330. The annual memebrship fee is £100 pa plus “however much you feel you can afford”, so they can only have a maximum of 143 members and likely even fewer. Hardly grass roots stuff. Donations from other sources – plutocrats, corporations, lobby groups, etc. – totals £140,834, down from last years total of £494,625 when they must have received very hefty seed donations from plutocrats, corporations, and lobby groups.

  95. #96 Betula
    April 25, 2012

    Bill @544…

    “I’m about a third of the way through Mooney’s book. Many of our Denier friends really should read it to find out why they are as they are”

    Bill, just be sure to heed Mooney’s advice in the conclusion…

    Page 270. “Take Liberals and President Obama. He’s the best hope-in fact, the only one.”

    “But guess what liberals: Obama needs you right now. He needs your trust, your devotion.”

    “You should defer to his judgement, and give him…your faith.”

    You see Bill, you should never question “The One”.

    Now bow and obey Bill… bow and obey. You are getting very sleepy…now bow and obey…

  96. #97 chek
    April 25, 2012

    You see Bill, you should never question “The One”. Now bow and obey Bill… bow and obey. You are getting very sleepy…now bow and obey…

    .

    Thanks for the free and entirely complementary illustration of The Moronic Brain, Betula.

    Of course, urging collective political action to prevent extremist right wing nutters like Santorum and Palin and Gingrich and Paul and Bachman and cowards like Romney gaining real power is exactly the same thing as mindless hypnotic control by Barack ‘Svengali’ Obama. Of course it is … if you’re a moron.

    And yes, some of those contenders have since dropped out – but they were serious possibilities for a while.

  97. #98 ianam
    April 25, 2012

    Now you’re seriously twisting what I think.

    I did not seriously twist anything, you accomodationist buffoon. If you don’t want to own Keith Kloor’s BS, then don’t cite it approvingly.

    Here’s a trustworthy scientific claim that isn’t peer reviewed but from a very good climate scientist.

    I didn’t say there are no trustworthy scientific claims that aren’t peer reviewed, I merely pointed out that Duff’s argument is fallacious.

    That said, what makes it trustworthy … you saying so? Lots of true and valid claims are made outside of peer reviewed journals, but the peer review process adds a level of trust.

  98. #99 ianam
    April 25, 2012

    Perhaps it doesn’t exist because it’s not peer reviewed.

    Perhaps you’re dim. Check the Journal Reference at the end of the article.

  99. #100 ianam
    April 25, 2012

    Those interested in supporting Grahame Readfern over at his blog

    If he had to depend on the comments there for support then he would be in a very sorry way … which is the essence of his argument against the show — it’s a flawed debate.

Current ye@r *