June 2012 Open Thread

More thread.


  1. #1 Olaus Petri
    June 23, 2012

    I see that during my short absence the shaman brigade of Deltoid went full charge. Tents are shaking and the speaking tongues work more than ever like power drills. 🙂

    Still no reply on the good news that the emperor penguins are doing quite well and that there might be an increase in the future?

    And again, the census showed nothing of a decrease. If any conclusion can be made regarding numbers it is that they have gone up. And I don’t question that there might be a methodology problem with the article, only that its results, if anything, support an increase.

    Therefor any statements of them (jefferor penguins) being threatened can be reckoned as “polarbearing”, not the least based on the fact that the articles brought forward (in defense for a decrease) blamed loss of ice as the cause.

    In other words they should be deep down in the bin. But in climate scientology there aren’t any bins if there is a scare involved, only gloomy crystal balls. 😉

  2. #2 bill
    June 23, 2012

    Again, Geniuses, do you get more snow in relatively warm winters, or relatively cold ones.

    I know the world is distressingly not as simple as you are, but that’s why there are grown ups.

  3. #3 Wow
    June 23, 2012

    “This bill genius is trying to tell us that global-warming is causing more snow.”

    Of course an ignorant buffoon wouldn’t be able to understand a chain of causality from one link to the same one, never mind down the chain.

    Mack, you’re a waste of CO2.

  4. #4 Wow
    June 23, 2012

    Bill, the problem with the infants infesting here is that don’t think, just prattle.

    They wouldn’t, for example. that warming from -10C doesn’t mean you have to be over 0C.

    Morons, the lot of them.

  5. #5 Karen
    June 23, 2012

    hahaha, bird brain bill, AGW is the snow job.

  6. #6 Wow
    June 23, 2012

    Yes, sunspot, we KNOW you’re a moron.

    Why do you insist on telling us about it?

  7. #7 Jeff Harvey
    June 23, 2012

    In response to the utter bilge being promulgated by Olaus ‘ pathetic’ Petri, who vainly tries to estimate projections of Emperor Penguins in the coming century (an uneducated guess from an uneducated layman, in other words), reflect on Bernard’s words. If the IPCC is remotely correct, and ice cover in the Antarctic shrinks at the rate that is currently occurring in the Arctic, the penguins are finito. No if or buts. Area-extinction models, which generally underestimate extinction rates, confirm that.

    But let’s see how warming is affecting other biota:


    Monika Winder1,3 and Daniel E. Schindler1,2
    1School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Box 355020, Seattle, Washington 98195-5020 USA

    2Department of Biology, University of Washington, Box 351800, Seattle, Washington 98195-1800 USA

    The largest uncertainty in forecasting the effects of climate change on ecosystems is in understanding how it will affect the nature of interactions among species. Climate change may have unexpected consequences because different species show unique responses to changes in environmental temperatures. Here we show that increasingly warmer springs since 1962 have disrupted the trophic linkages between phytoplankton and zooplankton in a large temperate lake because of differing sensitivity to vernal warming. The timing of thermal stratification and the spring diatom bloom have advanced by more than 20 days during this time period. A long-term decline in Daphnia populations, the keystone herbivore, is associated with an expanding temporal mismatch with the spring diatom bloom and may have severe consequences for resource flow to upper trophic levels.

    Climate change and population declines in a long-distance migratory bird (NATURE, 2006)

    Christiaan Both1,2, Sandra Bouwhuis1,3, C. M. Lessells1 & Marcel E. Visser1

    Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), PO Box 40, 6666ZG Heteren, The Netherlands
    Animal Ecology Group, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Studies, University of Groningen, PO Box 14, 9750AA Haren, The Netherlands

    Phenological responses to climate change differ across trophic levels1, 2, 3, which may lead to birds failing to breed at the time of maximal food abundance. Here we investigate the population consequences of such mistiming in the migratory pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca4. In a comparison of nine Dutch populations, we find that populations have declined by about 90% over the past two decades in areas where the food for provisioning nestlings peaks early in the season and the birds are currently mistimed. In areas with a late food peak, early-breeding birds still breed at the right time, and there is, at most, a weak population decline. If food phenology advances further, we also predict population declines in areas with a late food peak, as in these areas adjustment to an advanced food peak is insufficient. Mistiming as a result of climate change is probably a widespread phenomenon, and here we provide evidence that it can lead to population declines.


    Climate change and evolution: disentangling environmental and genetic responses


    Rapid climate change is likely to impose strong selection pressures on traits important for fitness, and therefore, microevolution in response to climate-mediated selection is potentially an important mechanism mitigating negative consequences of climate change. We reviewed the empirical evidence for recent microevolutionary responses to climate change in longitudinal studies emphasizing the following three perspectives emerging from the published data. First, although signatures of climate change are clearly visible in many ecological processes, similar examples of microevolutionary responses in literature are in fact very rare. Second, the quality of evidence for microevolutionary responses to climate change is far from satisfactory as the documented responses are often — if not typically — based on nongenetic data. We reinforce the view that it is as important to make the distinction between genetic (evolutionary) and phenotypic (includes a nongenetic, plastic component) responses clear, as it is to understand the relative roles of plasticity and genetics in adaptation to climate change. Third, in order to illustrate the difficulties and their potential ubiquity in detection of microevolution in response to natural selection, we reviewed the quantitative genetic studies on microevolutionary responses to natural selection in the context of long-term studies of vertebrates. The available evidence points to the overall conclusion that many responses perceived as adaptations to changing environmental conditions could be environmentally induced plastic responses rather than microevolutionary adaptations. Hence, clear-cut evidence indicating a significant role for evolutionary adaptation to ongoing climate warming is conspicuously scarce.

    Climate Change, Elevational Range Shifts, and Bird Extinctions (CONSERVATION BIOLOGY)


    Abstract: Limitations imposed on species ranges by the climatic, ecological, and physiological effects of elevation are important determinants of extinction risk. We modeled the effects of elevational limits on the extinction risk of landbirds, 87% of all bird species. Elevational limitation of range size explained 97% of the variation in the probability of being in a World Conservation Union category of extinction risk. Our model that combined elevational ranges, four Millennium Assessment habitat-loss scenarios, and an intermediate estimate of surface warming of 2.8° C, projected a best guess of 400–550 landbird extinctions, and that approximately 2150 additional species would be at risk of extinction by 2100. For Western Hemisphere landbirds, intermediate extinction estimates based on climate-induced changes in actual distributions ranged from 1.3% (1.1° C warming) to 30.0% (6.4° C warming) of these species. Worldwide, every degree of warming projected a nonlinear increase in bird extinctions of about 100–500 species. Only 21% of the species predicted to become extinct in our scenarios are currently considered threatened with extinction. Different habitat-loss and surface-warming scenarios predicted substantially different futures for landbird species. To improve the precision of climate-induced extinction estimates, there is an urgent need for high-resolution measurements of shifts in the elevational ranges of species. Given the accelerating influence of climate change on species distributions and conservation, using elevational limits in a tested, standardized, and robust manner can improve conservation assessments of terrestrial species and will help identify species that are most vulnerable to global climate change. Our climate-induced extinction estimates are broadly similar to those of bird species at risk from other factors, but these estimates largely involve different sets of species.

    Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change

    Warren, M S, Hill, J K, Thomas, J A, Asher, J, Fox, R, Huntley, B, Roy, D B, Telfer, M G, Jeffcoate, S, Harding, P, Jeffcoate, G, Willis, S G, Greatorex-Davies, J N, Moss, D and Thomas, C D (2001) Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature . pp. 65-69. ISSN 0028-0836

    Habitat degradation and climate change are thought to be altering the distributions and abundances of animals and plants throughout the world, but their combined impacts have not been assessed for any species assemblage. Here we evaluated changes in the distribution sizes and abundances of 46 species of butterflies that approach their northern climatic range margins in Britain—where changes in climate and habitat are opposing forces. These insects might be expected to have responded positively to climate warming over the past 30 years, yet three-quarters of them declined: negative responses to habitat loss have outweighed positive responses to climate warming. Half of the species that were mobile and habitat generalists increased their distribution sites over this period (consistent with a climate explanation), whereas the other generalists and 89% of the habitat specialists declined in distribution size (consistent with habitat limitation). Changes in population abundances closely matched changes in distributions. The dual forces of habitat modification and climate change are likely to cause specialists to decline, leaving biological communities with reduced numbers of species and dominated by mobile and widespread habitat generalists.

  8. #8 Richard Simons
    June 23, 2012

    Still no reply on the good news that the emperor penguins are doing quite well and that there might be an increase in the future?

    And I don’t question that there might be a methodology problem with the article,

    No-one has suggested there might be a problem with the methods (not ‘methodology’) described in that paper. A census that finds 4 previously unknown colonies and confirms the existence of 3 suspected colonies is likely to be an improvement on earlier studies. The problem lies in your understanding of what was done and how it fits in with earlier work.

  9. #9 Bernard J.
    June 23, 2012

    …and then there’s Tasmania’s weather.

    Although it hasn’t happened for a few years now, it has been known to snow on Mt Wellington at Christmas. And just so our dense NH trolls don’t become confused, that’s a southern hemisphere Christmas.

  10. #10 Bernard J.
    June 23, 2012

    Your 1,2,3,4 fabrication is in reality is just circumlocutious crap .

    KarenMackSunspot, the Tourette-afflicted numpty who just can’t disguise the illiteracy tells common to each of his socks, can you stop with the potty-talk for a moment and explain with which of those four points you take such umbrage?

    Olaus Petri.

    Amongst many scientists I know, one is a penguin biologist. Operating on the premise that no-one would know better than a penguin biologist, I asked her about the status of Antarctic penguin populations, and she is very concerned for their security in the medium to long term. Very concerned. I won’t say what she thinks about your interpretation of the science, beyond noting that KarenMackSunspot has been phrasing the same sentiment, but far less delicately and with rather more fixation on the post-digestive functions of the alimentary canal…

  11. #11 Betula
    June 23, 2012

    Looks like we have a few more “bombshells” from the Global Warming Guru ….

    “it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.”

    – “blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion”

    – “The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”

    – “about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”
    The amazing thing is, the Deltoid geniuses don’t know that they don’t know it.


  12. #12 Wow
    June 23, 2012

    Looks like we have Betty joining in the tag team of stupid.

    “it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.”

    Except they haven’t been shown incorrect. Not even remotely.

    “blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion”

    OK, so he’s a whining little shite. This doesn’t prove anything about AGW other than he’s unable to think about it rationally.

    “The greens use guilt.”

    So does the courts. I guess you’d want child rapists to get away free because you can’t abide with guilt being used, huh?

    “about claims “the science is settled” on global warming:”

    … is that it’s made up by the idiots who don’t do science and don’t understand it.

    “you iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”

    Except you, the tag team and this barnpot seem to iterate away from it. An eppy-cycle if you will.


    Yeah, with a title like that, you know it’s going to be biased and unthinking knee-jerking.

  13. #13 Betula
    June 23, 2012

    Wow’s idol turns, so in response, Wow resorts to the subject of child rapists. Fascinating how that works…

  14. #14 Wow
    June 23, 2012

    As and example of how brain-dead that idiot there is, in his “opinion” piece, he claims quotes “recently from msnbc”, then Guardian and goes to give the apparent quotes from it thereafter. But the entire guardian interview is available here:


    And the items claimed to have been said were not.

    The MSNBC piece wasn’t an interview with MSNBC but them reporting what he’d said to the Independent.

    All in all, this guy has just written whatever turned up on WTFUWT and Betty swallowed the load.

  15. #15 Wow
    June 23, 2012

    Oh, are you trying to use GUILT on me, Betty????

    Surely that proves you’re WRONG!

  16. #16 P. Lewis
    June 23, 2012

    Good grief! This is old news for this year, this Canadian article seeming like a rehash of this.

    And Lovelock’s earlier “nonsense” was called out here, ooh, 6 years ago!

  17. #17 P. Lewis
    June 23, 2012

    Oops! Missed Wow’s reference to MSNBC. No matter.

  18. #18 Wow
    June 23, 2012

    That toronto rag piece was so confused about what it was talking about, its entirely possible that lots of those mined quotes were from 6 years ago.

    Like I said, it had MSNBC but then talked about the Guardian (two years ago), but in neither place did he talk about “settled science”. That was Times piece, not mentioned AT ALL on that piece of vapid crap.

    Seriously, that lunatic was all over the place.

  19. #19 Jeff Harvey
    June 23, 2012

    Trust old Betula to wade through the sewage of the tabloid media and cite a screed from another right wing pundit(mis)quoting a 92 year old scientist. There isn’t a rock in existence under which the denialists will not look for something – anything – to give the impression that common sense and science are on their side. The latest bete noire has been to saturate the internet with interviews from James Lovelock, ever since he slightly moderated his views on climate change. Once this miniscule shift weas detected by the denialosphere, they swooped on him like a pack of rabid hounds, desperate to saturate the media with the notion of a ‘ warmist who has seen the light’. This shows how utterly desperate the liars and deceivers in the denial camp are. Expect Lovelock to crop up a few thousand more times in the coming months in interviews with the right wing punditocracy, in a desperate attempt to give the impression that the scientific community writ large is coming around to his way of thinking, or that those who don’t (meaning 99.9% of researchers in the environmental sciences, like myself) are out on a limb.

    Its pathetic, but par for the course. Michael mann correctly refers to this as the ‘Serengeti strategy’ in his recent book, but this is a different approach. In their attacks on climate science, the deniers have, like predators in the Serengeti that single out prey on the edge of a herd, singled out a few scientists to smear, under the impression that if they can effectively bring down the reputations of these scientists then the entire foundation of science underpinning the warming will collapse. Now, using Lovelock, they are using a reverse strategy: singling out well-known scientists who once strongly supported the evidence behind AGW but, allegedly, who have had a rethink in recent years and have reconsidered their opinion. Lovelock fits the bill. So he gets splashed all over the right wing corporate media as if he is some sort of world renowed expert who must, by definition, be correct, because he has apparently become more sceptical. Remeber how the right wing media did the same thing with Bjorn Lomborg: the allegedly left-leaning greenie who re-evaluated the evidence and ended up promoting a world-view strongly aligned with corporate/libertarian agendas. Nothing makes a better story than a horse changing mid-stream, and the deniers have honed the art of making mountains out of veritable molehills out of this. That Lomborg probably hasn’t got the foggiest clue about anything he writes about in his book doesn’t matter: his message resonates with the interests of the privileged few and is heavily promoted. Heck, his book covers a wide diversity of exceedingly complex fields that take decades to master, and he writes it in 15 months? And the media didn’t smell a rat? Now Lovelock is suddenly the flavor of the month in denial circles.

    As for poor old simpletons like Olaus, I could cite dozens of srudies in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which already provide strong evidence of warming-related effects of multi-trophic interactions and that are almost certainly culpable for recent population declines of various taxa. Pied flycatchers, summer tanagers, Yellow-Billed Cuckoos, Daphnia, caribou, oligophagous insects, and many other diverse animal (and plant) taxa are being negatively affected by warming. The problem is, that when your entire world is Watts Up with That, or Jennifer Maharosy, or Climate Audit, as is the case with the deniers here, then this science does not register with you.

  20. #20 chek
    June 23, 2012

    Betty finds a re-heated pile of dross posted over on Anthony “UHI” Watts’ site and bounds over here without researching any part of it whatsoever.

    Like the equally brainless Skippyduff, he just falls head over heels in unquestioning love with the cut of the proverbial jib

    .Fascinating how that works…

  21. #21 John
    June 24, 2012

    It turns out Monckton has been ostracised for inviting former British Freedom Party members (i.e. fascists) to join the UKIP, despite a long-standing ban.

    It’s sad what’s happening to the deniers. Watts is growing ever more shrill, with a new nail-in-the-coffin-stickied-post-that-definitely-proves-the-scam-this-time every week, Monckton following the extreme right wing publicity-and-cash-machine into irrelevancy, a record low in arctic ice and a planet that just just refuses to cool, no matter how many times angry commenters predicted it.

    This must be very frustrating, especially in light of the coming El Nino.

  22. #22 ianam
    June 24, 2012

    Shades of Anthony Flew — reviled by Christians when an atheist, embraced by Christians when he abandoned atheism (because he had been convinced, wrongly, that the arguments of Intelligent Design proponents could not be answered) — despite the fact that he still completely rejected Christianity. Such is the way of intellectual dishonesty.

  23. #23 Mack
    June 24, 2012

    “intellectual dishonesty” 🙂 🙂 Yeah ,you guys here have honed that down to a fine art . But were dealing with brainwashed teaching dickheads like bernerd and Jeff .here.

  24. #24 John
    June 24, 2012

    Karenmackspot, if you want to accuse others of intellectual dishonesty perhaps it’s best not to be using multiple sockpuppets while claiming cold weather proves something or other.

  25. #25 Bernard J.
    June 24, 2012

    “intellectual dishonesty” 🙂 🙂 Yeah ,you guys here have honed that down to a fine art .*


    I note that you still haven’t pointed out the apparently scandalous scientific “intellectual dishonesty” that you claimed I engaged in at 11:50 am on 23 June.

    You make a lot of noise about how scientists are liars and frauds, but you never seem to put forward any evidence, even after I have noted this point on numerous occasions.

    Why is this, I wonder…?

    [*And seriously, work on your poor punctuation – you only present as an uneducated ass when you comment.

    Oh, that’s right…]

  26. #26 Mack
    June 24, 2012

    Yeah you’re a real educator Bernerd but I’m not one of the adulating imbeciles you have in this classroom.

  27. #27 Bernard J.
    June 24, 2012

    Yeah you’re a real educator Bernerd but I’m not one of the adulating imbeciles you have in this classroom.

    Heaven forbid that you should ever darken the doorway of a classroom, a lecture theatre, or a laboratory – the latter two being way beyond your league. If you had done so beyond the minimum legislated educational requirement, you might actually put forward an evidenced argument, rather than the mere completely unsubstantiated ideological rants to which you are prone.

    As it stands, you have never advanced an argument that was structured, referenced, and/or defensible. You’re just a drive-around-the-block shooter of tabloid garbage claims, hoping that you might suck some poor unsuspecting innocent into your anti-scientific world of paranoia and conspiracy.

    Your mother must be so proud.

  28. #28 Jeff Harvey
    June 24, 2012

    *but I’m not one of the adulating imbeciles you have in this classroom*

    No, instead you’re one of the scientifically illiterate imbeciles who is outside the classroom.

    Note how Karensmackspot didn’t attempt to rebut a word I said above – par for the course. Just the usual last resort to ad homs. Well done, you sad little person.

    As for GSWs link, well there you have it. A corporate psychologist wades into areas well outside of his competence and adds his two cents worth. He might have mentioned that the 1992 summit on biodiversity in Rio was a flop because it was effectively hijacked by a coterie of transnational corporations who were more concerned over who had the patent rights to biodiversity than with protecting it. And in spite of what our corporate psychologist says, the planet’s biota are a lot worse off now they were back in ’92. The number of species that are at risk, threatened or endangered on the IUCNs list has markedly increased since then. At the same time, the planet’s distribution of wealth has been increasingly concentrated towards the privileged few. Africa’s share of the global economy has shrunk from a miniscule 4% to an even more miniscule 1.3% (Bond, 2006), suggesting that the powerful elites who run the show are not remotely concerned with either protecting the planet’s decreasing genetic diversity nor reducing poverty.

    All in all, what makes the posts of the deniers here even more utterly pathetic is the fact that none of them probably are part of the tiny self-centered elite sector of society. And yet, here they are batting for those who would gladly throw them to the dogs. It shows one how the power of manipulative propaganda is aimed not at the politically converted, but at the masses who, as Walter Lippmann once explained, must be managed like sheep.

  29. #29 Karen
    June 24, 2012

    I see Jeff quoting Karl Marx and Walter Lippmann, why don’t you throw in Edward Bernays ?

    Your beloved UN is well aware of these three devil’s and no doubt use’s a mixture of tricks from the later two, they most likely also have plans to implement the formers financial armageddon across the globe.

    Even though you know this, will you speak up against it ?

  30. #30 John
    June 24, 2012

    I admire the way Karenmackspot is using her multiple personalities to tagteam commenters here. Isn’t a shame that there are so overwhelmingly few fake sceptics left that they have to fake identities in order to beef up their numbers.

  31. #31 Wow
    June 24, 2012

    So who decided that if you quote Marx that this is proof you’re wrong?

    Is that REALLY the best “proof” you have sunspot?

  32. #32 John
    June 24, 2012

    Your beloved UN is well aware of these three devil’s and no doubt use’s a mixture of tricks from the later two, they most likely also have plans to implement the formers financial armageddon across the globe.

    This basically parrots the sad little website Karen claims doesn’t belong to her.

    Kooky stuff. The remaining fake sceptics are becoming such fringe nutcases that they are driving every sane, rational person away from their cause.

    Sorry, “cause ?”

  33. #33 Mack
    June 24, 2012

    What a couple of toffee nosed teaching wankers you both are. Your intelligence stretches no further than the textbook in front of your nose. And this Jeff tit says the “masses… must be managed like sheep” …Yeah control freak. Tossers like you used to let loose with cane back in my day.

  34. #34 John
    June 24, 2012

    Isn’t it weird that Karen and Mack agree with each other but never actually speak to one another?

  35. #35 Karen
    June 24, 2012

    Mack I’m not to sure about them being toffee nosed.

    Brown nose’s, yeah

  36. #36 Mack
    June 24, 2012

    You’re such a control freak you think that man can control the climate. Yeah ….You’re that looney.

  37. #37 bill
    June 24, 2012

    For the benefit of the Geniuses.

    Here’s some more – the falling differential of temp between the equator and the poles allows the jet-stream to do some very weird things indeed, including dragging masses of sub-arctic air south into Europe and North America. and all the while, temperatures continue to rise, and, on the other side of the meandering stream, new heat records are set. (Warning – some danger of learning something from video. Probably best avoided, eh?)

    One of the first books I read that discussed climate change – apart form McKibben’s End of Nature – was Gleick’s Chaos (James, not Peter, don’t get into a lather), which reinforced to me that when you shove non-linear systems out-of-whack they will swing crazily before reaching a new equilibrium. If they reach a new equilibrium at all. Well, they will, in the long run, but, to quote Karl Marks ‘in the long run we are all dead’*.

    So, sorry, the moronic world-view that holds that AGW must mean that everywhere in the world must warm monotonically, and that heavy precipitation in the form of snow does not count as heavy-precipitation because, it’s, y’know, cold, and all – is just that; moronic.

    Sorry to break it to you guys, but you are where you are because, when push comes to shove, you really are not very smart. You might have all the technical proficiency in the world in some limited sphere – or might imagine that you do (read the ongoing Curtin thread train-wreck) – but when it comes to being an alleged sentient operating in a complex biosphere that must remain healthy and vibrant for the benefit of us all, you could not possibly be any dumber.

    And whole armies of you swarming about and endlessly shouting congratulations at each other about how f’in’ brilliant you all are – WUWT, BH etc. – is just thick en-masse, not proof that you have a point.

    The fact is, the world is complex, and tricky, frequently counter-intuitive, and in order to understand it you must have at least some ability to switch off your eternal desperate search for ego reinforcement and not just automatically reach for the closest prejudice to hand – AKA what you and the rest of your dreary reactionary cronies think of as ‘common sense’.

    You argue like children because you reason like children. Period. Scary children. Lord of the Flies children.


    *Actually, this is Lord Keynes, but 1: you didn’t know that, did you? (‘Marks’ indeed!) and 2: you could scarcely hope to distinguish between them anyway.

  38. #38 Karen
    June 24, 2012

    lol, bird brain is back.

    Was that little diatribe directed at whacky wow & little johny ?

    Looks like it

  39. #39 John
    June 24, 2012

    You’re such a control freak you think that man can control the climate. Yeah ….You’re that looney.

    A “looney”? Karenmackspot, I am hurt you could ever think such a thing about a humble chap such as myself!

    You’re right, I do believe man can affect the climate. As does Monckton, Singer, Cristy, Spencer, and Lindzen. Would you describe them as “loonies”?

    I’ve always thought that “looney” was more used to refer to conspiracy theorists who troll websites with multiple identities in order to push their fringe beliefs that the UN is conducting scientific fraud to install a one world government! Silly old me!

  40. #40 Wow
    June 24, 2012

    Mack, you’re such a moron you can’t even understand what the difference is between controlling and affecting.

    You don’t think we can affect the climate? Or is this something Curry has told you to say and you’re of so little willpower and self-motivation that you just believe and parrot the ridiculous claims?

  41. #41 Karen
    June 24, 2012

    I remember that somewhere in a not to distant thread that Jeff was alarmanising that the jet stream was going stop !

    ARRRrrrrrrrr IT”S BREAKING DOWN he was screaming !!!!

    hahahahaha poor dear jeff

  42. #42 Jeff Harvey
    June 24, 2012

    It defies logic when I read nutty remarks like this: “Your beloved UN is well aware of these three devil’s”

    Talk about paranoid delusion. The UN hasn’t had any teeth for years, not since it was co-opted by the US-UKisNato axis.

    As fore Mack, you must be proud swallowing the volumes of corporate mainstream media propaganda you’ve been fed in dollops over the years. You certainly are a part of Lippmann’s ‘ mindless herd’. James Madison, one of the early Presidents of the United States, claimed that the country needed to be be in the control of a ‘better set of men’, meaning those from the rich privileged class. This ‘better set of men’ – is well represented by people from groups like the Council on Foreign Relations, an elite Ivy-League group set up in 1919 (and which formulated the ‘Grand-Area Strategy’ as a metaphor for controlling the flow of capital from the poor to the rich nations, focusing on the Middle-East and Caucasus region. What is happening now as the planet’s resource base is sucked dry to support the short-term agendas of the privileged few (Michael Klare’s latest expose details this as do earlier tomes from Greg Grandin, Tom Athanasiou and Patrick Bond) is that the denial industry has upped the ante in order to keep the ‘mindless herd’ – well represented by the Mack’s, the Karen’s, and the Sunspot’s -(or all three packaged into one) in their place as useful idiots. Whenever their wafer-thin intellectual positions are challenged, out come the ad homs or the latest Fox-News derived rants detailing evil UN or communist agendas. Don’t argue with facts of statistics because they don’t know any. All they are left with is the detritus from some right wing blogs or the corporate media.

    This buch of idiots couldn’t debate their way out of a soaking wet paper bag. They need to learn a little about the way the world works – foreign policy agendas, resource depletion, the declining health of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems – and put two and two together and to stop rehashing drivel from the few myopic sources that they do read.

  43. #43 Bernard J.
    June 24, 2012

    Heh heh.

    KarenMackSunspot descends into a paroxysm of juvenile pretense that he is a conversing “they”, not at all concerned that it’s rather odd that they are suddenly both online as soon as John points out that they have previously not spoken to each other.

    KMS, if you’re going to start talking to yourself, one-sentence exchanges will tend to support those of us who can see your transparent sock-puppettry. Get a clue.

    And still no structured argument I note, Foulspot.

    And dude, it’s great to see that Jeff, myself, and others are living rent-free in your mind. Rail against it as hard as you might, small man, but you aren’t fooling anyone with an IQ over 75 – you’re all sound and fury, but you don’t actually have a case.

    As a challenge, if you do have a case, can you enunciate it in 100 words or less? Go on, you know that you want to…

  44. #44 Wow
    June 24, 2012

    “I remember that somewhere in a not to distant thread that Jeff was alarmanising that the jet stream was going stop !”

    Yes, sunspot, we KNOW you hallucinate. There’s no need to keep telling us about it.

  45. #45 Jeff Harvey
    June 24, 2012

    *I remember that somewhere in a not to distant thread that Jeff was alarmanising that the jet stream was going stop!*

    Given that I am a senior scientist with 120 publications on the Web of Science since 1993, Karen, I would never, ever make up such an absurd remark. You, schmuck, are a liar. A brazen liar. Incapable of discussing anything remotely scientific here, you have to resort to blatant lies and then to joke about them. This suggests that you are some kind of wing-nut.

    If you want to engage in Kindergarten level science, do it somewhere else. I note that you and your alter egos have failed to discuss a single scientific fact on this thread. When they are thrown at you, then you come back with infantile smears and lies. The latest takes the cake. Making things up actually makes you look more of an idiot than you already are, which is considerable.

  46. #46 bill
    June 24, 2012

    Oh, yes, and Monckton. And there we see one of the Greats of Denial.

    Oooh, isn’t that just cringeworthy?

    Get used to it, kids.

  47. #47 Karen
    June 24, 2012

    Oh yes you did Jeffery.


    In ten years time you will be denying that you believed in CO2 induced climate climate change, lol

  48. #48 bill
    June 24, 2012

    Deary me, ‘Karen’, I think your brain has melted in the heat of your desperation.

  49. #49 bill
    June 24, 2012

    What’s the betting ‘Karen’ can’t distinguish between the Jet Stream and the Gulf Stream? 😉

  50. #50 Wow
    June 24, 2012

    sunspot can’t distinguish between her mental programming and reality.

    Really. He’s like a scientologist or Moonie.

  51. #51 Bernard J.
    June 24, 2012

    What’s the betting ‘Karen’ can’t distinguish between the Jet Stream and the Gulf Stream?

    Huh? Aren’t they the same thing?

  52. #52 John
    June 24, 2012

    How humiliating for Karenmackspot Bracken.

  53. #53 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    June 24, 2012

    Ever eager to help you beleaguered few, I bring you news of the very latest change in ‘terminalogical inexactitudes’ so that you can be bang up to date with your fibs. ooops, sorry, I mean PR-speak:

    “One leader at a meeting related to the Rio +20 conference this week, noting that because conservatives reject the notion global warming, “We don’t use the term climate change anymore. It’s sustainable development.”

    “Sustainable development” – got that? No more ‘global cooling’, no more ‘global warming’, no more ‘climate change’, from now on it’s ‘sustainable development’.

    Right, all together now, after me . . .

  54. #54 Wow
    June 24, 2012

    OK, so what makes you think that everyone here is part of the Conservative Party, duffski?

    And what the hell does it have to do with what climate change is?

  55. #55 Karen
    June 24, 2012

    David these are only the die hard flat earther type O’ warmers left in here. I suppose that you also have noticed that this once warmer flushing blog only harbours the most deluded now, all the others have changed their monikers and gone over to WUWT or Bishop Hill.

    CO2 hardly gets a mention since they changed to the CC meme

  56. #56 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    June 24, 2012

    You’re right, Karen, they are an endangered species here and so one must treasure them and constantly hold them up to our children as an example of what happens if you swallow nonsense wholesale!

    By the way, you fight the good fight!

  57. #57 Karen
    June 24, 2012

    Oh dear, Oh dear I made another typo !!!

    barnterd will try to tease me about it.

    I was supposed to type

    “that this once warmer flushing bog only”

    sorry barnturd

  58. #58 Karen
    June 24, 2012

    David I enjoy your jolly jibes also 🙂

    hahaha watch the nutters now

  59. #59 Jeff Harvey
    June 24, 2012

    I was, like Ramsdorff’ s research, referring to the Gulf Stream as a result of the massive inflow of fresh water from the melting Arctic ice. Trust ‘Karen’ to confabulate the Gulf Stream and the Jet Stream. How insidiously stupid can one be? These deniers take the cake.

    Then there is this:

    “You’re right, Karen, they are an endangered species here and so one must treasure them and constantly hold them up to our children as an example of what happens if you swallow nonsense wholesale! By the way, you fight the good fight!”

    Duffer means “fight the no-fight or fight the vapid fight””, because the truth is that Karen/Mack/Spot have not once discussed actual science anywhere in any thread. Sure, they’ve cut and pasted snippets from right wing blogs, but these are usually rants from deniers and nothing within a light year of a scientific journal.

    The Rio 1992 summit was about biodiversity and various threats to it. The evidence is that, since 1992, the health of all of the world’s ecosystems – every single one – has continued to decline. Every ecological indicator is negative, and there is a wealth of data to show this to be the case. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) was the latest. Economically critical ecosystem services – from nutrient cycling to pollination to water purification – have been reduced in their capacity and efficiency. Marine fisheries are on the brink of collapse, as marine food webs have been depleted down the food chain. Deserts are expanding, the Aral Sea isn’t, species and genetically distinct populations are decreasing exponentially, 50% of the world’as tropical wet forests are gone, and plant/animal invasions are homogenizing the biosphere. But of course, our resident idiots know nothing about the science underlying the MEE and have not read a page of it. In their true wisdom, expect them to dismiss it out of hand without having even glanced through it, certainly not understanding what it says, and then to dismiss it as part of a global left-wing/socialist/communist conspiracy. How predictable.

    Then Duffer comes up with the howler of suggesting that Karen is ‘fighting a good fight’ when she/he/it isn’t fighting anything at all: just parading ignorance. You clowns don’t want a discussion of science, but to just further illustrate that their are no boundaries to stupidity.

  60. #60 John
    June 24, 2012

    “One leader at a meeting related to the Rio +20 conference this week, noting that because conservatives reject the notion global warming, “We don’t use the term climate change anymore. It’s sustainable development.”

    The “leader” was Huxley Lawler, an obscure employee of an obscure Australian local council. No wonder you didn’t name him. He’s a nobody. Everybody knows that we receive our directives straight from the desk of secret UN chief and cult leader Al Gore.

    Try a bit harder Duff. Your jolly old man persona is beginning to wear thin. It’s what, three years now since you claimed that the AGW theory was “over” (whatever that means!) only to be faced with the warmest year on record.

    It must fill you with seething rage that year after year your pathetic predictions (no sea level rise! global cooling!) fail to pan out.

    Duff, you unhappy, miserable old sod, I suggest you cheer up, go outside and enjoy your twilight years instead of sitting at the computer railing against science and that Kenyan Obama! You’re not getting any younger! 🙂

  61. #61 chek
    June 24, 2012

    Well, with both Skippyduff and Karenmackspot resorting to their blustering versions of ‘final nail in the coffin’ just above, that’s the idiot contingent fresh out of “arguments”. Again.

  62. #62 John
    June 24, 2012

    The public and media are no longer listening to the deniers. Watts and co. have been wrong so often, with every “bombshell” and “final nail in the coffin” such a fizzer that the public have completely turned their backs on them. Even worse, no matter how shrill and insisent Watts becomes, the media now ignores him having been burned so often in the past.

    There was a great article published in Popular Science that contains un unfortunate section on one of the actual thought leaders in the denial movement:

    Just as in the rest of the country, belief in human-caused climate change in Oklahoma has been rising with the thermometer—according to Krosnick, a large majority of Inhofe’s constituents now believe that anthropogenic global warming is real. I ask Inhofe if he’s noticed any climate changes in his home state, such as last summer’s unprecedented heat and severe drought, withering crops, wild fires and dramatically expanded tornado season. “There’s not been any warming,” he snaps. “And there’s actually been a little bit of cooling. It’s all documented. Look at the Dust Bowl. Back then it was a lot hotter. Matter of fact, now they say the hottest time was actually during that time—1934, I guess.”

    Actually, last summer’s average temperature of 86.9˚ was the highest ever recorded in Oklahoma. And last spring’s drought, when hundreds of farmers abandoned livestock they could no longer manage to feed or water, was the worst since 1921.

    Many of the scientists I’ve spoken with say that no single act of harassment or intimidation has stung more than Inhofe’s “list of 17,” the call for the congressional investigation of prominent climate scientists. Mann, I tell Inhofe, said it “smacked of modern-day McCarthyism.”

    “I’m not the guy that called for investigations, I don’t think,” Inhofe says. He quickly glances at his communications director, Matt Dempsey. “Did I ever call for investigations?” I study Inhofe’s face for a clue as to whether he’s joking—he brags about the episode in his book. It’s clear that he is not. Dempsey nods at his boss. “Okay,” Inhofe says. “Maybe right after Climate Gate, I said they need to be investigated.”

    It’s over Duff. The deniers have lost.

  63. #63 Mack
    June 24, 2012

    We’re going to have to simplify things for the residual loonies here Karen. They’re obviously still obtoosly confused . I’m from NZ. but you;re going to cop this carbon tax that the” intelligensia” (but not you Bill) will have inflicted upon you?

  64. #64 Wow
    June 24, 2012

    Listen you imbecile, you haven’t said a damn thing. Apart from demonstrate the onanistic orgies of the denial crowd.

  65. #65 Lotharsson
    June 24, 2012

    …juvenile pretense that he is a conversing “they”,…

    To be fair, (s)he may merely be transcribing the different voices in her/his head…

  66. #66 bill
    June 24, 2012

    It’s true, isn’t it, Karen? You really did mix up the Gulf Stream and the Jet Stream.

    No wonder you’re having a love-in with Duffer…

  67. #67 Karen
    June 24, 2012

    Mack, Jooliar is gunna get the boot, and when the mad monk gets in he reckons he is giving it the chop !

    Mind you he will most likely just change it’s name to an environment levy, and I don’t really mind that so much so long as it is used for “our” environment, not to feather the nest’s of the NWO.

    did you like that last little bit wet checky ?

  68. #68 Karen
    June 24, 2012

    Mack, Jooliar is gunna get the boot, and when the mad monk gets in he reckons he is giving it the chop !

    Mind you he will most likely just change it’s name to an environment levy, and I don’t really mind that so much so long as it is used for “our” environment, not to feather the nest’s of the NWO.

    did you like that last little bit wet checky ?

    Have you seen this Mr birdbrain ?


  69. #69 John
    June 24, 2012

    I noted their ignorance of each other knowing that Karen would immedately start talking to herself and dropping pointless details to prove Mack “real”. She couldn’t have fallen for a more obvious trap.

  70. #70 zoot
    June 24, 2012

    So Mack is a Kiwi. Perhaps he/she/it could give us an update on the damage their carbon price did to the New Zealand economy.

    No, probably not.

  71. #71 Karen
    June 24, 2012

    Oh Johny you’re such a sleuth, lol

    Have you seen this ?


  72. #72 Bernard J.
    June 24, 2012

    Oh dear, Oh dear I made another typo !!!

    barnterd will try to tease me about it.

    Typos? Pffft. Everyone makes typos.

    What you characteristically do is to repeat the same idiosyncratic mispunctuations over and over, and hilariously you did it yet again as both ‘Karen’ and ‘Mack’ after I pointed out your deficiency once more, back at 8:16 am 24 June.

    Poor education, pathetic subtlety, prurient excuse for understanding of science…

    And you wonder why we don’t treat you with anything like respect.

  73. #73 John
    June 24, 2012

    Karen, mine was funnier.

  74. #74 John
    June 24, 2012

    Denier favourite Judith Curry agrees that declining arctic ice caused by global warming is “[playing] a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters“, essentially what Bernard claimed earlier.

    Somehow I don’t think Watts will be pushing that study, but I’m sure an amateur has fitted out some polynomials that show a nice downward curve on tree ring proxies from an obscure reigon of Mongolia dating from 1880-1910 that definitely prove the scam this time, for realz.

  75. #75 Betula
    June 24, 2012


    “The deniers have lost”

    Congratulations on a good win. When do we get to see the trophy?

  76. #76 observer
    June 24, 2012

    The signal to noise ratio on this blog is dropping dangerously low. As a relative outsider I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Wow, Bernard J, Lotharsson, chek, bill, ianam, Jeff Harvey and several others for providing a robust defence against the river of shit that has been polluting the blog since pretty much its inception. Your efforts are not unnoticed. Furthermore, I’d like to extend a big “fuck you” to the small group of sad individuals on the other side of this “debate” – you know who you are, you bunch of losers. Toodles!

  77. #77 chek
    June 24, 2012

    Betty: “When do we get to see the trophy?”

    With this week’s crop – Stevie boy blogging on Muir Russell, Pope Montford b(f)logging a Christopher Booker ‘story’ (yes, really!) and Anthony ‘UHI’ Watts agreeing with North Carolina’s revisionist approach to research – it seems we’re already seeing denialism atrophy.

  78. #78 Betula
    June 24, 2012


    “Denier favourite Judith Curry agrees that declining arctic ice caused by global warming is “[playing] a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters“.

    Oh I see….once this miniscule shift by Curry was detected by the alarmosphere, so now they swoop in on her like a pack of rabid hounds, desperate to saturate the media with the notion of a ‘ denier who has seen the light’. This shows how utterly desperate the liars and deceivers in the alarmistcamp are.

    Just kidding John, that was me paraphrasing Jeff Harvey from his June 23rd rant….only I forgot to mention how great I am. Fits rather well don’t you think?

    So John, with Judith Curry as your new go to authority, I’m glad we can finally agree that articles such as the one below are bunk. You’re finally coming around…


  79. #80 BPW
    June 24, 2012

    bill says…

    “BPW needs to learn how to present him of herself upon arriving if he wants people to have a reasoned discussion of some matter. Better yet, find a blog where people are actually debating the Finkelstein Report, rather than playing tone/concern troll here with it.”

    So let me get this straight. I need to learn how to present myself? On a blog? On THIS blog? Interesting. Not sure what it means, but it’s interesting. Seems you have quite the high opinion of yourself.

    bill, here’s a thought. I live in the US. I don’t frequent, or frankly know, many Aussie blogs. I know that there are many Aussies here. The topic was brought to my attention by a journalist friend, so I asked here. God forbid I get a straight answer. After all, the topic of how the Australian press handles science and other matters is NEVER discussed here. And to ask on an open thread? The horror!

    As for concern/tone troll, I have little respect or use for those terms. Weak rhetoric. I would be concerned if the US government was considering entering the business of moderating the press directly. And as for tone, I don’t much care. But some should, because it matters more than you think. But snark away and continue the head-scratching back and forth with the usual suspects as it sure seems productive.

    Now, had you left off the above and simply pointed me in another direction, that would have been fine, and appreciated. And since I am genuinely interested, I will go take a look.

    FrankD, thanks for your more reasoned response.

    I will say the other reason I asked here was my interest in the responses from the locals. The lack of response, to what was a very genuine question, is telling. And that people here would rather continue the back and forth with the regular antagonists on topics which are simply tired and lack any focus on issues which actually matter and can, and should, be addressed is telling as well.

    But keep on keepin’ on if it suits you. It’s solid entertainment. In the meantime I’ll head elsewhere for an answer to my questions. Frankly, I guess I should have known better than to expect a reasoned response here.

  80. #81 chek
    June 24, 2012

    Betty – from your link: “That the politically motivated Enviro-Marxists are losing their hopeless war on the harmless trace gas CO2 and that their plans for world socialist domination have been derailed.”

    With intellectual powerhouses and a depth of understanding like that to point to, 10:10 should reframe their campaign as Dignitas Direct.

    Unfortunately for you and me, crowing punditry and deluded commenters do not influence the events the science tells us are in train.

  81. #82 Betula
    June 24, 2012

    “Unfortunately for you and me, crowing punditry and deluded commenters do not influence the events the science tells us are in train”

    I disagree, I think more Karl Marx quotes from Jeff and Bill would be of great influence….

  82. #83 Jeff Harvey
    June 24, 2012


    You write, “And that people here would rather continue the back and forth with the regular antagonists on topics which are simply tired and lack any focus on issues which actually matter and can, and should, be addressed is telling as well.”

    Sp please perchance, tell me in your opinion what topics merit discussion? Growing evidence that our global ecological life support systems are under threat don’t merit discussion, in spite of the fact that our civilization depends on a range of services that emerge from them? I’d also like to point out that the US media, if not wholly owned by powerful multinational corporations, is utterly beholden to them. The whole political system is a sham, a plutocracy in which a very small but wealthy and powerful minority ensure that the system reflects their interests. Herman and Chomsky’s ‘Propaganda Model’ was obviously written with the US media in mind; given their incessant cheerleading for expansionist wars abroad, my take is that the US media isn’t that far removed from Pravda in the former Soviet Union in terms of content and bias. The only real alternative are books and some media sites (i.e. Fair, Common Dreams, Z-Net, Counterpunch, Democracy Now!) on the internet; the US mainstream corporate media’s record, especially on foreign policy and environmental issues, is shameful. Not that its much better over here, in Europe, mind you.

    As for Betula, Mack, Karen, and Duffer, whats utterly amazing is that this bunch of high school dropouts is trying to give impression of the scientific high ground with respect to the scientific evidence behind AGW (and other environmental issues), irrespective of the empirical evidence, and, more importantly, the views of the vast majority of experts in the relevant fields. Now that takes remarkable hubris. Lacking any scientific underpinning, they then have to resort to the usual comedic arguments relating to global UN agendas, communism, etc. ad nauseum. Its tiresome, particularly since the UN hasn’t had any teeth since the late 1940s, and has been largely co-oped by the United States and its proxies. Which country has vetoed more UN resolutions – including those advocating food, health and security for all of the world’s people, and global protection of the planet’s ecosystems (true, if one can stomach it) – than all of the other members of the so-called Security Council combined? Of course, the US. One just has to look through some of the resolutions in which the US has stood alone from the rest of the General Assembly to realize that promotion of democracy, freedom and human rights is not a priority of US foreign policy.

    Anyway, I am more than willing to take on any of the moronic deniers here in debating the condition of the planet’s ecosystems and the consequences for ecosystem services, but since the brainless brigade appear to have never set foot inside a science class, what is the point? Instead, expect more vacuous smears and jibes.

  83. #84 Jeff Harvey
    June 24, 2012

    You know, what is even more sad, is that Betula’s day job is apparently to prune vegetation. Seriously. He does not benefit from the current political economic system which is driving our ecological systems to hell in a handbasket. Yet, his views reflect those of the wealthy few. I am sure the think tanks and their paymasters love to see average Joe’s like Betula bolstering their agendas. Talk about being useful idiots.

    My guess is that Mack and Karen are also middle or lower range income earners. I say this on the basis of their utter stupidity with respect to scientific arguments (heck, Karen can’t tell the jet stream and Gulf Stream apart, and has to defend her/its/his smear with a WIKI entry but no links to me saying that the jet streram would cease because of course I never made such an absurd remark), and their inability to write proper English. So why does this lot worry about UN agendas and world government (the only chance of that was soon after WW II when the US became an imperium, but since the 1950s its global reach has dissipated profoundly). To be honest, I have rarely read such utterly puerile nonsense re: global socialist/communist agendas, but this lot of average schmucks actually appears to believe it. If they were corporate CEOs, I would understand their desperate desire to maintain the status quo, but these people are clearly not members of the elite 1%.

  84. #85 Betula
    June 24, 2012


    I’ve already proved you to be an embellishing egotistical liar for the cause. You’re ramblings are insignificant to everyone but yourself.

    Now, type something to make yourself

  85. #86 Betula
    June 24, 2012

    feel better….

    This new format sucks…

  86. #87 chek
    June 24, 2012

    Never mind Betty, your championing of the brand of ideological sewage that requires support from abject ignorance still comes across with absolute clarity.

  87. #88 Olaus Petri
    June 24, 2012

    Great to see dear that Richard S takes his time to investigate. 🙂 He goes on a walkabout and ask his friend about the penguins and was told that she was concerned, very concerned. Well did you ask her if she was concerned about the increasing ice mass as well? Because, you know, the worrisome part was loss of ice, remember? And now it isn’t a problem anymore. 🙂 What does that tell you about the quality of the research wrt jefferor penguins?

    Be happy that climate scientology not even can base their scares on proper presumptions. 😉

    I suggest you roll over belly up on this one Richie.

    And the Ming penguin himself is true to form: he starts barking about something completely different. Why, is beyond me. I have told Jeffie numerous times that I do not doubt that nature responds to climate change, an he still goes on about it. What’s wrong with him?

    Why can’t he stay on topic and stop making out with his straw men?

  88. #89 chek
    June 24, 2012

    Petard, it’s all-too-obvious that you oh-so-want your take-home message to be ‘there’s nothing to worry about’. And yet you hang round here like a spare dildo at an orgy because, existentially, you realise it’s not.

    The solution is obvious – stop filling your head with the trash you currently consume, and educate yourself. Real Climate and Skeptical Science may, with sufficient diligence on your part, alert you to what’s happening.

  89. #90 Richard Simons
    June 24, 2012

    Great to see dear that Richard S takes his time to investigate. 🙂 He goes on a walkabout and ask his friend about the penguins

    Can’t you get anything right? There are no penguin experts amongst my friends and I never claimed there were.

    I see that after your failed attempt to produce a research paper to back your claims, you are descending once more into insults. At least, you don’t need to read for comprehension to produce them, do you?

  90. #91 Olaus Petri
    June 24, 2012

    Chek, I’m sure there are lot of things to worry about, but loss of ice in the antarctic region seems not to be one of them, hence the scares regarding jefferor penguins were based on a wrong understanding.

    I’m sure you can agree with me on that one. 😉

  91. #92 Olaus Petri
    June 24, 2012

    Sorry Richie, it was Bernie that took his time to make a canossa walkabout to penguin land. Please try forgive me my friend. Either way I was the one presenting a paper that showed an increase of emperor penguins, if anything.

    You and your fellow believers came up with articles that claimed otherwise based on the conviction that loss of ice was a problem. Well it wasn’t. Consequently all the “mays” and “ifs” were crap.

    Deal with it and be happy.

  92. #93 chek
    June 24, 2012

    Petard, all that I can see we can agree on is you’re a myopic dunce
    Regardless of whatever trash you’ve read about (seasonal) sea ice, the western ice shelves are currently disintegrating due to to …. ‘warming’. And then – given the topography – what stops the land bourne ice slipping into the sea?

    Don’t worry, it’s a rhetorical question. I don’t expect intellectual fruitflies like you to think that far ahead. You can go cuddle up to sleep with your favourte anti-science memes.

  93. #94 Olaus Petri
    June 24, 2012

    Well chek, if the winds are changing I guess it must be the CO2 doing it? 😉

  94. #95 Olaus Petri
    June 24, 2012

    Oh, I forgot. I agree. You did the right thing stop talking about the penguins chek. 😉

  95. #96 chek
    June 24, 2012

    That’s because you know nothing about them, and since your raddled, second-hand misunderstandings have already been exposed, there’s nothing to predicate continuing discussion of them.

  96. #97 Lotharsson
    June 24, 2012

    One could be forgiven for suspecting that OP is concentrating very hard on penguins and the Antarctic because he doesn’t want to factor this into his reality.

  97. #98 bill
    June 25, 2012

    I think more Karl Marx quotes from Jeff and Bill would be of great influence….

    You know, it is difficult to mock someone who is stupid to the point that they are incapable of comprehending their own stupidity. Truly our Trolls inhabit a world beyond satire…

    Speaking of which, the other issue that’s being carefully avoided is Monckton’s complete wig-out, calling the (doubtlessly-smartly-uniformed!) boys from the British Freedom Party into the UKIP fold, much to the alarm of even this redoubt of the lunar-Right…

    I wish that the independent minded people who are willing to stand away from the major parties could remember that because we are so few, we should stand together.

    And UKIP is, for all its faults, the biggest of the freedom loving, democracy loving, independent minded parties. And I don’t like this splitting off, which is very prone to happen in those smaller parties precisely because you have to be independent minded to start with. And this makes everyone willing to fight and go their own way.

    But the British Freedom Party won’t really come to very much, I don’t think, and I would very much like them to come back and join us and we stand together…

    And let us never forget that this buffoon has been one of the chief spokespeople of your movement, Deniers.

    I suspect that this revealed politics probably resonates with a substantial segment of Denial itself, though most aren’t yet daft enough to actually say it out loud.

    Instead they gaily project away. You know, we’re the democracy-hating intolerant conspiracists, who are simultaneously trying to hand all their hard-earned wealth over to the undeserving Third-World poor so they can frivolously eat a bit more and maliciously install wind-turbines, while all-the-while genocidally exterminating the tragic poor of the Third-World by denying them nourishing coal-fired power-stations…

    ( I know it doesn’t make sense, but not much in Denial does!)

    If Teh Stoopid institutionalised insists on giving us a Great Depression to cap its existing generous gift of a Great Recession, as seems likely, I fear we will have to watch these strident, hysterical and reactionary forces coalesce into something very ugly indeed – and perhaps much less discreet.

  98. #99 bill
    June 25, 2012


    “When I get an e-mail that mentions my child and a guillotine,” [Katharine] Hayhoe says, “I sometimes want to pull a blanket over my head. The intent of all this is to discourage scientists. As a woman and a mother, I have to say that sometimes it does achieve its goal. There are many times when I wonder if it’s worth it.”

    That this appalling Denier rabble is so monumentally self-righteous, and routinely claims victim status for itself, should surprise no-one with any knowledge of History.

    The above from Popular Sciencehere’s a version that’s (currently) readable here in the Antipodes.

  99. #100 Olaus Petri
    June 25, 2012

    Lothar, sorry to tell you, but running away to the arctic will not change tha fact that the foundation of the penguine scare was bogus. 😉

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