November 2012 Open Thread

It’s a new month!

Comments

  1. #1 David Duff
    http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/
    November 1, 2012

    Sorry to come back again but I just wondered if anyone had seen my Nobel Peace prize? Perhaps I left it here after my last visit. . . . oh, you didn’t know I was a Nobel laureate? Oh yes, you see the ‘EUSSR’ has just been awarded the prize and I’m a member, in fact not just a member, I actually help pay for the bloody thing, so, using Prof. Mann’s impeccable and highly intellectual and scientific logic, I, too, won it. But, dammit, and more to the point, I have yet to receive my share of the prize money. I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked!

  2. #2 luminous beauty
    November 1, 2012

    Duff,

    Why not go whole hog and claim that as a citizen of a country that is signatory of the UN you are due recognition for the 2007 prize as well?

    Idiot.

  3. #3 chek
    November 1, 2012

    Typical Duffer, a week late and a sandwich short to the picnic. Let’s try to put it in terms that you, and the British chapter of the slime-for-brains that inhabit Wuttworld can understand. Are you sitting comfortably? Catheter secure? So to continue…

    FIFA do not list him in their roll call of World Cup national team winners but only a Duffer of the first order (dufferis wattapuss stupidus) would similarly challenge the phrase “1966 World Cup winner Geoff Hurst “.

    Now to be fair FIFA, 40+years after the event, changed their policy and awarded medals to all members of the winning team. The Nobel committee don’t issue individual medals in the same way, but the IPCC sought and obtained approval to award their own certificates to their own ‘winning team’ including Dr. Mann without whom the IPCC (being only an admin body) would have nothing to offer the world.

    “In December 2007 the permanent secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Geir Lundestad, clarified these questions in an email to one of our authors, copied to Dr Pachauri. Chairman of the IPCC. He wrote that the committee would issue no medal or diploma to individual contributors to IPCC reports and it was up to the IPCC to decide what it would do to recognize the various contributors.

    On this basis, the IPCC Chair, the Secretary of the IPCC and IPCC Co-chairs decided in 2007 to present personalized certificates “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC” to experts that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC Reports, namely coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007.”

    What you’ve got hold of Duffer, is an irrelevant if poorly worded outtake from a legal document and – as usual – manufactured something which isn’t there. Which pretty much encapsulates the entire denier premise and existence you’ve dedicated yourself to.

  4. #4 chek
    November 1, 2012

    OK, so why did the italics tag close just fine in para 3, but not at the end of para 5?

  5. #5 Lionel A
    November 1, 2012

    Duffer, I know you don’t really care for the truth but I’ll help anyway.

    As it happens The Rabett has been watching the watchers on this one and engaged in return fire see here and here . No quit this pretend ignorance Duff one.

  6. #6 Jeff Harvey
    November 1, 2012

    Michael Mann describes exactly what the deniers strategy is when it comes to trying to smear a huge community of scientists. The deniers are well aware that the vast majority of the scientific community is not on their side. But they cannot hope to take on this huge body of researchers. So instead their strategy is what Mann refers colloquially to as the ‘Serengeti Strategy’, whereby the deniers focus their wrath on one or a few scientists, much like a hunting lioness focuses her attention on one gazelle or wildebeest in the herd.

    He has been singled out along with a few other prominent climate scientists with esteemed scientific credentials (i.e. Trenberth, Hansen, Briffa) in the hope that, if they throw enough mud against a few scientists, then this will contaminate all of those (many thousands) who support their work and arguments. The deniers are not only a bunch of ignorant idiots and intentional deceivers, but they use the same strategy on the science, as well. The science of climate change is extremely multi-faceted, but what they do is attack only one of two small areas, such as the ‘hockey stick’, believing that if they can muddy the waters in these areas, then by default all of the other evidence must be flawed as well. It does not matter that AGW was on the scientific radar, so to speak, for 10 years before MBH/Nature was published. The same strategy has been used to try and give the impression that conclusions reached by national scientific organizations and academies are not based on rank and file members (note how, when challenged on this, Jonas was forced to scrape together some pithy excuse to give the impression that these huge bodies may have reached their consensus on the basis of a few members; indeed, given he was cornered on this point , what else could he do but try and work his way out of it? He failed, miserably).

    These people have no shame or scruples. They are not skeptics, because most of them will never, ever change their views no matter how much datas come in. They are anti-environmental global change deniers. Pure and simple.

  7. #7 Bernard J.
    November 2, 2012

    Has anyone seen a fellow called Kai hereabouts?

  8. #8 Jeff Harvey
    November 2, 2012

    Bernard….

    No, and let’s hope to keep it that way. I read his comments and its clear hes an imbicile…

  9. #9 Wow
    November 2, 2012

    What’s with all this bollocks about “Hurricane Sandy cannot be attributed to climate change”?

    You don’t get hurricanes off the coast of the UK BECAUSE IT IS THE WRONG CLIMATE FOR IT.

    We have a clear causal relationship by the mechanism by which a hurricane forms. High SSTs are a requirement.

    And the climate HAS WARMED.

    If you want to go on about how this hurricane or drought or whatever wasn’t caused by climate change:

    a) You’re making a stupid english sentence construction mistake: The event was caused BY THE CLIMATE. Therefore THE CHANGE OF THE EVENT IS THE CHANGE IN THE CLIMATE.

    and

    b) Prove that if the climate hadn’t changed, there had been no AGW and no increase in CO2 that this storm WOULD STILL HAVE OCCURRED. THEN we can say it wasn’t caused by climate change.

  10. #10 David Duff
    http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/
    November 2, 2012

    Thanks, Chek, so he’s not a ‘Knobel Prize laureate’ he’s an ‘IPCC laureate’.

    So why, in a legal document, does he claim to be a Nobel Prize winner? This is from his own Facebook quoting his own lawsuit document :

    “Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize”.

    Tell me, Chek, what is it about the words “Dr. Mann” and “he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” that you don’t understand?

  11. #11 luminous beauty
    November 2, 2012

    Tell me, Duff, what is it about the words, “along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” that you don’t understand?

  12. #12 chek
    November 2, 2012

    Duffer LB answers your question with customary efficiency.

    It only remains for me to point out that this trumped up episode doesn’t even amount to making a mouse dropping into a molehill, but then that is about your intellectual altitude and all that you jokers have got. Neither is it a position any of your benighted crew will ever have to worry about, ever.

  13. #13 Mal Adapted
    November 2, 2012

    Duffhasnosense:

    “Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize”.

    Tell me, Chek, what is it about the words “Dr. Mann” and “he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” that you don’t understand?

    Duff, you’re quote-mining, a transparent logical fallacy. You’re clinging to a rhetorical straw. What do you hope to gain? Do you think that if you can just score a point with this, all the evidence for AGW can be ignored?

  14. #14 Lionel A
    November 2, 2012

    chek

    OK, so why did the italics tag close just fine in para 3, but not at the end of para 5?

    You dropped a slash perhaps. Whatever all the normal text down the right sidebar is now italicised too. At least with Firefox.

    Time to let duff slip back under his rock.

  15. #15 MikeH
    November 2, 2012

    Go easy on Duff and Dumber. With a front cover like this addressed specifically to him, it is hardly surprising that he would want to talk about anything else but the event that has made the news this week.

  16. #16 bill
    November 2, 2012

    Yep, this ‘Mann’s Nobel Prize’ thing is about the clearest statement of ‘we’ve got nothing’ the Denialati have made to date. Sure; if U2 win a Grammy Bono couldn’t say he had…

    The spectacle of the creeps at WUWT indulging in Hurricane Denial is also an indicator that there’s nothing but a wounded, bitter and angry rabble left…

  17. #17 bill
    November 3, 2012

    It’s Global Warming, Stupid. – an interview with the business Week author on DN!

  18. #18 mk
    November 3, 2012

    There’s a bit of a slant here.

  19. #19 Dave R
    November 3, 2012

    chek:

    OK, so why did the italics tag close just fine in para 3, but not at the end of para 5?

    Para 4 ends with <i />

  20. #20 Dave R
    November 3, 2012

    Lionel A:

    At least with Firefox.

    Chromium too.

  21. #21 Dave R
    November 3, 2012

    And if you add an extra end tag it doesn’t post it. :(

  22. #22 Bernard J.
    November 3, 2012

    And if you add an extra end tag it doesn’t post it

    Indeed – it’s clear to see that a few of us have tried if one scans the page source. I think that only Tim can straighten out this hiccup.

  23. #23 luminous beauty
    November 3, 2012

    what if?

    yes/no?

  24. #24 bill
    November 3, 2012

    OK, my turn

  25. #25 bill
    November 3, 2012

    nup!

  26. #26 Tim Lambert
    November 3, 2012

    OK, fixed the italics,

  27. #27 bill
    November 4, 2012

    Thanks Tim!

  28. #28 Wow
    November 4, 2012

    We can read clearer, the italics gone.

    We can read all info in our way.

    Gone are the slanted words that held us blind

    Gonna be a bright, bright sunshiny blog.

  29. #29 David Duff
    http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/
    November 4, 2012

    Look, will you all please STOP sending me this global warming! I pulled back the curtains this morning and there was a blizzard outside – in the south west of Britain – and it’s only the fourth of bloody, sodding November!

    Oh, and by the way, this from ‘on High':

    “The other day the International Panel on Climate Change in Geneva issued the following statement:
    The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner.”

    Hevens to Betsy, Dr. Mann telling little porkies – who’da thunkit?

  30. #30 FrankD
    November 4, 2012

    Duffster, you do understand that climate change will not change all areas equally?

    You are benefitting what what has been termed “WACC’y weather” – Warm Arctic, Cold Continents. Your blizzard is directly linked to record minimum sea ice earlier in the year. Get used to it. Its the new “normal”.

  31. #31 Ian Forrester
    November 4, 2012

    Duffer the Puffer is ignorant of what climate scientists are saying. Who would have though it:

    Look, will you all please STOP sending me this global warming! I pulled back the curtains this morning and there was a blizzard outside – in the south west of Britain – and it’s only the fourth of bloody, sodding November!

    Of course he is oooooooozing sarcasm here. If he had actually read what scientists are saying he would know that colder, wetter and snowier weather is exactly what global warming means for NW Europe. Something to do with a warming Arctic if he had read the papers.

    So you ignorant Duffus, if you do not like cold and wet weather you should have been doing your utmost to support the climate scientists rather than smearing and insulting them. You are bringing this on to yourself but you are too stupid to understand.

  32. #32 Marco
    November 4, 2012

    I think Mann can nicely use this example as to how incorrect information is handled differently by honest people and by ideologues. Mann can show the certificate he received from the IPCC as an example of how it could be read as saying he shared the Nobel Prize. As soon as that was clarified, he issued a correction. Now, dear judge, compare that to the failure of those attacking Mann to issue any corrections.

    Oops, own goal by the ideologues!

  33. #33 David Duff
    http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/
    November 4, 2012

    “colder, wetter and snowier weather is exactly what global warming means for NW Europe.”

    Oh, stop it, Ian, I almost fell off my chair at that one! And you must be very careful taking the you-know-what out of HAFs (Hot Air Fanatics) they can get really stroppy and rude if you make fun of them!

  34. #34 Ian Forrester
    November 4, 2012

    If Duffer the Puffer keeps falling out of his chair when confronted with the truth perhaps he should get one of the attendants at his institution to tie him in. I believe that is standard procedure where people like Duffer the Puffer are confined.

  35. #35 Lionel A
    November 4, 2012

    Duff, whilst you are still on your chair watch this:

    Climate Change Is Simple – David Roberts Remix

    and this

    Discovery Channel – Global Warming, What You Need To Know, with Tom Brokaw

    I could follow that up with a reading list so that you do not continue to embarrass yourself with these displays of wilful ignorance, aka stupidity.

  36. #36 chek
    November 4, 2012

    I find El Duffo’s totally unselfconscious displays of abject, pitiable ignorance very informative, especially when he imagines he’s being ‘clever with it’ .It clearly shows what Watts et al are all about.

  37. #37 Wow
    November 4, 2012

    Duffski is wrong. There is no blizzard outside.

    I’m in the UK too.

  38. #38 Wow
    November 4, 2012

    “…this global warming! I pulled back the curtains this morning and there was a blizzard outside”

    Your arse may be huge, duffski, but it isn’t the size of the planet.

  39. #39 chek
    November 4, 2012

    Checking up, it does seem that two or three inches of snow fell in the south west of the UK over this weekend. There was absoltely no sign of it here in the northern part of the UK, but I know this because we usually have a kickback on this side of the Atllantic in the aftermath of US hurricanes and I happened to be checking up on the upcoming week’s weather..

    Of course, being an alarmist fruitcake, Le Duffer’s claim to it being a “blizzard” will no doubt have our American, Canadian, European, Scandinavian and Russian visitor’s chuckling their socks off, but it must be remembered what a delicate wallflower Duff is at heart. Nor does he seem to have the capacity to understand the consequences of record arctic melt this year or where all that displaced latent heat may go.

    Or, to be brutally honest, even what ‘latent heat’ is. Buit that’s Dufferworld, as edubecated by the likes of Watts and Montford for you.

  40. #40 Lotharsson
    November 5, 2012

    As reported elsewhere “Bloomberg Business Week Discovers Global Warming”.

    Bloomberg Business Week Editor-in-Chief Josh Tyrangiel says that the cover story may generate controversy, “but only among the stupid”.

    Cue our usual denialist suspects…

  41. #41 David Duff
    November 5, 2012

    “Duffski is wrong”

    Er, no, ‘Duffski’ was right and ‘Wow’ was wrong! Not for the first and certainly not for the last time.

  42. #42 Wow
    November 5, 2012

    No, Duffski, you’re actually factually wrong.

    Looked outside, no blizzard. Not one this week even.

    Living in the south west too.

  43. #43 Wow
    November 5, 2012

    Chek, I looked out the window and NO BLIZZARD.

    Ergo Duffski is wrong. Global warming hasn’t stopped according to the view out of my window.

  44. #44 chek
    November 5, 2012

    Yes that was my point too, Wow. A light snowfall – but not a “blizzard” by any stretch of the imagination.

    “The National Weather Services defines blizzards as large amounts of falling or blowing snow with winds in excess of 35 mph and visibilities of less than ¼ of a mile for a period of more than 3 hours.
    Blizzards and severe snowstorms have a number of dangers including blowing snow that can cause whiteout conditions that make driving and walking nearly impossible”.

    It’s just Duffer being alarmist and stupid and denying winter – again.

  45. #45 Lionel A
    November 5, 2012

    I very much doubt Duff knows what blizzard conditions are. I have experienced such a number of times in the Scottish highlands, Glen Coe (buachaille etive mor – I took a tumble down the north saddle of that whilst glissading – my companion later disappeared into a crevice on Greenland ), the Cairngormes, in the Braemar-Balmoral area and Muckle Cairn (between Glen Clova and Glen Esk) whilst looking over a crashed WW2 Wellington bomber.

  46. #46 Wow
    November 5, 2012

    It’s far more than that.

    I LITERALLY did not see even a mm of snow. In the South West.

    But I reckon Duffski doesn’t live in the South West and never saw any snow either, but rather had his attention pushed by his masters to the news report and then pretended he’d seen it himself, personally.

    But my view did not see a mm of snow fall.

    If Duffski wants to make “what was seen out of one guy’s window” “the global weather”, then use my view.

  47. #47 David Duff
    http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/
    November 5, 2012

    Wow, are you calling me a liar? I don’t much care because it is par for the course on this, er, religious site. Check the newspapers, for example, there was 3″ of snow in Bath. As it happens I had a meeting in West London that evening but cancelled because of the weather *in my garden*!

    Anyway, be a sweetie and send me some of that global warming, I never produced a drop of sweat all summer and I don’t want another winter like that one two years ago where we all nearly froze to death.

  48. #48 chek
    November 5, 2012

    Perhaps if you have word with the fossil fuel magnates that finance your preferred disinformation sources and tell them to stop melting the arctic, your pleas might actually fall on ears that can directly do something about it, Duffer.

    Or hadn’t that occurred to you?

  49. #49 Lionel A
    November 5, 2012

    @ Duff

    …and send me some of that global warming,…

    Here you are then:

    Global Temperature anomalies aka Warming for you

  50. #50 Lionel A
    November 5, 2012

    @ Duff

    Evidence for warming.

    and take the time to watch those cited in my November 4, 2012 above.

    Rectify your ignorance Duff. But it isn’t ignorance really is it?

    If you don’t like being called a liar then you know what to stop doing. Up to you.

  51. #51 Wow
    November 5, 2012

    “Wow, are you calling me a liar?”

    Yup.

  52. #52 Wow
    November 5, 2012

    “Check the newspapers, for example, there was 3″ of snow in Bath”

    And what I accuse you of lying about was you seeing a blizzard.

    Not only did NOBODY see a blizzard in the UK, you don’t have to have seen it to read about it in the newspaper, so I call your claim of “I looked out the window” as a lie.

    But you turned up as if your looking out the window was proof AGW was false.

    But if one person’s view outside the window is all the evidence needed, then my looking out the window and NOT SEEING ANY SNOW, never mind a blizzard, is proof that AGW continues unabated.

    Of course, you are also a hypocrite and what is acceptable proof for your denial of reality is not acceptable as proof of reality.

    I’m calling you a fuckwit too.

  53. #53 Wow
    November 5, 2012

    “but cancelled because of the weather *in my garden*!”

    Yeah, yeah.

    And I also bet you whine and bitch and moan about British Rail cancelling stuff because of “snow on the line”.

    You’re not only a liar, but even more incompetent than British Rail if WEATHER IN YOUR GARDEN stops you from getting to London…

  54. #54 David Duff
    http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/
    November 5, 2012

    Calm down, dear, the end of the world is not yet nigh. Honestly, I wonder how you lot ever sleep at nights.

  55. #55 bill
    November 5, 2012

    Have another vat of wine, David.

  56. #56 Jack Strocchi
    www.the-boundless-sea.com
    November 6, 2012

    Warning: Preemptive Gloat

    Just checking in to remind everyone that back in Nov 2008 I stated that Obama would win two terms. mainly due to the voters wanting someone to stick around long enough to clean up the colossal Bush mess, a task I described as “janitorial” rather than “messianic”.

    I followed up in Apr 2010 when I predicted that the Tea Party would  “burn out” and Obama would win the 2012 election “comfortably”. I also argued that Obama needed to focus on winning a bigger share of the “white working class” vote. It looks like the auto bailout has swung working class white Ohio into the DEM column.

    Everyone goes on about Ray Fair, Doug Hibbs and Nate Silver in the US and Possum Polytics, Poll Bludger and Mumbles in AUS. They are all great quants but I am now sitting on a 6 on 6 winning streak picking US/AUS federal elections through the naughties. With a good chance of making it 7 on 7 with Obama.

    Its still possible for an upset Romney victory to spoil my winning streak. Especially if base turnout favours the REPs. If the poll goes as I predicted then I would be interested to see if any other psephs can top that.

    Either I am very lucky or as Jack Nicklaus once remarked, “the more I practice the luckier I get”.

  57. #57 David Duff
    http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/
    November 6, 2012

    Cheers, Bill, that’s the most civilised thing I’ve ever read on this blog!

    Jack, as you are brave enough to go out on a limb, allow me to step out equally bravely onto the one opposite – Romney will romp home! My forecasting record is, er, the exact opposite of yours so thank God I don’t have enough money to bet on it!

  58. #58 lord_sidcup
    November 6, 2012

    Leo Hickman has an excellent story revealing how one UK denier (Ben Pile) is funded by the EU via the anti-EU and AGW denying UK Independence Party:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/nov/06/ukip-climate-environment-researcher-questions?CMP=twt_gu

  59. #59 Wow
    November 6, 2012

    “Calm down, dear, the end of the world is not yet nigh”

    HA! From an alarmist like you? So I guess there was no blizzard now, right?

    No, you have two faces, both arses, and you talk out of both of them.

  60. #60 Jeff Harvey
    November 6, 2012

    Hi Jack,

    So what? Who cares who wins the US election? As Chris Hedges recently said, its a case of ‘drink your poison’ either way. The only promise Obama has kept since to 2008 is that he got his daughter a dog. Every other promise was broken. Romney is a mannekin who wants to lower regulations on banking activity even more – pure insanity. The one thing they both have in common is that they are both totally beholden to the corporate lobby.

    Let’s face it – the US hasn’t been a healthy, functioning democracy for over 60 years. Its a plutocracy. A corporatocracy. The corporate establishment wins either way.

  61. #61 Wow
    November 6, 2012

    Heck, Duff keeps claiming he lives in the South West UK (or Bristol or anywhere else the newspapers claim that there’s cold weather), but he’s intensely interested in Romney winning the USA presidential election.

    God knows why.

    If he likes it so much, maybe he ought to go there and get away from all this “communist” welfare state…

  62. #62 Lionel A
    November 6, 2012

    I guess Duff would be very comfortable in the US if Romney (Hives & Dim-Church) won, after all the US will then officially be run by such as a href=” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung“>these. All US climate scientists will be welcome this side of the Atlantic as our incumbents are only pretending to make policy that works. Cameron being a mere cipher ruled by polls.

  63. #63 Lionel A
    November 6, 2012

    Argh! Soditagain!

    these

  64. #64 Lionel A
    November 6, 2012

    Argh! NowWhat?

    these

  65. #65 Lionel A
    November 6, 2012

    Groan!

    I guess Duff would be very comfortable in the US if Romney (Hives & Dim-Church) won, after all the US will then officially be run by such as these .

  66. #66 bill
    November 7, 2012

    Speaking of such things, it would appear that the usual suspects are attempting to systematically disenfrachise those guilty of Voting While Black again…

    As in 2008, if Obama wins today it’s a safe bet his margin will actually have been substantially higher than that actually recorded, after allowing for what is now routine GOP vote-fiddling.

  67. #67 bill
    November 7, 2012

    And allow me to be the first to point out that the same denialists who simply won’t recognise science if it conflicts with their ideological beliefs were also calling ‘bias’ ‘scam’ and ‘fraud’ with regard to the polling and forecasts that predicted a comfortable victory for Obama – like the one that just happened – and living in a parallel universe where Mitt sweeps the field, riding in on a (very-definitely) white charger (or, more appropriately, a Magic Pony) to save the world for ‘freem’ and The Stupid. (They’re synonyms these days, anyway.)

    Well, that just fell in a giant puddle of ooze, and it’s worth noting that the Idiot candidate’s hilarious ‘jokes’ about rising seas did both his election chances and your toxic cause no good whatsoever…

  68. #68 Bernard J.
    November 7, 2012

    David Duff on November 6, 2012

    Cheers, Bill, that’s the most civilised thing I’ve ever read on this blog!

    Jack, as you are brave enough to go out on a limb, allow me to step out equally bravely onto the one opposite – Romney will romp home! My forecasting record is, er, the exact opposite of yours so thank God I don’t have enough money to bet on it!

    So, Obama wipes the floor with Romney. It seems that Duff’s forecasting abilities are the same for political events as they are for human-caused planetary climate change.

    Which is to say, entirely absent.

  69. #69 bill
    November 7, 2012

    Yep, the least toxic candidate has absolutely creamed the Koch’s mendacious muppet!

    The only issue now is where all the BS ‘close race’ reporting came from; it sure wasn’t from the actual polling experts – this is a big one for Nate Silver, statistics and rationality generally.

    Never mind, Duffer, I wish you all thje miserable weather you could hope for by way of consolation.

    Fool/s.

  70. #70 joni
    November 7, 2012

    Bill – that’s not fair. I now live in Bristol and will be getting the same weather as Duff (and I will be able to keep a close eye on his weather updates).

    And last weekend, I went to Reading/Basingstoke by train and had no issues whatsoever with the “snow” problems. Must have been local weather for local people.

  71. #71 Wow
    November 7, 2012

    joni, the other alternative is duffski is full of crap and is, as usual, hysterical.

  72. #72 chek
    November 7, 2012

    There was apparently a choice moment overnight on the Faux Election coverage where Rove couldn’t actually comprehend that Romney had lost Ohio, and sent the anchor interviewing him, cameras trailing, across the studio to the off-screen number crunchers to recheck.

    Almost like he suddenly realised that far from certainty, he’d actually acquired a pig-in-a-poke. I can only hope that whatever he thought he’d paid for was hugely, ruinously expensive, both in reputation and financially.

  73. #73 bill
    November 7, 2012

    joni – sorry; but, don’t worry, as you say it appears that much of the weather he ‘complains’ of really is selectively hyper-localised to the (surprisingly mobile) le hovel du Duffer; can anyone be surprised that someone up there doesn’t like him?

    In keeping with the ‘local’ theme: This is a science blog for science people, Duffer – there’s nothing for you here…

  74. #74 bill
    November 7, 2012

    I suspect Rove may end up having to sleep over on Duff’s couch. Never before in politics has quite so much money been pissed-up against a wall – and that’s money that belonged to very rich people who not only expect a return on their investment as a God-given right (and if that fails the state can fork out!), they may be inclined to send people round to have words with the guy who burned their cash…

    Here’s hoping!

  75. #75 David Duff
    November 7, 2012

    “It seems that Duff’s forecasting abilities are the same for political events as they are for human-caused planetary climate change.

    Which is to say, entirely absent.”

    That’s because “human-caused planetary climate change” is entirely absent – and has been since about 1998!

  76. #76 chek
    November 7, 2012

    Duffus old chap, the way this site works is NOT that some random yahoo (that’s you, that is) logs in and makes an unsupported statement of complete fantasy.

    If you want anything apart from derision, you should provide your evidence that supports the assertion you make. Unfortunately, that’s “entirely absent” because you haven’t got any.

    Your history talks must be complete shit if you conduct research into them in the same manner as your appearances here strongly suggest.

  77. #77 FrankD
    November 7, 2012

    Big step forward though – Duff admits that until 1998, human-caused climate change was real. At least now he only needs to be convinced about the last 14 to get with the program…

  78. #78 Wow
    November 7, 2012

    Entirely absent?

    So why all the freak weather?

  79. #79 Bernard J.
    November 7, 2012

    …“human-caused planetary climate change” is entirely absent – and has been since about 1998!

    Duff, you’re definitely demented: you’re exhibiting severe short-term memory loss. This oft-repeated error of yours has been corrected on numerous occasions.

    Indeed, Tim Lambert’s latest post includes a graph showing the mean global temperature record from 1980, with a trend line fitted for the interval to 1996 (i.e., the first half of the period – you know, the portion that you acknowledge was warming), and extrapolated to present. And guess what? The second half of the period shows a temperature trend largely falling above the extrapolated trendline for the period that you agree was warming.

    Now what on Earth could that mean? Oh, don’t worry, I don’t expect you to explain it – you’ve shown previously that basic physics and mathematics are beyond your ken, and even if you could figure it out, you’ll have forgotten it by the next time that you post.

  80. #80 Bernard J.
    November 7, 2012

    That should read “the second half of the period shows a temperature trajectory…”

  81. #81 Lionel A
    November 7, 2012

    Duff,

    That’s because “human-caused planetary climate change” is entirely absent – and has been since about 1998!

    Pay attention at the back there!

    I have given you plenty of pointers up-thread and Tim Lambert has provided more where Bernard J has just indicated.

    Do you want to be sent around the parade ground again holding a .303 above your head ’till told to stop?

  82. #82 Lionel A
    November 7, 2012

    Bernard J

    Speaking of such things, it would appear that the usual suspects are attempting to systematically disenfrachise those guilty of Voting While Black again…

    Indeed, and Greg Palast has been on the case for some time now with earlier Bush era voting shenanigans described in ‘The Best Democracy Money Can Buy‘.

    Vulture’s Picnic‘ passes the microscope over the dirty and unethical antics of the fossil fuel industry, and others. ‘Armed Madhouse‘ is also an eye-opener for those who cannot grasp that a true Democracy does not exist.

  83. #83 Lionel A
    November 7, 2012

    Link to Palast’s books, sorry forgot to include in previous.

  84. #84 Lionel A
    November 7, 2012

    To those who still think ‘Its the Economy, Stupid’ here is one reply:

    Sandy: Republican Mitt Romney Lies ROMNESIA 3rd Debate Why President Obama Should Win Election.

  85. #85 Lotharsson
    November 7, 2012

    Palast’s latest, ‘Billionaires and Ballot Bandits‘, is now available as donationware here.

  86. #86 Anthony David
    Australia
    November 7, 2012

    Roy Spencer has updated the UAH curve and has finally removed his “amusing”, inaccurate polynomial curve ‘fit’.

  87. #87 Wow
    November 7, 2012

    Is that because the same order polynomial fit would have it turning up again now?

    Or is it just that it isn’t fitting any more and he’ll just wait until it goes up again and say “In another 7 years it’ll go down again! My model says so!”?

  88. #88 Anthony David
    Australia
    November 7, 2012

    The polynomial he had was turning down. Perhaps he removed it because the amusement was going to be at his expense, just like John MacLean’s hilarious cooling prediction last year.

  89. #90 Lionel A
    November 8, 2012

    bill, I have played the pecant segment many times and I just cannot make out what that dame is referring to, she needs to slow down and speak English and not USenglish or curl the mouth down at one side.

  90. #91 David Duff
    http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/
    November 8, 2012

    Gentlemen (I use the term loosely, of course), the words I recoil from in the phrase “human-caused planetary climate change” is “human-caused”. Global temperatures, of course, go up and then they go down, they always have done, irrespective of whether humans even exist or not. The effect we humans have is the equivalent of pissing in an ocean!

    But what the sun does – or does not do – well, that’s another story and one about which we know very little – so far. Suffice to say, that I *suspect* quite a lot is an understatement.

  91. #92 David Duff
    http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/
    November 8, 2012

    I should add that we will all find out the hard – and very cold – way over the next few years unless the sun’s acne returns!

    In the meantime, you can keep pumping out Co2 as hard as you like for all the difference it makes.

  92. #93 Wow
    November 8, 2012

    “the words I recoil from in the phrase “human-caused planetary climate change” is “human-caused”.”

    Yup, you’re afraid of a word.

    Even though it’s accurate.

    Scaredey-cat.

  93. #94 chek
    November 8, 2012

    Duffer, four words that may help liberate you from your quaint if dangerously ill-informed and smug 16th Century mindset:
    IPCC

    Just because you and rest of The Stupids, don’t know, means nothing beyond your own admission.

  94. #95 lord_sidcup
    November 8, 2012

    Uncanny. Duff picks the current top 2 from Skeptical Science’s hit parade of the most popular climate change myths:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    A dedicated follower of science denier fashion.

  95. #96 Lionel A
    November 8, 2012

    Duff on Duff:

    I use the term loosely, of course…

    Of course you do, everything you write is loose, why is that? Well verbal diarrhoea is your thing.

    On human effects on CO2, and Methane, levels and temperatures see William Ruddiman.

  96. #97 bill
    November 8, 2012

    Duffer’s just trying to ease the pain of Obama’s re-election, contrary to all the hopelessly-wrong – and, I mean, seriously, what a flagrant give-away! – bullshit promulgated by the likes of the American Spectator.

    He’s incapable of learning, of course, that like that risible extremist publication all his views are based on a right-wing fantasy world; a genuine epistemic bubble where a hyper-coiffed fringe-sect nutjob in long white underwear rides in on a Magic Pony, saving the world from The Socialist Menace and The Global Conspiracy of Evil Scientists…

    Didn’t happen, Duff.

    Whatever sloshes around in your skull cavity might just as well be sago pudding – well soaked in brandy, no doubt – for all the information it’s affording you about reality. Same goes for your dittohead cyborg Libuuurtarian mates.

  97. #98 bill
    November 9, 2012

    And I’m not the only one who thinks the link between the Denialist fantasist’s reaction (literally!) to inconvenient US election forecasting and AGW is strongly revealing…

  98. #99 Bernard J.
    November 9, 2012

    I usually avoid WWWT like the plague, but this effort was pointed out to me and I just had to share the fact of Willis Eschenbach’s extraordinary ignorance of chemistry</b>:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    November 6, 2012 at 7:33 pm

    I must enter, once again, a repeated protest against calling neutralization by the name of “acidification”. The seas are not becoming more acidic. They are becoming more neutral.

    I understand that “oceanic neutralization” doesn’t have the same zing, but that’s the reality. The ocean is gradually becoming more and more neutral. Another way to describe it is that the ocean is becoming less alkaline.

    Now, it’s not widely realized that alkalinity is much more damaging than acidity. Someone upthread described bathing in Japan in very acid waters. These waters had a pH of 1.5, far below neutral (pH 7.0).

    But a substance of the correspondingly extreme alkalinity, say lye, pH 13, far above neutral, is what is used to dissolve bodies. It is extremely caustic to all kinds of flesh. The naturally alkaline nature of sea water is mildly deleterious to living tissue, which is one reason that many fish and other ocean creatures have a protective layer of mucus surrounding their bodies.

    As a result, this is more than a theoretical or semantical distinction. A more neutral ocean, to the extent that it happens, is not necessarily either good or bad … I greatly doubt, however, that a slightly more neutral ocean will be catastrophic.

    Let me shamelessly tout my post, “The Electric Oceanic Acid Test”, regarding the question of variations in oceanic pH.

    w

    I’ve commented so often on this matter that I’m not even going to try to find all of those posts, but Eschenbach would benefit from understanding some of the points made here.

  99. #100 Bernard J.
    November 9, 2012

    Damn National Geographic’s FUBARing of the html.

    My comment is about two thirds of the way down the page, between Carrot Eater’s and Phila’s.

1 2 3 5

Current ye@r *