January 2013 Open Thread

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


  1. #1 bill
    January 10, 2013

    I know it’s impossible to believe but I am genuinely a new commenter.


    You’re seriously going to tell us that you are not the author of this, for instance?

    It definitely appears the modelling that has used ACO2 ‘forcings’ was incorrect.
    Also don’t forget the mantra was it was going down unnaturally in the 70′s.
    Looks like ‘natural’ has no interest in conforming to stat projections.
    Looks like that human signal is being totally swamped by the real drivers of global climate/weather.

    Let’s compare it to –

    note that this also indicates that the hypothesised correlation with ACO2 increases, let alone simple natural increases in CO2 is not playing out in reality.
    The signal you are so desperately trying to find is being drowned out in all the other ‘noise’.
    This indicates that the modelling and the AGW theory are ‘not settled’.

    ‘ACO2’? The same bizarre single-line spacings? ‘Swamped’ and ‘drowned out’? The same telegraphic style and obtuse sentences?

    Interesting, isn’t it, that you chose ‘impossible’ to believe, rather than the usual ‘hard’? This is a Freudian error; because you know it must indeed be impossible – rather than merely difficult – to believe simply because it isn’t true.

    Seriously; what’re the odds that there are two fussy little Dunning-Krugerites online who both make this identical – and ludicrously false – claim? –

    BTW, folks it was Tim Flannery who said ‘fleeting fancy’

    More bullshit. Try googling ‘Tim Flannery fleeting fancy’ – there’s only one reference available to him ever having said this, and it’s you, Debbie, at Jo Nova’s.

    The pathology is deep in this one.

    And here’s another epic comprehension fail:

    BTW, folks it was Tim Flannery who said ‘fleeting fancy’. That was a good guess.
    Finally guessed right about a person.

    Not a guess, remember? Google the terms, and the only, single, solitary reference is to you at Jo Nova’s, claiming to be quoting Flannery? Is this really so very hard to understand? Well, yes, in your case, but others here are a trifle quicker on the uptake.

    And ‘finally guessed right about a person’ is, almost certainly, a poor liar’s pathetic, defensive bluff, don’t you think? 😉 (I have added a smiley here. This shows I’m being witty. Chuckle.)

    Finally, you cannot keep turning up in a place where absolutely no-one wants you to be, play the abrasive dill, and then claim to be a victim of ‘bullying’.

    Well, you are, of course, but this is because, like so many of your tribe, you have ‘issues’

  2. #2 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    I know it’s impossible to believe but I am genuinely a new commenter.

    It’s not hard to believe. It’s just that the cut-and-paste clones are so hard to tell apart.

  3. #3 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    …it was Tim Flannery who said ‘fleeting fancy’.

    So you’ll be able to provide a full citation with context, right?

    It’s not that I don’t believe … er, no, I take that back. It’s that I don’t believe anything you claim without providing the evidence. Why? Because almost every single interpretation you’ve made of other people’s words here – where they are fresh in other people’s memories and easy to check – has been somewhere between wrong and blatantly dishonest (and I’m struggling to remember you owning up to any of them). You are not participating in this blog in “good faith” and you aren’t even making a pretense of doing so.

  4. #4 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    It’s basically bleedingly obvious that the planet would be different (though not necessarily better) if there was no human impact.

    It’s “basically bleedingly obvious” that this is nowhere near a fair summary of Jeff’s points – and that you either don’t want to address them, or that they went over your very limited level of understanding.

    But that’s par for the course with you.

    While we’re at it, you might want to refrain from using words like “misanthropic” when you clearly don’t understand what they mean.

  5. #5 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    Finally, you cannot keep turning up in a place where absolutely no-one wants you to be, play the abrasive dill, and then claim to be a victim of ‘bullying’.

    Technically she can, but that just means she’s wrong about one more thing. And really, why start being right now after all the careful investment in cultivating a reliably mistaken persona? 😉

    Besides, she’s clearly not here for the hunting – for whatever personal reasons she has, the ritual intellectual abuse and appropriate responses to abrasive dillity seem to be keenly sought after.

  6. #6 chameleon
    January 10, 2013

    Well then Bill,
    it looks like Debbie at Jonova’s must think similarly to me?
    I have read a couple of Jonova posts in the last few months when they have been recommended.
    My favourite commenter there is definitely Tony from Oz.
    He outlines practical application and has his feet firmly planted on the ground.
    I also often find myself nodding at comments from Rereke (?) who points out the hopeless PR that surrounds this issue.
    I do however agree that some people who comment there are just as politically biased as your tribe.

  7. #7 bill
    January 10, 2013

    Drawing away from the pathological whirlpool of certain parties’ chronic “it’s all about me” attention-seeking, the Met Office’s latest fisking of the repugnant Delingpole is most enjoyable.

  8. #8 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    “it looks like Debbie at Jonova’s must think similarly to me?”

    And writes similarly to you.

    And I believe you mean “doesn’t think”. No actual intelligence seems to be forthcoming from “either” of you.

    You quack, waddle and swim like one, but claim “I’m no duck!”.

  9. #9 chameleon
    January 11, 2013

    And I know I’m just winding you up Wow and I probably shouldn’t do it.
    But did you notice that you stridently claimed I claimed something and then asked who claimed I claimed it a few posts later?
    Hint: it was to do with CO2. And it finished with you claiming:
    Yes you did!
    And just so we’re perfectly clear Lotharsson:
    Who was it who introduced the delightful term ‘ritual intellectual humiliation’?
    Hint: It was straight after a fairly lengthy lecture about poor use of terminology and how that indicates all sorts of personality and comprehension disorders.
    And JeffH,
    I didn’t notice ‘political science’ when I read up about you.
    Does that mean I should or shouldn’t take notice of your comments in regard to politics and political history?
    Are you a recognised and professional, PhD ,highly published, university employed, expert on political history and/or political science?
    And no doubt this will set off another string of amusing and ritual intellectual abuse from the ‘ritual intellectual humiliation’ tribe.
    And you can relax Bill, it is starting to get a bit boring so I will probably go sooner rather than later despite the fact that I have found this site a little bit addictive, for all the wrong reasons.
    And if you want to find out where I have ever commented before wouldn’t you just google chameleon?
    But if it is so important to you, I have commented at a few MSM sites in relation to some opinion pieces but only very rarely.
    I’m not sure Google could help you as it has been ‘rarely’ and I actually don’t really care because I don’t see why you think it’s so relevant and/or important?

  10. #10 Lotharsson
    January 11, 2013

    Yep, bill, Delingpole is an odious propagandist.

  11. #11 chek
    January 11, 2013

    “Yep, bill, Delingpole is an odious propagandist.”

    And not a very good one, in that his lies and distortions are easily found out. But then again, his demographic are true believers who don’t bother with fact checking or anything that involves any intellectual effort.

  12. #12 Lotharsson
    January 11, 2013

    … just so we’re perfectly clear Lotharsson…

    You are not, and have not been, perfectly clear – at almost any time on this blog.

    Who was it who introduced the delightful term ‘ritual intellectual humiliation’?

    Unlike your interpretation of it, it wasn’t about the people handing it out. It was about people like you who seem to be seeking it rather than seeking to have a rational discussion, because they continue to post the most abject tosh even after they have been corrected.

    Just as you’ve been corrected on what I meant by it in the past.

    It is recursively ironic that you continue to insist it applies differently than intended.

  13. #13 Lotharsson
    January 11, 2013

    Does that mean I should or shouldn’t take notice of your comments in regard to politics and political history?

    You haven’t taken notice of anyone who’s appropriately qualified in the past, so why start now?

    Consistency. (Or as Wow generalises it: thinking.)

    Not your strong suit.

  14. #14 Lotharsson
    January 11, 2013

    …it is starting to get a bit boring so I will probably go sooner rather than later…

    Flounce number four is a pretty half-hearted effort.

  15. #15 Lotharsson
    January 11, 2013

    Still waiting on that citation with full context for the Flannery quote.

    Anyone wanna take bets that chameleon can’t come up with it?

  16. #16 Lotharsson
    January 11, 2013

    Charles Pierce on Australia melting and burning.

    If you’ve never read him before you might want to try a few pieces to get the hang of his style.

  17. #17 MikeH
    January 11, 2013

    Anyone with some spare time? There are some Pielkeologists from Macquarie Uni spouting off at The Con.


  18. #18 bill
    January 11, 2013

    And you can relax Bill, it is starting to get a bit boring I have been found-out so I will probably go sooner rather than later despite the fact that I have found this site a little bit addictive, for all the wrong reasons.

    Before you go, a linky to the quote of Flannery’s where he said ‘snow will be a fleeting fancy in Australia by 2012′, please.

    Yes, well, that will be hard… Tell you what, how’s about you never comment here again, unless and until you can provide one? Only fair…

    Charles’ Pierce’s Idiot America is a classic I’d recommend to anyone. Well, anyone who isn’t one, anyway!…

  19. #19 bill
    January 11, 2013

    Ah, and Howard oversaw the two episodes of the most wasteful spending of the last 50 years in Australia, according to the IMF!

    But, but… Great Big New Tax!

    A foretaste of The Party of The Stupid in power again, perhaps?

  20. #20 Richard Simons
    January 11, 2013

    Chameleon said:

    Despite your hand waving and hyperbole, it appears that the original hypothesis is not playing out in reality.

    To which I responded:

    Which original hypothesis? As always, you phrase things so vaguely that, whatever interpretation is made, you can deny them later. Are you referring to Arrhenius’ 1896 prediction that a doubling of CO2 would result in an increase in Earth’s temperature of 5-6C? That one seems to be well on the way to being realized. If not that, then which?

    Chameleon: I’d appreciate an answer, though I do realize it is probably is more of a commitment than you’d like to make.

  21. #21 chameleon
    January 11, 2013

    I remember seeing him say it on the TV.
    It may have been on some current affairs program or News program in either 2006 or 2007. I remember it because of the clever ‘fleeting fancy’ alliterative term.
    He is quite clever with language.
    I also remember him quite recently pointing out that people in Western Sydney were going to get crankier in traffic jams because of AGW.
    I also remember thinking what AGW had to do with traffic jams, especially since most cars have ACs.

  22. #22 Lotharsson
    January 11, 2013

    I remember seeing him say it on the TV.

    So…no citation.

    Called it!

  23. #23 Karen
    January 11, 2013

    Maybe the quote evaporated because of CC, after all everything else is caused by CO2 induced CC.

    Speaking about evaporation, http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/10/16447930-rare-snowstorm-blankets-holy-land-brings-brief-joy-to-war-weary-damascus?lite

    I still can’t get snow out of my kettle 🙂

  24. #24 Karen
    January 11, 2013

    The new BOM colors, hehehe

    The way that was pummeled in the media reminded me of the way the yanks had the color terrorist alerts after 9/11, pushing fear into the public to further their political agenda’s.

    Tiz funny to see the astroturfers in here get sucked into it like big gullable babies. lol


  25. #25 Karen
    January 11, 2013
  26. #26 Lotharsson
    January 11, 2013

    Goddard is perennially confused, and confused about being confused, even after his baseline confusion is explained to him by people who know what they are talking about.

    I don’t imagine the latest screed will prove any different, but it would explain why Karen would think he “makes a few valid points”.

    Also, it’s best not to use big words you don’t understand like “astroturfers”. By definition they can’t get “sucked into it”.

  27. #27 MikeH
    January 11, 2013
  28. #28 Vince Whirlwind
    January 11, 2013

    Chameleon – your claim regarding Flannery is thus debunked. The earliest reference available on the internet to Tim Flannery being associated with the phrase “fleeting fancy” was December 6 2012, where somebody by the name of “Debbie” has posted this invention of hers on the kook-website run by Joanne Codling.

    I recommend you show more scepticism of anything you read before repeating it, *especially* anything you read on blogs run by screaming nutters the likes of Joanne Codling.

    I don’t know whether your associating Flannery with traffic jams and climate change is a similar invention or not, but let me describe to you an experience had last Saturday: I was driving up a steep, windy pass to get over the Great Dividing Range. The ambient temperature outside my car was 43 degrees Celsius. I counted 15 broken-down cars as I travelled up the pass. Many had broken down in very dangerous narrow sections. Large vehicles has trouble negotiating these obstructions, and and traffic in both directions was frequently required to stop and wait while traffic ahead cleared those obstructions.

    Now, considering Western Sydney has an above-average population of violent and selfish retarded criminal savages, it stands to reason that any weather conditions that create the need for inter-individual co-operation will result in friction and violence.

  29. #29 Karen
    January 11, 2013

    Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery in 2007:

    Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused “a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas” and made the soil too hot, “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems … “.


    a few other hilarious quotes here http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmists_straw_man_we_never_said_it_wouldnt_rain/

  30. #30 bill
    January 11, 2013

    You see, Chebbie, if Flannery ever had said anything of the sort giggling lobotomites such as Karen would regurgitate this little chum nugget at the mere mention of his name – witness the automatic pavlovian ‘Brisbane’s dams empty forever’ response above.

    Bolt and The Australian would never, ever shut up about it. James Delingpole would have worked his little Dad’s Army reincarnation of the SA into a frenzied lather about it.

    It would, in short, be a trope as dear to your collective hearts as ‘the hockey stick is broken’, a response as knee-jerk as the reminder that Rajendra Pachauri is ‘merely’ a railway engineer, an article of faith rivaling the surreal notion that the mere pittances doled out by the wealthiest corporations in the world can never hope to outdo the pernicious influence of the nearly limitless $billions in research grants aimed squarely at advancing the cause of Social!sm.

    But, as it is, there’s only one person who claims any such recollection of this perfect, pure, unsurpassable ‘gem’. You.

    So; particularly given the repeated contextual and comprehension difficulties demonstrated by you on this site, Ockham’s Razor pares us down to but a single explanation: it didn’t happen.

  31. #31 bill
    January 11, 2013

    Also; once upon a time I was a humble weekend cabbie for several years. You know FA about being stuck in traffic in summer.

  32. #32 Lotharsson
    January 11, 2013

    Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains…

    I suspect not.

    Here’s an interview with Flannery where he makes the (indeed) questionable claim that “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”.

    Note that Brisbane is NOT MENTIONED. The context of the interview according to the interviewer is “the bush”, not cities – heck, it’s the “Landline” program which is about the bush. Is there another interview where he used the same words, but about Brisbane?

    And when Flannery makes that quote it’s about “some areas of Australia”, and – despite being somewhat ill-advised – he refers to the phenomenon of reduced rainfall translating into much reduced dam inflows – in the bush (from context). Here’s a fuller quote so that you can see the bit that Karen didn’t want you to read (my emphasis):

    So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we’re going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.

    I haven’t watched Karen’s YouTube video of The Bolt Report. I wonder if it is the interview reported on here, where Flannery is verballed to his face by Andrew Bolt in 2007.

    Note how even Bolt’s website’s transcript of the interview apparently lies by leaving out bits!

    And then note how Bolt provides probabilistic statements that he says that Flannery made, and then blatantly misinterprets them as if they were not probabilistic. And claims Flannery said things that he did not say. Why can’t denialists make their case without blatant misinterpretation – which in Bolt’s case rises to the level of a whole series of lies?

    It’s true that Flannery hasn’t always got it right, but he’s got it much more right than Bolt and co and any of his cut-and-paste acolytes who turn here. And much of the furore about what he said on the denialist front is based – just like our resident trolls – on misinterpreting or misquoting what he said.

    Andrew Bolt is a very unreliable source – and that’s without noting that his transcript lies by omission.

  33. #33 Lotharsson
    January 11, 2013

    Ockham’s Razor pares us down to but a single explanation: it didn’t happen.

    And also: either Debbie is chameleon, the two of them apparently being the only two in the whole wide world to have “remembered” a remarkable quote online that even Andrew Bolt hasn’t doctored, …

    …or chameleon is even more of a cut-and-paste bot than previously thought.

    My money’s on the former, but the latter can’t be ruled out.

    And it was awfully handy of Karen to illustrate that Bolt is the dog that didn’t bark on this “quote”. Thanks, Karen!

  34. #34 Wow
    January 11, 2013

    “I remember seeing him say it on the TV.”

    The null hypothesis would say this never happened.

    Prove your claim or withdraw it.

  35. #35 Wow
    January 11, 2013

    “But did you notice that you stridently claimed I claimed something and then asked who claimed I claimed it a few posts later?
    Hint: it was to do with CO2. And it finished with you claiming:
    Yes you did!”

    So now you don’ t understand time, either.

    Or you’re saying you can see into the future (but don’t understand English enough to know what “tense” means).

    You claimed it BEFORE I said “Yes you did!”.

    So since the ONLY example you have for someone having claimed you claimed it, is AFTER you whined about people having claimed you claimed it, YOU LIED.

    This is not a shock to anyone here.

    But thanks for falling for the bait. If you hadn’t been dim enough to think you had an answer, you would, as you have every other time, avoided answering it or giving any evidence.

    Since you ARE dim enough to think it, you answered and therefore proved you had no case.

  36. #36 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 11, 2013

    ‘Listen, you guys, da game is up, come out widja hands in da air!’

    Sorry, chaps, not too sure how to break the news but, well, it’s all over. You see, NASA – yes, NASA, spiritual home to James Hansen and Michael Mann, that NASA – convened a great ‘Conference of the Experts’ and now they have issued their report and, oh Lordy, Lordy, they have admitted that solar energy might well play a part in earth climate. Even worse, there’s hardly a mention of CO2!

    The only real and relevant debate concerning global warming/cooling is whether or not, or by how much, the sun affects our climate. So, no longer ‘Warmers’ vs, ‘Deniers’, instead, the only argument in town is ‘Warmers’ vs. ‘Warmers’. What does it feel like to be irrelevant?

    Still, there is some good news. It means that ‘Chameleon’, Karen and I don’t really need to bother with you any more.

  37. #37 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 11, 2013

    In my drooling excitement and pleasure that should have read:

    “the only argument in town is ‘Deniers’ vs. ‘Deniers’!

    Sorry, it’s my age, you know!

  38. #38 chek
    January 11, 2013

    “What does it feel like to be irrelevant?”

    You’re the expert, you tell me.

    Seeing as you can neither read nor comprehend and insist on getting your crank version of information from crank disinformation sites after being warned repeatedly, you don’t get to be any more irrelevant than that.

    You might also want to acquaint yourself with the IPCC reports, and see what they actually say regarding solar activity, rather than the crank fantasy version of them you have jammed between your ears.

  39. #39 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 11, 2013

    And as you well know, I am not one to rub broken glass into fresh wounds but:

    “The New York Times will close its environment desk in the next few weeks and assign its seven reporters and two editors to other departments. The positions of environment editor and deputy environment editor are being eliminated. No decision has been made about the fate of the Green Blog, which is edited from the environment desk.”

    WHAT? The NYT? Splitters!

  40. #40 Jeff Harvey
    January 11, 2013

    Duff, you’re such a daft old fart.

    Strange that NASA’s web site says this:

    and this:

    So – are they just too tired to revise their web site?

  41. #41 Jeff Harvey
    January 11, 2013

    Guess people where Duff found out this little slice of garbage…

    Any guesses?

    Yup! WUWT! Well, that’s a shock. Anthony Watt’s fantasy non-science blog. Seems Duff spends a lot of is time in there, sad old git. This piece of bilge was pasted up by Watt’s on January 9, and of course the REAL report says nothing about downplaying AGW and the C02 component. That’s Watts doing what he does best – misinterpreting it in order to bolster his own narrow views. Note also how its hardly even resonating around the denialosphere, let alone mainstream outlets. That’s because it doesn’t say anything to downplay AGW.

  42. #42 chek
    January 11, 2013

    Jeff, it goes without saying that Duffer would never bother with registering and getting the actual report free from NASA – not when he can have it “interpreted” into denierspeak for him by his spiritual leader Watts.

  43. #43 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 11, 2013

    Ah, not too up in the way of Big Organisation politics are you, Jeff. Imagine if the Vatican had decided that, yes, perhaps, on consideration, there was something in all that atheism, would you expect a public announcement? Well, yes, you would because you are a naïf, but the rest of us can spot a big shift however well they try to disguise it.

    And “y’all” (as they say ‘over there’) should read the fast and furious argument now raging in the comments at WAWT with some heavyweight scientific hard-hitters going at it hammer and tongs. Proper science, that is, not like the la-la-land we find here where you all join hands and chant!

  44. #44 Robert Murphy
    North Carolina
    January 11, 2013

    Olaus Petri posts a link and small passage from a NASA webpage that he thinks (or wants others to think) claims a big link between global temps and solar variation, when in fact the page says explicitly:

    “In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example.

    Caspar Amman of NCAR noted in the report that “When Earth’s radiative balance is altered, as in the case of a change in solar cycle forcing, not all locations are affected equally. The equatorial central Pacific is generally cooler, the runoff from rivers in Peru is reduced, and drier conditions affect the western USA.”

    Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. “If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal.” This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years.”

    Epic Fail, yet again.

  45. #45 Jeff Harvey
    January 11, 2013

    This gives you an indication of how literally far-out in loonyville Duff is. On one of his comments, he wrote this about Obama:

    “I still cannot quite believe that the American people ignored me and voted in that Marxist-socialist”.

    ‘Nuff said. A president who receives over a billion dollars from the corporate lobby, much of it from banks like Goldman-Sachs, who has overseen an increase in the distribution and concentration of wealth to the rich,who is waging more wars abroad at the behest of ’empire’ and the military industrial state, and who was vetted by corporate lobbysts long before he got within a sniff of the White House. To Duff, he’s a ‘Marxist-Socialist’.

    I don’t know whether to laugh or cry, but one thing’s for sure. One cursory look through ‘Duff and Nonsense’ and Duff’s views on climate change begin to make more and more sense.

  46. #46 Robert Murphy
    North Carolina
    January 11, 2013

    Reading above I see that Duff made the same ignorant claim. Sorry Duff, the NASA Conference you mentioned concluded that solar variation has very limited affect on the temperature signal.

  47. #47 Jeff Harvey
    January 11, 2013

    Duff continued….

    “Proper science, that is, not like the la-la-land we find here”

    Duff, you would’nt know proper science if it bit you in the face. Given the loony quality of your other views it baffles me why you even venture into anything other than pure fantasy…

  48. #48 chek
    January 11, 2013

    “And “y’all” (as they say ‘over there’) should read the fast and furious argument now raging in the comments at WAWT with some heavyweight scientific hard-hitters going at it hammer and tongs.”

    You poor, stupid fuckwit.
    A Watts Punch and Judy show by the ignorant for the ignorant (Courtney’n’Ball???) does not constitute “heavyweight scientific hard-hitters”, except in your vacuously empty head.

  49. #49 Lionel A
    January 11, 2013

    So Duff what is WAWT?

    Weak As Wet Tissue perhaps.

    There are now signs that Duff is clinically depressed. Not surprising for one who’s faux bonhomie laced with wishful thinking gets thrown straight back in his face.

    He accuses us of joining hands and chanting.whilst using terms like ‘la la land’. Wonderful!

    BTW You have avoided answering a number of direct questions that were put to you in the wake of each of your other fallacious, mendacious statements here. The casual reader should ask themselves why this is?

    Duff is all Puff as pointed out before for he cannot get the hang of gathering valid information:

    If you don’t understand then look up stuff
    but best to avoid Cardinal Puff
    Also don’t bother with WUW that
    ’cause then you would look a right old pratt.

    Oh, But then you do already
    from behaving just like Nova’s teddy.
    And consulting offerings from that TallBloke
    will reinforce that your credibility’s broke.

    So you see he does now look like a right old pratt, again.

    Still, he could find a job as Delingpole’s coaster.

  50. #50 chek
    January 11, 2013

    Hi Lionel – is that you with the credit in Pat Martin’s new book? The can’t have been too many Lionel A’s on the Ark!

  51. #51 Lionel A
    January 11, 2013

    Yep! That is I.

    Photo’s too. Also in

    ‘Phoenix Squadron’ by Rowland White


    ‘Phantom from the Cockpit’ by Peter Caygill.

  52. #52 Lotharsson
    January 12, 2013

    It’s almost as if Duff thinks he needs to give his approval to whatever pap WUWT is serving before we all realise it’s crap. David, we knew it already, OK?

  53. #53 chameleon
    January 12, 2013

    I love the argument:
    “If it’s not Googleable then it didn’t happen”.
    Is that the same as if it isn’t on the news then it isn’t important?
    However, because I do remember the time frame of the ‘traffic jams’ comment I was able to find that one for you.
    I also remember Bob Brown claiming on TV that the QLD mining companies should be made to pay for the floods in QLD because it’s their fault that we get extreme weather events (or something similar)
    And there is also a delightful clip of Tim Flannery talking to the BBC re a ‘global organism’ that I have seen a couple of times.
    My point to you lot was that the ‘celebrities of AGW’ and some of the Govt employees and politicians and some of the insufferable snobs at the ABC are seriously over stating your case and over intellectualising the issue and therefore not doing any of you any favours.
    The latest ‘media releases’ from BoM (which have therefore come via their PR people) are yet another example of your problem.
    But go ahead and defend them if you wish.

  54. #54 chameleon
    January 12, 2013

    And whadya know?
    Delingpole draws attention to the same snow comment made by Tim Flannery in this article.
    (It’s OK I know you hate Delingpole and I actually don’t like his style either)
    However, he also refers to the no snow by 2012 comment.
    “And by “not a snowball’s chance in hell”, I mean, that the likelihood of such a thing occurring is now roughly on a par with Elvis being discovered alive and well and living in Bolivia and ready to rush record a new album just in time for Christmas. (Cue: a stampede to the record stores by Michael Mann, Al Gore, the Prince of Wales, Tim Flannery, and the rest of the climate fool gang).”
    To be honest with you I preferred Tim Flannery’s turn of phrase ‘fleeting fancy’ than Delingpole’s interpretation.

  55. #55 Lotharsson
    January 12, 2013

    I love the argument:
    “If it’s not Googleable then it didn’t happen”.

    That’s because you can’t rebut “a quote that easily turned into denialist propaganda would have been promoted all around the denialosphere”. (Ironically you then provide a link to a quote which is easily found with Google – without even bringing “timeframes” into it.)

    At your link the video has expired but the print story includes:

    Chief climate commissioner Tim Flannery says some of the negative impacts of warmer weather in Sydney’s west are not immediately obvious.

    “What happens when we get these very, very hot days is that elderly people and the very young particularly are vulnerable and people get a little bit confused because they’re heat stressed,” he said.

    “People get angry as well, particularly if you’re sitting in a traffic jam and it’s stinking hot outside.”

    Apparently this is “…seriously over stating your case and over intellectualising the issue…”. However, in order to accurately make this judgement you’d have to be competent to judge the case, and as you have helpfully demonstrated with copious evidence at this blog, you aren’t competent to do so.

    Feel free to try and explain why you think this example is “seriously overstating the case”, but in order to do so you’ll have to have your first serious attempt to ground your case in the best scientific conclusions from examining all the evidence. Are you up for it? (I predict not.)

    But go ahead and defend them if you wish.

    Your own attempted defences of the people engaged in massively understating the scientific case for concern are not evident here. Ever wondered why your concerns are so one-sided?

    Nah, I guess not. For the record, none of us wonder why you don’t either. We’ve already got a very good idea.

  56. #56 Lotharsson
    January 12, 2013

    It’s OK I know you hate Delingpole and I actually don’t like his style either


    And I don’t hate him. I hate his corrosive influence on the public discourse due to blatantly misrepresenting the facts, even after he’s been explicitly given the correct ones.

    He’s a liar, as demonstrated by earlier posts on this site and any number of other blogs – including that from the Bureau of Meteorology – pointing out his lies. (Heck, his very first sentence contains at least one lie!)

    The fact that you (a) think that citing him is credible and (b) can’t find a less unreliable source for your claims is very telling – and not just that you are extremely gullible when someone tells you what you want to hear.

    Delingpole draws attention to the same snow comment made by Tim Flannery in this article.

    And whadya know? You are deep into clown trolling territory, because that claim, easily checked using your own link, is self-evidently false. In that article:

    – “Flannery” is only mentioned in the sarcastic comment you quoted
    – “2012” never appears in the body of the article.
    – “snow” in any form only appears in the “snowball’s chance in hell” comment.
    – The “snowball’s chance in hell” comment was written by Delingpole to sarcastically communicate his personal estimate from deep personal ignorance of the likelihood of his first sentence’s strawman occurring. Even the liar Delingpole did not claim Flannery said what you claim he said.

    You aren’t even competent at basic English comprehension – which is relevant when you claim to have accurately remembered a quote from 5 or 6 years ago that no-one else seems to have remembered – let alone at comprehending scientific English, never mind judging whether someone is overstating a scientific case or not!

    You don’t just have zero credibility when you make factual claims, you have way less than zero, like Delingpole! It’s far more reliable to assume that anything you or he claim without providing solid evidence is wrong, than it is to assume it is right.

  57. #57 Karen
    January 12, 2013


    We evaluate to what extent the temperature rise in the past 100 years was a trend or a natural fluctuation and analyze 2249 worldwide monthly temperature records from GISS (NASA) with the 100-year period covering 1906-2005 and the two 50-year periods from 1906 to 1955 and 1956 to 2005. No global records are applied. The data document a strong urban heat island effect (UHI) and a warming with increasing station elevation. For the period 1906-2005, we evaluate a global warming of 0.58°C as the mean for all records. This decreases to 0.41°C if restricted to stations with a population of less than 1000 and below 800 meter above sea level. About a quarter of all the records for the 100-year period show a fall in temperatures. Our hypothesis for the analysis is, as generally in the papers concerned with long-term persistence of temperature records, that the observed temperature records are a combination of long-term correlated records with an additional trend, which is caused for instance by anthropogenic CO2, the UHI or other forcings. We apply the detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA) and evaluate Hurst exponents between 0.6 and 0.65 for the majority of stations, which is in excellent agreement with the literature and use a method only recently published, which is based on DFA, synthetic records and Monte Carlo simulation. As a result, the probabilities that the observed temperature series are natural have values roughly between 40% and 90%, depending on the stations characteristics and the periods considered. “Natural” means that we do not have within a defined confidence interval a definitely positive anthropogenic contribution and, therefore, only a marginal anthropogenic contribution cannot be excluded.


    Oh gawdddd, Loth your pestiferous perverse piffling is, yawwwnnnn boring !

  58. #58 chameleon
    January 12, 2013

    I suspect it may have much more to do with the fact that there are several key electoral seats in Western Sydney.
    Did it also perhaps cross your mind that people who live in places like say Broome in WA or Darwin in NT or FNQLD or any of the other areas in Australia that don’t have Syndey’s mostly temperate climate may have scoffed at this comment?
    And as I originally said:
    Why wouldn’t they use their air conditioners?
    Don’t most drivers in Western Sydney have air conditioners in their cars?

  59. #59 bill
    January 12, 2013

    Delingpole is a toxic extremist. Matt Ridley is as competent at Climate Science as he is at running banks.

    And that piece doesn’t back you up in the slightest. You really have the most appalling comprehension skills of anyone I’ve ever encountered.

    It didn’t happen. Deal with it.

  60. #60 Vince Whirlwind
    January 12, 2013

    In summary, Chameleon,
    – Flannery said nothing about snow being a “fleeting fancy”, you made it up
    – Delingpole said nothing about Flannery saying “fleeting fancy”, you made it up
    – Flannery pointed out that excessive heat makes people cranky, which is true.
    – Flannery was talking about increased heat in Western Sydney, which is a real-world observation.

    Meanwhile, unable to back up your assertions with any logic or evidence, you’ve fired another random-looking comment into the mix:
    – Flannery said something about a “global organism”
    Please, can you go ahead and share with us your understanding of this concept that Flannery was discussing. What does it mean?

  61. #61 Vince Whirlwind
    January 12, 2013


    I suspect it may have much more to do with the fact that there are several key electoral seats in Western Sydney.

    Can you develop this idea? Because I can’t even begin to imagine a relevant train of logic that links Flannery talking about heat and key electoral seats.

  62. #62 Lotharsson
    January 12, 2013

    Nice work, Karen. You’ve managed to find one of the handful of papers that claim human influence, despite our instruments showing distinct changes in back radiation and TOA radiation characteristics, is minimal!

    And that paper is so influential that it’s only been cited 3 times, and each time by one of its authors. (That’s more or less the science equivalent of toilet paper. The paper was used as chum for denialist blogs, and that’s about it.)

    Its lead author is – you guessed it – an emeritus professor of physics who is – self admittedly – not a climate scientist, but nevertheless argues it was the sun wot did it.

    So, even disregarding any questions of whether the paper has any merit or not, at best you have a handful of papers making a claim that is up against thousands that say it’s balderdash.

    Bet I know which set you’re going with!

  63. #63 Lotharsson
    January 12, 2013

    Did it also perhaps cross your mind that people who live in places like say Broome in WA or Darwin in NT or FNQLD or any of the other areas in Australia that don’t have Syndey’s mostly temperate climate may have scoffed at this comment?

    Since Flannery was talking about these “very hot days” and you reckon the people of Broome and Darwin pooh pooh the very concept that it could possibly be an issue in Western Sydney, the record highs in Broome and Darwin must be a lot higher than Western Sydney, right?

    Oh, wait…Darwin’s record high is 38.9C, Broome’s is 44.8 degrees and Penrith’s record high is – WTF? 46.0C!


    (And how about those legendary multiple hour traffic jams in Broome, eh?)

  64. #64 chameleon
    January 12, 2013

    Well yes Vince,
    I suspect I could also find that one but it will take me some time to remember where I originally saw it.
    I promise I will link it when I remember from whence it came.
    I’m nearly certain it was a BBC interview if you’d like to try and see if it’s googleable for yourself.
    No takers on Bob Brown’s little gem on the media during the QLD floods?
    And did anyone catch that Tim Flannery’s comment re the traffic jams in Western Sydney were ‘scoffable attable’ if you don’t happen to to live in the mostly temperate climate of Sydney?
    Just so we’re clear here deltoids. I am taking a shot at the pathetic PR that surrounds this issue. Both sides of this polarised political debate are as bad as each other.
    Most of us ‘ordinary folk’ who don’t live in the rarified air of academia land or in the world of PR political spin are getting rather bloody sick of it.
    Genuinely good work by genuinely good people is being shamelessly abused and misused.

  65. #65 Lotharsson
    January 12, 2013

    Even Richard Tol, who has been somewhat skeptical with respect to certain aspects of AGW, thinks Karen’s citation is a crap paper (and he more or less calls out Judith Curry for falling for it).

    Here’s just one example of a glaring flaw:

    Unfortunately, fluctuation analysis does not work on trending variables. Therefore, LLE use DETRENDED fluctuation analysis. That is, they first fit a polynomial of order two to the data, remove this trend, and study the deviations from the trend.

    Having removed the trend from their data, LLE cannot answer the question: What caused the warming? They eliminated from their analysis the very thing in which they are interested.

    And this is the VERY SAME FLAW that McLean, Carter and de Freitas relied on to get their “result”, and which still other contrarian papers that claim all of mainstream climate science is deeply mistaken have made.

    And here’s another example of a huge flaw:

    LLE then estimate the Hurst exponent. The paper omits information on the adequacy of the statistical fit. No indication is given on the precision of the estimates.

    Here’s another:

    Crucially, LLE use the 20th century record to define natural variability. That is, they use the observations of the 20th century to assess whether or not the 20th century was natural or otherwise. This is tautological.

    LLE do not test the hypothesis of “natural variation” against any other possible explanation of the warming of the 20th century.

    And there’s even more.

    And as Tol dryly observes about LLE’s followup effort:

    Oddly, Lüdecke omits carbon dioxide.

    They apparently haven’t even run CO2 through those analytical tests to show that their claims about the sun are a stronger explanation under their own methodology than CO2.

    It’s not surprising it hasn’t changed any minds – it doesn’t even reach the bar of surviving initial scrutiny, let alone undermining a huge amount of work that says their central claim is incorrect.

  66. #66 zoot
    January 12, 2013

    Genuinely good work by genuinely good people is being shamelessly abused and misused.

    You can say that again. About time you stopped (the abuse and misuse).

  67. #67 Lotharsson
    January 12, 2013

    I am taking a shot at the pathetic PR that surrounds this issue.

    Your naive lack of self-knowledge is almost charming.

    If you were actually taking a “shot at the pathetic PR” you wouldn’t be studiously avoiding taking a shot at the distortions from one “side” which consists of people spouting positions that you appear to agree with.

    Both sides of this polarised political debate are as bad as each other.

    There certainly are rhetorical excesses by politicians on both sides, but the level of excesses are not even close to being “as bad as each other”.

    But we already know you aren’t equipped to judge this because you are almost completely gullible when it comes to someone telling you what you want to hear about the science. And we also know that won’t stop you sharing your ill-formed judgements…

  68. #68 Vince Whirlwind
    January 12, 2013

    Karen, you failed to explain what it is you understand is the meaning of Flannery’s “global organism”.

    How about carrying through with something first before skating off to your next semi-formed thought.

    Explain what Flannery’s “Global organism” is.

    Then we can discuss whether the idea has merit.

  69. #69 Vince Whirlwind
    January 12, 2013

    As for Bob Brown – he is clearly referring to the idea that we should wind back on costs externalised by carbon-emitting industries.

    This is basic, sound, economics.

    While I may not be a fan of the communists and other idiots that now run the Greens, Bob Brown was very solid – it was he was going around the country 20 years ago warning that if we failed to invest in renewable technologies, other countries would end up with the export markets for wind turbines and solar plants instead of us. Which is exactly what has happened.

  70. #70 Karen
    January 12, 2013

    twirlybird you are as ditzy as Lotharpiffle, lol

  71. #71 Vince Whirlwind
    January 12, 2013

    I meant Debbie.

    Remind us, Karen, how did John McLean’s “2012 will be the coldest year since 1956” prediction work out?
    And has he finished that PhD yet? You know, the PhD he used to pad his CV with before it was pointed out he hadn’t in fact ever been awarded one?

  72. #72 Richard Simons
    January 12, 2013

    Genuinely good work by genuinely good people is being shamelessly abused and misused.

    As you demonstrated when you twice failed to explain what you meant by the ‘original hypothesis’, you have, at best, only the woolliest conception of the physics behind global climate change. A blog post with sketchy details of the methods was judged by you to have a good description of the procedures. It is clear that you are incompetent to judge the general worth of a paper or the validity of its conclusions. The ‘genuinely good work’ that is being ‘shamelessly abused’ is being abused by the likes of Delingpole, Watts, Monkton and the rest of their gang.

  73. #73 bill
    January 12, 2013

    Just so we’re clear here deltoids. I am taking a shot at the pathetic PR that surrounds this issue. Both sides of this polarised political debate are as bad as each other.
    Most of us ‘ordinary folk’ who don’t live in the rarified air of academia land or in the world of PR political spin are getting rather bloody sick of it.

    A link please to your trolling at Denialist sites.

    No? Well, that’s that BS out the way.

    The only other problem is you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Which does indeed make you pretty ‘ordinary’, I suppose ; thank God science is not determined by the ‘commonsense’ of those who imagine themselves the ‘salt of the earth’.

    Unfortunately elections are. This century we’ll get to find out just where that’ll lead us…

  74. #74 bill
    January 12, 2013

    Meanwhile, back in the real world, 2 key reports are released simultaneously:

    One; the Climate Commission’s:

    Heatwave exacerbated by climate change: Climate Commission

    A new report from the Federal Government’s Climate Commission says the heatwave and bushfires that have affected Australia this week have been exacerbated by global warming.

    Two, the US Federal Advisory Committee’s

    Climate change is already affecting the American people. Certain types of weather events have become more frequent and/or intense, including heat waves, heavy downpours, and, in some regions, floods and droughts. Sea level is rising, oceans are becoming more acidic, and glaciers and arctic sea ice are melting. These changes are part of the pattern of global climate change, which is primarily driven by human activity.

    One thing I can forecast with 100% accuracy: a conspiracist brain-snap is imminent! Man the loons!…

  75. #75 Anthony David
    January 12, 2013

    “Asia is 5.8 times area of Australia. However hot Aus gets Asia cold trumps it http://bit.ly/WutW23 THE WORLD IS COOLING”

    Mind-numbing tweet of the year


  76. #76 bill
    January 12, 2013


    Yeah, right.

    Would Piers be a mate of McLean’s, by chance?

  77. #77 Jeff Harvey
    January 12, 2013

    ” Both sides of this polarised political debate are as bad as each other”

    Well, there you go. Chammy makes this absurd remark.

    Essentially what she is saying is that on one side you have cautious scientists who argue over probability in determining their estimates of AGW and its effects;

    On the other side you have a bunch of liars who cherry pick like crazy, and who exhibit little or no caution is saying that AGW is ‘bunk’. Many of these liars are on the corporate payroll, either directly or indirectly.

    And our drama queen here is saying that both sides are as bad as each other. All this shows is that she hasn’t delved into the science or the underlying economics/politics of the issue more than a micrometer. Its this kind of pontificating that fully explains why Dunning-Kruger’s paper is such a bonafide classic. People who know diddly-squat think that by perusing a few denier blogs they become instant experts in fields of scientific endeavor. Remember Chammy saying early on that she and her husband had ‘backgrounds in science’? This nugget was ‘dropped’ into the thread to give the impression that she knew what she was talking about. In reality, as her subsequent posts have shown, it means a great big nix.

  78. #78 Lotharsson
    January 12, 2013

    Would Piers be a mate of McLean’s, by chance?

    Fellow denialist but arguably far kookier, and legendary (in his own mind) long range weather forecaster based on his secret method which includes something to do with solar magnetic cycles influencing the weather by modulating the moon’s orbit, or something. However he allegedly lost a fair bit of money doing so, and didn’t forecast too well recently either.

    He apparently was one of the denialist in the propaganda piece “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and (as Wiki links to) apparently claimed in 1999:

    CO2 has never driven, does not drive and never will drive weather or climate. Global warming is over and it never was anything to do with CO2. CO2 is still rising but the world is now cooling and will continue to do so.

    Since then we had the warmest decade in the instrumental record – despite ENSO spending a lot of time in the cool phase and the sun trending a little on the cool side too, IIRC.

  79. #79 Lotharsson
    January 12, 2013

    BTW bill, McLean predicted that for 2011 (and I’m unaware of him doing it for 2012).

    Karen, any guesses on how well it turned out? You could go to McLean’s original prediction and see if he assessed his accuracy after the year ended.

    Interestingly if you do, not only has McLean not done so, but (IIRC) the bunch of comments that used to be on that post have disappeared.

  80. #80 Lotharsson
    January 12, 2013

    And McLean apparently still hasn’t written the blog post for his blog that he promised at the end of 2011.

  81. #81 bill
    January 12, 2013


    The coldest or near coldest May for 100 years in Central and East parts with a record run of bitter Northerly winds. Snow at times especially on high ground in NE / East. Spring put in reverse. Confidence of E / SE England mean temps: Coldest in 100yrs 80%; In 5 coldest in 100 years 90%


    We did NOT forecast THE coldest May for 100 years.

    Priceless! That’s going in the scrapbook, along with ‘we never said it wasn’t warming’.

  82. #82 bill
    January 12, 2013

    Yeah, I spend a bit of time at Hot Topic, and McLean, Leyland and the rest of the gang at the NZC”S”C’s forecasting history get’s taken out for a spin fairly regularly!

    This one really does crack me up. I’m sure we all await that post with bated breath.

  83. #83 Wow
    January 12, 2013

    ” those who imagine themselves the ‘salt of the earth’.”

    Doesn’t salt in the earth stop anything growing?

  84. #84 Lotharsson
    January 12, 2013

    Yep, and that’s getting to be a problem in some places where sea levels are rising…

  85. #85 Wow
    January 12, 2013

    “I love the argument:
    “If it’s not Googleable then it didn’t happen”.”

    Given that you’ve time and time again put words in people’s mouths that never were said EVEN HERE ON THIS VERY THREAD, you need to prove your assertions with genuine links to independent sources.

    If you think that it is not possible to get a link and that this means it MUST be correct, then here’s a complete lack of a link to prove AGW is true.

  86. #86 bill
    January 12, 2013

    Not just an issue of sea-levels. In the course of my work I recently saw some appalling saline groundwater scalding along the Murray. One hopes that some of the extensive flow-management measures currently being put in place will ameliorate these sorts of problems, but increasing temperatures and evaporation ain’t likely to help…

  87. #87 Lotharsson
    January 12, 2013

    While we’re on this:

    I love the argument:
    “If it’s not Googleable then it didn’t happen”

    But (of course!) that wasn’t the argument.

    The argument was if an individual with a highly visible public role on a contentious issue who is known to be subject to strong scrutiny by a whole bunch of people with media and blog megaphones is claimed to have said something that said megaphone-wielders would pounce on…

    …and it’s not Googleable…

    THEN it didn’t happen.

    Meanwhile chameleon, back to your claims that Delingpole quotes Flannery supporting your memory. Have you caught on yet that you (irony of ironies) completely and utterly misrepresented what Delingpole wrote, which did NOT include a Flannery quote?

    And we’re still waiting for you to rethink “scoffability” once you “catch” that Penrith in Western Sydney gets much hotter than Darwin, and even hotter than Broome.

    And more seriously you still owe Richard Simons (a) an apology for putting words into his mouth and (b) a definition of “original hypothesis”.

    And…I’m sure there’s plenty more homework for you on this thread too. Funny how you never get around to doing it and instead Gish your way onto the next piece of bulldust.

  88. #88 bill
    January 12, 2013

    I just Googled ‘Prince Charles proclaimed Adjunct Supreme Emperor of Saxony, Silesia and Pomerania’.

    Doesn’t appear to have happened.

    The idea that anyone who could cite that (ludicrous) article by (the contemptible) Delingpole claiming that it supported her confabulation re Flannery could also maintain that bother her comprehension and her commitment to veracity were the equal of anyone’s is truly bizarre.

    The sum total of connections it contains is Flannery’s name and the word ‘snow’.

    And yet she even manages to give us –

    However, he [Delingpole] also refers to the no snow by 2012 comment.
    Here: [utterly irrelevant quotation’]

    To be honest with you I preferred Tim Flannery’s turn of phrase ‘fleeting fancy’ than Delingpole’s interpretation.

    And while we’re on the interpreter of interpretations, an insight into the character and motivation of the charming Delingpole can be gained from the closing paragraphs –

    The bad news is that it’s not going to make the blindest bit of difference. As I show in Watermelons, this was never really a debate about science but is, and always has been, about ideology.

    Lots of people are buying this funny, feisty, fact-rich work for their loved ones for Christmas. As the author I strongly recommend that you do the same – but don’t take my word for it, take Matt Ridley’s.

    Do not be deceived by his sometimes flippant and always highly readable prose. This is a serious and significant book.

    You can buy it here.

    Isn’t he lucky he’s won himself an audience of the most patent suckers?

  89. #89 bill
    January 12, 2013

    D’oh! ‘both her’, 3rd para.

  90. #90 James Wight
    January 12, 2013

    I enjoy your blog, and have nominated you for a Very Inspiring Blogger Award. The details are at http://jameswight.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/very-inspiring-blogger-award/

  91. #91 Richard Simons
    January 12, 2013

    And more seriously you still owe Richard Simons (a) an apology for putting words into his mouth and (b) a definition of “original hypothesis”.

    Lotharrson: I’m sure we both realise that getting either is just as likely as her finding a genuine quote of Flannery’s that supports her claims. I’m still hoping that she’ll eventually recognise that claims made here need to be supported but I think she’s well on the way to becoming a member of the troll collective.

  92. #92 Lotharsson
    January 12, 2013

    Yep, but I think she started out already there, Richard!

  93. #93 chameleon
    January 12, 2013

    🙂 🙂 🙂
    No offense deltoids but I haven’t noticed apologies being part of the MO here.
    Jeff H. You must be joking!
    If it was just cautious scientists on ‘one side’ then it wouldn’t be an issue.
    The truth is that on ‘both sides’ we have hand waving, attention seeking, zealot, extremist and highly political people who are polarising this issue and almost guarranteeing that nothing sensible will be achieved.
    The ‘misuse and abuse’ is a direct result of the politics hovering around the issue.

  94. #94 chameleon
    January 12, 2013

    And BTW, they’re using statistics as they’re preferred weapon.

  95. #95 chameleon
    January 12, 2013

    THEIR! sorry, wrong there they’re their!

  96. #96 Vince Whirlwind
    January 12, 2013

    Chameleon, you have quite a few things outstanding to attend to, including,
    – apologise for spreading fake Flannery quotes
    – explain what Flannery’s “global organism” is
    – explain what Flannery’s “heat talk” has to do with elections

    What seems to be happening is that you post something, it is debunked, and you ignore the issue.and then immediately post your next bit of fact-free garbage.

  97. #97 bill
    January 12, 2013

    Chebbie, the fussy little fabulist, is perhaps the most extreme Dunning-Krugerite we have yet encountered, lost in a world of invented interpretations, invented quotations, and invented events; she then chides others with a patronising air (‘Chuckle’) for failing to understand the nuances of the puppet show that plays out in her head, this being the only ‘reality’ she knows.

  98. #98 Jeff Harvey
    January 12, 2013


    Your views have not a scintilla of depth – hence why you exemplify the Dunning-Kruger effect. Essentially, you glean your opinions from a few blogs – not from reading the peer-reviewed literature or by visiting the web sites of the scientists doing the actual research. Please prove to me in the science where James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, ben Saner and many other esteemed researchers are ‘hand-waving’. The answer is that you can’t. The reason you write such piffle is that you don’t read the primary literature. That’s clear.

    Using your inane logic, we just might as well say that in any field of environmental science with policy-related implications that both sides are ‘hand-waving’. Take my field, ecology. There are those like Morano, Nova, etc., with no pedigree whatsoever who claim that the loss of biodiversity is exaggerated and that therefore the problem is minor, This contrasts with the views of most scientists, based on a pesky little thing called the empirical evidence, which suggests quite dramatically otherwise. But you’d need to be up on the literature to fully understand the strength of this evidence and of the broad consensus amongst experts in field in support of it.

    Like many deniers (or, at the very least, pseudo-deniers), you base your views clearly on a very limited knowledge of the field or of the primary literature. So, in lieu of this, you visit blogs. Here you see an ostensible battleground, something akin to a mud wrestling match, in which a lot of opinions are thrown about. Form that you glean that both sides are as bad as one another. But if you got off your lazy butt and went to a conference or a workshop, you’d see that the prevailing view amongst the scientists is that the issue is not at all controversial – humans are the primary agent forcing the current climate changes. The major doubts lie in the extent of warming and the consequences for the natural and material economies. The so-called hand waving is virtually non-existant because deniers are few and far between in the scientific ranks. That is why they are forced to convene shindigs every so often through libertarian think tanks and why these are attended (and lectures are presented) by many non-scientists.

    The bottom line is that your posts are clueless. Every line you write reeks of simplicity. There’s virtually no evidence that you understand how science works.

  99. #99 Jeff Harvey
    January 12, 2013

    OOPs – my bad – Ben SANTER!

  100. #100 Vince Whirlwind
    January 13, 2013

    we have hand waving, attention seeking, zealot, extremist and highly political people who are polarising this issue and almost guarranteeing that nothing sensible will be achieved.

    You *do* realise this “nothing achieved” is in fact the stated objective of the Heartland Institute, as revealed by documents obtained last year?

    So on the one hand we have scientists carefully gathering data and analysing it, and on the other hand we have non-expert nutters like Jo Nova and Anthony Watts accepting money from the extremists you mention in order to confuse people, confuse the issues, and ensure nothing is achieved for their political purposes?

    And where do you go to get your “information”?
    The scientists, or the political nutters?
    Didn’t they teach you about “bad choices” at school?

1 3 4 5 6 7 13

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