December 2012 Open Thread

Despite carbon tax, Australia is still not in the Stone Age.

Comments

  1. #1 Jeff Harvey
    December 10, 2012
  2. #2 Bernard J.
    December 10, 2012

    If there was ever any doubt that the rabid Right Wing in Australian politics is buried in conspiracy and denial…

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-11/queensland-under-fire-over-fluoridation/4420294

  3. #3 bill
    December 10, 2012

    I notice GooSeWuh has run away back to fawn at the feet of his Glorious Leader.

    Sorry, Sunshine, but you just gave as an outstanding example of your ‘science’ emanating from – whaddyaknow? – Libtard thinktanks. This really will not do. Papers, please, not published in E&E, or the Houston Cat Fanciers Gazette. Presentations from the AGU, perhaps? No?

    You become a little more ridiculous every day, and that’s now very ridiculous indeed. I’ll rephrase my question from yesterday; what sanctions do you think the rest of the community is entitled to take against you lot? You have been wrong – arrogantly, systematically, and very frequently (of later years, virtually completely) dishonestly wrong – about arguably the single most important thing to get right in the history of civilization. How are you going to atone? Do you really imagine it’s going to be ‘no big deal’?

  4. #4 bill
    December 10, 2012

    Um, I think someone at MJ needs to have a little rethink – or rephrasing, at any rate! – about ‘Massive plankton blooms thriving 60+ miles under sea ice’. But, yeah, the entire Arctic system is in terrible trouble – and anyone fiddling the books or playing at ‘squirrel’ in an attempt to maintain that this might somehow not be a biiiiig problems for our snowy-white ursine friends should be ashamed of themselves…

  5. #5 Vince Whirlwind
    December 11, 2012

    Lewandowsky’s review of Mann’s new book seems to have gotten lost under the weight of ignorant denial.

    http://www.amazon.com/review/RUHGA6NAS33AM/

    Have a read of it.

  6. #6 bill
    December 11, 2012

    This is a partisan book. It does not attempt to be “balanced” by adding a lie to the truth and dividing by two.

    Exactly. Thanks for the link, Vince.

  7. #7 Chris O'Neill
    December 11, 2012

    It’s funny seeing two denialists in violent disagreement on Roy Spencers blog:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/11/uah-v5-5-global-temp-update-for-october-2012-0-33-deg-c/#comments

    Also, Roy hasn’t put the November UAH anomaly on his blog yet. He’s been beaten by GISTemp (which might be showing the first 3 or 4 months of a new hottest 12 month period on record, as long as there’s no La Nina).

  8. #8 Bernard J.
    December 11, 2012

    I am amazed as ever to see to the right the indication of the volume of recent comments sailing past on the Troll Toilet.

    If Jonas is still refusing to read and consider the work of the authors I listed on the previous page, perhaps someone him instead could ask why no-one has written a rebuttal in the peer-reviewed literature, revealing that there has been no work performed to calculate the attribution confidences that he claims do not in fact exist.

    I keep looking for something to that effect in Nature or in Science, but I never see it; nor do I spy any authors named Jonas N[...]. Of course, there may be the possibility that there is a conspiracy to prevent revelation of this profoundly remarkable fraud, but if so why are the likes of the Pielkes, Curry, Watts, Spencer, Lindzen, the Gravely-affected loony lordling, and many others not detailing the fraud and shouting it from the rooftops?

    Perhaps it’s because they’re more familiar with the works of the authors I mentioned, than is Jonas N…

  9. #9 Bernard J.
    December 11, 2012

    Blerk.

    I am not really dyslexic. Just tired!

  10. #10 Jeff Harvey
    December 11, 2012

    Hi Bernard,

    I am sick of the mega-troll. I try and refrain from writing into that dead-end thread but the clown baits, and baits and baits…. all whilst not having a frigging clue what he is talking about.

    He has built up his tiny island refuge and the rising tide is drowning him. Its all AR4! 90%! Not science! .. when anybody could see that the 90% figure was more-or-less expected by policymakers as some kind of handle. Essentially, the 90% figure is based on the scientific foundation of the summary chapter of the 2007 IPCC report, duie in no small part to the pretty extensive scientific consensus that humans are the main forcing agent accounting for the recent warming. The only reason it wasn’t 95% or more was because there were a few sceptics who had their say on the final draft. But the 90% figure IS, as Chek says time and time again, based on a a summary of the hundreds and hundreds of peer-reviewed studies in support of AGW. End of bloody story! But not for you-knbow-who.

    I am sure that figure will be even stronger when the next report is published. And fully expect Jonas to come out swinging, screaming about the abuse of science and all that ad nauseum. As I said, the figure is purely to give the public and especially policymakers some kind of estimate, a handle. Nothing more, nothing less. They cannot translate words into probabilities and want a number. It is provided and the deniers like Jonas N go off on a tangent.

  11. #11 chek
    December 11, 2012

    Thanks for the hat tip Jeff – it’s much appreciated, but please remember also that many other members of our community here have said the same thing again and again and most likely better. Unfortunately to as little avail as the rest of us who still foolishly try.

  12. #12 Lionel A
    December 11, 2012

    I am amazed as ever to see to the right the indication of the volume of recent comments sailing past on the Troll Toilet.

    Yep. And it really is time to stop feeding this know-nothing glory seeker, certainly as far as I am concerned. He is all noise and no signal despite several attempts at enlightenment. He is now down such a deep hole spinning like the TBM used here that no light can now penetrate from the surface. A biologist could use a different analogy.

  13. #13 Lionel A
    December 11, 2012

    Well it being an open thread and all I thought I would raise awareness of this:

    saving the INTERNET from the heavy hand of authoritarian rulers

  14. #14 Lionel A
    December 11, 2012

    PS.

    Jonas it is you in the ‘padded cell’ and quite rightly so.

  15. #15 Holly Stick
    Canada
    December 11, 2012

    Here’s a good article about Rachel Carson’s legacy:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/dec/07/why-rachel-carson-is-a-saint

  16. #16 Vince Whirlwind
    December 12, 2012

    “This is a partisan book. It does not attempt to be “balanced” by adding a lie to the truth and dividing by two.”

    Greta line, huh?

    I enjoyed it.

    Lewandowsky’s done some sterling work to discredit the idiots. He deserves our thanks.

  17. #17 Bernard J.
    December 12, 2012

    Folk following Peak Oil commentary may be interested in this:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4422156.html

  18. #18 Bernard J.
    December 12, 2012

    And

    How can anything rival the threat of climate change?
    By ABC’s Jonathan Green

    Resolving climate change will test most of our dominant paradigms.

    In order to tackle the looming catastrophe of climate change, we must first change the way information flows. Social media can help, writes Jonathan Green.

  19. #19 Bernard J.
    December 12, 2012

    Another day, another flood of Jonas N and GSWAKAOlaus rubbing each other’s groins.

    Seriously, are those two still pretending that there has been no calculated attribution of human influence on global warming? Has Jonas still not ventured to reveal whether he has read the works of the half a dozen or so authors I listed on page one of this thread, authors well-known in the attribution community?

    Sheesh, if the guy is so lame that he can’t even review the narrowed field to which I directed him, perhaps he might manage to inform us which of the papers he has read here:

    http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/ghegerl/publications.html

    It lists a lot of the attribution papers, but by no means all of them, and it even has a proportion of them available for download, so that folk without institutional access (such as Jonas apparently is…) can read them.

    If Jonas can demonstrate that none of these papers establish the attribution of warming to human emissions, I would be most intrigued indeed to hear…

    As ever though, I will suggest that the reason that Jonas N doesn’t explicitly state which authors he has read, or which papers don’t attribute warming to humans, is that once he does so he paints himself into a corner from which he can never emerge.

    I suspect that Jonas N is either paid to do what he does, or that he has some other vested or ideological interest in delaying action on climate change. One day that will bite him on the arse.

  20. #20 Jeff Harvey
    December 12, 2012

    A pretty sobering presentation by Professor Kevin Anderson on the likely scenarios for the coming century:

    http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1355233812.html

    I would not waste this on the troll duo next door; great to see Chek demolishing Jonas though. Pure magic. Asking all the right questions, such as has Jonas ever once in his life written to an accredited climate scientist? No answer. means no.

    The above presentation by a senior scientist is in contrast to the usual Climate Depot/Bishops Hill/WUWT crap linked to by Gormless.

  21. #21 Ian Forrester
    December 12, 2012

    Seems like a lot of junk science being spewed out by the denier trolls over on the padded cell thread.

    Here is an interesting post from TEDx on how to differentiate between good science and the bad science (i.e junk) put out by the trio of stooges on that thread.

    Marks of good science:

    It makes claims that can be tested and verified
    It has been published in a peer reviewed journal (but beware… there are some dodgy journals out there that seem credible, but aren’t.)
    It is based on theories that are discussed and argued for by many experts in the field
    It is backed up by experiments that have generated enough data to convince other experts of its legitimacy
    Its proponents are secure enough to accept areas of doubt and need for further investigation
    It does not fly in the face of the broad existing body of scientific knowledge
    The proposed speaker works for a university and/or has a phD or other bona fide high level scientific qualification

    Marks of bad science:

    Has failed to convince many mainstream scientists of its truth
    Is not based on experiments that can be reproduced by others
    Contains experimental flaws or is based on data that does not convincingly corroborate the experimenter’s theoretical claims
    Comes from overconfident fringe experts
    Uses over-simplified interpretations of legitimate studies and may combine with imprecise, spiritual or new age vocabulary, to form new, completely untested theories.
    Speaks dismissively of mainstream science
    Includes some of the red flags listed in the two sections below

    http://blog.tedx.com/post/37405280671/a-letter-to-the-tedx-community-on-tedx-and-bad-science

    (Note: I do not agree that there is no good science associated with being against GMO’s. In fact there is more bad science put out by the pro-GMO scientists who are just industry shills.)

  22. #22 bill
    December 13, 2012

    Further to Ian F’s comment, I’d recommend Ben Goldacre’s Bad Pharma – but, God, it’s depressing!

    The systematic distortion of the process of science for commercial purposes does indeed exist, particularly where industry-funded researchers either don’t wish to, or are prevented by their employers from, publishing ‘inconvenient’ findings. Nothing currently prevents them / their employers from simply burying potentially commercially disruptive results.

    Such a system quickly sorts out a cadre of ‘activist/accomplice’ scientists who know exactly what their employers want, and are rewarded accordingly, much as the Murdoch empire quickly selects for ideologues of a particular type, who then loudly declaim that they experience no pressure whatsover to echo Their Master’s Voice…

  23. #23 Bernard J.
    December 13, 2012

    Jonas N has made a career of making an unsubstantiated claim and milking it for as long as it takes an elephant to gestate. Even folk such as Tim “X”* Curtin would have made a testable case long before now.

    Let’s briefly review the things that Jonas N has ignored in the process of making this claim.

    First, there is the material in Chapter 9 of the Assessment Report 4 Working Group 1. This includes referenced information in figures 9.9 and 9.10 as well as in other graphs and much of the text.

    Next there are the references for Chapter 9, to which Jonas N has been repeatedly directed and queried about as to which of them he read in order to make his claim that the attribution confidence interval were made up. See, it’s important to know which references Jonas read in order to make up his mind, because if he did not in fact read the material then he did no science, nor even any preparation for conducting science. When reading any peer-reviewed scientific work one will observe that it always draws with careful and extensive reference on the body of extant knowledge, in order to make its case. This is especially so and absolutely mandatory in the case of refutation work, otherwise there is no case to be made for the refutation in the first place.

    Any bells ringing yet…? And all that Jonas N could come up with was:

    I can’t remember from the top of my head which ones I have checked before.

    Eh?! If he’s so certain of his claim of conspiracy by the IPCC and dozens of its assessing scientists to commit the fraud of data fabrication, he should be able to remember what papers he read in order to come to his conclusion. But NEVER ONCE HAS JONAS N BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE THE CORPUS OF READING ON WHICH HE BASED HIS LIBELOUS CLAIM. Not once.

    He continued on immediately from his previous comment to say:

    The thing is that I used to follow and read references that AGW-proponents pointed me to, ascertaining that certain facts were to be found there. And almost every single time, the supposed fact, settled truth, scientific result etc was overstated (sometimes widely) by them who referred to it.

    Erm, examples? Even a single example? Or half a dozen? What about a sufficiently, statistically-supported sampling of the type of papers to which he refers, that could actually make his case?

    Nothing presented.

    Not a thing.

    Many times in the intervening period Jonas had his nose rubbed in the references of Chapter 9, but like a puppy whose nose is rubbed in the fæces that he’s deposited on the carpet, the actual lesson does not sink in. The mule would rather die of thirst that drink the water to which he has been led.

    So the third avenue toward educating the ineducable Jonas N was to point him toward the Appendix, and particularly 9c.. Nope, that didn’t work – no response from Jonas as to how the particular papers referenced there support the attribution confidence intervals. Just denial.

    Quelle surprise.

    The fourth option was to ask Jonas N which of the papers of a sampling of the authors (in alphabetical order) Gabriele Hegerl, Markus Huber, Phil Jones, Reto Knutti, Ben Santer, Peter Stott, and/or Francis Zwiers he has read. These are some of the well-known researchers of attribution work.

    This is basically the point at which one is pulling on the mules headstall to drag its nose underwater, but still the thing won’t drink.

    The fifth opportunity for Jonas N to learn would have been to speak to the authors directly, as I suggested somewhere way back in the beginning. Has Jonas N done that? To date he has demonstrated no evidence of having done so, although he may have recorded this on the Troll Toilet Thread after I eschewed further fruitless participation there. Still, I’ve hear no chatter on the open threads to the effect that he has made this effort.

    He should have.

    I did.

    Over the last 18 months I’ve spoken to several of the authors of the AR4 attribution papers. It’s one of the perks of working in an institution peopled with some of the very best scientists in the world. The work was done. The work is out there. There is much more work on the desks and the computers in the labs and offices of dozens of scientists around the world that supports it, but about which Jonas knows nothing because he refuses to do anything to substantiate his fanciful, libelous claims against people far better trained and experienced than he.

    If this is all too hard for the over-stretched scientific capacity of Jonas N, perhaps he needs to be directed to small batches at a time of papers that he can analyse and critique as we watch, in order to document the basis of his claim. But that’s doing it arse-about. I really want to know first what Jonas has dismissed, and why he dismissed it, because I’m sitting on stuff that I know contradicts Jonas. If he can show the reading he’s done to date in order to make his claim, I’ll drop in on the Troll Toilet to give him some more reading that he can deconstruct in front of us. Of course, if he’s already read papers in particular that say what he claims they don’t, we can go straight into the nitty-gritty of deconstructing whether or not they provide the statistical work that gave the 90% confidence figure.

    Come on Jonas, put up your analysis, your evidence. So far you’ve presented nothing. Put up your evidence, and perhaps those less intelligent than you – folk such as the Pielkes, Curry, Watts, Spencer, Lindzen, Monckton, Plimer, Carter ad nauseum – might be able find the inspiration to write a definitive paper that explodes the whole myth of human-caused warming. Indeed, if you’re correct, it’s amazing that this paper has not yet been written. And note: Curry’s silliness last year about “Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster” was totally and embarrassingly for her buried in the intellectual-pauper’s grave that it deserved.

    Come on Jonas, stop with the dodging, give up the prevarication.

    What’s your evidence?

    [*where X = "Radium Water", "Crackers", "Acid Dropper", or any of a number of other appropriate appellations]

  24. #24 Bernard J.
    December 13, 2012

    Although not climate-related, the (somwhat successful) attempts by the Australian federal opposition to entrap the Speaker and bring down the government is a study in miniature of the Conservative propensity for flagrant abuse of fact in order to achieve their ideological ends.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-12/ashby-slipper-wrap/4424082

    If Justice Steve Rares’ ruling is upheld at appeal, the implications for the Coalition’s attack on Australian democracy and due process are profound. Like climate change denialism, its astounding how much bare-faced swill can be fed to the lay public without them so much as batting an eye.

    It seems that in this country Conservatives can lie about science and attempt premeditated conspiracy to entrap, and in both cases the mainstream media is most forgiving. But if a progressive should even be hinted at doing something similar, imagine the furor – hockey sticks and attribution confidences, anyone?

  25. #25 Dave McRae
    December 13, 2012

    Damn, Chris O’Neill, that link of yours to Roy Spencer is a truck load of crazy.

    One name I noticed is a Doug Cotton. That name infects all climate related posts at TheConversation.edu that gets drowned out with a flood of denier vomit every article having a Climate Change tag

    Shame he never get published in a real scientific journal .. yeah, I know :)

  26. #26 Jeff Harvey
    December 13, 2012

    Many thanks for your lengthy post above, Bernard. It totally and utterly annihilates his feeble arguments during the one and a half years (a time frame Jonas writes about incessantly in recent posts) of time wastage he and his small troll army have spent here.

    I have seen the strategy Jonas and other contrarians (too kind a word) use to deny, deny, deny. And that is to argue that without 100% unequivocal evidence of a process then the problem does not exist. It goes back to zero. This tired old trick has been used to dismiss a suite of contemporary environmental problems over the past 20-30 years. What is more irritating is that when the said party is pointed in the said direction of empirical evidence, they steadfastly refuse to go there, instead making fatuous demands that we must extract every single relevant sentence and stick it right under their noses. And even then they will close their eyes.

    Like you, I have asked Jonas many times if he has written to or spoken with any of the scientists who contributed to Chapter 9 in IPCC 2007. He has never answered, which means a great big NO. Given his hysteria over the issue, I have asked him if he will write an article for a peer-reviewed journal in which he critiques the chapter. Again, silence, meaning NO. Instead, he thinks that by ranting and raving here, along with repeatedly telling everyone that he knows more than us, that he is somehow elevated to the status of authority. And then he goes on to say that none of us here understand the ‘scientific method’.

    Frankly, as one can see from my most recent posts on his thread, that I think he is something of a joke, if not a sad individual who craves attention. Why else persist here? He won’t win any scientific debates by persisting on one small blog, and if he wants to make a splash with his self-assured brilliance, then the only way he will do that is to make a foray into the big world of climate science. But of course he won’t do that, for the simple reason as I have said many times: his ideas will be chewed up and spat out and then end of story.

    So on Deltoid he will probably remain, with his tattered ego being propped up constantly by the likes of GSW and Olaus. Its pathetic, really.

  27. #27 jp
    December 13, 2012

    I haven’t read the denier-toilet thread for a long while now, but has anyone asked Jonass to come up with his own confidence estimates re the attribution of warming to anthropogenic causes? I would have thought that that would have been the best way to pin him down, to get him to put his money where his mouth is. I mean, if the fuckwit knows everything about the scientific method _ and he claims the IPCC doesn’t _ then logically he must know how to do it. That’s the angle that should be used, to expose what a clueless, deluded ass he is. Using the “hard” science which he constantly boasts about, he should be able to derive his own numbers _ his own probability estimates _ and demonstrate to everyone how it’s done.

    Someone should ask why after more than 2 years…it must be close to 3 years…when it comes to climate matters, there hasn’t been a shred of science _ no calculations, no stats, no science…nothing. Just vaccuous blather from him and his arse-licking GSW, who I think is a physicist. How do I know? He must be, because at one stage he talked about physics and how the hand must accelerate at the same rate as the block being pushed. Myself, I know nothing about science, but it sounded impressive; the sort of insight only a very smart person, most likely a physicist, would have. And he’s so modest; even adopting such a self-deprecatory moniker as Great Simpleminded Wanker. Someone should tell him, though, that there’s no need to constantly kiss Jonass’ arse _ even if Jonass is a legend. That’s probably what he’s striving for: legendary status for having the longest thread in history. It’s a shame that neither he nor his lickspittles can demonstrate any science.

    Bernard did the best job of eliciting the most telling responses from the fuckwits-in-residence, especially GSW. Very early on, when Bernard asked him to pick his best piece of evidence against the science of global warming, including references, out came this brilliant reply: “I’m happy for you to keep playing with yourself.” OK, I confess that the brilliance of it didn’t strike me at first, but it dawned on me that there must be, hidden within such a simple phrase, a cryptic and deeply meaningful sub-text. I haven’t worked it out yet. Smart people do these things: they talk in riddles sometimes. Much later, Bernard also asked both of them to do their own climate sensitivity calculations. The responses were along the lines of, “what? where? how? it can’t be done to within so many decimal places…” etc. Maybe they’re just pretending they don’t know; they don’t want to show off. After all, Jonass did display some skills with Newtonian physics, mathturbations with frictional forces etc. I wonder why he’s so reticent to show us some denier climate science. Shouldn’t be so selfish; should show the warmist scientific community how it’s done. Oh yeah, I forgot. Apparently Poptech has 700 denier papers stashed away somewhere; they like listing them, but it seems that no one is game enough to delve into them. Must be some pretty nasty stuff. This one is probably a good representative sample: http://n3xus6.blogspot.com.au/2007/02/dd.html .

  28. #28 Wow
    December 13, 2012

    “I haven’t read the denier-toilet thread for a long while now, but has anyone asked Jonass to come up with his own confidence estimates re the attribution of warming to anthropogenic causes?”

    Yup. A couple of times.

    ” I would have thought that that would have been the best way to pin him down”

    No, he refused to answer and Olap Dog keeps running away now he’s stuck with a clear question he should be able to answer but will not (“How do you go about finding the warming trend”).

    Joan, remember, never actually says anything other than claim things and say “I’m smart enough to know, you aren’t”. Which since he doesn;t give any evidence for his smartitude, doesn’t count as him waving his CV, oh no.

    Apparently, though, only Joan is allowed to assert without evicence. Everyone else has to give him evidence (and moreover evidence he will accept, which by his definition doesn’t exist unless it supports his claims).

  29. #29 Stu
    December 13, 2012

    Oh geez jp, I forgot all about the hand speed thing. Thanks for the laugh!

  30. #30 Wow
    December 14, 2012

    Stu, you notice that Joan didn’t actually answer your question, only derided you for not knowing what out of well over 4000 posts joan has said (that hasn’t subsequently been contradicted by another post they’ve put down).

    You can’t be caught out in a lie unless you actually say something.

  31. #31 Bernard J.
    December 14, 2012

    If GSW aka Olaus Petri is a physicist I hope to goodness that he’s not practicing, even as a junior high teacher in a backwater Christian School. That’s how accidents happen.

    As to Jonas, well I’d be curious to find out exactly what his gig is. He apparated on Deltoid after Curry’s “Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster” paper was released, and in spite of the fact that it’s been completely trashed as I mentioned yesterday, he steadfastly persists in pushing the meme. I strongly suspect that he is being paid, or has some other vested interest in ignoring the laws of physics.

    If not, there is an extreme intellectual scotoma involved.

  32. #32 Vince Whirlwind
    December 14, 2012

    Gillard tore Abbott a *second* new one this morning.

    http://m.news.com.au/TopStories/fi1805138.htm

    “Mr Abbott has to extract himself and his political party from the filth they’re rolling in,”

    Woof!

  33. #33 Bernard J.
    December 14, 2012

    Vince.

    Isn’t is rich, especially when the Coalition says that the government should stop “hyperventilating”, and when the Coalition themselves hyperventilated about:

    boat people taking over the country
    children overboard
    Pauline Hanson
    “Utegate”
    Craig Thomson
    union “slush funds”
    Slipper’s non-existent sexual harrassment (that, according to Justice Rares, the Coalition’s staffers and at least one member actively and with aforethought orchestrated)
    global warming
    the carbon tax
    the budget surplus
    the national broadband network
    the WsMD
    same-sex marriage
    ad infinitum*…

    The current opposition is a bunch of one-trick ponies, that can do nothing but get in the way of proper government by lying, whining and raking muck, all because they’ve been denied their God-given right to rule without end.

    That sort of conservatism is what breeds eventual despotism.

    [*Feel free people to add to the list...]

  34. #34 jp
    December 14, 2012

    I don’t think O’louse and GSW are the same. It might have been missed by most but I remember early in that denier-toilet thread O’louse telling GSW, “I’m at your feet”. If they are one, then that ‘s some serious narcissism.

  35. #35 jp
    December 14, 2012

    “The current opposition is a bunch of one-trick ponies, that can do nothing but get in the way of proper government by lying, whining and raking muck,”.

    It’s a deliberate strategy; the same one that was adopted by the Republicans at the beginning of Obama’s first term. Someone high up in the Republican hierarchy was taped saying exactly that at one of their conventions: that their goal was to be as disruptive and uncooperative at possible, and to try to bring the government down that way. The Libs here have adopted the same tactics; not acting for the betterment of the country, but lying, cheating, conniving and deceiving the more simple minded element of the population for totally self-serving reasons.

  36. #36 lord_sidcup
    December 14, 2012

    What is it with deniers and IPCC reports? So anxious to leak them prior to publication, so anxious to trash them once they are published. I can only conclude their tactic is to quote-mine and misrepresent the ‘leaked’ version so they can claim the published version was secretly altered by ‘the conspiracy’. It is a deliberate attempt to undermine the whole process. Hopefully they will be forthrightly condemned by the scientific community and the whole ploy backfires.

  37. #37 lord_sidcup
    December 14, 2012

    Skeptical Science has a rebuttal to the latest denier lies but their website seems to be down at the moment. Maybe heavy traffic (perhaps something more sinister). No matter as The Guardian has re-posted Dana’s article:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/global-warming-sun-leaked-ipcc-report?CMP=twt_fd

  38. #38 Lionel A
    December 14, 2012

    RealClimate has just pointed out that …this happened last time too.

  39. #39 joni
    December 14, 2012

    At least the SMH is reporting that the IPCC report dismisses the leak as being wrong.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/mans-role-in-climate-change-virtually-certain-20121214-2bfoa.html

    And that:

    “EVIDENCE for climate change has grown stronger and it is now ”virtually certain” that human greenhouse gas emissions trap energy that warms the planet, according to a leaked draft of the next major Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report”

  40. #40 Lionel A
    December 14, 2012

    So, Delingpole has egg on his face again, on a previous occasion being assisted by Sir Paul Nurse.

    Delingpole has less substance than an, er um watermelon.

  41. #41 Lionel A
    December 14, 2012

    Heading for Bilbao (Spain) by air, you may want to check local, Bilbao, weather and wind conditions before boarding:

    Planes battle strong winds to land in Bilbao, Spain.

    Why the strong winds, could it be all the hot air from Jonas N?

  42. #42 Stu
    December 14, 2012

    It’s a deliberate strategy; the same one that was adopted by the Republicans at the beginning of Obama’s first term. Someone high up in the Republican hierarchy was taped saying exactly that at one of their conventions: that their goal was to be as disruptive and uncooperative at possible,

    It’s worse than that; they convened senior members of both Houses to coordinate obstructionist tactics.

    Start here.

  43. #43 Stu
    December 14, 2012

    Lionel, did I miss something? I thought Jonas was a Swede?

  44. #44 Jeff Harvey
    December 14, 2012

    Joni, when the latest IPCC report claims with 99% certainty that the major climate forcing has now a human fingerprint, watch our egotistically bloated Swede come in here screaming that it ain’t science! It ain’t science! Coupled with the usual colorless lingo and various accusations levied against all of us.

  45. #45 Lionel A
    December 17, 2012

    I don’t know how many of you caught this story: Chasing Ice movie reveals largest iceberg break-up ever filmed – video

  46. #46 Lionel A
    December 17, 2012

    This one lifted my spirits but only briefly considering that something else will swim along before to long and become trapped to. A common fate amongst pelagic species who if not trapped swallow something equally as deadly.

    Here is one that I photographed earlier , in 1970.

  47. #47 Bernard J.
    December 18, 2012

    I remain profoundly bemused at the indication of the degree of Troll Toilet traffic ticking over in the ‘Recent comments’ panel.

    I’m guessing that because no noise has been made here, Jonas has not yet been able to elucidate which portion of the attribution literature he’d read in order to make his claim that no professional climatologist has done any statistical work to calculate the confidences for human attribution of global warming. He really doesn’t want to go on the record does he?

    Perhaps he will first wait for Judith Curry to deliver her promised ‘responses’ to the unauthorised release of the AR5 draft material by Alec Rawls* – after all, Jonas started his campaign here only after the fence-sitting mother of uncertainly wrote that monumental mess about uncertainty monsters…

    It’s bizarre; it really is. The Chapter 9 authors note both the degree of genuine uncertainty in the science (the authors were there long before Curry and her sycophant Jonas), and they list dozens and dozens of papers referring to statistical treatments that arrive at confidences to quantify that uncertainty – in contradiction of Jonas’ claims that nothing was calculated, which can only mean that he hasn’t read them or that he has and that he’s speaking inaccuracies (gasp!).

    So, Jonas claims that it was all made up, “guessed at best”. Perhaps he is confusing his claims with the heuristic aspects of scientific analysis, especially the heuristic aspect of Bayesian statistics. Perhaps Jonas is a staunch Frequentist, and doesn’t go in for any of that crappy Bayesian fairy-dust assuming silliness?

    Has Jonas yet confirmed whether he has contacted any of the authors that he libels? I’ve spoken to several, and we’ve discussed quite a lot of work that Jonas claims hasn’t been done…

    If only he had the courage to tell us what he’s read that he believes doesn’t actually exist…

    [*Isn't it strange that she's not a reviewer herself?! I am almost so cynical as to wonder if she's using Rawls leaking as an excuse to talk about something that she couldn't under the restrictions that would be applied to her directly if she was a reviewer.]

  48. #48 Donald Oats
    December 18, 2012

    Maurice Newman has a repeat op piece in The Australian again.

  49. #49 Chris 'Neill
    December 18, 2012

    Maurice Newman

    No doubt he still thinks having an AC makes him entitled to his own facts.

  50. #50 Chris O'Neill
    December 18, 2012

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Newman

    His career spans forty years in stockbroking and investment banking

    What he says about climate science is not surprising. Only thing unusual is that he managed to get a soap box by being chairman of the ABC.

  51. #51 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    And isn’t that statement about his “CV” an anathema to people like Joan or Git?

  52. #52 Bernard J.
    December 18, 2012

    I wonder what Jonas N thinks about the fact that David Frame and Dáithí Stone validate the work that was conducted leading up to AR4.

    After all, if the attribution confidences were simply being “guessed at best” there should be no consilience between 2012 analysis and the analyses that were “not done” prior to 2007.

    The same applies to Huber and Knutti (2011), which I note Jonas had not addressed up to the time I left him to wallow in his own excrement.

  53. #53 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    Here’s an interesting picture:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Fig1HadCRUT3NHMeanTemperaturesAndPredictions.gif

    If you were to drop the predicted temp from the solar cycle so that it started on the same temp as actually recorded, then looked at the difference, you’d see a gradually exponentiating temperature difference between the prediction and measurement.

    An exponentiating difference caused by CO2 and its feedbacks.

    It makes it pretty scary when the sun goes back to normal. Look at the difference that we get between the last measurement and what it would do if the sun were the only factor…

  54. #54 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    Interesting bit of theory here:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/19/high-culture-fake

    Anyone can lie. One need only have the requisite intention – in other words, to say something with the intention to deceive. Faking, by contrast, is an achievement. To fake things you have to take people in, yourself included. In an important sense, therefore, faking is not something that can be intended, even though it comes about through intentional actions. The liar can pretend to be shocked when his lies are exposed, but his pretence is merely a continuation of his lying strategy. The fake really is shocked when he is exposed, since he had created around himself a community of trust, of which he himself was a member.

  55. #55 Lionel A
    December 19, 2012

    Here’s an interesting picture:

    Indeed it is. What does this show, correctly as you point out if we are worried now then when the sun comes on song again things are going to get warmer, wetter, drier, stormier and less predictable weather wise. All this without even considering permafrost melt and other sources of methane burps.

    That temperatures have risen whilst solar 24 activity is muted is not what Bastardi & Co. were forecasting now is it. Perhaps this demonstrable ‘inversion of Bastardi reality’ should henceforward be know as the Bastardi Effect, perhaps?

  56. #57 Wow
    December 20, 2012

    OK. Continental Temperate climes get cold in mid winter.

    This is a prediction of weather that is pretty darn reliable and has been known about for AGES.

    So what is noteworthy about that link?

  57. #58 Wow
    December 20, 2012

    PS it says “in decades” which means it’s been colder before.

    PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING!!!

  58. #59 Karen
    December 20, 2012

    Journal of Climate 2012

    Greenland ice sheet mass balance reconstruction

    “We find a 12% or 86 Gt y-1 increase in ice sheet accumulation rate from the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1840 to the last decade of the reconstruction. This 1840-1996 trend is 30% higher than that of 1600-2009, suggesting an accelerating accumulation rate.”

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00373.1?af=R

  59. #60 Karen
    December 20, 2012

    Holocene temperature history at the western Greenland Ice Sheet margin reconstructed from lake sediments

    “A primary objective of this study is to constrain the timing and magnitude of maximum warmth during the early to middle Holocene positive anomaly in summer insolation. Temperature reconstructions from subfossil insect (chironomid) assemblages suggest that summer temperatures were warmer than present by at least 7.1 ka (the beginning of the North Lake record; ka = thousands of years before present), and that the warmest millennia of the Holocene occurred in the study area between 6 and 4 ka. Previous studies in the Jakobshavn region have found that the local Greenland Ice Sheet margin was most retracted behind its present position between 6 and 5 ka, and here we use chironomids to estimate that local summer temperatures were 2–3 °C warmer than present during that time of minimum ice sheet extent.”

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379112004209

  60. #61 Karen
    December 20, 2012

    Reexamining the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus radiosonde observations

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL053850.shtml

    lol……no hot spot :)

  61. #62 chek
    December 20, 2012

    lol – go on Karen, give that straw man a good pasting. And laugh maniacally while you’re doing it for good measure.

    Then afterwards, when you get your breath back, see if you can understand why it makes no impact on AGW.

  62. #63 Chris O'Neill
    December 20, 2012

    Fresh from the quote mine:

    Greenland ice sheet mass balance reconstruction

    The part left behind:

    Part I: net snow accumulation (1600-2009)

  63. #64 Wow
    December 20, 2012

    Oh god.

    At least karen here is proving that idiocy is an equal opportunities employer.

  64. #65 Bernard J.
    December 20, 2012

    I guess the Mack sock will apparate soon too…

  65. #66 Lotharsson
    December 21, 2012

    Meanwhile, the National Review is appealing for financial help in order to respond to Mann’s lawsuit. They’re doing the full-on martyr complex thing arguing that “…global-warming extremists [are] going all-out to silence critics…”, which seems odd when the critics are plentiful and loud.

  66. #67 Lotharsson
    December 21, 2012

    And the very first comment on that article basically asks why they, as an allegedly professional for-profit media organisation, is so unprofessional as to not have insurance that covers lawsuits.

    The third top-level comment at the moment points out that under the kind of free-market principles National Review tends to espouse they should prefer to close their doors because they aren’t profitable rather than panhandle online for donations. (But then as most of us know “wingnut welfare” supports a lot of people who are in the business of promoting free-market ideals.)

  67. #68 Lotharsson
    December 21, 2012

    Even more coverage of the National Review’s financial woes here. Check out the comments :-)

  68. #69 lord_sidcup
    December 21, 2012

    Is anyone keeping a count of the number of ‘game changers’ the so-called ‘sceptics’ have announced this week?

  69. #70 Wow
    December 21, 2012

    That would explain why the goalposts keep moving.

  70. #71 Lotharsson
    December 21, 2012

    Not me – I blew up my counter keeping track of “final nails in the coffin of AGW”.

  71. #72 Lionel A
    December 21, 2012

    Well here are some game changers described here: Climate 2013: Perspectives of 8 Scientists. Delayer, deniers and trolls (that means you Jonas) note each argument in turn and think about unsupportable your claims about AGW.

  72. #73 Jeff Harvey
    December 22, 2012

    I have just returned from the annual symposium of the British Ecological Society held at Birmingham University, where two of my PhD students and myself presented seminars.

    There were several sessions which covered global change and many lectures on climate change related effects on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Not a single one questioned the anthropogenic fingerprint. NOT ONE. Its taken as given. The BES keynote lecture was presented by Professor Johan Rockstrom, who was named ‘Swede of the Year’ in 2009 (and not Jonas? The mind boggles). No doubt our self-professed genius and his sidekick will claim that no ‘real scientists’ were there. A strange view considering that many have hundreds of publications and thousands of citations.

    Rockstrom has been one of Sweden’s strongest critics of the climate change denial community. In his latest book he even refers to them as deniers and outlines why they are dead wrong. His lecture was, for the most part, excellent. I have some minor quibbles with his lack of viable solutions, but the scientific content of his talk was outstanding.

    http://www.stockholmresilience.org/contactus/staff/rockstrom.5.aeea46911a3127427980005551.html

  73. #74 GSW
    December 23, 2012

    @All

    Bit more ‘Good News’ on the arctic front, from the Smithsonian,

    http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2012/12/most-arctic-animals-should-deal-with-climate-change-just-fine

    And we were talking about Polar Bears earlier, interesting article from the Pacific Standard,

    http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/endangered-polar-bear-global-warming-climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-50450/

    Judith Curry covers the story above also, her comment

    ” the transformation of some scientists into media stars and advocates, exaggeration under the guise of ‘simplification’ for the media, and the dismissal of skeptical science. Unger does a superb job of articulating the challenges to a journalist in navigating all this.”

    Interesting!
    ;)

  74. #75 chek
    December 23, 2012

    .. an d all because the denier loves blogs. Blogs are so much more comforting than actual science.

    So give your denier ‘Blogs’ this Christmas.
    In one eye and out the other, why it’s almost like it was never there and can easily be read as part of a calory-controlled diet.

    Warning: May contain nuts. .

  75. #76 Chris O'Neill
    December 23, 2012

    Judith Curry: ” the transformation of some scientists into media stars and advocates, exaggeration under the guise of ‘simplification’ for the media, and the dismissal of skeptical science.”

    Interesting irony!

    Just a one word error but it’s OK now.

  76. #77 GSW
    December 23, 2012

    @chris

    Here’s the paper that the Smithsonian article was based on,

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052574

    from the abstract,

    “Contrary to these expectations, our modelling of species distributions suggests that predicted climate change up to 2080 will favour most mammals presently inhabiting (sub)arctic Europe. Assuming full dispersal ability, most species will benefit from climate change, except for a few cold-climate specialists.”

    and,

    “The reason for the relative stability of mammalian presence might be that arctic regions have experienced large climatic shifts in the past, filtering out sensitive and range-restricted taxa.”

    which is an interesting hypothesis. The Irony chris is that “alarmists” see themselves as being “on the side of the science” and those sceptical as anti-science, when in fact the opposite is true (that’s the irony bit). Zac Ungers piece in the Pacific Standard (above) is a fascinating tale, worth reading in its entirety – The gap between the “reality” and how they behave in front of camera’s, the “advocacy”, is quite striking.

  77. #78 Jeff Harvey
    December 23, 2012

    GSW,

    The article you trump in PLoS One (where I was formerly and editor) talks only about habitat generalists and mammals. What about he much larger number of habitat specialists? For instance, plants, insects, birds? At the BES meeting, these issues were all addressed, including a keynote lecture from Chris Thomas, and, contrary to the expectations in one article in one journal that accepts 62% of all submissions, the prognosis is bleak.

    The problem with people like you is that you have no formal expertise in any relevant fields, you cherry pick left, right and center, and you enter the debate with a pre-determined world view. If you’d bother to do a detailed search thorough the empirical literature you’d find that the few studies you trump are overwhelmed by many, many more already showing that food webs are being seriously affected by the rather modest level of warming so far, and that many other species are in free fall. If you insist on being willfully ignorant, then may I suggest you stick with the denier blogs.

    As for Curry, she is not a biologist, and probably cannot tell a mole cricket from a giraffe.

  78. #79 Olaus Petri
    December 23, 2012

    Pay attention to Jeff fellas. Once again he takes a full nelson on his favorite strawman. :-D

    I’m sure the eco-tent was vibrating when Rocktröm started the service. After all, he is an agronomist by trade, ergo a climate scientist.

    Merry Christmas

  79. #80 Jeff Harvey
    December 23, 2012

    Olaus,

    What straw man? You don’t even know what the term means. If you want me to counter GSWs one example with dozens more, I would be more than happy to do so.

    Besides, you don’t need to pay attention to me, smart-ass. I argued that one should read the primary literature, which is full of studies showing that the recent warming is having serious effects on food webs and biodiversity. Its too bad that your limit to reading the empirical literature is confined to a few pieces pasted up here by your like-thinking deniers. Have you once in your life ever read the contents of a peer-reviewed journal, Olaus?

    No, I thought not.

  80. #81 GSW
    December 23, 2012

    @jeff

    Actually jeff I don’t think you have any “formal” expertise in anything, certainly nothing to do with science, no “seeker after truth” you.

    There is a lot of good work still being done in Climate studies, bio diversity etc- those who take a balanced view rather than shy away from publishing papers that go against the narrative- They should get more airtime in my view.

    Also, Curry is not commenting on the Zac Unger story as a biologist, whatever made you think that? She’s a Climate Scientist challenging how uncertainties are communicated to the public- the Amstrup tale is a good example of “when things go wrong”, the balanced “private” view vs the narrative enhanced version for the media. It’s all to easy to blame the media for over-doing it, but the Scientists themselves are pushing this stuff. By no stretch of the imagination is this a basis for rational debate.

    @Olaus

    Gave up on Rockström when I found out he was vice-chair of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Scare Stories – they left rational debate far behind them years ago. A good example is 3.5C by 2040 figure quoted by Tyndall’s Kevin Anderson, via the IEA report, sourced from Potsdam. Ridiculous claims of ~1C/decade takes some hootspa to pass of with a straight face, but they do.

  81. #82 chek
    December 23, 2012

    The great thing is Griselda, you will never understand why you are such a moron, even though you spout it out every other phrase.

  82. #83 Chris O'Neill
    December 23, 2012

    GSW thinks he gets to say what the irony is.

  83. #84 Bernard J.
    December 23, 2012

    Jeff, I hate to challenge you but:

    The problem with people like you is that you have no formal expertise in any relevant fields, you cherry pick left, right and center, and you enter the debate with a pre-determined world view.

    There, that’s better.

  84. #85 Anthony David
    December 26, 2012

    Rise Up Australia party launch. Guest speaker: Christopher Mockton[sic]

    Is this the first time a political party has been launched by a stand-up comedian?

  85. #86 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    December 26, 2012

    How odd! Not a mention of the fact that I, one of your most dearly loved commenters, has been placed under a death threat. I’m beginning to feel that perhaps you don’t care for me anymore. I simply cannot believe that all you, er, ‘peace ‘n’ love, man’ types aren’t horrified by Prof. Prat Cunt, ooops, sorry, I mean Prof. Parncutt and his desire to kill all AGW sceptics. I mean, obviously you’re all a bunch of ‘loopy-loos’ over here but even so I don’t think any of you are in favour of mass homicide.

    Er, you aren’t, are you?

  86. #87 Lionel A
    December 26, 2012

    Considering the year we have had in the UK Food Security: the first big hit from Climate Change will be to our pockets (and for all the deniers suddenly coming out of the woodwork around here – similar crops disasters are coming to a place near you soon) I doubt Monckton will be spending much time in blighted Blighty.

    As for Rise Up Australia here is a lie right at the top of their page:

    The Key Note Speech will be delievered by Lord Christopher Monckton, from the Lord Mockton Foundation. He is a member of the British House of Lords and is world renowned for his stand against climate change.

    Do they not know about this, Lords distance themselves from climate sceptic Christopher Monckton.

    Ignorance or lies, it makes little difference as it sums up their self serving agenda.

  87. #88 Lionel A
    December 26, 2012

    Ah! Duffer, the silly winds that blow through the blogs of talltwerp, wattshisqualification, jonovablow, etc.. I suggest that you try an alternative diet for sucking up to much from there will give you has given you indigestion as evidenced by the stench from your effluent.

  88. #89 Lionel A
    December 26, 2012

    Dammit! does strike no longer work here? Let’s try that again.

    Ah! Duffer, the silly winds that blow through the blogs of talltwerp, wattshisqualification, jonovablow, etc.. I suggest that you try an alternative diet for sucking up too much from there [strike] will give you [strike] has given you indigestion as evidenced by the stench from your effluent.

  89. #90 chek
    December 26, 2012

    Don’t forget Lionel, in Dufferworld (defined by his more usual centres of blog wisdom) the 10:10 video was merely a dry run of the plot to explode all “sceptics”. And we would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn’t bin fer dem pesky deniers…

    I’d deduce the implicit martyr complex (even on the cartoon level) helps inflate the pomposity and sense of self-importance their toybox version of science just doesn’t provide them with.

  90. #91 Bernard J.
    December 26, 2012

    … and is world renowned for his stand against climate change.

    I hadn’t realised that Monckton had swapped sides and was now campaigning to prevent climate change.

    I’m not sure that I want him aligned with our ‘side’…

  91. #92 Chris O'Neill
    December 26, 2012

    I hadn’t realised that Monckton had swapped sides and was now campaigning to prevent climate change.

    Yes, that should have been two lies right at the top of their page.

  92. #93 FrankD
    December 26, 2012

    Duffster places himself in the ranks of “influential GW deniers”.

    Sure, David, whatever helps get you through the day… ;-)

  93. #94 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    December 26, 2012

    Oh, you mean he *didn’t* advocate the death penalty for AGW sceptics?

    Look, chaps, I don’t judge you, or your prejudices, by the some of the loonies who support you, well, at least, not so long as you repudiate them with **exactly the same vigour you repudiate me and my views**.

    So come on then, all together now . . .

  94. #95 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    December 26, 2012

    ‘Ello, ‘ello, this silence is deafening!

  95. #96 chek
    December 26, 2012

    Duffer, go have a pint or two of port, re-read the story that you’ve been told to make such a flap about, then come back and try again.

    I mean, at first you’re babbling hysterically about how someone wants “to kill all AGW sceptics”, as in every man-jack of all you brave two-bit deniers, then it suddenly transforms in your bexy post into “advocating the death penalty for AGW sceptics”.

    These are two quite separate allegations, and you surely don’t want any warmist clarifying things for you, do you?

    .

  96. #97 Lionel A
    December 26, 2012

    Duffer, and all the other challenged twerps around here, if you still cannot get silly ideas out of your head here is somebody who describes things in the simplest of terms: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=32wcCmTvt_o“>Sheldon Calls Out Climate Change Deniers.

    There are no more straws to collect for your silly strawmen so that you can hide behind same.

  97. #98 bill
    December 26, 2012

    Just go back to your bottle, David. Outside of your epistemic bubble no-one knows or cares.

    How do you think you lot should be punished, incidentally?

    Like many of your ilk,you’re a mean-spirited and bigoted old shit – despite all the false-bonhomie – and I’m sure you’d love to see us thrown in gaol, as Monckton constantly advocates (while the utterly contemptible Delingpole advocates bullets when he’s not describing people as pedophiles).

    But you guys have been systematically and abrasively wrong – and not at all in good faith – about the single most important issue to get right currently facing civilization.

    Worse, is the deliberately fostered systematic campaign of lies, hysteria and disinformation – and all in order to protect your beloved Free Market™, the joy of mean-spirited shits everywhere.

    There are going to be lawsuits – just look at the Tobacco archives (many of the players on your side are the Tobacco Lobby, after all). Gutting Heartland, Marshall, and the CEI, stripping and seizing their assets, and winning huge payouts from Exxon and the Kochs is only just, but unfortunately such small victories can never hope to even begin to do anything about offsetting the damage that these dismal entities have wrought.

    But, seriously, do you really imagine there are going to be no consequences of a more personal, criminal nature for some of you? You’re all card-carrying members of the “clap ‘em in irons / bring back flogging / throw ‘em into the sea” brigade – so what’s appropriate when it’s your precious carcasses are on the line?

    The irony is that you’re actually fortunate you’re not up against barbarians such as yourselves…

  98. #99 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    December 26, 2012

    No, no, Check, you cheeky chappie, I have been reading the man’s *own words*, well, up to a point and then I began to feel a bit ill. I gather he has taken them down now and substituted something less, er, honest! Can’t be bothered to read the sanitised version, I’d rather re-read my “Collected Goebbels”, I need the laughs after Prof. Prat Cunt.

    But, er, sorry to mention it, and all that, but can’t help noticing that you haven’t yet repudiated him? Slip of the memory? Too worried about the imminent end of the world? Must be, I mean, two humanity-loving chaps like you wouldn’t support a wannabe killer, would you?

  99. #100 David Duff
    This Septice Isle
    December 26, 2012

    Ah, right on cue, enter Bill, stage right, in his pantomime villain’s costume to frighten all the kiddies.

    Oddly enough, he does frighten me. Over 73 years I have seen his type of mouth-foamer, oh, different places, uniforms, different salutes, of course, but the same old fanaticism. Will I be first on your execution list, Bill, oh please, please, let me . . . just so I can spit in your eye when you pull the trigger!