January 2013 Open Thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Lionel A
    January 24, 2013

    Never mind the asteroid how do we get out from under this Incoming! New Report Notes 14 “Carbon Bombs” Threatening To Blow The Global Carbon Budget.

    In the words of Duff. Whodathunkit?, that we should allow this to happen.

    Australia, ou need to reign in that Rinehart creature and we need to make sure Cameron & Co are confronted with the truth about fracking and the effects of reducing renewable incentives.

    When will these dabblers and dribblers click with the fact that as the ecology of the planet implodes so the economy will really tank.

    Whodathunkit?

    Certainly not Duff. Of course he may be, because of age, past caring about what happens in the near to distant future and has no offspring to worry about, probably being too stupid to manage even that.

  2. #2 Wow
    January 24, 2013

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

    It costs him nothing.

    He’s driven by hate.

    It’s not that he wants any benefit. He doesn’t care. Think “Cutting off your nose to spite your face”. That’s Duffksi.

  3. #3 David Duff
    January 24, 2013

    So, Wow tells me that carbon emissions are a *large* cause of global warming but despite them increasing by a THIRD since 1998, IPCC/HADCRUT measurements indicate a slight FALL in global temperatures – certainly no “large” increases!

    Oh dear, I’m almost embarrassed for you, Wow!
    ………………………………………………………………………..

    Richard:

    “HH Lamb was one of the leading climate scientists at the time and founded the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA. In 1973 he wrote an article, “Is The Earth’s Climate Changing?”, for the UNESCO magazine, “The Courier”. […]

    For the past 25 to 30 years the Earth has been getting progressively cooler again. Around 1960 the cooling was particularly sharp. And there is by now widespread evidence of a corresponding reverse in the ranges of birds and fish and the success of crops and forest trees near the poleward and altitudinal limits.
    The decline of prevailing temperatures since about 1945 appears to be the longest-continued downward trend since temperature records began.”

    http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000748/074891eo.pdf
    ………………………………………

    In the 1960s and early 1970s, the time frame of most scientists was still retrospective, rather than prospective (Oldfield 1993). However, the revived notion of the Milankovitch theory then suddenly offered the new possibility of actual climate prediction. At that time there was relatively little emphasis on potential or actual ‘global warming’, and the idea was virtually unknown to popular consciousness. Indeed, a widespread belief at that time was that the planet was heading for a new ice age, fuelled by acceptance of the Milankovitch theory and new knowledge gained from isotope analysis of Greenland ice cores (Dansgaard et al. 1970, 1971).

    Hays et al. (1976) suggested that the observed orbital-climate relationships predict that the long-term trend over the next several thousand years would be toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation. The period of global cooling since around 1940 was thought to be the first indication of a new ice age, and was seen as being accelerated by aerosols from industrial pollution blocking out sunlight. Even among some of those scientists drawing attention to contemporary increases of atmospheric CO2, a phase of significant global cooling was envisaged (e.g. Rasool and Schneider 1971).

    http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndHistory%201950-1999.htm
    ………………………………………….

    I could go on, Richard, but even you might have grasped the point by now!

  4. #4 Vince Whirlwind
    January 24, 2013

    despite them increasing by a THIRD since 1998, IPCC/HADCRUT measurements indicate a slight FALL in global temperatures

    Surely you aren’t as much of a moron as you are trying to make out?

    If there is a cool day in the middle of summer, do you announce “Summer is over”?

    In what alternate reality do you expect the greenhouse effect to eliminate all the other cycles and variations our climate is subject to?

    This is why this kind of garbage is confined to crank blogs – it really is insanely moronic.

  5. #5 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    Surely you aren’t as much of a moron as you are trying to make out?

    No, he is.

    It comes naturally to him. And effort is something he does his level best to avoid.

  6. #6 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    So, Wow tells me that carbon emissions are a *large* cause of global warming but despite them increasing by a THIRD since 1998

    This would require a citation, Duffski.

    Really?

    The CO2 levels were 365.56ppmv in 1998.
    They were 390.48ppm in 2011.

    Now, either there was another 90-100ppm dumped in 2012, you can’t do maths, or you just flat out lied.

    Because 390.48/365.56 != 1.333.

    I make it about 7%.

    What does YOUR maths say?

  7. #7 Lotharsson
    January 25, 2013

    Surely you aren’t as much of a moron as you are trying to make out?

    Yes, he is.

    See comments, prior, author: Duff.

    You’ll note he’s now linking to Humlum’s “Climate4You” site. Chameleon could tell him a thing or two about how that biases its data selection and editorial comment and uses unpublished and dodgy methodologies to (mis-)lead its readers – or she could if she had taken on board any information when that was demonstrated to her…and the info will roll off his mind like water off a duck’s back if it is reiterated here.)

    He should know because he’s been told that fears of imminent cooling in the 1970s were a fringe scientific view at best, and were played up by the media, but he doesn’t want to know. Humlum should know better as well, but he’s clearly not concerned with telling a full and accurate story either.

    There’s always this video from 1980 demonstrating that by then global warming was a big enough concern that the US Legislatures were discussing it with scientists, and it was big enough to get Walter Cronkite’s attention. (And note the warnings are all very similar to today’s warnings – the science back then was much younger, but had already come to many of the core conclusions that stand today.)

  8. #8 Karen
    January 25, 2013

    LOL………..this guy has some very bad news for you guy’s.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=um-h8Zt6iD4

  9. #9 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 25, 2013

    Just for Wow:
    http://www.bp.com/assets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2011/STAGING/local_assets/spreadsheets/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_report_2012.xlsx

    Before you howl that BP is “BIG OIL” and can’t be trusted I would have though it was in their interest to *diminish* CO2 stats!

    The emissions for the 15 years up to 1997 was 331 gigatons.
    The emissions for the next 15 years to 2012 was 440gigatons

    You do the math I was never much good at sums!

    Anyway, despite all this CO2 belching out the effect on global warming was zilch, nada, zero, a big fat nothing! If anything global temperatures dropped slightly in the last 15 years – according to IPCC/HADCRUT stats no less.

    So, mes enfants, were you right or wrong to insist that carbon emissions were a major factor in global warming?

  10. #10 zoot
    January 25, 2013

    You mean you trust those unconscionable criminals Pachauri and CRU to provide accurate global temperatures?? But, but, climategate!!!

    (BTW you can’t even read their data properly)

  11. #11 chek
    January 25, 2013

    were a major factor in global warming?

    “were the only factor in global warming”

    Can you comprehend the difference Duffer?
    You read one thing but understand something completely different. Is English your second language?

  12. #12 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    You do the math I was never much good at sums!

    Yes, I did do the sums.

    The sums are:

    CO2 in 2011 is 7% higher than it was in 1998.

    Not 33% higher.

    At least now you’re admitting that you can’t do maths. Which I suppose is an improvement…

  13. #13 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    And We ALSO now know that Duffski is even MORE nuts than the YECers.

    EVEN THEY would not commit to the idea that the earth is only 30 years old…

  14. #14 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    Can you comprehend the difference Duffer?

    No.

    To do so would devastate his ego. He’d have to admit he was wrong.

  15. #15 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 25, 2013

    Sorry, Wow, but you asked me for a citation and I supplied it. Here it is again:
    http://www.bp.com/assets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2011/STAGING/local_assets/spreadsheets/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_report_2012.xlsx

    Actually, you don’t need to be a scientific statistician to see the result, just take a look at any film taken round China these days!

    You claim a 7%+/- increase between ’98 and ’11 but provide no authority but let us cross our fingers and take that as true. Surely, according to your theory based, as you told me, that carbon emissions are a “large” part of the cause of global warming – then even on a 7% INCREASE things should have got warmer not slightly cooler!
    ……………………………………………………………………….

    Chek places this comment in inverted commas:

    “were the only factor in global warming”

    Who wrote that?

    You also tell me that carbon emissions are a “great” factor in the causes of global warming

  16. #16 chek
    January 25, 2013

    Duffer are you sure English isn’t your second language?
    The phrase in inverted commas is the pertinent counterpoint to your own quote in order to demonstrate your poor grasp of meaning.

    then even on a 7% INCREASE things should have got warmer not slightly cooler!

    [citation needed]

    Because you’ll need – once again – to point to where CO2 is claimed as the sole driver of climate. Which you can’t do because you have never read any primary literature or even IPCC reports. Instead you prefer to rely on your vast miscomprehension cobbled together from crank blogs like Watts’ pitiful site.

  17. #17 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    “Duffer are you sure English isn’t your second language?”

    I call “fourth”.

    “then even on a 7% INCREASE things should have got warmer not slightly cooler!”

    Because that’s not much change in a large factor. Changing something else 50% can easily cancel that out.

    Face it, you tried a “cute game” to make out that you had something, but it’s all failed.

    You’re now scrabbling at the dregs hoping nobody will point out the puddle of piss you’re standing in where once you thought you had hope.

  18. #18 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    ““were the only factor in global warming”

    Who wrote that?”

    So what did you mean when you claim that CO2 is rising but tempertatures aren’t?

    If there were more than CO2 involved, you have your explanation.

    Are you insisting that you have no clue what you’re talking at any point in time?

    Because that’s something you keep denying when confronted with the claim, yet every time you’re confronted with the evidence of your assertions and insinuations, you pretend again that you had no idea what you were talking about.

  19. #19 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    I vote that any time Duffski makes a claim, we ask him to explain what he means.

  20. #20 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    “Sorry, Wow, but you asked me for a citation and I supplied it. Here it is again:”

    I asked you for a citation of

    “then even on a 7% INCREASE things should have got warmer not slightly cooler!”

    That link isn’t citing the reason for your claim.

  21. #21 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    I also required a citation showing CO2 had increased by a THIRD between 1998 and 2011/12.

    Your link doesn’t do that either.

    Maybe you can show precisely where it says CO2 increased by A THIRD.

  22. #22 Karen
    January 25, 2013

    and to think Madam Harvey (fortune teller
    ) thought that Nebraska was going to burn :)

    http://www.wunderground.com/weather-forecast/US/NE/Omaha.html?MR=1

    Give up the tea leaves and blind faith Jeffery, lol

  23. #23 Lionel A
    January 25, 2013

    HH Lamb was an extremely knowledgeable scientist but the science has moved on since his day.

    Ah Yes climate4you another of those well know receptacles of donkey droppings so perhaps Duff should look here:

    From The Warming Papers. David Archer, Ray Pierrehumbert. Get hold of a full copy of the book Duff.

    Now can yiu grasp what has been happening to temp’s over the 20th Century and why and also why some were mislead but many across the world because of the uncritical blatherings of pundits in the mainstream media.

    No scientists as a group were not forecasting a new ice age.

    Indeed Duff, consult William Ruddiman’s Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate which will inform you on why the current situation WRT ice ages is so anomalous compared to the previous.

    Now as to this current cold spell here and the retro-perspectives being broadcast about now where we are informed that the weather experience by we in the UK in early 1963. It seems that this was due to an anomalous warming in the Pacific around Hawaii which caused a sudden increase in atmospheric water vapour above the Pacific which in turn upset the —– wait for it —- jet stream.

    Well I never. WhoDaThunkIt?.

  24. #24 Lionel A
    January 25, 2013

    During the to and fro with Latimer Alder elsewhere here I mention a site called Global Warming Science Global Warming Nonsense (there fixed it.

    Lest there is any doubt about the status of this site just cast your eyes down the list of Links to GW (dis) Info Site in the right panel.

    So for trolls around here if you source from these expect to get bounced.

  25. #25 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    Have you noticed? The chipmunk on the thread has exploded!

    I’m laughing out loud.

  26. #26 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 25, 2013

    Excellent, so we have established then that carbon emissions are **not** a main driver of global warming?

    (Someone tell Wow because he reckons their effect is “large”.)

    Oh, and Chek, in correctly written English you place inverted commas round a word, phrase or sentence to indicate that it is a quote. But then I suspect you are a victim of our famous edukashun servis so ignorance of written English is not entirely your fault.

    Wow, this might be a tad tricky for you but open the link I provided and scroll down to #65.

    Open that link and scroll down to #89 which will give you world carbon emissions from 1965 to2011.

    You will notice, for example, that the % **increase** between 2010 and 2011 **alone** was 3% – er, that’s 3% in just one year!

    How do your global temps compare?

  27. #27 Vince Whirlwind
    January 25, 2013

    It’s not emissions that drive the greenhouse effect, Duffus.

    Are you going to grow a brain?

  28. #28 Lotharsson
    January 26, 2013

    Good grief. Duff thinks that a 3% increase in one’s weekly salary means one’s accumulated net wealth just went up 3%.

    And he’s lecturing other people about education and “ignorance”.

  29. #29 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    That’s because he’s an expert at uneducated and ignorance.

  30. #30 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    “It’s not emissions that drive the greenhouse effect, Duffus.”

    Indeed, the stupid braindead moron thinks that only fresh CO2 works.

    How?

    Nobody knows.

    Not even duffski itself.

  31. #31 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    “Excellent, so we have established then that carbon emissions are **not** a main driver of global warming?”

    No, we’ve established that you can’t do maths.

    And don’t know what CO2 does.

    And don’t care to know either.

  32. #32 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 26, 2013

    So all that shrieking and stamping of little feet about carbon emissions was just, er, hot air then?

  33. #33 Lotharsson
    January 26, 2013

    Now Duff is speculating that his salary ain’t got nuthin’ at all to do with his net wealth?

    Sheesh.

  34. #34 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 26, 2013

    But, Gentlemen – I use the term loosely, of course – are we agreed that the effect of carbon emissions is minimal?

    A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is all that is required.

  35. #35 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    are we agreed that the effect of carbon emissions is minimal?

    No.

    Are we agreed that CO2 hasn’t gone up by a third since 1998?

  36. #36 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    Now Duff is speculating that his salary ain’t got nuthin’ at all to do with his net wealth?

    Remember, Duff isn’t allowed money. He gets internet access and his mum buys him his food and clothes.

    He’s not capable of adult thought, so feel pity for him.

  37. #37 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    How long after being emitted does CO2 stop being CO2, Duffer?

  38. #38 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 26, 2013

    So, I assume Wow speaks for all of you in agreeing that the effects of carbon emissions, not being “minimal” are therefore *important*.

    Plain common-sense and observation of news reports will tell you that because of China, India and SE Asia, such emissions have increased – I will avoid an adjective lest it give ‘Lottie’ a funny turn!

    However, requiring more in the way of ‘proof’ we can turn to the BP spread sheet which tells us that:
    Carb Emission 2011 = 34032.7
    Carb emission 1998 = 24445.2
    As you do not trust my math I will leave it to you to work out but I’ll give you a clue – it ain’t far off a 28% increase.

    But that, of course, does not include the year of 2012 which, judged by preceding years, could easily add another 1% to 5%. So you can see that an increase of roughly a third is what occurred.

    What did NOT occur was an increase in global temperatures.

    Please explain why!

  39. #39 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    what does the point you wish to make actually mean, duffer?

    Tell us, when does CO2 stop being CO2 after emission?

  40. #40 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    duffski, here’s another math for you:

    1+2=3

    It’s true!

  41. #41 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    agreeing that the effects of carbon emissions, not being “minimal” are therefore *important*

    Yet another goalpost shift.

    Carbon emissions have “a: A large effect”.

  42. #42 Lotharsson
    January 26, 2013

    Please explain why!

    After all this time, and repeated explanation, you still don’t know? What makes you think the 101st explanation will succeed when the other 100 did not?

    I’m not going to explain it again. Go find one of the Anthropogenic Climate Change Guide For Dummies sites and start to educate yourself. Wake me up when you’ve learned something.

  43. #43 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    Maybe duffer can explain why we should explain why.

    As you say, it’s never worked so far.

  44. #44 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 26, 2013

    Well, Wow, I tried to avoid using the word “large” lest it embarrassed you. However, since you seem prepared to own it, then so be it. Now, however, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain why carbon emissions went up roughly a third in 15 years and temperatures did not?

    Incidentally, I notice that doubts concerning the rise in emissions have faded away so perhaps my ‘sums’ are not too bad after all!

  45. #45 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    We didn’t emit a third more CO2 in those 15 years, duffer.

    Are the sums

    (390-365)/365

    too difficult for you?

  46. #46 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    Do you think that CO2 cares whether it was emitted yesterday, last year, or a million years ago?

    Do you think CO2 is like your grandad and grows old?

  47. #47 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    So you think that we increased CO2 concentrations by 120ppm over the last 15 years???

  48. #48 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    Or is it that you think that all 395ppm CO2 was produced this year/last 15/what?

  49. #49 Lotharsson
    January 27, 2013

    Duff, if your salary rises by 33% from 1998 to 2011, what is your net wealth at 2011?

    Can you tell from that information alone, or do you need some other information?

  50. #50 Lotharsson
    January 27, 2013

    I think it’s long past time for Brad Keyes to have his own thread. He seemed to be agitating for it a while back by going all Godwin on us, and now he’s going over some of the same ground that led him to write a small manuscript’s worth consisting largely of straw bound together with prevarication at Lewandowsky’s.

  51. #51 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 27, 2013

    Sorry to bore on but still you avoid the simple question:

    “Now, however, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain why carbon emissions went up roughly a third in 15 years and temperatures did not?”

    Your silence is embarrassing!

  52. #52 Marco
    January 27, 2013

    David, the temperatures HAVE gone up, especially if you take into account ENSO.

    This “silence” has even been published in the scientific literature, so I find it rather embarrassing to you that you didn’t know this.

  53. #53 Lotharsson
    January 27, 2013

    Your silence is embarrassing!

    Wrong.

    Your interpretation of suitable responses as “silence” is embarrassing.

    Your persistent failure to understand the explanation for this error which you have repeated over and over again is embarrassing.

    Your failure to answer my questions which might lead you to slightly greater understanding than you currently have is embarrassing.

    You’re not here for the hunting, are you?

  54. #54 Lotharsson
    January 27, 2013

    Tim, see #50 please. Brad seems to be in a denialist meme firehose commenting mode which is similar to what he exhibited at Lewandowsky’s, albeit a little less offensively there at first in some sort of (ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to avoid running afoul of moderation policy.

    You could put him in the Jonas thread and they could endlessly congratulate each other on their unusually high perceptiveness of how things really are ;-)

  55. #55 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 27, 2013

    Marco, thank you, it is not often that I come across old-fashioned courtesy on this site!

    However, I am assured by IPCC/HADCRUT figures and other ‘warmer’ giants like James Hansen, that global temps have either stalled or fallen slightly in the last 10 to 15 years. Are they wrong?

    And if carbon emissions are a major forcing agent in driving temperatures up, what has gone wrong given that they have increased by nearly a third in 15 years?

  56. #56 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @Wow, @Lotharsson, any takers for the Dead-Easy Climate-Question One-Minute Fast-Money Challenge?

    Or are you as afraid of my cash as @bill on the Ridley thread?

  57. #57 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    What if I throw in this prize on top of the check/cheque:

    If you can answer the Dead-Easy One-Minute Fast-Money question, I will, to borrow a Stalinist euphemism from Lewansowsky’s history-deleting factota,

    “Opt to recuse myself from further participation at this venue.”

    ?

  58. #58 chameleon
    January 27, 2013

    Oh!
    So that’s where they went?
    Why are you appealing to Tim Lotharsson?
    Brad has been very obligingly playing semantics with you.
    I thought you liked playing semantics?
    I have a little suspicion that Tim likes seeing those big numbers on the comments.
    He might be disappointed if Brad opts to rescue himself from further participation :-)

  59. #59 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @Lotharsson,

    if you wonder why Tim doesn’t make your dreams come true and rid you of this turbulent commenter, here’s a couple of theories:

    1. Tim respects people who hold their ground, even if it’s not the same ground he holds.

    Don’t forget, Tim is one of an elite few public supporters of climate alarm who’ve actually had what were crudely referred to on another thread as “nards” enough to publicly debate a high-profile denier.

    2. Tim is, not to put too fine a point on it, pretty good with computers and shit, so he can essentially instantly find out what I scored when he lectured me.

    Tim therefore guesses reasonably confidently that anyone stupidheaded enough to call me a stupidhead is a stupidhead.

  60. #60 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    Heya @chameleon!

    Just a minor point, but I don’t think it will be me who’s “rescued” if I show mercy on the locals and go away.

    :-)

  61. #61 chameleon
    January 27, 2013

    Hmmm?
    I also notice that Wow is continuing to spray irrelevancies. He has just decided to spray at a different target.

  62. #62 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @chameleon,

    I feel the urge to wonder:

    at what point do we Deniers become the “regulars” and the Affirmers become the silent readers?

    lol

    C’mon people, it’s a really easy twenty-five bucks for anyone who knows what they’re talking about on a certain climate-related topic.

  63. #63 Lotharsson
    January 27, 2013

    For the benefit of anyone who hasn’t been watching Brad crap all over the second Ridley thread, I pointed out that we had gone over the same ground at Lewandowsky’s and he had jack shit then – except attitude – and that’s what he has now because he’s merely reiterating the same claims. If he really wants to re-engage with my thinking he can go read my responses to him at Lewandowsky’s. My comments are still there, even though Brad’s aren’t because he repeatedly violated comment policies. But I’m sure a smart person like Brad can work out which of my comments are responses to the reiterated claims he’s now making.

    I told him I was going to move on to other more profitable uses of my time, but as you can see Brad doesn’t comprehend English very well when doing so would be inconvenient – but at least he’s one up on chameleon on that front. (FWIW I said that after I had suggested on this thread that it was time for Brad to get his own thread – or join one of the other special commenters.)

    No doubt Tim’s far too smart to fall for Brad’s false framing, his false claims in the comment above, or his arguments from lack of personal imagination. After all, almost all of the readers here seem to be.

    And no doubt Brad will continue to try and engage on reiterated claims with similar bad faith comments. Cue baiting attempt in 3…2…1…

  64. #64 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    I am assured by IPCC/HADCRUT figures and other ‘warmer’ giants like James Hansen, that global temps have either stalled or fallen slightly in the last 10 to 15 years

    They rise and fall throughout the year, duffer.

    It seems like you prefer to get your information from things other than the information available.

    Why is that?

  65. #65 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    And if carbon emissions are a major forcing agent in driving temperatures up, what has gone wrong given that they have increased by nearly a third in 15 years?

    They haven’t.

    They’ve gone up ~7%.

    How do you think the 365ppmv got up there in the first place?

    Emitted.

  66. #66 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @chameleon:

    “I also notice that Wow is continuing to spray irrelevancies. He has just decided to spray at a different target.”

    To be fair, @chameleon, Wow’s comments really did test my intelligence. And I have to admit I failed dozens of times. By reading them.

  67. #67 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Dai, I asked you why your think 7% is 33%. You haven’t answered.

    Your silence is telling.

  68. #68 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Could you two lovebirds get a room somewhere?

    Playing the soggy biscuit game on the internet is sick, you two.

  69. #69 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @Lotharsson:

    “I told him I was going to move on to other more profitable uses of my time,”

    Like, say, earning $25 for a minute’s work?

    No?!?

  70. #70 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    PS brad, you’d need to illustrate some intelligence.

    so far all you have is memetic repetition.

  71. #71 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    “Like, say, earning $25 for a minute’s work?”

    Point?

  72. #72 chameleon
    January 27, 2013

    My comments are still there even though Brad’s aren’t?
    Huh?

  73. #73 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    chubby, neither you nor Brad have evinced any sort of reliability in ANY of your diatribes against the science, the people here or anything else that passes across that blank slate you call a mind.

    That you cannot argue the merits and have to concentrate on fellating each other over how smrt you both are is merely sealing the idea solid.

    You’ve managed both to kill any purpose you had here.

  74. #74 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @chameleon,

    “My comments are still there even though Brad’s aren’t?
    Huh?”

    I’d be surprised if I’ve been disappeared. I’m sure there’s an innocent explanation, Tim’s NOT a contemptible coward.

  75. #75 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @Wow:

    “so far all you [Brad] have is memetic repetition.”

    Wrong as ever, Wow. Psittacism is bill’s Super Animal Power.

    But hey, since you’re clearly AT YOUR COMPUTER, you have no excuse not to volunteer for my Dead-Easy One Minute Fast Money Climate Question, do you?

    C’mon, person up.

  76. #76 Lotharsson
    January 27, 2013

    Brad, my I introduce you to chameleon, apparently your fan – and reigning Deltoid Queen of Incomprehension, long may she live?

  77. #77 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @Lotharsson, I don’t know how much you earn in IT, so I hope I’m not insulting you, but I’m offering you $25 plus the chance to be a hero to all your friends by disappearing me from your midst, which you can’t really put a price on for answering a question you wouldn’t even need ONE MINUTE to type the answer to.

  78. #78 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    “so far all you [Brad] have is memetic repetition.”

    Wrong as ever, Wow. Psittacism is bill’s Super Animal Power.

    Gosh, you DO seem to not care in the least that this thread:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-sleight-of-hand/

    contains uncountable (as in nobody can be arsed to count how many after the first few score) examples of the same boring BS points retreaded again and again.

    And not only that but YOU brought up the Lewandowsky thread where you did EXACTLY THE SAME ROUTINE.

    You seem to have problems here. Here’s the definition of repeated:

    repeated past participle, past tense of re·peat (Verb)
    Verb

    Say again something one has already said.
    Say again (something said or written by someone else).

  79. #79 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Then again, when you know you’ve failed to pretend accuracy, like duffer, pantsize, joan, chubby and the other repeat idiots, you really throw ALL caution to the wind and ignore anything, even if they’re stuffed right in your face and obvious to anyone with working eyeballs.

  80. #80 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    offering you $25 plus the chance to be a hero to all your friends by disappearing me from your midst

    Lewdanowsky did the same thing.

    Then what you did is trash him on this blog for it.

  81. #81 Lionel A
    January 27, 2013

    “Now, however, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain why carbon emissions went up roughly a third in 15 years and temperatures did not?”

    Wherever you are getting your information about temperatures from is wrong, incorrect, misleading as seen from this.

    Now the reasons for a recent slow down in the rate of increase, not a stop, in global average warming are varied but I can think of one explanation. Now you tell me what that is?

    Don’t forget that there is inertia in the system, the full warming from current levels of increased GHGs will take a decade or so to complete, but by then of course levels will likely have moved on again so that equilibrium point moves further into the future.

    Now you have been told that many, many time so are you ignorant or mendacious? Whichever, you would be a waste of space here were it not for the educational opportunities that you provide, by allowing us to counter the BS you dispense, for the casual visitor here.

    Thus you are unwittingly providing a valuable service. Keep going.

  82. #82 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @Wow,

    just imagine you could actually substantiate your teenage attempts at insulting me.

    I’m offering you the chance on a silver platter.

    If you’re person enough to accept, I’ll ask you an ELEMENTARY, remedially-fucking-simple, straight question about a climatey/sciencey-relevant topic you’ve never hesitated to hold forth rather confidently about.

    What say you?

  83. #83 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    “offering you $25 plus the chance to be a hero to all your friends by disappearing me from your midst

    Lewdanowsky did the same thing.

    Then what you did is trash him on this blog for it.”

    Yes, because the pusillanimous, Orwellian pseudo-psychologist fraud disappeared me WITHOUT first answering my Dead-Elementary One Minute Fast Money challenge.

    If he’d done that, I’d have to revise my low, low opinion of him.

    C’mon Wow, take advantage of me while I’m Climate Crazy and Practically Giving Money Away.

  84. #84 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    “Now you have been told that many, many time so are you ignorant or mendacious? ”

    Both.

    No, merely “both” is selling duffski short.

    He’s both ignorant, mendacious, arrogant, annoying, trolling, and many many more things that are found in all the worst people in the world.

  85. #85 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Orwellian pseudo-psychologist fraud

    My goodness. This could be a self-portrait from you.

    disappeared me WITHOUT first answering my Dead-Elementary One Minute Fast Money challenge.

    Sorry, what would be the point of doing that?

  86. #86 chameleon
    January 27, 2013

    But you’re still my favourite deltoid Lotharsson :-)
    Brad has been very obliging and played ‘ritual intellectual humiliation’ with you.
    It’s been nearly as entertaining as the tennis.
    Djokovich has won in 4 sets.
    Murray had the courage to stay on the court even though he was a bit injured.
    You on the other hand took your ball and racket and went to play on another court.
    Now you’re referring others to some other blog where your comments are still there but Brad’s are gone.
    That’s not good sportsmanship Lotharsson.

  87. #87 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    “That’s not good sportsmanship Lotharsson.”

    No, but it’s the very model of Lotharrmanship.

    He’s a cowardly, vacuous parody of a human being, as are ALL who fear my One Minute Dead Simple Fast Money Climate Challenge!!

  88. #88 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    My god, chubby’s completely lost it.

    I suppose all chubby wants to do is ensure that no information is ever found on this site to try to remove anyone’s desire to read it.

    Sabotage is all the idiots have left.

  89. #89 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    as are ALL who fear my One Minute Dead Simple Fast Money Climate Challenge!!

    Hey, Bernard, here’s someone who will take your challenge.

    (and note, idiot-boy, we’re not afraid of it. How can we be afraid of something that doesn’t exist?)

  90. #90 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @Wow:

    “disappeared me WITHOUT first answering my Dead-Elementary One Minute Fast Money challenge.

    Sorry, what would be the point of doing that?”

    Ah, an interested customer!

    Well, let me tell you the many benefits of doing that.

    1. I’ll make out a check PAYABLE TO WOW for $25 which you can blow on… well, knowing your lofty intellect and moral heft, I’m guessing… your next Nature subscription? A small fraction of an opera ticket? Donation to African Kids Without Enough Books?

    2. I’ll self-Lewandowsky. Willingly. Without a further peep.

  91. #91 Jeff Harvey
    January 27, 2013

    Gosh, Duffer, how dopey are you?

    You write, “But that, of course, does not include the year of 2012 which, judged by preceding years, could easily add another 1% to 5%. So you can see that an increase of roughly a third is what occurred.

    What did NOT occur was an increase in global temperatures.

    Please explain why!”

    A: because of temporal lags in cause-and-effect relationships due to the scales involved. This means that lags between emissions and global temperatures can take 10-20-30 years to be realized or even longer. You appear to believe that today’s emissions means an almost instantaneous rise in today’s temperatures.

    This simply is just another example of why you are so very out of your depth on even the basics, Duffer. Yet why do you persist in espousing such profound ignorance?

  92. #92 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    No, still don’t see the point of doing that.

    #1 is nonexistent and you wouldn’t do it anyway.
    #2 is merely your pre-persecution complex kicking in because the universe dares to disagree with what you think a good universe should be doing.

    Besides which, your challenge doesn’t exist.

  93. #93 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Jeff, it’s not even that.

    Since CO2 has only risen 7%, even though it has a LARGE effect on the global temperature, a larger percentage of another climate affecting mechanism that has a SMALLER effect on the global temperature can still make the overall change smaller or even negative for a short while.

    15 years is a short while.

    Not even enough to definitely get one full PDO cycle. Never mind average them out.

  94. #94 Lotharsson
    January 27, 2013

    Brad, when offered easy money or even a free lunch, most of us aren’t so stupid as to fail to factor in the costs of dealing with the distasteful dissemblers who are offering it – especially when their proven misrepresentation and outright dishonesty is relevant to their claim that they will honour the deal.

  95. #95 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    “(and note, idiot-boy, we’re not afraid of it. How can we be afraid of something that doesn’t exist?)”

    Hello? Aren’t you the guy who loses sleep over:

    1. The displeasure of his precious Jeebus (n. a kind of neo-Mithraditic loser on a stick) ?

    2. Catastrophic global warming ?

    ROFL.

    Are you angry, Wow?

    Good. Get angry. Use that. The Dead Easy One Minute challenge is gonna take everything you’ve got and more!

    Hang on, no it’s not. It’s Dead Easy. It’s Fast Money. Someone with half a brain could pass it.

    The only question is:

    Are you that person with half a brain?

  96. #96 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Hell, it’s damn near certain that his ONE MINUTE claim is bollocks. It’s taken him hours to not even get around to asking his question.

  97. #97 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Are you that person with half a brain?

    No.

  98. #98 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Hello? Aren’t you the guy who loses sleep over:

    1. The displeasure of his precious Jeebus (n. a kind of neo-Mithraditic loser on a stick) ?

    No.

    I’m an atheist.

    And I note that, despite all that caterwauling about me telling everyone that you think christians are, by default, always wrong, you are here doing that exact same thing again.

    2. Catastrophic global warming ?

    No. CAGW is something only deniers believe in.

    I believe in climate science. Climate science and the activities of humans mean that the change in the climate is anthropogenic.

    And I don’t lose sleep about it either.

    So that’ll be $75.

  99. #99 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    “Hell, it’s damn near certain that his ONE MINUTE claim is bollocks. It’s taken him hours to not even get around to asking his question.”

    Idiot, I’ll ask it to whoever sits him- or herself in the hot seat.

    Step forward or be immortalised on the Internet as The Guy Who Could Have Stopped Brad At Nuremberg But Lacked The “Nards” And Six Million Believalists Were Made Fun Of Needlessly Because Wow Lacks “Nards.”

    (Sorry for the language—our children, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren, greatgreatgrandchildren and so on can be a bit… childish.)

  100. #100 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    “No.

    I’m an atheist.”

    Oops, wrong believalist. Anyway, hopefully I got someone Angry Enough to answer a simple, straight question in 60 seconds.

Current ye@r *