January 2013 Open Thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Lotharsson
    January 17, 2013

    Vince,
    You said I was lying about the ‘global organism’ comment because I couldn’t provide evidence.

    Nope. Here’s Vince:

    Please, can you go ahead and share with us your understanding of this concept that Flannery was discussing. What does it mean?

    He repeats the request several times (and you STILL haven’t answered it). He does not allege that you were lying, or even that it never happened.

    And since you’re now actively rejecting the request by claiming it comes from “not understanding what Flannery means”, you’re even misrepresenting what the question asks of you.

    I was also told I was lying about the cranky people in Western Sydney in the traffic comment.

    Is your memory correct? Feel free to provide the quote.

    I did however find reference to it by Delingpole…

    False.

    It was pointed out that what you claimed to be a “reference to it” was no such thing, and was obviously no such thing because it didn’t even use the term “fleeting fancy”. I seem to remember it was about that time you took a short leave of absence from commenting here.

    You sure do have a lot of false memories. I’d get that looked at if I were you.

  2. #2 Lotharsson
    January 17, 2013

    Just to refresh your horribly faulty memory, visit page 5 of this thread and use your browser to search for my comment addressing your claim that “Delingpole draws attention to the same snow comment made by Tim Flannery in this article.” You’ll see that your claim is outrageously ludicrously wrong.

    Then, re: Flannery’s comment on Western Sydney traffic which you remember being accused of lying about, you initially referenced it on the same page (search for “I also remember him quite recently pointing out that people in Western Sydney were going to get crankier in traffic jams because of AGW.”) Between where you referenced it and where you provided a link (search for “because I do remember the time frame of the ‘traffic jams’ comment I was able to find that one for you”), the only comment we find about whether or not the comment was accurate is:

    I don’t know whether your associating Flannery with traffic jams and climate change is a similar invention or not

    Nope, not accusing you of lying.

    And for giggles revisit my comment about the record temperature in Penrith compared to Darwin and Broome.

  3. #3 Vince Whirlwind
    January 17, 2013

    Chameleon,

    Vince,
    You said I was lying about the ‘global organism’ comment because I couldn’t provide evidence.
    I was also told I was lying about the cranky people in Western Sydney in the traffic comment.

    Could I possibly trouble you to provide a *reference* to evidence those two assertions you’ve just made?

    You might want to take the following multiple choice test:

    Are you,

    1/ A pathologiocal liar? (Somebody who believes the lies they are telling to be true?)
    2/ A Chronic liar? (chronic lying in adults is often a manifestation of antisocial personality disorder, also known as sociopathy).
    3/ A congenital liar?
    4/ A complete idiot?

    (Multiple answers are valid.)

    And…eventually…could you explain why we should mock Flannery’s “global organism”?
    Have you taken the trouble to inform yourself what it is?

  4. #4 Vince Whirlwind
    January 17, 2013

    Don’t get me wrong, Chameleon, I think sociology is a crock at the best of times, and Flannery seemed to me to bed impinging on sociological territory with that stuff, I just want to know why *you* think it’s a bad idea.

    Obviously, even a smart guy like Flannery isn’t always going to be right, and occasionally, people far dumber than him (like me) will have better opinions than he does.

    I’m just fascinated by the idea that somebody who is evidently dumber than Tim Flannery’s toenails could coherently develop a criticism of a Flannery idea that is sensible.

  5. #5 Vince Whirlwind
    January 17, 2013

    ….and you haven’t done it yet, despite me prompting you 7 times now…

  6. #6 chameleon
    January 17, 2013

    You folks are very funny,
    And you obviously have no wish to consider or discuss what I ‘think’.
    You only want to play ‘ritual intellectual humiliation’.
    You wanted the link, I found it for you.
    He most definitely rambles on about a ‘global organism’ with an analogy re ants does he not?
    He also said that AGW will make people in Western Sydney crankier in traffic jams.
    I also remember him saying that snow would be a ‘fleeting fancy’ by 2012.
    I agree that Delingpole is ‘over the top’ but he most definitely also refers to that lack of snow by 2012 comment of Flannery’s.
    Flannery said it better than Delingpole BTW.
    There are plenty of other things that Flannery has said that sound smart but have since proven to be incorrect.
    Too many.
    I don’t ‘think’ he is a good choice for a ‘queen ant’ because he would probably have all the ‘worker ants’ scurrying off fixing the wrong problems.
    And similarly to Lotharsson he would then ‘nuance’ things in an ‘oh so intelligent’ manner and explain that was not what he meant.

  7. #7 Vince Whirlwind
    January 17, 2013

    You wanted the link, I found it for you.

    No I didn’t. I never asked for this link.

    You are a deluded individual.

  8. #8 chameleon
    January 17, 2013

    One of you did Vince,
    I seem to recall it was you who continued to ask for the proof of TF discussing ‘global organism’.
    So if it wasn’t you specifically then I apologise.
    I really can’t be bothered finding out who said what about the ‘global organism’ comment.
    The point remains that TF definitely did so.

  9. #9 bill
    January 18, 2013

    I also remember him saying that snow would be a ‘fleeting fancy’ by 2012.

    Except, of course, that this is a confabulation.

    Nobody cares if Flannery said ‘global organism’ except you, of course, who, being a proud, smirking ignoramus of a type only-too-common in this country, knows that such a term is inherently contemptible and automatically somehow wrong.

    And more hot-weather will make Sydney drivers crankier. One shudders to imagine the suffocating banality of a mind that thinks such an straightforward observation is problematic merely because of who made it.

    You accuse people of demanding things they have not demanded, and of saying things they have not said, on a routine basis. Your comprehension skills are below third-rate, and you are, in the best D-K manner, genuinely too uncomprehending to realise how strikingly bad you really are at it all.

    What makes this all the more remarkable is that your embarrassing performance here is all written down above, and yet, like your fellow-travellers Alder and the Appalling Drongo, you will take a self-aggrandising, gibberish version away with you and polish it until you can only see your own beloved reflection in it.

  10. #10 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    And you obviously have no wish to consider or discuss what I ‘think’.

    …says chameleon, after extensive consideration and discussion of her expression of what she thinks.

    For example, there has been far too much discussion of your claim that Delingpole:

    …most definitely also refers to that lack of snow by 2012 comment of Flannery’s.

    There is no “equally valid interpretation” of the article you cited to support that claim. You are deluded on that front. And your apparent complete inability to see what is plainly NOT written in that article suggests that you have either a major comprehension problem, or you made a mistake and you’re unwilling to climb down from your hobby horse – neither of which leads to fruitful discussion of science.

    I seem to recall it was you who continued to ask for the proof of TF discussing ‘global organism’.

    I’ve already pointed out this is not true. And as Vince has patiently pointed out several times now you were asked to explain why you thought his comments were worthy of mockery.

    And you still haven’t.

    (Me, I reckon there’s a good chance that it’s because you saw a video that framed his comments as a “bizarre antiscientific rant”, but didn’t bother arguing why that description was apt. When we dig into what you think, you often don’t seem to be able to provide a good reason for why you think it.)

  11. #11 bill
    January 18, 2013

    One of Jeff H’s comments above is up as a post over at the Rabett’s.

  12. #12 Vince Whirlwind
    January 18, 2013

    Chameleon, try to concentrate:

    Nobody asked you for a link to the “Global Organism” quote.

    This is what really happened:

    You came up with a “fleeting fancy” alleged-quote.
    You were asked to provide a reference.
    You failed to provide such a reference.

    You then changed the subject to a “global organism” quote
    You were asked to explain what “global organism” means and why it is wrong
    You failed to provide any such explanation.

    If anything I have just written is wrong, go back through the thread and find the evidence of it being wrong.

    Re-read this thread – and concentrate – and it may just dawn on you that you have very poor comprehension skills, and you are frequently prone to substituting your personal inventions in place of facts.

  13. #13 bill
    January 18, 2013

    There is no “equally valid interpretation” of the article you cited to support that claim. You are deluded on that front.

    Absolutely. Yet Chebbie will always recall that her ludicrous misinterpretation is correct…

  14. #14 Vince Whirlwind
    January 18, 2013

    When we dig into what you think, you often don’t seem to be able to provide a good reason for why you think it

    In fact, evidence of any thinking whatsoever is rather sparse.

    This is what I’ve been trying to get at – I’m no fan of sociology (to put it mildly), so I’m very prepared to entertain mockery and criticism of Flannery’s “global organism”, which, to me, smacks of sociology. So I was looking forward to Chameleon telling us why she thinks it’s crap.
    She can’t.
    She simply cannot provide a coherent thought on the subject.

    I see hints of-
    – Attention Deficit Disorder
    – Borderline intellectual functioning
    – Delusion
    – Narcissism

  15. #15 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    Since chameleon mocked Flannery for talking about a “global organism”, let’s go to the rough transcript of the first 2 out of the 3 segments in the interview. If you want the video with the hokey edits at the front, somewhat conspiratorial framing and without the most definitely conspiracy theorising comments on the version chameleon provided, try the original video at The Guardian instead.

    It’s a bit rough, so some of the linking words may not be correct. I’ve also left out a couple of digressions where he backtracks on his first phrase and goes down a different expressive route. These are generally marked as “[...]“. If there’s anything that critically depends on the exact wording, the video is the gold standard.

    There is a profound paradox, really, in our understanding of evolutionary thought, because we know that the mechanism that created the Earth as we know it and all life is evolution by natural selection which is a competitive process. It’s a process whereby variation in a community, then the differential death and survival of those members brings about evolutionary change. So it’s sort of a ruthless process, but paradoxically it doesn’t lead to a dog-eat-dog world or a survival of the fittest world. What it has led to is an immensely cooperative world where things have co-evolved. We live in a society, for heaven’s sake you know! Our bodies are miracles of cooperation and co-evolution. 10% of me isn’t even me in that sense! It’s bacteria and fungi and so forth that live on my skin and in my gut [that] I just couldn’t survive without. So co-evolution is tremendously important, and when we understand that I think we develop a better basis for a moral philosophy, really, of life, and a philosophy that gives us hope of a sustainable future.

    [cut]

    If we look at how life has been shaped by evolution and what it does I think it’s axiomatically true that information systems order matter, if you want, and DNA is an information system that has ordered the entire Earth. And [...] information systems tend to order things in the same way, so the sort of order that represents my body is also represented in a weaker form in ant societies, in ant colonies. And where you have individuals that cooperate to make this whole that is rather reminiscent in its function of a body, you have a super-organism. It’s really a group of individuals that are knit so tightly together that they as a whole represent, or resemble in some ways, an organism. Ants do this and the glue that holds ant colonies together is simply genetic relatedness. But the most astonishing thing, really, about us is that we have formed a super-organism as well. And so for us the glue is the division of labour as well as this civilisation of ideas, common beliefs that people share. We started off 10,000 years ago as little villages, the first settlements in this growth of the super-organism. Today we’re on the edge of creating a global super-organism. And that will mean there will be no outside, there is no “other”, we will form a global community with a common set of beliefs, shared beliefs, that are now spreading as we see around the Internet. We can see this in the [...] revolutions in North Africa leading, we hope, to democracy in those regions. And it’s tremendously important, this development, for the future of life on Earth, because for the first time, I think, this global super-organism, this global intelligence will be able to send a single strong clear signal to the Earth. What that means in a sense is that we [...] will be a regulating intelligence for the planet in the future, and I’m sure we will do what our brain does for our body which is help create stability, coordination between the parts, and lead to a stronger Gaia, if you want, a stronger Earth system.

    [cut]

    After that he goes on to point out this concept doesn’t mean a single global government because we have plenty of examples of super-organisms that operate without one; he holds up democracy as something to be desired, and IIRC talks about the decline in generalist competence in highly interdependent systems composed of specialists, such as ant colonies and other super-organisms.

    It’s not a bizarre rant as chameleon’s video would have you believe. It IS talking at a reasonably high level about concepts we see in biology where many specialised individuals form a composite “organism”, and how they may equally apply to a global society composed of humans – and many of the commenters on her video read all sorts of bizarre interpretations into it, perhaps aided by the kind of miscomprehension chameleon has so delightfully and extensive demonstrated at Deltoid.

  16. #16 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    BTW, mocking someone for discussing “global organism” when they didn’t use the term tends to make the mocker look mockworthy.

    “Global super-organism” is a very different concept to “global organism”. The distinction matters.

  17. #17 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    Remember that thing about people in Darwin and Broome scoffing at the idea of heat being a problem for people in Western Sydney traffic?

    Right now the Lapstone weather station next door to Penrith is reporting 46.9 Celsius on Weather Underground. (Broome’s record is 44C.)

  18. #18 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    And if you’re on the NSW Central Coast, the Peninsula (Woy Woy) station is reporting 48.4 C.

  19. #19 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    Even Sydney’s official site at Observatory Hill hit 45.8C today and the airport hit 46.4C. And both are a lot nearer the coast than Penrith.

  20. #20 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    Quaker’s Hill is generally considered Western Sydney if I’m not mistaken. Currently reporting 48.4 C according to Weather Underground.

  21. #21 bill
    January 18, 2013

    My only real issue with what Flannery says in loth’s quotes above is that this –

    What that means in a sense is that we [...] will be a regulating intelligence for the planet in the future, and I’m sure we will do what our brain does for our body which is help create stability, coordination between the parts, and lead to a stronger Gaia, if you want, a stronger Earth system.

    – may well prove to be too optimistic, precisely because the world is, sadly, full of Chebbies who automatically sneer at and denigrate what they don’t understand – and this includes the natural world most of all.

  22. #22 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    Yep, I think that part is far too optimistic for those reasons – and because we still don’t know anywhere near enough about how the ecosystem works to try and regulate it without triggering significant unintended consequences.

  23. #23 Karen
    January 18, 2013

    Interesting this, SYDNEY (OBSERVATORY HILL)
    Mean maximum temperature (°C)

    If you go to the link below and plot the mean maximum temperature, going all the way back to 1858, you will find that there has been NO gwowbull warming in Sydney.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/cvg/av?p_stn_num=066062&p_prim_element_index=0&p_display_type=statGraph&period_of_avg=ALL&normals_years=allYearOfData&staticPage=

    Even the current high temps have been bettered many years ago.

  24. #24 bill
    January 18, 2013

    Karen, don’t just burst in on the grownups when you have no idea what they’re talking about.

  25. #25 Karen
    January 18, 2013

    It seems as though only the bodies grew.

    A huge amount of piffle up thread, lol

  26. #26 bill
    January 18, 2013

    we still don’t know anywhere near enough about how the ecosystem works to try and regulate it without triggering significant unintended consequences.

    Undoubtedly. But we need to learn fast, because, however appalling the prospect, we are now, functionally, the (small) gods of the planet. Of the old-fashioned spiteful and selfish and short-sighted variety.

    The human realm having so overwhelmed the natural that virtually nowhere was remote enough not to be critically affected by – its survival thereby dependent on – our actions was essentially the point of McKibben’s The End of Nature all those years ago. And it’s even more obvious now.

    But the problem is… [see my comment re Flannery above]

  27. #27 Karen
    January 18, 2013

    A bit of history, ignored by dumbtiods, naturally, lol

    Narrative of an expedition into Central Australia, by Charles Sturt

    “It appears to me that the tubes of these delicate instruments are not secured with sufficient care in the case, that the corks placed to steady them are at too great intervals, and that the elasticity of the tube is consequently too great for the weight of mercury it contains. The thermometers sent from England, graduated to 127 degrees only, were too low for the temperature into which I went, and consequently useless at times, when the temperature in the shade exceeded that number of degrees. One of them was found broken in its case, the other burst when set to try the temperature, by the over expansion of mercury in the bulb.”

    http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/sturt/charles/s93n/chapter2.html

  28. #28 Karen
    January 18, 2013

    New York,

    “The heated term was the worst and most fatal we have ever known. The death-rate trebled until it approached the ratio of a cholera epidemic; the horses died by the hundreds, so that it was impossible to remove their carcasses, and they added a genuine flavor of pestilence, and we had to distribute hundred of tons of ice from the station-houses to the people of the poorer precincts.” Roosevelt, then 37 and president of New York’s Board of Police Commissioners, was describing one of the most historic weeks in the city’s history.

    The “heated term” was an unprecedented heat wave that hit New York over ten days in August 1896. Temperatures in the 90s were accompanied by high humidity. For the duration, even at night thermometers never dropped below 70 degrees, and over the course of a week and a half the heat wave wore New Yorkers down. The eventual death-toll numbered nearly 1300 victims.

    Yet the 1896 New York heat wave remains one of the most forgotten natural disasters in American history.”

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129127924

  29. #29 Karen
    January 18, 2013

    Hmmmmmmmm……………………………….

    How much sea ice was there in the Arctic in 1896 ?

  30. #30 bill
    January 18, 2013

    Doing a spot of whistling in the dark there, soldier?

    I thought, petal, that in 1896 we were still supposedly in the earlyish stages of rebounding from the little-ice age? Natural cycles and all that? Do try to keep your narratives straight! This is all rather like you not realizing what year it was only a few weeks ago…

    Bawl all you like: Australia just had its most prolonged and highest-temperature heat-wave. 2012 was the warmest year in recorded US history. Estimates of how long there’s been a perennial ice-pack in the Arctic ‘range from 700,000 to 4 million years‘. And yet the record Arctic sea-ice extent in 2012 was so small that it’s likely that there will be no summer sea-ice cover some time before 2030 – perhaps sooner!

    And, whaddyaknow? – it’s still way down! –

    Arctic sea ice extent for December 2012 remained far below average, driven by anomalously low ice conditions in the Kara, Barents, and Labrador seas. Thus far, the winter has been dominated by the negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation, bringing colder than average conditions to Scandinavia, Siberia, Alaska, and Canada.

    Gee, so the cold snaps in the NH aren’t an impending ice age, then?

    Thanks for another own-goal, Karolaus. ;-)

    (You’re on our side, really, aren’t you?)

  31. #31 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    But wait, wait, bill – I thought Spangled Drongo said the low summer ice volume wasn’t anything to worry about because it was all refreezing?

    (And don’t give Karen’s real game away!)

  32. #32 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    Not a very impressive refreeze according to PIOMAS. Looks like 2012 may have ended on a record end-of-year low.

  33. #33 Karen
    January 18, 2013

    Very impressive silly billy, I ponder sea ice extent in 1896 and you offer up a comparison to the average of sea ice extent for between 1979 and 2000, lol

    Maybe there was no sea ice before 1979, hehe

    Look here and see how thin the sea ice was in 1958 and 1959 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Skate_%28SSN-578%29

  34. #34 Vince Whirlwind
    January 18, 2013

    Nice work, Karen – a link to a wikipedia article that provides no data for sea ice extent.

    What are you? Nuts?

  35. #35 Karen
    January 18, 2013

    BirdBrainBill spat : “Bawl all you like: Australia just had its most prolonged and highest-temperature heat-wave. 2012 was the warmest year in recorded US history”

    hehehe, billyboy, you wanna stop being so gullible , you need to have a look at Australian history my dear chap, here is a small collection rolled into one, it should have been called “Australian Temperatures for DUMMIES”

    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/aussies_have_weathered_natures_extremes_before/

    Then when you get through that polish your steamed up bi-focal’s and hit this link http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records now see if you can handle this sweety, there is a drop down box with a name called “Element”, do you see it honey ? There you go, drop it down and select “Maximum Temperature”, :)

  36. #36 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    Someone was speaking earlier about a Liberal MP writing an article for WUWT. Tamino has a thread about it.

  37. #37 bill
    January 18, 2013

    What are you? Nuts?

    Now, that‘s a rhetorical question.

  38. #38 Karen
    January 18, 2013

    twirlybird does thin ice in the 1950’s upset you ?

    Did you really think it was never thin sometimes before satellites ?

  39. #39 Karen
    January 18, 2013

    BirdBrainBill spat : “Bawl all you like: Australia just had its most prolonged and highest-temperature heat-wave.”

    Probably not billy,

    If you like honesty in climate science then you and all the other dumbtoids, should read this …….

    An Audit of Australia’s Temperature Observations

    http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/near-enough-for-a-sheep-station/

  40. #40 Chris O'Neill
    January 18, 2013

    If you are in denial of reality then whatever you do don’t read this:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/nsw/observations/sydney.shtml

  41. #41 Karen
    January 18, 2013

    So it’s 23 C in Sydney, thankyou Chris.

    Check this out

    Heathrow cancels hundreds of flights, 10,000 homes without power and 2,000 schools closed as wall of snow sweeps across Britain

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264363/UK-weather-Heavy-snow-sweeps-Wales-West-Country-FOOT-way.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

    Gwowbull Worming eh, :)

  42. #42 FrankD
    January 18, 2013

    Karen says: “If you go to the link below and plot the mean maximum temperature, going all the way back to 1858, you will find that there has been NO gwowbull warming in Sydney”.

    So I followed Karen’s advice and went to the BOM site and found that when you compare the last 30 years (1981 to 2010) to the first 30 years (1861 to 1890) years, you find that temps for the last 30 years are 1.5C above the average for 1861-90.

    Conclusion 1: Sydney has warmed, on average, by 1.5 degrees in 120 years (midpoint ot midpoint of the two datasets).

    Conclusion 2: Karen is a prat. Now that has been demostrated on many threads previously, but its always worth pointing out again. I’m actually surprised Karen is posting here. I thought she was off doing an unprecendented mid-winter cruise circumnavigating Svalbard:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png

    Readers may care to refer to the March and April 2012 threads to find out how much Karen knows about sea ice conditions (and logic)…

  43. #43 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    So it’s cold in Heathrow.

    So what?

  44. #44 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    Well, Wow, cold in Heathrow proves that the total heat content of the Earth is not increasing over many years.

    But hot in Australia doesn’t prove the opposite because we wouldn’t be silly enough to believe two obviously mutually incompatible things at the same time, now, would we? Instead we can point to temperature records and argue to ourselves that probably at least once before it’s been as hot in one part of Australia as it was today in some other part.

    But please don’t point out that it’s been colder before in Heathrow. Because that’s not proof that the world is warming.

    Why, you ask?

    It’s just not.

  45. #45 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    No, I want to hear KarenMackSpot say what THEY think.

    Otherwise they can continue to go “Nobody is saying it’s cooling!” because they refuse to say but only intimate.

    Not that it’s a pleasant thought to have a mantroll like KMS getting intimate.

  46. #46 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 18, 2013

    “According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

    “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

    The Independent, March 2000

    Heh, heh, heh! Don’cha just love the Panto season? The guy playing ‘Dame Doom’ is a hoot! Anyway, must go and clear the snow off my path.

  47. #47 andyuk
    January 18, 2013

    its panto season all year round with the denial crowd. “its behind you, science has evidence”. “no its not, lalalala im not listening”. repeat 40 times with ever increasing evidence. audience laugh at funny man – they all love monkton.

    meanwhile, in the real world….

  48. #48 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    Aaaawwww.

    Dai Duffski also wants to play “I’m an idiot, let me in here!”.

  49. #49 bill
    January 18, 2013

    Gee, David, never heard that one before. And that was in the TAR, was it?

    Idiot. Next.

  50. #50 bill
    January 18, 2013

    And, Karolaus, we dealt with your latest idiocy upthread. Record (and still current lows) in Arctic Sea Ice, dramatically meandering Jetstream due to the above, switch in Arctic oscillation, and, um, an atmosphere with at least 5% more water vapour which, when it’s cold enough, falls as…?

    I appreciate that due to your disability – being awake – you’re incapable of learning, but since you’re apparently only here to provide us with these opportunities to point out that imbecile opinions are, well, imbecilic, one does what one can…

  51. #51 bill
    January 18, 2013

    Oh, and how’s that sciencey ‘audit’ thing going in peer review? No?

    If only the energy you lot put in to deluding yourselves could be harnessed to run all your (heavily-overused, no doubt) airconditioners…

  52. #52 chameleon
    January 18, 2013

    Bill,
    That INCORRECT prediction of Viner’s is only 12 years old, yet you’re all tying yourselves up in knots over a 20 year old prediction (not even from a proper scientist) at the Ridley post.
    Have you any concept how totally incongruous that is?

  53. #53 Vince Whirlwind
    January 19, 2013

    Bill:

    Now, that‘s a rhetorical question.

    Dix points!

    What else did Viner say,

    Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.

    – Did he predict heavy snow would return? Check!
    – Did he predict it would cause chaos? Check!

    Looks like he’s doing better than Ridley!

  54. #54 Vince Whirlwind
    January 19, 2013

    Judging by the available data, it looks very much like Viner’s statement was well-founded:
    http://dusk2.geo.orst.edu/prosem/PDFs/preeti_seasonal_snow.pdf
    P.313, Figure5., “Northern Hemisphere Winter” [Snow cover]

    So, was he wrong, Duff/Chameleon, etc?
    A front page picture in the Daily Mail together with a cut/paste from a nutter crank blogsite isn’t data.
    Find the data for the last 12 years and show us whether the trend Viner correctly pointed to has been reversed.

    Come on, do something competently for a change.

  55. #55 chameleon
    January 19, 2013

    Vince!
    Bingo!
    It was definitely a rhetorical question.
    Well done Vince!
    Mind you it wasn’t as well crafted or theatrical as Lotharsson’s.
    He’s much better at using them than I am.
    He makes them longer and imbeds the answer in a much more ritually intellectual manner :-)
    Maybe that’s why you didn’t pick it up then.
    Too intellectual perhaps?

  56. #56 chameleon
    January 19, 2013

    BTW Vince,
    Ridley was taken out of context too was he not?
    Check!
    Maybe you’re picking on the wrong people?
    I think we all could agree that the media is guilty of misrepresentation, including those insufferable snobs at the ABC.

  57. #57 Vince Whirlwind
    January 19, 2013

    Chameleon, if you promise to try to concentrate I will promise to type this very slowly…

    Asking Karen, “Are you nuts?” is a rhetorical question, as identified by Bill.

    This has nothing to do with your mis-use of the word rhetorical to describe what Lotharsson intended as a straight question, and which Latimer intimated was a loaded question.

    Are you clear on the difference between the three?

  58. #58 Vince Whirlwind
    January 19, 2013

    (Yes, Bill, I know…)

  59. #59 Chris O'Neill
    January 19, 2013

    So it’s 23 C in Sydney

    I knew Karen was slow, but this takes the cake.

  60. #60 bill
    January 19, 2013

    OK, here’s one for the grownups –

    Extreme weather to put strain on disaster services

  61. #61 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 19, 2013

    “Extreme weather to put strain on disaster services”

    Well, if that infantile statement of “the bleedin’ obvious” is an indication of the content then, thanks all the same, Bill, but I’ll give it a miss.

  62. #62 Vince Whirlwind
    January 19, 2013

    But Duff, I though global warming was going to be good for the planet?
    Have you changed your mind?

  63. #63 bill
    January 19, 2013

    You’re a coward, old man. What do you think the ‘extreme weather’ being referred to is? I’ll give you a hint – it ain’t an impending Ice Age…

  64. #64 Vince Whirlwind
    January 19, 2013

    I’m starting to see what Lotharsson was on about with his “ritual intellectual humiliation”.

    Why on earth do they keep coming back to display ever more stupid?

    I get the feeling they aren’t feeling very humiliated due to neither understanding what they are told nor realising that they are stupid.

    Which makes it more of a “ritual miscommunication” than anything else.

  65. #65 chameleon
    January 20, 2013

    Ritual miscommunication!
    Bingo again Vince!
    Except I think you will need some help from Lotharsson to ‘nuance’ that comment.
    Communication is a two way street Vince.
    Good communication requires people to listen to what is being said, not listen for the next spot to jump in and criticise and postulate what is therfore wrong with that person’s psyche.
    When you climb all over people of differing perspectives and/or people who ask questions that is better known as poor communication or in some instances as bullying.

  66. #66 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    Jo Nova’s latest lunatic rant is about the shutting-down of the libellous “Science Fraud” website.

    “This is about scientists behaving badly” she carps.

    Naturally she fails to give any more of the story than is required to set her conspiracy-loons off on another round of baying at the moon.

  67. #67 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    OK Chameleon – are you listening?

    Please explain what it is about Flannery’s “global organism” and why we should mock it.

    Please acknowledge that you will go away and learn the meanings of the words, “epigram”, “rhetorical” before trying to use them again.

    Please acknowledge that you were wrong when you claimed somebody had asked you for a link to the “global organism”.

    Please acknowledge that you were wrong when you claimed somebody asserted your “Flannery/cranky drivers in Western Sydney” was made-up.

    Please, no more of your rambling nonsense – instead, learn to communicate. Read what people write.

    Additionally, can you please explain the meaning of the word, “bingo”, both in general usage as well as in the context of your last few posts?

  68. #68 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    Yes, that’s a lovely bunch of cherries you have there, Duffer, did you get them from a crank-blog-site somewhere?

    How was Piers Corbyn’s strike rate? Still only getting “correct” predictions when he goes back to his website and retrospectively “corrects” what he had previously written?
    You’d be onto behaviour like that, surely?

  69. #69 bill
    January 20, 2013

    In order to attempt to counter the intellectual equivalent of an ‘algal bloom’ around here, I’ll also put this up. Lakes around the world are clearly in the grip of climate change.

  70. #70 Richard Simons
    January 20, 2013

    A couple of days ago Jeff drew a comparison between creationists and climate change denialists who both think that by finding a few holes in the science they can bring down the entire structure. Thinking about it, essentially no Creationists can give a brief summary of the Theory of Evolution. I suspect the same applies to people who can’t accept the reality of climate change,

    Chameleon: In the late 60s, when I was an undergraduate student, our crop physiology lecturer told us that global temperatures were likely to increase as a result of human production of CO2. He gave the reasons and we all agreed it seemed plausible. What do you think was the explanation and evidence that he gave us?

    My prediction: no serious attempt will be made to provide an answer. Karen et al. may like to help out – but are probably unable to do so.

  71. #71 Lotharsson
    January 20, 2013

    I get the feeling they aren’t feeling very humiliated due to neither understanding what they are told nor realising that they are stupid.

    Yep.

    The use of “ritual intellectual humiliation” was intended to satirise the deep commitment to ongoing and routine stupidity by proposing that for some it was deliberately and even ritually posted in order to receive intellectual humiliation in response.

    No doubt there are some commenters around the Intertoobz who are motivated thus (e.g. for some people humiliation is better than being totally ignored), but I suspect the majority of the posters of Teh Stupid genuinely think their claims are intellectually sound – or don’t have much of a concept of intellectual soundness and think their opinion is as good as any other.

  72. #72 Lotharsson
    January 20, 2013

    Good communication requires people to listen to what is being said, …

    I can’t believe you actually wrote that with a straight face.

    Remind me about your claim that the Delingpole article you linked to quoted Flannery using the term “fleeting fancy” with respect to snow. I was certainly open to the claim before I read the article, but then I discovered there were just a couple of teensy weensy little problems:

    1) The article does not contain the word “fleeting”.
    2) The article does not contain the word “fancy”.

    And then there are your documented myriad misinterpretations of other people’s comments, and your flat out lie about what Richard Simons said.

    Should you, perhaps, direct a lot more effort taking your own advice instead of handing it out?

  73. #73 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    I can’t believe you actually wrote that with a straight face.

    I’m starting to get the feeling that she dictates it through the observation window of her padded cell.

  74. #74 Lotharsson
    January 20, 2013

    Well, it’s nice to get out every now and then, even if it is virtually…

  75. #75 JohnL
    January 20, 2013

    There is a BEST paper out: A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011 Richard A. Muller, Robert Rohde, Robert Jacobsen, Elizabeth Muller, Saul Perlmutter, Arthur Rosenfeld, Jonathan Wurtele, Donald Groom and Charlotte Wickham .

    The results are not at all startling, it’s warming. The Stoat has some comments here: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/01/20/best-is-published/

  76. #76 chek
    January 20, 2013

    So Curry’s dropped out of the BEST team, now the results aren’t going her way?

  77. #77 JohnL
    January 20, 2013

    Chek,

    I skimmed thru the paper, Curry was acknowedged for her help, along With Zeke Hausfather and Mosher. I don’t know what that means, maybe she’s still uncertain.

  78. #78 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 20, 2013

    So ‘Gore the Bore’ is halfway along to losing his bet. Well, not that he actually put his money on a bet that his forecast of global temperatures would be more accurate than Prof. Armstrong’s (of Pennsylvania Uni.) Armstrong reckoned there would be no, repeat, no, long term trend in global temps because having examined all the evidence supplied in various forecasts came to the conclusion they were only fit to be ripped up and hung in the ‘kazi’! He left Gore to choose any of the several forecasts available five years ago which claimed various alarming increases but still Gore declined. He’s quite canny with his own money, is our Al, unlike the way he is with OPM (Other People’s Money) when shovelled his way by Obama in support of various crank Green schemes, so he still refused to take the wager. Perhaps he had had a chat with Paul Ehrlich, another daftie given to mad forecasts which never come true and which cost him money when he bet on them.

    Anyway, Armstrong proceeded on the basis of comparing his forecast with that of the loonies who produce the IPCC forecast. Five years in and Armstrong is spot on and the IPCC are in la-la land.

    Why am I not surprised?

  79. #79 chek
    January 20, 2013

    “Why am I not surprised?”

    Because you’re a credulous fool who’ll believe any crank blogpost?

    “So ‘Gore the Bore’ is halfway along to losing his bet.”

    So he hasn’t ‘lost’ it then.

  80. #80 Lotharsson
    January 20, 2013

    I take it Duff hasn’t taken up any of the wagers offered by Bernard J on what appear to be quite generous terms?

  81. #81 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    Is this the same Professor Armstrong who wrote a paper on polar bears which was found to be in its entirety either wrong or misleading?

  82. #82 bill
    January 21, 2013

    BEST has published:

    … solar forcing does not appear to contribute to the observed global warming of the past 250 years; the entire change can be modeled by a sum of volcanism and a single anthropogenic [human-made] proxy.

  83. #83 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    but…but…but…”The Mediaeval Warm Period”.

  84. #85 bill
    January 21, 2013

    But we have neanderthals drop by all the time!…

  85. #86 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    There will be a law against using the word “Neanderthal” in that context, if this guy’s project goes ahead.

    “But despite the potential birthing difficulties, Professor Church said Neanderthal children could be very intelligent and may become a craze.
    “Let’s say someone has a healthy, normal Neanderthal baby,” he told Bloomberg Businessweek last year.
    “Well, then, everyone will want to have a Neanderthal kid.
    “Were they superstrong or supersmart? Who knows.
    “But there’s one way to find out.””

    Pretty amazing.

  86. #87 bill
    January 21, 2013

    Ah, well, there’s neanderthals, and then there’s popular culture neanderthals, of which this is my favourite.

    I have to say that this dialogue even sounds like something from a Tom Tomorrow cartoon

    “Well, then, everyone will want to have a Neanderthal kid.
    “Were they superstrong or supersmart? Who knows.
    “But there’s one way to find out.””

  87. #88 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    Be a bummer if they turn out to have been super-smelly.

  88. #89 Bernard J.
    January 21, 2013

    <My wife gave birth to a Neanderthal!!1! eleventy one!

    That’s grist for the Willard mill:

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/01/19/saturday-morning-breakfast-cereal-editon/

  89. #90 Bernard J.
    January 21, 2013

    Poop.

    Buggered up the quote tag.

    A pox on NG’s lack of preview.

  90. #91 David Duff
    THis Septic Isle
    January 21, 2013

    Vince asks:
    “Is this the same Professor Armstrong who wrote a paper on polar bears which was found to be in its entirety either wrong or misleading?”

    I don’t know, Vince because you failed to ad a reference but it is the same Prof. Armstrong who wrote this to Sen. Boxer in 2008:
    “We found the forecasts of declining polar bear numbers contained in the government’s administrative reports were not the product of scientific forecasting methods. Given the large current population of bears and the upward trend in the population, our findings lead to the conclusion that there is no scientific basis for listing polar bears. Indeed, a reliance on evidence-based forecasting suggests that it is more likely that the polar bear population will increase rather than decrease.”

    And in 2012 Paul Waldie in The Globe and Mail reported:
    “The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt. The Hudson Bay region, which straddles Nunavut and Manitoba, is critical because it’s considered a bellwether for how polar bears are doing elsewhere in the Arctic.”

    We found the forecasts of declining polar bear numbers contained in the government’s administrative reports were not the product of scientific forecasting methods. Given the large current population of bears and the upward trend in the population, our findings lead to the conclusion that there is no scientific basis for listing polar bears. Indeed, a reliance on evidence-based forecasting suggests that it is more likely that the polar bear population will increase rather than decrease.”

    THAT Prof. Armstrong, Vince, now who did you have in what passes for your mind?

  91. #92 Jeff Harvey
    January 21, 2013

    Duff means this guy, who is not a biologist and who couldn’t probably tell a mole cricket from a giraffe:

    http://www.desmogblog.com/scott-armstrong

    This guy has a pretty wretched resume of hanging out with the wrong people. Willie Soon? Gimme a break.

    Again, as I have said many times, its not the population of a species at a given point that matters but the age-structure of the population. Bears live a long time and there may be lags in the demographics of the age strcuture if challenged by some extrinsic or intrinsic environmental threat. Since the deniers and their anti-environmental buddies generally dont’know jack-s*** about ontogeny in a broader ecological framework.

    Evidence suggests that bear populations are dominated by mature and older individuals. There has been less recruitment lately, and this suggests that conditions are becoming more and more sub-optimal for these habitat specialists. More importantly, a slight loss of ice might actually benefit the bears to a certain point. But beyond that point non-linear factors will kick in and the popualtion will plummet. If the trend in loss of ice continues in the Arctic, and summers become ice free in time, then no matter what the deniers say, the bears will be history. Toast. Finito. They will not persist if their ice habitat disappears seasonally.

    Can you get that through your head Duff? Read and re-read if it helps you. I don’t taske pretty well anything you say seriously since reading some the comedy material on your blog. Calling Obama a ‘Marxist-Leninist’ had to be about the kookiest of many kooky things you write. But I respond to your nonsense on ecology simply because some other gullible blogger might swallow your piffle.

  92. #93 lord_sidcup
    January 21, 2013

    @ Duff

    Scott Armstrong – a professor of marketing. You guys really have to dig deep to find your ‘experts’. The most reliable estimates of polar bear numbers come from tagging/capture and re-capture studies. Most estimates of polar bear numbers are based on that method. Aerial surveys are an inferior means of estimating polar bear numbers. Comparing the results of an aerial survey with earlier capture/re-capture studies is probaly flawed. But hey, if it gives you the results you want to hear that is all OK by you isn’t it?

  93. #94 lord_sidcup
    January 21, 2013

    Further to my previous post, here is a scientist’s response to Duff’s recycled denier bollox:

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/04/09/scientist-responds-to-misleading-polar-bear-cov/185580

    Amstrup said media outlets claiming the aerial survey shows an increasing population are mistaking a single point estimate for a trend. “The population size is just a number. It is a valuable number to have, but from the standpoint of population welfare, it is the trend in numbers that is critical,” he wrote in an email. Because previous estimates used a different methodology, and covered a different geographic area, they cannot be easily compared to the latest figures, contrary to the media narrative. When the aerial survey is repeated in later years, it will then be able to tell us more about how the population size is changing. In the meantime, the Canadian government is expected to release its latest capture-recapture data next month.

    So, in addition to a different methodology the aerial survey even covered a different geographgical area. Yet Duff thinks the results are comparable with earlier studies.

  94. #95 lord_sidcup
    January 21, 2013

    One last thing to highlight from my link as it supports the point Jeff makes:

    This new aerial survey does, however, include a piece of information relevant to trend. Of the 701 polar bears actually counted during the survey, only 22 (or about 3%) were yearlings. This is a very low percentage of yearlings (in Alaska during the good ice years of the 1980s, about 15% of the animals observed were yearlings). If that 3% figure is even close to the number of surviving yearlings that are out there now, it is not at all clear to me how the Hudson Bay population could be sustaining itself.

  95. #96 Lotharsson
    January 21, 2013

    One can easily believe that Duff comes here seeking to receive “ritual intellectual humiliation”, but it may just be he is both logically incompetent, scientifically unskilled – and more gullible than the average goldfish.

  96. #97 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 21, 2013

    Jeff, “calm down , dear”, there is nearly 4m square miles of ice in the arctic, bigger than the continental USA! And anyway, my personal poll of the seal population, and they’re far more ‘cuddly-wuddly’ than those great, vicious, white-haired killers, finds that they are 99.999% in favour of polar bears dying out! See, there’s always another side to the every argument!

  97. #98 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 21, 2013

    But perhaps there is a solution ot the polar bear ‘problem’ – exile them to Russia!

    “In the end of 2012, Russia saw extreme winter not witnessed since 1938. The coldest-ever December in Russia led to the evacuation of hundreds of people in Siberia, where temperatures fell below -50 degrees Celsius; Moscow also saw its coldest night ever for the season.

    More than 90 Russians died during the cold snap, and more than 600 people were taken to hospital due to the extremely dangerous weather, which is 10 degrees below the December norm.”

    Blimey, this global warming is getting serious!

  98. #99 Lotharsson
    January 21, 2013

    Yep, goldfish trolling.

    And yes, that term is an insult to goldfish who have demonstrated an ability to learn some simple tasks. Sorry, goldfish.

  99. #100 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    Winter.

    Still an eternal amazement to the thicker deniers.

1 5 6 7 8 9 13

Current ye@r *