January 2013 Open Thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    I think it will be impossible to find any reason for the denidiots posting as they do.

    That would require reason on their behalf.

    Best let them lie.

  2. #2 David Duff
    This SEptic Isle
    January 21, 2013

    No, Wow, not just “winter” but “the worst since 1938″!

    And that’s despite the zillions of CO2 particles released into the atmosphere and which will lead – absolutely, definitely, no doubt about it, all our models concur and our papers are ‘peer-reviewed’ – to severe global warming.

    Go tell it to the Russians!

  3. #3 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    “the worst since 1938″!

    So it was colder before.

    Ergo warming.

  4. #4 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    I believe the reason for mike, latte, joan, tampax and all the other stuck-up-cunts here is to ensure that there’s so much shit in the water that people are turned off.

    You’ll note that they assiduously avoid slagging Tim off directly.

    They know if they did THAT, they’d get kicked off.

    However, slagging off everyone else, well, Tim doesn’t really care about that, and the turdbuckets are safe pouring their toxic effluent on this blog.

  5. #5 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 21, 2013

    Now then, Wow, you know what your mummy told
    you about your temper!

    And, as a matter of *fact* rather than *fancy*, I have not ‘slagged off’ anyone here, certainly nothing along the lines of:

    “mike, latte, joan, tampax and all the other stuck-up-cunts”

    Now where have I read that before . . . ?

  6. #6 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    Aaaw. The idiot still thinks they can think.

  7. #7 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    “Now where have I read that before . . . ?”

    Wherever mike, latte, joan, tampax and all the other stuck up cunts are recognised for being the stuck up cunts they are.

  8. #8 chek
    January 21, 2013

    And that’s despite the zillions of CO2 particles released into the atmosphere and which will lead – absolutely, definitely, no doubt about it, all our models concur and our papers are ‘peer-reviewed’ – to severe global warming.”

    Note to Duffer – it’s global warming, not uniform warming. And with a planetary orbit ensuring ~ 6 months at each of the poles pointing at nothing but deep space and seeing no sunrise, there will always be cold air.

    However, as the arctic warms and the temperature gradient decreases, the polar jet stream which normally confines that cold air within the polar regions is getting sloppy and allowing gushes of cold polar air to extend southwards – it’s termed ‘latitudinal shift’.

    This video explains the basics quite clearly.

    And just think – you won’t be fooled any longer by Wattamoron et al’s annual output of drivel regarding cold snaps. Unless of course you want to be.

  9. #9 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 21, 2013

    ‘S funny that, chek, but in the past 30 years of dire warnings and alarums sounding off, hardly anyone mentioned all those naughty little caveats about “orbits” and “poles” and “jet streams”, instead, it was all CO2 – the mass killer of our planet. No ifs, no buts, no maybes, but absolutely and definitely, on me mover’s eyes, CO2 would lead to huge increases in global temperatures. So where is it?

    Altogether now, “Why are we waiting . . .?

    Oh, and by the way, just a friendly tip, but if the arctic is warming (slightly), the antarctic is freezing – but, heh!, that’s climate for you, you can never rely on it, can you? Well, I mean, you should know, given that all your predictions were wrong!

  10. #10 chek
    January 21, 2013

    The problem (for you) Duffer, is that you get selective information from crank blogs and the pop press – and then have the gall to announce you’ve been misinformed. The responsibility to be informed lies solely with you.

    Your last paragraph illustrates my point well.

  11. #11 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    No, he SEEKS selective information from cranks. Then parades it around. Then denies he’s saying anything with it.

    Then blames everyone here for not understanding him.

  12. #12 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    “hardly anyone mentioned all those naughty little caveats about “orbits” and “poles” and “jet streams”

    The IPCC did.

    But Watts didn’t.

    Because WTFUWT is an alarmist site.

  13. #13 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    Duff:

    zillions of CO2 particles released into the atmosphere

    What are these “particles” of which you speak?

    hardly anyone mentioned all those naughty little caveats about “orbits” and “poles” and “jet streams”,

    That’s called “argument from ignorance”, Duffer, a logical fallacy employed by the stupid and the dishonest. The fact you don’t know something isn’t a reflection on the quality of the knowledge you don’t have.

    As others have point out, though, it is a reflection on the quality of the knowledge provided to you by bullshit-artist TV weatherman Anthony Watts and his crank blog WUWT.

  14. #14 GSW
    January 21, 2013

    Some nice pics of the “extreme weather” event in Russia.

    http://rt.com/news/winter-snow-russia-weather-275/

  15. #15 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    Snow? In Winter? What a topsy-turvy world we live in.

  16. #16 Bernard J.
    January 22, 2013

    his 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.

    These are numbers to send a chill through any population biologist.

    By way of comparison, it it were to happen in a human population economists and politicians would be screaming hysterically and pulling out their hair at the sheer cataclysmic import of it all. In fact it would probably warrant a knee-jerk campaign that would make the wars on terriblism and on durgs appear to be mere mosquito swats.

  17. #17 Karen
    January 22, 2013

    waving his little arms around barnturd said,

    “it it were to happen in a human population economists and politicians would be screaming hysterically and pulling out their hair at the sheer cataclysmic import of it all.”

    hmmmmmmm…….

    “A number of nations today, stretching from North Asia (Japan) through Eastern Europe, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Armenia, and into Central and Western Europe, including Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Germany, Hungary, and now Italy now face long term population decline.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline#Decline_by_nation_or_territory

  18. #18 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 22, 2013

    “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”

    WHAT THE ?!!!

    Who is this ignorant fool with his ‘Denialist’ talk about so-called “natural viability” and “climate forcing” slowing down and telling us that “global temperature has been flat for a decade”? Another ignoramus with none of the superlative qualifications of Bernard, Wow, Chek, Vince and Jeff et al.

    Oh!

    Good Lord!

    I don’t believe it!

    It’s James Hansen!

    SPLITTER!

  19. #19 Karen
    January 22, 2013

    lol, David didn’t you know that the poor dears are suffering, they are suffering from eco anxiety, the poor poor wretched little petals :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v4Q9Wv10Ho&feature=player_embedded

  20. #20 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 22, 2013

    For God’s sake, Karen, show some pity! If any of the high-minded Seekers of Truth, whose elegant prose graces these distinguished columns, were to catch a glimpse of that film – well, I wouldn’t like to answer for the consequences. I mean, exploding nitwits are very, very messy!

  21. #21 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Gosh, dumb and dumber are back!

    The hard part is telling one from the other… :-)

  22. #22 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “Some nice pics of the “extreme weather” event in Russia.”

    So if it were not a warmer world, it would have been how cold in Russia?

  23. #23 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “That’s called “argument from ignorance”, Duffer, a logical fallacy ”

    But the deniers are so stupid, they think that their ignorance is overwhelming.

    It is.

    Just not in the way they think it is.

    :-)

  24. #24 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2013

    Hansen’s conclusions come from mainstream climate science. Duff proffers them as a deviation from it.

    There’s none so foolish as one who is convinced he’s savvy enough to see the smart people working their little conspiracies…

  25. #25 Karen
    January 22, 2013

    “So, forecasters are facing a huge challenge.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/20998895

    hehehe, it doesn’t matter what they say, the cultist cranks in here will BELIEVE !

    The story not long ago was that there was to be cooling in the stratosphere, GULP………its warming !!!! oh no…. the valuable glowbull worming is escaping !!!

    and still no hot spot over the equator, sheeezzzz……..

    Never mind, move the goal posts, change the story, the suckers will believe it :)

    hehehe, I still can’t get snow out my waffle iron

  26. #26 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    The only challenge they face is the idiots who go “I just had to defrost my car! Global Warming doesn’t exist!!!”.

    You know, idiots like yourself, KMS.

  27. #27 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “The story not long ago was that there was to be cooling in the stratosphere, GULP………its warming !!!”

    Your point being what, exactly?

    That cooling must ALWAYS be a drop in temperature? That you’re a fool?

  28. #28 Karen
    January 22, 2013

    This is from your favourite looney site woW

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Stratospheric-Cooling-and-Tropospheric-Warming.html

    I suppose it’s hard to keep up with your ever changing CC bible :)

  29. #29 Jeff Harvey
    January 22, 2013

    These graphs should shut up Karen and Duffer. But they probably won’t, given their propensity for spewing nonsense.

    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=5ls80l&s=6
    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=9tpnao&s=6

  30. #31 Wow
    January 22, 2013
  31. #32 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Combine:

    “thegwpf.org”

    with the headline:

    “hansen-admits-global-temperature-standstill-real”

    And you know what you’re going to get. A load of congratulatory backslapping over a mined quote that says something that *could*, by the terminally dim, be considered *possibly* in their favour.

    Note how they hate Hansen and call him alarmist.

    Until they think they can use him.

  32. #33 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    When I read that report, I saw we had just had the hottest La Nina ever recorded.

    Only a disinformation site would be dishonest enough to call that anything but, “still warming”.

  33. #34 JohnL
    January 22, 2013

    As Dr. Rabet would say RTFP, most importantly the concusions:

    –”We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance.”

    –”[O]ur interpretation of the larger role of unforced variability in temperature change of the past decade…suggests that global temperature will rise significantly in the next few years as the tropics moves inevitably into the next El Nino phase.”

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012

  34. #35 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    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.

    And what’s happened with a few piddling inches of snow?

    Chaos:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/jan/22/schools-must-resist-closing-snow-tory

  35. #36 lord_sidcup
    January 22, 2013

    The GWPF are shameless. Cherry-pick the bits of Hansen’s paper that suit their purposes and re-write the bits that don’t.

  36. #37 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Well, it’s been confirmed.

    Joanas has admitted said of himself “I don’t think”.

    End of discussion.

  37. #38 Wow
    January 22, 2013
  38. #39 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    Here’s what Michael Mann had to say yesterday:

    My view is that far more damage is likely done to the discourse on climate change by pretending that those who deny the existence of the problem are simply “skeptics” and labeling them as such (or using similar euphemisms). Doing so simply provides cover for bad faith attacks on the science, and potentially leads those in the middle (or are much more likely to be be potentially part of any meaningful progress in climate change mitigation) to stay on the sidelines rather than engage, believing that the threat has been exaggerated or overstated.

    Work by Ed Maibach and others (see e.g. this piece: http://www.minnpost.com/environment/2011/11/why-arent-we-more-worried-about-global-warming) has shown that the single greatest obstacle to progress on this issue is in fact the belief by those in the middle that scientists are *not* in agreement” on the reality of the problem, despite the overwhelming consensus that actually exists.

    Allowing the forces of antiscience to continue to frame themselves as “skeptics” plays right into that fallacy, and arguably does far more damage than alienating those who actively deny the science (what are often referred to as “climate change deniers”) by calling them out for their denial. Yes, deniers don’t like being called deniers (just as fools don’t like being called fools, etc). But not calling them out for what they are is potentially a far greater threat to progress than alienating those who are (a) unlikely to change their mind and therefore (b) unlikely to actively work toward any truly meaningful mitigation efforts.

    It is telling in that regard that President Obama yesterday in his Inauguration speech chose to call out those who “deny” the science of climate change despite the overwhelming evidence. This implies that his administration, his advisers and speechwriters, etc. have come to the same realization: That the continued denial of the problem by some poses a far greater threat than does offending those who are engaged in that denial, and unlikely to be part of any meaningful solution (i.e. carbon emissions regulations).

  39. #40 john byatt
    January 23, 2013

    Idiotic Australian politicians

    the series

    http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/

  40. #41 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2013

    That should prove to be a rich vein of manure, john.

  41. #42 Bernard J.
    January 23, 2013

    John Byatt.

    Thanks for starting a catalog of the scientific nonsense that Australian politicians have said. I’m hoping to gather some material together myself, so I’ll forward it to you when I have enough.

    This could be a very useful resource for those who want to remind the electorate and the media just how ignorant their parliamentarians really are…

  42. #43 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 23, 2013

    Oh, no! If even the *GERMAN* media are giving up on AGW then the game’s really up! And when it’s the impeccably Left-wing ‘Der Spiegel’ that is leading the way, then honestly, chaps, I’d switch to some other doom-laden cult a bit smartish if I were you (‘which thank the Lord I’m not, sir’!)
    ……………………………………………………………………….
    “Yesterday Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski published a piece called: Klimawandel: Forscher rätseln über Stillstand bei Erderwärmung (Climate change: scientists baffled by the stop in global warming).”
    …………………………………………………………………………
    Of course, you lot here aren’t baffled but then again, you lot here aren’t very scientific, are you?
    …………………………………………………………………………..
    “Bojanowski writes that “The word has been out for quite some time now that the climate is developing differently than predicted earlier”. He poses the question: “How many more years of stagnation are needed before scientists rethink their predictions of future warming?”

    Bojanowski adds: 15 years without warming are now behind us. The stagnation of global near-surface average temperatures shows that the uncertainties in the climate prognoses are surprisingly large. The public is now waiting with suspense to see if the next UN IPCC report, due in September, is going to discuss the warming stop.”
    …………………………………………………………………………
    My advice to the public is not to hold their breath. The IPCC is one of the most lucrative gravy-trains ever to get up steam and it will only ever stop trundling along with its carriages full of the gullible when the tracks freeze over!

    http://notrickszone.com/2013/01/19/spiegel-ends-europes-climate-denialism-european-media-now-scrambling-to-explain-end-of-warming/

  43. #44 bill
    January 23, 2013

    Yaaaaaaaawn.

    Next.

  44. #45 Jeff Harvey
    January 23, 2013

    “And when it’s the impeccably Left-wing ‘Der Spiegel’”

    Well, Duff lost it there. The corporate media is not left wing. It is simply an extension of corporate power. Period.Der Speigel is no exception. It is privately owned and depends on corporate advertising like the rest of the western media apparatus. One of the enduring myths of our time is that the media exhibits a left wing bias.

    But then again, to repeat, this is the same guy (Duff) who on his blog claimed that Obama is a ‘Marxist-Socialist’. He is to be ignored.

  45. #46 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    “Oh, no! If even the *GERMAN* media are giving up on AGW then the game’s really up!”

    What leads you to that conclusion?

    Why is GERMANY

    a) so pivotal
    b) in CAPITALS

    ?

    Or do you just not have a clue?

  46. #47 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2013

    Or do you just not have a clue?

    Bazinga!

  47. #48 lord_sidcup
    January 23, 2013

    The IPCC is one of the most lucrative gravy-trains

    Silly old Duffer. With an annual budget of about 7 million dollars, approx. 12 staff, and scientists providing their services on a voluntary basis, that would be very-thin-gravy.

  48. #49 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    “The IPCC is one of the most lucrative gravy-trains”

    Really?

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-57557155/exxon-mobil-ceo-to-receive-$2.7m-raise-$4.5m-bonus/

  49. #50 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    “Of course, you lot here aren’t baffled but then again, you lot here aren’t very scientific, are you?”

    Of course, when someone claims “someone else is baffled”, that only says what the reporter thinks.

    Not what is.

    But you lot aren’t ever scientific, are you.

  50. #51 Karen
    January 23, 2013

    A nooz flash……..

    HADCRUT Numbers Out For December

    “Down from 0.52C to 0.27C, a huge drop and in line with GISS figures.

    Full update later today, but this drop brings temperatures back to what they were at the start of the year, when La Nina was in full swing.

    They are also below levels in 2003/4 when ENSO conditions were also neutral.

    With most of the NH so cold at the moment. temperatures could drop even further this month. Big changes seem to be underway, and if they carry on for the next few months, there is going to be much scratching of heads in the climate fraternity. They certainly have not seen this one coming.”

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/hadcrut-numbers-out-for-december/

  51. #52 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    Yes, in January, the NH is in the middle of winter, KMS.

    Your point..?

  52. #53 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    And in the UK the first few weeks of January were 4.5C warmer than average and therefore the average so far this month is STILL above average.

    Warming.

  53. #54 Karen
    January 23, 2013

    Would that be the 1971-2000 average woW ?

    So what would be the average temp there from the height of the MWP ?

  54. #55 bill
    January 23, 2013

    Hey, look – easily the hottest December of the Century in the Southern Hemisphere.

    But that’s only a month, right?

    ‘Skeptics’, you say?

  55. #56 Karen
    January 23, 2013

    Yes, in January, the SH is in the middle of summer, woW.

    Your point..?

  56. #58 bill
    January 23, 2013

    You’re no good on context, either, are you, Karolaus?

    Why do you suppose I said ” ‘skeptics’ you say?”

  57. #59 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    “Yes, in January, the SH is in the middle of summer, woW.”

    And Australia is breaking all-time records.

    Meanwhile, the UK is getting a little snow, Russia has seen worse in recorded history.

    Warming.

  58. #60 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    “So what would be the average temp there from the height of the MWP ?”

    You mean the height of the MWP *in the location of the UK* don’t you?

    Because the MWP wasn’g global.

    So what would the average temp be in the height of the LIA in the UK, KMS?

    Warming.

  59. #61 Karen
    January 23, 2013

    Meanwhile Dec in the NH had a bumper crop of snow and the Antarctic ice and snow is galloping ahead.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/2012/12

    Considering that we are still emerging from the LIA, the UK show no effects from the magical hothouse demon gas.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/actualmonthly/

    Get mummy to give you a cuddle :)

  60. #62 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    “Meanwhile Dec in the NH had a bumper crop of snow and the Antarctic ice and snow is galloping ahead.”

    “Bumper crop”?????

    ROFLAMO!!!

    No.

    Absolutely not.

    During WW2 there were snowdrifts in the UK that were as high as a steam locomotive.

    Russia had snowdrifts much, much deeper.

    This winter?

    Weaksauce snow.

  61. #63 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    You really are an alarmist, aren’t you, KMS.

  62. #64 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    Look at the photo here:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/23/snow-threat-flooding

    That’s a “bumper crop”???

    Mind you, it DOES show that Dr Vines was correct: causing chaos.

  63. #65 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2013

    Bumper crops ain’t what they used to be…perhaps people have forgotten what they used to be – can’t think why… ;-)

  64. #66 lord_sidcup
    January 23, 2013

    ..the UK show no effects from the magical hothouse demon gas..

    Understandable if no-one checked, but Karen’s graph actually shows the most recent value is about 1 deg C above the 1981-2010 average.

    Look at the photo here

    Wot Karen sees – an enviromentalist with a shovel trying to hide the snow.

  65. #67 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    Yeah, literally millimetres of it! The infamy!

  66. #68 chek
    January 23, 2013

    ‘S’true!
    It was a 55kt blizzard here on Friday night (the local yacht club lent their premises for an event and their decorative fittings are quite practical) with snow flying horizontally and looking two or three inches deep on the roads by midnight, maybe more so on the grass.

    And would you believe it, by 9 o’clock Saturday morning those bloody environmentalists had cleared it all away. Is there nothing these watermelons won’t stoop to?

  67. #69 Lionel A
    January 23, 2013

    lord-sidcup

    Understandable if no-one checked, but Karen’s graph actually shows the most recent value is about 1 deg C above the 1981-2010 average.

    And look at that ‘lowest’. Sheesh! I remember that one well.

    During the six weeks or so before Christmas 1962 I was cycling about 3 miles to work (Gloucester) every morning, six days a week for a shift starting at about 0600.

    Along one considerable stretch were numerous old trees with boughs overhanging the road and before long into that period I was watching those branches very carefully with ears alert as they creaked and groaned under the increasing weight of the hoar frost as more was added day by day.

    Then there was boxing day which was fun except for the fact that within a week I would be making my way down to Cornwall for my ‘induction’ into the RN.

    Once the dotted line had been signed on, and you were in lump it or like it, the mood of those kind petty officers changed becoming as icy as the weather.

    Within days we were drilling on the frozen parade ground throwing heavy lumps of wood a steel (aka SMLE .303) around with feel-less fingers.

    We wondered if our upcoming expedition to Bodmin Moor, nr. Cardinham, to enjoy assault courses which included a ‘death slide’ by webbing belt across a water filled china clay pit, from the top of a spoil heap to a far shore, would be cancelled due to the weather.

    No chance and to boot we were sent out on Dartmoor on Ten Tors trials. I suppose they were aiming to show that the Navy could achieve where the Army had failed.

    At the end of this we had a reward once gaining the relative sanctuary of a navy blue pusser’s bus (pusser’s – pertaining to or belonging to the RN). One cold, near frozen bottle of milk 1/3rd pint for the use of, one cold boiled egg, one cheese butty (aka sandwich but with cheese not much different to the pusser’s hard (soap – carbolic for the use of).

    At the end of those first four weeks those who had decided they now would rather have out had the last chance of regaining civy street without penalty, but seeing as I had made it that far I decided to hang on in for the duration. A year later Scotland became the scene for mountain fun & games for a couple of years with fond memories of the Buachaille Etive Mòr in Glen Coe and was Braemar cold, Ryvoan Cairngorms too.

  68. #71 lord_sidcup
    January 23, 2013

    @JohnL

    It was also covered by the BBC:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21163386

    Heartening to see the denier comments at the bottom being voted down.

  69. #72 Lionel A
    January 23, 2013

    I would like to bring Jeff Harvey’s wonderful sequence of posts on bio-diversity and extinction which I tipped into at Eli’s place from a post by andrew adams where he wrote, I leave links as they fall:

    There was an interesting discussion at Bart’s a while back, again involving Jeff Harvey (with excellent contributions from Bernard J)

    It started here

    http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/revkin-steig-o%e2%80%99donnell-peer-review-solid-scientific-basics/

    and carried on here

    http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/biodiversity-extinction-climate-change/

    .

    Thank you Jeff Harvey and especially for the links onto Guide to the Millennium Assessment Reports and other material.

    I see check has already seen some of this but I will flag up other links that Jeff provided in this What Jeff Harvey reads.

    This should keep me quite for a bit, so much to read, so little time left.

  70. #73 bill
    January 23, 2013

    Thanks for the links, Lionel!

    It’s interesting to read Jeff’s genuinely wise words and then contrast them to the disrespectful sniggering and yelpings of the DK hyenas he’s subjected to when he’s here…

  71. #74 chek
    January 23, 2013

    “the disrespectful sniggering and yelpings of the DK hyenas he’s subjected to when he’s here”

    God, it’s so embarrassing, ain’t it?. For them, I mean.

  72. #75 Bernard J.
    January 24, 2013

    Lionel.

    Thank you for reminding me about that tomfullery at Bart’s.

    That was indeed a breath-taking example of Dunning-Kruger arrogance. If Fuller had his way ecologists and climatologists the world over would be fired and their work replaced with his own peculiar brand of ‘scientific’ understanding – which is to say, that variety of Just So story-telling which would make Kipling himself envious of the imagination involved.

  73. #76 JohnL
    January 24, 2013

    Bernard J.

    Speaking of Tomfoolery, did you see Tallbloke trot out the old canard “It’s bot the greenhouse effect , it’s tthe pressure wot’ causing Venus to be hot” at Stoat’S. The Weasel was not impressed, and after much mocking and derision WMC put that subject off limits.

  74. #77 Bernard J.
    January 24, 2013

    JohnL.

    No, I missed that – I shall have to go over and have a laff.

    Speaking of matters ecological as we were, there’s a great methodological paper just out:

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00049182.2012.731307#preview

    I strongly urge the ecologists on this thread to read it – it’s a masterpiece of scientific acumen.

  75. #78 Karen
    January 24, 2013

    “I strongly urge the ecologists on this thread to read it – it’s a masterpiece of scientific acumen.”

    And it also has the same degree of legitimacy as your usual tripe barnturd. :)

  76. #79 Bernard J.
    January 24, 2013

    And it also has the same degree of legitimacy as your usual tripe barnturd.

    You’re still unable to discriminate between fact and fiction I see, Karenmacksunspot.

    And it seems that I’m still living rent-free in your head…

  77. #80 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 24, 2013

    Whodathunkit?

    So, carbon emissions go up by a third but global warming disappears!

    Life sure do git complicated, don’t it?

  78. #81 Wow
    January 24, 2013

    So, carbon emissions go up by a third but global warming disappears!

    So you think only CO2 warms the planet?

    Life sure is simple for you simpletons, innit!

  79. #82 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 24, 2013

    But … but … that’s what you kept telling everyone, Wow, and that’s why we have all these hideously expensive – and utterly useless – non-carbon energy schemes.

    Don’t tell me you were wrong!

  80. #83 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    Duff projects his own frequently corrected misunderstanding on to other people. Again.

    News at 11.

    (Better trolls, please.)

  81. #84 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 24, 2013

    Oh, you mean, ‘Lottie’, that CO2 **doesn’t** cause global warming!

  82. #85 lord_sidcup
    January 24, 2013

    I completely missed this from BBC Radio 4 but it looks like it might be worthwhile listening to:

    Climate change – what lies beneath its widespread denial? Laurie Taylor talks to Sally Weintrobe, the editor of the first book which explores, from a multi disciplinary perspective, what the ecological crisis actually means to people. In spite of a scientific consensus, many continue to resist or ignore the message of climate communicators – but why? What are the social and emotional explanations for this reaction? They’re joined by the Professor of Social Policy, Paul Hoggett.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01pzv2n

  83. #86 Lionel A
    January 24, 2013

    Bernard J,

    Thank you for reminding me about that tomfullery at Bart’s.

    Your welcome, your remarks were apposite too.

    That surname, under the circumstance, just begs some foolery as Tom has demonstrated clearly that he is fullershit. Jeff Id OTOH (I seem to recall coming across this one at DesmogBlog) has nothing to fill.

  84. #87 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    No, I don’t, Duff.

    As I said, you project your own misunderstanding…

  85. #88 Wow
    January 24, 2013

    Oh, you mean, ‘Lottie’, that CO2 **doesn’t** cause global warming!

    Nope.

    So you think it’s either ALL CO2′s fault or it’s NONE of CO2′s fault!

    Binary thinking for someone who can’t manage anything more complex than 1 or 0.

  86. #89 Wow
    January 24, 2013

    But … but … that’s what you kept telling everyone, Wow,

    If that’s what REALLY happened in this real world, then you’ll be able to show where this happened.

    Or are we to believe that I did what you say I did because you say it?

  87. #90 Wow
    January 24, 2013

    Don’t tell me, you were wrong.

  88. #91 Richard Simons
    January 24, 2013

    I don’t suppose Karen or Duffy can explain the theory and observations that prompted scientists in the 60s to anticipate global warming, either.

  89. #92 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 24, 2013

    When measuring global climate do carbon emissions have:

    a: A large effect?

    b: A medium effect?

    c: a tiny effect?

    Jist askin’!

  90. #93 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 24, 2013

    No, Richard, we can’t because in the ’70s they were all wetting their knickers over global freezing!

    (Nudge: this might have had a teensy-weensy knock-on effect causing us to, shall we say, have our reservations when you changed your minds and began screeching about warming!)

  91. #94 Wow
    January 24, 2013

    When measuring global climate do carbon emissions have:

    a: A large effect?

    A.

  92. #95 Wow
    January 24, 2013

    No, Richard, we can’t because in the ’70s they were all wetting their knickers over global freezing!

    And once again proving that you’re not only inerrantly wrong, but unrepentantly wrong.

    You’ll make any lie that is convenient at the time, duffer.

  93. #96 Wow
    January 24, 2013

    Broecker, Wallace S. (1975). “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?” Science 189: 460-64.

    Gives the lie to “all”.

  94. #97 Richard Simons
    January 24, 2013

    No, Richard, we can’t because in the ’70s they were all wetting their knickers over global freezing!

    I asked about the 60s. Even in the 70′s, your idiotic comment applied only to a few journalists. Most scientists never doubted that global warming was coming. You’ve been told this many times, perhaps it will eventually penetrate the thick hide of your pomposity.

  95. #98 lord_sidcup
    January 24, 2013

    ..in the ’70s they were all wetting their knickers over global freezing..

    You might want to review the evidence for that:

    http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html

    Sorry. I forgot, Duff doesn’t do evidence.

  96. #99 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    Duff’s an unrepentant liar.

    Better trolls, please.

  97. #100 chek
    January 24, 2013

    Duff’s an unrepentant liar.

    Agreed, but what possible benefit is meant to accrue from appearing unrelentingly stupid, time after time?