September 2012 Open Thread

Time for more thread.


  1. #1 Lionel A
    September 22, 2012

    Jonas keeps throwing out accusations of all sorts but he has as yet failed to provide one specific example of Jeff ‘making stuff up’ about the science. So until that happens I refuse to engage personally with this shape-shifting, word twisting, devious and dishonest troll.

    Jonas may think that Jeff, and others make stuff up when the highlight the inanity of his statements but then Jonas has demonstrated poor comprehension ability so often that he probably fails to comprehend the meaning of his own written words.

    And no Jonas you have not noticed me much because I refuse to waste my time entering the cesspit of your own making that you have been put in because of your incessant spouting of cess which has continued in this thread.

    High time that you were sent back to your own cess.

  2. #2 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    “So chek never knew if his list contained any relevant answers. Wow does not know why or how it is relevant.”

    That’s because it’s you who is obsessing over it and you can’t, or rather won’t, say why.

    Since nobody know what the hell you’re asking for or its relevance, the answers you’ve got are the answers you’re given.

    If you don’t like them, then so what?

  3. #3 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    “which and how much various factors contribute to any climate change”

    That answer has been given to you by chek.

    IF that is the question you wanted answering, it has been answered.

  4. #4 Jeff Harvey
    September 22, 2012


    Do you honestly think for a second you’d win a debate in a conference hall or university lecture room by claiming that the views of every Academy of Science on the planet might be controversial because they might not be based on the entire rank-and-file membership? Talk about making things up… you do so as you go along to ensure that the discussion is channeled your own way.

    You know who’d be laughed at for saying that. Again, don’t lecture me about making things up. And then you claim that you base an individual on the strength of their science. What an arrogant, self-righteous S.O.B. you are. Why don’t you have a go at my peer-reviewed material Jonas? If you are the genius you clearly think that you are. No wonder you loathe my CV. I at least have a pretty good one. Yours is kept from discourse here except little leaks about you possessing the proper expertise. Prove it! And there’ Mack having a go at me about arrogance and a superiority complex. Talk about rich….

    Since when have you been an expert who is able to adjudicate on the strength of climate science? You’ve never admitted to anyone here what it is you do, which I have been at least honest enough to do. Where are your publications? You university lectures? You relevant degree? So you think you are expert enough to evaluate the credentials of Mann, Hansen, Trenberth et al?

    Your hubris is gob-smacking in the extreme. Essentially, what I said about Jonas’ law stands. If you say something, then it is supposed to be swallowed whole by all of us here. God has spoken. Thus, I raise a point about joint statements from National Academies across the globe. Cornered, you imply that the decisions may have been reached on the basis of only a few members at the top. This is a pretty remarkable assertion, and should require some form of proof from you. But you don’t need to provide proof, because Godly Jonas has spoken from the mount. He has decreed that these elite bodies are undemocratic. End of story! That’s it, sin’t it? How your brain works?

    In all of my life I have rarely encountered a specimen like you, Jonas. And that is not a complement. You are, in my opinion, sick. Certainly in need of medical attention. You remind me of the God Apollo in that Star Trek episode, ” Who Mourns for Adonis”.

  5. #5 Jeff Harvey
    September 22, 2012

    I am asking Tim from the heart: please appoint Bernard to moderate the various threads, as he volunteered to do. There’s no ‘guard at the gates’ and all of the undesirables are flooding back in here with their brands of hogwash. Several who were banished to their own cesspits have escaped and re-entered other threads. Like an open portal to hell, they have slithered in here to obfuscate, distort and troll. Begone with them!

  6. #6 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    Don’t worry Joan, we’ll manage.

  7. #7 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    “Like my “moderated” question to you earlier: ”

    OK, definition of insanity doing the same thing again and expecting a different outcome.

    Deniers really don’t have a brain in their whole darn body.

  8. #8 Lotharsson
    September 22, 2012

    If all the so called trolls were banished again….this place would die.

    Troll infestations are worse than just dying. They generally send the average IQ into negative territory and swamp signal with noise.

  9. #9 Lionel A
    September 22, 2012

    Science is a bannished [sic] topic here.

    No, the any science has been drowned out by you children making lotsa noise. But then ’empty vessels’ and all that.

    I, and others, have asked pointed questions WRT science and what happens – they are evaded.

    Come on then explain the different characteristics of the poles WRT ice and how they then respond to global warming?

    Explain why this matters.

    Explain how the light absorption properties of gases was first investigated and how this informs us on how an increase in CO2 causes the atmosphere, and ground to warm up.

    Why is water such an anomalous fluid?

    Why are the properties of water so important to our understanding of the Earth’s fluid systems?

    You want science then start providing some.

    Cue, another wibbling evasion.

  10. #10 chek
    September 22, 2012

    The troll outbreak here is a salutary illustration of why scientists aren’t found in the double digit IQ percentile and why that constituency have no impact despite the Watt’s and McIntyre’s and Montford’s and Idso’s and Pielke’s best efforts. The sheer stupidity is chilling.

    Bernard for moderator!

  11. #11 Nick
    September 22, 2012

    PentaxZ, that claim in the Tucson Citizen has been debunked by Menne et al 2010. Yep,years ago it was found to be bullshit. You can go now.

  12. #12 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    “Wow, again: Exactly my point!”

    Yes, yes, there is no point. We get it.

    What now? Yet more “That’s my point” empty whining?

  13. #13 chek
    September 22, 2012

    Nick, that there are six independent temperature sets (four terrestrial and two satellite based) which are all in agreement has passed ignorant numpties like PantyZ by.

    That they think posting their stupid links persuades anybody with even a modicum of familiarity with the subject only indicates the sheer volume of readily-self-accepted stupid being peddled by the know-nothings.

  14. #14 chek
    September 22, 2012

    when in fact the whole war is over

    …and The Great Mobilised Stupid lost, as they always do and always will. I’ll stake on intelligence over stupid any time when Nature is the challenger.

  15. #15 Lionel A
    September 22, 2012


    You deltoidstas think you are winning the AGW battle, when in fact the whole war is over.

    When will you dullards realise that nobody is winning here as warming causes climate changes as we will increasingly discover as more people are washed away by floods and land slides, many more others succumb to drought fuelled starvation as more crops fail year on year at the same time as the seas are becoming fished out.

    As ocean waters pH levels change as the waters warm more reefs will bleach. Do you understand why they do this? What changes in the coral?

    Do you understand why these same reefs are very important nurseries for the hatchlings of a myriad species and why this is important?

    The Holocene was the Holocene because the temperate climate was maintained by that big thermostat at the top of the world that is now vanishing at a rate not anticipated in the IPCC AR4, and not by many scientists just 10 years ago.

    You do realise that most scientific dissent over the writing in that IPCC AR4 was because the Policy Makers part was too watered down such as to miss the higher end impacts which are now unfolding, do you not?

    You did realise, did you not, that the part for policy makers was backed up by a vastly larger and more complex volume explaining the science base in greater detail?

    And as for ‘deltoidistas’, easy to understand where you go for your information. Information always second, or third, hand and via some rabid filter or other.

    Citing papers refers to scientific papers, taken in their entirety, and not tabloid rags BTW, or their online equivalents.

    Warming and climate change is going to bite you in the arse too.

  16. #16 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    Lionel, for the rightwing nutjobs, AGW is the indication of their Holy Crusade. They are the dross of old humanity, consisting of the religious who cling to “The Old Ways” and are destitute at being sidelined when rationality is taking over. The post-war new money, who thought that all wealth was there to be taken and will never run out. And the old and broken who have nothing to look forward to in life but have been sold a dream that one day, they too will be a Rockerfella and in the loss of all other hope, fight the harder to maintain the primacy of the Rockerfellas so that they may still hope for the nirvana they’ve been pining toward (but not hard enough to actually work for it) for all their lives.

    They MUST show science wrong. The MUST show that the wealth is still infinite and given only to the deserving (as long as they don’t say anything liberal or ecological). They MUST see themselves as winning not because they want to win, but they so desperately want EVERYONE ELSE to lose.

    If Wise Solomon had offered to cut the baby in half and these idiots had been the mothers, they would have preferred the child be cut up, just so that the other loses.

    Having no hope, no ability and no respect, they know they can’t rise.

    So the only option is to bring everyone else down lower.

  17. #17 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    Pathetic. Really pathetic that apparently grown up men and women will do what you denier trolls are doing here.

  18. #18 Lionel A
    September 22, 2012

    Lionel A, a whole lot of wishful thinking in your last post without a slightes connection in the real world. You really are a true believer.

    So, you still have nothing to offer, questions too hard for you. Shame, go away you silly little oik.

  19. #19 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    Tampax, you stinking little jamrag, my advice to the bloated one goes for you too.

  20. #20 Richard Simons
    September 22, 2012

    What impact does a warm climate have on biodiversity?

    How long does speciation take? How quickly is Earth’s temperature changing? This has been pointed out repeatedly, but you trolls never change your mind, never admit you are wrong, so I fully expect you to be asking the same question again in the future.

    How about answering Lionel’s questions with no evasions and no vacuous insults?

  21. #21 Turboblocke
    September 22, 2012

    Pentax. Your google on 14,000 abandoned gave a hit debunking the myth in the third place. Did you read as far as that?

  22. #22 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    What for, olap?

  23. #23 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    And what grants you the power of absolution there?

  24. #24 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    Do tell why you feel you have to tell anyone that you forgive them for something you think they are?

  25. #25 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    Are you afraid to answer?


    Why do you feel the need to tell someone you forgive them for what you think they are?

  26. #26 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    If I’m a guy who needs forgiveness, what gives you the power to give it?

    You dance around the subject like a shy virgin on his first night.

  27. #27 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    OK, so what makes you want to forgive me?


    The xtian fundie crowd ALWAYS, if they haven’t managed to get anywhere, end off with a “I shall pray for you” and you deniers seem to get off on a very similar thing.

    And I’ve never understood what you or they get out of it.

    So what do you get out of saying you forgive me?

  28. #28 Jeff Harvey
    September 22, 2012

    What effect does GW have on biodiversity?

    Trust. El Gordo to say it blooms. A flippant remark made off the top of his head.

    Its highly trait and context-dependent as well as association-specific. The contexts are based on scale (rate of change) and on a species evolved capacity to respond to this rapid change based on its own phylogentic history and on the responses of other species within a defined community/food web/trophic linkage that it interacts. If the hell-hounds were able to understand basic ecology, they’d realize that species and individuals have evolved to respond to various ecophysiological challenges within certain windows or enevelopes. Genetic variation within and between populations (mitigated by gene flow and local adaptation) enables species to respond to changing environments. But of course the optimal phenotypes are determined by trade-offs in specific traits such as growth versus reproduction, longevity and fecundity, defense and growth etc. These optimal phenotypes are traits that have evolved in response to various environmental stresses.

    How will (IS) rapid warming affecting biodiversity in temperate and tundra biomes? Well, at the rate its changing in higher latitudes, its certainly challenging many species to respond not only to intrinsic (= physiological) constraints, but to the responses inflicted on other species to which they interact. As ecologist Daniel Janzen once said, the ultimate extinction is the extinction of species interactions. For every plant species that has been pushed to the brink of extinction in the tropics through deforestation, we can expect many species that rely on those plants (first order-level consumers and higher) to have disappeared along with it. Many studies in temperate biomes are showing that the recent warming, which is certainly rapid in an evolutionary sense, has changed the dynamics of two and three species interactions through species-specific responses based on seasonal phenology. Invertebrates respond to warmer winters and/or other seasons by altering their seasonal life cycles. Since many predators – both vertebrates and invertebrates – are often in co-evolved relationships with their prey/hosts, then differential responses of these species could affect the temporal aspects of their interactions and ultimately unravel food webs.

    Many species are not adapted to warmer climates. They have evolved to respond to certain temperature regimes over their long evolutionary histories. Temperatures in many parts of the Arctic are some 5-10 C warmer than they were just a century ago. Ignoring the devastating effects of rapid ice loss on the regions fauna, we also have to reconcile the fact that the soil and above-ground systems are not adapted to warm regimes. Soil food webs are complex and often specific to individual plants. Conditions in the soil and the myriad of micro-organisms that inhabit the soil and play a major role in determining the (1) diversity and species complex of plant life, and (2) regulate ecosystem functions, will not just suddenly ‘adapt’ to the sudden incursion of temperate climate. These systems would normally take thousands of years to respond to the kinds of changes that are being inflicted in the blink of an evolutionary eye. The argument that warmer climate will allow crops to be grown further to the north is pure hogwash. Acid soils characteristic of boreal; forest ecosystems cannot suddenly be replaced by alkaline soils from temperate ecosystems to the south. Each system has its own stupendous array of soil biota that is intimately adapted to ambient abiotic conditions, and which account for the shift in broad-leaved (deciduous) forests to the south and coniferous forests to the north. We are talking about rhizosphere networks consisting of billions of microscopic bacteria, nematodes, mites, collemboles, other decomposers and nutrient cyclers as well as symbionts such as mycorrhizal fungi that are not only intimately adapted to the plants that grow there but to certain kinds of soils. In turn, the vegetation above ground relies on certain types of soil biota in a hugely complex network. There are innumerable below and above-ground feedbacks that regulate important local and systemic processes.

    What’s happening now is that climate regimes are shifting northwards at rates that may be far beyond the capacity of these interaction network webs to survive, let along to thrive. Its an experiment, and nothing less. Certainly at the current rate of change many people lacking the necessary expertise envisage we cannot expect plants and biomes from the south to miraculously shift many hundreds of kilometers to the north.

    If we were talking about realized and predicted changes occurring over, say, 10,000 years, then we might be able to conclude that these systems could shift at the rates necessary to adapt. But in 100 years? Forget it. And let’s not forget that we are asking individuals, species, populations, communities and ecosystems to respond against a canvas of many other anthropogenic stresses inflicted on nature. In addition to climate change, we have changes in the physical and chemical environment that have greatly simplified natural systems. The human approach to the biosphere over the past several hundred years has been largely a ‘slash-and-burn’ approach. The planet is now characterized by huge expanses of agricultural land as well as vast urban areas. Natural ecosystems have been fragmented on an immense scale. Now we are expecting nature to adaptively respond to what can appropriately be called the ‘Anthropocene’. In spite of what Gordo says, we have evidence that the planet evolved the highest species and genetic diversity in fairly recent times, which when atmospheric C02 concentrations were comparatively low and conditions were fairly stable. Humans are certainly the beneficiaries of this riotous diversity, but we are squandering it as if there is no tomorrow. And the big worry amongst scientists (real ones like myself who have done the mileage, not self-taught wannabes like Jonas who have not) is not just that we are pushing complex adaptive systems toward a point beyond which they cannot just sustain themselves, but also sustain humanity. Essentially, thanks to the way markets work, the value of critical ecosystem services is externalized in pricing human capital. Therefore, we have no idea how much we can assault nature before these vital services collapse, with rebounding effects on society. I give several examples where ecosystem services have been valued after they were lost or as a result of their addition. ~The effects of a suite of human-induced stresses on nature – with rapid climate warming at the top of the list – has the real potential of devastating the services that we largely rely upon for our survival.

    So what will warming do to biodiversity in the Arctic? In a nutshell, it will be catastrophic if the current predictions are anywhere close to accurate. Not just on species towards the end of food chains, but also in the soil.

  29. #29 joni
    September 22, 2012

    In the past week we drove from Bristol to Heidelberg, and you cannot help but notice how many wind turbines there are in Europe. Supposedly Germany has over 20000 wind turbines, whereas Australia has around 1000. Germany produces over 6% of it electricity this way, Denmark over 20%!

    Amazing what can be done when you put your mind to it.

  30. #30 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    It is very hard to understand when, in answer to a question about why you tell me you forgive me, you then go accusing me of what you’ve been telling me on the odd occasion you have been forgiving me for.

    It doesn’t look like you’ve actually forgiven me, just want more opportunities to slag me off.

    Is that what you’re getting out of telling someone you forgive them for what you think they are? The chance to say they are what you think they are?

  31. #31 Wow
    September 22, 2012

    It’s all very passive agressive of these deniers.

  32. #32 chek
    September 22, 2012

    The irony of these Swedish crackpot libertarian cranks projecting their sect-think upon others is lost on them.

  33. #33 chek
    September 22, 2012

    Something’s very wrong here, surely. Many, many hours have passed since I offered this list of papers for Jonarse to refute, and not a single one of them has been to date. Not even in blogland.

    Does anybody else perhaps think it likely that Jonarse is a libertarian crank with a facility for rhetoric whose sole achievement in life is collecting immature, uneducated, always wrong detritus like PantyZ, Olaus/Oluas (who, lest we forget too readily, has trouble spelling his own chosen moniker correctly) and GSW and other sockpuppets banding together to support him?

    If one was the sentimental type the sheer futility of the achiement alone would have one reaching for handfuls of barbiturates washed down with gallons of alcohol.

  34. #34 Lionel A
    September 22, 2012

    Jeff Harvey wrote in a long and informative reply:

    So what will warming do to biodiversity in the Arctic? In a nutshell, it will be catastrophic if the current predictions are anywhere close to accurate. Not just on species towards the end of food chains, but also in the soil.

    Absolutely correct and furthermore there are sign that in the Antarctic not all is well as warmer waters rise underneath any floating ice and cause problems for the ecosystems there. There are studies which show that krill numbers are down. You fools arguing that all is well and that we make stuff up should investigate that and consider the knock-on effects. That will require considering more than one variable though and some understanding of oceanography.

    If you read from the start of this thread you will discover much had been pointed out including that last suggestion of mine that should be one of a number of epithets stamped on your foreheads – see others up thread.

  35. #35 chek
    September 22, 2012

    So when cranks are under pressure … you call on desperate old proven liar cranks for support? Good call EG, sub-Montford level admittedly, but then it’s about all you’ve got left.

  36. #36 bill
    September 22, 2012

    Hey, Joni , you don’t have to go off-shore: in 2011-12 South Australia produced 24% of its energy from wind power – that the world’s highest level, AFAIK – and, during a week of recent gales, more than 50%.

    And for a few brief moments in the early hours of Wednesday morning, wind was generating so much power some of it was being exported to Victoria.

    Mr Marsh says emissions from South Australia’s power sector have fallen every year since 2005, and have dropped 27 per cent over the past five years.

    He says there is no reason other states could not emulate the success.

    Except that, as in the case of other progressive stances, such as our formerly 5c and now 10c container deposit legislation – compare road verges around Adelaide to those around Sydney some time – or our ban on plastic shopping bags, it’s somehow impossible to actually ‘know’ any of this stuff, in the eastern states in particular.

    If you can get your head past the Nimbys and Boltard panic merchants it’s amazing what can be done. But that’s a big ‘if’ unfortunately.

  37. #37 bill
    September 23, 2012

    And, of course, among the ‘Nimbys and Boltard panic merchants’ we must number not only the Scandinavian libtard nutters and the KMS collective, but alleged ‘lefty’ el gordo, now a devoted Quadrant reader, no doubt…

  38. #38 Lotharsson
    September 23, 2012

    Looks like some moderation is kicking in 🙂

  39. #39 joni
    September 23, 2012

    Bill – that’s cool. I did not realise SA was that progressive.

  40. #40 Jeff Harvey
    September 23, 2012

    ““Bla, bla, bla, bla…..”

    This kind of response is exactly WHY idiots like PentaxZ belong in their own asylum. It also illustrates why its no use trying to explain complex scientific processes to vacuous laymen. They have not been trained in fields of which complexity is an integral part of the field. They demand explanations – the explanations are given in purely scientific terms – and they are then summarily dismissed.

    Why is this? Two reasons. First, as I said above, they aren’t trained in the field. So they don’t understand even the basics. They think they know a lot from reading a few denier blogs, but essentially they are neophytes. Second, they are camouflaging science in bolstering alternative political agendas. What should be patently clear from reading the various comments on Deltoid is that the deniers are’t trained scientists in any way, shape or form, and that they rely heavily on contrarian weblogs for their world views.

    My colleagues tell me that I am wasting my time with these dolts. They are probably correct. Its just that the only reason I write in here at all is to hopefully reach out to those who are not indoctrinated into believing that scientists are involved in some massive global left wing political conspiracy. I realize fully that the deniers loathe real scientists, a point that has been made to me many times both by other scientists in blogs and those I meet in my work. We are their achilles heel after all, since the public tends to generally pace a lot of trust in the conclusions of studies made by trained experts in various field.

    PentaxZs flippant dismissal was therefore par for the course. I know when I wrote my response to his earlier demands for it that he wouldn’t understand a word I said. But heck, if you want science, especially in my field of expertise, I will respond in kind. The deniers don’t like that at all. They want to keep the debate stuck down to the lowest common denominator, dragging itself along the benthos. I have noticed that AGW deniers like Watts, Nova, and Mountford are masters at this kind kind of behavior. They steer away from complexity, and try to keep the debates stuck in the first gear.

    Given that the portals to hell have been reopened in this site in the temporary absence of any proper moderation, it my advice that, until Tim returns, most of the sensible posters here refrain from engaging with the Scandinavian troll collective. Clearly they are like vultures and circle the various serious weblogs that discuss climate and environmental issues, waiting for their opportunity to scupper serious intellectual discourse. The internet is the flotsam and jetsam (with no disrespect to the band) of the denier ranks. They are excluded from halls of learning for the most part, but they try and give the impression of being intellectual heavyweights on the internet.

    They aren’t. Not even close.

  41. #41 MikeH
    September 23, 2012

    IdiotTracker lists the 56 blog posts written by deniers in response to the Lewandowsky paper* pointing out there is a fair chance that their supporters are nutters

    * NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science
    AKA lewa

  42. #42 MikeH
    September 23, 2012

    IdiotTracker lists the 56 blog posts written by deniers in response to the Lewandowsky paper* pointing out there is a fair chance that their supporters are nutters

    * NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science
    AKA Lewandowsky confirms the bleeding obvious.

  43. #43 MikeH
    September 23, 2012

    Sorry about the double post – iPads are great reading devices – not so good for writing and posting.

  44. #44 bill
    September 23, 2012

    in 2011-12* South Australia produced 24%** of its energy from wind power

    What part of this sentence is hard to understand, exactly? I’ve even footnoted the tricky bits for you below.

    Incidentally, here’s someone who actually knows about integrating this stuff rather than plays the rabid doom-saying idiot on the internet. Phone him up and tell him he has it all wrong.

    *i.e. an entire 12 month period. During which time the wind blew and it didn’t.

    **i.e just under 1/4 – and this figure will only get larger.

  45. #45 Bernard J.
    September 23, 2012

    I’m curious as to why the trespasser Jonas N seems to have gone quiet after Chek’s direction on September 21, 4:02 pm to attribution studies.

    Many of which, I might add, Jonas was pointed toward last year, and which he still seems to not have read.

  46. #46 Wow
    September 23, 2012

    May the children of the next generation forgive you, Olaus, you don’t deserve it, but maybe they’ll be nicer than you.

  47. #47 chek
    September 23, 2012

    Many of which, I might add, Jonas was pointed toward last year

    Quite so Bernard. And to transpose Einstein’s quote, the insane do the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


  48. #48 Lionel A
    September 23, 2012


    Citing WeUseWishfulThinking on science is about as much use as trying to use Monopoly money to pay your real world bills.

    But then how can we expect children, or those not developed beyond a child like state, to understand this?

  49. #49 Karen
    September 23, 2012

    hehehehe, this Lewandowsky crackpot sure is showingthat both himself and the cult are snake oil salesmen, lol

    I think even the cultists should be embarrassed by this retard. (sorry for using your middle name barnturd)

    I see a bit of infighting back up the thread there 🙂

  50. #50 chek
    September 23, 2012

    As MikeH’s link above shows us very clearly Karenmackspot, Lewandowsky’s study was helped enormously and beyond his wildest dreams by all the additional voluntary contributions provided gratis by the biggest guns of denialism.

    Read and weep while reflecting that it’s your own “intelligentsia” busily planting their own feet in their own mouths and nailing them there.

  51. #51 Bernard J.
    September 23, 2012

    Good to see that I’m still living rent-free in your head USKMS.

    I really do get under your skin, don’t I?

    And your mother would still be horrified to see that you kiss her with the same mouth that vomits forth unnecessarily frequent and inanely unimaginative profanity…

    Please do us a favour and go post something over at Lewandowsky’s that resembles the drivel you only ever seem to manage here. I’m sure that he’d be fascinated…

  52. #52 Bernard J.
    September 23, 2012

    Olaus Petri.

    I’ve been moderated on more than one occasion, and rightly so given the high standard there and the fact that I tend to sail closer to the wind than is advised for polite company. I don’t mind – I’m not so high-and-mighty that I can’t handle having my manners-wings clipped on occasion.

    The likes of you, USKMS, Fatso, and others wouldn’t even be allowed to darken the doors however, if you posted over there as you do with the twaddle you produce here.

  53. #53 Lionel A
    September 23, 2012

    OP dribbled:

    Lionel A, I wasn’t citing science, I was just putting forward Loo/lew-science evidence, ergo that the right-wing fossil fuel spagetti monster is working behind the scenes.

    On that occasion not specifically but tell me what are the deniers exposed by Lewandowsky denying? And yes have a look at Idiot Tracker (kudos chek) which is all about the likes of you, and your blog heroes, especially this first comment.

    As for infighting Kraken, note that it was not over climate change science but you come over so ignorant and confused perhaps you failed to twig that.

  54. #54 Lionel A
    September 23, 2012

    OK as one of your treasured institutions would say, ‘Come on you possums, ‘what you gonna do about this?’:

    Roll up! Roll Up!…Welcome to Coal World. Gina ‘noheart-darkheart’ Rinehart features.

    H/T Grist via DesmogBlog.

  55. #55 Wow
    September 23, 2012

    I guess therefore that the moderation of the troll collective and the Slug Horde indicates that the denialist trolls are entirely wrong, then.

    This, after all, seems to be sufficient for them to claim error in others, this ought therefore to be indicative to them of their place too.

  56. #56 Lionel A
    September 23, 2012

    No, you members of the troll collective are pathetic. Pathetically ill informed or ideological twisted or both.

    Watch the video in this post Robert Manne: How Vested Interests Defeated Climate Science

    Although I do hope that we are not defeated else there is no hope of avoiding the scenarios Manne describes and note that his thoughts are based upon established science.

    Manne mentions, early on Elizabeth Kolbert , . Go read her book ‘Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change‘ and think hard about your stupid, stupid attitudes.

  57. #57 Lionel A
    September 23, 2012


    Coming from another ‘interpreter of interpretations’ I’ll take that as a compliment.

  58. #58 Wow
    September 23, 2012

    funny, innit, the rotund idiot whines and whines about how the posts here are full of spite and vitriol.

    Completely uncaring that his bias is tendaciously obvious.

  59. #59 Jeff Harvey
    September 23, 2012

    “Lionel A, it’s not a god idea to talk about ideology when you are a watermelon”

    Yup, the standard refrain of anti-environmentalists when their arguments are vanquished. Simply smear your opponents as being cassandras, watermelons, communists, anti-human, nti-progress, luddites and move on to the next smear. At the same time try and give the impression that your own views are ‘sensible’, ‘balanced’ reasonable’, ‘humanistic’, ‘responsible’ etc. If one checks the names of many deregulatory lobbying astroturf groups, one finds all of these epithets crop up repeatedly. They often also include the word ‘citizen’, to try and give the impression that there are grassroots public movements in favor of corporate policies such as deregulation and policies that effectively benefit only the wealthiest in society. One example from many was ‘Citizens for Sensible Control of Acid Rain’, an organization, which, it turns out wasn’t a citizen’s movement at all but a corporate lobbying group set up with funds from the coal industries that was aimed at resisting regulations aimed at reducing sulphur emissions (a prime cause of acid rain) in the 1980s. Another was the ‘National Wetlands Coalition’, whose web site had an illustration of a duck flying over a large wetland. It turns out the NWC was set up by a public relations firm funded by a range of industries that aimed to eviscerate regulations protecting wetlands against development. These practices are known as ‘aggressive mimicry’ and are just two of many examples of this phenomenon. PentaxZ uses another, which is to smear environmental activists and scientists with analogies like the use of ‘watermelon’. Its kindergarten level stuff, but to people who behave like primary school dropouts its hardly exceptional.

    Moreover, I’ve experienced this puerile behavior in debates with the anti’s on the political right for years. Its straight out of their handbook. Par for the course.

  60. #60 Wow
    September 23, 2012

    They certainly increase the visitor count here quite a bit.

  61. #61 Bernard J.
    September 23, 2012

    You know how the denialist response to Lewandowsky et al proved the very finding of the paper with which the denialati were disagreeing?

    Well, a denialatus called Brad Keyes is performing the same trick with Kahan et al 2012. It’s astonishing to witness:

  62. #62 Lotharsson
    September 24, 2012

    But Bernard, Brad Keyes denies being a denialist! He’s merely basing his lack of concern on cold hard scientific evidence the fact the claim that no-one has ever provided him with any nett risk measure that he is willing to accept and that justifies concern. Because, you know, despite all the potentially really bad consequences, maybe there will be more good than bad to come out of it. Never mind that no-one can seem to come up with enough good stuff to justify the really bad stuff because he doesn’t think the identified risk of really bad stuff is realistic anyway, and even if it is perhaps we haven’t fully identified those good outcomes yet and things will turn out just peachy!

  63. #63 bill
    September 24, 2012

    Brad Keyes is truly an exemplar of his tribe.

  64. #64 peterd
    September 24, 2012

    Openthreaders: I notice that the Nova site again shows the mysterious “This Account Has Been Suspended”. I wanted to find an affiliation for one Jinan Cao, who is the author of a piece of dubious material posted there recently. A search at Swinburne Uni’s IRIS, listed elsewhere as his employer, shows no person of that name. Anyone with any ideas?

  65. #65 Jeff Harvey
    September 24, 2012

    Many of you will note that PentaxZ has asked me a completely idiotic and obvious question above. His question is if there is higher genetic and species richness in tropical biomes compared with temperate/polar biomes. The implication of hs question is clear: warmer = more diversity; therefore a warming planet creates conditions for diversity to thrive. End of story.

    Or is it?

    Like most self-educated anti-environmentalists and climate change deniers, PentaxZ lacks even a basic understanding of the importance of scale in any scientific field. His argument assumes that if conditions in the Northwest Territories or Siberia were similar to those in the Congo or the Amazon Basin, then we’d witness riotous diversity at a much larger geographical scale. Putting two and two together to make ten, his argument – one common amongst the ecologically illiterate – is that warming is a good thing. It benefits nature. El Gordo make a similar suggestion a couple of days ago.

    Certainly, stable, warm climates provide the conditions for rapid adaptive radiation and speciation, and this accounts for the significantly higher diversity in lower latitudes. Its not quite that simple, though, as changing conditions within reasonable time frames also drive speciation through local adaption to local conditions. Gaston and colleagues have spent some years examining this conundrum.

    But let’s be clear here – species in various biomes around the planet have evolved over many millions of years to local conditions, based on both abiotic (i.e. climate related) and biotic (i.e. interactions with other species in the same community or food webs) conditions. Therefore, a species distribution is closely tailored to local conditions in which it forages and reproduces. This adaptation took a very long time within an evolutionary context.

    Therein lies the rub. PentaxZ and his like minded thinkers cannot reconcile the concept of immensely long time scales in their simple visions of ecology, evolution and phylogeny. Their belief is that if things warm up rapidly, nature will respond positively for the most part, thereby creating a green utopia that benefits all. Certainly, were the climate to change over many million of years, then I could see where tropical climates in higher latitudes would support healthy functioning ecosystems. But I reiterate this: many millions of years. I emphasize the time scale here: millions of years would be required at the very lest to enable widespread adaptation, radiation and speciation to proceed across a global mosaic. For argument’s sake, if temperate and polar regions were to experience temperatures more indicative of tropical regions, even within several thousand years, then this would generate a mass extinction spasm and the planet’s biota would undergo a meltdown. The results would be a calamity. Evolution takes time, and certainly much more time than is occurring under present scenarios of human-induced global change.

    A friend’s family member living in Minneapolis once remarked to me during a dinner that they wished the weather in the city in winter was more like that in Florida. I responded that, under the time scales envisaged (i.e. the person meant very rapidly), were this to happen then the ecological consequences for the flora and fauna found in the state of Minnesota would be utterly disastrous. As I said above, species and communities have evolved in response to local conditions over many millions of years. This explains why most species have well-defined geographical distributions. Wilson’s Phalaropes breed in the Arctic tundra. Cerulean Warblers breed in eastern deciduous forests of the U.S. and Canada. Yellow-throated Euphonias breed in moist tropical forests in central America. Each of these three species is restricted to certain ranges where conditions for survival and reproduction are optimal. I might just as well say that the distributions of the other millions of species of species that inhabit our planet are also adapted to ambient conditions in terrestrial, aquatic and below-ground environments. Temperate species have broader distributions because of conditions are far more changeable and unpredictable (i.e. seasonal) than in the tropics. But its taken millions of years for the planet’s diversity to adapt to these conditions. Rapid warming will drive a large number of species to extinction. This is beyond dispute, as it will alter food web structure, and drive differing eco-physiological responses in local biota that will be beyond the capacity of many genotypes to respond.

    So PentaxZ’s question is a non-starter. O know exactly what he was inferring. The question revealed more about his simple mind-set than anything else. But this is hardly a revelation when debating with people who mangle science in support of alternate agendas. Be prepared for another witless response from him and/or the Scandinavian troll collective. When sound science demolishes their arguments, they are left with nothing but insults and innuendo.

  66. #66 Bernard J.
    September 24, 2012


    Given the way that you smacked him around, I almost felt sorry for Brad Keyes.


    Well, OK, not even almost… oh alright, not even a little bit.

    But you did smack him around!

  67. #67 Wow
    September 24, 2012

    Well, one major reason for the biodiversity of the tropics is that they have been a very stable climate for a million years.

    I.e. stable climates increase biodiversity.

    Now what happens when you have climate change..?

  68. #68 Mack
    September 24, 2012

    Jeff Harvey,
    “….living in Minneapolis….wished weather…was more like that in Florida”
    The climate at any latitude is determined by land-shape ( eg. hills or no hills), the prevailing wind direction and the angle the sun’s rays make as they strike the ground.
    The dictionary definition of “climate” is the temperature regime at any given latitude. Temperatures are determined by the angle the sun’s rays make as they strike the ground. This angle is a function of latitude, the distance from the equator.
    For Minneapolis to get Florida temperatures you have to shift Minneapolis down to Florida.
    If there were no humans in both Minneapolis and Florida the temperatures would be exactly the same in these locations ,year in and year out, and over many centuries.
    Nothing that Man has done has changed wind direction or sun angle.

  69. #69 Wow
    September 24, 2012

    Try making sense, mack (and all you other denialbots).

    Maybe there’d be some point other than racking up the hit count to your posting here.

  70. #70 zoot
    September 24, 2012

    If there were no humans in both Minneapolis and Florida the temperatures would be exactly the same in these locations ,year in and year out, and over many centuries.

    So humans have made a difference.

    Didn’t you get the memo that said humans couldn’t possibly influence climate?

  71. #71 Jeff Harvey
    September 24, 2012


    Sorry, but what you have written is pure gibberish. You can accuse me of chest pounding arrogance andc superiority if you like, but there you go.

    The remark was made on the basis fo the fact that the person in question didn’t like the harsh Minneostl winters (although they sure aren’t as harsh as they used to be only 50 years ago, thanks in large meausre to AGW). There’s no doubt that at various intervals in the planet’s history, conditions in what is now the midwestern US were very different from what they are now. They’ve certainly been muich warmer, but also (as during recernt ice ages) a heck of a lot colder. But they main point is that whatever changes occurred took geological time frames. Transitions took many thousands of years fro even small changes, and million and millions of years for major changes. Against this background, the biota had a chance to adapt. There are all kinds of limits on the rates at which species are able to adapt to changing environments. This depends on the rate of adaptive mutations, the ability of populations to shift their genotypes according to these mutations, and generations times. Moreover, the rate of shifts in abiotic conditionsis a critical factor. If temeprature, precipitation and other processes change too rapidly, then many species will not posses the genetic varation, or the rate of new adaptive mutuations will be too slow to spread through their populatiosn. In other words, they will be overtaken by the rate of abiotic change and dwindle to extinction. Dinosaurs clearly could not adapt to the global effects of an asteroid impact off the Yucatan Peninusal at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundry 65 million years ago. Yet we know that their extinction occurred over about 20,000 years – a blink of an evolutionary eye in real terms. Humans are altering landscapes and the physical and chemical environment in a fraction of that time. Against his rapid assault, many are arguing that nature is resilient (to a large extent it is) and that whatever we do to the palnet surface or atmosphere that nature will adapt and humans along with it.

    It is not that simple. Again, the changes being inflicted by humans on the planet are more dramatic than anything the planet and its diversity has experienced in many millions oif years. And the human-mediated effects are not limited to one or two stresses but a whole potpourri of them. In combination, they are pushing systems towards points where they will be unable to sustain themsleves (and us).

    PentaxZ was trying to suggest that warming will be beneficial for plants and animals because tropical regionsa have signifciantly higher levels of diversity than polar regions. But that is not the point. Species in polar and boreal regions are biologically adapted to those habitats. Through millions of years of evolution, they possess traits that enable them to thrive optimally under conditions that naturally occur in colder climates. If we transposed climates in lower latitudes to polar or even temperate regions in the time frame that PentaxZ envisions, it would be a calamity fo the flora and fauna of these biomes. It would exacerbate the mass extinction that is underway already as a result of massive habitat destruction in tropical forests.It would be just another nail in the coffin for species and ecosystems. If the predicted changes were to occur over 10,000 years at the very least, then I might suggest that nature could – just could – get through such a climate-imposed bottleneck. But one or two centuries? Forget it.

  72. #72 Wow
    September 24, 2012

    By the same argument, you could maintain that volcanoes don’t change the climate, that glacier growth doesn’t change the climate, that the sun can’t change the climate.

    All you do is claim, without proof, one thing that these do not affect (and feel free to change that factor based on whichever factor you wish to discount) and then claim ERGO!

  73. #73 Lionel A
    September 24, 2012

    Talking of ergo Wow I think these trolls around here have been afflicted by ergotism (ergot poisoning), certainly the display of mania and psychosis, symptoms of said condition, are clearly on display from that quarter.

  74. #74 Wow
    September 24, 2012

    Maybe they’ve decided that, since they’re already into it up to their necks, there’s little to lose by jumping up and down and splashing about. They have the hope that someone walking by will get hit by some of the splashdown.

  75. #75 Lionel A
    September 24, 2012

    Jeff Harvey wrote:

    But let’s be clear here – species in various biomes around the planet have evolved over many millions of years to local conditions, based on both abiotic (i.e. climate related) and biotic (i.e. interactions with other species in the same community or food webs) conditions. Therefore, a species distribution is closely tailored to local conditions in which it forages and reproduces. This adaptation took a very long time within an evolutionary context.

    Another excellent post, you have considerable patience to spend so much time putting together cogent argument after cogent argument.

    I think it fitting to remind these trolls of the list of topics that they need to study a list that I posted up-thread (page 4 I think). The list is not exhaustive just a start with the one of particular interest being at the bottom of the list.

    Something else that should be emblazoned on the foreheads of the jerks are these epithetes:

    ‘I must learn about latent heat and heat capacities.’

    ‘I must find out about ocean and atmospheric circulations and how they can become disrupted.’

    ‘I must learn about ocean and atmospheric chemistry and physics.’

    ‘A study of oceanography would be a must for me’.

    ‘I need to study ecology and the known facts about the evolution of life’.

    On that last one I recommend the works of E.O. Wilson, W. D. Hamilton and Richard Dawkins.

    Spend some time reading the latter’s ‘The Ancestor’s Tale which should keep you quiet for a week or two, and some!

    <a href=" Blind Watchmaker (incidentally that cover displayed is that of the much thumbed edition that I have) which will provide you with many other thinking tools to deploy in further reading.

    I also particularly recommend ‘Climbing Mount Improbable‘ and ‘Unweaving the Rainbow‘ which will help clear up other questions that may occur whilst reading elsewhere. Now I wonder if you understand the concept of phenotype – Dawkins helps out there too if only you would look.

    Of course these books are just starting places with scientific sources found in the myriad of notes and bibliography of each. That is how to research and learn which you would know about if you had had any formal education above high school level but even there…’

  76. #76 Lionel A
    September 24, 2012
  77. #77 Lionel A
    September 24, 2012

    The PBS brouhaha rumbles on:

    PBS Ombudsman: NewsHour Climate Story ‘Stumbled Badly’, Use Of Non-Scientist Watts For Balance Was ‘Stunning’.

    When will the troll collective realise that citing WeUseWishfulThinking is suicide for any of their vacuous arguments?

  78. #78 Wow
    September 24, 2012

    Lionel, the problem is that learning and thinking for the idiots can only lead to bad things:

    1) Finding out you’re wrong
    2) Finding out things you don’t want to know
    3) Finding out there is no god making the weather

    all of which are bad.

    Much better to think you’re right and never look to check.

  79. #79 Lotharsson
    September 24, 2012

    But you did smack him around!

    I think he’s doing a creditable Black Knight impression. Someone should tell him that no-one is currently holding auditions for a remake of the movie.

  80. #80 Jeff Harvey
    September 24, 2012


    I really appreciate the support, especially considering the abuse I have taken from various quarters of the denial mob on Deltoid.

    Be prepared for Jonas to respond to my last few posts with the accusation that “Jeff made it all up”. Its in keeping with Jonas’ law that I outlined earlier.

  81. #81 Lionel A
    September 24, 2012

    Another signs of a move to a more challenging environment for many of the species we depend upon and thus in turn challenging for humans too: Record Ocean Temperatures Recorded Off New England Coast.

    Oh! And BTW the remains of Nadine have been dumping on the UK for the last 48 hours with one dead so far in London and people trapped in a car in Dorset.

  82. #82 Lionel A
    September 24, 2012

    It seems that Nadine is still lout in the Atlantic and not responsible for the intense low over the UK right now. Nadine had been forecast to possibly (this is extreme WEATHER we are talking about after all) make landfall over this last weekend.

    But those warm water temps, and a range of depths, are a cause for concern and this is fairly certain to be global warming and climate change in action. ’twill certainly feed any more storms that travel up that Eastern seaboard.

  83. #83 Bernard J.
    September 24, 2012

    Jeff, you know it already but I always appreciate your inputs.

    I wouldn’t let the trolls here get you down too much.

  84. #84 Lionel A
    September 24, 2012

    Nadine is still lout in the Atlantic..

    Hah! Near Freudian slip there, perhaps I should have mistyped ‘Nadine is still a lout in the Atlantic..‘ and then we could have invited here in here to join the others in ‘the troll collective’.

  85. #85 pentaxZ
    September 24, 2012

    Excuse me crackpots, but what’s the point trying to answer questions when replying is impossible and the questions are cencored? Alarmistic dogmatic logic at its peak. You really are losers big time.

  86. #86 Wow
    September 24, 2012

    Did you hear something?

  87. #87 chek
    September 24, 2012

    Excuse me crackpots, but what’s the point trying to answer questions

    You don’t have any answers worth the photons expended in showing the screen typeface used, as you’re merely a flume for channeling shite and planting denier links with no reasoning capacity of your own.

    replying is impossible
    It’s been noticed on many, many occasions.

    and the questions are cencored (sic)
    Really? I very much doubt it and am more likely to think it’s due to your own often displayed incompetence. I also doubt that we’re missing anything of any importance, if your Boolker link is an example. What is it about old cranks that you idiots find so attractive?

    You’ll notice that the statistics table on this page shows figures for capacity, generation and consumption that Booker has such trouble with in distinguishing fact from an alarmist old man’s fossil-fuel powered fantaies. Those will be the same fossil fuels that will run out, of course.

  88. #88 Lotharsson
    September 25, 2012

    Jeff, you know it already but I always appreciate your inputs.

    I’ll second…er, third… that, especially since “nah, the ecosystem’s nothing to worry about” is one of the most persistent happy little fantasies expressed by denialists.

  89. #89 bill
    September 25, 2012

    Agreed – a bizarre combination of proud ignorance, hubris, insouciance and outright contempt is the defining Denier attitude towards the environment.

    In fact, whenever they mention ‘the environment’ you can hear their lips curl! One recalls Monckton’s appalling ‘ickle birdies’ rant and glib ‘shit happens’ with regard to polar bear deaths, but this attitude binds the denizens of WUWT, Bishop Hill, and Jo Nova’s in particular.

    Our local knuckle-draggers are no exception. They are truly the maladapted

    I reckon there’s another paper for Prof L in there somewhere

  90. #90 Mack
    September 25, 2012

    I’m an environmentalist Bill. I was a member of the NFAC. (Native Forest Action Council.) Set up to save our Sth Island beech tree forests from clear-fell logging.

  91. #91 Marco
    September 25, 2012

    Actually, Mack, you are more likely to be a NIMBY.

    It’s like the “environmentalist” who buys “green electricity” and then goes on to complain about the windturbine half a mile down the road.

  92. #92 Mack
    September 25, 2012

    No Marco I was genuinely concerned about a) the destruction and b) a loss of atmospheric CO2 removing trees. My favourite book at the time was Rush to Destruction by Graham Searle.

  93. #93 bill
    September 25, 2012

    Intriguing. Funny crowd you’re running with.

  94. #94 Jeff Harvey
    September 25, 2012

    Bill: agreed. Mack claims to be an environmentalist and yet refers to links from vehemently anti-environmental web sites like Joanne Nova’s. Many of the most prominent climate change deniers are also in denial over various other anthropogenic threats to the environment. Its a tangled web of deceit and denial that goes well beyond the field of climate science.

  95. #95 P. Lewis
    September 25, 2012

    This is interesting of itself, but perhaps it will (if it hasn’t already) reignite one of the LOG12 conspiracy fires.

  96. #96 Wow
    September 25, 2012

    Oh, no, remember their concern over the ickle birdies who get killed by the wagonload by those mincinc machines the greenies call “Wind Turbines”?

    Or their concern over the pristine environment that would be “ruined” by the placement of those evil Wind Turbines?

    They’re VERY concerned about nature.

    If it stops anything happening to reduce fossil fuel use, they’re on it.

    I also find it weird that they bandy about “I am a leftie” or “I am an environmentalist” as if this declaration is proof of their accuracy.

    Given their stance on the people of the left or environmentalists who don’t disagree with the IPCC, this is EXTREMELY weird.

  97. #97 MikeH
    September 25, 2012

    Booker’s article is complete shite but it appears to be “link of the week” for the cement heads. I have already rebutted it once today. It is based on a anti-renewables Spiegel Online article written by an obvious moron which claims that sensitive control equipment in a Hamburg aluminium plant was damaged by a milli-second voltage drop in the power supply due of course to renewables. It then goes on to claim that these “interruptions” have increased by 30% over the last 3 years. Hello stupid. If these random voltage fluctuations have always been a feature of the grid (as you would expect), why is the equipment exposed to them and why is it only affected by the 30% – and not the 70% that existed previously.

    The article then claims that fast computers are sensitive to fluctuations in the grid – well smack me down – German data centres apparently run without a UPS.

    This is the sort of complete bollocks that dumbbells like Booker and PentaxZ lap up.

    In fact this link (in German) from the German Network Agency shows a more reliable grid in 2011 than 2006.

  98. #98 Lotharsson
    September 25, 2012

    Speaking of denialists claiming to be environmentalists, over at Shaping Tomorrow’s World Brad Keyes claims that (amongst others) Monckton is an environmentalist (in a bizarre argument that this disproves the concept that right wing and individualist/anti-regulation ideologies generate “non-alarmism” about climate).

    Wonders will never cease.

  99. #99 Lotharsson
    September 25, 2012

    He also claims Patrick Moore – presumably the former Greenpeace activist, not the astronomer – as an environmentalist, a claim I think many environmentalists will disagree with.

  100. #100 bill
    September 25, 2012

    Monckton being ‘an environmentalist’ ranks right up there with Kissinger’s peace-prize…

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