January 2013 Open Thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 bill
    January 29, 2013

    Chebbie’s the one on the right. Appropriately enough.

  2. #2 Vince Whirlwind
    January 29, 2013

    an alleged philosophy graduate – a discipline that relies on hyper-fine parsing

    Hyper-fine bullshitting, more like.

    Has anybody ever met somebody who studied philosophy who had anything useful to say for themselves?

  3. #3 Jeff Harvey
    January 29, 2013

    Chameleon,

    Marohasy has plugged Humlum’s piffle.

    It isn’t that hard to discern how many of the AGW denial sites connect with one another. Its like something of a sad fraternity. Of course one of the reasons they do this is because they are so few and far between. So they often link back and forth to each other to bolster the myth that there’s a huge scientific backlash against various environmental threats including GW.

  4. #4 Jeff Harvey
    January 29, 2013

    Duff, I really don’t like wasting my time with a guy who thinks Obama is a socialist/communist. It suggests their head isn’t screwed on properly.

    Still, your last post defines exactly the point I made in my longer post. These indicators you suggests in no way undermine the thrust of my argument. All they show is that we haven’t passed the tipping point yet. Its Paul Ehrlich’s building analogy personified. The planet still has sufficient natural capital to sustain humanity – just – and thanks to technology we have increased our capacity to sustain and improve the lives of those lucky enough to be the recipients (not those in the south, of whom a billion receive so little nutrition that their minds are literally wasting away).

    But the main point is this: to generate these improving conditions, and through technology, we are living in deficit. We are co-opting more and more freshwater flows and net primary production, draining aquifers, felling more tropical forests, driving species and genetically distinct populations to extinction at rates hundreds or thousands of times faster than natural rates, and altering global biogeochemical and hydrological cycles as well as climate. Now you may think that the well is bottomless but it is not.

    By any law of nature, we cannot go on the way we are. We know that the planet cannot generate ecological services like it did a century ago. But since systems do not break down linearly, we haven’t on a large scale passed a tipping point yet. But if we continue to simplify the planet’s life support systems we will. New technologies, as I said, are not enabling us to live more sustainably within limits set by the environment; all they do is allow us to dig deeper, and to extract resources faster. The resources necessary to benefit humanity are still there but they are dwindling. We are taking water out of the glass faster than the system can put it back in. We are a species living in deficit.

    Now if this salient information does not register in that cranky old brain of yours then that is your problem. You just cannot understand the link between the material economy (or man) and the natural economy. You think humans are exempt from the laws that govern natural systems. Technology has allowed us to plunder nature more effectively but it does not allow for us to live more sustainably.

    If you cannot understand this basic physical reality, then that’s your problem. Scientists, for the most part do. You lack even basic wisdom.

  5. #5 chameleon
    January 29, 2013

    Marohasy has plugged Humlum’s piffle?
    That’s hardly a way to foster a civil debate JeffH.
    What exactly is ‘piffle’ in terms of Humlum’s research and work Jeff?
    And how does Marohasy plug piffle?
    And Vince?
    Are you sneering at people who have studied philosophy?

  6. #6 Vince Whirlwind
    January 29, 2013

    Yes.
    Piffle means nonsense, garbage, or bullshit.
    Humlum hasn’t done any research relevant to our discussion here, as far as I know, but he has published a fair bit of piffle.
    Marohasy was paid for many years to plug political piffle by the IPA, for starters.
    Yes?
    Yes. Philosophy is bullshit. It doesn’t build better planes or better bridges, and it doesn’t advance medical science, or result in smaller, faster computers or robotic vehicles to explore the surface of Mars.. It’s just a way to keep some fairly socially and intellectually worthless individuals out of the public service for 3 years.

  7. #7 Jeff Harvey
    January 29, 2013

    Well said, Vince. If Humlum had anything uselful to say, he’d be doing it not through a blog but through the empirical literature.

    What we are sayijng is that if you want to learn about the state-of-the-art, Chammy, then go to the primary literature, not to blogs in which it is ignored or downplayed. Also follow the credentials of the people involved. As I said before, most of the internet deniers have no scientific qualifications at all (Morano, Milloy etc) or else they are on the academic fringe (Marohasy, Humlum, etc).

    To answer Chammy’s question, I see that Marohasy has written commentaries in which she plugs arguments from Humlum as well as his site. Deniers do this all the time.

  8. #8 Lotharsson
    January 29, 2013

    That’s hardly a way to foster a civil debate.

    Pushing piffle is most uncivilised – especially after it has been shown to be piffle, and most especially when widespread acceptance of said piffle will ultimately have real deleterious consequences.

    Not calling out piffle where it matters damages the “debate” part of your “civil debate”, assuming of course you meant “rational debate“.

    Now if you prefer to have an irrational debate – perhaps because you know you can’t put up a strong showing in a rational one – then piffle is most definitely a useful commodity, and Brad can teach you a thing or two about that.

  9. #9 Lotharsson
    January 29, 2013

    If Humlum had anything uselful to say, he’d be doing it not through a blog but through the empirical literature.

    This!

  10. #10 Lotharsson
    January 29, 2013

    And to add to Jeff’s quote in my previous comment, this is one way you can tell when someone is pushing pseudo-scientific piffle to unsuspecting marks. Take Lindzen for example. He is definitely a climate scientist and did some useful and important work in the past.

    However when he talks to the non-scientific public these days he often makes claims, implications and speculations about climate that go against the consensus in the literature – and which he doesn’t dare to try on in the peer-reviewed literature. Even if you can’t follow the science itself, this is a giveaway that he’s misrepresenting the findings of climate science when talking to the public. If he was able to substantiate those claims you can be damn sure he’d be doing so in peer-reviewed papers. (And if his case stood up to scrutiny, everyone on all “sides” would cheer a big sigh of relief because it would mean the problem’s not as bad as is currently thought.)

    The fact that he doesn’t do this is “the curious incident of the dog in the night-time“, a.k.a. “the dog that didn’t bark”.

  11. #11 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 29, 2013

    Jeff, you raised the name of perhaps the worst forecaster in the history of the world since Nostradamus – Paul Ehrlich! Here are some of his efforts plus those of other ‘seers’ who all appear to be blind! Please, Jeff, do yourself a favour and don’t join these obvious buffoons:

    Claim 1970: “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” Paul Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970.
    …………………………………………………………………………….
    “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.
    ………………………………………………………………………..
    The Limits to Growth (1972) – projected the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and natural gas by 1993. It also stated that the world had only 33-49 years of aluminum resources left, which means we should run out sometime between 2005-2021. (See Donella Meadows et al., The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind.
    ………………………………………………………………………….

    Claim April 1970: “If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Kenneth E.F. Watt, in Earth Day, 1970.
    Data: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1970.
    ……………………………………………………………………………..
    Claim 1972: “Artic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.” Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.
    Data: Ice coverage has fallen, though as of last month, the Arctic Ocean had 3.82 million square miles of ice cover — an area larger than the continental United States — according to The National Snow and Ice Data Center.
    …………………………………………………………………………….
    Claim 1989: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010.” Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
    Data: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period.
    ………………………………………………………………………….
    Claim: “[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots … [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michel Oppenheimer and Robert H. Boyle, Dead Heat, St. Martin’s Press, 1990.

  12. #12 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 29, 2013
  13. #13 Bernard J.
    January 29, 2013

    …you don’t seem to have too high an opinion of philosophy or science as disciplines!!!

    This is rich coming from someone who dismisses several disciplines of science that indicate how sensitive humans and non-human existence is to stable climate.

    There are many hundreds, and indeed thousands, of scientists who have worked in various aspects of ecophysiology, and who have demonstrated that the magnitude of planetary temperature increase that humans have initiated is incompatible with the continued existence of many plant and animal species, either directly or through indirect bioclimatic effects. However, if you base your “optimistic” opinion on science (as surely you must, given your protestations to that end) you must just as surely have a detailed bibliography of scientific work that supports your case.

    Please supply this list.

    [20:00]

  14. #14 Bernard J.
    January 29, 2013

    …you don’t seem to have too high an opinion of philosophy or science as disciplines!!!

    This is rich coming from someone who dismisses several disciplines of science that indicate how sensitive humans and non-human existence is to stable climate.

    There are many hundreds, and indeed thousands, of scientists who have worked in various aspects of ecophysiology, and who have demonstrated that the magnitude of planetary temperature increase that humans have initiated is incompatible with the continued existence of many plant and animal species, either directly or through indirect bioclimatic effects. However, if you base your “optimistic” opinion on science (as surely you must, given your protestations to that end) you must just as surely have a detailed bibliography of scientific work that supports your case.

    Please supply this list.

    [20:00]

  15. #15 Wow
    January 29, 2013

    For anyone still wondering what Brat is doing here, he’s graciously consented to proving that he’s a denier, liar and idiot.

    As he proclaimed when he offered his “deal”:

    I’ll denialistically try to weasel out of the deal, thus exposing myself as a denialist weasel for all the Internet to see!

    He’d agreed if he posted here afterwards, he was proving his denialism.

    (please also note that despite his piteous calls for pity at how badly he’s being treated here, he’s still here.

    Makes you wonder what sort of idiot he is, doesn’t it.

  16. #16 Wow
    January 29, 2013

    Duffer,

    Denialists 1992: The final nail in the coffin for AGW scientists
    Denialists 1993: The final nail in the coffin for AGW scientists.
    Denialists 1994: The final nail in the coffin for AGW scientists.
    Denialists 1995: The final nail in the coffin for AGW scientists.
    Denialists 1996: The final nail in the coffin for AGW scientists.
    Denialists 1997: The final nail in the coffin for AGW scientists.
    Denialists 1998: The final nail in the coffin for AGW scientists
    Denialists 1999: The final nail in the coffin for AGW scientists

    Denialists 2012: The final nail in the coffin for AGW scientists

    Every year, wrong.

    Denialists 1998: This record breaking year of temperatures means nothing, it’s just an extremely strong El Nino and is not proof of AGW.

    Denialists 2003-2012: The temperature hasn’t risen since 1998!!!!!

    Ridley 2003: Temperatures will rise by no more than 0.1C per decade from the 1993 temperature.

    Roy Spencer 2003: Temperatures will drop and my fourth-order polynomial predicting this will be proven!
    Roy Spencer 2005: My polynomial needs recalibrating.
    Roy Spencer 2007: Temperatures will drop and my fourth-order polynomial predicting this will be proven!
    Roy Spencer 2008: My polynomial needs recalibrating.
    Roy Spencer 2011: Temperatures will drop and my fourth-order polynomial predicting this will be proven!
    Roy Spencer 2012: My polynomial needs recalibrating.

    Watts 2005: BEST is going to answer once and for all if the temperature record is reliable!
    Watts 2010: BEST is a load of rubbish, they are all frauds!!!

    etc.

  17. #17 Wow
    January 29, 2013

    Note: Brad discusses “most of my circle of friends”, and declares that they come from the unrestricted set of “university graduates”.

    And note what relation Brad specifies to people with “philosophy or science background”:

    Wouldn’t that be using the power of consensus instead of evidence?

    Surely not!

  18. #18 Jeff Harvey
    January 29, 2013

    Duff,

    Go back to your silly political theories. Your knowledge of the issues I discussed is kindergraten level.

    I guess Paul Ehrlich was wrong. Today there are more starving people than there were people alive in the 1930s. Today there are more species teetering on the edge of extinction than at any time in recorded history. Since Ehrlich’s predictions, all indicators of the quality of the planet’s ecological systems have declined by 30-40%.Since the 1970s groundwater levels underlying the US midwest (the Oglalla aquifer) and the China Plain have dropped dramatically. Since the 1970s we’ve had the emergence of rapid climate change. Since the 1970s the amount of tropical forest left has been reduced by about 50%.

    Now, an old codger like you might think this is all progress, and that humans can continue to spend natural capital like there is no tomorrow. You’d be wrong. That is quite simple, isn’t it? Sure, new technologies have delayed the effects of human simplification of the biosphere. I don’t deny that. What I do deny is that we can continue to plunder nature faster and faster and more effectively and effect humans to propser forever. We have thank mother nature for being reslient enough to have withstood the onslaught thus far and to be still functioning well enough to provide the services that underpin our existence. But nasty surprises are in store if we continue along the current course.

  19. #19 Wow
    January 29, 2013

    On “Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971″

    All I actually see are links to people who say he said this.

    Since these are ALSO blogrolls that say that Al Gore said that Florida would flood this century/soon/next 50 years BUT the transcript of AIT they insist this is said in does NOT give a timescale for this (merely states that if the WAIS and Greenland ice sheet melted that this amount of flooding would mean $THIS in Florida), I rather wonder if there’s any primary source for this statement.

    After all, these blogrolls and you duffski have form for telling lies about what people said merely because you hear one person say it was so and just gullibly fall for it.

    Then insist that this consensus that it WAS said is proof it was.

  20. #20 Wow
    January 29, 2013

    It seems that the originator and second of this meme can’t find the original either.

    http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/pure-political-smear-from-walter-williams-or-is-there-any-factoid-to-back-his-claim/

    So where is the evidence?

  21. #21 MikeH
    January 29, 2013

    Actually the list that the moron Duff has supplied is quite interesting.

    Claim 1972: “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.” Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.

    Balchen wasn’t a scientist but a Norwegian Olympian, USAF Colonel, pioneer polar aviator and adventurer who won the DFC during WW2. He died in 1973 at the age of 74 shortly after the claim was made.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernt_Balchen

    Rather than this being a failed prediction, it would have to be considered remarkable insight. The actual article is behind a paywall so I cannot tell what observations led him to make the comment.

    According to this reconstruction, the sea ice minimum may have been apparent to an astute observer in the late 1960s.

    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/polyakfig2.jpg
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/history-of-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice-part-1/

  22. #22 MikeH
    January 29, 2013

    the reduction in the Arctic sea ice minimum

  23. #23 Wow
    January 29, 2013

    And also was it impossible in 1972 for an ice free Arctic Ocean to occur in 28 years?

    If so, please show us the reasoning and evidence behind that claim.

    If not, then his statement was correct.

  24. #24 Lionel A
    January 29, 2013

    Duff with more bubkas:

    However, as reported in National Geographic last December from “papers by nearly 500 authors in 50 countries. Spanning four decades of data, it represents the most comprehensive analysis ever undertaken of health problems around the world” it appears that there is Good News (sorry and all that):

    You just don’t get it do you Duff, it was late last evening when I saw this latest of yours and I do note a long tail of replies since, but here I go ahead with what I had in mind to hit you with.

    Here is the scenario. After many years of trials and tribulations with near fatal experiences and thwarted loves a fellow is driving along in his super-sports coupé singing ecstatically for his wife has just given birth to son and heir.

    As he wallows in joy progressing along a narrow track of a road he is approaching the brow of a hill on a bend, life is just sweet and dandy but then suddenly ……

    Do you have the imagination to complete this story Duff? Do it.

    Well here is a clue in answer to one of the silly and short-sighted items in your list, this one:

    Developing countries have made huge strides in public health. In the Maldives, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Iran, and Peru, life expectancy has increased by more than 20 years since 1970. Within the past two decades, gains of 12 to 15 years have occurred in Angola, Ethiopia, Niger, and Rwanda, an indication of successful strategies for curbing HIV, malaria, and nutritional deficiencies.

    Here is one answer to that that: Imminent Water Crisis in India,

    and things have not got any better since India’s blackout exposes choice between water & electricity.

    And in western country the idiots-in-power wish to waste huge quantities of a scarce resource (drinking water) with fracking and also risk contaminating that in existing aquifers.

    And don’t bother with the smart quip about how much water has descended on the UK this last twelve months. I wonder how those communities experiencing flooding get on with potable water not contaminated by sewage.

    I here from Cornwall that many old mine workings are filling up and in cases overflowing – potentially, and probably actually – and spreading quantities of toxic chemicals across the landscape and get into water courses which are sources for water treatment works for providing drinking water.

    The effect of such pollution on wildlife is of course another looming problem.

    Never mind any fiscal cliff humanity and many of the species around humanity are heading for another cliff – a resource shortage cliff.

    We are mining Earth’s natural resources as well as its minerals. Do you understand what that means Duff? Don’t juts answer yes but qualify your answer.

    And I doubt the veracity of this statement:

    Efforts to combat childhood diseases and malnutrition have been very successful. Deaths in children under five years old declined almost 60 percent in the past four decades.

    Provide evidence to support that statement Duff.

    You do live in your own little bubble of ignorance and delusion don’t you Duff.

  25. #25 Jeff Harvey
    January 29, 2013

    Looks like the old Duffer scrapes under every rock to find his nonsense. Here’s where he dug up his latest stuff:

    http://www.terry.uga.edu/directory/profile/mustard/

    A right wing business economist from the notorious U of Chicago? Who’d a thought? My guess is the Colonel oops Dr. Mustard has no background in environmental science or ecology. Doesn’t stop him from putting up a lot fo simplistic drivel, does it.

  26. #26 Wow
    January 29, 2013

    It’s also available here:

    http://www.duffandnonsense.typepad.com

    though it’s so infrequently visited, you need to go several pages of google later to see the first link to that site.

  27. #27 Lionel A
    January 29, 2013

    What is it with these economist types?

    Duffandnonsense, now I wonder if he has ever studied his way through Dawkin’s ‘The Ancestor’s Tale’? He should do.

  28. #28 Betula
    January 29, 2013

    “A right wing business economist from the notorious U of Chicago?”

    This coming from someone who spent 2 years at U of Wisconsin?

    “My guess is the Colonel oops Dr. Mustard has no background in environmental science or ecology.”

    And my guess is that Dr.Pachauri has no background in environmental science or ecology….

  29. #29 Betula
    January 29, 2013

    GOOD NEWS!!!

    “The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.”

    “their findings indicate a lowered estimate of probable global temperature increase as a result of human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.”

    “even if we do manage to cut emissions of sulphate particulates in the coming years, global warming will probably be less extreme than feared.”

    http://tinyurl.com/aej9pka

  30. #30 Jeff Harvey
    January 29, 2013

    Notrice what our old denier left out of his link:

    “Climate issues must be dealt with

    Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project’s findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought.
    Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years”.

    Funny how Betula leaves out this important bit.

  31. #31 Vince Whirlwind
    January 29, 2013

    And my guess is that Dr.Pachauri has no background in environmental science or ecology….

    No, he was an oil man, which is precisely why the Bush administration had him appointed.

    Turned out he isn’t as dishonest as they would have liked.

  32. #32 Vince Whirlwind
    January 29, 2013

    …hence the need to engage with him in the form of personal smears…

    I guess when you deniers have no facts to argue your case…

  33. #33 Wow
    January 29, 2013

    And if he HAD been an environmentalist or ecologist, well, he’s in it with the rest of them, right?

    Given that you’d have a complaint no matter what, is the complaint that he has those qualifications or that there’s the job there at all?

    It’s pretty obvious your problem is with the job being there at all.

  34. #34 Brad Keyes
    January 29, 2013

    @Johnny Drama:

    Fixed this for ya:

    Most of what passes for CLIMATE “SCIENCE” is bullshit. It doesn’t build better planes or better bridges or help us understand the environment, and it doesn’t advance medical science, or result in smaller, faster computers, falsifiable predictions about nature, or robotic vehicles to explore the surface of Mars.. It’s just a way to keep some totally socially and intellectually worthless, immoral individuals out of the productive economy for 22 years and running.

  35. #35 Vince Whirlwind
    January 29, 2013

    Most of what passes for CLIMATE “SCIENCE” is bullshit.

    Oops!
    You veer off into wrongness with your very first sentence.

    Crank blogs such as the crank blog called WUWT run by the crank called Anthony Watts are packed full of bullshit.

    Genuine, professional science as summarised by the IPCC in their reports is the very opposite of Anthony Watts’ bullshit.

    Trust an idiot who wasted 3 years at Uni learning nothing and doing nothing to get that arse-about.

  36. #36 Jeff Harvey
    January 29, 2013

    Brad,

    That comment you just pasted is so baseless and ignorant, I just wonder what worthless piece of biomass could make it.

    Essentially, what the person is saying is that in their opinion we get nothing out of learning about the natural world or our impact on it. A person saying this is totally and utterly unable to comprehend the link between human welfare (the material economy) and the natural world which permits us to exist and persist (the state of the natural economy).

    The statement suggests a person living in a metaphoric ivory tower – a city block cut off from the vagaries of the real world. They ought to learn some basic environmental science before spewing their own brand of bullshit again.

  37. #37 Vince Whirlwind
    January 29, 2013

    Here is an explanation for Brad’s apparent immunity to fact or shame:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tGB8Uuffi4M

  38. #38 Wow
    January 29, 2013
    Most of what passes for CLIMATE “SCIENCE” is bullshit.

    Oops!
    You veer off into wrongness with your very first sentence.

    I dunno.

    Have you seen what Brat yabbers on about in HIS version of climate science?

    No evidence.

    No thinking.

    Complete bullshit.

  39. #39 Wow
    January 29, 2013

    It’s just a way to keep some totally socially and intellectually worthless, immoral individuals out of the productive economy for 22 years and running.

    Teabaggers like yourself, right?

  40. #40 chek
    January 29, 2013

    Poor inane Bradmoron doesn’t seem to realise that his ever more vacuous assertions’n’inversions carry no weight whatsoever. ‘Cos he’s that smart, y’dig?

  41. #41 Brad Keyes
    January 29, 2013

    @Drama:

    Why “for 22 years and counting”, you ask disingenuously?

    Stop spinning and do teh maff yourself.

    Take the average of:

    25 years ago—when the non-scientist Tim Worth and his failed-scientist accomplice James Hansen, arguably the most important descientists in recent world history, childishly sabotaged a certain air-conditioning system in order to prostitute climatology, disfiguring it and removing any claim it once had on being an honest system of inquiry

    18 years ago—when climate science qua science was finally found comatose and unresuscitable in the ancient and beautiful city of Madrid, Spain.

    Finally (if you understand how) round up the answer.

  42. #42 chek
    January 29, 2013

    No evidence. No thinking. Complete [spoonfed] bullshit.

    Corrected that for you Wow.

  43. #43 Brad Keyes
    January 29, 2013

    Oops

    Damn Wirthless spell-checker

    ! :-)

  44. #44 Brad Keyes
    January 29, 2013

    @Jeff H,

    sorry if you didn’t understand my point.

    Consider this: if you believe, as Vortical Vince claims, that we would have ever have got to the point of having modern medicine or rovers on Mars without philosophy, then I politely put it to you that you’ve never learned what the blood-relation of science to philosophy is. Primarily, you’re naive in something called epistemology.

    But that’s not because you’re naive or stupid.

    You’re a smart guy, and I could teach you the outlines of the whole topic over a couple of beers, if you had any curiosity about it.

    Remember the friendly sit-down we were thinking about? If I ever get to the Netherlands, I’m holding you to it!! :-)

    And remember, the first one’s on me—you impressed me with your utter repudiation of Michael Mann’s brand of “science,” and I won’t forget your noble words lightly.

  45. #45 Vince Whirlwind
    January 29, 2013

    @Drama:

    Why “for 22 years and counting”, you ask disingenuously?

    Nope. Nothing you scribble is ever likely to interest me.

    if you believe, as Vortical Vince claims, that we would have ever have got to the point of having modern medicine or rovers on Mars without philosophy,

    Oooh, look – a false assertion. Did you learn about strawmen in 3rd-year, or did you have to do a post-grad year to get to that?

    I would have thought that somebody who spent three years not learning anything useful at Uni could at the very least learn some basic English, such as, perhaps, getting a grasp on conjugation?

  46. #46 chameleon
    January 29, 2013

    Hmmm?
    A false assertion Vince?
    I think you might benefit from
    a) Looking up what that means and
    b) rereading your own comments re philosophy, Humlum, Climat4you etc.

  47. #47 chek
    January 29, 2013

    Brad , have you considered a change of career? Perhaps something like smuggling Toblerones through customs anally?

    You’re bound to find it more comfortable than acting out the tired ol’ denier handbook here, as you’re presently and tediously doing. Yes that’s right – you’re not even entertaining in your psychosis, in the the way that our pet Jonarse in the basement is.

  48. #48 bill
    January 29, 2013

    I suspect Brad doesn’t get to do a lot of conjugating, Vince.

  49. #49 Betula
    January 29, 2013

    “Notrice what our old denier left out of his link”…….

    “Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years”.

    Um, if it was left out of the link, then where did you read it?

  50. #50 Vince Whirlwind
    January 29, 2013

    Chameleon once again offers us a view into her idiosyncratic grasp on the concept of reading comprehension

    A false assertion Vince?
    I think you might benefit from
    a) Looking up what that means and
    b) rereading your own comments re philosophy, Humlum, Climat4you etc.

    a) Projection. Look it up yourself. A false assertion is when somebody (ie Brad) asserts something that is false.

    b) Here’s a massive hint to you, dingbat: check the tenses used in my statement and Brad’s dishonest misrepresentation thereof.

    You still on about that crank Humlum and his crank blog jam-packed full of piffle he doesn’t publish in professional science journals?
    Why?

  51. #51 Brad Keyes
    January 29, 2013

    @Johnny drama either believes or pretends I’ve misrepresented him:

    “if you believe, as Vortical Vince claims, that we would have ever have got to the point of having modern medicine or rovers on Mars without philosophy,”

    Oooh, look – a false assertion.

    They don’t pay me enough for this, Drama, but since there’s apparently no other way to get you to an intellectually house-trained state, I guess I’ll have to rub your muzzle in this little accident you had on the carpet:

    “Yes. Philosophy is bullshit. It doesn’t build better planes or better bridges, and it doesn’t advance medical science, or result in smaller, faster computers or robotic vehicles to explore the surface of Mars.. “

    Now you obviously have never been to college so I’ll put all this down to innocent ignorance on your part, but THIS IS THE LAST TIME.

    So for fuck’s sake, try and follow this recap of the plot EVERYONE ELSE already understands:

    Medical science, computer science, Mars rovers, and so much of the science and technology that has kept you alive past the age of twenty would not exist if not for philosophy, you dumb animal.

  52. #52 Brad Keyes
    January 29, 2013

    Sorry for the uncontrolled italics, Tim / moderators—feel free to delete that.

    @Johnny drama either believes or pretends I’ve misrepresented him:

    “if you believe, as Vortical Vince claims, that we would have ever have got to the point of having modern medicine or rovers on Mars without philosophy,”

    Oooh, look – a false assertion.

    They don’t pay me enough for this, Drama, but since there’s apparently no other way to get you to an intellectually house-trained state, I guess we’ll have to rub your muzzle in this little accident you had on the carpet:

    “Yes. Philosophy is bullshit. It doesn’t build better planes or better bridges, and it doesn’t advance medical science, or result in smaller, faster computers or robotic vehicles to explore the surface of Mars.. “

    Now you obviously have never been to college so we can probably put this down to innocent ignorance, but YOU”RE STRETCHING THE PATIENCE OF THE ADULTS, Johnny boy.

    So for fuck’s sake, try and follow this recap of the plot EVERYONE ELSE already understands:

    Medical science, computer science, Mars rovers, and so much of the science and technology that are going to keep you alive past the age of 20 would not exist if not for philosophy, you philistine.

    Please notice how even @Lotharsson, the fanatical anti-recruiter of your cult, IS NOT GOING TO PRETEND TO AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS, Drama.

    That ought to tell you something, surely? Or have I somehow managed to overestimate even YOUR low, low, rockbottom Climate Crazy mental skillz?

  53. #53 Brad Keyes
    January 29, 2013

    FTFM:

    “@Lotharsson, the fanatical anti-recruiter of your cult”

    ->

    “Lotharsson, the recruit-repelling Chief Hate-Skokesman of your sad, monotonically-shrinking cult”

    PIMF.

  54. #54 Brad Keyes
    January 29, 2013

    D’oh!

    Third time lucky?….:

    Lotharsson, the recruit-repelling Chief Hate-Spokesman of your sad, monotonically-shrinking cult

    Happy, everyone?

  55. #55 chek
    January 29, 2013

    More projection from the bradmeister. What else?

  56. #56 Brad Keyes
    January 29, 2013

    And @Johnny, just in case your attempts with chameleon are you laying the groundwork for a retrospective tense-narrowing defence, like the unteachable cur you are, IT WILL NOT AVAIL YOU.

    Let’s talk about the Mars rover, Rover.

    Let’s not even ask how on Earth it got to Mars in the first place (which feat educated people know is due to astronomy, which science educated people know used to be called a Natural Philosophy, which name educated people know it bore for a good reason, which reason is for educated people to know and you to find out—I’m not your bloody governess).

    Let’s just talk about how it manages the superhuman (or at least supervincentian) feat of getting over and around obstacles without pissing itself.

    Ever heard of “artifical intelligence“?

    If you know what artificial means, which you obviously do, and if you know what intelligence means, which is somewhat less certain, then you kind-of know what AI means.

    But it’s a term of art, so even if you knew what “intelligence” meant you might not know, without the benefit of college and books and shit, that AI is a BRANCH OF PHILOSOPHY.

    TODAY.

    Not in the past.

    In the present. Which, if I recall correctly, is the tense you used: “philosophy IS bullshit”, you cretinously opined.

    I hasten to stipulate that artificial intelligence is not “merely” philosophy.

    It is simultaneously a branch of Computer Science, which is, in turn, a branch (or fruit) of mathematics + epistemology. And not to rub your nose in your own waste again, but epistemology is a branch of… can you guess? Philosophy, dog.

    But hey, it’s a free country, there’s no law against idiocy (though if I were King…)

    …so go ahead, keep telling us how your Martian co-canine isn’t a tribute to human philosophy.

  57. #57 Brad Keyes
    January 30, 2013

    By the way, I’m not a Mohammedan—I’ve got nothing against actual dogs. I prefer them to some humans.

    I do, however, have a normal, healthy dislike of metaphorical bitches, like our friend Drama.

  58. #58 chek
    January 30, 2013

    This most definitely is not your therapy class Brad.

  59. #59 chameleon
    January 30, 2013

    Vince,
    Please don’t be as ridiculous as Lotharsson on this one.
    It would be much smarter to retract your very silly, over emotional and thoughtless satement re philosophy.
    This is indeed what you wrote:
    Yes, philosophy is bullshit……….
    Quibbling over the TENSE is just as ridiculous as claiming a misinterpreted ‘the’.
    I also do suggest again that you
    a) look up what false assertion means
    b) reread your comments re philosophy, Humlum, climate4you etcetera and
    c) see if you can figure out what that little idiom/epigram re pots and kettles actually means. (especially in relation to your repeated ‘assertions’ that I am ‘denying’ science)
    Can I also politely ask you what ‘science’ you keep asserting I am denying and what therefore causes you to behave so very emotionally and defensively?
    because Vince
    a) Humlum is far from a crank:
    http://www.mn.uio.no/geo/english/people/aca/geogr/olehum/index.html
    b) Climate4You is an evidence based website that uses the same climate/weather data as the bulk of the rest of the science fraternity.
    Not to put too fine a point on it but it certainly appears to be more evidence based than the deltoid blog/site appears to be
    http://www.climate4you.com/
    and, as Brad K has just started to ‘assert':
    c) The study of philosophy is far from bullshit and has definitely been a player in some of humanity’s greatest achievements.

  60. #60 Lotharsson
    January 30, 2013

    So Brad the arch-hypocritical Drama Queen is still projecting on to others, still promoting really really poorly thought out denialist assertions as argument despite copious counter-evidence, and still smearing everyone he disagrees with.

    (And we all notice that he’s totally ignoring yesterday’s fetish where he proclaimed loud and long that I was “anti-science” because he couldn’t apply basic skills required by philosophy students to written English.)

    (And when is the wailing smearing man-toddler going to get his own thread so the grown-ups can have a decent conversation?)

  61. #61 Lotharsson
    January 30, 2013

    BTW, it’s most amusing to see that when Brad’s evidence-free style of “argument” is turned back on himself by substituting “philosophy” for “climate science” in his assertion thereby suggesting his pet discipline is worthless on the measures that his own statement used to assess worth, he throws a little tantrum and tries to argue the case.

    I don’t think he’s realised yet that the contrast between his lack of arguing the case re: climate science, and his attempts to do so for philosophy, are most illuminating of his “methods”. Subconsciously if not consciously he knows that cases needs to be argued rather than merely asserted, but only chooses to try and argue his claim for one discipline, thereby revealing that he almost certainly knows that his other assertions are bullshit.

    (And speaking of bullshit, commenters have barely yet touched upon his incorrect application of the metrics chosen in his quote to measure “worth”, let alone the rather limited selection of potential worthiness that it deigns to consider. How much wrong can one person pack into a single comment?!)

    So well played, Vince! (I’m not sure Brad realises yet that he has been played. I won’t tell him if you don’t.)

  62. #62 Lotharsson
    January 30, 2013

    When a putatively male person applies a derogatory term for females and the name of a non-human species to another putatively male person…one generally starts pondering the implications re: the undesirable psychological state of the former (and what may have caused it) which leads them to feel the need to feminise and dehumanise the latter. One also wonders if the former person has any inkling of how revealing this is.

    And when chameleon acts out Pot. Kettle. Black. for the umpteenth time, this time about “false assertions” in a comment where she’s making assertions that are widely considered false, one generally starts to ponder if there is some kind of impediment to self-comprehension, let alone to cognition.

  63. #63 bill
    January 30, 2013

    The critics rave:

    An exploration of intellectualised madness unrivalled since David Thewlis’ unforgettable performance in Mike Leigh’s ‘Naked’

  64. #64 Vince Whirlwind
    January 30, 2013

    So Brad, please let us know exactly how much Natural Philosphy there was in your 3 years of talking bullshit at Uni?

    How much Astronomy did you cover in your tutorials on Descartes and Spinoza?

    Unsuprisingly, intellectual pygmy that you are, you are advancing the argument, philosophy was useful prior to the 17th Century invention of modern science
    therefore
    philosophy is useful now, (even though the use it once had is now contained in a separate discipline called ‘science’)

  65. #65 Vince Whirlwind
    January 30, 2013

    Chameleon, what a surprise – another day, and another lesson in reading comprehension is needed.

    In the context of a contemporary study at University: Philosophy is bullshit.

    Brad’s answer: Philosophy hundreds of years ago wasn’t bullshit.

    Chameleon’s anticomprehension:

    “Quibbling over the TENSE is just as ridiculous as claiming a misinterpreted ‘the’.

    So, you can’t spot logical fallacies, then, Chameleon. That’s why we advise you to stay away from liars like Brad and away from cranky people like Humlum who fill up their crank sites will all sorts of crap they can’t publish professionally.

    Come one, Chameleon, think: Why does Humlum keep his stuff away from professional publications? Think of any reason?

  66. #66 Lotharsson
    January 30, 2013

    Piling on to Vince’s observations:

    Quibbling over the TENSE is just as ridiculous as claiming a misinterpreted ‘the’.

    Unsurprisingly, the misinterpreted “the” has been demonstrated to Chameleon and Brad (as well as the importance of the tense in question), but she still asserts it is “ridiculous” to say it wasn’t misinterpreted whilst Brad has thus far held his tongue. (Well, at least we have an idea of who is the smarter one in their partnership.)

    Bear in mind that this is the judgment of the commenter who alleges a particular Delingpole article quotes Flannery using the term “fleeting fancy”, when the article in question does not contain the word “fleeting” and does not contain the word “fancy” – and despite having had this falsehood pointed out several times, still refuses to withdraw the claim.

  67. #67 Vince Whirlwind
    January 30, 2013

    I notice Brad then alters his argument to,

    philosophy is relevant today, because…because…Artificial Intelligence!?!?

    The obvious question is,
    – Of the team who designed and implemented Curiosity, Spirit and Opportunity,
    – How many had Arts degrees with a Philosophy Major?
    – How many had science degrees with majors in maths, physics, chemistry, or engineering?

    And a follow-up thought experiment:
    – Strand 10 physicists, biologists and chemists on a desert island
    – Strand 10 Arts students on a desert island

    >> 100 years later, which island will have the better medical care?

  68. #68 Lotharsson
    January 30, 2013

    Why does Humlum keep his stuff away from professional publications?

    Chameleon, perhaps you can ask those Canberra Uni researchers you’re meeting next week how NOT publishing defensible research might enhance their careers, and suggest that they too consider NOT publishing their future findings.

    But please – make sure none of them are eating or drinking when you ask them.

  69. #69 Vince Whirlwind
    January 30, 2013

    And just in case the indignant flurry of defensiveness from Brad resulted in anybody missing this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tGB8Uuffi4M

  70. #70 chameleon
    January 30, 2013

    Vince @#65
    Come one, Chameleon, think: Why does Humlum keep his stuff away from professional publications? Think of any reason?
    Ummmmm Vince?
    He doesn’t:
    Please note the section here on publications in peer reviewed journals:
    http://www.climate4you.com/Text/BIBLIOGRAPHY%20OLE%20HUMLUM.pdf
    Also note the previous link which explains where Humlum works.
    None of this EVIDENCE (which is entirely googleable) is indicating that Humlum is anything but a practicing scientist who also publishes some of his work and also does so in collaboration with other well respected scientists in his country and in other countries.
    As well as that he also has a website (Tim Lambert does too).
    BTW, just so we’re very clear, this does not automatically mean that I see Humlum (or any other person) as some type of demi god who holds a type of magical and undeniable predictive/projective/postdictive crystal ball.

  71. #71 Vince Whirlwind
    January 30, 2013

    Please note the section here on publications in peer reviewed journals:
    http://www.climate4you.com/Text/BIBLIOGRAPHY%20OLE%20HUMLUM.pdf

    Yes, a bunch of geoscience papers.

    What have those papers got to do with the cranky nonsense about climate that he has on his website?

  72. #72 Lotharsson
    January 30, 2013

    He doesn’t:

    She misinterprets a question asking why various claims and implications on Humlum’s website don’t appear in his published scientific papers as implying that Humlum doesn’t publish anything at all, and then uses that to evade the question itself.

    Her Misinterpretation On Demand Superpower proves its worth again!

  73. #73 Brad Keyes
    January 30, 2013

    @Lotharsson kindly draws Johnny Drama’s ongoing behaviour to my attention:

    “So Brad the arch-hypocritical Drama Queen is still projecting on to others

    Der, Lotharsson. That’s what Jonnny does. Where do you think he got his nickname?

  74. #74 Lotharsson
    January 30, 2013

    Ah, that Brad. Still blissfully unaware that he’s by far the biggest Drama Monarch in the room! Still, I guess it beats admitting errors.

    It would be almost cute if he weren’t over six years old. (You are over six years old, right, Brad?)

  75. #75 Brad Keyes
    January 30, 2013

    @Lotharsson, noted for his principled and unfailing practice of arguing without being personal or nasty about it, rightly pulls me up for this phrasing:

    “I do, however, have a normal, healthy dislike of metaphorical bitches, like our friend Drama.”

    You’re right, that could be misconstrued as sexist. Sorry.

    That’s the last thing I’d ever want to come across as. You won’t find anyone with more contempt than I have for that mangy pederast Muhammad, who was a misogynist AND a misocynist. (not to mention something of a 7th century Lotharsson: a bigoted, ratmatic zealot.)

    So let me be a bit more PC:

    “I do, however, have a normal, healthy dislike of metaphorical bitches and/or bitchssons, like our friend Drama.”

  76. #76 Bernard J.
    January 30, 2013

    I notice that Jonas seems to be emulating Brad’s penchant for very high numbers of posts with very low substantive content, if the recent-commentometer is any indication.

    I have no desire to enter the fray there, although it’s been the source of much mirth for a couple of colleagues who have spent their lunchtimes spraying lunch over my monitor (damn the cordless mouse), but I would like to make a point…

    Jonas was too scared to enter into any of several wagers with me on the most obvious near-term indication of rapid (human-caused) global warming – to wit, the melting of the Arctic ice cap. I have no illusions that Jonas will have battled his cowardice and now be prepared to stand up with his money, but perhaps he will accept a second challenge.

    I want Jonas to list the various climatologists whom he believes have not actually performed the attribution work that demonstrates the human caused of global warming. He can start with the people mentioned by Wyvern last year: by way of example</i<, Jonas might say:

    1) Peter Stott has not done any work that determines the portion of observed warming that can be attributed to human activity

    2) Gabriele Hegerl has not done any work that determines the portion of observed warming that can be attributed to human activity

    3) …[Name + whatever phrasing rings Jonas bell]

    This is an important exercise, because I want Jonas to go on record detailing the scientists who he claims have not done the work that so many on this thread keep pointing him toward. Jonas is happy enough to claim that the attribution work has not been done – let’s see him list those people whom he claims have not done the work that is credited to them.

    Once Jonas has listed the scientists that he believes have not conducted attribution work, I would like Jonas to prepare a letter to be sent to these scientists. To date Jonas has, by all apparent measures, not actually contacted any of the scientists that he accuses of fraudulently attributing to human the observed global warming, so I would like Jonas to spell out for us (and for the scientists he claims have not done any attribution work) exactly what his grievances are – liberal use of references examples is encouraged.

    This lack of direct contact of climatologists is a grievous omission that needs to be corrected, so if Jonas can gather his thoughts and coherently and succinctly summarise his claims, I will send them on his behalf to the scientists that he lists as described above.

    Alternatively, we could post Jonas’ letter on a forum such as RealClimate or Skeptical Science, which most climatologists should be happy to visit in order to provide an authoritative response.

    This is not an exercise that requires Jonas to risk his money, nor is it an exercise that requires five hundred posts about how many angels may fit upon the point of a needle. It’s simply a way to clarify Jonas N’s exact claims about who has and has not done what work, and what work does and does not qualify as attribution of warming to human activity.

    The defensibility of Jonas’ claims way back at the birth of this thread will be tested by his response to this challenge.

  77. #77 Bernard J.
    January 30, 2013

    Dammit.

    That’s what happens when you let postgrads sit at your desk.

    The above comment was me.

  78. #78 Bernard J.
    January 30, 2013

    I’m referring of course to a comment in moderation….

  79. #79 Jeff Harvey
    January 30, 2013

    Chammy,

    Humlum has a mediocre academic and publishing record. He’s no luminary in his field. Publication and citations are relatively low. Also, he hasn’t published much in the way of papers countering AGW. That’s his hobby horse.

    Give it a rest.

  80. #80 Wow
    January 30, 2013

    Subconsciously if not consciously he knows that cases needs to be argued rather than merely asserted

    Yeah, but philosophy IS a load of crap, though, innit.

    Look at what it did to Brad for a start…

  81. #81 Wow
    January 30, 2013
    No evidence. No thinking. Complete [spoonfed] bullshit.

    Corrected that for you Wow.

    Yeah, given there’s no evidence that Brat here has had their own thought ever for himself, I guess the implicit assertion that this was self-made bollocks rather than predigested vomited bollocks that he choked down because he thought it was nice was not supported.

    Ta.

  82. #82 Brad Keyes
    January 30, 2013

    @Jeff Harvey, I hope you’re still around!

    Remember when I bet we could be friends?

    “Here is a bet: if you and I met, and nobody mentioned the word “climate”, we would be perfectly friendly and even, if events allowed, FRIENDS”

    Here’s what Lotharsson thought of my suggestion, Jeff:

    “Good grief, your denial even extends to that. You really do have major problems with self-awareness, don’t you?”

    Here’s what you thought of my suggestion, Jeff:

    “Brad, you are right. I do have friends who question AGW. I disagree with them, and think that they have been misled somewhere along the line. Same with politics. I am sure we could be good friends.”

    Brain teaser:

    1 of us three—you, me or Lotharsson—is a hateful, cultlike zealot.

    Who?

  83. #83 Vince Whirlwind
    January 30, 2013

    ..and just in case anybody’s in any doubt as to where Brad is coming from:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tGB8Uuffi4M

  84. #84 Lotharsson
    January 30, 2013

    Sheesh. Brad can’t even apply the word “hateful” correctly, let alone “zealot”.

    Either that, or he’s just a wee bit paranoid…

  85. #85 Wow
    January 30, 2013

    1 of us three—you, me or Lotharsson—is a hateful, cultlike zealot.

    Who?

    You.

    Sorry, was that meant to be rhetorical?

  86. #86 Lotharsson
    January 30, 2013

    Sheesh – those alarmist climate scientists. Not.

  87. #87 bill
    January 30, 2013

    Yep, I reckon ESLD is one of the most striking and persistent phenomena of the climate debate – and there’s only 1 side doing it!

    Heartland ‘scientists’ / GWPF ‘scientists’ / Monckton / Delingpole / Morano ‘erring on the side of least drama?’ When the NaziCommunoUNRapistDeath-PanelHordes are veritably on Our Very Doorsteps? No freakin’ way… Won’t somebody Think of the Children?!

    The real science community’s innate conservatism and fear of being seen as gauche or partisan is part of the reason we’re still having this Mickey Mouse debate about short-term surface temp trends while the globe’s been relentlessly storing heat in the oceans.

    Oh, and morons, of course. One must not forget the morons. Not that there’s any danger they’d ever let us…

  88. #88 chameleon
    January 30, 2013

    Hmmmm?
    I think Wow missed the brain teaser question entirely.
    Are you saying that Jeff Harvey did NOT write this Wow and Lotharsson?
    ” Brad, you are right. I do have friends who question AGW. I disagree with them, and think that they have been misled somewhere along the line. Same with politics. I am sure we could be good friends.”
    Or that Lotharsson wrote this to the same comment of Brad’s?
    “Good grief, your denial even extends to that. You really do have major problems with self-awareness, don’t you?”
    Also Bernard,
    Who is Jonas?
    I have not noticed a comment from someone called Jonas at this thread?

  89. #89 Wow
    January 30, 2013

    re you saying that Jeff Harvey did NOT write this Wow and Lotharsson?

    Are you asking because you can’t read chubby?

  90. #90 Lionel A
    January 30, 2013

    Vince,

    and just in case anybody’s in any doubt as to where Brad is coming from:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tGB8Uuffi4M

    Yep, and those of us have been around on this topic for more than a dog-watch (counted in years rather than hours) know this only too well. Most of us having visited Amazon at some time and seen the tactics. Amazon need to do something about this as it undermines the usefulness of reviews and star rating for ALL products.

    But of course this does not apply to the likes of BK, chamy & co who can only ever value the width rather than the quality.

    And then there is Duff, always a special case.

  91. #91 Wow
    January 30, 2013

    I have not noticed a comment from someone called Jonas at this thread?

    Why do you think this is the only thread in existence on the entire planet and internet thereon?

  92. #92 Lionel A
    January 30, 2013

    chamy:

    Who is Jonas?
    I have not noticed a comment from someone called Jonas at this thread?

    Your powers of observation really are THAT poor are they not. Do you never look around a page and note the entries in the side columns? You should, ’twill broaden your horizons no end.

  93. #93 chameleon
    January 30, 2013

    @Vince?
    What does Tim’s work have to do with the stuff on his website?
    How come Tim doesn’t publish what he puts on this website?
    How come SS and Rabbet and RC and Tamino ecetera don’t publish what they put on their websites?
    Is there a point of difference in your criticism re Humlum?
    Is there now something wrong with Geoscience?

  94. #94 chek
    January 30, 2013

    So very blissfully, pig-ignorantly unaware, eh Cammy?
    SkS references the science, it doesn’t publish it, or make shit up like your preferred sources .
    RC is the collective blog of publishing scientists – Gavin Schmidt of NASA for example
    Rabbet is a publishing chemistry professor
    and Tamino is also a frequent publisher.

    And note that they publish in mainstream journals not Mickey Mouse ones that make E&E look like Nature.in comparison

  95. #95 Wow
    January 30, 2013

    How come Tim doesn’t publish what he puts on this website?

    He does: on this website. Duh.

    How come SS and Rabbet and RC and Tamino ecetera don’t publish what they put on their websites?

    They do: on their websites.

    Is there a point of difference in your criticism re Humlum?

    Yes.

    Humdrum doesn’t do science at all on his website, but pretends what he does there is science. Unlike Tim, Rabett and Tamino. Tamino also puts some of his science on his website.

    Others like Monbiot put the science of others (science that is published in the science journals and letters) on his web site.

    Humdrum doesn’t.

  96. #96 Vince Whirlwind
    January 30, 2013

    I think it’s futile.

    Chameleon is a bottomless pit of incomprehension.

  97. #97 bill
    January 30, 2013

    And then there is Duff, always a special case.

    Cheap malt, or basket?

  98. #98 bill
    January 30, 2013

    Tamino doesn’t publish? Or the guys at RC?

    You have got to be freakin’ kidding me?!

    (And you clearly have no idea who Eli is!)

    Christ, John and Dana and Rob P from SkS have been publishing! (And in my view this paper completely wipes the floor with the ‘warming pause’ BS)

    The real question is: why are we wasting our time ‘debating’ such outright and pitiable fatuity?

  99. #99 chek
    January 31, 2013

    Christ, John and Dana and Rob P from SkS have been publishing!

    My mistake, I wasn’t aware of that.

  100. #100 Eli Rabett
    http://rabett.blogspot.com
    January 31, 2013

    Gotta have a day job.

Current ye@r *