August 2012 Open Thread

Still here. It seems the carbon tax has not destroyed the Australian economy. Phew!


  1. #1 Trikeabout
    August 2, 2012

    Got a letter from my energy company yesterday. “Uh-oh” I thought, “Price rise time”.

    But no – I’ve had 100% green power for as long as I’ve lived in my current abode, and the electricity tariff has been dropped substantially. Good news!

    Not such good news, the crappy piece by David Evans in The Age today. Terrible bit of writing.

  2. #2 DarylD
    William Lamb's Town Down Under
    August 2, 2012

    Thanks, “trikeabout”, comments now closed.

    Clearly, a number of the Age readers called his head in arse “BS” propaganda for watt it is and will always remain.

    Ah, the first of the many head in arse lies and propaganda Gina Rhinoarse, will cause to be printed in “The Melbourne Age”. A tragic end is now in sight, as the editor under Gina Rhinoarses direct orders, takes up residence in “lunaticville”.

    David Evans, writes an interesting pile of insane head in arse logic and incoherent bull dust strawmen gish gallop of complete nonsense.

    As Forrest Gump, would say “Stupid is as stupid does”.

    cui bono

  3. #3 bill
    August 2, 2012

    Yeah, I got letter the other day telling me my 100% wind tariff was dropping substantially (44%)!

    Rock and roll!

    We have an old 1Kw SPV, and use 100% Wind to make up for what the Net Feed In Tariff hasn’t paid us for. Even with such a small system and 5 adults in the household electricity bills aren’t scary. In summer they’re pretty-well non-existent.

    I’ve yet to discover what the reduction in the 100% offset tariff we also pay for our Natural Gas consumption will be, but, frankly, the GBNT being the end of the world? Phhhhht… make a few changes and save money while you’re saving the world… 😉

  4. #4 StevoR
    Adelaide, South Australia
    August 2, 2012

    Story on the Drum website here :

    of possible albeit grim interest.

  5. #5 Bernard J.
    August 2, 2012

    How to be a Blog Scientist*

    1) Accuse real scientists of not properly accounting for biases in their data.

    2) Conduct ‘analyses’ wherein you do not account for any biases or systematic errors in the data.

    3) Complain that real scientists do not release their data or code, even when they have.

    4) Do not release your data or code.

    5) Accuse others of ‘improperly’ releasing papers prior to publication.

    6) Release your paper prior to submission for publication.

    7) On releasing your paper, expect that others on the internet will do the hard (and no-so-hard) intellectual work for you.

    8) Bugger it, ask your ‘scientific’ mates to do the work for you, but don’t tell them exactly what you have and haven’t done to clean your data.

    9) ‘Teach’ yourself statistics two days before you release your first draft.

    10) Add your mates as authors to your paper, without asking them, or telling them where the paper is to be sent, or with supplying authorship statement forms.

    11) Disseminate a press release that is at odds with both your draft paper, your coauthors, and with the real scientific literature.

    12) Dig and delve.

    [* Qualifications, training,and experience not prereqisite.]

  6. #6 Karen
    August 2, 2012

    StevoR, that ABC article quotes Professor Richard Muller and his flawed study as is if it was credible ?

    SteveR the reason alarmists are losing their climate propaganda war is because all of their predictions have failed miserably, yes all.

    The general public are now gasping on the climate change stench and want know why they have been lied to, and screaming about the warm weather in the US while the rest of the planet froze really did look dumb.

    I agree with DarylD, “As Forrest Gump, would say “Stupid is as stupid does”.

    cui bono

  7. #7 Trikeabout
    August 2, 2012

    StevoR – wow that’s a depressing read. Especially the comments – the very first one I read claimed the Industrial Revolution was from 1850-1900. *sigh*

  8. #8 Wow
    August 2, 2012

    Spots, isn’t Christy using the NON PEER REVIEWED and FAILED Watts paper *in front of Congress*?

    How does that work?

  9. #9 Lotharsson
    August 2, 2012

    From the thread at the Stoat, Arthur Smith writes:

    Christy didn’t mention the Watts paper in his spoken testimony, but Senator Boxer (D from CA, and chair) absolutely slammed him for referring to it in writing, asking him whether it was peer-reviewed and how could he be relying on one unreviewed paper, she trusted in the many reviewed papers that supported warming. Christy looked like he wanted to crawl somewhere and hide.

    Rattus Norvegicus follows up with the video:

    Christy free for all begins around 120:00 or there abouts. Questions from Boxer around 130:00.

  10. #10 Lionel A
    August 2, 2012

    In case this gets missed by the opening of a new Open Thread reposted from the previous:

    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, PDF, avoiding WUWT.

  11. #11 chek
    August 2, 2012

    Thanks for that video link, Lotharsson, and to the .pdf Lionel.
    It’s no surprise that Inhofe is as much an ignorant slimeball as ever. However I hadn’t quite realised till now that Christy is too, So much for ‘honest’ denialism which, on the evidence of that pair, doesn’t exist.

    Very informative.

  12. #12 John
    August 2, 2012

    I think we all knew this Watts thing was going to be a debacle, but who could have foreseen the complete disaster that Watts would unleash upon us?

    Usually whenever there’s a beatup in the denialosphere you’ll find one of our erstwhile fake skeptics here gloating all about it (and ignoring the fact it’s the opposite of what they said before). This week – not a peep. Nobody wants to be tainted by this thing. Nobody wants to be the person who stands up for Watts and his “methods”.

  13. #13 bill
    August 3, 2012

    ‘Karen’, for the benefit of complete idiots – e.g. you – all Muller’s ‘discredited’ paper did was reinforce what we already knew from the rest of science.

    Whereas Watt’s discredited pile of ‘paper’ has turned out to be an extraordinary, Joe Bast level, own-goal.

    That’s why it’s only you and the other brainless prat still here – your fellow-travellers may well be as thick as something very thick indeed that’s having a particularly dense day, but even they can recognise this trainwreck as something to avoid.

    Not you, of course, but then things like you can only gum up the works for everyone else by congealing on things in numbers…

  14. #14 MikeH
    August 3, 2012

    Nobody wants to be tainted by this thing. Nobody wants to be the person who stands up for Watts and his “methods”.

    Except for Karen of course who struggles to rise to the level of being merely clueless.

  15. #15 Mikem
    August 3, 2012

    Wasn’t Anthony Watts going to stand by the results of the Muller’s group even if they contradicted his views?

    As the SS Wattsupwiththat slowly keels over and slides stern first beneath the waves with its former staunch sceptical and scientifically qualified supporters taking to the lifeboats, I see Anthony and his remnant not-so-bright followers huddled together on the bow railing reassuring each other: “Nothing to see here. It’s all fine. The alarmists have lost. The band is still playing. We’ll all have a lovely evening.”

  16. #16 Chris O'Neill
    August 3, 2012

    “the crappy piece by David Evans in The Age today”

    And what a dog’s breakfast it is. Let me see if I can follow what he says.

    The “serious” skeptics accept that CO2 rise itself causes some warming, which would be about 0.6 deg C out of the existing 0.8 C. this leaves a lot of warming which requires an explanation which is that the Sun’s magnetic field is reducing Cosmic rays (which hasn’t been measured BTW) so there is less cloudiness and more sunlight reaching the surface of the earth. (Never mind that this is falsified by nights warming more than days.) Because warming is completely explained by these two processes, there are no other processes occurring such as water vapor feedback, sulphate aerosols, or oceanic heat absorption. There is no water vapor feedback even though water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas and it increases as it gets warmer. Sulphate aerosols are insignificant because their effect is difficult to measure. There is no oceanic heat absorption because it is difficult to measure. Also, the warming which is explained by CO2 rise on its own and (yet to be measured) declining Cosmic rays didn’t actually happen anyway, it was just low flying passenger aircraft over the Arctic Ocean causing it to melt faster in Summer. (OK, he said it was thermometers sitting outside air-conditioners and in aircraft exhausts at airports. He also forgot to mention the aircraft exhausts hitting the satellites.)

    As I said, a dog’s breakfast.

  17. #17 Chris O'Neill
    August 3, 2012

    Wasn’t Anthony Watts going to stand by the results of the Muller’s group even if they contradicted his views?

    Googling “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong” produces about 27,000 results. Not bad for an exact quote this long.

  18. #18 Mikem
    August 3, 2012

    @ Chris

    Yeah I figured that’d be the case. But let’s face it……we all knew he was full of crap and there was absolutely no way he was ever going to accept any scientific evidence of a warming planet due to greenhouse gas emissions, even if he ends up the last man standing.

    To be so caught up in denialism and conspiracy theories that there’s simply no way out, you have to have a very tenuous grip on sanity.

  19. #19 bill
    August 3, 2012

    Muller and then McKibben, interviewed today on DN!

    McKibben, like Romm, knows how to frame things.

  20. #20 Lotharsson
    August 3, 2012

    Shame that Muller hasn’t figured out that anthropogenic climate change is affecting the kinds of weather events he cites as “not caused by global warming”. (At the end of the interview he rejects the term “climate change”.) And he’s still touting his book claiming that “…essentially 90% of what [An Inconvenient Truth] presented was exaggerated or distorted or just false”.

    Then again, he’s only caught up to climate science circa 1980. Maybe he’ll have further re-evaluations of his own opinion as he catches up another few decades.

    I also wonder if he can actually point to “clean non-earthquake fracking” technology, or whether he’s not quite up to speed in that area either. I remember reading about a minor scandal a few days ago where a professor analysing fracking turned out to have fairly direct financial interests in companies engaged in fracking. I’m also not up to speed on that area myself – anyone know more?

    He also seems to be woefully out of touch with the latest research on the level of warming that will start to have dangerous impacts when he insists “Global warming, so far, has not been very much.”

    Muller also reiterates his early insistence that Mann is wrong on a number of points, and given the issues with some of his previous (and apparently less-informed) pronouncements, I wonder how well those claims stand up to scrutiny by those who know what they’re talking about.

    Methinks there’s a touch of Dunning-Kruger going on, but maybe it’s just plain hubris 😉

  21. #21 Wow
    August 3, 2012

    “…essentially 90% of what [An Inconvenient Truth] presented was exaggerated or distorted or just false”.

    It’s somewhat correct. What AID presented HAS been exaggerated, distorted or just false.

    Like, for example, the claim that Al Gore says in it that there will be a 20ft increase in sea levels by 2100.

    A false claim people have made about AIT. He doesn’t do that. Nobody can find where he does. Transcripts don’t show it and even denialists who INSIST it is there can only point to some other denialist saying it said it (at best, many can only point to people saying people said that people say he said it…).

  22. #22 Wow
    August 3, 2012

    AIT, not AID.

  23. #23 Lotharsson
    August 3, 2012

    McKibben’s article at Rolling Stone.

    Muller argues that about 0.8C of warming to date is “not very much”. The article suggests otherwise (which matches other published research I’ve seen):

    “Any number much above one degree involves a gamble,” writes Kerry Emanuel of MIT, a leading authority on hurricanes, “and the odds become less and less favorable as the temperature goes up.” Thomas Lovejoy, once the World Bank’s chief biodiversity adviser, puts it like this: “If we’re seeing what we’re seeing today at 0.8 degrees Celsius, two degrees is simply too much.” NASA scientist James Hansen, the planet’s most prominent climatologist, is even blunter: “The target that has been talked about in international negotiations for two degrees of warming is actually a prescription for long-term disaster.” At the Copenhagen summit, a spokesman for small island nations warned that many would not survive a two-degree rise: “Some countries will flat-out disappear.” When delegates from developing nations were warned that two degrees would represent a “suicide pact” for drought-stricken Africa, many of them started chanting, “One degree, one Africa.”

    Which is a real problem, because:

    … computer models calculate that even if we stopped increasing CO2 now, the temperature would likely still rise another 0.8 degrees, as previously released carbon continues to overheat the atmosphere.

    And that’s before the article analyses our emissions trajectory and concludes that (a) we’ll emit enough in about the next 16 years to ultimately breach 2C, and (b) we’re on course for 6C if nothing much changes.

    The article discusses a report that says that proven fossil fuel reserves are about 5 times as much as we can afford to burn if we want to limit ourselves to a 20% chance of exceeding 2C, and committing to not burning the 4x excess would mean writing off about $20 TRILLION of current market value.

    Also, nice use of radical free-market worshipper rhetoric to make a point:

    You could argue that this is simply in the nature of these [fossil fuel] companies – that having found a profitable vein, they’re compelled to keep mining it, more like efficient automatons than people with free will. But as the Supreme Court has made clear, they are people of a sort. In fact, thanks to the size of its bankroll, the fossil-fuel industry has far more free will than the rest of us.

    Go read the whole thing.

  24. #24 Lionel A
    August 3, 2012

    Methinks there’s a touch of Dunning-Kruger going on, but maybe it’s just plain hubris

    More like, ‘Walking back to Kochiness. Oompah! Oh yeh, yeh, yeh!’ Apologies to Helen Shapiro.

  25. #25 Lionel A
    August 3, 2012

    So Gina ‘no heart’ Rinehart doesn’t give a toss about the Great Barrier Reef

  26. #26 Eli Rabett
    August 4, 2012

    Strange as it sounds, it pays to comment at WUW T, Curry’s etc., maybe with less snark, but to establish reputation.

  27. #27 FrankD
    August 4, 2012

    But what if the reputation you are shooting for is snark?

  28. #30 John
    August 5, 2012

    curse my sticky keys

  29. #31 Sean
    August 6, 2012

    Karen says the rest of the planet froze….hmmm.
    NOAA says 4th warmest June globally. Northern Hemisphere land and ocean average surface temp warmest June on record. And the globally averaged land temp was warmest June on record too.

  30. #32 Bernard J.
    August 6, 2012

    Heh, so TD Securities’ and the Melbourne Institute’s latest survey indicates that the carbon tax has had no effect on food, transport or anything else other than utility prices. Further, inflation is bordering on a three year low.

    No, the sky is not falling, No, cats and dogs are not living together. So much for the GBNT…

    On the other hand, if Australia and the world can continue forward with addressing the human emissions that are affecting the planet’s climate, we might actually be able to mitigate some of the worst effects in that area, that we are otherwise putting in train.

  31. #33 StevoR
    August 6, 2012

    Apologies, if folks have beaten me to it and linked this already but y’all might wish to check out this :

    great online article by Bill McKibben via Rolling Stone magazine. Some powerful stuff and facts there.

  32. #34 John
    August 6, 2012

    Recently I brought to light some anti-Semitic comments by my favourite group of elderly cranks, the Galileo Movement.

    Suddenly Andrew Bolt, a man they have longed claimed is their advisor, is none too happy to be associated with these artless frauds. Funny, I didn’t see him decrying the association before.

    I wonder where the Galileo Movement appropriated their anti-Semetic conspiracy theory from?

    Why, it would be Christopher Monckton, of course!

    The same Christopher Monckton who appeared on the Bolt Report.

    Double standards, my friend.

    Double standards.

  33. #35 John
    August 6, 2012

    And a special mention must go to the long, rambling, conspiracy filled rant from Malcolm Roberts in the comments section of Bolt’s blog.

  34. #36 chek
    August 6, 2012

    Was Roberts’ citing of the carpet-chewing Glenn Beck meant to add a shedload of irony, letting us all into the obvious big joke that the Galileo Movement really is, or … doesn’t he do irony?

  35. #37 Richard Simons
    August 6, 2012

    A few months ago I fruitlessly tried to convince a contributor to WUWT that radiation from a cooler upper atmosphere to a warmer earth surface does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It’s just occurred to me that if it is impossible for radiation to proceed from a cooler object to a warmer one, then it would be impossible for the human eye to see anything that is cooler than body temperature. Perhaps I’ll try that argument next time, although I doubt it will make anyone switch on their brain.

  36. #38 Lionel A
    August 6, 2012


    WRT 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and radiation your protagonist would not have been named Tim Curtin by any chance?

    Gone a bit quiet around here?

  37. #39 Trent1492
    August 6, 2012

    Question. I just saw the news report of a new paper that found ocean acidification affecting shells. What I am unable to tell though is if the study occurred in the lab or field. Here is the link to the <A href=""<abstract

  38. #40 mk
    August 6, 2012

    I’ll try that argument next time, although I doubt it will make anyone switch on their brain

    Denier brains have a special valve that only lets through arguments that support their ideology. You may be able to to make a dent here or there, but the system is self-healing.

  39. #41 GSW
    August 6, 2012


    Not read the paper, just quickly scanned the abstract. I’d say it would have to be the field. “Latitudinal” suggests, polar regions tropics etc. Any artificial environment replicating these would necessarily be flawed, ie by definition artificial.

    Think what they have done is collect a number of specimens of the same species over a wide area and tried to establish some phenotype benchmarks based on latitude (shell thickness etc).

    Don’t know if that helps.

  40. #42 Richard Simons
    August 7, 2012

    WRT 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and radiation your protagonist would not have been named Tim Curtin by any chance?

    No. It was Theodore White, ‘astrometeorologist’. He kept on citing authority for his claims, but could not progress beyond that.

  41. #43 bill
    August 7, 2012

    What I’ve never been able to get is how anyone – even the kind of epic dill that embraces Denial – can not have seen through the likes of Monckton from the off.

    Let us not forget his recent espousal of ‘freedom loving‘ parties, his Birtherism, as well as the continual – and ludicrous – Marxist / Bankster one-world-government raving.

    I suspect that the lack of reaction is the result of two factors, in various combinations: one; being very thick indeed, and two; being sympathisers / equivalent conspiracy nuts.

    It really is all unravelling quite spectacularly for them, isn’t it?

  42. #44 Anthony David
    August 7, 2012

    @Trent. Confirming @GSW’s response. The methods section of the paper commences with a ‘Sample collection’ subsection: “Twelve sites were investigated across tropical, temperate, and polar latitudes ..”

    You may be interested in the
    Free Ocean Carbon dioxide Experiments which is creating a “natural laboratory” varying CO2 concentrations and measuring actual reef responses.

  43. #45 Anthony David
    August 7, 2012

    Hmm. That should have linked to The lack of preview is annoying.

  44. #46 Trent1492
    August 7, 2012

    Thank you Anthony David and GSW.

  45. #47 Lotharsson
    August 7, 2012

    Denier brains have a special valve that only lets through arguments that support their ideology.

    A.k.a. Morton’s demon.

    Or for those that prefer cartoons:
    Part 1
    Part 2
    Part 3

  46. #48 bill
    August 7, 2012

    Ah – ‘preconceptual science’; there’s a term that could catch on!

  47. #49 Mack
    August 7, 2012

    Richard Simons Aug 6th 6.10pm. comment.
    You’ve obviously got a brain with lights switched on but nobody home, unless you have a special AGW brain with eyes that can see long wave IR radiation. Boy we have a right one here.!

  48. #50 Wow
    August 7, 2012

    Gosh, karenmackspot, do you think that the scientists use their EYES to record the IR radiation?

    Or did you just not know that SSDs are used for that?

    PS there’s this new idea that light is pacelled up into discrete packets rather than emitted as a continuous wave. You may want to read up on this new idea.

  49. #51 bill
    August 7, 2012

    Mack, we’re really going to have to preserve your brain – well, at least the squishy object you keep in your skull – for science and posterity. This persistent thing where you gloat even though it’s clearly you that’s the idiot is really quite extraordinary and merits examination…

    And Wow, Mack doubtlessly assumes ‘discrete packets’ to mean things from under the counter at the Newsagents… don’t forget that Professor Tim C pointed out that they’re imaginary anyway!

  50. #52 Lionel A
    August 7, 2012

    There it is again that inane, insane cackle of a Mackookaburra Aaahahahahahahahahahahaha, swept up in the wake of that Pied Curtin.

    PS. The original record was released in 1966, I recall where I was at the time, curiously the B side was the same dirge but recorded backwards.

  51. #53 Wow
    August 7, 2012

    And,of course, Einstein’s description says specifically and clearly that light does not fall as discrete corpuscles. Because “Does” “Not” “Fall” “As” “Discrete” and “Corpuscles” all appear in his paper.

    Not necessarily in that order, but they all appear.

  52. #54 Mack
    August 7, 2012

    Pathetic distractive red herrings those discrete packets. No doubt you two and Richard Simons have X-ray vision as well….Super Ignoramuses.

  53. #55 Wow
    August 7, 2012

    No, they’re not distractive red herrings.

    So we have a discrete packet of energy as a photon with an energy of, say, 20meV approaches an object that absorbs photons at that energy.

    Is this impossible if that object is at, say, 20C?

  54. #56 Bernard J.
    August 7, 2012

    Looks as though the Boy-Named-Karen’s last neurone just apoptosed.

    He won’t notice the difference.

  55. #57 Mack
    August 7, 2012

    What’s that got to do with the electromagnetic spectrum and Richard Simons uncanny ability to see outside the visible range wow?
    Old Lino, That song must really resonate with you eh.

  56. #58 John
    August 7, 2012

    But how can it exist if you can’t see it, Karenmackspot?

  57. #59 Wow
    August 7, 2012

    So you don’t know the answer, Mack?

    Or know that it proves you wrong, therefore avoid it?

  58. #60 Wow
    August 7, 2012

    And Richard isn’t talking about seeing beyond the visible spectrum, but being able to see something that is cooler than his body temperature.


  59. #61 Bernard J.
    August 7, 2012

    Heh heh.

    I addressed the Karensock, and the Macksock replies.

    The fool just can’t help himself.

  60. #62 Richard Simons
    August 7, 2012

    When I made my comment, I fully realized that there would be idiots who would see the stupidity of it, but fail to understand that it follows naturally from the argument some clowns make, that radiation cannot transfer energy from a cooler object to a warmer one. I’ve no idea why Mack is bleating about IR radiation and I don’t imagine he could explain just what he is jeering about.

    Mack: are you claiming that there are no people who claim that a cooler object cannot radiate energy to a warmer one because of the 2nd Law?
    Or are you claiming that, even if the 2nd Law meant no radiation goes from a cooler body to a warmer one, we would still be able to see cold objects? If so, how?

    Face it, Mack, you didn’t get beyond ‘That’s stupid’ before mocking.

  61. #63 mk
    August 7, 2012

    Mack seems to think that the 2LOT prevents IR from radiating from hot to cold bodies but that visible light operates under completely different physical laws … if he thinks at all. It is of course quite ironic that someone as deeply stupid as Mack denigrates the intelligence of others, but it’s inevitable that people like Mack exist, and really not worth bothering with them.

  62. #64 mk
    August 7, 2012

    I addressed the Karensock, and the Macksock replies.

    Don’t be as stupid as Mack … he responded to Lionel.

  63. #65 mk
    August 7, 2012

    Er, actually, he responded to both wow and Lionel … but not to Bernard.

  64. #66 HarryW
    August 7, 2012

    To Mikem, @8:39…you said, “But let’s face it……we all knew he was full of crap and there was absolutely no way he was ever going to accept any scientific evidence of a warming planet due to greenhouse gas emissions, even if he ends up the last man standing.”

    As a practicing earth scientist, I’ll go on record as predicting…

    He will be. With his *staunch* buttbuddy, Jim Inhofe, by his side….

  65. #67 bill
    August 7, 2012

    Well, at least we’ve established why people like ‘Mack’ can’t see melting glaciers… 😉

  66. #68 Mack
    August 7, 2012

    Richard Simmons trys to worm his way out of claiming that he can’t see anything at a higher temp. than his eyeballs. Richard I recommend sticking your head in a bucket of ice once a day to improve your quality of life.

  67. #69 Bernard J.
    August 7, 2012


    Indeed, KMSPPMM has exchanged musical criticism with Lionel. My screen must be colder than body temperature.

    Either that, or Stupid is contagious. Perhaps I’m overdue for an immunisation and an eye test. Moneypenny, book an appoinment with Dr Inferno.

  68. #70 FrankD
    August 8, 2012

    Mack tried to claim (wrongly) that Richard said he couldn’t see anything colder than his eyeballs. Now he tries to claim (wrongly) that Richard said he couldn’t see anything warmer than his eyeballs.

    Consistency is not the strong suit of the denialtariat…

  69. #71 Richard Simons
    August 8, 2012

    Mack: take a step or two back, take a deep breath and try to untangle yourself.

  70. #72 Mack
    August 8, 2012

    Well Richard you have Frank D( above you) willing to argue about the temp. of your eyeballs so that must be of comfort. He’s obviously even a bigger fool than you.

  71. #73 Lotharsson
    August 8, 2012

    He’s obviously even a bigger fool than you.

    Oh, Teh Irony.

    No, wait – Oh, Teh Complete Lack Of Self Awareness…

    …coupled with Epic Comprehension Fail.

  72. #74 bill
    August 8, 2012

    Ho Ho: Mack not the real smartist? That’s unpossible! Him ever in clever things more than you are much all of you, ha ha!

  73. #75 Wow
    August 8, 2012

    Karen, being as you’re so clever, you can tellus if the absorption of a photon depends on the temperature of the absorber.

    Or are you too dumb to know the answer?

  74. #76 Lionel A
    August 8, 2012

    I’ll ask Mack a simple question:

    What is the difference between heat and temperature?

    Well we may as well start with the basics.

  75. #77 Wow
    August 8, 2012

    Nah, it’s already said it knows how light is absorbed. The question I asked is pretty basic: does the absorption of a photon depend on the temperature of the absorber?

  76. #78 Lionel A
    August 8, 2012

    At first there was Mackook fluffing and now there are farting trees.

    And if that isn’t bad enough here we have a compilation of Arctic woes .

    Little wonder that the KrakenSpotDuffs are lying low.

  77. #79 FrankD
    August 8, 2012

    Far from being interested in the temperature of Richards eyeballs, I’m only pointing out Macks feeble attempts to distract from her own epic stupidity. But if she insists on displaying it, far be it from me to stop the lulz…

    Mack shows that he can’t even comprehend two simple english declarative sentences. Therefore, I marvel that others even entertain the notion he’s capable even of misunderstanding thermodynamics.

    I don’t know about how big a fool he is, but his reading age appears to be on a par with that of my cat.

  78. #80 Lionel A
    August 8, 2012

    Yes FrankD but I’ll bet your cat is cute.

  79. #81 DarylD
    William Lamb's Town Down Under
    August 8, 2012

    In other news, a journalist graduate from Melbourne University, tells a sad tale of watt it is like, to work for the Murdoch Media Propaganda Machine.

    In her own words:

    “But as an aspiring student journalist it
    would be wrong of me to not bring light to
    scenarios I believe demean us all.
    I’ll never be employed by ‘The Hun’, but
    that’s not something I mourn. I usually feel
    sad when poring over decreasing readerships
    and closed mastheads. But any force—
    declining revenue, ethical maelstroms, online
    competition—that can injure this publication,
    should be met with party poppers, streamers and
    a piñata of a certain “climate skeptic’s” head.
    If Australia’s big mastheads all function
    like this then I say bring on their decline.
    Rip down the banners that have led to media
    exclusivity and elitism. Huzzah to the future
    of online, diverse reporting.
    Even if it fucks up, at least it’s not as bad
    as ‘The Hun’.”

    Article link ;

    Melbourne Age Link:

    Cheers 😉

  80. #82 bill
    August 9, 2012

    The collapse of the Goddawful Murdoch Empire should indeed be celebrated.

    It’s strident, cynical, pseudo-‘populist’ amalgamation of the worldviews of the yobbo thug and the boardroom headkicker are a manifestation of everything that’s repulsive in contemporary ‘conservatism’.

    The thought of a genuine news empire – Fairfax – becoming a channel for the political ambitions – and the court – of yet another billionaire is genuinely tragic, however.

  81. #83 Lotharsson
    August 9, 2012

    Michael Mann lists “8 Fibs” by Muller on “Democracy Now” (the show was linked to by bill above, and commented on in this thread).

    Let’s just say they don’t make Muller look good.

  82. #84 bill
    August 9, 2012

    Thanks Lotharson – I’m glad he took the time to do that!

  83. #85 bill
    August 9, 2012

    I was just over at Eli’s and realised I’ve dropped the second ‘s’ above – apologies!

  84. #86 Lionel A
    August 9, 2012

    I am confused.

    The Mann responses to the eight fibs of Muller, linked by Lotharsson, does not seem to follow the dialogue in that August 2nd 2012 Democracy Now piece ‘Climate Skeptic, Koch-Funded Scientist Richard Muller Admits Global Warming Real & Humans The Cause’, linked by Bill.

    What have I missed?

    Whatever, Muller is still confusing some issues and his suggestion of pushing China to a natural gas economy indicates that he may have connections with that industry. Either that or he is still playing catch up on the reality outside of fossil funded academia.

  85. #87 Wow
    August 9, 2012

    Muller still wants to be liked by the denialists.

  86. #88 Lionel A
    August 9, 2012

    I lost internet before getting to the end of that August 2 2012 DN broadcast but have now had an opportunity to follow through all makes sense now.

    Natural gas and energy conservation is what he is pushing, apart from his new, and previous books, which I intend avoiding. I am not about to add to this creatures pension fund.

    Muller also produces a quick whitewash of the Koch Brothers, where’s my bucket, hughie…..!

  87. #89 Karen
    August 10, 2012

    Richard Muller: “Okay, let me give you a little background on that. The NOAA announced that this is the warmest year on record for the United States – that immediately surprised me because I’ve been looking at the world record, and I’d seen that the temperature had actually gone down, compared to the last five years.

    So I looked it up, and sure enough, the 2% of the world that happens to be the United States is a record warm, the 98% of the world, the rest of it, was actually cool.

    Okay, we’re having a heat spell. To call that “global warming” – and the globe isn’t warming – is just an attempt to grab headlines .. to get the public interested in this important issue.”


  88. #90 Karen
    August 10, 2012

    …….and what Roy says about the US temperatures.

    “As far as daily HIGH temperatures go, 1936 was the clear winner. But because daily LOW temperatures have risen so much, the daily AVERAGE July temperature in 2012 barely edged out 1936.

    Now, of course, we have that nagging issue of just how much urban heat island (UHI) effect remains in the data. The NCDC “homogenization” procedures are not really meant to handle long-term UHI warming, which has probably occurred at most of the 1218 stations used in the above plot.

    Also, minimum temperatures are much more influenced by wind conditions and other factors near the surface…Max temperatures give a much better idea of how warm an air mass is over a deep layer.

    Also, I thought one month doesn’t make a climate trend? If we look at the 5-year running mean of the daily averages for July’s over the last 100 years, we see that while recent Julys have indeed been warm, it is questionable whether they rival the 1930s:”

    LOL, still no globull warming 🙂

  89. #91 Karen
    August 10, 2012

    Here is a clip from the camera on the sea ice near the North Pole, it clearly demonstrates how the storms in the Arctic smash the sea ice to smithereens and the numpties then wave their little arms around and scream the arctic is on fire.

  90. #92 Lionel A
    August 10, 2012

    Kraken sucking on the poison from WUWT probably based on Muller’s obfuscation during a Democracy Now interview.

    Meanwhile in the real world we see this

    August 9 News: Drought Across Three Continents Drops Crop Stockpiles, Raises Import Costs To $1.24 Trillion


    2012 Has Already Set More Daily Heat Records Than All Of 2011, And More Are On The Way

    and this:

    Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?

    So, having got your head out off ‘7th rock from the sun’ go look up on these headings:

    Arctic Death Spiral Continues: Record Low Sea Ice Volume Appears Likely

    How Much Water Debt Are We Taking On? This Scary Map Shows How Much

    James Hansen On The New Climate Dice And Public Perception Of Climate Change

    and on the reliability, or more like unreliability of Watts check out the Watts/BEST/Christy circus.

  91. #93 Lionel A
    August 10, 2012

    OK Kraken, if you can, take in the full implications of what is happening in north polar regions and why this storm is damaging. Hint, it is because the storm is not alone in the destruction of the ice.

    Read this Massive Arctic storm batters sea ice.

    I find it astonishing that your be so flippant about such events. Are you that ignorant or simply insane. BTW if you live in Texas a low IQ will not save you from the death penalty it would seem.

  92. #94 Robert Murphy
    August 10, 2012

    “… that immediately surprised me because I’ve been looking at the world record, and I’d seen that the temperature had actually gone down, compared to the last five years.”

    That’s not true. This year is warmer than 2008 and 2011 already, and will continue to be at the end of the year.

  93. #95 Wow
    August 10, 2012

    Remember, Robert, deniers don’t actually do what they say they do.

    This ensures they don’t have to know they’re lying about *what* they saw. They just have to convince themselves that what they think they’ll see is what would be seen if they’d bothered to look.

  94. #96 FrankD
    August 10, 2012

    “it clearly demonstrates how the storms in the Arctic smash the sea ice to smithereens”

    There are no storms seen in that webcam. Over the month, the ice just gently melts and the pool slightly to the left just gradually grows. Nothing gets “smashed to smithereens”. But I do note that it rains 14 times in that months – not snows, not sleets, but rains. Rain at the North Pole, even in July-August, should be a very rare occurrence. Snow flurries? Sure. But liquid rain? Sounds like something we would see if that Arctic was warming.

    But if Karen is talking about storms smashing ice to pieces, I assume it is referring to what has been dubbed the Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012, a recent storm that basically stripped the Chukchi Sea bare of ice. The storm that was described by one meteorologist as “remarkable for winter, but unhead of for summer.” The warm-core low that could only form due to high sea surface temperatures and low ice coverage? That storm?

    Hows that Arctic sea ice area working for it? Karen was keen to talk about it in April, how about now?

    Should reach a new record low in about four days, with a month left in the melt season.

    Einstein once defined stupidity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Karen continues to try to hold up the Arctic as an example of climate change not happening, when it is, in fact, the best example of where it is happening fastest. Yet being repeated shot down does not stop Karen from trying, after the minimum interval, from repeating its pathetic attempt to use Arctic Sea Ice to deny climate change. Seems to fit Einsteins definition very nicely.

  95. #97 mk
    August 10, 2012

    Einstein once defined stupidity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

    No, that’s how he defined insanity. I think you got confused because GW denial is insane but Karen is, beyond that, so incredibly stupid.

  96. #98 Chris O'Neill
    August 10, 2012

    Muller: “The NOAA announced that this is the warmest year on record for the United States – that immediately surprised me because I’ve been looking at the world record”

    Doesn’t know much about climatology.

  97. #99 chek
    August 10, 2012

    Watts on The Great 2012 Summer Polar Storm: – Look, squirrels!
    et al: – Yes, and some are riding antelopes!
    Karen – Yes, and unicorns too! They feed on virgin ice crystals from all that smashed to smithereens ice you know, because it definitely couldn’t have disappeared because it melted.

  98. #100 jerryg
    August 10, 2012

    FrankD – re WUWT, I like this quote from the book Idiot America
    “Fact is merely what enough people believe, and truth lies only in how fervently they believe it.”

1 2 3 6

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