July 2012 Open Thread

Phew, looks the carbon tax has not returned Australia to the Stone Age.


  1. #1 FrankD
    July 30, 2012

    LionelA – There is one thing Potholer neglects in his coverage of the mystery “schematic” covered from 10:00 onwards which has long bugged me.

    The Y-axis is not labelled “temperature” or “temperature anomaly”, but “temperature change“. The peak of the “MWP” line is not when the temperature was warmest, but when it was warming the fastest. After that peak, it continues to warm until the temperature change line crosses zero (starts cooling). So the peak of the MWP as reflected on this schematic is not 1200, but around 1375. The LIA is the same (but upside down), and according to this schematic doesn’t really start to warm from its nadir until 1900 (cross the axis into positive change again).

    This means that quite apart from the issues Hadfield raises about globality and severity, the way this schematic is used offsets the MWP and LIA by several hundred years. The Ickes and Moncktons and whoever else use it don’t even know what it shows, and are oblivious to the fact (or conceal) that the timings are way off.

    In the case of the MWP as shown here, the peak of warming is so late that it is closer to when Greenland civilisation collapsed that it is to when it was founded. And therefore probably has nothing to do with any MWP regardless of its globality and severity. And the LIA as show here is so far off the instrumental record for the late 19th century that it can pretty much be dismissed as rubbish…

  2. #2 GWB's nemesis
    July 30, 2012

    karen, have you actually read the Wu et al 2012 paper to which you refer? If so, you’ll find that there is nothing – and I mean nothing – in it that supports the denialist perspective. The paper details how sea surface temperatures in this area are heavily influenced by regional processes associated with the East Asian Monsoon. The authors also state that: “However, we acknowledge that if the SST in the SOT keeps increasing at the current rate … the 21st century warmth will be indeed unprecedented in the context of the past 2700 years”. Incidentally, they also note that MWP was weak in this area, which of course undermines another denialist meme.

    Hint: you might actually want to read the research before you trumpet it?

  3. #3 Lionel A
    July 30, 2012

    Mack vomited thusly:

    You can’t even figure out or decide for yourselves when abouts [sic] all this man-made global warming began…and then we have old wackos like Lionel blaming the caveman….

    You stupid boy. Your comprehension skills are poor and your perception is worse because you are an ignoramus.

    Go back and read what I wrote carefully, with a thinking head on and after studying the many topics required to arrive at the postulate I made.

    Hint the last key phrase (emboldened to help you further) that I used here:

    Our hunter gatherer ancestors are plausibly considered to be behind the wipe out of large herds of huge herbivores – this would surely have had an impact on the dynamics of plant colonisation and thus the balance of atmospheric gases.

    Did I suggest that the results was a warming influence? No.

    However, your response is so typical of the knee jerk reactions from such as you who cannot hold more than one concept in mind at a time.

    Consider that the rise of human society and agriculture could have given any natural variability in temperature an upward nudge to which was added a bigger nudge by massive deforestation for land structures and ship-building and the production of charcoal as smelting spread through civilization. You are aware that working in iron started long before the generally recognised start of the industrial revolution (IR), before which there was the agrarian revolution (AR) which caused massive changes in land use.

    Are you aware of the vast areas of timber that were felled for building warships, and also the increased use of iron in cannon and structure, across the centuries and all over europe? All this began before the IR and would have provided another upward nudge.

    So, an old wacko am I?

    Have you read Jared Diamond or any other worthwhile texts?

  4. #4 Lionel A
    July 30, 2012

    Mack, seems to be your signature tune Aahahahahahahahahaha.

  5. #5 Wow
    July 30, 2012

    It’s ‘cos ‘e’s mad, sir.

    Mack: “there’s lumos of it ’round the back”

  6. #6 DarylD
    William Lamb's Town Down Under
    July 30, 2012

    Oh, well Anthony Watts, flog a dead horse earthquake announcement of the new improved “Watts MythGate 2.0”, caused hardly any ripple in the big Internet pond. Well, it was built on the pitiful few scant remains of the well carpet bombed “Watts MythGate 1.0”!

    In other news, poor old Rick Muller’s latest muse, earns Ross McKittrick’s endorsement of infantile “Peter Principle” silliness. Ah, the smell of burning “BS”, hangs heavily over Ross’s place of work.

    Now, watt did “Honest Abe” say about funny numbers again? Ah, yes; “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”!

    As, they say in the real world, choose your experts wisely, and keep all the denialati charlatans and carbon pollution industry funded propaganda writers at arm’s length.

  7. #7 ianam
    July 30, 2012

    “It goes to show there’s always a place for some scepticism in science.”

    which came across as implying that scepticism of climatology is desirable. Way to keep a false equivalency alive…

    Bernard, you can also read it differently: there IS room for true skeptics in science, contrary to what many pseudoskeptics claim.

    I think you’re both missing the implication of the quote, which is that scientists (especially the climate science community) lack skepticism and that it takes a *real* skeptic like Richard Muller to keep them honest. That’s certainly Muller’s highly inflated view of himself.

  8. #8 ianam
    July 30, 2012

    Mack, that modern humans and monkeys share a common ancestor is settled science. Exactly when the divergence occurred, and why, is not settled. Only a moron would think that the latter undermines the former … a moron like you.

  9. #9 bill
    July 30, 2012

    Lionel, I always rather liked the Lard (Jello Biafra / Ministry) version. We should be so lucky that anyone would have the courtesy to take him away!

    (Actually, I think I’ve found footage of Mack.)

    And so Denial was reduced to its core constituents; the mouthbreather circus troop…

  10. #10 TrueSceptic
    July 30, 2012

    Sorry, I’ve not been keeping up with Deltoid, but I wonder if Tim has seen this, especially as the authors are Australian?

    Basically, climate change deniers have a lot in common with CT nuts. Some surprise!

  11. #12 Wow
    July 31, 2012

    Lumos? Tons that was meant to be.

    Maybe my dictionary was set to greek…

  12. #13 Lotharsson
    July 31, 2012

    Blog review of Watts’ latest opus.

  13. #14 bill
    July 31, 2012

    Latest from Climate Crocks.

    Lest we forget that the contemptible, shopworn idiocies peddled by stupid little people have real consequences.

    (PS: one whole month of the GBNT and Australia still not back in the Stone Age! Well, except that the alarming numbers of scarred-knuckle troglodytes appear to believe they own the place…)

  14. #15 Lotharsson
    July 31, 2012

    Blog review of Watts’ latest opus.

    From the comments, apparently quoting Pielke (although I have not verified the quote):

    The proper way to complete a research study is provided in the Watts et al 2012 article. This article, a culmination of outstanding volunteer support under Anthony’s leadership, shows that Anthony Watts clearly understands the research process in climate science. As a result of his, and of and his colleagues, rigorous dedication to the scientific method, he has led a much more robust study than performed by Richard Muller in the BEST project.

    I suspect those words will turn out to be wish-fulfillment-marketing-effort (a.k.a. hype the press release before the paper is dismantled and shown to not support the hype) rather than an accurate analysis…but that’s usually enough to convince a whole bunch of people.

    The blog analysis points out that Watts’ trends in homogenised data are very similar to earlier work, which suggests that Watts’ et al have largely reiterated existing understanding.

    There are other comments suggesting serious deficiencies in Watts’ analysis, including one that begins:

    The Watts paper mentions the the adjustments that it is nessecary to make to the raw USHCN data to correct for changes in instrument type as found by Menne et al 2010 around page 7, line 118. He also mentions the adjusted USCHNv2 data is adjusted for TOB – time of observation variations which have caused a cooling bias in the data. But reveals he is using the unadjusted raw data with only the minimal error correction.

    This comment considers it to be

    …one of the worst papers about climate change I’ve ever read.

    And goes on to wonder why it shows temperature trends to three decimal places with no error estimation. The same commenter has another pertinent question at the bottom of the page.

  15. #16 Bernard J.
    July 31, 2012

    Bill t 1:55 am, 31 July.

    I reckon that the GBNT can be put in the same basket as the GGWS.

  16. #17 Mack
    July 31, 2012

    You suffer from the same affliction as everybody else here ie. a total loss of perspective. Start from the fact that the earths surface is covered in 71% ocean.and work from there….
    Oh here we go again with the poor droning sad-assed voice of Peter Sinclair and his weekly message of doom. This guy is guaranteed to cheer you up no end. The whole thing seemed remotely plausible there for a second until ol’ Travesty made his appearance (again?) Now that”s one kiwi I’m really proud of …he’s right up there with Salinger but slightly more sophisticated.

  17. #18 Chris O'Neill
    July 31, 2012

    Great Stupid Wanker:

    <blockquote"Ah the intellectuals have arrived!"

    Oh, the irony.

  18. #19 John
    July 31, 2012

    Remember the Galelio Movement? No, neither did I. Incredibly and unpredictably they remain unmoved by the BEST results, as they know the root of the scam – Jews:

    Mr Roberts said climate change science had been captured by “some of the major banking families in the world” who form a “tight-knit cabal”.

  19. #20 lord_sidcup
    July 31, 2012

    The comments from the Watts faithful make for extraordinary reading. Watts has “turned climate science on its head”. Hubris piled upon exaggeration, piled upon more hubris. Ex-sceptic Muller re-invents the wheel and in response Watts orchestrates a circus and his fleas obligingly jump. Has ACC scepticism ever been less credible?

  20. #21 lord_sidcup
    July 31, 2012

    That should read:

    Has ACC “scepticism” ever been less credible?

  21. #22 John
    July 31, 2012

    I disagree with you slightly there. I think most deniers have been distinctly underwhelmed by Watts’ new paper. It contains nothing new and features all the data manipulation that they’ve been railing against for years. Even to them it stinks of a cheap distraction. It’s rushed and looks every bit something thrown together when it became clear BEST wasn’t going to go his way.

    Meanwhile the BEST results have blown up in the media all over the world, reflecting horribly on the “skeptics” who’d previously announced their approval of Muller and his methods. They don’t understand the science and the biggest non-scientific gripe they can manage is it’s, gasp, co-authored with his daughter.

  22. #23 bill
    July 31, 2012

    John, what we need is a word for the kind of self-cancelling nomenclature that has such a group labeling itself as ‘The Galileo Movement’. ‘Carbondioxymoron’ doesn’t quite fit. ‘Jonesing’ in honour of their esteemed patron?

    And, oh, I smell the LaRouchies / CEC…

  23. #24 Lionel A
    July 31, 2012

    You suffer from the same affliction as everybody else here ie. a total loss of perspective. Start from the fact that the earths surface is covered in 71% ocean.and work from there….

    And the relevance of that is because…? Come on that demands more explanation.

    I’ll ask you a question. What proportion of the Earth’s total matter is salt water? Perhaps you should really start there.

    You might need to dig out a book on, perhaps, Oceanography to find out. I can give you a reference if needs be.

    Now WRT Peter Sinclair’s messages of doom you need to pay attention and I can say that all of us here wishes the future did not look so bleak and looking all the bleaker because mutts like you help delay progress on ameliorating the situation.

    It seems that you are too ignorant to realise how ignorant you are, like most of your ilk.

  24. #25 Bernard J.
    July 31, 2012

    Speaking of delayers, there was an interesting piece on Late Night Live earlier this week:


    I actually disagree with Mirowski on a number of points, but his overall summation is interesting.

  25. #26 chek
    July 31, 2012

    Mack said:“Start from the fact that the earths surface is covered in 71% ocean.and work from there”

    Start from the fact that the U.S.A. is only <2% of the Earth's surface and work from there to figure out how Tony Wassup woz going to upturn the whole global AGW applecart, for a short period last weekend. Only to find – as he will soon when mosher’n’mcintyres’n’pielke’s corrections are hastily incorporated – that NOAA et al have been correct all along.

    Tony Wassup could launch a new range of fireworks that come pre-soaked in brine and positively soggy which could be expected to be far more spectacular and have much more impact than his ‘we-already-knew-that’ “unprecedented” paper.

    I don’t expect we’ll see ol’ Skippyduff et al around here for a while until this all blows over. But then the web never forgets.

  26. #27 MikeH
    August 1, 2012

    Have you heard about the explosive new paper from Anthony Watts?

    Apparently it exploded.

  27. #28 Bernard J.
    August 1, 2012

    Have you heard about the explosive new paper from Anthony Watts?

    Apparently it exploded.



  28. #29 Lotharsson
    August 1, 2012

    Sounds like popcorn may need to be ordered for the saga of Watts’ latest “draft”.

    McIntyre, who apparently was asked for last minute assistance with statistics has now noticed that Watts’ paper ignores TOB issues in the raw data (although it does state that the factor needs more investigation). Mosher has called the statistics work “hurried and sloppy”.

    An “Anonymous” defends the paper on the grounds of the note that it needs more investigation, to which the blog author responds:

    Why is leaving out the dominant adjustment factor not sloppy? … How can you publish a manuscript, even if it is only on the web, knowing that “a dominant adjustment” is not taken into account? …

    I am baffled. Was this manuscript never intended to be submitted to a scientific journal?

    I suspect we’re getting a pretty good sense of the answer to that last question.

  29. #30 Lotharsson
    August 1, 2012

    The Rabbett takes a quick look at Watts’ paper, particularly regarding TOB – and why you have to fix TOB before you can assess UHI.

    The Stoat on Why Watts’ new paper is doomed to fail review:

    Srsly? He’s trying to cite Heartland trash in a real journal?

    And the first comment is gold 😉

    From the serious comments:

    The paper can basically be summarised as ‘Biases exist. We didn’t bother to check if they matter.’

    And dhogaza has some speculation on the reason for hurrying the draft on to the web [ellipses are in the original comment]:

    Christy’s #5 author on the paper, and he’s scheduled to testify to the US Senate tomorrow, so I think you might be missing the intended target? Watts stated that he wanted to prime Christy for his testimony …

    It will be interesting if Christy (who I doubt actually read the paper, McI admits he hadn’t) plays the Watts card …

  30. #31 Lotharsson
    August 1, 2012

    Zeke has some initial thoughts on Watts’ draft.

  31. #32 Bernard J.
    August 1, 2012

    And the first comment is gold

    Indeed. Dhogaza deserves an Oscar for Best One-liner.

    I doubt that a professional comedian could have scripted a better first comment.

  32. #33 Mack
    August 1, 2012

    “mutts like you help delay progress on ameliorating the situation” Now you say this “situation” began at the time of the caveman…(these cavemen should have extracted their digits to “ameliorate the situation” in the first place eh Lionel)…and this “situation” you must agree has been going on for many millenia ,Why then hasn’t the “situation” reached ,shall we say, a crescendo. We should all be literally cooking by now, shouldn’t we Lionel? Maybe there’s no “situation” . Maybe the situation only exists in your brainwashed mutthead. .

  33. #34 Wow
    August 1, 2012

    “Now you say this “situation” began at the time of the caveman…”

    The prosecution would like to point out this evidence of insanity in the testament of the defendant.

  34. #35 Mack
    August 1, 2012

    ” ….testament of the defendant” Wrong wowbaby I’m not the defendant…you are. You’re the one trying to defend your quack CO2 warming the planet theory.

  35. #36 Wow
    August 1, 2012

    The prosecution is glad of the extra evidence of mental instability provided by the defendant for the illumination of the court.

  36. #37 Lionel A
    August 1, 2012


    Why then hasn’t the “situation” reached ,shall we say, a crescendo. We should all be literally cooking by now, shouldn’t we Lionel?

    Well it is becoming abundantly clear that your brains are cooked, not surprising really as you must have your head in the ever getting hotter sand..

    So, not answering my question eh? Now where have we seen this before.

    It seems that you still have a comprehension fail WRT my comments about hunter gatherers.

  37. #38 bill
    August 1, 2012

    Has it ever occurred to you, ‘Mack’, that you really are quite extraordinarily dense?

    It’s notable that after the BEST/Wattsgate fiasco most Warmist blogs are now down to about one abrasive cretin each – Global Village Idiots, if you will – who still yabbers and gloats away because he (it usually is) is truly too stupid to understand what just happened.

    Just to make it clear, that’s you, ‘Mack’. If ignorance is bliss you must be the happiest man in creation…

  38. #39 Mack
    August 1, 2012

    And yet another link to “Think Progress” a newspaper with a climate section. What an astounding fount of knowledge . But how is your progress at being able to think Linoleum.?

  39. #40 John
    August 1, 2012

    We should all be literally cooking by now, shouldn’t we Lionel?

    [peer reviewed citation needed]

  40. #41 Wow
    August 1, 2012

    And again we have another slice of evidence of the maniacal nature of Mack/Karen/Spots.

    There isn’t any newspaper I can think of that doesn’t have a section on astrology or cartoons.

    What is supposed to be drawn from a newspaper having a section on any subject? Are some things just taboo for you? Very authoritarian. Very Maoist.

  41. #42 Lionel A
    August 1, 2012


    But how is your progress at being able to think Linoleum.?

    Better than yours judging by your failure to qualify this statement of yours, ‘Start from the fact that the earths surface is covered in 71% ocean.and work from there….

    And answering MY follow up question.

    Waiting. Waiting. Waiting.

  42. #43 Wow
    August 1, 2012

    You’ll be waiting a long time.

    Prepare for a nonsequitur.

  43. #44 Lotharsson
    August 2, 2012

    On the Watts et al draft thread at The Stoat, dhogaza confirms that Christy relied on Watts’ draft in his Senate testimony, which does rather give the impression that Watts was on notice to have the draft out in time for this specific event…

  44. #45 bill
    August 2, 2012

    I reckon that was indeed the target, Loth. Classic ‘splash across the font page; retract at leisure with a single column para on page 26’ strategy. One hopes the Senate ain’t daft enough to fall for it…

    Dana and Kevin tackle the ‘paper’ at SkS.

  45. #46 Lotharsson
    August 2, 2012

    Er, make that:

    …at The Stoat, dhogazaMMM confirms…

  46. #47 Lotharsson
    August 2, 2012

    Tamino on the latest from Watts and Muller.

    I’m underwhelmed.

    And he explains why, including that (as Mann quipped) Muller’s relatively simple analysis has finally caught up to the climate science as it was in 1980 or thereabouts because Muller is doing relatively simple regressions that many others have done (and quite a few have done more complex versions).

  47. #48 Mack
    August 2, 2012

    bill Aug 1 11.42am.
    …”the happiest man in creation” Creation? Slip of the tongue there Billbaby.

  48. #49 bill
    August 2, 2012

    Golly; you’ve got to admire a guy who can assemble such a stinging retort in less than 24 hours.

  49. #50 Wow
    August 2, 2012

    Well, he has to wait for instruction, remember.

  50. #51 Lionel A
    August 2, 2012

    And if anybody is unsure as to which way John Christy is punting then KR at SkS has the nugget. But here is another link to Christy’s written testimony avoiding WUWT.

  51. #52 bill
    August 2, 2012

    To use Joe Romm’s favourite metaphor, it would appear that the whole of Denial has just jumped the shark. They might as well each hold up a sign that reads ‘we’re desperate’.

1 8 9 10

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