January 2013 Open Thread

Australia makes into 2013 in good shape despite the carbon tax. How can this be?

Comments

  1. #1 bill
    January 2, 2013

    I’ll kick off with another link to Media Matters’ 10 Dumbest Things Fox Said About Climate Change and Marc Morano’s well-deserved win of Climate Change Misinformer of the Year.

    It’s notable that of the 10 dumbest ‘arguments’ only the ‘Mars wobbles’ – yes, she did say it – line hasn’t been fed to us by our regular Denialistas.

  2. #2 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 2, 2013

    EMERGENCY – EMERGENCY!

    Come on, chaps, buckle down, you’re needed – for once! Alaska, home of the hottest bear hunter in the world, is freezing! You climate scientologists used to point at Alaska as a living proof of your warming theory but since the turn of the millennium temperatures have dropped around 2.5 degrees! Ships are stuck in the Bering Sea and the poor old Alaskans are facing a winter of 50 degrees below!

    So come on, altogether now, start pumping out some more carbon – no, Chek, not that sort of carbon – do behave!

  3. #3 chek
    January 2, 2013

    So Duffer your ‘news’ is AGW isn’t warm everywhere and … Alaska gets cold in winter. And you need an ex-regional news weatherman to tell you that and send you off on your rounds.

    It’s almost impossible to tell who’s the more pathetic – you for needing the likes of him, or him for needing the likes of you.

  4. #4 Wow
    January 2, 2013

    “Come on, chaps, buckle down, you’re needed – for once! Alaska, home of the hottest bear hunter in the world”

    Oh dear.

    If you mean Palin, to be a bear hunter you need to be able to shoot one of them.

    And to be hot, you need to be actually very attractive.

  5. #5 Wow
    January 2, 2013

    PS NEWS SHOCKER: WINTER.

  6. #6 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 2, 2013

    But did you check the graph from the Alaska Climate Research Centre – didja? didja?

    “In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit.”
    http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/forget-global-warming-alaska-headed-ice-age

    Blimey, whodathinkit?

  7. #7 Vince Whirlwind
    January 2, 2013

    Did David just use evidence of Alaska’s changing climate as an argument that climate change is not real, or did I just miss something?

  8. #8 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 2, 2013

    Quite so, Vince, but the question is, which way is it changing? Apparently colder and if it goes on MDS (My Darling Sarah) will have to wear TWO pairs of Long Johns and that will quite ruin her allure!

  9. #9 Jeff Harvey
    January 2, 2013

    Note three things about Duffs article:

    1. It was written by some far right tabloid rag.

    2. Nowhere do the authors dispute AGW. In fact, they argue that the regional effects on Alaska are due to factors independent of AGW.

    3. Note how the Arctic coastline is still warming significantly. That important caveat was omitted by the author of this right wing crap.

    As an aside: I don’t see Duff trying to wind up everyone here with his “how cold its been in the UK” this winter. Probably because since mid-December the country has had near record high temperatures. Even tomorrow in northern Scotland the thermometer is expected to top 10 C. Just another nail in Piers Corbyn’s “we are into a little ice age” bilge again.

  10. #10 lord_sidcup
    January 2, 2013

    I think Duff only read the headline, not the actual article.

  11. #11 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 2, 2013

    Tut, tut, Jeff, already you’ve broken your New Year resolution to try harder at fact-checking!

    1: I have no idea of the politics of the newspaper concerned but the story originated from the Alaska Climate Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks so presumably they are a bunch of climate scientologists like you lot here.

    2: I didn’t say anything about AGW, all I did was call for aid and assistance in what is obviously a, er, severe anomaly!

    3: No, the writer pointed out that one, just one, of the 20 measuring sites actually showed much warmer figures than the rest and that it was situated on the arctic coast. Must brush up on your reading, too, Jeff – or try Specsavers!

    As for the UK, stick around, kiddo, you ain’t seen nuttin’ yet – January and February await!

  12. #12 Vince Whirlwind
    January 2, 2013

    I see – Duff is labouring under the simplistic notion that climate change due to increased greenhouse gas means everywhere must get hotter.
    Anywhere that gets colder is therefore an “anomaly”.

    Here’s something for you to consider, Duff: people who do science by conducting research and publishing the results of their studies have an understanding of the issues that they are considering which is at least 1,000,000 x more comprehensive as compared to random idiots on the internet.

  13. #13 lord_sidcup
    January 2, 2013

    all I did was call for aid and assistance in what is obviously a, er, severe anomaly

    Try reading your article, numpty:

    Researchers blame the Decadal Oscillation, an ocean phenomenon that brought chillier surface water temperatures toward Alaska. …

    One effect of the oscillation is to weaken the Aleutian Low — a storm-breeding center known for spitting out winter tempests that help regulate weather in the Lower 48. With that low-pressure center above the Aleutians weakened, polar storms raking Alaska from the north linger longer.

  14. #14 Chameleon
    January 2, 2013

    Why hasn’t anyone attempted to answer the posed question which IMHO is largely economically and politically based?
    Australia makes into 2013 in good shape despite the carbon tax. How can this be?

  15. #15 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    “Australia makes into 2013 in good shape despite the carbon tax. How can this be?”

    Because carbon taxes don’t cause economic meltdown, unlike the fevered alarmist predictions of deniers over it.

  16. #16 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    “Quite so, Vince, but the question is, which way is it changing?”

    Pointless query.

    Ask “what is going on”.

  17. #17 Chameleon
    January 3, 2013

    So Wow?
    Have carbon taxes created a ‘statistically demonstrable’ economic or political ‘benifit’ for Australia?
    Maybe Australia is in some sort of reasonable economic shape because it is quite a lucky country and our successive governements (from both major camps) have demonstrated better fiscal management than others in places like countries in the EU where they are suffering from the GFC?
    Or maybe we’re lucky because we have very good mining and agricultural sectors in Australia that return a decent GDP and that somewhat offset the impacts of the GFC in Australia?
    Maybe it’s because we weren’t as silly as the US who allowed a debt crises to develop by over leveraging capital assets?
    I’m sure we could all think of many other reasons why Australia is in better economic shape than other countries around the world in 2013.
    And maybe Wow, ‘carbon taxes’ have very little or perhaps even nothing to do with that?
    I agree that the : ‘the fevered alarmist predictions’ were a nonsense.
    Our economy is much tougher than that (thankfully).
    I also suspect the: ‘the fevered alarmist predictions’ that politics and the media have highlighted about C or D AGW are also often nonsensical.
    In both cases it appears that the ‘sky is not falling in’ as all alarmists in all political camps have been ‘predicting’.
    ‘Fevered alarmist predictions’ are not just the MO of those you seem to enjoy calling ‘deniers’ IMHO.

  18. #18 Lotharsson
    January 3, 2013

    So Chameleon, despite being unable to find a single published article by Jeff Harvey using Google, and despite having made two grand exits from this blog thus far, is still making claims that rest on the conclusions of climate science – heck, the observations – being very wrong.

    News at 11.

  19. #19 Skeptic
    January 3, 2013

    Must brush up on your reading, too, Jeff – or try Specsavers!

    What a clown.

  20. #20 chameleon
    January 3, 2013

    So Lotharsson?
    Do you think carbon taxes are the reason Australia is in good shape?
    The observation has zip to do with my googling prowess.

  21. #21 Skeptic
    January 3, 2013

    “In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit.”

    Not statistically significant (at the 95% confidence level).

  22. #22 Lotharsson
    January 3, 2013

    Do you think carbon taxes are the reason Australia is in good shape?

    No.

    This has been another edition of short answers to stupid questions.

  23. #23 Chameleon
    January 3, 2013

    So Lotharsson?
    Why has this stupid question been posted?
    Australia makes into 2013 in good shape despite the carbon tax. How can this be?
    Isn’t the answer totally irrelevant to the carbon tax?
    I will also note it isn’t the best example of good grammar that I have ever seen.
    Of course that’s not important or relevant either.

  24. #24 MikeH
    January 3, 2013

    Duff the stupid missed two articles from a month earlier

    http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/far-flung-barrow-warmer-usual-whats-behind-alaska-heat-wave

    http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/north-denali-alaska-may-be-warmer-place-winter

    And no Duffer, “Denali” refers to a place not your state of mind.

    The fact that the warming globe is still subject to natural variation is too much for the brain dead Duff to cope with.

  25. #25 Lotharsson
    January 3, 2013

    Why has this stupid question been posted?

    I was saying that it was your question that was stupid.

    Some history may help. Abbott, Alan Jones and co vehemently alleged that the carbon tax would ruin the economy in very short order. The question you refer to:

    Australia makes into 2013 in good shape despite the carbon tax. How can this be?

    …is not stupid. It is a sarcastic response to Abbott and co’s foolish or mendacious claim (which was clearly dodgy when they made it) and its even more clearly evident falsehood now that we’ve had the carbon tax for a while.

    You appear to be attempting to invert this question, which is foolish because:

    a) No-one here has argued the question you are putting to people.
    b) The question you are asking isn’t even implied by “the carbon tax didn’t ruin the economy” – because there are multiple pre-existing factors, as you have pointed out.

  26. #26 Lotharsson
    January 3, 2013

    Isn’t the answer totally irrelevant to the carbon tax?

    The question is primarily about the alleged vs actual impact of the carbon tax, not about the factors that underpin the economy.

    And with that understanding in place, one good answer is “As predicted by people with actual knowledge about these things, the carbon tax has had a fairly minimal effect”.

    A shorter and better answer is “Because Abbott and co. were either completely incompetent or were telling porkies – you decide”.

  27. #27 bill
    January 3, 2013

    Gee, I take a day or two to finish off some work and when I come back there’s one idiot on this thread maintaining that if it’s cold in Homer Alaska then the globe can’t be warming, and another on the other thread maintaining that if the ocean hasn’t reason at some cherry-picked beacon in Homer Alaska, then the global oceans can’t be rising!

    Oh, and, on both, the other idiot who – despite self-generated claims to the contrary – hasn’t gone away, can’t Google, and doesn’t understand the meaning of ‘quote marks’ – even when applied to really ‘intelligent’ people like itself, one wonders? – and still won’t go away.

    It’s one big Festival of the Obtuse. The last-named idiot is even manages to feel that little bit superior with every exposed deficiency!

    How much of Denial is an ASD, do you reckon?

  28. #28 chameleon
    January 3, 2013

    So it is therefore about politics?
    Yet this blog claims it is a science blog.

  29. #29 Lotharsson
    January 3, 2013

    Yet this blog claims it is a science blog.

    Will the bad thinking never end?!

    I’ve heard a little rumour that there is a new concept of the politics surrounding and/or referencing science. There’s also apparently the concept of the media coverage of science.

    You might have heard of them too, since you’ve spent most of your time here promoting your own opinion about how politicians and the media “abuse” science by being all hyper-alarmist and what not.

  30. #30 chameleon
    January 3, 2013

    Lotharsson,
    you can obfuscate all you want but the question at this post is clearly a ‘political’ question and also an ‘economic’ question that referenced the ‘carbon (02) tax’.
    I will also reiterate that the fact that Australia has reached 2013 in reasonable shape has very little to do with the ‘carbon tax’.
    I have no more patience with the Alan Jones’ of this world than you have.
    But I will predict that you will no doubt let me know that there is something totally wrong with that observation.

  31. #31 zoot
    January 3, 2013

    What is it with trolls and comprehension?

  32. #32 Lotharsson
    January 3, 2013

    …you can obfuscate all you want…

    I’m not obfuscating. I’m continuing my iteration through all the plausible communication strategies I can imagine to see if there’s one that you won’t misunderstand.

    So firstly, this blog is about distorted media coverage (and by extension) political abuse of science (although I’m not sure if it’s as easy to find that out as it used to be since the migration to the ScienceBlogs platform). Thus the question you refer to is exactly on topic for the blog.

    Secondly the question you refer to in the post is a rhetorical one – which is why no-one has bothered to answer it. Most readers “get” it already, and no-one from Abbott’s worldview has even bothered to attempt to justify his claims (which suggests they are particularly risible, since they try to defend all sorts of other bullshit).

    Thirdly, I (and probably everyone here) agrees with you that the question is about the (no scare quotes needed) political abuse of both science and economics with respect to the carbon tax. However it’s not purely a political question any more than it’s purely scientific or purely economic – it exists at the intersection of all three.

    Fourthly I (and probably everyone else here) agree with you that the health of the Australian economy has little to do with the carbon tax. But the rhetorical question wasn’t addressed to the causes of economic health. It was addressed to the carbon tax scaremongering that said it would bring savage and almost immediate ill health to the economy.

    Questions about alleged causes of (missing) ill health are not questions about causes of health.

  33. #33 Lotharsson
    January 3, 2013

    What is it with trolls and comprehension?

    Well, it’s a good way of maintaining plausible deniability – at least in your own head. Most other people tend to see through it.

  34. #34 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 3, 2013

    Chameleon, allow me to help. This site is a climate *’scientology’* site, not a science site! They have “a cause”, you see.

  35. #35 Jeff Harvey
    January 3, 2013

    “Chameleon, allow me to help. This site is a climate *’scientology’* site, not a science site! They have “a cause”, you see”

    Hey Duff, how could you of all people tell the difference? You are completely and utterly scientifically illiterate. Every one of your posts reeks quite literally of vacuous ignorance.

    As for Chameleon, she thinks the US debt was “allowed a to develop by over leveraging capital assets”

    No, the US debt is in part because the country is a plutocracy, or as John Perkins more appropriately calls a corporatocracy, in which the countries assets are largely appropriated by the rich. They also profit by also expropriating foregin capital (in other words looting) whilst the ravages of debt are thrown onto the poor and middle classes. Disaster capitalism, the Washingtron Consensus, free market absolutism, call it what you like, but in the end its nakedly predatory capitalism. And it lies at the heart of masny of the world’s most pressing economic, social and environmental problems.

    You are appropriualtye named, chameleon. A reptile of many colors. You wear your right wing libertarian heart on your sleeves. You clearly appear to believe that the costs of economic activities on society and the environment – including the combusiton of fossil fuels – should forever remain externalized. Thank heaven that this form of dinosaurian neoclassical economic ideology is slolwy disappearing, albeti not nearly fast enough. If the true cost oif burning fossil fuels was internalized in cost-price scenarios, then we’d be switching off our addiction to oil and natural gas a helluva lot faster than we have thus far.

  36. #36 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    “So it is therefore about politics?”

    You asked a question.

    It was answered.

    You didn’t like the answer.

    So you complain about it being answered on a blog that you asked it.

    Why?

  37. #37 Lionel A
    January 3, 2013

    And here is somebody worth listening to providing the clues as to what will happen when the fat lady sings.

    Take note Duff of faux bonhomie and all the other members if the ignoratti club, every one of which eventually shows their true colours including those flying a false flag to begin with.

    Duff, you have an open discussion elsewhere here the avoidance of which demonstrates your continuing bad faith. Will you too soon also have your own sandbox? A sandpit being about your level of intellectual and social development. Had a hard time as a pongo did you?

  38. #38 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    “Have carbon taxes created a ‘statistically demonstrable’ economic or political ‘benifit’ for Australia?”

    On the economy, it’s too early to tell.

    Politically, indeed it has: it’s shown up the alarmist denier cadre up for the hysterical fools they are.

    And why the sudden interest in “statisically demonstrable” when you’ve given statistically demonstrable such short shrift before?

    None of your claims have been demonstrable and you’ve never once bothered with statistics. I take it that you will not be bothering with demonstrably proven claims in the future, thought. That effort isn’t what the Gish Galloper wants to put into their ravings.

  39. #39 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    Maybe Australia is doing well because of the carbon tax.

  40. #40 Ian Forrester
    January 3, 2013

    The shamefulone shows its lack of literacy competence once again:

    but the question at this post is clearly a ‘political’ question and also an ‘economic’ question that referenced the ‘carbon (02) tax’.

    Wrong again, it was a “rhetorical question”:

    A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point and without the expectation of a reply.[1] The question is used as a rhetorical device, posed for the sake of encouraging its listener to consider a message or viewpoint. Though these are technically questions, they do not always require a question mark.

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

    The ignorance of the trolls on this site is getting worse and worse.

  41. #41 Mark A. York
    Idaho
    January 3, 2013

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00AIZ3L4E Warm Front, a global warming thriller.

  42. #42 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    “The ignorance of the trolls on this site is getting worse and worse.”

    As the facts build up, they have to ignore more and more.

    It’s simply maths.

  43. #43 Olaus Petri
    January 3, 2013
  44. #44 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    Hey, Olap, you still haven’t answered how you would determine a trend!

  45. #45 Olaus Petri
    January 3, 2013

    Wow, sing along and make some moves instead of hating your life away:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_sY2rjxq6M

  46. #46 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    Olap, instead of fapping your flagpole why don’t you get an education so you’d be able to answer very simple questions?

    Or is “how would you go about measuring temperature” too hard for you?

  47. #47 chameleon
    January 3, 2013

    Yes David D,
    I got that figured out fairly early on .
    Like the AJ’s they complain about, these ‘fevered alarmists’ with their attendant name calling, are way too easy to wind up!
    They succeed in shooting themselves in the proverbial because they focus on arguing academic semantics, name calling and shooting messengers.
    Just like AJ does.
    I now realise the person who sent me here to view a rational discussion was actually being sarcastic when he used ‘rational’.
    Maybe he should have used those ‘scare quote’ thingies with the attendant google description and I would have caught the sarcasm?
    But it’s OK, after the initial shock, I have found this site highly entertaining.
    The academic snobbery is truly and ironically hilarious.
    I love how the argument re the posted question has developed.
    Apparently because it was posed as a sarcastic rhetorical question (like doh!) it therefore simply can’t be a stupid question and that proves absolutely that I am telling lies and/or I have seriously defective comprehension issues.
    Sorry deltoids, unless you’re trying to add fuel to the political fire, it may be a rhetorical question but it is still a nonsense question that is definitely political in nature.
    It is just as silly and irrational and demeaning as the comments from the people you complain about, such as AJ.
    Unless you people at deltoid believe that the Australian carbon tax is somehow going to change the changeable weather and save us all from SLR etcetera then the carbon tax has no economic value to Australia other than being yet another tax and the present Govt pretending they’re doing something.
    It appears that it has no political value either if we’re to take any notice of the polls.
    Australia can of course handle it economically, but seriously, what actual good is it going to achieve and what has it got to do with science?
    And because these people love to predict stuff, I will have a go at predicting.
    With much arguing of academic semantics we will all be informed that I have problems with my thinking based on the evidence of my comments past, present and projected future.
    If I have managed to make a grammar, expression, internet usage or spelling error then of course it will prove exactly how incompetent and misinformed I am. :-)
    And maybe, someone will try to guess that I am a previous commenter in disguise, even though I have explained how I came to be commenting here.
    And apart from cutting and pasting isolated sentences, not much dealing with the content or the main point.

  48. #48 chek
    January 3, 2013

    Chameleon, it can be explained much, much more simply than that. You’re a fuckwit who believes in invisible underwater volcanoes, and rationalists don’t.

    All your perceived problems stem from your own fuckwittedness, and expecting help from El Duffo merely compounds your difficulties in adapting to the modern era where science and stuff like electricity (and the requirement to have the first clue what you’re doing) make life such a trial for you.

  49. #49 chameleon
    January 4, 2013

    Or postdictively,
    they could hurl expletives and insults.
    I shouldn’t wind you up chek but you make it so very tempting.
    How does one ‘believe’ in underwater volcanoes?
    Where did I mention underwater volcanoes?
    If I didn’t ‘believe’ in underwater volcanoes does that mean they wouldn’t exist or did you mean that they are just a belief and they don’t exist?

  50. #50 Chris O'Neill
    January 4, 2013

    Petri dish:

    thanks to it the hiatus continues

    That would be the hiatus in Roy’s “for entertainment purposes only” polynomial curve fit.

  51. #51 bill
    January 4, 2013

    So, given this, we now all understand that Chammy is a manipulative and not-very-bright troll who still doesn’t get – and is apparently not capable of getting – that we’re not obliged to follow her in her bizarre riff on the content of an obviously ironic question, or her absurd strawman attack on the use such a ‘political’ question on a ‘science’ blog?

    (Frankly, this long-winded and sketchy defence of her own stupidity appears to be a classic narcissistic ‘see, I’m never wrong’ rationalization.)

    It is simply a waste of time responding to this person.

  52. #52 David B. Benson
    January 4, 2013
  53. #53 Chris O'Neill
    January 4, 2013

    chameleon is also a non-paragraph-spacing troll.

  54. #54 Wow
    January 4, 2013

    “they could hurl expletives and insults.”

    What? Insults like

    ‘fevered alarmists’

    ‘academic snobbery’

    Right?

    PS you seem to be able to miss reading lots of things.

    Politically, Australia has gained a lot here with the FACT that the alarmist propoganda of Bolt and the denialists is false and that these people are incompetent to govern.

    This will ensure that the country remain a leader on managing reality and show they are immune to the blandishments of the “easy fix” merchants of doubt.

  55. #55 chameleon
    January 4, 2013

    Ummmm Wow?
    I got that ‘fevered alarmists’ from you.
    Not acceptable?

  56. #56 Wow
    January 4, 2013

    Nope, you used it.

    Aparently you don’t read your own posts.

    So sad to see someone abusing the brain in their head because they don’t like where reason leads them.

  57. #57 Lotharsson
    January 4, 2013

    The academic snobbery is truly and ironically hilarious.

    It is indeed, especially when some of our commenters cite unspecified “academic science qualifications” not only for themselves but for their husbands in an apparent attempt to get people to stop worrying about their unsubstantiated claims and learn to start loving their particular brand of bullshit.

    Oh, wait…

  58. #58 chek
    January 4, 2013

    I take it back chameleon, the imaginary volcanoes routine was janama’s schtick, another troll who metastasized on this site at roughly the same time as you. And well, one troll gets to be much like another after a while Perhaps it’s the asinine qualities that manifest themselves so similarly.

    But whatever the case, imaginary volcaoes wasn’t you on this occasion. No, you’re the one who discusses climate science blogs with your hairdresser. However could anyone forget that?

  59. #59 chameleon
    January 4, 2013

    Sorry Wow,
    I definitely used it after you did.
    Go back and see for youself.
    Or maybe Bill can cleverly re link you back a few posts?
    Amusingly I actually agreed it was an apt term for the AJ types.

  60. #60 chameleon
    January 4, 2013

    So chek?
    I’m still fascinated with your statement.
    How does one ‘believe’ in imaginary volcanoes?
    Also chek, I was discussing the behaviour on this blog with my hairdresser, who is actually a very nice person, a very good hairdresser and very successfully running her own business.
    She was as shocked as I was by the rude behaviour and further commented that if she treated people like that she would have no customers.

  61. #61 Lotharsson
    January 4, 2013

    Apparently because it was posed as a sarcastic rhetorical question (like doh!) it therefore simply can’t be a stupid question and that proves absolutely that I am telling lies and/or I have seriously defective comprehension issues.

    No, you have serious comprehension issues because evidence shows that you are in approximately the bottom 5% of commenters here with respect to comprehension of other people.

    And that evidence includes the quote I just included. I don’t think anyone said the OP can’t be a stupid question because it is rhetorical. (That would be a stupid claim! Of course rhetorical questions can be stupid, but they can also be not-stupid.)

    What they said was that you didn’t comprehend it was a rhetorical question or a sarcastic one, and that once the (long term) context which informs it is understood then it is clearly not a stupid question. But of course you reiterate your claim by branding it “stupid and irrational” again.

    Oh, wait:

    …it may be a rhetorical question but it is still a nonsense question that is definitely political in nature. It is just as silly and irrational and demeaning as the comments from the people you complain about

    Yep, more evidence!

    You are not only lacking in comprehension, but you fail at logic as well. Either that, or you are simply operating from a private definition of “nonsense” – as you appear to be when you use the word “academic”. (That may explain your possession of “academic science credentials” and your almost complete lack of understanding of how science proceeds. While we’re at it you also appear to have a private definition of “leaving”.)

    And then you – despite allegedly having no time for “AJ” – move almost precisely on to AJ and Tony Abbott’s carbon tax bashing lines – complete with an ignorant but convenient conflation of climate with weather. Colour me surprised!

    But the icing on the cake is the massive laugh at your claim that people here are “not much dealing with the content or the main point” of your comments. Is your private definition of “dealing with” “uncritically accepting”, because I’m seeing an awful lot of critically unaccepting dealing with going on.

    Better trolls please.

  62. #62 Lotharsson
    January 4, 2013

    I definitely used it after you did.

    Yep, but instead of applying it to AJ and TA who were running around telling the country the carbon tax would roon the economy like overnight like, you apply it to people who are relying on climate science (where earlier projections have been pretty well borne out by, you know, that fevered and alarming actual evidence).

    Which means that “using it after Wow did” misses the point.

    Again.

    (And you’ll probably miss the point of this comment too.)

  63. #63 bill
    January 4, 2013

    She was as shocked as I was by the rude behaviour and further commented that if she treated people like that she would have no customers.

    The stupid never stops! Can you name another blog that’s cruising along at the rate of this one at the moment in the comments and commenters stakes?

    So, in terms of the business it’s in, this blog is a resounding success. People – you included – come here for the rudeness! If you can’t hack it just go elsewhere, as you keep promising you will.

    You’re like the vicar who is so appalled by the ‘naughty’ movie that he has to watch it 9 times…

  64. #64 Lotharsson
    January 4, 2013

    People – you included – come here for the rudeness!

    (And many others come for the debunking of pseudo-scientific bulldust, regardless of “tone”.)

    I would have urged you not to give the blog’s secret sauce recipe away, but with the quality of trolls we get I don’t think that would make any difference ;-)

    Can you name another blog that’s cruising along at the rate of this one at the moment in the comments and commenters stakes?

    And this one used to have a lot more traffic when Tim had more time to keep the posts flowing.

    Speaking of an intolerance for bullshit that reliably sets off tone trolls as a recipe for blog success there’s also the iconic Pharyngula. Perhaps chameleon should wander over there and venture an opinion that Young Earth Creationism is, like, a totally equally valid presentation of the biological and palaeontological data, and see what happens.

  65. #65 bill
    January 4, 2013

    Lotharsson – yes, that would be a popcorn moment!

  66. #66 Lotharsson
    January 4, 2013

    How does one ‘believe’ in imaginary volcanoes?

    Like the claims that this article debunks.

    Ever thought of using Google, or visiting one of the common references sites for actual climate science?

  67. #67 Lotharsson
    January 4, 2013

    And since there’s every chance you’ll miss it otherwise, click the “Intermediate” tab for specific discussion of underwater volcanoes.

  68. #68 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 4, 2013

    Listen up, people! I know how your totally anonymous and tedious lives would be utterly empty without something to worry about and I sense the alarm in your tone at the increasingly difficult to ignore evidence that the globe is not going to melt like an ice cream on a summer beach – heh, first let’s have a summer! – so I bring you glad tidings. Here it is:

    ’2012 DA14′

    What? You mean you have never heard of it? I thought you people worried about our planet! Let me tell you that ’2012 DA14′ is a lump of God’s detritus, – nobody has taught Him to be eco-friendly and pick up His rubbish – about 150 feet across with a weight of about 130,000 metric tons and it will only just miss us by a paltry, well, paltry in astronomical terms, 21,500 miles. You can rely on these figures because they have been produced by proper scientists not climate scientologists! If it hit, it would have roughly the same effect as a 2.4 megaton bomb, so not the end of the world, then, but still . . . Also, God being a right litter-lout, there are plenty more to come.

    Anyway, as it is the weekend I have a little game for you to play so as to keep what passes for your minds off worrying. Were such a thing to hit our planet, where would you most like it to impact? My choice is where-ever they hold the next IPCC meeting.

  69. #69 bill
    January 4, 2013

    Toxic Dill Posts Pointless Drivel Shock.

  70. #70 Lotharsson
    January 4, 2013

    Duff posting violent fantasies again? Yawn.

    (Probably doesn’t realise that it says more about him than anyone reading him.)

    Better trolls please.

  71. #71 Anthony David
    January 4, 2013

    Dr Roy Spencer’s latest blog entry talks about the greenhouse effect. I’m nt going into the details here. What does astound me reading these blogs is that there is no shortage of ‘skeptics’ weighing in with their pet ideas in the comment section. Drs Spencer and Curry attract some the most amazing collection of crank commenters in the blogosphere. I don’t how they do not just pull their hair out in frustration at the certainty of some of these weird science-free speculators. I know I can only handle reading a couple of pages a year.

  72. #72 Lotharsson
    January 4, 2013

    Anthony, yep, it’s gotten so bad one can’t be a “respectable” skeptic any more ;-)

  73. #73 Lionel A
    January 4, 2013

    On ocean acidification here is a new post that underlines one of our worries Frequently Asked Questions About Ocean Acidification.

    Come on, educate yourselves SD, colour-shifter, B4PM, Duffer, and also consider this when the fat lady sings.

    If you are not just a little worried then you ain’t going to be at all prepared and will be amongst the extinct – killed by stupid.

    Where are we going in Britain? What happens when all our water sources are compromised by toxic waste (from industry and detribalised rubbish tips, and sewage as our infrastructure is overwhelmed by the rising waters and this is not including SLR. Where will our food come from. I sense the return of ration books er long. But of course all our mendacious triumvirate can do is to ‘not mention these elephants in the room’ because they want the plebs to remain ignorant, focused on their shiny toys and fashion fads whilst the PTB create their hidey holes and stock them with supplies. Why do you thing Gates & Co. are filling Svalbard with seeds of the non GM type. The latter being of no f***ing use without the fertilisers made from oil. The pharmaceutical industry also is reliant on feed stocks from oil for much of their production.

    Duffer you are either very thick and don’t realise the enormity of the developing scenarios or are as mendacious as the PTB with you faux bonhomie and pretend dismissives.

  74. #74 Wow
    January 4, 2013

    Duffer just thinks that he won’t be affected by those problems.

    If he is, you can bet he’d be screaming for retribution and government handouts. And likely blaming “environazis” for the problem.

  75. #75 lord_sidcup
    January 4, 2013

    Trying to look on the positive side of the Duff, at least he isn’t Neil Craig:

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/12/20/people-if-you-want-to-argue-with-stoats-first-read-enough-to-be-a-weasel-parrots-neednt-apply/#comment-24678

    Given an inch of rope Neil Craig hangs himself, emasculates himself, disembowells himself, then chops himself into tiny peices. Awesome.

  76. #76 Wow
    January 4, 2013

    FYI, the guy is a divorced (well no suprise there. probably didn’t get his dinner ready in time and called her a nazi baby-killing econazi out to perform geneting experiments on cats) owner of a Science Fiction (so no suprise there either) bookshop in Glasgow.

  77. #77 FrankD
    January 4, 2013

    Unless you people at deltoid believe that the Australian carbon tax is somehow going to change the changeable weather and save us all from SLR etcetera then the carbon tax has no economic value to Australia.

    A little late on I know, but I can’t help but notice Chameleon resorts to illogic and/or economic illiteracy to try to win the argument. A carbon tax could have no effect on weather or SLR and still have economic value to Australia. Hint: Name a type of market failure beginning with “E”?

    It appears that it has no political value either if we’re to take any notice of the polls.

    Oh dear, there’s another one. When in doubt, fall back on the classics – post hoc ergo propter hoc, eh? The polls show most people are indifferent to the carbon price now its in place, so suggesting its responsible for Labor’s poor standing in two-party preferred polling is simply gross stupidity.

    Lukewarmers seem to have been infected by the illogic of the deniers. It does nothing for their figleaf of credibility. Tip for Chameleon: thinking more and posting less might make you seem smarter than you currently appear to be.

  78. #78 Lionel A
    January 4, 2013

    And further to my post above and FrankD’s comment the root of the problem was described here and where it will lead is brought out by this, the repeated citing of which I make no apologies for.

  79. #79 Olaus Petri
    January 5, 2013
  80. #80 bill
    January 6, 2013

    A link to Jo “First They Come for the Gold Bars’ Nova only serves to remind us that you should be back in your box.

  81. #81 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    January 6, 2013

    OK, I know my brain’s probably melted after a single day of 45C here (no records broken if it’s only a day or two) but does anyone understand why people keep bringing up references to Nova and the other obvious cranks? I half get it that some people might think that WTFUWT is just another view of really sciencey stuff from a “different” standpoint, along with some journalists in predictable news outlets.

    When it comes to the clearly obsessive cranks though, I cannot see how people cannot see the problem here. Or perhaps my brain just broke in anticipation of too many 37C+ days in this coming week.

  82. #82 Lotharsson
    January 6, 2013

    …I cannot see how people cannot see the problem here.

    Not seeing the problem is a lot easier if you’re also an obsessive crank, or suffer from a massive dose of confirmation bias coupled with a strong pinch of gullibility.

  83. #83 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 6, 2013

    @Adelady
    Always eager to be of service to a lady perhaps this will cool you down, or chill you out, perhaps: from AP Press:

    “China Meteorological Administration on Friday said the national average was -3.8 degrees Celsius (25 degrees Fahrenheit) since late November, the coldest in nearly three decades.
    The average temperature in northeast China dipped to -15.3 degrees C (4.5 degrees F), the coldest in 43 years, and dropped to a 42-year low of -7.4 degrees C (18.7 degrees F) in northern China.
    In some areas – northeastern China, eastern Inner Mongolia, and north part of far-western Xinjiang province – the low has hit -40 degrees C (-40 degrees F), the administration said.”

    And Reuters reports:

    “Bitter cold has even frozen the sea in Laizhou Bay on the coast of Shandong province in the east, stranding nearly 1,000 ships, the China Daily newspaper reported.

    Zheng Dong, chief meteorologist at the Yantai Marine Environment Monitoring Center under the State Oceanic Administration, told the paper that the area under ice in Laizhou Bay was 291 square km this week.”

    Blimey! All that ice! Perhaps it floated down from the arctic!!

    And Rutgers University reports the highest snow cover in the N. Hemisphere for the month of December since the mid-’60s.

    Now, my dear, (he said whilst anxiously fanning her) are you feeling cooler?

  84. #84 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 6, 2013

    OH, NO, SAY IT AIN’T SO!

    The Met Office – yes, THE MET OFFICE!! – have revised their global temperature forecast DOWN – yes, that’s DOWN as in DO… oh hell, you know what I mean.

    But the good news is that at least we can now all agree on one of two simple propositions:
    a) The Met Office ‘scientologists’ are still using the same bit of seaweed they’ve been using for 20 years, or,
    b) Global temperatures ARE likely to fall over the next few years – despite CO2 increasing like crazy.

    See, togetherness – nice, isn’t it?

  85. #85 Lionel A
    January 6, 2013

    Ah! Look. Another squirrel from Duff:

    OH, NO, SAY IT AIN’T SO!

    The Met Office – yes, THE MET OFFICE!! – have revised their global temperature forecast DOWN – yes, that’s DOWN as in DO… oh hell, you know what I mean.

    You are really full of it ain’t you. Here is what the Met Office have:

    Met Office 2013 annual global temperature forecast

    2012 is currently ranked the 9th warmest year on record. The global average temperature for 2012 falls well within the range predicted by the Met Office for 2012 of between 0.34 °C and 0.62 °C, with a most likely value of 0.48 °C above the long term average. This is consistent with the Met Office forecast statement that 2012 was expected to be warmer than 2011, but not as warm as the record year of 2010.

    How many warmest years have there been in the last twelve years Duff?

    Furthermore you nasty example of flippant insensitivity you have run away from evidence presented to you here , which shows you for what you are, a mendacious little troll.

  86. #86 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    Seems like Duffski wants to complain if the say it’s high and complain if they say it’s too low. And ignore when it’s exactly right.

    Therefore any complaints or whines he makes are entirely because he’s started from “I want to complain” and tried to work out how to do it.

  87. #87 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “The Met Office – yes, THE MET OFFICE!! – have revised their global temperature forecast DOWN – yes, that’s DOWN as in DO… oh hell, you know what I mean.”

    Indeed we do.

    You agree that AGW is real and happening.

  88. #88 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 6, 2013

    Lionel et al, would this be the same Met Office who ‘forecast’ BBQ summers which, if one doesn’t arrive soon my own BBQ will dissolve in rust; and is this the same Met Office who warned of droughts earlier in 2012?

    Quick, chaps, new seaweed required urgently!

    Anyway, as you lot place such faith in them I’m telling you that they have, er, re-adjusted their forecasts of global, er, warming DOWN by nearly 0.4 of a degree for the next 5 years.

    In the meantime, third world CO2 continues to pour forth in ever greater amounts and yet still we have no signs of the catastrophe you promised us!

  89. #89 Ian Forrester
    January 6, 2013

    Duffer the puffer lies again. The MET forecast for 2013 is for a global anomaly range (1961-1990) of between 0.43C and 0.71C. Average that and you get 0.57C. Plot than onto the HadCrut4 data and 2013 could be in for a record warm year.

    It’s all explained by Gareth at Hot Topic:

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/a-new-world-record/

  90. #90 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “Lionel et al, would this be the same Met Office who ‘forecast’ BBQ summers”

    Ah, I see you only read the Daily Mail, Duffski. I bet you think there really is a 70ft waterfall in the Met Office’s new building!

    No, the Met Office did NOT forecast BBQ summers. They forecast slightly less rain.

    It was a news journalist who put “BBW Summer” in there.

    I believe that their tale that the Cray supercomputers were called “The Cray Twins” was also completely made up.

  91. #91 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    Remember, Ian, Duffski can’t do sums unless they can be done on the eleven fingers he has. =)

  92. #92 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “and is this the same Met Office who warned of droughts earlier in 2012?”

    Which we had.

  93. #93 Lionel A
    January 6, 2013

    And Duffer, seeing as you are avoiding the points about Antarctic and ice take note of this: Slip Slidin’ Away – Ice sheets and sea level in a warming world.

    Duff are you as dim as a TOC-H lamp or simply mendacious and like winding us up here? Is this how you get your kicks? If so you are a very sick man and need to seek professional help.

  94. #94 chek
    January 6, 2013

    Don’t forget though Lionel, if it wasn’t for bored, pig-ignorant pensioners catching up on what they should have been doing in their teens, (but without the sex’n'drugs’n'rock’n'roll, obviously) there wouldn’t be sheep like Duffer whose only concern is sticking it to ‘authority’, even when that authority is warning them about climate change, or wearing seatbelts or whatever.

    It’s no accident that all the denierwebs cater to the same dull demographic.

  95. #95 Alan
    January 6, 2013

    Duff is a pompous, ignorant buffoon. Why engage with him?

  96. #96 Vince Whirlwind
    January 7, 2013

    Not sure I understand Duff’s point:
    – for 2012, the Met office prediction was actually bang-on. 9th warmest year on record. Not exactly “cooling” is it.
    – for 2013, the Met office predicts .09 degrees higher than 2012. Not exactly a prediction for any “cooling” is it.

    I suppose he’s just living in a fantasy land where he can make assertions that bear no relation to reality and doesn’t think there is anything exceptionable about this. Sane people will obviously disagree with his approach.

  97. #97 Lotharsson
    January 7, 2013

    It’s no accident that all the denierwebs cater to the same dull demographic.

    It is amazing how many of our trolls fit that age profile.

  98. #98 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 7, 2013

    “but without the sex’n’drugs’n’rock’n’roll, obviously”

    Eh? What? Sex’n’drugs’n’rock’n’roll? Where was that going on then and why didn’t anyone tell me?

    As for your beloved Met Office:

    “On 23rd March, they predicted “The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier than average conditions for April/May/June as a whole, and also slightly favours April being the driest of the 3 months.”
    RESULT – RAINFALL TOTALS WERE 176%, 94% AND 203% OF NORMAL IN APRIL, MAY AND JUNE RESPECTIVELY.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/p/i/A3-layout-precip-AMJ.pdf

    On 24th August, their forecast for September “weakly favours below normal values”.
    RESULT – RAINFALL WAS 117% OF NORMAL IN SEPTEMBER.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/i/e/A3-plots-precip-SON.pdf

    On 21st September, they said “For UK-averaged rainfall the predicted probabilities favour below normal rainfall during October. For the period October-November-December as a whole the range of forecasts also favours lower than average rainfall”
    RESULT – RAINFALL WAS 101% OF NORMAL IN OCTOBER.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/h/g/A3-plots-precip-OND.pdf

    On 24th October, they forecast “Predictions for UK-mean precipitation for both November and the November-December-January period are similar to climatology”
    RESULT – RAINFALL WAS 111% OF NORMAL IN NOVEMBER.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/6/A3-plots-precip-NDJ.pdf

    And on 20th November, “Predictions for UK-mean precipitation for December show a slight shift towards below-normal values – consistent with negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions”
    RESULT – RAINFALL WAS 150% OF NORMAL IN DECEMBER.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/j/i/A3_plots-precip-DJF.pdf
    ……………………………………………………….
    So come on chaps, let’s have a whip round and buy them a new bunch of seaweed.

  99. #99 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    Yes, we KNOW you don’t understand words if they’re used in big sentences, Duffski.

    However, it’s good to know that you agree with the Met Office on everything.

  100. #100 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    So the Met Office are running at 360/365ths (about 98%) accuracy according to you, Duffski.

    That’s pretty damn good.

1 2 3 13