May 2012 Open thread


  1. #1 Harald Korneliussen
    May 1, 2012

    There haven’t been too many threads lately, only the monthly open threads (which I believe are posted automatically), and Tim Lambert doesn’t participate in them.

    What’s up?

  2. #2 Marion Delgado
    May 1, 2012

    I think tim’s students’ battlebots have cornered him in his house and are blocking most communications out.

  3. #3 London Skeptic
    May 1, 2012

    We’re waiting for an update! What’s up Tim?

  4. #4 MikeH
    May 1, 2012

    Tim is busy negotiating with investors to build a biogas plant with the Jonas thread as feedstock.

  5. #5 Billy Bob Hall
    May 2, 2012

    Harald. #1 Tim doesn’t participate (or even allow me to comment) because he is plain ole scared I think.
    Global warming is officially ended ! First of May is international ‘Global Warming’ Has Ended Day !
    [Have I ‘won the internet’ yet ? ;-)]

  6. #6 David Duff
    May 2, 2012

    I reckon he’s seen the light and left you lot to swing in the wind!

  7. #7 bill
    May 2, 2012

    Your credibility issues are terminal I’m afraid, Duffer.

    Your Dark Lord doesn’t seem to be doing so well, either…

  8. #8 Jeff Harvey
    May 2, 2012

    *I reckon he’s seen the light and left you lot to swing in the wind!*

    Um, I can vouch for the fact that this is absolutely not true…

    Try again Duffer……

  9. #9 Composer99
    May 2, 2012

    Is anyone else having trouble loading Skeptical Science? I’ve been trying almost all day to view it and only once managed early this morning.

  10. #10 chek
    May 2, 2012

    No problem here, composer (NW UK). [This site can be useful]( – http: // downforeveryoneorjustme. com – to check for issues.

    You can also try clearing your DNS cache – google ‘flush DNS’ and choose accordingly, as directions for PC and Mac are different.

    Having said that, none of that worked when Scienceblogs went down for a few weeks a couple of years back. It turned out that SB had blocked a bunch of IP blocks which included some UK ISPs in order to IIRC prevent some DDOS attacks originating from Turkey.

    In which case, connecting via a free offshore proxy server may be the answer.


  11. #11 Bernard J.
    May 2, 2012


    Yes, I had issues too, but SkS reloads fine now.

  12. #12 SBVOR
    May 2, 2012


    Care to tell us all again about all those phony death threats against all those snake oil salesmen?

    For the uninitiated, just search this silly little propaganda blog for:
    death threats

    Oh, never mind…
    Timmy will never post this comment anyway.

  13. #13 MikeH
    May 2, 2012

    More [windfarm woo]( in the Australian from James Delingpole the “the interpreter of interpretations”.

    Lloyd interviewed a number of victims whose lives had been ruined by the vast, swooshing wind towers looking over their homes. They found sleep almost impossible; they couldn’t concentrate; they had night sweats, headaches, palpitations, heart trouble. Their chickens were laying eggs without yolks; their ewes were giving birth to deformed lambs; their once-active dogs spent their days staring blankly at the wall.

    Professor Simon Chapman, School of Public Health, University of Sydney is maintaining a register titled “Is there anything not caused by wind farms?” [here](

  14. #14 bill
    May 3, 2012


    What, no rains of blood and pestilences involving boils?

    Check this out 😉

    The Hot Topic blog is plagued with this BS, mostly generated by a single alumnus of the University of Bishop Hill.

    The level of hysteria among ‘skeptic’ anti-wind proponents is genuinely remarkable, even by Denier standards, and more than a little chilling… In all seriousness, the hatred – and I use the word advisedly – is palpable.

    I really think they are genuinely afraid: wind working out means a viable alternative future is possible, and their little world – usually devoted to a species Libertarian ultra-Capitalism that they somehow imagine is ‘Conservative’ – will then fall apart.

    So they hate the wind with all the fury of cornered fanatics. Hence I’m little surprised the Oz is joining in.

  15. #15 Sou
    May 3, 2012

    [Christian Kerr in The Australian]( seems to be saying that sending intimidatory emails and making physical threats to climate scientists is okay as long as the perpetrators aren’t overtly threatening to kill scientists.

  16. #16 lord_sidcup
    May 3, 2012

    Delingpole has plumbed new depths driven by his pathological hatred of science and his desire for publicity for his cruddy ‘Watermelons’ screed. I won’t link to the article – you can find it yourself, but you’ll need a strong stomach. The stuff about Phil Jones is way beyond what should be allowed by any newspaper.

  17. #17 lord_sidcup
    May 3, 2012

    I should add that Delingpole’s hate-mongering is based in part on the article in The Australian that Sou links to in #13.

  18. #18 Karen
    May 3, 2012

    Tch Tch Tch

    another hole in the Swiss cheese armor.

  19. #19 rhwombat
    May 3, 2012

    Tch Tch Tch
    What’s that Skip? Karen’s fallen down an antipodean Delingpole hole and can’t be Jonased getting out? Well I’ll be Duffed!

  20. #20 Lionel A
    May 3, 2012

    Sou @ 13

    The Australian and Higher Education – there is a conflict of interest straight away.

    And no I am not going to pay to see what is beyond the pay-wall – contribute to Murdoch’s legal defence fund – NEVER!

    As for Delingtrole, if that MikeH’s #11 is a quote from ‘the interpreter’ then it looks like plagiarism straight from the Witch Finder’s Hand-book.

    As for Delingtrole having to suck up to his environment editor by claiming him as a hero – poor love to have such petty horizons.

  21. #21 Mack
    May 3, 2012

    Are all the faithful here eagerly looking forward to the carbon tax? 🙂

  22. #22 Boobialla
    May 3, 2012

    Don’t bite

  23. #23 Boobialla
    May 3, 2012

    Look, a squirrel!
    So how does Delingtroll keep getting away with it?
    Being a super-bitch or something?

  24. #24 Bernard J.
    May 3, 2012

    [Foulkazzamackiesunspot]( asks:

    >Are all the faithful here eagerly looking forward to the carbon tax?

    Well, I for one can’t wait. I live a very frugal life, and I will be hundreds of dollars in front when it starts.

    Bring it on I say. With bells. The sooner, the better.

  25. #25 Sou
    May 3, 2012

    Following on from the piece in the Australian I referred to earlier (#13), one could surmise that Christian Kerr is of the opinion that [death threats, like the graphic ones Andrew Macintosh reported getting,]( are okay as long as they arrive by snail mail, not email.

  26. #26 Wow
    May 3, 2012

    No, I think the more accurate delineation of the moral decision is:

    Death threats are OK as long as they’re hippie green eco-nazi-commies.

    And they get to say who is in that group.

  27. #27 Bernard J.
    May 3, 2012


    [Permit me](…

    Ignore the sarcasm at the bottom of the link – it has nothing to do with my point. I’m simply drawing attention to what some know about holes in walls.


  28. #28 David Duff
    May 3, 2012

    Do you know, and I realise you will be amazed at this, but sometimes I don’t think those Aussie ‘warmers’ take me seriously! Well, I mean, I threatened to hit our distinguished host over the head with a wet sponge until he relented and opened his eyes to reality which, of course, was taken by some of you ‘feebles’ as a “death threat”. But now someone has had the temerity to suggest that I didn’t mean it and that in reality I’m a harmless old codger who has read too many Jack Reacher stories! Well, let me tell you, I can turn really nasty when I’m riled – so watch it!

    Oh, and guess what, it’s still not getting any warmer even as the CO2 pours out in ever increasing amounts. ‘Something wrong with our bloody . . .’, ooops, sorry, used that one before and none of you science swots understood it!

  29. #29 Bernard J.
    May 3, 2012

    David Duff.

    There are several plausible explanations – not mutually exclusive – for your disagreement with the professions of climatology and physics, but none of these reasons are flattering to you:

    1. you’re uneducated
    2. you’re not intelligent
    3. you’re suffering with advancing dementia
    4. you’re ideologically opposed to admitting physical fact
    5. you’re politically opposed to admitting physical fact
    6. you’d rather make maximal profit that admit physical fact.

    Oh, and warming’s stopped, ya think? Well, before you go hammering too many nails into the lid of the coffin in which your festering reputation moulders, you might try circumventing the implications of the above list and ponder on [some fairly easily understood science](

    Or you could simply continue to drool idiocy all over the blankie on your lap.

  30. #30 Lionel A
    May 3, 2012

    Bernard J @ 27

    I think Duff is all of those as he has refused to answer any questions including those here. So who was the Admiral that you are misquoting?

    On heat here are some clues:

    May 1 News: Warming Oceans Are A Threat To The Critically Endangered Right Whale, Scientists Say


    Nature: Antarctica Is Melting From Below, Which ‘May Already Have Triggered A Period of Unstable Glacier Retreat’

    Now do you as an ex second-hand car salesman begin to understand why water is used as the base of a coolant system mix?

    Further those rogue scientists, example spotlighted here, who still try to claim that there has been little or no warming over the last nn many years are being increasingly called out for no longer being engaged in science in any meaningful way but advocacy in the public domain. They continue to do this because idiots like you believe them or are ideologically, and illogically, inspired by their message.

  31. #31 Michael
    May 3, 2012

    Seems there was only one explicit death threat……therefore there were none?

  32. #32 GSW
    May 3, 2012


    Thanks for the “Science” link. The most interesting thing about it was that SKS now seems to be reduced to getting it’s “Science” from newspaper articles – in this case the Houston Chronicle.

    What happened to the “peer reviewed studies” you’re always crowing about, I thought everything else was just malicious gossip!

  33. #33 David Duff
    May 3, 2012

    Bernard, in reply to yours, and in order:
    1: No, everyone in the western world is ‘educated’.
    2: Depends what you mean by ‘intelligent’.
    3: Not yet but sometimes on ‘warmer’ blogs I begin to wonder!
    4: No, and ‘physical fact’ has severe limitations as you should know being, er, ‘educated’.
    5: As above
    6: I would admit anything to make a profit, dammit, I used to be a second-hand car dealer!

    Anyway, Bernard, I think it’s time you brushed up on *your* physics starting, perhaps, with ‘uncertainty’!

  34. #34 bill
    May 3, 2012

    Why don’t you just go back to suckling on the teat of the State, Duffer?

  35. #35 Mack
    May 3, 2012

    Well that leaves you and the money-handlers rubbing their hands in anticipation of the carbon tax Bernie. Anybody else?

  36. #36 MikeH
    May 3, 2012

    Weasel @ 29
    An article from John Nielsen-Gammon, Texas State Climatologist and a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University which expands on the peer reviewed science from [Foster & Rahmstorf (2011)](

    Shorter Weasel
    I got nothing.

  37. #37 GSW
    May 3, 2012


    I think you’ve missed the point. Maybe this will help you, currently listed under “latest news” from the Houston Chronicle,

    Massage parlors raided in prostitution sting.

    Police ID baby in fridge.

    Penis cut in killing.

    The latest SKS referenced climate “paper” fits in quite well I suppose, but it’s not exactly “Nature” is it?


  38. #38 Bernard J.
    May 3, 2012


    If you think that the Skeptical Science piece has no validity because John N-G wrote in a newspaper, take your protestations directly to the thread itself.

    I know that you won’t though. You don’t have the cahoonas.

  39. #39 bill
    May 3, 2012

    Here’s an interesting discussion of Duffer’s favourite relative’s – that’s dear old Uncle Rupert, of course – current, um, situation.

  40. #40 Lotharsson
    May 3, 2012

    > I think you’ve missed the point.

    … says GSW, desperately hoping no-one will notice he’s entirely avoiding discussing the point of Foster & Rahmstorf 2011.

    But we saw what you did there.

  41. #41 Chris O'Neill
    May 4, 2012

    it’s still not getting any warmer

    No, it’s getting warmer because of all those windmills.

  42. #42 Chris O'Neill
    May 4, 2012

    but it’s not exactly “Nature” is it

    where all the best and most scientifically innovative papers are published.

  43. #43 John
    May 4, 2012

    So we have one troll who thinks an article isn’t valid because it was published in a newspaper and not peer reviewed (oh, the irony) while ignoring a similar article that *was* peer-reviewed, and another troll who thinks an ariel photograph of New Zealand is a better indicator for sea level rise than the actual measured data.

    Edifying stuff.

  44. #44 John
    May 4, 2012

    >Thanks for the “Science” link. The most interesting thing about it was that SKS now seems to be reduced to getting it’s “Science” from newspaper articles – in this case the Houston Chronicle.

    >What happened to the “peer reviewed studies” you’re always crowing about

    In fact, there are so many papers confirming the AGW hypothesis that Skeptical Science have to collate them all into a single post every week or two to stop them cluttering up the page.

    That’s what happened to them.

    GSW, if you did cursory research before posting you might not be humiliated so routinely.

  45. #45 ianam
    May 4, 2012

    We get your point, GSW, the point you make with every post: you’re intellectually dishonest to the core.

  46. #46 ianam
    May 4, 2012

    You don’t have the cahoonas.

    Even GSW realizes that, in a thread containing rational comments about the science and the evidence, “that article was published in a newspaper that mentions prostitutes, penises, and babies, nyurk nyurk” would be out of place.

  47. #47 GSW
    May 4, 2012

    @Bernard, John, Ianamoron

    It’s purely an observation that is all. For all the carping from lot about “blog post” science and the “non peer reviewed literature”, you’re all too happy to employ these resources when it suits.

    Don’t have a go at me just because you realised your own hypocrisy.

  48. #48 chek
    May 4, 2012

    I realise you’re as equally thick and/or dishonest as Betula GSW, but an MSM article by an accredited climate scientist referencing peer reviewed papers can’t be trashed by a moron like you claiming some phoney equivalence, however much you think you’re being ‘clever’.

    I expect your fellow crank Jonarse may give you as pat on the head.

  49. #49 Sou
    May 4, 2012

    The [Heartland Institute]( has gone completely insane. Putting up billboards of criminals to ‘prove’ climate science is a scam – lol.

    Next target for Heartland is to use criminals to prove gravity doesn’t exist, the earth is flat, aeroplane’s can’t fly and the moon is made of cheese.

    A case of mass dementia by this club of ultra-conservative white male americans?

  50. #50 chek
    May 4, 2012

    Brent @ #46. yes [we got the reference]( Brent – two weeks ago. Apparently it’s not quite so funny when it’s redirected back at you cretins.

  51. #51 ianam
    May 4, 2012

    I would like to point out once again that “ianam” stands for “I am not a moron”, so GSW spelling out ianamoron just further establishes him as an imbecile … as if that weren’t clear enough from his cretinous logic that supposedly shows us our hypocrisy based on Bernard J. pointing to the SkS article as an example of easily understood science.

    And Brent, another moronic troll who has wandered out of his dungeon upon noticing the absence of the gatekeeper, is too stupid to grasp that the HI did exactly that: they put up billboards of lunatics who believe in Global Warming.

    Unfortunately, neither the deniers displaying so clearly their immense moral and intellectual failings nor our pointing them out does a damn thing to solve the problems we face.

  52. #52 chek
    May 4, 2012

    Incidentally, for anyone tired of the non-stop cabaret that is the recently mentioned Jonarse thread, [Dr. Inferno]( is back online, sticking it to them as only he can. Well, him and [the Baron]( of course.

  53. #53 ianam
    May 4, 2012

    As for the characteristics that distinguish us from the Brents, GSWs, et. al., see The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science–and Reality

  54. #54 ianam
    May 4, 2012

    “everybody was worried about Global Cooling in the 1970s”

    Deniers lie for sport.

  55. #55 ianam
    May 4, 2012

    “normal people go about their daily lives ignoring the eco-loons who find apocalypse in every raindrop, in every blade of grass”

    It is indeed true that you are not a normal person, Mr Hargreaves. Even by denier standards you’re psychopathic.

  56. #56 Chris O'Neill
    May 4, 2012


    When everybody was worried about Global Cooling in the 1970s

    Sure, if you say so.

    some numpty proposed pumping CO2 into the atmosphere to keep us warm

    That was Arhennius around the year 1900 BTW. I know you data-denialists are retarded but please try to keep up.

  57. #57 chek
    May 4, 2012

    Great stuff Brent – hopefully that’s you satisfied with the Wattard’s level of stupidity and now you can go visit your idiocy elsewhere.

    While you’re there, get a big book which explains hard words, and see if you can understand the difference between the meanings of ‘event’ and ‘trend’.

  58. #58 chek
    May 4, 2012

    but in 1972 the big fear tabloid scare story was cooling.

    Corrected that for you Brent.

    From your own link (as is usually the case when morons link to their ‘proof’):
    “This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles.

    In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the twentieth century.

    Somehow I doubt you’re even capable of understanding the difference.

  59. #59 Jeff Harvey
    May 4, 2012

    I hope Tim returns here soon and edits out the idiots who are polluting his site big time! Deltoid is being taken over by an army of complete and utter morons. Brent was once banned, ventures back, and then begins a massive offensive (in more ways than one). He cites Wikipedia to support his long-discredited global cooling myth of the 1970s, when in the very second line it says this:

    *This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community*

    One can add illiteracy to his other attributes.

  60. #60 Betula
    May 4, 2012

    ianam @50…
    I call myself ianam because I need to convince myself that “I Am Not A Moron”

    moron @45…
    I call Betula “dishonest” because I need to convince myself that he is.

  61. #61 David Duff
    May 4, 2012

    That’s the true ‘warmer’ spirit, Jeff, ban them because they dare to contradict – well done, that man!

    As for the cooling scare in the ’70s I can vouch for it not least because I lived through it and sneered at it in precisely the same way I sneer at its successor! At the time, Newsweek provided a detailed report on the subject quoting spokesmen from the NOAA, professors from Columbia and Wisconsin Universities, and sundry “meteorologists” and “climatologists” but of course, according to the denizens of this site, they were not “real scientists”. And quite right, too, any more than they are “real scientists” now! They’re just lab assistants with a veneer of knowledge but a sharp eye for a bandwagon with incoming government grants.

  62. #62 chek
    May 4, 2012

    That’s the true ‘warmer’ spirit, Jeff, ban them because they dare to contradict

    No, I’d vote for confining them to their own well-earned ‘Threads of Shame’ (not banning) for continual and unrelenting stupidity. Not that I have a problem with banning – there are more than enough corporately funded outlets for encouraging stupidity such as Watts and Montford.

    As for the cooling scare in the ’70s I can vouch for it not least because I lived through it and sneered at it in precisely the same way I sneer at its successor! At the time, Newsweek provided a detailed report on the subject quoting spokesmen from the NOAA, professors from Columbia and Wisconsin Universities, and sundry “meteorologists” and “climatologists”

    … and very few published papers and most definitely no consensus.

    Not that you’re the least bit interested in the science, but cooling due to aerosol pollution was an unknown factor at the time, and some jumped to the conclusion that at this stage in our interglacial period we should be heading into another ice age.

    But we’re not and almost every scientist working in the climate related sciences accepts that despite leaving no stone unturned we are heading into a warming at a rate that may well overwhelm our capacity and the capacity of the natural world to adapt to.

    Still if you’re an ignorant pensioner with no interest or comprehension, it’s all the same thing, innit? Or you can adopt inane conspiracy theories like Brent, where you can imagine … well, whatever you like! No evidence required.

    At least it would free up some more bandwidth for intelligent, interested people to keep up with and discuss developments in climate science and research.

  63. #63 GSW
    May 4, 2012

    Yes I can vouch for the 1970’s MSM global cooling stories as well, It did actually happen. I remember a BBC Horizon program about it with James Burke, and Starsky and Hutch lookalike Steven Schneider pushing the unscientific (paraphrasing)

    “There tremendous uncertainty about this, but if it’s half as bad as we think it could be, we’re all f***ed”

    He continued with this weak style of advocacy for some time (until his death), the only thing that changed was a 180degree turnaround in his reasons for thinking it.

  64. #64 lord_sidcup
    May 4, 2012


    The Heartland Institute has gone completely insane. Putting up billboards of criminals to ‘prove’ climate science is a scam – lol.

    They should be careful, someone might retaliate using posters featuring ACC denier Anders Breivik. I sincerely hopeful no-one would consider crawling into the gutter with Heartland in that way.

    Lawson’s ‘educational’ ‘charity’ the Global Warming Policy Foundation isn’t averse to crawling into the gutter. A year ago they featured a picture of Osama Bin Laden on their website with the caption ‘Global warming spokesperson passes away’ until, that is, the Charity Commission told them they had to remove it because it was incompatable with their ‘educational’ status.

  65. #65 Wow
    May 4, 2012

    “and some jumped to the conclusion that at this stage in our interglacial period we should be heading into another ice age.”

    And “heading into” meant “in the next 10,000-40,000 years”.

    Of course, deniers hear “In the next five minutes!!!!” because they can then pretend that they’re actually, in some tiny way, actually sane.

  66. #66 Chris O'Neill
    May 4, 2012

    which side will YOU be on?

    I won’t be on the side of the data-denialists, never have been, never will be.

  67. #67 jrkrideau
    May 4, 2012

    I suppose Heartland’s next move is going to be a poster of the Pope? Goes well with Fidel.
    [Pontifical Academy of Science report on glaciers](…/pontifical…/PAS_Glacier_110511_final.pdf)

  68. #68 Betula
    May 4, 2012

    Jeff Harvey…

    I was just wondering why you never answered my question @498 in the April open thread 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?”

  69. #69 Wow
    May 4, 2012

    There’s no point answering you, Betty.

    In fact, there’s not much point in the question even if it hadn’t come from someone who has made it absolutely clear that there is nothing possible that would change their minds over AGW.

  70. #70 Jeff Harvey
    May 4, 2012


    If you are civil, I will. I just was washing my hands on the losers thread.

  71. #71 John
    May 4, 2012

    Brent now:

    >When everybody was worried about Global Cooling in the 1970s

    Brent then:

    >Most of my spare time is being spent on a new(ish) scare story I am hoping to launch: Global Cooling.


    >I hope we can all agree that the latest news on the AGW scare is all good. There’s Solar Cycle 24 which just doesn’t want to get started. This’ll help cool things down.


    >By the way, we STILL have frost in the mornings. It’s nearly May, fer Chrissakes! Outrageous! If a new Little Ice Age has started, triggered by a repeat of the Maunder Minimum, maybe we should be planning a major CO2 Production Programme. Brrr!

    Shorter Brent: “It’s absolutely outrageous that these lying scientists said we were about to go into an ice age in the 70’s ….. but we’re definitely about to go into an ice age this time! I mean at some point! Very soon!”

    >I agree with Sou. The Heartland Institute should instead put up billboards of lunatics who believe in Global Warming.

    Really? I thought the AGW hypothesis was “logical” and “watertight”. It’s interesting watching you get more extreme as your confidence in your own genius dissipates.

    Must have been that ranting about cold weather in 2010, a year that turned out to be the warmest on record.


    >It’s purely an observation that is all.

    Is “observation” the new “conjecture”? Code for “I don’t have to commit to anything I say”?

  72. #72 Betula
    May 4, 2012

    “There’s no point answering you, Betty”

    Wow answers a question he/she wasn’t asked by stating there’s no point in answering it.

    Comedy gold.

  73. #73 John
    May 4, 2012

    >Will you be proclaiming Global Cooling if we see, say, a -0.8C ‘temperature anomaly’.

    It hasn’t stopped you proclaiming “cooling”, even at a 0.75+ anomaly and even as it continues to warm (as you were forced to humiliatingly concede).

  74. #74 John
    May 4, 2012

    Brent, I am well aware you like to cloak your posts in “irony” and “conjecture” and sarcasm so you never have to be held to any of your angry rantings. This is what trolls do.

    Unfortunately, your faith dictates you have to believe in a cooling climate since you shrieked that any more warming would falsify whichever hypothesis you were claiming to believe with all your heart that week.

    When you regularly boast about “the promising correlation between sunspot cycles and temperature” and ramble about the “Maunder II” and Cycle 25, excuse me for coming to the conclusion that you expect imminent cooling.

    When challenege us to admit we are wrong if there is no temperature rise by 2060, excuse me for coming to the conclusion that you expect imminent cooling.

    Here’s a question – you claimed you would accept you were wrong if the temperature anomaly went over 0.75+ again within five years. It did in 2010, the year you proposed that. Do you now concede the “AGW hypothesis” is correct, as per your promise?

    Even better Brent, perhaps you can give your definitive answer on where all this excess heat is coming from? After all, the natural forcings as described by Foster & Rahmstorf tell us we should be cooling. We aren’t. You admit this. Since you are confident I am a “lunatic”, tell me – definitevly – what is going on.

    Explain to me why the air surface temps are rising, sea levels are rising, agricultural zones are shifting, heat content is rising in the oceans, the stratosphere is cooling, arctic ice is melting and why more energy is entering the Earth than leaving it if it isn’t the simple addtion of Co2 (a potent greenhouse gas) to the atmosphere?

    Since you are so confident in your views that you can dismiss me as a “lunatic” this should be easy. You should comprensively disassemble the entire theory in this thread now, including the definitive answer for what is happening to the climate in lieu of AGW.

  75. #75 Betula
    May 4, 2012

    Jeff @75…

    “If you are civil, I will”

    Well Jeff, it depends on your definition of civility. Let’s take a preliminary test before you answer any questions.

    Which of the following do you consider to be civil?:

    1.Jeff @436…”Betula, who must still be in his diapers”

    2.Jeff @436…”So Betula, sitting in his crib, would say that there is no problem”

    3.Jeff @436…”anti-environmental dupes like Betula”

    4.Jeff @463…”Betula youtwerp”

    5.Jeff @472…”From under what slimy rock did you emerge?”

    6.Jeff @472…”Your marbles are clearly rattling around a pretty empty noggin”.

    7.Jeff @492…”this is certainly well over your head.”

    8.Jeff @536…”Its too bad that schmucks in the general population – like you”

    9.Jeff @164…”and Betula are the intellectual equivalent of the ‘living dead'”

    10.Jeff @163…”Betula and sunspot are complete idiots”

    If you chose any one of the above, then the answer to your question is yes, I can be civil.

  76. #76 Wow
    May 4, 2012

    Ah, well, if we were to pull the same from YOUR dribblings, Betty, we’d have to ask Tim to increase the limits on post size.

    By the way, you’ve not said what point answering the question has, other than attracting attention to yourself.

  77. #77 Bernard J.
    May 4, 2012

    Ah, so you believe in global cooling do you Brent?

    Humour me, and tell us all what you predict will be the mean annual GISS January-December land-and-sea global temperature anomaly for the next WMO-defined El Niño year. I stuck my neck out [several months ago on Deltoid]( and at Tamino’s: let’s see how close to the mark (or not) you actually are.

    I really am curious to see what your opinion is on the subject, given that you are convinced that temperature will head in the opposite direction to that which physics and empirical evidence indicates.

    And all you other Dunningly-Krugered denialists shitting on the carpet here – I extend the same challenge to you.

  78. #78 Betula
    May 4, 2012

    Wow @74…
    “There’s no point answering you, Betty.”

    Wow again @74…”In fact, there’s not much point in the question”

    Wow @82…
    “By the way, you’ve not said what point answering the question has”


    1. I ask jeff a question and I get an answer from Wow stating “there’s no point in answering.”

    2. In the same breath, Wow adds that “there’s not much point in the question.”

    3. Wow then follows up by wondering why I have “not said what point answering the question has”

    4. Jeff hasn’t answered my question because he’s still trying to figure out if he’s civil enough to answer it.

  79. #79 Dave H
    May 4, 2012

    Lots of distracting frothing at the mouth from brenty et al. Damage control for the massive Heartland own goal I reckon.

    Seriously dumb dumb dumb move, particularly when the press release has some absolute whopping lies in it. Flat out, easily checked lies.

    Hilarious asshats.

  80. #80 Jeff Harvey
    May 4, 2012

    No Betula, I haven’t answered your question because I think you may be too stupid to understand it.

    Biome transition zones are characterized by often dramatic shifts in ecosystem properties, particularly in soil chemistry. Boreal forests are characterized by acid soils, whereas the Carolinian forests found only a few hundred kilometers south are characterized by alkaline soils. The biota – micro and macro invertebrates, soil fungi and bacteria are often strongly associated with certain types of soil chemistry and certain plant types. Mycorrhizal fungi are a good example. All species all exist within certain climatic envelopes characterized by an optimum and, away from this, increasingly sub-optimal conditions. If temperatures rise rapidly, as is currently happening in many temperate zones, then species adapted to certain other abiotic conditions will have to adapt. At strong transition zones, this will almost certainly be problematical. Deciduous forests will not magically move into acid soils when conditions become too warm in their own range. At the same time, habitat specialists in northern Carolinian forests (or southern boreal forests) will be squeezed between a rock and a hard place. Given that the deniers understanding of environmental science is virtually nil (just check out the comedy act known as Jonas-GSW-Olaus-Brent for that) its not hard to fathom we these illiterates think that its easy for an organism can just head north if the climate changes. They’ve done it before haven’t they? Well.. yes… but not at the rate they are expected to adapt now, nor on landscapes that have been already simplified dramatically by humans through the creation of urban and agricultural areas. And for soil organisms the constraints are even greater, given that they will, disperse much more slowly than their above-ground counterparts. So what will have to happen is that ecosystems will have to reassemble themselves, via new trophic chains and the dissipation of old ones. This is easier said than done. Putting aside Polar Bears, there are numerous studies showing climate change-related effects on species interactions and phenology.

    So what is the prognosis for the transition forests in Canada and the United States? Not good. Not good at all. Its just too bad that there aren’t enough scientists around to study the consequences of warming on these zones. But I have spoken to enough colleagues who have predicted how life zones will have to change to track predicted changes in temperature regimes. Its easier said than done.

  81. #81 Jeff Harvey
    May 4, 2012

    As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand. There were very few winter birds present, that was noticeable: few crossbills, redpolls, siskins, gray jays and others indicating low seed production in the conifers. One thing I did notice was that the winter collemboles were active in January – when normally you would not expect to see them until late February or even March. I also saw insects active from several other orders as well as spiders. Normally unheard of in january and early February. Yes, it was a very mild winter. Record warmth was experienced over much of eastern and central North America. The climate is certainly changing there.

  82. #82 Geoff Beacon
    May 4, 2012

    Mack @19 & @32

    [Tax carbon. Subsidise the jobs of the young](

    Time we did something for the young. We’ve screwed the world up.

  83. #83 chek
    May 4, 2012

    Gosh Brendy, them is awful big cost figures you is trying to scare your cretinous pals and any stray ignorami with.

    As you no doubt already know (chuckle), the nuke industry is very coy about its costs … but, holy cow! The wind farm build cost is only slightly more than the cost of decommissioning the nuke stations currently coming to the end of their lives: [“In May 2008 a senior director at the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority indicated that the figure of £73 billion might increase by several billion pounds”](, let alone the building of 10 new ones at [£4.8 billion each]( plus in turn their own similar decommissioning costs when their life is over. And the windfarm ‘fuel’ is ‘free’, with scrappage costs likely covering their own decommissioning when the time comes.

    Lets not even so much as mention the bank bail out amount of money (raised instantaneously – no consultation required) of £1,162 billion – or £1.62 trillion.

    Big programs require Big Money, Brenda.

    Meanwhile I recommend you stick to haranguing your local parish council about bin collections or dogshit or whatever. That would be much more in keeping with the scale of your mental (in every sense of the word) horizons.

  84. #84 GSW
    May 4, 2012

    Latest contribution from Josh, [mapping the debate](

  85. #85 lord_sidcup
    May 4, 2012

    I’ve just visited Brent’s blog [AND I’VE SEEN THE LIGHT – NOT!](

  86. #86 chek
    May 4, 2012

    Ooops… £1.62 trillion in #93 should be £1.162 trillion.
    However, just like Brenda, I too transfer the blame for the error.

    It’s just that, y’know, working with these sorts of figures every day, one gets sorta blasé. Two or three trillion here, sixteen or sixty billion there – who’s got the time to give a damn? It’s gullibles like Brenty that’s paying for it, whilst objecting to anything else but….

  87. #87 chek
    May 4, 2012

    [GSW @ 94:](
    I came across a book: [The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Humour](

    Would you pass it on to Josh, next time you slither over to Montford’s?

    God knows he needs help.

  88. #88 Mack
    May 4, 2012

    @ 70 jerkrideau, You don’t have to worry about the Pope.He’s got science alarmist Ramanathan (SOD’s favourite)feeding your bullshit AGW into his shell-like.
    @ 91 Geoff Beacon….perhaps,may,might,should,”could simultaneously stimulate employment”…. Same sort of words used in your science Geoff. See my perspective here…

  89. #89 Scribe
    May 4, 2012

    Brent, there is no debate I see here. We have warmists realist vs deniers, and it’s a bit like watching smart kids tease dull kids in class. I have yet to see even one valid and/or game changing point raised by the dull kids.

  90. #90 adelady
    May 4, 2012

    “I’ve just scanned some of the biggest Deltoid threads in an attempt to gauge who is winning the Warmist/Sceptic battle of ideas.”

    What the ….??!!!??

    Who cares? It wouldn’t matter if every single post, notion, sentence and phrase displayed on here agreed with any particular participant in this imaginary “battle of ideas”.

    Physics is the silent particpant, referee, judge, jury and executioner. Physics will ‘win’ – if that’s even a valid concept. Even if not a single word ever spoken, written or copy/pasted here referred to it.

    Not one of us can ‘win’ this so-called battle.

  91. #91 MikeH
    May 4, 2012

    Tim has a cockroach infestation – *blatella denialata* I believe. That’s what happens when you leave your house unattended for a while. Apparently they like the dark and feed on garbage.

  92. #92 Bernard J.
    May 4, 2012

    Adelady puts Brent’s logical fallacy to the fore.

    It matters not a whit that there are denialists here who cannot be converted, and who will instead remain recalcitrantly impervious to reason no matter how much they are shown it. One can lead a mule to water but one cannot make it drink, especially when it has already filled up at the Well of Stupid.

    Still, it’s interesting to see Brent’s (very poor) level of intellectual rigour.

    It’s also interesting to see Brent pad out his list of ‘good guys’ with obvious socks. It says a lot about what he has in his pants.

    On other matters, I’m not sure of the reason why [Brent wants to bring UAH into it](… unless of course it has something to do with his notion that “[a]s some here may have noticed, the competing UAH-MSU dataset has diverged from GISS, and now shows 0.3C lower.” Hmmm. Many have also noticed that the satellite data are prone to errors and other divergences from the empirical data collected at the surface…

    But back to the point. All these datasets are anomaly based – if there is no warming trend it shouldn’t matter which is used, as long as one is consistent. I chose GISS because it is defensibly more accurate than HadCRU or UAH: anyone who claims that there will be no further warming can do so without introducing other datasets.

    And way to go Brent, dodging my original reference to the next complete El Niño year and going for a year that’s already currently in progress. I’m not interested in whether you can read a chart that already shows a third of the data; I want to know what you think will happen in the near future, in the context of the underlying temperature trend.

  93. #93 Mack
    May 4, 2012

    Plenty of darkness and garbage around here MikeH, yum,yum 🙂

  94. #94 DarylD
    May 4, 2012

    Ah ,nice to see Duffer & beBunkum spreading the trash denial of reality around.

    In the mean time, “Heartland Institute” of very questionable tax exempt status, just took a shotgun to blow it’s mononeuron all over the beltway in Chicago.

    Joe Romm of ‘Climate Progress’, has the details here in this link :-

    Anthony Watts, kicks own goal on this matter and is not impressed by the actions of Joe Bast’s sole mononeuron. He believes, this action has sullied his activities and all “Climate Denialati”. He uses the title “Heartland’s Billboards and Joe Romm’s stunning hypocrisy”, thus kicking his own goal.

    As usual, in the current 262 spam bot comments. His readers musings, range from full on denial, cognitive dissonance, gish gallop and living on another planet. It is not the first time Anthony Watts, one track one thought a time mononeuron, has kicked his own goal and nor will it be the last either.

    Eli Rabett, has exposed yet another reason, as to why “Heartland Institute” , should have it’s ‘tax exempt’ status revoked by the IRS.


    Me, instead of sitting on the fence, now is the time to start assorted counter campaigns and pillory the various companies and corporate entities that support “Heartless Institute”. For watt goes around, comes around.

    The times, they are a changing!

  95. #95 MikeH
    May 5, 2012

    In your case it is BYO

  96. #96 Tim Lambert
    May 5, 2012

    brent infestation removed.

  97. #97 Jeff Harvey
    May 5, 2012


    Many thanks for this. Hope all is well with you.

  98. #98 Mack
    May 5, 2012

    Yes, hope all is well with you and yours Tim.

  99. #99 David Duff
    May 5, 2012

    Grab the smelling salts, Adelady, you are in for a shock! You see, I agree with you! Dread words, I know. But when you write “Physics is the silent particpant, referee, judge, jury and executioner” you are absolutely right.

    The problem, it seems to me, is that we are not dealing with classical physics in the sense of a force acting on an object. Instead we are trying to cope with a plethora of physical interactions taking place in a huge variety of times and places. The word ‘chaos’ hardly describes it. If you throw into the mix the fact that our means of measurement are crude and doubtful you can see that conjecture (or wishful thinking) in ALL directions has plenty of space in which to fly free. There-after, of course, psychology rules, not science! In the meantime, physics marches inexorably onwards and only “that old common arbitrater, Time” will settle it.

  100. #100 Bernard J.
    May 5, 2012

    >Yes, hope all is well with you and yours Tim.

    That’s doubly ironic, coming from a sock puppet who is breaking the rule that requires him to post only on the Sunspot thread.

1 2 3 8

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.