May 2012 Open thread

Comments

  1. #1 David Duff
    May 10, 2012

    Sorry for tehe repitions but the host server insisted!

  2. #2 Chris O'Neill
    May 10, 2012

    There are none so arrogant as those who entertain the idea that man can’t affect the global climate.

    Your statement is correct now Mack.

  3. #3 adelady
    May 10, 2012

    “None of these behaviours is ‘allowed’ under Darwinism whether it’s in earthworms or humans because it goes against the implacable, according to the man himself, drive to reproduce the species.”

    You really don’t get out much do you. Come to think of it, you don’t stay in much either. I can’t believe you’re the only person in the English speaking world who’s managed to miss every single minute of television news reports, documentaries and other presentations of the natural world.

    How on earth do you explain the reproductive ‘abstinence’ of most meerkats, bees and ants, just to get started with the best-known examples. Humans really aren’t terribly exceptional in organising themselves so that significant numbers of adults are allocated roles that assist in raising the children of their family, tribe or village rather than their own personal reproductive ‘success’.

    The ‘drive to reproduce the species’ is often well satisfied by being surrounded by healthy growing infants even if they’re not from your own loins. In humans we call it family feeling, we might call it self-sacrifice when non-parents or even complete strangers put themselves in danger to rescue unrelated children, but it’s all useful in producing, raising and teaching successive generations.

  4. #4 Stu
    May 10, 2012

    None of these behaviours is ‘allowed’ under Darwinism whether it’s in earthworms or humans because it goes against the implacable, according to the man himself, drive to reproduce the species.

    You’ve never read Darwin, have you? Could you please, please, please stop putting forth your glaring ignorance as some type of argument? Just by saying “allowed” you are showing you haven’t clue one.

  5. #5 Marion Delgado
    May 10, 2012

    I hope Tim Lambert actually does a book called “The Australian’s War on Science” and gets it out there while their are still traces of public awareness of the Murdoch Empire scandals.

  6. #6 bill
    May 10, 2012

    So, we’re actually going to argue Darwin and Evolution with someone who clearly hasn’t read him, equally clearly hasn’t read anything more recent, thinks altruism, celibacy and homosexuality are purely human phenomena, but nevertheless believes himself to be right, and backs himself with outlier arguments from ‘experts’ who can’t even grasp that from single-celled organisms there’s really only one direction in which ‘complexity’ can run.

    Gee, that’s almost like arguing with someone about the IPCC and AGW who hasn’t read an IPCC report, consults only Epistemic Closure world for sources of information, thinks CO2 is a harmless trace gas and anyway its the sun, but nevertheless believes himself to be right, and backs himself with outlier arguments from ‘experts’ who can’t even grasp the most basic laws of physics.

    Dear lurker, I hope the consistency in Stupid is painfully apparent.

    Other than that – Tim, if you are about – and I’d be delighted to hear the book Marion suggests was on the way! – once we start getting stuck in this kind of pointless and discursive loop the Duffer thread is long overdue, I’d say.

  7. #7 Mack
    May 10, 2012

    @300 Nice one Chris O Neil , but as Clint Eastwood would say…”a mans got to know his limitations”.

  8. #8 Bernard J.
    May 10, 2012

    >Nor, it seems, do you understand a simple point – homosexuality should not exist in any species not just Man, because it transgresses the basic tenets of Charles Darwin.

    FFS Duff, you really are a myopic prat.

    I’ve already hinted at this particular example, and it’s telling that you didn’t bother to do some background checking…

    I’ll make this brief, because it’s not my responsibility to teach you everything. In some examples of male homosexuality the genetic association indicates that those carrying the genetics are especially “male attracted” (trivially obvious, in practice). The thing is, this effect seems to manifest in females of the family too (if not in exactly the same way), and family tree analysis shows that the women in such lineages have a greater number of children than average – sufficient to counter any loss through non-reproducing males.

    Do you understand what this means for the generational continuance of the trait?

    If you can’t wrap your head around it, consider the fact that heterozygosity for sickle cell anæmia confers a survival advantage against malaria, even though the homozygotes are adversely affected. It’s not the same structural mechanism, but sufficiently similar that it should tweak some comprehension in your mind…

    In terms of evolutionary outcomes, female homosexuality is a completely different kettle of fish to male homosexuality. There’s a good argument indicating that it can consolidate status and alliances in the adult female members of tribal groups, and thus improve the survival of offspring of practicing mothers. And given the behaviour of heterosexual males (and indeed, the reproductive pragmatism of homosexual females), female homosexuality is no barrier to the passing on of genetic heritage.

    And then there’s the fact that if there are cultural or genetic factors that result in a net reproductive disadvantage to homosexuality, the genetic heritage of the individuals exhibiting the trait will over time decrease. But it wouldn’t happen instantaneously – evolution is a continuous process, and not something that happened in the past… If it were, there’s be no genetic diseases around today (and before you make the leap, I am not equating homosexuality with ‘disease’ – unless it is your own dis-ease with the idea).

    The same analytical approaches apply to each of your other ‘examples’ against Darwinism. Each is eminently explainable, and each need not present a disadvantage to overall genetic continuance: quite the opposite in fact.

    Duff, you’re completely out of your depth here. Leave the science of genetics and of evolution to the smart people, and just go sit in your rocker and drool on your blankie. At least you might be able to do that well.

  9. #9 Lotharsson
    May 10, 2012

    I think the recent discussion has impressively illuminated the way Duff reaches his “conclusions” – acquire a flawed understanding of a theory, assert that reality is in conflict with it using false “facts”, and when those are pointed out shift the goalposts to arguing they (a) “need explanation” and/or (b) “can’t be explained” by the theory – and then ignore all evidence that it is his understanding is incorrect and that explanations are already well-known in the discipline, all the while condescendingly implying that others who are schooling him are deeply misinformed and not particularly bright.

    I’ve just got this vague feeling I’ve seen something much like that before, but I can’t quite recall who and where… ;-)

  10. #10 John
    May 10, 2012

    Betula, you mean sea level rise isn’t equal everywhere? Who knew? Because that is exactly what Duff is arguing.

    C’mon Duff. Where are those “highest scientific principles” you were boasting about? Admit you are wrong. It must be humiliating to not only believe the proections of a conspiritorial dowser over the actual observations, but also to never have heard of BEST. Some “sceptic” you are.

  11. #11 bill
    May 10, 2012

    As an aside to further fruitless debate within the flock-papered corridors and aging piles of the Twilight Home for the Terminally Bewildered, those not already aware of it may enjoy Tom Harris’ (of HI & the ICSC, no less) ‘interesting’ defence of his university climate curriculum over at SkS.

    (Of course, the unkind might even note some passing resemblances to the dotard’s strategy… ;-) )

  12. #12 lord_sidcup
    May 11, 2012

    David Duff – a must read for you:

    [Yamal Yawns](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/05/yamalian-yawns/)

  13. #13 Rick Bradford
    May 11, 2012

    Wow, this place really is the Pripyat of the climate blogosphere — decayed, forgotten, and abandoned by all but a few dodderers with no place else to go.

  14. #14 Jeff Harvey
    May 11, 2012

    *Wow, this place really is the Pripyat of the climate blogosphere — decayed, forgotten, and abandoned by all but a few dodderers with no place else to go*

    As if a denier like you, Rick, would know. And when it comes to real science, the denialblogosphere doesn’t do any. You see, very few if any of them are actually scientists at all. They see their role as attacking the science and the climate scientists (meaning most of both) they don’t like. In other words they are morally and scientifically bankrupt. Glad to know that’s the company you keep, Rick.

  15. #15 Lionel A
    May 11, 2012

    Oh MacDuff of Duncinane.

    I see, Lionel, so you’re not too keen to continue the conversation. Nor, it seems, do you understand a simple point – homosexuality should not exist in any species not just Man, because it transgresses the basic tenets of Charles Darwin. And I can understand your reluctance to try and explain the other facets of life which upset your Darwinian applecart. Well, let’s try a bit of Dawkins on you.

    Continuing a ‘conversation’ with a self evident avoider of anything that may prick his bubble or threaten to straighten out his distorted conceptual networks is becoming increasingly pointless, and besides the point against the main point of this particular blog. You really should go over to ‘PZ’s’ place and raise your smokescreens there.

    Your statement re-quoted above is based upon a fallacious appreciation of the strands of evolution expanded by Darwin, let alone those by the many renowned evolutionary biologists since.

    I have mentioned ‘The Extended Phenotype’ previously and I particularly draw your attention to Chapter Three ‘Constraints on Perfection’ and specifically pages 36 – 38 beginning at

    ‘Lay critics frequently bring up some apparently maladaptive feature of modern human behaviour…’

    although the whole Chapter may be worth your while reading. Fortunately for you there is a Glossary at the back of the book.

    Also Jerry Coyne in his excellent, and for you a must read, ‘Why Evolution is True’ has something to say about this topic too in the Chapter ‘Evolution Redux’ where he writes, page 248:

    ‘There is an increasing (and disturbing) tendency of psychologists, biologists, and philosophers to Darwinise every aspect of human behaviour, turning its study into a scientific parlour game.’

    Now, you having read the Chapter from Dawkins cited above will should appreciate from whence Coyne is coming.

    Now on the subject of eyes you really need to look out ‘Climbing Mount Improbable, Chapter 5 The Forty-Fold Path to Enlightenment’ and check out Richard Feynman’s ‘Lectures on Physics, Volume 1, Chapters 35 – Color Vision and 36 – Mechanisms of Seeing’.

  16. #16 Wow
    May 11, 2012

    “and abandoned by all but a few dodderers with no place else to go”

    Says dodderer Rick with no place else to go…

  17. #17 Eli Rabett
    May 11, 2012

    Dod, don’t do it

  18. #18 David Duff
    May 11, 2012

    Off on me hols – yes, and thank you for your good wishes! – so that means I will have to leave you for a few days. At the rate your brave band of heroes is dwindling I just hope there’s someone LEFT here to natter with when I return.

    KEEP THE FAITH!

  19. #19 chek
    May 11, 2012

    Farewell Duffer, I’m sure your remarkable ‘wisdom’ will be sorely missed by some.

    Unfortunately, I personally don’t know anyone that stupid, but I suppose theoretically there’s always Jonarse and his virtual crew who positively adore cranks, fakes and quacks as much as you do.

  20. #20 Chris O'Neill
    May 11, 2012

    Mack:

    as Clint Eastwood would say…”a mans got to know his limitations”

    Pity you didn’t take his advice.

  21. #21 bill
    May 11, 2012

    For those interested in the further career of one Alex Harvey.

    Here he is addressing one Gavin Schmidt –

    I would like to make a radical suggestion – and while this could sound facetious I’d like to assure you that it’s not: why don’t you set aside some quality time to actually talk to him [Steve McIntyre!]? Sit down over a virtual beer and work out what he wants and why.

    (It’s well worth reading the original post above it, too.)

    Yep; let’s spread that love; you may wish to observe Alex spreading the love some more back here at Deltoid last week.

    So the Privacy Commissioner, who has read the emails, say they don’t contain death threats. Yet the Australian public has been told that these scientists did receive death threats. Presumably, most simply believed these stories – like I did. Now, it appears that the scientists lied.

    Sure they did.

  22. #22 Bernard J.
    May 11, 2012

    Heh.

    [Duff’s realised that he has been caught speaking garbage](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6269487) about evolutionary processes and about the complexities of adaptation, and he’s [turned tail and run](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs0UwW7kCvg).

    If anyone should “keep the faith” Duff, it’s you. The rest of us will rely on the scientific method. And when you return from you “holiday”, we’ll link right back here and pick up where you fell off.

  23. #23 Betula
    May 11, 2012

    Bill,

    Gotta love the title of your link.

    “Mature debate, not abuse, the only way forward”

    http://www.hark.com/clips/tksttlcnwg-the-debate-is-over

  24. #24 Betula
    May 11, 2012

    Bernard,

    Was that video representative of Duff showing some survival of the fittist skills while being chased off by a CO2 emitting Deltoid mobile?

  25. #25 bill
    May 11, 2012

    Betty: I don’t know; maybe you are 12?

    Next.

  26. #26 bill
    May 12, 2012

    Can’t we all just get along? Peter Hadfield gives Tony Watts an entertaining serve regarding Watts’ looking-glass-world claim that he ‘will not engage in a face-to-face debate in a neutral venue’ with Monckton…

  27. #27 Karen
    May 12, 2012

    Many in here like astrology, tea leaves ect so I thought this might add some cheer for you all.

    ( http://mytechnologyworld9.blogspot.in/2012/05/world-may-not-end-soon-predicts-newly.html )

  28. #28 MikeH
    May 12, 2012

    Karen – you really need to get yourself a GPS (or is that against the Tea Party religion?).

    The person you are after is across the ditch in NZ – climate change denier and cat palmist [Ken Ring](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/sunrise_on_ringworld.php).

    Or perhaps the water witching dowser and climate change denier [Nils Axel-Morner](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/the_australians_war_on_science_42.php) from Stockholm.

    While you are here Karen, can I ask for the official Tea Party view on Mitt Romney’s [“magic underpants”](http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/a-brief-guide-to-mormon-underwear).

  29. #29 bill
    May 12, 2012

    Ah, Ken Ring!

    Because Carbon Dioxide doesn’t heat anything. If you held a bottle of Coke in your hand, you’re not going to burn your hand.

    Really, Warmists, who among you dare challenge the man?

    Duffer, Sundry Scandinavians, Betty, KarenTeaPartyMcSpot – meet your antipodean cousin.

  30. #30 Betula
    May 12, 2012

    Good One Bill!
    Even though I have never denied the greenhouse effect. You just believe I have because your vision is understandably clouded by your ideology. It’s okay, really.

    Hey, do you remember this famous slogan from Coke?

    “Things go better with Coke.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY0U7nwAYnU

  31. #31 Lotharsson
    May 12, 2012

    Isn’t it interesting how many denialists feel the need to declare “Deltoid is dying”?

    Clap harder, chaps, and maybe your fantasies will come true.

  32. #32 chek
    May 12, 2012

    It seems to be a variation of the old ‘final nail in the coffin’ meme that deniers regularly comfort themselves with.

    Back in the real world, the Heartland hub is imploding as its financiers fall away one by one, McIntyre exposes himself as a poisonous, paranoid crank (again) barely two weeks after announcing his ‘retirement’, BEST blew Watts’ central UHI meme out of the water, and the Bish flounders around in a sea of futile FOIA’s hoping to find Mann and Jones’ concocting a grand conspiracy to fit his ‘theory’.
    ‘Look over there – squirrels’ is the only denier response to this series of catastrophes, being the best they’ve got as the global climate warms as predicted by AGW theory.

    In other words, more denier projection of what’s actually happening to their own jihad.

  33. #33 Mortice
    May 12, 2012

    It’s amazing if you mention the BEST results, that you never, ever get a response from a trolling denier. They always change the subject.

  34. #34 jrkrideau
    May 12, 2012

    Thanks Karen. I do like tea leaves and you reminded me to pick up a box of tea this afternoon.

    Nice shots in the Mayan link too.

  35. #35 chek
    May 12, 2012

    Very true pantiesizeZ. Heartland being of course supremely dishonest and targetting children, whereas the CRU leak merely showed they think less than highly of cranks and quacks like McIntyre et al.

  36. #37 Rog Tallbloke
    May 12, 2012

    Has John Coochey’s comment regarding alleged ‘death threats’ against Australian climate scientists been deleted? It was here yesterday.

    John Coochey says:
    I feel I can throw some light on this matter as I am undoubtedly the person who is alleged to have shown my gun licence to people at the dinner. That is not accurate. At the mediocre dinner on the first day I was approached by Dr Maxine Cooper, then the Commissioner for the environment, who recognized me as someone involved in the kangaroo culling program in the ACT which occurs each winter. After politely asking if she could sit next to me she asked me how I had gone in the recent licence test which is challenging. I told her I had topped it with a perfect score and showed her my current culling licence, not gun licence, to prove it. The conversation around the table then drifted around the benefits of eating game meat v the poor fare on offer. I might add that earlier in the day I had challenged two speakers to comment on a letter in the Canberra Times that claimed that temperatures had not increased in the Canberra area for decades. They were unable to do so, having not apparently checked the record despite the the “Deliberation” (conference) supposed to be about rising temperatures in the Canberra region. As all daytime conversations were recorded (we all signed waivers to allow this) this can easily be checked.

  37. #38 chek
    May 12, 2012

    337
    Has John Coochey’s comment regarding alleged ‘death threats’ against Australian climate scientists been deleted? It was here yesterday.

    No, it hasn’t been deleted and it still is ‘here’, you inept specimen of denier trash. You just need to look in the relevant thread – something surely not beyond your allegedly renowned computer ‘skills’. [Or maybe it is.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/more_on_the_threats_on_and_abu.php#comment-6269302)

  38. #39 gnomish
    May 12, 2012

    ants in a jar
    you struggle in despair
    nor all your piety nor wit
    will let you share
    the idle amusement
    of the child who put you there.

    losers, all of yuz.
    :) that’s a good thing.

  39. #40 bill
    May 12, 2012

    Let me guess; our Friend of the Ether wants to join the charming ranks of those who, using the ever-popular technique of cherry-picking, wish to deny the validity of the fears of those on the receiving end of alleged abuse and threats.

    Very classy – you’d think after the HI billboard debacle some lessons might have been learned, but apparently not.

    But by all means keep going with this angle, and we’ll have a bit of a further public discussion about the lengths your camp are prepared to go to, shall we?

    First, please read this. I’ve excerpted the most relevant sections below to indicate that, as usual, recent cherry-picking ain’t likely to save you.

    In the case of the 30 or so climate scientists mentioned previously, many received hate emails that were well beyond the pale. And yes, there were specific threats of violence, sexual assault and worse. In the most stomach-churning case, a woman’s children – a toddler and a pre-schooler – were named and threatened. Why wouldn’t she be rattled? She received those emails because she agreed to be photographed by a local newspaper to promote a community tree-planting event, and was briefly quoted as urging people to come along and plant trees to mitigate climate change.

    He is reported as ruling that 10 of the 11 emails sought under FoI ”do not contain threats to kill” and the other ”could be regarded as intimidating”. The emails in question pertain to one scientist, ANU Climate Change Institute director Professor Will Steffen. He was among the group of 30 contacted by The Canberra Times, and revealed the worst threat he received – and we will not divulge it – was made verbally to one of his staff. It was the chilling nature of that threat – and the casual way in which it was made – that prompted the ANU to question its security arrangements.

    Secondly: you’re now championing this guy, right?

    And, seriously ‘it was here yesterday’, but somehow you can’t find it today? Heard of ‘Ctrl+H’? So how might you know it was here, then? Gee, why do I just know this has become a Denier imbecility du jour?

    Oh, lookie here.

    And well done on coming straight out with an accusation of malfeasance – it was deleted I tell you, deleted! – despite being, um, wrong.

    Again: classy.

    And here’s a little ‘skeptic’ humour, from that thread at BH I linked to above:

    after reading that lot [some Warmist conference discussion], I began to feel an urgent need for a “culling licence” myself.

    But, sure; keep going. It’s a great plan, with no drawbacks I can see.

  40. #41 Bernard J.
    May 12, 2012

    I’d be a little (but only a little) surprised if Rog Talltales is actually so stupid that he can copy Coochey’s name and post, but then ‘can’t find’ it on Deltoid a ‘day later’.

    Seriously, that’s an exercise that someone who’s only been blogging for a day in their whole life could still manage to do. Nah, I think Dodgy Roger’s trying to reignite the squib, and easier to do so where there’s not already evidence that it is such.

    It’s interesting to see the recent influx of denialists to Deltoid though. Even with Tim Lambert occupied in his off-line life, the blog has great pulling power…

  41. #42 John Mashey
    May 12, 2012

    Some people recall the silly stuff from Peter Wood last summer, which I’m sorry to say brought certain posters here …

    We find Peter Wood of the National Association of Scholars continues to conflate odd combinations of things, in Gay Marriage, Climate Change, and Academic Freedom. Really.

  42. #43 John Mashey
    May 12, 2012

    Heartland Experts:
    BigCityLib does yeoman work, hears from Dennis Avery.
    Unsurprisingly, Fred Singer’s coauthor is proud of his association with Heartland. I hear Bob Carter is also.

    Reviewing the current list of Heartland Experts, I notice a few more from Oz, I think:
    David Archibald
    William Kininmonth
    Ian Plimer

    Of course, not on that list, but:
    Jo Nova & David Evans were both on early Experts List, see Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax, pp.51-52. Both spoke at ICCC-2 and -5, so they surely know the people with whom they are associated. Also, it seems likely money went to them for Skeptics Handbook (pp.63-64), well employed in Fakeducation.

    SO, instead of playing with D-K afflictees, maybe polite emails to people asking them if they are still with Heartland, given BillboardGate. Be nice …

  43. #44 StevoR
    May 13, 2012

    Interesting brief clip here via South Oz’s ‘7.30 Report’ on climate change affecting trees up where I live in the Adelaide hills. [Take a look](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-11/sick-trees/4007080) especially from the 2 and a half minute mark.

    I’ve seen a lot of sick trees myself – phtyopera killimg many in the Belair National Park but also eslewhere and many seen locally and even down in Mitcham on the plain to be shooting from their base which, I understand (please correct me if ‘m wrong) is a sign of stress.

    The thought also occurs to me that snakebites may occur more frequently with a hotter drier conditions meaning more days when they are active. Has anyone looked in the records and seen such a rising trend? (Complicatedof coure iknow by growing population and density in snake-rich areas, can tahtbe compensated for? Surely?)

    The otehrday isaw what I’m pretty sure was a red-bellied balck snake in the Waitiparinga reserve – swimmingand hiding in rocks when I was walking a dog there. I’ve only ever seen three snakes in many yeras of walking there. One was last year or earlier this year, the other many years ago.

  44. #45 bill
    May 13, 2012

    G’day John,

    Wood’s stuff just really like “See, I’ve created this really high-falutin’ meta-narrative theory of why I’m right about the things I don’t like and they’re wrong, so, see, I really must be right. And now I’ve lumped two of these things I don’t like together and am waving my hands in the direction of a link between them.”

    Frankly my brain just slides off this stuff – it’s like bad-pop music; 20 seconds later you realise you’re no longer listening, you’re now wondering if you bought enough eggs to make that omelette…

    Actually, no, I must take that bit back: after a while the numbness began to wear off and I actually started to get offended:

    Are we being “fair” to the generations to come by taking steps that will are likely to weaken the bio-social interdependencies of mothers and fathers to each other and to their children?

    ‘Are likely to’ is doing an extraordinary amount of work in this sentence, entirely unsupported by… well, let’s consider this bit:

    I have no statistics on this, but I doubt that one student in a hundred, and perhaps far fewer than that, has ever read a serious secular argument against same-sex marriage, and most would be at a dead loss even to imagine what such an argument would say.

    ‘I have no statistics on this, but I doubt that…’ This guy’s the president of the National Association of Scholars, right?

    As to ‘such an argument’ being unimaginable: One; I wonder why? Hence, Two; what ‘serious secular argument’ against gay marriage? (Other than the traditional ‘it gives a lot of Rightists the heebie-jeebies and they’re somehow more real than gay people’?)

    ( Well, this was all under the heading ‘Cultivating Ignorance’! ;-) )

    As to the Climate that’s somehow being held hostage in this extraordinary argument, too – yes, imagine all those students who may well have graduated believing that in science it’s the side with the evidence that wins the debate!

    Sheesh.

  45. #46 Rog Tallbloke
    May 13, 2012

    338 “No, it hasn’t been deleted and it still is ‘here’, you inept specimen of denier trash. You just need to look in the relevant thread – something surely not beyond your allegedly renowned computer ‘skills’. Or maybe it is.”

    So Chek, you badmouthing piece of alarmist scum, it *has* been deleted from ‘here’ (this current thread), and anachronistically tucked out of sight in a year old thread no-one visits any more. Seems a reasonable M.O. for a blog which has thrived on the ‘death threats’ hype and is in denial of the truth (about so many things).

    My “allegedly renowned computer skills” are good enough to win European blog of the year (I see Jo Nova got the Australian title) and Tim Lambert has posted four articles in five months. Have a look at the latest UHI at airports study on my site if you want to see some computer skills (from co-blogger Tim C) in action. The climate alarmist meme is dying and climate realism is ascendant.

    Good riddance to you.

  46. #47 GSW
    May 13, 2012

    To be fair Rog, I don’t think it was posted here, just on the relevant thread. Congrats again on the Best European Blog! I voted for you and Jo.

    ;)

    PS For the record I don’t have a proplem with

    “So Chek, you badmouthing piece of alarmist scum”

    It’s fair comment in my book.

  47. #48 bill
    May 13, 2012

    StevoR.

    In SA Phytophthora cinnamomi affects 2 species of Eucalypt, both of which are stringybarks – Eucalyptus obliqua and baxteri.

    As far as I know only obliqua is recorded for Belair NP, but there are also half-a-dozen unaffected species. Having seen the massive Pc scalds in WA where it affects dominant tree species over vast areas we really are relatively fortunate.

    Tell-tale signs in healthy scrub in the Adelaide Hills include clusters of die-back in Yaccas, Hakeas, the small Myrtle Wattle, and the Silver Banksia, particularly in a spreading area as it ‘flows’ with local soil water movement down hill. Given that it effectively destroys the plants roots – and hence its ability to take up water – Pc stress and drought stress can look very similar, but in most of ‘The Park’ – and certainly in Grey Box country like Watiparinga – drought and lerp stress is probably more likely to be what you’re seeing.

    (I was on the state Phytophthora Technical Committee. I can’t find the most recent version of this guide, but this older version still gives a good background and lists the susceptible species.)

    I seriously doubt the water table in the hills has really recovered from the early-century drought. I also suspect it never will. Combine that with lerps, and demolished understorey habitat meaning fewer birds around to pick them off…

    Perhaps we should start a market for the lerps? Their starchy casings – you can see them in the video – are composed of a sugary material, and they’re actually a ‘bush food’!

  48. #49 bill
    May 13, 2012

    *Bonk!* Dear me, Rog, you’re really not doing well, are you? The post is where it always was, my boy, on one of the original threads discussing the issue. I remember being surprised by a comment appearing on an older thread.

    So, tell us; is this a typical example of how you build a factual argument? ;-)

    Gee, Jo Nova and Rog win the Bestest Blogs in the Universe – just like Watts! That must have been an impartial contest with no gaming the system, fer sure! It’s just like the climate, ain’t it; it’s the polling and alleged ‘meme ascendency’, not the, um, science, that counts…

    Sensitive about it all, ain’t he?

  49. #50 chek
    May 13, 2012

    Keep digging, tallmoron.

    My IE history shows Coochey’s claim right where it always was – where you probably saw it was on the recent posts list which it’s since dropped off as newer posts were made.

    Then you can do the math and contrast your crowing about 11 FOI’d emails with the [‘over 30 scientists’ mentioned here.](http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/mature-debate-not-abuse-the-only-way-forward-20120506-1y6r5.html)

    I’ll ask Tim to secretly move this post later and file it under: another idiot denier crank who prefers his own paranoia as a substitute for actual research. But he won’t.

  50. #51 Rog Tallbloke
    May 13, 2012

    340 “It was the chilling nature of that threat – and the casual way in which it was made – that prompted the ANU to question its security arrangements.”

    Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/mature-debate-not-abuse-the-only-way-forward-20120506-1y6r5.html#ixzz1ujl5NlOQ

    I think this is the ‘death threat’ which has been debunked by John Coochey’s comment I reinstated above isn’t it? And isn’t it the case that the debunked ‘sniper’ comment never was reported to the police?

    Personally, I condemn threats or depictions of violence from any corner of the argument over carbon taxes, climate science, unbalanced curricula, or environmental issues, actual or fantasised.

    For example, that 10/10 video of the teacher murdering schoolchildren who politely questioned man made global warming dogma was appalling. Is that a message you would approve of?

    Equally, The dirty tricks and threats endured by ex TV presenter Johnny Ball are real, criminal and culpable offences.

    “The news report was based on information – including copies of a number of abusive emails – provided by more than 30 scientists in all states and territories.”

    Why isn’t that article linked? And where are the copies of the emails? having seen the way John Coochey’s innocent response to Maxine Cooper was twisted, lied about and blown up into a ‘death threat’, I’m a sceptic who wants to see the evidence before making a judgement.

  51. #52 Rog Tallbloke
    May 13, 2012

    OK, I stand corrected on the original location of John Coochey’s comment. No harm in repeating it on this current thread though. GWS, I give as good as I get. ;)

  52. #53 chek
    May 13, 2012

    Tell you what tallcrank – get back to us when you’ve ‘sceptically’ investigated John Coochey’s claim. Because you haven’t so far, have you?

  53. #54 GSW
    May 13, 2012

    @Rog

    “I give as good as I get.”

    You do indeed Rog, you do indeed.

    ;)

  54. #55 Rog Tallbloke
    May 13, 2012

    349″it’s the polling and alleged ‘meme ascendency’, not the, um, science, that counts…”

    Seems to have been the M.O. of the alarmist camp for the last 30 years I agree.

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
    Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
    we will be doing the right thing in terms of
    economic and environmental policy.”
    – Timothy Wirth –
    President of the UN Foundation

    This is the guy who switched off the aircon before Hansen’s June 1988 testimony to the house, to make sure everyone was sweating.

    Personally, I also have an environmental agenda, but I don’t agree with Tim Wirth that pushing a fatally flawed scientific hypothesis is a good way to promote it.

  55. #56 adelady
    May 13, 2012

    Thanks for that, bill. I’m newly moved to the southern suburbs and I’ve been a bit surprised by the numbers of dead and dying small trees and shrubs around the district. Didn’t like it back in the eastern suburbs when my fruit trees and a lot of large street and park trees died during the drought and water restrictions, but that was all quite understandable. This I’ve found a bit mysterious since everything’s so green this summer and autumn.

    As for sprouting from the base being a sign of stress. I’ve always thought so. It tends to follow on from bark peeling and splitting and separating from obviously drought affected trees. At least in large trees I’ve observed over a few decades.

    And what is it with watsonias and hollyhocks flowering now? Not having been around here before I don’t know if it’s a common regional aberration if there is such a thing, or if the plant life round here struggles so much it’ll flower any chance it gets. (The soil is dire.)

  56. #57 Chris O'Neill
    May 13, 2012

    a fatally flawed scientific hypothesis

    It’s the Cosmic rays wot dunnit.

  57. #58 bill
    May 13, 2012

    Yep, the award-winning Rog knows the Coochey version of events is correct – you were there, right, Rog? ;-) – and hasn’t noticed the whole 30 or so scientists telling the CT about their experiences thing.

    (You also knew that comment had been deleted, Rog, and then you knew it had been deliberately shifted, too.)

    You entire argument is, after all, one long conspiracy theory, with scientists as evil manipulators, the logical consequences of which we are now seeing; the utterly repellant tactic of people like yourself cynically striving to prove that scientists are ‘lying’ about alleged threats made to them, combined with snidely deriding their reactions to any such perceived threats.

    As I said, I would have thought that Heartland’s spectacular own-goal might have given pause-for-thought on ratbaggery as a tactic, but apparently not… don’t say you weren’t warned!

  58. #59 MikeH
    May 13, 2012

    Tallbloke @ 340

    Personally, I condemn threats or depictions of violence from any corner of the argument over carbon taxes, climate science, unbalanced curricula, or environmental issues, actual or fantasised.

    Well you could start with the [most recent ones](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/13/us-climate-scientist-wife-email-hate) directed at Kerry Emanuel.

    Not here – if you are serious, condemn it on your own website where you are currently belittling previous threats.
    When you have, come back and give us the link.

    Let us see if you mean what you say or you are just another blowhard.

  59. #60 Wyvern
    May 13, 2012

    >@Rog

    >”I give as good as I get.”

    >You do indeed Rog, you do indeed.

    >;)

    >Posted by: GSW | May 13, 2012 5:19 AM

    Get a hotel room, you two.

  60. #61 Jeff Harvey
    May 13, 2012

    *”I give as good as I get.”*
    *You do indeed Rog, you do indeed*

    In the bathroom, perhaps. But not in an academic setting or in the peer-reviewed journals. There you don’t give a thing. Nada. Nix.

  61. #62 Lotharsson
    May 13, 2012

    > My “allegedly renowned computer skills” are good enough to win European blog of the year…

    Apparently your “alleged logical skills” are so strong that you must resort to a category error.

  62. #63 Bernard J.
    May 13, 2012

    >@Rog

    >”I give as good as I get.”

    >You do indeed [Rog](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger#Slang), you do indeed.

    >;)

    >Posted by: GSW | May 13, 2012 5:19 AM

  63. #64 Bernard J.
    May 13, 2012

    …because more can be said with less, as I explained to an already-terse Wyvern.

  64. #65 Rog Tallbloke
    May 13, 2012

    358″ I would have thought that Heartland’s spectacular own-goal might have given pause-for-thought on ratbaggery as a tactic, but apparently not.”

    Still nothing to say about the 10/10 video showing schoolkids with doubts about anthropogenic global warming theory being murdered by their teacher as classmates get splattered with their blood Bill?

    Makes Heartland’s attempt at associating whacky warmies with, well, whackier warmies look pretty tame doesn’t it? ;)

  65. #66 Rog Tallbloke
    May 13, 2012

    353″Tell you what tallcrank – get back to us when you’ve ‘sceptically’ investigated John Coochey’s claim. Because you haven’t so far, have you?”

    Crock, We’ll wait and see if any of the scientists at the table step forward to contradict him. As it stands his testimony has as much credibility as Kerry Emmanuel’s.

  66. #67 chek
    May 13, 2012

    Looks like your skillset at interpreting what you see is as poor as your grasp of climate science, or what award you won, smallcrank.

    Still nothing to say about the 10/10 video showing schoolkids with doubts about anthropogenic global warming theory being murdered by their teacher as classmates get splattered with their blood

    Firstly – the fantasy Pythonesque ‘victims’ in the 10/10 film weren’t murdered by anybody. The puerile ‘joke’ – such as it is – is that while ‘no pressure’ was put upon them by their peers, the explodees exploded under their own internal pressure at doing nothing.

    That you internally rant your poor cultural understanding of a bit of acting for a film into ‘murder’ in the tiny echo-chamber of your mind and then have the nerve to claim equivalence with your actual fellow right wing nutters who issue real-life threats demonstrates an aspect of the victim-bully fantasy that permeates your rancid, paranoid view of climate science you hold in common with McIntyre, Watts and Montford.

    Stick to playing at science you don’t have the background or training to understand such as your latest Heathrow UHI promotion of quackery. Even though you might think it looks t’riffic because it has all graphs’n’numbers’n’shit, I predict here and now that even Sonia’s E&E will run a mile from it even in a slow year. It really is that dire, ill-informed and ill-considered.

    Crock, We’ll wait and see if any of the scientists at the table step forward to contradict him. As it stands his testimony has as much credibility as Kerry Emmanuel’s(sic).

    No, it doesn’t. Emanuel is a respected MIT professor elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. While it suits your anti-science crank agenda to claim equivalence with some hitherto unknown claiming to be the person present at an event – and conveniently if only apparently defusing the situation at that event – the credibility remains with Emanuel and the others, at least in the sane world.

  67. #68 Bernard J.
    May 13, 2012

    >Still nothing to say about the 10/10 video showing schoolkids with doubts about anthropogenic global warming theory being murdered by their teacher as classmates get splattered with their blood Bill?

    I’ve said it elsewhere recently but I’ll repeat it here.

    Whipping boys such as 10/10 and Al Gore are not the basis for the physics of human-caused global warming. They’re one end of a public campaign to bring the science to public attention.

    On the other hand, most everything of the denialist argument comes from propagandists and lobby machines. There’s almost nothing in the peer-reviewed literature that diagrees with the consensus, and what little there is, is almost universally completely rebutted. What remains requires an electron microscope in order to visualise.

    The consensus case is the peer-reviewed literature. The Denialati’s case is guff coming from Heartland, WWWT, and other FUD mills. That’s the true comparison, and that’s why climate change denialism is nothing more than a pernicious smear on human intellectual endeavour.

  68. #69 lord_sidcup
    May 13, 2012

    The dirty tricks and threats endured by ex TV presenter Johnny Ball are real, criminal and culpable offences.

    I must have missed that bit of news, unless Tallbloke is recycling these half baked claims:

    [Was Johnny Ball really victimised by environmentalists](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/was_johnny_ball_really_victimi.php)

    Have you seen this TB, it made it on to the GWPF website:

    [Global Warming Spokesperson Passes Away](http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/global-warming-spokesman-passes-away/)

  69. #70 Rog Tallbloke
    May 13, 2012

    367 Crock, you obviously have a badly warped and twisted mind full of hate, but even you should be able to sense the public’s revulsion of the sick-minded propaganda used by your friends at 10/10. Describing this despicable video as “Pythonesque” ought to have your friends here squirming with embarrassment and hurrying to disassociate themslves from your extremist views. That they don’t speak up and shun it says everything about the groupthink and reality-denial that infests this site.

  70. #71 chek
    May 13, 2012

    Again no, smallcrank.
    That you bleat on about a minor, withdrawn promo film depicting actors to divert attention from the issue of real threats issued against real people by whipped-up, right-wing, gun-toting crackpots with [multiple](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords) [track records](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/us/01tiller.html?pagewanted=all) is only another indication of how far into la-la land you’ve progressed.

  71. #72 chek
    May 13, 2012

    [Many days late and many dollars short.](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/05/yamalian-yawns/)

    Stick to manufacturing feigned outrage. It’s more your level, pantiesizeZ.

  72. #73 Rog Tallbloke
    May 13, 2012

    367 Crock: ” the fantasy Pythonesque ‘victims’ in the 10/10 film weren’t murdered by anybody. The puerile ‘joke’ – such as it is – is that while ‘no pressure’ was put upon them by their peers, the explodees exploded under their own internal pressure at doing nothing.”

    Oh I see, in your sick fantasy it’s the fault of those schoolkids who doubt the climate alarmism you help promote that they get splattered all over their classmates.

    http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/10-10-no-pressure-movie-taken-down-after-complaints-video-2689728.html

    The video shows a few different scenarios, including young children in a classroom, and whenever anyone says they are not going to do anything about climate change, they are blown up *at the touch of a button*. Everyone not blown up gets covered in blood and guts.

    Whose finger is on the button you sick crank?

  73. #74 Michael
    May 13, 2012

    Roger continues to talk about PR stunts carried out by advocacy groups.

    Relevance to science – ZERO

    Denialists like Rog interest in actual science – ZERO.

  74. #75 Betula
    May 13, 2012

    “to divert attention from the issue of real threats issued against real people by whipped-up, right-wing, gun-toting crackpots”

    Hey chek, look! Some little shiny things…

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-climate-denial.html

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/04/the-derangement-of-the-climate-alarmists-greenpeace-threatens-actual-violence-for-those-who-disagree.html

    Now, where’s the outrageously outrageous outrage…

  75. #76 Rog Tallbloke
    May 13, 2012

    377: “WHERE’S MY GLOBAL WARMING? I WANT IT. NOW!”

    I know I know. It was nice while it lasted though.

    376 Michael, the denial of fantasy murder thing Crank has going on is quite revealing, but if you want to start a conversation about climate science, that’s cool with me.

    How about you try to answer this question for me:

    Since the negative phase of natural variation has nixed the alleged co2 caused warming for a decade or so, how much did its positive phase contribute to the warming we saw in the last two decades of the last millenium?

    Logic says at least half, but what say you?

  76. #77 Michael
    May 13, 2012

    Brent,

    Stop hoarding all the ignorance, or there won’t be any left for anyone else.

  77. #78 chek
    May 13, 2012

    Whose finger is on the button you sick crank?

    I dunno smallcrank, was it ultimately Sauron’s, Voldemort’s, Al Gore’s, Phil Jones or Mike Mann’s? Only you can deconstruct the live action cartoon worming its way through your steamed brain.

    I maintain the edit I saw had no buttons but did have spontaneous carnage, but it was two years ago so who cares?
    I also maintain that it doesn’t matter which to those with a healthy grip on the difference between reality and fantasy. It’s likely the fake sceptics whose ability to tell the difference are most threatened, due to their wholesale adoption of fake science that makes their grip on the real world so tenuous.

    However it’s all by the bye now as it was withdrawn.
    Me? I’d have put it out as a short with Sean of the Dead and enjoyed you mugs sucking up your faux offence even more.

    Even now you’re fixated on essentially a cartoon, and seem completely unable to acknowledge the real life, right wing gun nuts actually threatening real people, as if your primped up and preening self-manufactured, self-regarding ‘offence’ outweighs all other considerations.

    That’s merely one of many reasons why you’re a contemptible joke, smallcrank.

  78. #79 Ian Forrester
    May 13, 2012

    Well it is fun to have another AGW denier showing how they missed out in their educational travails. RTB shows that he missed out on his English grammar classes by making many simple errors that would embarrass a grade 6 child. Why are AGW deniers so lacking in this area?

    He then shows that he has difficulty in finding posts if they are on a different thread than on the one he is reading. He then blames all and sundry for “hiding” anything he cannot find. Such misplaced outrage but it is what we have come to expect from uneducated AGW deniers.

    Then he shows a complete lack of any understanding or knowledge of climate science, which is easily understood since they pride themselves in never reading the scientific literature but prefer to waste their time on denier websites. He makes this (in his small mind) profound statement:

    Since the negative phase of natural variation has nixed the alleged co2 caused warming for a decade or so, how much did its positive phase contribute to the warming we saw in the last two decades of the last millenium?

    Logic says at least half, but what say you?

    Of course this has been explained [here](http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf) and [here](http://www.skepticalscience.com/john-nielsen-gammon-commentson-on-continued-global-warming.html) by knowledgeable people who understand climate science.

  79. #80 Michael
    May 13, 2012

    Clearly Brent hasn’t caught up with the events leading to the Younger Dryas.

    Brent, stop hogging the ignorance!

  80. #81 Rog Tallbloke
    May 13, 2012

    381: The Fluster/Ramsdork paper implies a sensitivity giving around 4C/doubling for co2. In their dreams.

    Both this paper and the SKS post from Eggsandgammon ignore the cumulative nature of solar input on ocean heat content and the consequent ENSO effects. They completely fail to account for natural climate warming early in the C20th. They are junk science. Exactly the sort of pulp fiction you ignorant warmist idiots fall for. Get real.

  81. #82 chek
    May 13, 2012

    The Fluster/Ramsdork paper implies a sensitivity giving around 4C/doubling for co2. In their dreams.

    The above constitutes a comprehensive and complete rebuttal, according to smallcrank’s pseudo-science.

    Much like a Kalahari bushman might shake his fist at the sonic boom of a Space Shuttle scattering his goats, and about as effective. But doing it makes him feel better.

  82. #83 sigh
    May 13, 2012

    > The Fluster/Ramsdork paper

    Pathetic personal attack.

    > implies a sensitivity giving around 4C/doubling for co2. In their dreams.

    Evidence-free assertion.

    > Both this paper and the SKS post from Eggsandgammon

    Pathetic personal attack.

    > ignore the cumulative nature of solar input on ocean heat content

    Evidence-free assertion.

    > and the consequent ENSO effects.

    Evidence-free assertion.

    > They completely fail to account for natural climate warming early in the C20th.

    Evidence-free assertion.

    > They are junk science.

    Pathetic personal attack.

    > Exactly the sort of pulp fiction you ignorant warmist idiots fall for. Get real.

    Pathetic personal attack.

  83. #84 Michael
    May 13, 2012

    “Logic says at least half, but what say you?” – Rog

    I say; WTF! What logic??

  84. #85 Rog Tallbloke
    May 13, 2012

    386:They completely fail to account for natural climate warming early in the C20th.
    Evidence-free assertion.

    Logical deduction. If you disagree, demonstrate otherwise from the paper.

    379: “I maintain the edit I saw had no buttons but did have spontaneous carnage”

    I can believe that some warmist re-editing of history took place. Jim Hansen does it all the time with GIStemp data.

  85. #86 Rog Tallbloke
    May 13, 2012

    386:”Pathetic personal attack.”

    When in Rome…

    387: Global average temperature hasn’t changed much on average over the last decade, according to the more reliable data providers (i.e. not hopelessly biased activists like Jim Hansen).

    So if natural variation has been able to nix the alleged co2 global warming signal in its negative phase (weaker Sun, cooler PDO phase) Then that combined natural variation must be at least as strong as the co2 forcing. Therefore in it’s positive phase it must also be equally as strong. Therefore it was responsible for at least half the warming. There are complicating factors, but the basic argument is realistic.

  86. #87 chek
    May 13, 2012

    I can believe that some warmist re-editing of history took place.

    I don’t have to believe anything when you’re fantasising that 11 FOI’d emails somehow trump 30+ witness accounts in your forlorn quest to minimise real life by being fixated on a short comedy movie.

    But when that’s all you’ve got, what else is an anti-science crank like you to do? Facing the reality would seem to be too distressing for you, hence your displacement activity.

  87. #88 haha
    May 13, 2012

    > Global average temperature hasn’t changed much on average over the last decade

    Oooh, a decade! What an incredibly long time over which to detect a trend!

    > So if natural variation has been able to nix the alleged co2 global warming signal in its negative phase (weaker Sun, cooler PDO phase) Then that combined natural variation must be at least as strong as the co2 forcing. Therefore in it’s positive phase it must also be equally as strong. Therefore it was responsible for at least half the warming. There are complicating factors, but the basic argument is realistic.

    You realise this entire “argument” falls apart if the period of oscillation of the sun “cycle” is different to that of the PDO “cycle”? Furthermore I note that you are using a **model** (a sinusoid) to determine the contribution of “natural variation” in the 80s/90s. How awful, we know that models are inherently evil!

  88. #89 Michael
    May 13, 2012

    Roger, that wasn’t logic, that was handwaving.

  89. #90 Rog Tallbloke
    May 13, 2012

    390: 30+ witness accounts

    Where can I read them and the content of the emails they have received?

  90. #91 DarylD.
    May 13, 2012

    @387 tallbloke, you so funny, nice cherry picking!

    To deliberately ignore the inconvenient truth of the warmest decade since the age of reliable recorded weather data, from 1880(something that even the leading skeptic and former denialati Richard Muller at “B.E.S.T.” does not dispute). Interestingly, the politically neutral science of “Phenology” also contradicts your rash totally fact free unsupported statement as well. I laughed so hard, I spilled my coffee on the keyboard( a good thing it was waterproof!), for one should not leave pure fact free crap unchallenged! A quick search of the Internets will dredge up all the peer reviewed climate science information I need, in order to debunk your entire pure fact free denialati canards. For example “Skeptical Science” link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

    However I digress, back to the point of this post, the fall out from the insane Heartland Billboard continues unabated.

    Eli Rabett : “I used to be a Heartland Expert” , link :- http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/i-used-to-be-called-heartland-expert.html

    Collide-a-scape “Climate Wars Reach A New Low”, link :- http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2012/05/04/climate-wars-reach-new-low/

    Beware, that which goes around, comes around, to bite your posterior, as Roger Pielke Jr. well knows.

  91. #92 Rog Tallbloke
    May 13, 2012

    392:Roger, that wasn’t logic, that was handwaving.

    Unless you can refute the logic properly, the handwaving is all yours Michael.

    391: You realise this entire “argument” falls apart if the period of oscillation of the sun “cycle” is different to that of the PDO “cycle”?

    You haven’t thought this through, have you? It doesn’t matter how you slice it, natural variation is nixing the alleged co2 warming, and has been for a decade. Without any help from stratospheric volcanoes too. The warmist calculations are in disarray.

    Here’s something else to think about. Hansen told us many moons ago in 1988 that if we were to reduce our output of co2, then the level in 2010 would be 390ppm.

    Well, we didn’t heed him and co2 output from human sources has increased 20% or so since. Yet here we are in 2012 and the level is under 390ppm. How did he get this so badly wrong?

  92. #93 Michael
    May 13, 2012

    What logic Rog?? – your completely evidence free assertion that if the component of natural variation is -5 at some point, then later at some time ‘positive phase’ it must be +5.

    This isn’t logic, it’s nuts.

  93. #94 Rog Tallbloke
    May 13, 2012

    396 Come on Michael, you can do better than that. Take a temperature curve of any arbitrary length and stick the linear trend through it. See how the data wimbles above and below the line? Those are positive and negative phases of natural variation QED.

    Co2 was rock steady at 270ppm and has only increased since. So that can’t account for negative temperature trends. QED.

    For negative trends to occur, natural variation must be stronger than co2 warming. QED

    Natural variation varies – by definition

    Therefore its positive phases must add to any co2 warming. QED

    With me so far?

  94. #95 Ian Forrester
    May 13, 2012

    Well well, RTB got it so badly wrong. Can’t say I’m surprised.

    RTB gets it so wrong:

    Here’s something else to think about. Hansen told us many moons ago in 1988 that if we were to reduce our output of co2, then the level in 2010 would be 390ppm.

    Well, we didn’t heed him and co2 output from human sources has increased 20% or so since. Yet here we are in 2012 and the level is under 390ppm. How did he get this so badly wrong?

    Do you ever read the papers you quote? If you did read them are you capable of understanding the words in them or do you just look at pictures? Too bad Hansen didn’t post a pic of his CO2 projections, then you might have been close. Why do you just cut and paste nonsense without checking and verifying it. Oooh wait a minute, you are a AGW denier not a “skeptic” my mistake.

    Here is what [Hansen actually said](http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf):

    In scenario C the CO2 growth rate is the same as in scenarios A and B through 1985; between 1985 and 2000 the annual CO2 increment is fixed at 1.5 ppmv per year; after 2000 CO2 ceases to increase, its abundance remaining fixed at 368 ppmv.

    When one actually goes and checks the scientific literature it is easy to tell AGW deniers from “true skeptics”. The deniers are nothing but “fake skeptics”. We now know what RTB is.

  95. #96 Chris O'Neill
    May 13, 2012

    Since the negative phase of natural variation has nixed the alleged co2 caused warming for a decade or so, how much did its positive phase contribute to the warming we saw in the last

    You want an earlier decade with rapid warming? No problem.

  96. #97 Michael
    May 13, 2012

    Rog, your ‘logic’ has no logic.

    You are suffering from determinism – a negative effect doesn’t have a corresponding positive effect of equal amplitude at a different time, ‘just because’ (which is what your ‘logic’ boils down to). The wiggles on the temp series are random – ie noise.

    Do you really think that a volcanic eruption today (with it’s cooling effect) necessitates an equal and opposite natural warming effect somewhere down the line?? Nuts.

    Ah, the quality of ‘skepticism’!

  97. #98 Bernard J.
    May 13, 2012

    >So if natural variation has been able to nix the alleged co2 global warming signal in its negative phase (weaker Sun, cooler PDO phase) Then that combined natural variation must be at least as strong as the co2 forcing. Therefore in it’s positive phase it must also be equally as strong. Therefore it was responsible for at least half the warming.

    This statement deserves to be bronzed.

    If Dodgy Roger doesn’t understand how noise intereacts with signal he shouldn’t even be allowed to sit at a keyboard. Seriously mate, take this to Tamino and watch him squeeze a few lessons-worth of statistics basics from this one paragraph…

    Although even after such an education I doubt that Roger Tallbloke would appreciate or even understand the silliness of his statement.

  98. #99 John
    May 13, 2012

    Brent,

    >”Hah! Can’t fool me. I use a MODEL. It tells me everything I… want…. to. aCHOO!”

    Except the laughably amateur “conjecture” piece you published on your blog relies on computer models.

    Watching Brent play “science” is like watching a child with test tubes of coloured water.

    Rog,

    >367 Crock, you obviously have a badly warped and twisted mind full of hate, but even you should be able to sense the public’s revulsion of the sick-minded propaganda used by your friends at 10/10. Describing this despicable video as “Pythonesque” ought to have your friends here squirming with embarrassment and hurrying to disassociate themslves from your extremist views. That they don’t speak up and shun it says everything about the groupthink and reality-denial that infests this site.

    I think that says everything about your sense of confected outrage and lack of humour. That you are still repeating this (and the demonstratably false Johnny Ball accusations) years later shows how hollow your position is.

    Mostly I just feel sorry for you lot. Rog, Duff, Brent, Pentaxz. You were all so sure that the “scam” was moments away from “collapsing” around the time of the criminal CRU email theft. That you all grow increasingly shrill as the scientific evidence mounts is more proof of the vacuity of your arguments.

    What “sceptics” you all are. Duff, who believes that a ninety year old ariel photograph is a better indicator of sea level rise than the actual data. Brent, who has been reduced to shrieking about conspiracy theories because, amazingly, his volley of contradictory, long discarded arguments has failed to move us, and dear, sweet Tallbloke, who can’t even find a comment from two days ago in another thread and thinks a satirical comedic video is serious.

  99. #100 Harvestman
    May 13, 2012

    Will Steffen stands by the science and the security concerns of his group:-

    [http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3502194.htm](http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3502194.htm)

Current ye@r *