June 2012 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 David Duff
    http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/
    June 1, 2012

    I bring you Good News – again! Although why I bother beats me, I never get any thanks for it!

    Anyway, my Good News is actually Bad News but then I know that is the sort of news you all enjoy over here and you need cheering up what with your Global Warming Doomsday scenario not quite working, er, well, actually failing big time, and your faithful Band of Brothers dwindling by the day, you really are in need of a huge ‘end-of-the-world-is-nigh’ story to cheer yourselves up! So here it is and don’t forget to say thank you:

    The Andromeda galaxy will collide with our galaxy in 4 billion years!

    Now I know how keen you all are on such stories being backed by scientific expertise, you know, like a 2:2 in Fir Cone Studies from Peterborough Poly-versity, so let me assure you that this comes from some tremendous swot with degrees in stars and planets and things, and he took his measurements from some chap called Hubble – er, no, I don’t know he is but apparently he has terrific eyesight and can see things you and I can’t!

    There you are – disaster, calamity, apocolypse – what better way could you start this June? No, no, don’t thank me just the usual in an unmarked brown envelope . . .

  2. #2 bill
    June 1, 2012

    Boooooooooring.

  3. #3 chek
    June 1, 2012

    and your faithful Band of Brothers dwindling by the day [citation needed]

    It’s really extremely sad that these intellectually decrepit old has-beens are only left with fantasies to comfort themselves with.

    But then again, if you’ve always been a fatuous w*nker, I suppose that’s all you’ve ever really had.

  4. #4 MikeH
    June 1, 2012

    Here is some news you may have missed Duff.

    According to John Dunn, a Heartland policy adviser,
    “The people that warm spells kill are already moribund.”

    Don’t say you were not warned.

  5. #5 Robert Murphy
    June 1, 2012

    “…what with your Global Warming Doomsday scenario not quite working, er, well, actually failing big time, and your faithful Band of Brothers dwindling by the day…”

    I’ve seen that meme before…
    http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/demise.html

  6. #6 John
    June 1, 2012

    (This is just between us but I think Duff is trying to be funny)

  7. #7 John
    June 1, 2012

    Here’s something relevent – North Carolina have banned sea level rise:

    North Carolina legislators have decided that the way to make exponential increases in sea level rise – caused by those inconvenient feedback loops we keep hearing about from scientists – go away is to make it against the law to extrapolate exponential; we can only extrapolate along a line predicted by previous sea level rises.

    Which, yes, is exactly like saying, do not predict tomorrow’s weather based on radar images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain. Predict the weather based on the last two weeks of fair weather with gentle breezes towards the east. Don’t use radar and barometers; use the Farmer’s Almanac and what grandpa remembers.

    Hilarious!

    This reminds me of the comet episode of the Simpsons: “Let’s go burn down the observatory so this will never happen again!”

    Maybe they can take it one step further and make science illegal. They can lock scientists away in towers, except this time they’re right, damn it!

  8. #8 Betula
    June 1, 2012

    “Which, yes, is exactly like saying, do not predict tomorrow’s weather based on radar images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain”.

    “There is virtually universal agreement among scientists that the sea will probably rise a good meter or more before the end of the century, wreaking havoc in low-lying coastal counties”

    I’m confused. Is the radar showing actual images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain, or is it “probably” showing images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain?

  9. #9 Eli Rabett
    http://rabett.blogspot.com
    June 1, 2012

    According to Ethon, Roger says there are no hurricanes.

  10. #10 Deep Climate
    DeepClimate.org
    June 1, 2012

    I have an ongoing series comparing the libertarian Conservative-friendly Fraser Institute with the environmentally focused Pembina Institute.

    Fraser vs Pembina, part 2: Funding

    Nevertheless, this investigation reveals that the oil and gas industry funding plays a much bigger role in the Fraser Institute’s budget than previously realized. Previously unreported cumulative funding from Encana stands at about $1 million; founding CEO Gwyn Morgan gave an additional $1 million, for a total of $2 million. Other important donors have included the Koch brothers ($523,000) and Exxon-Mobil ($120,000), along with significant but unreported regular donations by an unidentified Canadian Koch subsidiary and Exxon-Mobil subsidiary Imperial Oil. There is also circumstantial evidence pointing to support by Keystone XL proponent TransCanada and oil sands operator Canadian Natural Resources. Meanwhile, Pembina has transparently reported support from Suncor (and formerly TransCanada).

    … Gwyn Morgan is the now retired founding CEO of Encana, and was a key fundraiser and supporter of Stephen Harper’s successful Conservative Party leadership bid.

    Future posts will examine the quality of Fraser “research” among other topics, but in the mean time here is my analysis of their wretched Independent Summary for Policymakers (co-ordinating author: Ross McKitrick).

    Heartland North, anyone?

  11. #11 ianam
    June 1, 2012

    I’m confused.

    A consequence of being stupid, ignorant, and intellectually dishonest.

    The sea will probably rise, just as the hurricane will probably hit land. In both cases these are extrapolations from current observation as to what will (with some probability estimate) happen in the future.

  12. #12 ianam
    June 1, 2012

    P.S.

    Betula, when you directly quote a comparison between a prediction of tomorrow’s weather and prediction of end of century sea levels and then say you’re “confused” and contrast today’s radar map with prediction of end of century sea levels, it’s hard to conclude anything other than that you are an imbecile and that your thoughts and comments are utterly worthless.

  13. #13 Girma
    Perth
    June 2, 2012

    Accelerated warming of the IPCC => http://bit.ly/b9eKXz

    Uniform warming of skeptics => http://bit.ly/L5FSBg

    Warming rate reported by the IPCC is 2.5 (=0.2/0.08) times the actual warming rate reported by skeptics.

  14. #14 bill
    down a bit and a little to the left
    June 2, 2012

    Life’s too short to bother with Girma, methinks.

  15. #15 John
    June 2, 2012

    Weird. Sceptics we get here tend to say there is no warming and it’s all a hoax. They predict cooling and, in extreme cases, an imminent ice age.

    You guys should get together and get your story straight so we might take you more seriously.

  16. #16 Beacon
    UK
    June 2, 2012

    Can I interest anyone in my petition on AVAAZ, “Tax carbon to create jobs”? Details at http://bkuk.com

    Europe should take the advice of Vivid Economics in “The potential of carbon pricing to reduce Europe’s fiscal deficits” or the advice of the Fraser of Allender Institute in “A carbon tax for Scotland”.

    With less of an academic voice I say:

    We need to tax carbon to save the world. The receipts should be used to

    1) Pay international debts and
    2) Create jobs by taking the tax burden from labour – even subsidising jobs.

    So that’s full employment and a world saved.

    ——————————-
    P.S. I’ve found an easier way to challenge the deniers:

    Which of the “Global Warming & Climate Change Myths” do you believe?

    There’s a list of 173 here http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.

    Can you add a new one?

  17. #17 Dave H
    June 2, 2012

    Nooooooooo! Killfile no longer works with this new style, and I am subjected to Girma and his atrocious W-theory once more.

  18. #18 John Mashey
    June 2, 2012

    For me, it is hard to find any positives in the new scienceblogs format.
    No KILLFILE
    No numbers to allow simple back references.
    Cannot see the article count without clicking on the article.
    Useful old articles sometimes have formatting broken (URLS no longet hyperlinks), ad of course, disappearance of numbers means that some old discussions make no sense at all.

  19. #19 ianam
    June 3, 2012

    Girma’s comment sums up denialism in a nutshell. Most “skeptics” have never seen “their” graph before but would be quick to agree that it’s the right one, even if they have previously said that it hasn’t warmed for 15 years, is cooling, etc. Whether it is scientifically sound is irrelevant to them.

    For me, it is hard to find any positives in the new scienceblogs format.

    Everyone agrees; there are none.

    some old discussions make no sense at all

    Feel fortunate if the comments you’re looking for are even visible.

  20. #20 ianam
    June 3, 2012

    The deniers enthusiastically endorsing this idiocy bears out my comment.

  21. #21 Andrew Strang
    Australia
    June 3, 2012

    ‘Cannot see the article count without clicking on the article’

    And trivially for some perhaps, like J Quiggin’s blog, comment page numbers are at the bottom of the page, not at the section head for quick reference.

  22. #22 bill
    June 3, 2012

    The one thing I will say for the new format is that the blockquote tags now result in something legible if multiple paragraphs are quoted (the homogenous blobbing of everything used to really piss me off.) And you can recess one blockquote inside another – handy when I was quoting Jonathon Holmes the other day, for example.

    Oh,
    and
    now
    I
    (think I)
    can
    make
    a
    list
    without having to resort to using multiple paragraph tags!

    Other than that – no preview, no capacity for corrections, no permalinks, previous discussions reduced to gibberish: what’s to like?

    As for Watts’ imbecility du jour – slow ‘news’ day, I figure. The Deniers’ constant waving about of the shade of Feynman gets old very quickly, too…

  23. #23 TCR
    UK
    June 3, 2012

    While errors and mistakes get made in climate science all the time (it’s a contact sport after all) Amazon, Glaciers etc. What strikes me is the sheer volume of errors, mistakes and more by denialists – there are freaking loads of them and they are on a monumental scale (which is what happens when you remove checks an balances) and dwarf anything by climate scientists. Here’s just a few that occurred to me…

    A Wegman et al (2006) study purporting to show problems in the nature of collaboration of climate researchers had to be retracted to do plagiarism, poor scholarship and a shady peer review process that took only 5 days (it normally takes months). Doh, Wegman!

    McIntyre & McKitrick claimed in an op-ed in the USA Today that Mann had never made his data available for others. He did and it had been there for years. USA Today had to retract the claim. Doh, McIntyre & McKitrick!

    In an article by Daniel Grossman, Richard Lindzen claimed the 1999 Hockey Stick study used only tree rings and only from 4 locations. He was wrong. It used ice cores and tree rings and the tree data came from 34 sites based in 12 regions of the planet. Doh, Lindzen!

    Craig Loehle published a paper in 2007 in Energy and Environment that purported to show the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as today. Except that he didn’t understand that the standard date in tree-ring data of BP (before present) is 1950 and not 2000, so many of his records were 50 years out. Doh, Loehle!

    Climate scientist Hans Von Storch resigned as editor of the journal Climate Research because a contentious and flawed study purporting to show warming was not happening (Soon & Baliunas) – this papers peer review process had been murky and the publisher of the journal, Otto Kinne, would not let the editor say so. Doh, Kinne!

    Marcel Crok penned a 2005 article in Dutch magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek that claimed the hockey stick, and the Kyoto protocol that was based on it were both wrong. Yet the the Kyoto protocol was adopted in December 1997 – 4 months before the first hockey stick was published in April 1998. Doh, Crok!

    Representative Ed Whitfield’s also claimed the 1997 Kyoto protocol was based on the 1998 hockey stick. Doh, Whitfield!

    Dr. John Christy criticised Mann for lack of scientific openness by not sharing the source code used to generate the hockey stick (though the algorithm and method allowing reconstruction was) yet Christy had also refused to share code with Dr. Frank Wentz when requested to do so. Hypocritical doh, Christy!

    Dr. John Christy and Roy Spenser argued in several papers in the 1990s that warming was not happening based on satellite measurements, yet problems with their methods later showed they were wrong and they both had to concede warming was happening. Doh, Christy & Spenser!

    Any more?

  24. #24 Richard Simons
    June 3, 2012

    Changes that irritate me include:
    No list of all posts in chronological order. I used to always scan the last 24 hours to see what was new. Now all you get are the last few in each category with duplicates, some that have been there for many days and others that get pushed off the list within hours. There are several blogs I’d occasionally read that I no longer visit because it is harder to see what they are offering.
    Broken ‘Go to (select blog)’ at the top of each page.
    The ‘Recent Comments’ still lists none for the June Open Thread and always seems to be out of date.
    And, of course, the lack of comment numbers and preview.

  25. #25 Daniel J. Andrews
    June 3, 2012

    Re: global warming failing, scientists defecting from it, etc.

    Yet another denier meme copied from creationists (insert “Evolution” for “AGW”).

  26. #26 Daniel J. Andrews
    June 3, 2012

    Oops, I see someone already linked to Morton’s site.

  27. #28 Olaus Petri
    June 3, 2012

    Hehe…a bit quick there. ;-)

  28. #29 Dave H
    June 3, 2012

    @Olaus,

    Did Watts edit the post or something? He says he edited to make it clearer that this was an old paper, but it smacks of ass covering to me, given how many thought this was news. Mind you, judging by the comments, dimwittery cannot be ruled out. .

  29. #30 Eli Rabett
    http://rabett.blogspot.com
    June 3, 2012

    The obvious reply to Watts is that it would have been a good thing then but thanks to his kind we blew the chance.

  30. #31 ianam
    June 3, 2012

    GSW just urged Jonas to post in the open thread. I hope that, if/when the software gets straightened out, Tim permanently bans the lot of these trolls.

  31. #32 bill
    June 3, 2012

    Quote of the day:

    Joseph Bastardi says:
    June 3, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    I got sucked in. You should have put right off the bat it was from 2000. So I sent this out after reading the first part to alot of people and looked like a fool, cause I was one.

  32. #33 MikeH
    June 3, 2012

    According to Watts the Hansen paper was “published in 2000, but long since buried”

    From the paper (as quoted by Watts)
    “If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change.”

    From the May 18-19, 2012 Camp David Declaration of the G-8 nations
    “Recognizing the impact of short-lived climate pollutants on near-term climate change, agricultural productivity, and human health, we support, as a means of promoting increased ambition and complementary to other CO2 and GHG emission reduction efforts, comprehensive actions to reduce these pollutants, which, according to UNEP and others, account for over thirty percent of near-term global warming as well as 2 million premature deaths a year.”
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/19/camp-david-declaration

    As Eli notes, Hansen’s hopes for “plausible success in slowing CO2″ have been obstructed by among others Watts.

  33. #34 chek
    June 3, 2012

    Have * none * of them read and comprehended para. 6 of the summary of the abstract before proseltysing their pointy little heads off, then blaming everyone else?

  34. #35 bill
    June 3, 2012

    I mean, seriously; ‘buried’? Give me a break!

    Once a conspiracist…

  35. #36 MikeH
    June 4, 2012

    Hansen buried it in his publications list at GISS
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html#2000

    Petri got sucked in as well

    Prof. Hansen’s new approach to CO2?

    To paraphrase Bastardi “he looks like a fool because he is one”.

  36. #37 ianam
    June 4, 2012

    @chek

    If Bastardi, Olaus, and the rest of these morons cannot read and comprehend “2000″, you can hardly expect them to read and comprehend any of the rest of it. The patent stupidity of the posters there, from Watts on down, is immense. I’m surprised that Watts allowed Mike’s post, that points out what an imbecile Watts is:

    @”REPLY: Because it has been buried, Hansen doesn’t include it (along with many of his older publications) in his list of publications on his website.

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/publications.shtml

    I had never seen it until today. – Anthony”

    I suppose if you don’t keep up with the scientific literature this and many other things would seem shocking. The paper is listed on Hansen’s web page. It is not on the first page because the first page only goes back to 2004. But at the bottom of that page there is a link to earlier publications: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html#2000

    So, it was hidden in plane sight all along. In fact the debate about short term climate fixes while awaiting the longer term solution is pretty well known.

  37. #38 MikeH
    June 4, 2012

    Does the new blog format support images in comments?

  38. #39 MikeH
    June 4, 2012

    The answer is no – the tag was stripped out.

  39. #40 John
    June 4, 2012

    “Sceptics” at work.

  40. #41 Scribe
    June 4, 2012

    For me, it is hard to find any positives in the new scienceblogs format.
    No KILLFILE
    No numbers to allow simple back references.
    Cannot see the article count without clicking on the article.
    Useful old articles sometimes have formatting broken (URLS no longet hyperlinks), ad of course, disappearance of numbers means that some old discussions make no sense at all.

    +1. I’m out till the fix some or all of this. Cheers.

  41. #42 John
    June 4, 2012

    Stop the presses! According to The Australian, when it comes to death threats the real victims aren’t climate scientists but aggressive News Ltd attack hounds.

    Now, the reason climate scientists get death threats in the first place is because Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair and the entire Australian newspaper rountiely publish blatant falsifications about climate science and regularly smear scientists and their motives with heavily personal, dishonest attacks (does anybody else remember the “Tim Flannery lives on the waterfront, lynch him dead!” fiasco?)

    Any admission from these intellectually dishonest hacks that their aggressive stance against reality is to blame for the death threats against scientists? Do they take any responsibility?

    But after 20 years of abuse and threats, Mitchell has some advice: “These climate scientists need to harden up.”

    Somebody go and tell that scientist whose children were threatened with gang-rape that she needs to “harden up”.

    I see nothing but tacit approval of those tactics in that article, as if being a highly-paid, highly-charged right-wing ideoligical mouthpiece and researching scientific matters are exactly the same thing. I am against online abuse, but the Bolts and Blairs of the world understand that the position they take will make them enemies.

    Scientists, on the other hand, did not sign up for public abuse, and should we really expect to live in a world where death threats against scientists should be considered de rigueur? A part of the job? Becuase this is what Chris Mitchell and The Australian is apparently advocating.

    It would be less sick if they weren’t denying that threats were being made in the first place.

    What is it with the right-wing media and their victimisation complex?

  42. #43 bill
    the town that Rupert's empire started out
    June 4, 2012

    Having failed to prove that it’s not happening – a form of abuse in itself, I might add – we now get a combined tu quoque fallacy and ‘harden up’ rhetoric.

    To paraphrase a golden description of Basil Fawlty, there’s a whole Psych conference in these guys.

    The Australian really is a printed far-Right blog, and it behaves like a far-Right think-tank. Guess which one I’m thinking of…

  43. #44 DarylD
    William Lamb's Town Down Under
    June 4, 2012

    @Betula, June 1st 4.39pm

    Bunkum!

    You would not know the difference between a severe storm, the Beaufort Scale or watt even constitutes a Category 1 Hurricane(Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale), even if it rained on your parade and bit you in your posterior.

    And the ‘Old Duffer’, is still busy cherry picking his way, to the room of the smallest number of greatest pretenders, living in denial, in the 21st century, the “Ersatz Alchemy Science Skeptics”..

    Sad, for who would have thought, so few people would be scared out of their single mononeuron, by an inconvenient truth..

  44. #45 Mike
    Sydney
    June 5, 2012

    Re Betula…..it really wan’t all that difficult a concept to understand.

    But understand it, a denialist cannot.

  45. #46 David Duff
    God's little acre
    June 5, 2012

    I think, by and large, taken in the round and with judicial consideration, the new design of this blog is about on par with the pseudo-science that most of its correspondents espouse.

    Incidentally, ‘Her Majship’ is not amused that all that global warming you have been promising for the last 30 years failed – again – to make an appearance.

    Sorry, only ‘E for Effort’ – again!

  46. #47 bill
    June 5, 2012

    Booooooooring. Again.

  47. #48 John
    June 5, 2012

    David Duff says we espouse “pseudo-science” because he prefers to get his science from dowsers.

  48. #49 David Duff
    'This Septic Isle'
    June 5, 2012

    HOT OFF THE PRESS:

    More Good/Bad News – oh, hell, I can’t keep on explaining, you know what I mean. Anyway, according to the IEA (and, no, I haven’t a clue who they are but I know you swots here keep right up to date with all these scientific boondoggles):

    “Global carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion reached a record high of 31.6 gigatonnes in 2011.”

    Crikey! Not sure what a “gigatonne” is but it sounds like a lot to me. So tell me, folks, when is this blasted global warming going to start? I mean, today, the 5th of June for God’s sake, I have had to put my central heating back on! You told us over and over that if we didn’t cut CO2 emissions we’d all fry. Anyone who suggested otherwise was, and still is, howled down. So I ask again, where’s the heat? And, pur-lease, don’t tell me its all sunk down to the bottom of the ocean!

  49. #50 Ian Forrester
    June 5, 2012

    Duffer the puffer complained:

    So tell me, folks, when is this blasted global warming going to start? I mean, today, the 5th of June for God’s sake, I have had to put my central heating back on!

    Tell me Duffer, what do you have your thermostat set at, 35 degrees C or what?

    I think he is getting ready for the next world where he will find things a lot hotter than his Septic Isle (that’s where people who tell lots of lies go, you know).

    Here is what has really been happening with temperatures in the UK. Does Duffer live underground where he can’t see what is happening or is he just lying as usual?

    http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=41009

  50. #51 chek
    June 5, 2012

    What you have top make allowances for, Ian F. is that Duffer has the memory (and the concomitant intellect) of a goldfish.

    Your (beautiful) satellite image (during which the population of the UK were enjoying outdoor parades and concerts etc.across the entire nation in honour of HRH the Queen Maj’s 60th. shindig) was yesterday.

    David Duff, being an idiot fool denier and liar, apparently an’t remember that far back.

  51. #52 ianam
    June 5, 2012

    Duff’s understanding is that he has been told, over and over again, that every single day in every single part of the world it will get warmer than the day before and so if it’s cooler where he is than what it was yesterday, that falsifies global warming.

  52. #53 John
    June 6, 2012

    Duff, if you want to wind people up here you’re going to have to try a bit harder than “it’s cold where I live!”.

    Not even you believe that argument. Is this really the best the sceptics have got at the moment? No wonder their belief system is collapsing. Day by day more and more scientists are speaking out about AGW and here’s little old Duff insisiting that it’s cold!

  53. #54 Lotharsson
    June 6, 2012

    …oh, hell, I can’t keep on explaining,…

    You might try starting to explain. All of your “explanations” to date have been bullshit.

  54. #55 John
    June 6, 2012

    I was completely swayed by Duff’s convincing revelation that global warming doesn’t exist because it’s cold where he lives until I read about a heatwave in Southern India:

    Some areas of Purulia district are facing shortage of drinking water while civic authorities of Purulia, Raghunathpur and Jhalda towns have been supplying it once in a day instead of twice. “Drinking water tankers are also being placed in various parts and schools have been asked to extend the summer holidays,” he added.

    Officials said at least 32 people have died of heatwave in three districts of southern Bengal in the past two days.

    By Duff’s reasoning AGW is happening. Case closed!

  55. #56 John
    June 6, 2012
  56. #57 bill
    June 6, 2012

    Ah, but John, as a wise man once said at an ICCC conference -

    “The people that warm spells kill are already moribund.”

    - so that’s alright then.

  57. #58 Jeff Harvey
    June 6, 2012

    *So tell me, folks, when is this blasted global warming going to start?*

    FYI, Greenland just experienced its warmest ever May day (24.8 C) and Siberia is experiencing a record-setting heatwave, with temperatures in the mid to high 30s. Not that any of this is climate, but it is part of a growing data set showing an increasing trend towards warmer conditions at the poles – exactly as Keeling and Revelle said it would back in the 50s.

    The trouble with idiots like the old Duffer is that they look out the back window and generate their ‘science’ on the basis of this.

  58. #59 Chris O'Neill
    June 6, 2012

    Anxious Duff:

    “So tell me, folks, when is this blasted global warming going to start?”

    Nothing for you to worry about Duff. By the time you die, they’ll probably be less than another half a degree of global warming and less than an additional 10 cm of sea level rise. The damage caused by these rises will be relatively insignificant compared with the disasters that will come after you die but for psychopaths such as yourself, those disasters after you die are of absolutely no significance.

    So don’t worry about it Duff, it’s not a problem we expect psychopaths to care about.

  59. #60 Marco
    June 6, 2012

    To steer the discussion to some more sane topics, and to show that there are sane Australian media outlets, too, see
    Putting the wind up us

  60. #61 Bernard J.
    June 6, 2012

    The people that warm spells kill are already moribund.”

    Indeed. It begs the counter that

    The people that cold snaps kill are already moribund.”

    Just to put it out there, so that those coolists/coolistæ can determine the relative balance, especially in the future…

  61. #63 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    June 6, 2012

    None of you seem to realise that I’m on *your* side! I love the thought of global warming – provided it’s all around me! I don’t care if you live in a desert like the Sahara or Australia, I only care about south west England and as I live miles inland I certainly don’t care if the sea rises, in fact, if it washes away some of those ghastly monstrosities of seaside towns which blight our coast, then good riddance.

    But my complaint is real – where and when is this warming going to happen? We’ve had three in a row miserable wet Summers and this looks like another bummer. I know because one of my hobbies is whittling. I carve models of Mann and Jones and Briffa (well, if they can create models why not me?) and then set fire to them to get a little warmth, but the ‘Memsahib’ will not allow me to do it indoors because of the mess. I haven’t done any whittling for three years because its too bloody chilly to sit outside!

    So I repeat, where’s the warming gone? Where are the calamities, the ‘Apocalypse Now’ scenarios, the scorched earth? It certainly isn’t here and I haven’t seen any of it anywhere else exept where it’s always been, ie, Sahara and Australia and frankly anyone who actually chooses to live in either deserves all they get!

    So when is it going to happen?

  62. #64 Marco
    June 6, 2012

    Duff, you are not on ‘our side’. You dwell in an alternative universe where facts are irrelevant, unless they confirm your desires.

    Do you live downwind from a large waste incinerator, perhaps?

  63. #65 Jeff Harvey
    June 6, 2012

    Just foer dumb old Duffer:

    Record warmth in Greenland:

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/04/494641/unprecedented-may-heat-in-greenland-temperature-hits-stunning-766f/

    Note that the temperature at the end of May was barely below the warmest recorded in any month of the year. Remarkable. Siberia is also experiencing a record heat wave right now, with temperatures in the mid to upper 30s. Unprecedented.

    Of course this is ‘only’ weather, but it (a) supports predictions by Revelle and Keeling made in the 1950s (that the highest latitudies would be disproportionately warmer relative to normal than lower latitudies), and (b) it is aprt of a larger data set showing many more warm records are being broken than cold records. Is the planet warming? Most definitely. And its the poles that are receiving a large portion of it.

    Duffer’s ‘science’ is to look out the window and stick his finger in the wind.

    In other words, it ain’t science.

  64. #66 bill
    June 6, 2012

    Betty – you have cottoned on that this is an Australian blog about climate, haven’t you? Walker’s recall election is completely irrelevant.

  65. #67 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    June 6, 2012

    “Walker’s recall election is completely irrelevant”

    Oh, no it’s not! And if, Bill, you are ‘a believer’ then you should start worrying because Walker’s win presages a Romney win in November and you can kiss goodbye to all that greenery twaddle that Obama threw zillions of dollars at!

    Jeff, do pay attention, I couldn’t care less about Siberia – a total lavatory of a place, I imagine – and Greenland is frequently warm. Just stick to the point, WHERE ARE THE CATASTROPHES?

  66. #68 jrkrideau
    Canada
    June 6, 2012

    @ bill 1:17 pm

    “Betty – you have cottoned on that this is an Australian blog about climate, haven’t you? Walker’s recall election is completely irrelevant.”

    Well it is tangentially linked. The Koch brothers are reputed to have poured a lot of money into Walker’s campaign. Must be money saved from Heartland :)

  67. #69 Lionel A
    June 6, 2012

    Duff you duff puffer.

    You want catastrophes then Google on ‘UK floods 2012′ for starters. Then drill down to discover the impact on wildlife (much loss in Somerset and in the Fens with some endangered species losing important nesting sites), farming and US (that is as ‘WE’ not The US) more directly.from disruptions to services including sewage. Fouled beaches should be considered.

    Of course such things do not concern those with tiny minds and selfish mores.

    Looking further afield it is not to much of s stretch to discover landslides, wildfires and much death from overheat coupled with drought. Of course the suffering of millions in southern India is of little consequence to you, after all it isn’t your kids dying.

    As for Romney, the only thing he is likely to win is a ‘Janus Award’ – when you have finished with it that is.

  68. #70 Gingerbaker
    June 6, 2012

    “WHERE ARE THE CATASTROPHES?”

    Since you evidently live in a cave… here you go… catastrophes:

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/06/495713/extreme-weather-is-the-new-climate-reality/

  69. #71 Betula
    June 6, 2012

    “Betty – you have cottoned on that this is an Australian blog about climate, haven’t you?”

    Bill, apart from the fact that this is an open thread, there is a political link at the top of the page and politics is catagorized in the right column of the site….C’mon Bill, I think I may be sensing a little leftwing “Death Threat Denial” from you.

    “Walker’s recall election is completely irrelevant”.

    So the people who are put into office have nothing to do with policies, including those that may have to do with global warming? Really? But the left deemed it so important….only now it’s irrelevant…heh heh.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS0Dqz2P1sk

  70. #72 Lionel A
    June 6, 2012

    Now how about that GB, CP has just posted some relating to my Romney remarks.

    Soon be game-set-match for old duffer & co.

  71. #73 Gingerbaker
    June 6, 2012

    “So I repeat, where’s the warming gone? Where are the calamities, the ‘Apocalypse Now’ scenarios, the scorched earth? It certainly isn’t here and I haven’t seen any of it anywhere else …”

    Scorched Earth? How hard have you been looking? World wide drought index up ‘precipitously’ from 1980:
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/wet-is-dry-and-dry-is-wet/

    A Generation of Texas Farmers and Ranchers, Lost to the Drought
    http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/04/06/a-generation-of-texas-farmers-lost-to-the-drought/

    Scorched earth:
    http://photos.masslive.com/republican/2011/08/texas_drought_12.html

    Worst Russian Drought in 50 Years Threatens Next Crop:
    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-03/worst-russian-drought-in-50-years-threatens-next-crop.html

    Mexico’s drought destroys crops, endangers life, and opens corn market to U.S. farmers:
    http://southwestfarmpress.com/grains/mexico-s-drought-destroys-crops-endangers-life-and-opens-corn-market-us-farmers

    Drought destroys Spanish cereal crop:
    http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2012/04/04/drought-destroys-cereal-crop/

    Severe Drought Destroys Crops in Yunnan:
    http://english.cri.cn/6909/2012/02/19/189s681990.htm

    Drought in Southern China Destroys Crops, Water Levels Lowest Ever :
    http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/drought-in-southern-china-destroys-crops-water-levels-lowest-yet-24873.html

    Grain fields across Argentina’s Pampas region destroyed by drought:
    http://feww.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/drought-destroys-fifth-of-argentine-corn-crop/

    That took me 5 minutes of Googling.

    Duff, you are one deliberately-misinformed and lazy SOB

  72. #74 Lotharsson
    June 6, 2012

    Well it is tangentially linked. … Must be money saved from Heartland

    Speaking of links between Walker and Heartland

  73. #75 Lionel A
    June 6, 2012

    And Duffer, seeing as you are hovering around again take a load of this for the reality that you try so hard to ignore:

    Climate change’s worst enemy is its first victim: The city .

    I make that 40-love, IOW game-set-match.

  74. #76 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    June 6, 2012

    Floods?

    What floods?

    I’ve lived long enough to have read about *real* floods in the Uk but most of them were long before you HAFs got so excited – and excitable.

    We were supposed to have had a drought according to the weather experts at the Met Office – and do stop giggling, they try their best!

  75. #77 ianam
    June 6, 2012

    Oh those silly liberals….

    It’s liberals who want to kill Obama and have called for the deaths of just about every prominent liberal politician and every judge who didn’t decide in their favor?

    Everything you post just demonstrates how immensely intellectually dishonest you are, Betula … you gain nothing by doing so.

  76. #78 ianam
    June 6, 2012

    But the left deemed it so important….only now it’s irrelevant…heh heh.

    The Democrats took control of the Wisconsin State Senate yesterday. And exit polls favored Obama 51 to Romney 44. The biggest reason Walker held on is because 60% of the voters felt that recalls should only be used for malfeasance, not policy differences … and because the Republicans outspent the Dems 7 to 1, which will indeed have a large impact on the November election.

    But none of this changes the fact that AGW is real, it just shows yet again that you’re a partisan slug, Betula.

  77. #79 chek
    June 6, 2012

    What can it possibly be that drives societal detritus like David Duff to be so unaware of what’s happening in their own country. And yet be proud and willing to declare their ignorance?

    It’s not like these stories aren’t carried in The Daily <Sturmer or a local version of The Weekly Cousinfcuker, so it can only be namesake syndrome.

  78. #80 ianam
    June 6, 2012

    But the left deemed it so important….only now it’s irrelevant…

    And again you show your combination of stupidity and dishonesty, Betula. Yes it was a very important race for the left, as articulated by leftist Rachel Maddow, especially if Walker had been recalled, and no it doesn’t tell us much about the outome of the November presidential race, as articulated by two of centrist President Obama’s paid spokespeople.

  79. #81 bill
    June 7, 2012

    Any group of people capable of voting for Walker once is quite capable of doing it twice. Big deal.

    Colour me astonished that he’s to be HI’s keynote speaker. Birds of a feather…

  80. #82 bill
    June 7, 2012

    Back on track – here’s an interesting discussion of the comparison of the dire prognostications of wailing, gnashing of teeth and oceans of tears before bedtime that the Mabo decision was going to spawn – according to its detractors – and the contemporary catastrophist carry-on re the carbon tax.

    Don’t trouble yourself, Betty – you’ll never sort it all out.

  81. #84 Bernard J.
    June 7, 2012

    The Pacific Institute is pleased to welcome Dr. Peter Gleick back to his position as president of the Institute.

    Bill, you forgot to cue the howls of outrage from the Denialati.

    What I’m looking forward to now is the response from Heartland, and especially word on the progress of their lawsuit. After all, it’s not like Bast’s case is falling to pieces or anything, is it?

    And then there’s the small unanswered matter about where the material came from that was supplied to Gleick…

  82. #85 BPW
    June 7, 2012

    This is a genuine and serious question. I am interested in real opinions. Since Tim often writes about shitty reporting in Oz, and I live in the US I have no perspective, I thought I would ask here.

    There were a bunch of articles written today, and others when it was released, about the Finkelstein Report…

    http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry

    …and its ramifications. Most of the stories I have read are from sites with which I am unfamiliar. I am trying to see if this is internet spin, or if this thing is really has the possibility of seeing the light of day. A journalist friend sent the original link to me which was this.

    http://afr.com/p/opinion/finkelstein_report_threatens_to_KuZ3KVqlRRBvxyUm4iEzbK

    I am very curious to the opinions on the report from those here who live there as I know there are many.

    Honest question. Does anyone support this thinking, even if you believe The Australian spouts deception in science–another thing all together and an opinion I don’t disagree with from what I have read–keeping in mind that this thing appears to pertain to all discussions, not just scientific issues?

    Seems crazy to me.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate

  83. #86 ianam
    June 7, 2012

    @bill

    Your comment about voters capable of doing it twice is odd, as it doesn’t relate to any point made by me or Betula or the people in that video. But on that score, a) people know a lot more about him than when he ran, and the political landscape in Wisconsin has changed dramatically; b) people didn’t vote for him, they voted against his recall; that makes a difference when, according to exit polls, 60% voters said that someone should be recalled only for official misconduct, and another 10% opposed all recalls. On top of that, Walker spent $29 million to Barrett’s $2.9 million. With those factors, it should not have even been close, but it was because of (a).

    There’s still the possibility that he’ll be removed from office for other reasons.

  84. #87 bill
    June 7, 2012

    ianam,

    I don’t disagree with any of the points you raised. Even I don’t find the idea of recall elections all that comfortable – except in cases of genuine malfeasance – because sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and all that. Still, being an Australian that’s not an issue… (so far as I know wwe have no such laws)

    My response is directed to Betty and the whole ‘you’re losing the argument because we’re more popular’ brigade.

    Taking too much to heart the results of ‘free and fair’ elections that are little more than popularity contests where candidates are sold to the electorate by the same people who sell us soap-powder, using the same techniques, is a path to madness.

    As is allowing ‘corporate persons’ to plunge virtually unlimited wodges of cash into an electoral system, of course. But the very media who are supposed to point this out are the chief beneficiaries of the enhanced tonnage of advertising dollars.

  85. #88 John
    June 7, 2012

    Anybody else notice Duff’s position has retreated to ignoring all the empirical evidence and postulating “global warming is only real if the effects which are predicted to happen decades and centuries from now effect me personally where I live today”?

    This is what the “skeptics” have been reduced to – babbling arguments so lame not even they believe them. Their belief system is collapsing before our eyes.

  86. #89 ianam
    June 7, 2012

    My response is directed to Betty and the whole ‘you’re losing the argument because we’re more popular’ brigade.

    Betula’s statement in re Walker wasn’t about that; it was

    But the left deemed it so important….only now it’s irrelevant…

    which is, of course, dishonest, as it refers two different things … the statement about irrelevance was made by Obama spokepeople, not “the left”, about its relevance to the outcome of the Presidential election. Of course they will downplay the idea that Walker retaining his governorship is bad news for Obama in November … and they happen to be right. At the same time, Rachel Maddow is correct that this was a hugely important election; had Walker lost, it would have had major repercussions, and his not losing will embolden the other right wing governors who are engaged in trying to destroy the remnants of labor unions.

  87. #90 ianam
    June 7, 2012

    But the very media who are supposed to point this out are the chief beneficiaries of the enhanced tonnage of advertising dollars.

    “Super PACs may be bad for America but they’re very good for CBS” — CBS CEO Leslie Moonves

  88. #91 ianam
    June 7, 2012

    Taking too much to heart the results of ‘free and fair’ elections that are little more than popularity contests …

    Betula wrote

    So the people who are put into office have nothing to do with policies, including those that may have to do with global warming?

    He’s certainly right about that relevance. Regardless of the mechanism by which these people are elected, the results of the elections have significant consequences.

  89. #92 bill
    June 7, 2012

    Consequences? Certainly; I’m always in favour of the least-awful candidate. ;-)

    (I’m also a paid-up member of my Union.)

    I understand that climate wasn’t relevant to this election.

    And it’s little suprise that the party that loses will say the particular dominates over the general, hence it has little to do with the next election, and the party that wins will say the general is dominating over the particular, hence the opposite – that’s the law of the by-election. I agree that in this case the losers would appear to be right, though.

  90. #93 Betula
    June 7, 2012

    Interesting…

    On June 6, 1:17 pm, Bill made the comment…”Walker’s recall election is completely irrelevant” He was referring to it’s irrelevance as a subject on an open thread on a science blog..

    So Bill, why are you discussing it?

  91. #94 Betula
    June 7, 2012

    Ianam…

    “people know a lot more about him than when he ran”

    Right…so they voted him back in.

    “people didn’t vote for him, they voted against his recall”…

    Really? I suppose they didn’t vote for him the first time either.

    “60% voters said that someone should be recalled only for official misconduct, and another 10% opposed all recalls”

    Yet the whiny morons who were mad because Walker did what he said he was going to do, decided to go ahead with a recall anyway…

    “On top of that, Walker spent $29 million to Barrett’s $2.9 million.”

    Try getting your numbers right, whiny moron:

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/04/us/politics/money-spent-on-wisconsin-recall-election.html

    “With those factors, it should not have even been close, but it was because of (a)”

    Just as close as the first time…only less close:

    “The race was a rematch of the 2010 race, when Walker beat Barrett by nearly 6 percentage points. Turnout Tuesday was higher than it had been 19 months earlier, and Walker was leading by 7 percentage points with 96% of the vote counted.”

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/guvrace06-ku5ld5b-157364555.html

  92. #95 John
    June 7, 2012

    Betula thinks the main issue of the recall election was global warming.

    I can see Betula’s been reading Duff’s comments and thinking “I can draw a longer bow than that!”

  93. #96 Betula
    June 7, 2012

    “I can see Betula’s been reading Duff’s comments and thinking “I can draw a longer bow than that!”

    Using John’s logic…
    John thinks the main issue of the recall election was hunting.

  94. #97 chek
    June 7, 2012

    Shorter Betula: I’m a troll and I DEMAND to be taken seriously.

    Doesn’t seem that’s working out too well for you.

  95. #98 ianam
    June 7, 2012

    “people didn’t vote for him, they voted against his recall”…

    Really? I suppose they didn’t vote for him the first time either.

    The stupidest comment I’ve seen on the intertubez all week. Very impressive!

  96. #99 ianam
    June 7, 2012

    You hand someone a lemon and a lime. They say “Thanks for the lemons.” You point at the lime and say “That’s not a lemon, that’s a lime.” They say “Really? I suppose the other one isn’t a lemon either.” You think “Why am I even talking to this nut?”

  97. #100 John
    June 8, 2012

    Betula now denies claiming Walker’s policies (or lack of) on AGW won him the election.

    Using Betula’s logic…
    No, I can’t, he doesn’t use any.

1 2 3 8

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!