Phew, looks the carbon tax has not returned Australia to the Stone Age.
(to the tune of a common Soccer Match chant)
Betty is a Moron.
Betty is a Moron.
Da na naah na.
Da na naah na.
Betty is a Moron.
Betty is a Moron.
(repeat to fade)
A crank is defined as a man who cannot be turned.
– Nature, 8 Nov 1906
One definition of a crank, loosely, is a person who has unreasonable ideas about established science or facts that will not relent in defending their own, often laughable, version of the truth. Central to the crank is the “overvalued idea”. That is some idea they’ve incorporated into their world view that they will not relinquish for any reason.
QLD LNP calls on QLD Education Minister to remove the teaching of climate science from schools on the basis that it’s “environmental propaganda material” and “post-normal science”.
The mover of the motion, Noosa LNP member Richard Pearson, attacked ”false prophets who would poison the minds of our children in our schools”.
Sounds rather like some of our trolls.
I just linked, over at SkS, to the same story:
Ah Marano, the pit bull with his brain in his arse along with he who missed his chance to be cast as ‘He Who Should Not Be Named’ in Harry Potter movies.
Really KrakenMackSpot you are as much a joke as those two goons.
Dang, wrong link at 1:39 pm above.
That is fantastic news barnterd 🙂
At the next election the greens will all lose their seats in parliament anyway, so no doubt the children will then be taught about the brain washing lies that greenies have been forcing upon them.
The greens will have to open a fish & chip shop so they can compete against Pauline Hanson.
ps. I note that Karoly has really got his knickers in a knot over getting busted using dodgy data in the Gergis et al paper, sure looks like that paper is done and dusted, so much for Australian climate science, they really showed themselves to be lying bozo’s.
ps. I note that Karoly has really got his knickers in a knot over getting busted using dodgy data in the Gergis et al paper,…
I suppose that you have followed these arguments. Didn’t think so.
MacI’ performs as expected after all he is Laurel to Monckton’s Hardy.
Tamino(Grant Foster) has an an interesting link to “Watthasnotalottaofbrains” !
To cut through Anthony’s furphy riddled factually challenged horse hockey “Could this be the coldest July in history for Anchorage?”
Anthony, shows Anchorage temperature high 56F, July 11th,2012.
Now, your average July weather in Anchorage (the peak of the tourist season), runs from a minimum of 11C/52F to a maximum of 18C/64F.
Source : http://www.anchorage.world-guides.com/anchorage_weather.html
Interestingly, Kaktovik(Barter Island PABA elevation 1m) July weather average minimum 37.9F to maximum 46.6F. Measured July temperature range from low 26.6F to 64.4F.
Source : http://www.meoweather.com/history/United%20States/na/70.1319444/-143.6238889/Kaktovik.html
Hmm, Anthony appears to be be telling only very little truths, whilst avoiding an inconvenient truth,one could say.
Whilst the foolish mentally and factually challenged mononeurons, such as ‘Karemackbettyfruitloops’ would fall for Anthony’s fallacy propaganda garbage. Your average skeptic punter, would in the real world, look before they leap! It is a given, that they have this worlds entire weather data base, at their finger tips.
For, is there not an old saying, that “Wattnotalootaofbrains” should learn, that goes like this “Fool me once shame on you………………………………….”
In case anyone wants a break from troll-baiting, the “gift that keeps on giving” continues (and it’s nowhere near over, more to come):
Wegman and Said leave Wiley journal…
Ed Wegman promised code to Waxman six years ago – where is it?
That’s very nice Mr Mashey, now why don’t you devote your time to explaining why Mikey Mann depressed the 1930’s temperatures in an attempt to make modern temperatures appear to be unprecedented ?
… explaining why Mikey Mann depressed the 1930′s temperatures in an attempt to make modern temperatures appear to be unprecedented ?
So you’re implying that climate sensitivity is higher than generally thought by mainstream climate scientists, and therefore that atmospheric CO2 levels should be even more strongly limited than those scientists say?
Good to know. I guess we can we take your retraction of previous comments that are incompatible with this admission as read, right?
(You realise that leaves practically none of your earlier comments standing, don’t you? Oh, wait, that’s stupid. It’s rather unlikely that you have understood the implications of your claim even though it has been explained to you several times before, and you have no trouble advancing two contradictory claims at the very same time if you think both of them support your position so why should you change now?)
why don’t you devote your time
If he takes up your cause, will you take up his? After all, his cause is just and based on the facts, whereas your cause is based on immense stupidity, ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.
But, the reason he does
The United States of KMSPMM said :
That’s very nice Mr Mashey, now why don’t you devote your time to explaining why Mikey Mann depressed the 1930′s temperatures in an attempt to make modern temperatures appear to be unprecedented ?
Here’s an idea – why do you not post an actual précis of the evidence that you have to support your contention? You know… make a case, an empirically-supported case, and one that can be tested for its veracity?
Or do you have nothing to back up your scattergun sniping?
Oh, and for your edification KMSPMM, it’s Dr Mashey to you.
Tim L – it would appear that some of ‘Karen’s’ posts have been deleted recently – if so, might I suggest that the one above joins them?
Of course, no-one would lament an outright banning, either…
Karenmackspot, you only recently threw your full, gloating support behind a paper that said exactly that and used Mann as a reference.
I am beginning to suspect you are a troll with no regard for facts or evidence….
Thanks, but no need … anyone once KILLFILEd is gone forever 🙂
But, if you haven’t seen this, you might be amused by a certain Viscount’s riff on “Dr”,
Richard Littlemore’s rejoinder, and then my commentary.
This was the one where the Viscount accused me of the heinous crime of “interfering in an unlawful manner on the blogosphere” and claimed I was under investigation.
Thank you John, an interesting mixed message of total denial the regents post of removing the inconvenient truth from GMU’s web of deceit and denial. The “Peter Principle”, strikes again!
Spotted, over at Eli’s place “Singer’s Downfall, a Denialist Parody” (2nd video). 😉
Meanwhile public opinion appears to be shifting in the US.
(Looks like there’s still some way to go though – and it’s a shame it is probably shifting due to people noticing extreme weather rather than scientific evidence, but at this point I’ll applaud it anyway.)
“Meanwhile public opinion appears to be shifting in the US”
If you look past the headline, the poll shows opinion is about the same since 2006. It also shows people not falling for wealth redistribution…
54. “If the world’s temperature does rise over the next 100 years and this rise has effects on poor
countries, how much do you think that the United States government should help these countries deal
with the effects of global warming – a great deal, a lot, a moderate amount, a little, or not at all? (IF US
SHOULD PROVIDE ANY HELP) Do you think the U.S. government should provide this help to poor
countries by giving them money, by providing help in other ways, or by both giving money and providing
help in other ways?”
A great deal…………………….. 12
A lot ………………………………….12
A moderate amount …………37
A little ……………………………….23
Not at all…………………………..15
IF HELP: 6/21/2012
By giving them money…………………………………. 1
By providing help in other ways…………………….64
By both giving them money and providing
help in other ways ………………………………………..34
Don’t know/Refused …………………………………… 1
“it’s a shame it is probably shifting due to people noticing extreme weather rather than scientific evidence, but at this point I’ll applaud it anyway.)”
People are stupid enough to believe some extreme weather event is scientific evidence of climate change, but as long as they believe it, I applaud them.
“Is this really how we conduct science — something is unprecedented if people don’t have a memory of when it happened before?”
Ooooh, it’s all not going well, is it, Betty? So, little Tree Lopper, which way are the heat/cold temp records running, would you say? We know you don’t want to…
You have some dreary opinion piece in some dreary Right Wing rag, which just happens to articulate the voices of the 1%, whereas all we have is science and scientists.
It’s just not fair, is it, all these nasty bright, articulate people ganging up on all you small-minded, self-centred reactionaries with your self-righteousness, Dunning-Kruger afflictee arrogance, and magical beliefs? 😉
I mean lookee here, for instance.
It just isn’t a great day to be Stupid, is it? How proud you must be to swell the ‘Back to the Future’ ranks along with Lord ‘Birther’ Monckton, James ‘The Just Aren’t Enough Bullets’ Delingpole, the KMS SFB collective, Tim ‘2nd Law’ Curtin, etc. …
Get used to it, Sunshine, because every year is just going to get worse…
It also shows people not falling for wealth redistribution…
It may show people disagreeing with “wealth distribution”, but in order to “fall for it” they would have to be duped. It’s pretty hard to argue they are being duped when they are being explicitly asked about the option.
People are stupid enough to believe some extreme weather event is scientific evidence of climate change, but as long as they believe it, I applaud them.
I’d rather promote my prejudices than accurately “shorten” Lotharsson so I’m quite happy to verbal him/her instead.
More for you to consider WRT your above nonsense in a post by Albatross at Skeptical Science with MacIntyre’s history of abuse catalogued, with links.
Read through the other comments on that article too seems you need your horizons broadened.
More for KrakenMacSpot
Explain this away.>/a>
Note where sea levels could be heading and much sooner than most acknowledge. It was events such this that were anticipated by Hansen et. al. when producing projections for the IPCC.
More for KrakenMacSpot.
Explain this away.
One of the first lines on your “lookee here, for instance” example reads….
“What has happened in detail over the inland ice, which caused this incident, is not yet known, but the fierce heat has certainly been an important player”
So here’s what I got from your comment and link…
The cause of this incident is “not yet known” yet they are certain it was fierce heat, and the fierce heat is certainly due to climate change and the climate change is certainly due to “small-minded, self-centred reactionaries” with their “self-righteousness, Dunning-Kruger afflictee arrogance, and magical beliefs”.
Bill, that’s an awesome deduction….Nobel Peace Prize nomination for you buddy.
“It’s pretty hard to argue they are being duped when they are being explicitly asked about the option”
It’s pretty hard to know if the brainwashing is working unless you take a poll. Also, if you actually looked at the poll, you would have noticed the headline is biased and your statement “Meanwhile public opinion appears to be shifting in the US” is skewed.
But as long as your brain is washed, “I applaud you”.
“It’s pretty hard to know if the brainwashing is working unless you take a poll.”
Nope, it’s hard to keep the brainwashing when you tell people about it.
To see if the brainwashing works, you need to see that the actions the brainwashing are to bring about is being undertaken.
Since you’re still bitching about it, and since the payments are not being made, but being stymied by the selfish bigots that you idolise, the “brainwashing” hasn’t taken hold and the reason for that is that the only brainwashing is the one you’ve been sucked into like some scientology scam.
You’re displaying EXACTLY the actions the libertarian randian neocon brainwashing since the reagan era has taken root in you.
The cause of this incident is “not yet known” yet they are certain it was fierce heat,…
That’s not what it says. Try again.
So…apart from Wow’s deconstruction, Betula appears to be arguing that decisions of a somewhat ethical nature – e.g. whether the US should help poor countries negatively impacted by climate change caused in significant part by the US – have only one right answer, and that people only give different answers because they have been either “duped” or “brainwashed”.
Or maybe Betula is merely maintaining the evidence-free assertion that humans haven’t done anything to change the climate, and/or any observed changes simply can’t be traced in part or full to human actions – whilst simultaneously denying that Betula is denying the conclusions of mainstream climate science.
“Betula appears to be arguing that decisions of a somewhat ethical nature” “have only one right answer, and that people only give different answers because they have been either “duped” or “brainwashed”.
I never used the word “duped”…that was you. You’re quoting yourself in an assumption about yourself. Well played.
The question in the poll is based on an assumption (like everything else in your world). Given this assumption, it doesn’t look like redistributing the wealth is a priority at this time with only 2 1/2 years left to meet the goal. Need to step it up a bit…
“whilst simultaneously denying that Betula is denying the conclusions of mainstream climate science”
So i’m denying that I deny the future? Ok.
What, betty is the difference between someone who has been brainwashed and one that has been duped?
The question in the poll is based on an assumption…
OK. What assumption? And how does it support your followon:
Given this assumption, it doesn’t look like redistributing the wealth is a priority at this time with only 2 1/2 years left to meet the goal. Need to step it up a bit…
You’re foolishly trying to tie together some UN goals/deadlines that you are freaked out about with this survey which wasn’t done by the UN and didn’t mention those timeframes.
Of course you are free to “explain” this by putting on your tin foil hat and saying they’re all in it together…if you so choose. But that would mean the conspiracy has spread to Stanford University and the Washington Post.
I never used the word “duped”…that was you.
What a remarkable inability to grok!
You used “falling for” which I said necessitates “being duped”. Instead of pointing out exactly how my logic was incorrect, you seize on the different word and fling it around as if it were bonobo excrement.
If you spent half as much energy thinking as you spend “parsing” (in the political spin sense), you might actually get somewhere.
And if I were you, and prone to inaccurately paraphrasing other quotes in order to make them appear to conform to my position, I wouldn’t be drawing attention to the fact. See my comment at July 16, 2:07 pm. And this:
So i’m denying that I deny the future?
In other news, the 36 year old New Orleans built, one step from the breakers yard Drill Ship. The 5i4 foot long, non ice rated “ICE1A” MV Noble Discoverer, broke it’s moorings and driven aground on the shore bow first, during a sudden summer storm, in Dutch Harbor, Alaska, Saturday, July 14th..
An official Coast Guard spokesperson, claimed the vessel did not come within 100 yards of the shore line.
link 1: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/shell-offshore-drilling-vessel-noble-discoverer-drifts-near-shore-unalaska
link 2: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/16/521391/shell-loses-control-of-arctic-drilling-rig-in-alaskan-harbor/?mobile=nc
They say a picture, is worth a thousand words. Or the local US Coastguard Captain, in Dutch Harbor, badly needs to recalibrate his 300′ minimum out of whack “Washington HQ based rose colored range finder”! Or, is it, Washington DC administration one eyed oil and gas industry can do no wrong view, creating the inability to read harbor maritime navigation charts accurately!
Notice the poor visibility colour choice for the hull and super structure of the vessel in question, for operating in adverse visibility Arctic summer weather conditions.
This picture of the grounded MV Noble Discoverer, says it all.
Betty, I know reading is difficult for you – sore lips, and all that – but if you’d struggled on past the first few lines you’d have reached this bit –
3.5 million liters of water pressed through the narrow river every second. It’s almost a doubling of previous records. It’s no wonder that a 20 ton wheel loader was torn away from the bridge in Kangerlussuaq like a toy.
– from the local paper. Or even this –
Later that day I reformatted my air temperature graphs from last year’s season to fit the data collected this June. The y-axis had to be expanded by 10 degrees.
– from a researcher writing for Scientific American (i.e. not you.)
You might even have seen discussion on the dramatic – and unprecedented – albedo decline, etc..
I don’t know what it is you imagine you’re achieving, but people like you are an absolute blessing for our side of the argument, because only your already Stupid peers could hope to pretend to be impressed by your bad-faith arguments; for everyone else looking on what you are comes shining through.
Make that ‘squelching through’.
Don’t ever change.
The confusion and conflation on display here is mind-boggling. Apparently Fairfax and SMH need Gina Rinehart to “save” them, and the issue of who does and does not get a seat on the Fairfax board is a free speech issue, and this is somehow bound up with the carbon tax, and everyone’s grandkids are going to be paying for it in some fashion.
I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked! I believed you when you assured me that all those IPCC reports were based on sound scientific methodology by some of the greatest brains in the universe. But now I learn from the Inter Academy Council (IAC) who carried out an independent check on the IPCC reports and how they were compiled:
“The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20), fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21), and are not “consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses” (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.
The IAC found that “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a “club” of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.
Tell me it ain’t so otherwise I might get the teensy-weensy impression that you lot are a load of loonies!
Yeah the poor grandchildren are either going to be taxed or cooked. Sloth.
I think that once again you’ve let yourself be lead by the nose to a trough of excrement. Here is the IAC report:
Read what it actually says. You’ll find American Stinker has put a massive amount is spin into their account, have very very selectively quoted, and have completely misrepresented the IAC report (of nearly 2 years ago). Look what the conclusion says:
“The Committee concludes that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall and has served society well. The commitment of many thousands of the world’s leading scientists and other experts to the assessment process and to the communication of the nature of our understanding of the changing climate, its impacts, and possible adaptation and mitigation strategies is a considerable achievement in its own right.”
I’ll add for the benefit of those who can’t be arsed to click on Duff’s link, the American Stiker article is written by Joe Bast of the Heartland Institute (de)fame. Wildly spinning a 2 year old IAC report is a truly desparate effort from the head of a failing disinformation machine.
Here is a bit more from chapter 5 Lordy
The IPCC should develop and adopt a rigorous conflict-of-interest policy •
that applies to all individuals directly involved in the preparation of IPCC
reports, including senior IPCC leadership (IPCC Chair and Vice Chairs),
authors with responsibilities for report content (i.e., Working Group
Co-chairs, Coordinating Lead Authors, and Lead Authors), Review
Editors, and technical staff directly involved in report preparation (e.g.,
staff of Technical Support Units and the IPCC Secretariat).
Characterizing and communicating uncertainties. IPCC’s guidance for
addressing uncertainties in the Fourth Assessment Report urges authors
to consider the amount of evidence and level of agreement about all
conclusions and to apply subjective probabilities of confidence to conclu-sions when there was ‘high agreement, much evidence.’ However, such
guidance was not always followed, as exemplified by the many statements
in the Working Group II Summary for Policymakers that are assigned
high confidence but are based on little evidence.
Moreover, the apparent
need to include statements of ‘high confidence’ (i.e., an 8 out of 10 chance
of being correct) in the Summary for Policymakers led authors to make
many vaguely defined statements that are difficult to refute, therefore
making them of ‘high confidence.’ Such statements have little value.
Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) should be used to •
describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is
sufficient evidence. Authors should indicate the basis for assigning a
probability to an outcome or event (e.g., based on measurement, expert
judgment, and/or model runs).
Chapter Lead Authors should provide a traceable account of how they •
arrived at their ratings for level of scientific understanding and likeli-hood that an outcome will occur.
Developing an effective communications strategy. The IPCC has come
under severe criticism for the manner in which it has communicated with
the media and public. The lack of an ongoing media-relations capacity and
comprehensive communications strategy has unnecessarily placed the
IPCC’s reputation at risk and contributed to a decline in public trust of
The IPCC should make the process and criteria for selecting participants •
for scoping meetings more transparent.
The IPCC should develop and adopt formal qualifications and formally •
articulate the roles and responsibilities for all Bureau members,
including the IPCC Chair, to ensure that they have both the highest
scholarly qualifications and proven leadership skills
Lead Authors should explicitly document that a range of scientific view-•
points has been considered, and Coordinating Lead Authors and Review
Editors should satisfy themselves that due consideration was given to
properly documented alternative views.
The IPCC should strengthen and enforce its proce-dure for the use of unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature, includ-ing providing more specific guidance on how to evaluate such informa-tion, adding guidelines on what types of literature are unacceptable, and
ensuring that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is appropri-ately flagged in the report.
All of the prior IPCC reports and recommendations need to be completely disregarded and rejected, It is so obvious that the whole process has just been a political stunt to brainwash the mentally challenged.
There should have been only one recommendation.
DISMANTLE THE IPCC
You’ll have to excuse karenmackspot; they used to work on Wall St. It seems to have done permanent damage.
As what? The lavvie cleaner?
Basically the report says that the IPCC should do various things to make their excellent work even better.
You have to wonder who Duff, Karen, and Betula intend to persuade with their posts, which just further demonstrate their complete lack of scruples or sense.
God, Betty, the KMS collective, and Duff, card-carrying members of the non-exclusive The Most Stupid People in History club all, all shouting loudly, and now quoting their hero, Joe Bast, misquoting, and chasing their mangy tails about something from 2 years ago he managed to dig up while desperately flailing around searching for a point. Anything to take their puny, shrivelled minds off an ideology that’s wilting away to nothing, fruitlessly emptying itself out to sea faster than the Greenland ice-cap.
This is the sound heard in a vacuum. This is the bawling of nothing.
So, imbeciles, hows the weather? Which way are the temp records running, would you say? How is Greenland getting on? Arctic Sea Ice?
Ok, too hard. How many animals and plants in your area are out of sync with the seasons now? No, you don’t know, do you, in fact, you’ve never noticed, have you? Because in a very real sense you’re barely alive. Ever notice how those who feel vastly, disdainfully superior to the animals and the natural world have the most stunted, brutish and primitive intelligences?
Perhaps you’ve noticed how increasingly desperately you have to scrabble around to find some pathetic twig to cling to, then? How many peer reviewed papers published in proper science journals have backed up your argument this year, would you say? No, again, you don’t know, do you? I’ll give you a hint; new heat to cold records are running 10:1 across the US at the moment, but the ratio of Warmist to ‘Skeptic’ papers is way higher than that! I mean; have you had any?
Alright then; how sane is Monckton now, would you say? What’s the odds you’re all sodding Birthers, too? How about sympathisers of the British Freedom Party, then? And he really was the best you lot could ever hope to do, wasn’t he?
How breathtakingly pointless you all are! The only way you can get any of the attention you so desperately crave is to gum up the works for real people, because secretly you’re all only too aware that in the great ledger of History there’s a big, fat zero beside every one of your names.
And you hate the world for it. But, the point is; the problem? It’s you.
Compare Joe Bast’s
“The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views”
which Duff gullibly swallows, to
Lead Authors should explicitly document that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered, and Coordinating Lead Authors and Review Editors should satisfy themselves that due consideration was given to
properly documented alternative views.
which says something very different. And so it goes with denialist scum.
Ever notice how those who feel vastly, disdainfully superior to the animals and the natural world have the most stunted, brutish and primitive intelligences?
It is clear that the brain processes of the likes of ‘The Goon Collective’ (Kraken/Mack/Bet/Duffer) and the psychopaths from whom they get mental input have not advanced beyond the neolithic. That is one of the tragedies of the current human condition, the hunter gather mentality still rules when reality demands something quite different if mother Earth is not to shake us off.
How civilized will these people be when they are hit by power outages, lack of shelter and food and water shortage.
Seriously, they will have more to worry about than how bad their sports team of choice is doing.
Which reminds me, playing sports under floodlights is a monstrous waste of resources and I shudder when I think of the carbon footprint of the current Olympic games with its heavy and litigious corporate sponsorship. The Olympics in its current form is a travesty of the original idea. Just as top flight football is where the one-time amateur sport intended for relief of the working poor has morphed into a huge casino and money laundering venture.
I’ll spare Betula from reading it by providing the only words that would matter to him if he did: “they do not have hard proof”.
And more for ‘The Goon Collective’ to consider.
An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future and note this WRT the much unfairly and ignorantly maligned IPCC:
That the world will endure more extreme, and more frequent, heatwaves is a rather obvious outcome as the Earth continues to warm from the continued increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported as much in its very first assessment of the peer-reviewed scientific literature back in 1990.
And adaptation inhibiting events such as Low Water Levels On The Mississippi River A Major Threat To Commerce: ‘This Is Absolutely Not Normal’ will become legion. You bozos of The Goon Collective need an intelligence infusion and quick.
“How civilized will these people be when they are hit by power outages, lack of shelter and food and water shortage.”
They’ll blame government, lefties and scientists for those.
Here is the statement by the IAC after the IPCC’s responses to its report:
“On behalf of the InterAcademy Council and the IAC committee that authored the report reviewing the processes and procedures of the IPCC, we are pleased that so many of our report’s recommendations were adopted today by the IPCC in Abu Dhabi. We are grateful to the U.N. and IPCC for seeking an independent review by the IAC and for acting on our report. We hope our report will continue to inform management of the IPCC as it carries out its Fifth Assessment Report on climate change science.”
That was more than a year ago.
God those denialists are dumb.
hahaha, birdbrain et al brought out their biggest spud guns to try to shoot that report down, lol and chris brought his water pistol, how sweet 🙂
You people really need to see the shenanigans that have gone on with the IPCC’s reports, at some point you will all have to concede to the fact that you all have been had.
Here is the link to the Conclusions, it really is a highly damning report on the IPCC.
Climate Change Assessments, Review of the Processes & Procedures of the IPCC
Chapter 5: Conclusions
Here is couple of interesting tidbits
New Paper “Weather And Climate Analyses Using Improved Global Water Vapor Observations” By Vonder Haar Et Al 2012
New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homgenization
Wow; in all honesty, this dreck and the rabble that has coasted along with them will blame scientists – and environmentalists – for not being the kind of people they’d wanted to believe. Seriously. The thing about barely evolved, perennially irresponsible idiots is that they are just that: nothing ever is their fault.
Also, Geniuses, here’s some more for you on the state of the Mississippi at the moment.
And that’s just the human impact: the thought of all the truly beautiful, intricate, and actually worthwhile, things we’re going to lose because of the likes of you truly makes my blood boil.
In case I’m not making myself clear I’ll say it plainly. You are absolutely contemptible. Yes, you. Snigger all you like, but the sad fact of your miserable existences is that the world would be a considerably better place had you never been born.
I see that some of you seem to think that a little bit of an over average temperature can melt through hundreds of metre’s of ice ?
How do you work that out ?
If a big chunk of ice is going go snap off it needs a bit bit of a shove.
sheeeze, one tracked minds. lol
“the world would be a considerably better place had you never been born.”
And this is why so many of them are rabid godbotherers. This gives them “meaning” when they have voluntarily squandered meaning in the only life they know they have.
silly billy, nobody I know disputes the the fact that there are many environmental problems that need to be addressed, the problem at this moment in time is that all those problems are being ignored because all of the attention is being focused on a phantom problem, CO2
You can blame yourself for that!
They’ll blame government, lefties and scientists for those.”
Yep, that’s right wow, we will blame them.
We now have a CO2 tax in Australia and will be paying, what, 400 or 500% more per ton of carbon that any other country on the planet, it is pure extortion to pay for a phantom problem.
Karen says that when people have power outages, lack of shelter and food and water…they’ll blame the carbon tax.
“and will be paying, what, 400 or 500% more per ton of carbon that any other country on the planet”
a) if there’s zero paid elsewhere, then you’d pay infinity% more even if you paid 1c per Gt.
Please show your model that shows that the price paid per carbon ton will cause blackouts.
Thanking you in advance.
Really, Kaz? Then can you tell us what “bit of a shove” caused 20 billion tons of ice to calve of the Petermann glacier on Sunday – one of the biggest ice islands ever calved in the Arctic? I searched the USGS to see if there was a more recent earthquake than in your link – there wasn’t.
So what “shove” do you mean?
Personally I think the fact that this area has been warming at a rate of 0.11 degrees C per year for the last 25 years might be enough on its own.
Ah! Watts playing with himself again.
Playing with data station numbers does not get away from the facts of accelerating ice melt at the poles and glaciers worldwide, obviously rising sea levels, disruption of the hydrological cycle, accelerating inter-species dislocation and thus extinctions and many other happening in plain sight for those with half an intelligence quotient.
Watts is as bad as those who go round removing the batteries from smoke detectors because they don’t like the noise. In other words, Watts (and all the others playing the misdirection game of whom Pielke is another and so is Curry and Lindzen, Nova and Bolt, Monckton and Ball – they are all thoughtless clowns) is being at the best irresponsible and at the worst culpable, I have long since decided that he is not simply deluded.
And no, we do not ignore the many other problems facing humankind such as pollution. All this can be brought under control by the same changes in the business model (actually chucking out the current one and starting all over would not be a bad idea) that would assist with reigning in CO2 and other GHG emissions.
We are not like you, myopic and blinkered and only able to see black and white, one thing at a time.
I wanted to believe.
I tried to believe.
You all sounded so, so, convincing – and convinced.
“[N]ew peer reviewed paper recently presented at the European Geosciences Union meeting.
Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors into account find global warming over the past century was only about one-half [0.42°C] of that claimed by the IPCC [0.7-0.8°C].”
Oh, and it’s peer reviewed – for what’s that worth!
So, you are all very, very, naughty boys! Now, pass me my gloves and scarf!
a) more than you’ve said is happening
b) impossible because there’s no way of measuring global temperature
c) not yet proven right
You’re awfully easy to brainwash with a paper if it says something like you want it to say.
“Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors into account …”
Isn’t that manipulating data, you morons?
“Homogenization is necessary to remove errors introduced in climatic time series.”
Come on Duff, homogenization is a necessary first step to imposing world socialist government. That’s the official line isn’t it?
“homogenization is a necessary first step to imposing world socialist government”
Direct quote from the communist party manifesto if I’m not mistaken. More usually applied in reference to the elimination of the bourgeoisie, than climate data though I would have thought. Both a means to an end though.
Nelson links this:
With this comment…
“I’ll spare Betula from reading it by providing the only words that would matter to him if he did: “they do not have hard proof”.”
I’ll do better than that Nelson, the title of your link is “Glacial Change Ain’t What It Used To Be”. The comment “they do not have hard proof that is what happened in this case.” is from a Dr. Box in a linked New York Times Article…
If you read the article, there is this statement that goes with it….”Dr. Box told me that the detachment of this ice shelf appears to be the largest such event for Greenland in the historical record. It is not the largest to have happened in the Arctic, however — an ice-shelf detachment along the northern rim of a Canadian Arctic island in 1962 was bigger”
That goes against the hyped title, which needs to be changed to….. “Glacial Change Ain’t What It Used To Be…..Except For 1962.”
I’ll do better than that
Oh, there’s no question that there are no limits to your stupidity and intellectual dishonesty.
So, just to be cleat, karen has -no idea- about why her prediction about the carbon tax will come true.
No mosel, no causation, no science.
Just a beleif it will happen .in the future-
That’s called a guess, karen.
So GSW agrees the paper wuwt is peddling is from the bureau of centre of bureaucracy for the new world order.
Why is wuwt peddling it, then?
Direct quote from the communist party manifesto if I’m not mistaken.
It would be a first if you weren’t … but no, no news here.
It varies, but Nelson always seems to know who he is….http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIrhVo1WA78
Info for Frank
Frank you can also download a KML file for google earth from here http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/epic/epic_global.php and that will also show you the other recent seismic activity near Greenland.
I note that there are a few commenter’s above, that for some misguided reason, seem to think that the new paper “Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization” was written by Mr Watts ?
I’ll straighten that out for you good people, Mr Watts only reported on the paper 🙂
“We investigate the methods used for the adjustment of inhomogeneities of temperature time series covering the last 100 years. Based on a systematic study of scientific literature, we classify and evaluate the observed inhomogeneities in historical and modern time series, as well as their adjustment methods. It turns out that these methods are mainly statistical, not well justified by experiments and are rarely supported by metadata. In many of the cases studied the proposed corrections are not even statistically significant.
From the global database GHCN-Monthly Version 2, we examine all stations containing both raw and adjusted data that satisfy certain criteria of continuity and distribution over the globe. In the United States of America, because of the large number of available stations, stations were chosen after a suitable sampling. In total we analyzed 181 stations globally. For these stations we calculated the differences between the adjusted and non-adjusted linear 100-year trends. It was found that in the two thirds of the cases, the homogenization procedure increased the positive or decreased the negative temperature trends.
One of the most common homogenization methods, ‘SNHT for single shifts’, was applied to synthetic time series with selected statistical characteristics, occasionally with offsets. The method was satisfactory when applied to independent data normally distributed, but not in data with long-term persistence.
The above results cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4°C and 0.7°C, where these two values are the estimates derived from raw and adjusted data, respectively.
see also the Presentation http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1212/1/documents/2012EGU_homogenization_1.pdf
and here is the Abstract http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1212/2/documents/EGU2012-956-1.pdf
Here is another peer reviewed paper that states that “THE TEMPERATURE WAS 1 deg C HIGHER THAN NOW IN THE PAST”
Without the benefit of seasonal resolution, SST averaged from shell time series would be weighted toward the fast-growing summer season, resulting in the conclusion,
quoted out-of-context by a brain-dead denialist:
that the early MCA was warmer than the late 20th century by ~ 1 °C.
The context continues:
This conclusion is broadly true for the summer season, BUT NOT TRUE FOR THE WINTER SEASON.
(emphasis mine) It earlier stated:
“The coldest winter months recorded in the shells averaged 6.0 ± 0.6 °C and the warmest summer months averaged 14.1 ± 0.7 °C. Winter and summer SST during the late 20th century (1961–1990) was 7.77 ± 0.40 °C and 12.42 ± 0.41 °C, respectively.”
Is it a law of nature that you have to be dumb to deny climate science? There’s plenty of evidence for it.
“Oh, and it’s peer reviewed”
Exactly what a gullible non-skeptic would say.
I note that there are a few commenter’s above, that…seem to think that the new paper “Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization” was written by Mr Watts ?
I don’t recall seeing any – but then, your comprehensions skills are famously lacking.
Hint: “peddling” != “was written by”.
And I’m betting, based on copious Karen/Mack/Sunspot/… history that there are even more serious miscomprehensions in your “understanding” of the paper itself.
Like the SST paper you just cited…whose abstract indicates that it relates to two spots on one 12km long island, a fact that you conveniently omitted when you trumpeted “THE TEMPERATURE WAS 1 deg C HIGHER THAN NOW IN THE PAST”.
Funny, Sunspot used to do that all the time on Sunspot’s eponymous thread – cherrypick specific local results and imply they were global. (And then deny or completely ignore the fact that a warmer past than previously thought would suggest that climate sensitivity is higher than previously thought. Why, it was almost like (s)he didn’t understand (s)he was posting material that undermined his/her own argument.)
Inquiring minds want to know.
Oh, and Sunspot also used to tout new papers that supported his position…even when they go against a whole load of evidence, and specifically before post-publication peer review kicks in.
Guess what happened to pretty much all of them?
And guess how many of the subsequent demolishments Sunspot picked? And what does that tell you about Sunspot’s ability to select gold from dross?
Speaking of Karen’s recent cite: oh, wait, lookee here! Some initial brief (and actual) skepticism.
Hmmm…what do you reckon the long term prospects are for the headline claims as interpreted by Watts via Karen?
Heck, given he immediately takes on a model without any access to “the raw data” and the entire email logs of the people writing the paper indicates that his avowed quest to uncoverany possible perfidity in science a sham.
Duffer WRT ‘Steirou and Koutsoyiannis…’
You should know that you are on a losing argument when Watts is once again dissected by Tamino.Where’s the Skepticism?
And I like Doug Bostrom’s remark, ‘How many denskepticons does it take to secure a coffin lid, anyway?’
Denskepticons – nice one, fits you to a T Duffer et. al.
Karen’s cherry-pick of one proxy in the North Atlantic is in good agreement with Mann et al. 2009.
Info for Karen,
A small tremor 1000 km’s away is your smoking gun for why 20 billion tons of ice broke off the Petermann Glacier?
Fuck me, you are beyond desperate. That’s lame even by your pathetically low standards…
Norfolk police close ‘climategate’ investigation; they conclude it was a sophisticated external attack and not a leak, but have been unable to ascertain the identity of the perpetrators.
Note that the break-off point has been visible for eight years.
Actually, it’s par for the course.
“A small tremor 1000 km’s away is your smoking gun for why 20 billion tons of ice broke off the Petermann Glacier?”
Where did you get “A small tremor 1000 km’s away” from ?
Between April and June there has been 7 earthquakes just north of Greenland, average distance is about 650klms, and to the east of Greenland there has been 13 in roughly the same time period, one of which was a 6.1
So did the little bit of above average temperature in the area melt through 1000’s of mtrs of ice ? You would need medication if you thought that!
Or more likely, vibrations from the nearby earthquakes !
I’m sorry that the earthquakes don’t fit the narrative, but narrative’s are only story’s and fiction’s not science.
Karen, if the temperature of an ice block rise 1 single degree from 0C will it melt?
Just one example of the densely wrong in the post you made.
One “Sabretruthtiger” appears to be working their way through ooooooold Monckton threads cutting and pasting a bunch of denialist talking points.
I can’t rule out that it is Monckton himself 😉
Wow 8.02 am.
Just look at what you have written there wow. You are just simply equating the melting of iceblock in the classroom to what we are talking about here in reality… the calving off of a large section of glacial ice. Can you see the distinction. Can you realise that one is what you think and the other is what is happening in reality? To put it more simply is it “melting” or breaking off. Hypothetical or real?
Yes, I was using exactly the same argument you as Karen were using.
As karen, remember, you were saying that not only would it ALL have had to melt for warming to be the cause, but that it is impossible to have a phase change with temperature only rising a little.
No, sorry Wow I’m separate from Karen. Inconveniently.
New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.