February 2013 Open Thread

Do you think the alarmists who predicted doom because of the carbon tax will shut up?

More like this

, fr n, mst crtnly hp ths "lrmst", prty-ppr, l' mns wld sht thr p-hl bt strl's crbn tx.

Rthr, w shld clbrt strl's trmph-- crbn tx whch hs prvdd nprcdntd stmltn t th mmmry glnds f th pblc tt--t's lcttng wndrs bng, s t shld b, fr th xclsv bnft f trly wrd, Phlsphr Kng wnnb bnch f, nwnbl, grnshrt, hv-bz, slss-sckr prsts. mn, lk, prvdng cshy, gd dls fr trgh-hggng, lfty lchs (nd bg bcks fr thr strng-pllrs) s th whl pnt f th strln "xprmnt"--Rght?-- mn, lk, t's th ntn's hstrc mssn nd ll. m rght r m rght?

mn, lk, th ntrl rdr f hlthy scty s fr smllsh, bttr-thn-y-srfs clq f smrty-pnts, pck-pckt rtsns t prft frm th prdctv lbr f th lnd's dltsh psnts nd hlts n th nm f sm n r nthr scr-mngrng hstl n "d s yr bttrs sy nt s thy d" bss. sn't tht bvs t vryn? S jst kp yr yps sht, lrmsts, nd kp yr cl-btts wrkng hrd t rn lttl bt s tht yr bttrs hv smthng thy cn rp-ff frm y fr thr bng-bng gd tms. Gt t?!

Got it.

Will penicillin get rid of it?

By Gingerbaker (not verified) on 02 Feb 2013 #permalink

Wish the same was true of you pair of fuckwits.

But idiocy must hear itself or it doesn't know it's right.

Er I think you mean : "but the timing is all over the place" Could the sceptics please decide the exact dates that this putative global MWP took place, because it seems to be at different times in different places.

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 02 Feb 2013 #permalink

@Turbo

from the paper abstract,

" temperatures in the 260s–400s, 560s–730s and 970s–1250s were comparable with those of the Present Warm Period. Temperature variations over China are typically in phase with those of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) after 1100, a period which covers the Medieval Climate Anomaly, Little Ice Age, and Present Warm Period."

Wiki has the MWP,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

"The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is generally thought to have occurred from about AD 950–1250, during the European Middle Ages."

So a "970s–1250s" from the new paper doesn't seem difficult to identify as MWP.

And you're saying that it was global for 300 years?

Now what happens when a new paper comes out and says that the warming period in china was lower.

Are you going to reveal that to everyone?

No.

Why not?

Because you're a bloody fake.

Oh, and why is it now that you accept a wiki cite as evidence?

Same as above: you're a bloody fake.

Really, if you can't at least vary the M.O. you're only boring everyone shitless. I know you're counting on outlasting everyone else by the fact that you (and your fellow slug horde) are full of shit, but, really, what - precisely - are you getting out of this all?

ol’ meanies would shut their pie-hole about Australia’s carbon tax.

Given that yours was the first post here and you mentioned it, would that not be an own-goal, mike?

Are you really here to show up the idiots like git-boy here when they agree and support as repellent a person as you display on here?

Or is this a medical and genetic problem of yours?

Please notice GSW that the paper you quote refers to a "Medieval Climate Anomaly", not a MWP.

And please allow me to complement your Wiki quote with more from that Wiki page: "The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time, including in China[1] and other countries,[2][3][3][4][5][6][7] lasting from about AD 950 to 1250.[8] It was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic termed the Little Ice Age. Some refer to the event as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly as this term emphasizes that effects other than temperature were important.[9][10]

Despite substantial uncertainties, especially for the period prior to 1600 when data are scarce, the warmest period of the last 2,000 years prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1 °C and 0.2 °C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980. The heterogeneous nature of climate during the Medieval Warm Period is illustrated by the wide spread of values exhibited by the individual records...["

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 02 Feb 2013 #permalink

@turbo

Thanks turbo, appreciate the confirmation.
;)

You really don't understand what was written, do you. LOL!

:-P

Wow, seconded! Perhaps "The heterogeneous nature of climate during the Medieval Warm Period is illustrated by the wide spread of values exhibited by the individual records" is too ambiguous ;-)

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 02 Feb 2013 #permalink

GSW doesn't know what hetergeneous means.

@turbo

Hardly turbo, you were asking about the dates, your

"the sceptics please decide the exact dates that this putative global MWP took place"

The new paper gives the same dates as your full wiki quote. If that's not confirmation, I'd like to know what is? So anyway thanks again.
;)

So you think that because they both occurred in the 20th century that WWI and WWII were the same war?

remember this idiot boy is pretending not to understand because, frankly, there isn't anything to say, and the attention whore that he is can't get his brain around that.

@JohnL

"GSW doesn’t know what hetergeneous means."

Of course I do John, turbo was asking for dates. New paper very much "consistent with" range given in wiki article, which is reassuring don't you think? A confirmation even?
;)

"Do you think the alarmists who predicted doom because of the carbon tax will shut up?"

Not a chance. Everything that the coalition gets wrong in its first term (and it will stuff things up, every new government does), will be blamed on the carbon tax.

By Matthew Of Canberra (not verified) on 02 Feb 2013 #permalink

GSW: please try and join the dots. My Wiki quote says "...was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time, including in China[1] and other countries,[2][3][3][4][5][6][7] lasting from about AD 950 to 1250."

So not global... and please note once again that your paper does not mention a MWP.

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 02 Feb 2013 #permalink

Remember, to a denier all facts are irrelevant.

.. not to mention relative CO2 levels.

@turbo

Dots joined for you; the MWP and MCA refer to the same event. Try re-reading the wiki article again to see if you can spot it. (incidentaly the "Climate Anomaly" in the new paper was a warm one also, just in case you didn't pick that up either.)

It's a good match between MWP dates and the "warm interval" in the new paper. Hope that's joins things up for you.
;)

Thanks must go to GSW for inaugurating this month's thread with yet-another spectacular own-goal!

Fortunately for the little poppet the anaesthetic effect of DK is sufficiently pronounced for the nasty wound to go unnoticed.

Fagan's The Great Warming is a good read on the MWP/MCA, but given that it contains information based on evidence it will be of little interest to the folks who will, sadly, never shut up...

Thanks must go to GSW for inaugurating this month’s thread with yet-another spectacular own-goal!

I assume you are talking about the MCA/MWP thing here, rather than GSW citing Randi's spectacularly unscientific AGW position on the Jan open thread? I don't think the latter own goal should be quickly forgotten either, so allow me to bridge the Randi discussion from Jan to Feb.

GSW asserts that Randi:

...ultimately he chose to side with the evidence – he didn’t think AGW would be a problem

Bullshit!

Randi doesn't cite any evidence to that effect - and his "arguments" ignore huge swathes of well known evidence. What he does cite is his own ill-informed disbelief based on a strawman of his own devising - that there are so many factors and it's so complicated that science can't reduce climate to a single equation, therefore...we just can't know that we're causing significant warming and we certainly can't know that it will be quite detrimental if we warm it too much. And heck, Randi also admits that he may be arguing from personal ignorance! He doesn't go close to showing that he comprehends the scientific evidence or the scientific understanding of the climate system - let alone citing evidence that would lead to his position.

What he does cite is the Oregon Petition and an alleged "growing number of prominent scientists [who] disagree" with the IPCC - but doesn't bother to name a single one, let alone demonstrate that (a) they know what they're talking about because they research climate, or that (b) their number is growing. He also lists apparently mutually contradictory claims made by the Oregon Petition without batting an eyelid - heck, he "strongly suspects it may be valid"!

But GSW protests at the mention of the Oregon Petition, I hear you say!

Randi didn’t say he was a climate sceptic because 32,000 individuals signed a petition.

Really?

He chose to cite the Petition as (a) a counter to the IPCC, and (b) after posing and ignoring this (almost) very good question:

Granted, it's reassuring that they're listening to academics at all -- but how to tell the competent from the incompetent?

So...the most straightforward interpretation of his words is that the Oregon Petition was a significant influencing factor. In other words, he is quite probably a climate skeptic in part because of the Oregon Petition.

(And if only he'd asked that competency question of himself before he posted! Speaking of Randi's question, it would be even better if he asked himself how to tell the robust scientific conclusions from those less well supported. He's focused on the wrong entity - the individuals involved - not the outcome of the scientific process. And after posing that question, the rest of the essay is a case study in bad strategies for scientifically unskilled persons to determine what scientific findings to subscribe to and what to reject!)

What's stunning is that GSW in his quest for validation of his views uses someone who has no peer-reviewed publications on the subject (hey, wait, I thought you was all for Teh Science, GSW?), provides no actual evidence yet ignores a whole load of well known evidence and then tries to imply we don't have any data so we shouldn't be theorising (hey, wait, I thought you was all for Teh Evidence, GSW?), relies on bogus arguments such as "it's complicated, so I reckon we can't reliably predict what will happen" and "it's changed before" and "Oregon Petition", and makes ludicrously unscientific claims as pointed out by other commenters on the January thread (and his somewhat skewed description of the greenhouse gas effect).

GSW, if you feel you have to tout people who reach the conclusions you like on such poor bases, you should consider whether perhaps the conclusions you prefer aren't particularly well supported.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 02 Feb 2013 #permalink

MWP does not appear in proxies for Australia.

By David B. Benson (not verified) on 02 Feb 2013 #permalink

Here is Randi's follow-up post.

He was pointed to analysis of the flimsiness of the Oregon Petition and backed away from it. He states that he agrees the earth is warming (which he had previously indicated was disputed by the Oregon Petition, but didn't pick up the contradiction). He reiterates he's not sure how much is due to anthropogenic effects - although he lists a number of human activities that warm things, and he seems to think the biggest consequence of burning fossil fuels is heat released. If that were true it would mean that a significant portion of the warming was anthropogenic, but he seems to have completely elided that whole "greenhouse gas effect" thingie. He denies he's denying anything, and asserts that he thinks it is quite probable that warming is anthropogenic. (He implicitly poses this as an either-or question rather not a matter of degree which doesn't help.) But he still seems to cling to his personal incredulity at anthropogenic attribution.

He also thinks that his rather odd paragraph about phenomena that he alleged have cooled the planet over the last 150 years should have said "warmed" instead, but that doesn't clear up the unsupported assertions either. It sounds like he cut and pasted it from somewhere but doesn't recall the source.

So at that point he was looking much less like a denialist except perhaps about the science of attribution, but was still not showing good signs of clearly understanding the evidence, the theory or the outcomes of the scientific process.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 02 Feb 2013 #permalink

Oh!
Lotharsson just edged in front for that prize!
(how many times can one use a form of the word 'deny' in a single post)
JeffH was doing so well too!
:-)

By chameleon (not verified) on 02 Feb 2013 #permalink

One uses the words that are appropriate for the subject, chameleon.

(Or at least most of us do.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 02 Feb 2013 #permalink

Well yes that would be true Lotharsson except for one problem.
BradK (among others) has asked people here to specifically name what has been denied. You may notice that there is not an answer to that question.
Until there is one, there is no way to judge whether your use of the word is appropriate or not because it actually lacks a defined attributable subject.
Instead, it appears to be a simple case of name calling.
And as far as the posed question at the start goes?
I think all of you give too much attention to the likes of AJ.
He calls people names too. I find it no more attractive when he does it.
The real question I think is:
Has the Carbon Tax delivered on any of its stated promises /goals / benefits?
The argument that it hasn't created doom is not really a constructive place to discuss the carbon tax (IMHO).

By chameleon (not verified) on 03 Feb 2013 #permalink

Well yes that would be true Lotharsson except for one problem. BradK (among others) has asked people here to specifically name what has been denied.

You've got my context wrong, and therefore your conclusion is invalid.

Par for the course.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 03 Feb 2013 #permalink

Chameleon asks,
"Has the Carbon Tax delivered on any of its stated promises /goals / benefits?"

Have you read this?
http://www.theage.com.au/data-point/power-pollution-plunges-20121017-27…

Electricity sold into the east coast market in the three months since the tax was introduced created on average 7.6 per cent less carbon dioxide for each megawatt hour of power, an analysis of figures compiled by the Australian Energy Market Operator shows.

So, Chameleon, are you going to ditch your wrong ideology, or deny the truth?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 03 Feb 2013 #permalink

Chubby wasn't asking to get an answer.

They were asking to be asking.

The dipshit ditz will be demanding the same thing again along the way.

If that were true it would mean that a significant portion of the warming was anthropogenic,

Did the silly little man not calculate how much heat we produce and work out how that would heat up the earth?

He's just doubling down on the dumb here.

He should have just gone "I hadn't looked and should have before talking out. I withdraw my comments until I've had a chance to check up on the situation enough to form a position".

Randi didn’t say he was a climate sceptic because 32,000 individuals signed a petition.

Mind you nobody said he claimed that.

We claimed he wasn't skeptical of AGW, he was denying it because of 32,000 names were written under a petition.

Fictitious names not being actual individuals, and no proof of lack of duplication being made.

@Loth

Randi's just expressing his opinion, he has a track record of debunking scientist's "who fool themselves" as per the example above, it's what he does. The sheer volume of the stuff you post, or endless repeatitions of "Oregon Petition" as you have done, won't change the fact that the "Alarmist" claims of climate science are so much hooey- it's laughable what you guys are prepared to "Believe".

Randi’s just expressing his opinion, ...

Yes, he was. And how uninformed it was!

...he has a track record of debunking scientist’s “who fool themselves” as per the example above, it’s what he does.

Not exactly. He mostly tends to debunk scientists who are fooled by con artists, Randi understanding better than most scientists how con artists work, plus a few scientists who fool themselves.

But that's not the case in climate science where he clearly didn't know what he was talking about. It seems that you need to cite someone who doesn't in order to claim "support" for your position.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 03 Feb 2013 #permalink

@Loth

I can give you an example Loth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Benveniste

Respected scientist, published in Nature, still managed to fool himself though. Like I said, Randi has a track record for debunking poor science, got a nose for it you might say.

;)

Respected scientist, published in Nature, still managed to fool himself though.

Argument by false equivalence.

Wake me up when he fools the rest of his peers and thus gets them to agree with him, and Randi debunks them all without the assistance of some of those peers.

Randi has a track record for debunking poor science, got a nose for it you might say.

Argument by appeal to authority...

...and by ignoring what Randi actually said on the subject of climate science which was ill-informed, internally inconsistent and rather foolish.

But then, that's not a problem for you if it "supports" your view, right?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 03 Feb 2013 #permalink

@Loth

Come off it Loth, he's entitled to his opinion and he's bright too. He has an in built "you're being conned" detector. You don't need a "consensus" of "expert" opinion if you have the evidence, and if you don't have evidence, well there's probably not much there.
A simple philosophy I know, but it works.
;)

Come off it Loth, he’s entitled to his opinion and he’s bright too.

Argument via strawman - no-one has said otherwise.

The objection has been that he doesn't have the evidence for many of his claims which weren't exactly coherent and that accordingly he wasn't acting bright when he wrote that article. It has further been that you citing him as support for ... something ... isn't very bright or evidence-based either.

You still don't seem to realise you're arguing by appeal to authority, not appeal to best inference from all the evidence. I'm betting you'll choose not to realise it, all the while proclaiming how you and he are both going by the evidence.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 03 Feb 2013 #permalink

With apologies to Ms Rowling (for the slight changes for effect to the following extract from the Goblet of Fire):

"... I'm keeping an eye out for Barmy Outoftouch. My
Contrarian opposite number's making difficulties, and I can't understand a word he's
saying. Barmy... speaks about a hundred and fifty languages."

"Mr Outoftouch?" said Mr Concerned-but-unknowledgeable ... "He speaks over two hundred! Mermish and Gobbledegook and Troll..."
"Anyone can speak Troll," said Sciency dismissively. "All you have to do is point and grunt."

Just think**, should whatever have led to the mediaeval climate anomalies when CO2 levels were at preindustrial levels reoccur (in the recent past, now or in the future), they will cause periodic climate excursions much like the late twentieth century/early twenty-first century "cooling" we've experienced since about 1998 (a LTCETFCIA, so to speak) and the levels of heat and drought recently seen in Australia over about a decade "on and off" will now be "mostly on" and likely be multidecadal in extent (a MLTFCWP, so to speak) now that we are preparing the ground for going north of 400 ppm!

** I know this will be impossible for these and extremely hard for these, but that's the unfortunate sad fact about the casino-of-life's short-straw holders.

@Loth

So I think we finally agree then. Randi has a perfectly valid opinion to express and he's definitley in the anti psuedoscience camp. He doesn't agree with you. Well, why would he? He like's evidence for things, you've no idea what evidence is, or at least how to differentiate it from hopes, dreams and dubious paper tiger theories.

Enjoy!
;)

GSW, you're slimily attempting to put words in my mouth. We do NOT agree that his opinion is valid and only a fool or a liar would claim so.

The rest of your comment is Jonas-like unsupported assertion.

Better trolls please.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 03 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ Wow #17

"So you think that because they both occurred in the 20th century that WWI and WWII were the same war?"

Well, some very distinguished historians will tell you that they were, not least because they stemmed from Germany pursuing the same grand strategic aims and that 1918 to 1939 was merely an interval. They have since pursued them by peaceful means and seem well on their way to success!

Perhaps there is a lesson there for you in the climate scientology cult, just keep repeating and pursuing your aims and objectives and perhaps one day . . .

By David Duff (not verified) on 03 Feb 2013 #permalink

climate scientology cult

Careful Duff, you will have Tom Cruise around your neck presumably hanging on those bolts the extend either side.

What a blinkered fool you are.

One could say that WW1 was in the middle of the eighteenth century if you wish to go all history on us.

Even WRT the twentieth century Great War this book would be instructive.

Thank you, Lionel, but my preferred source *amongst many* would be Fritz Fischer's "Germany's Aims in the First World War" and the rather obvious way in which German grand strategy in both World Wars was heavily influenced by Sir Halford Mackinder, an Englishman, no less.

Needless to say. if you place three historians in a sack you will get four opinions, rather like climate scientologists, really - oh, and do give Tom C my kind regards when you see him at your next cult meeting and tell him he'll never make a good Jack Reacher in a million years!

By David Duff (not verified) on 03 Feb 2013 #permalink

It's quite easy muffin.

Whichever one appeals tou you in your unfettered ignorance will be the one most easily discounted.
You're almost a public service Duffer!

Given that Jack Reacher is a monodimensional action figure whose appeal is calculated to boost the flagging [*wink wink*], um, egos of wannabe-macho inadequates - rather like your Stalingrad military dolls, Duffer - I don't see the problem.

'course, being unemployable, duffer has no worries about being sacked!

"Well, some very distinguished historians will tell you that they were"

Who the hell asked THEM?

I asked YOU.

So you DO believe they were the same war.

How about the Crimean? Same war?

"Come off it Loth, he’s entitled to his opinion and he’s bright too."

Really? Where does he get this right to have the opinion put wherever he wants it?

And he's definitely not bright.

Obviously your RDF kicked in big time there.

Vince opines:
So, Chameleon, are you going to ditch your wrong ideology, or deny the truth?
What an extremely peculiar response to my comment!!
What's my wrong ideology Vince?
What truth am I denying Vince?
A PR piece in the Age?
Since when would someone from deltoid accept such a piece as an 'undeniable truth'?

Also Lotharsson?
I have never read anything of James Randi 's until the links supplied here.
On reading them it appears as if he has discovered that he didn't actually know he was in a cult until he dared to question it!
After reading a little bit of his background, it appears that he has indeed earned the right to express his opinion on this particular subject along with several others as in GSW's comments #42 & #45.
And I see no evidence in any context at all why you would deem to compare him to, or name him a 'deniaist'.
What particular theor/y/ies has Randi 'denied' Lotharsson?
In what way has:
'One used the words that are appropriate for the subject'
when we look at your treatment of the James Randi subject?

By chameleon (not verified) on 03 Feb 2013 #permalink

On reading them it appears as if he has discovered that he didn’t actually know he was in a cult until he dared to question it!

What a foolish characterisation! But I guess it's easy to make if you can't distinguish science from pseudo-science.

...it appears that he has indeed earned the right to express his opinion on this particular subject...

Astonishing how you and GSW attack the very same strawman!

I see no evidence in any context at all why you would deem to compare him to, or name him a ‘deniaist’.

Given that you (for example) STILL allege that Delingpole quoted Flannery saying "fleeting fancy" and are easily sucked in by pseudo-science, your personal judgement on this matter carries very little weight.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 03 Feb 2013 #permalink

Yes Lotharsson,
I have actually noticed your fondness for making personal and highly opinionated allegations that you claim are about 'the science'.
Your emotional and subjective comments re Randi @ # 26, 28, 38, 41 & are perfect examples of that.
Don't you find your claims re Flannery a trifle irrelevant and probably a trifle 'strawmannish'?
But just so you realise why that would be so,
I said that Delinpole had referred to Flannery past comments about 'no snow by 2012.'
I did not and have not claimed that DELINGPOLE said that Flannery used the alliterative term 'fleeting fancy'.
I was the one who made that claim Lotharsson and I remember it because the alliteration impressed me.
Flannery is very clever with words.
I also pointed out that I am no fan of Delingpole's use of language.
And I will point out again that whatever Flannery and/or Delingpole did or didn't say has nothing whatsoever to do with the current discussion re Randi and your non attributable name calling.

By chameleon (not verified) on 03 Feb 2013 #permalink

Type! Type! Type!

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 03 Feb 2013 #permalink

Can't answer my questions Vince?
I can see that you can type but how about answering the questions as you type?
Let me repeat them for you Vince :
Vince opines:
So, Chameleon, are you going to ditch your wrong ideology, or deny the truth?
What an extremely peculiar response to my comment!!
What’s my wrong ideology Vince?
What truth am I denying Vince?
A PR piece in the Age?
Since when would someone from deltoid accept such a piece as an ‘undeniable truth’?
And BTW, the original comment was @# 31 and you pasted it again @# 33.

By chameleon (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

Don’t you find your claims re Flannery a trifle irrelevant and probably a trifle ‘strawmannish’?

Good grief, not a bit!

It goes to your erroneousness (perhaps inadvertent) and your inability to reliably parse plain English - let alone scientific writing - and your inability to process new information and your inability to withdraw blatantly false claims even when presented with strong counter-evidence.

These are all relevant when you express personal opinions, especially about what other people - whether here, in the press or in the scientific literature - meant when they wrote something.

And speaking of all of those issues with your claims, here we have an absolutely classic example.

I said that Delinpole had referred to Flannery past comments about ‘no snow by 2012.’

Yes, indeed, you did:

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

...but you are just as wrong about that as you are about "fleeting fancy"!

Here, let me help you out. In support of the claim in the quote above you cited this Delingpole article.

But go on, be my guest. Please quote ANY SENTENCE in that Delingpole article that quotes Flannery SAYING ANYTHING. Failing that quote ANY SENTENCE where Delingpole uses the word "2012" or the phrase "no snow". Take your time. Check very carefully! I'll wait.

...

...

...

Not there, is it? He didn't quote Flannery at all, and didn't use "2012" or "no snow" in the entire article, did he?

(Worse still, I suspect you are and were mixing up your "talking points". You're supposed to allege that Dr. Viner from the UEA said "no snow by 2012"! You'd be misleading people about what he meant, but at least you'd have the right guy.)

But it's worse than that. Just now you claimed you NEVER alleged Delingpole quoted Flannery saying "fleeting fancy". But let's look at the wider context of what you wrote in that comment when you cited Delingpole to support you:

Delingpole draws attention to the same snow comment made by Tim Flannery in this article. ... However, he also refers to the no snow by 2012 comment.

Firstly you were claiming TWO DIFFERENT Flannery snow comments were "drawn attention to" in Delingpole's article. And one of them, from the context of the thread - see the preceding hundred comments or so - was the use of "fleeting fancy".

So you're STILL denying you claimed this, and you still haven't admitted that not only does Delingpole not use the word "fleeting" or "fancy" in that article, but he doesn't even refer to any saying by Flannery. He merely uses the name "Flannery" as a target for unsubstantiated mockery.

So:

I did not and have not claimed that DELINGPOLE said that Flannery used the alliterative term ‘fleeting fancy’.

...appears to be false, along with several of your other claims.

But we already know that you have a very poor memory of what you wrote, and quite frequently have very bad English interpretation skills, so maybe that explains it.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

And I will point out again that whatever Flannery and/or Delingpole did or didn’t say has nothing whatsoever to do with the current discussion re Randi and your non attributable name calling.

Shorter Chameleon: I didn't understand what Lotharsson was saying about Randi's position, therefore it wasn't justified.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

Lotharsson,
How about you answer the question re Den/y/alist/ism re Randi?
My comprehension and/or English interpretation skills are just peachy thanks.
Are you trying to now say I am a denialist because of something you think I said about Delingpole?
That's hilarious.
ROFL!!!!
:-)

By chameleon (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

chubby, you're just hideouslly wrong here and in deep deep DEEP DERP DENIAL.

chubby, randi's position, like yours is UNINFORMED.

Randi just doesn't have the chops to back down, whereas you don't have the brains to realise.

I see no evidence in any context at all why you would deem to compare him to, or name him a ‘deniaist’.

He thinks because he doesn't know the evidence that there is no evidence?

That is a common denier trope.

"It's a tiny fraction"? Denier Trope.
"It's too complicated"? Denier trope.

All can be seen over at SkS in a list ***CALLED*** Zombie Denier Tropes.

My comprehension and/or English interpretation skills are just peachy thanks.

Yep, you're still denying what you said about Delingpole, and denying that he didn't say what you claimed he said.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

How about you answer the question re Den/y/alist/ism re Randi?

What Wow said.

And I already explained when I first commented on it. Your questioning is based on not understanding what I said, but that doesn't make my explanation disappear.

Here are a couple of quick re-quotes which address your question. One could hope that the second time around the light finally dawns for you, but that that would be foolish:

...his “arguments” ignore huge swathes of well known evidence.

And:

What he does cite is his own ill-informed disbelief based on a strawman of his own devising – that there are so many factors and it’s so complicated that science can’t reduce climate to a single equation, therefore…we just can’t know that we’re causing significant warming and we certainly can’t know that it will be quite detrimental if we warm it too much.

And:

What he does cite is ... an alleged “growing number of prominent scientists [who] disagree” with the IPCC – but doesn’t bother to name a single one, let alone demonstrate that (a) they know what they’re talking about because they research climate, or that (b) their number is growing.

And:

He also lists apparently mutually contradictory claims made by the Oregon Petition without batting an eyelid – heck, he “strongly suspects it may be valid”!

And:

...he seems to think the biggest consequence of burning fossil fuels is heat released.

All of this is in denial of pretty well established climate science and/or logic.

And you also seem to have completely missed my sentence about his follow-up post beginning [my emphasis]:

So at that point he was looking much less like a denialist except perhaps...

...for an area where he still seems to be in denial, even after issuing a clarification of sorts.

I predict you'll insist that your superior comprehension shows that none of this constituted denial.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

Chameleon says,

Since when would someone from deltoid accept such a piece as an ‘undeniable truth’?

WHat is 'undeniable truth'?
Who are you quoting?

What’s my wrong ideology Vince?
What truth am I denying Vince?
A PR piece in the Age?

There's your wrong ideology, Chameleon.

Your question ("Has the Carbon Tax delivered on any of its stated promises /goals / benefits?") is answered in the link I provided:

http://www.theage.com.au/data-point/power-pollution-plunges-20121017-27…

Electricity sold into the east coast market in the three months since the tax was introduced created on average 7.6 per cent less carbon dioxide for each megawatt hour of power, an analysis of figures compiled by the Australian Energy Market Operator shows.

You dismiss this as a "PR piece"? Denialism!

It is not a PR piece, it is reporting of data provided by an industry-funded organisation,
http://www.aemo.com.au/.

You dismiss it, not because you've analysed the information I provided, but because your ideology tells you what you want the answer to your question to be, and that conflicts with reality.

When your ideology conflicts with reality, you will never be able to project any kind of competence or integrity, because you need to avoid facts and tell lies in order to maintain your flimsy fantasy-world which is the only place your ideology actually has any meaning.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

My comprehension and/or English interpretation skills are just peachy thanks.

I've been prepared to entertain the charitable notion that you are a halfwit, but if you want to assert that you actually understand what's going on, that makes you a dishonest bald-faced liar.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

Wow thinks Germany took part in the Crimean war.

Someone tell him, gently, that Germany did not exist in 1853-6.

Can anyone vouchsafe that his climate scientology opinions are more soundly based than his historical ones?

By David Duff (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

Wow thinks Germany took part in the Crimean war.

Where do you draw THAT asinine assumption of yours from, old man?

So you disagree that WW1 and WW2 and the Crimea were the same war?

But they were ALL wars! And all between 1600-1950.

Like always its not the right wing nuts fault:

"For these reasons, I can understand why some climate campaigners, writers and scientists don’t want to focus on any science hinting that there might be a bit more time to make this profound energy transition. (There’s also reluctance, I’m sure, because the recent work is trending toward the published low sensitivity findings from a decade ago from climate scientists best known for their relationships with libertarian groups.)"

Comments Jeff?

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

Since we're NOT making any START on "this profound energy transition", in what way does any hint that there might be a bit more time of any actual import?

All it means is more time for those most liable to the problem to die off before having to change to do something about it.

Great for them.

Sucks for everyone else.

Olaus, why don't you tell us more about pogroms? The taste you gave us before was extremely interesting.

@Lotharsson & Vince,
I'm starting to fear for your sanity.
:-)
I am NOT interested in launching personal attacks in order to defend and/or attack news reports, PR pieces and/or opinion pieces.
It's unproductive and a waste of time.
Vince, the Age article is presented as a report on the findings, but it is essentially a PR piece.
When I go to the aemo site, there is no direct causation statement about the Carbon Tax.
There is certainly no peer reviewed scientific article on it.
If you read the whole Age article it does NOT conclude that the CO2 tax is the major reason for the drop in demand over that short period. It is listed as a possible cause by some of those who are interviewed. Other 'experts' interviewed for that article have different views.
In reality, the timeframe is way too short anyway.
So your comments about my ideology and bolding the word 'denialism' is totally irrelevant to my comment re the question at this post and my subsequent question re the efficacy of the carbon tax.
Maybe you don't understand how journalists put together articles like these and how they obtain their information?

Lotharsson,
If you look at the date of the Delingpole article and also the subject matter re snow and then his reference to Flannery et al, it is clear (to me at least) that he is referring to their individual comments re 'no snow by 2012' that were made several years earlier. His use of hyperbole is not constructive but he was referring to their earlier predictive statements re snow.
I find it amusing that we have posts here about 'wrong predictions' yet this is clearly an issue for what you lot would call 'both hands' or perhaps 'both sides'.
Many people have made 'wrong predictions' in the public arena.
I agree Delingpole does not use the 'fleeting fancy' alliterative term but I didn't ever say that he did, so your post (to me at least) looks like you're arguing with yourself :-)
Why are you getting soooooooo tied up in knots about opinion pieces that ask questions about the politics attached to climate change and also the rather excessive behaviour of the celebrities of AGW?
Why has Randi's piece caused you so much angst?
There is no doubt he has been around for a long time and that he has been commenting on science issues for a long time.
Seriously, when I read the links you posted I could not see why you were making such a fuss. It appears that Randi coudn't see it either. It did read like he felt he had inadvertently asked the wrong question of a 'group' that he didn't know he belonged to.
You seem to be way more interested in trying to conduct an 'academic pissing contest' or engage in your tribal 'ritual intellectual humiliation'.
As I commented to JeffH some time back, I am not your enemy and nor am I anti the environment.
Your attempts to prove that I am are just making me laugh.
It doesn't matter how many times you try to claim it, or how many different ways you try to argue it, I am still not your enemy or anti the environment.
I also find it amusing that even though JeffH assured BradK that they could be friends, you, Lotharsson claimed BradK was even deeper in 'denial' for even contemplating that idea.
As I commented to BBD some time back, I think he has asked one of the more productive questions here.
What are we trying to achieve?
I am interested in practical public policy that achieves measureable & practical outcomes.:
I think science and statistics and various methods of statistical projective modelling can help guide public policy but I don't believe they can dictate it or that they are magic and therefore 'undeniable' predictive tools.
I also don't believe that the current political agenda is using a successful scale to tackle environmental issues.
Despite your assertions otherwise, I don't visit blogs that often. I have visited deltoid way more often than any other blog and that's because the attitude here has caused me great amusement & some enlightenment (and it happened to be a holiday period when I discovered this site)
I usually only comment on news articles and opinion pieces and even then it is very rare.
I realise that this will probably set you off again and I probably should not keep winding you up.
But it is funny to watch.
However you could surprise me and actually stay on topic rather than launch into yet another personal attack and/or supercilious lecture about your perception of my lack of mental capacity :-)

By chameleon (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

If you look at the date of the Delingpole article and also the subject matter re snow and then his reference to Flannery et al, it is clear (to me at least) that he is referring to their individual comments re ‘no snow by 2012′ that were made several years earlier.

That's exactly why we say you have severe comprehension problems!

He's using a common idiom "not a snowball's chance in hell" to scornfully declare that serious global warming isn't occurring, and doing so by referring to a Ridley piece that claims that climate sensitivity is on the rather low side due to research on aerosols and ocean warming.

That idiom is the ONLY mention of snow in the entire piece.

He doesn't indicate that Ridley mentions snow.

He doesn't refer to snow or lack of it in Britain.

He doesn't refer to Flannery or Viner talking about snow.

His use of hyperbole is not constructive but he was referring to their earlier predictive statements re snow.

That's just sad.

If he was he would have said so. He's not shy of scornfully denouncing claims that he thinks have been proven wrong.

I agree Delingpole does not use the ‘fleeting fancy’ alliterative term but I didn’t ever say that he did...

You implied it. You are lying by omission by claiming that you never said it.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

Why has Randi’s piece caused you so much angst?

My discussion of it has been to point out that holding it up as some sort of evidence or good argument is bogus. This has not caused me any angst. Please recalibrate your remote emotion sensor.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

By "global warming", I mean, of course the kind of runaway, unprecedented, catastrophic warming which George Monbiot et al have been bleating on about for the last two or three decades. And by "not a snowball's chance in hell", I mean, that the likelihood of such a thing occurring is now roughly on a par with Elvis being discovered alive and well and living in Bolivia and ready to rush record a new album just in time for Christmas. (Cue: a stampede to the record stores by Michael Mann, Al Gore, the Prince of Wales, Tim Flannery, and the rest of the climate fool gang).

I fed this and the original URL into the Parse-O-Matic 3000, along with the Query String 'Find Reference: Tim Flannery quote Snow will be Fleeting Fancy 2012' and got the result -

You are sh*tting me, right?

It went on -

[*sigh*]

ANALYSIS: Writer thinks 'most-likely' IPCC predicted climate sensitivity is incorrect.

Writer thinks Monbiot, George; Flannery, Tim; Wales, Prince of; Gore, Al; Mann, Michael and sundry unspecified others who constitute a 'climate fool gang' [NOTE: no such organization appears in database - assume hyperbolic rhetorical characterization for purpose of ridicule] to be extremely credulous for believing otherwise.

Writer makes no reference to snow beyond usage of idiomatic expression 'snowball's chance in hell' meaning very unlikely.

Writer makes to reference to the year 2012, or predictions, successful or unsuccessful, regarding snow or snowfall by Flannery, Tim.

Original writing is clearly timed to draw attention to recent article in Wall Street Journal by Ridley, Matt. Although written in December 2012 at the start of the Northern Hemisphere winter and illustrated by a 'Snowman', writer motivation is extremely unlikely to relate to either the year itself or to snowfall in Australia, which is limited in scope on the continental mainland and occurs mainly in the months of June through to September.

ADDITIONAL: Writer is clearly a Grade A Prat. Recommend avoidance.

*IMPORTANT CONSUMER NOTE: Persistent insertion of stupid questions may void warranty.

By "global warming", I mean, of course the kind of runaway, unprecedented, catastrophic warming which George Monbiot et al have been bleating on about for the last two or three decades. And by "not a snowball's chance in hell", I mean, that the likelihood of such a thing occurring is now roughly on a par with Elvis being discovered alive and well and living in Bolivia and ready to rush record a new album just in time for Christmas. (Cue: a stampede to the record stores by Michael Mann, Al Gore, the Prince of Wales, Tim Flannery, and the rest of the climate fool gang).

I fed this and the original URL into the Parse-O-Matic 3000, along with the Query String 'Find Reference: Tim Flannery quote Snow will be Fleeting Fancy 2012' and got the result -

You are sh*tting me, right?

It went on -

[*sigh*]

ANALYSIS: Writer thinks 'most-likely' IPCC predicted climate sensitivity is incorrect.

Writer thinks Monbiot, George; Flannery, Tim; Wales, Prince of; Gore, Al; Mann, Michael and sundry unspecified others who constitute a 'climate fool gang' [NOTE: no such organization appears in database - assume hyperbolic rhetorical characterization for purpose of ridicule] to be extremely credulous for believing otherwise.

Writer makes no reference to snow beyond usage of idiomatic expression 'snowball's chance in hell' meaning very unlikely.

Writer makes no reference to the year 2012, or predictions, successful or unsuccessful, regarding snow or snowfall by Flannery, Tim.

Original writing is clearly timed to draw attention to recent article in Wall Street Journal by Ridley, Matt. Although written in December 2012 at the start of the Northern Hemisphere winter and illustrated by a 'Snowman', writer motivation is extremely unlikely to relate to either the year itself or to snowfall in Australia, which is limited in scope on the continental mainland and occurs mainly in the months of June through to September.

ADDITIONAL: Writer is clearly a Grade A Prat. Recommend avoidance.

*IMPORTANT CONSUMER NOTE: Persistent insertion of stupid questions may void warranty.

the kind of runaway, unprecedented, catastrophic warming which George Monbiot et al have been bleating on about for the last two or three decades.

"Decades"?

So you will have no trouble at all finding some kind of reference to Monbiot writing about "...runaway, unprecedented, catastrophic warming..." then?

Please provide some so we can see whether you've based this sentence on fact or fleeting fancy.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

That was actually the alleged 'intellectual rape' victim Delingpole, J, Vince. (Not a 'good seeing to' on that occasion then, James?)

The Parse-O-Matic 3000 notes the absence of a response from Chebbie, Queen of Pretzel 'Logic'.

"Why has Randi’s piece caused you so much angst?"

It hasn't.

For all those here who like to push the no-warming for 1n years meme, we know who you are and you should know who you are but you probably won't because self-awareness is demonstrably not one of your strong points, then this is a timely article which lays out the facts .

"Here is an article that .discusses practical stuff. satisfies a fuckwit of my calibre."

Fixed that for you in the interests of accuracy, Cammy.

Polar Bears and pasta, see who wrote that the ever ready distractor Bjorn Lomborg, the fake sceptic.

As another white bear Bjorn ought to take care as his habitat, denierland, shrinks.

I guess Chameleon didn't realise that Lomborg is a defective source of information due to the fact that he makes things up and tells lies.

This is yet more evidence, Chameleon, of why you should avoid reading the crank blogs such as Anthony Watts' crank blog full of disinformation.

If you want to know about pasta, try,
http://www.pasta.go.it/type.htm

And if you want to know about polar bears, maybe avoid the Dubious Dane and instead try an honest and accurate source like,
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 05 Feb 2013 #permalink

A new installment of "Lewandowsky analyses the climate cranks" is now available for your entertainment.

Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation indeed!

Nonetheless, as some readers of this blog may remember, this article engendered considerable controversy.

The article also generated data.

Data, because for social scientists, public statements and publically-expressed ideas constitute data for further research. Cognitive scientists sometimes apply something called “narrative analysis” to understand how people, groups, or societies are organized and how they think.

In the case of the response to our earlier paper, we were struck by the way in which some of the accusations leveled against our paper were, well, somewhat conspiratorial in nature.

What, like, for instance, the kind of thinking that can maintain that Merchants of Doubt is an 'anti-semitic pamphlet'?

It was amazing - Lewandowsky could virtually have put up a sign saying 'this post is a nutter honey-trap - you are being studied' - and still they came! And still they raved! Maintaining that the idea that they were conspiracy theorists was yet more evidence of a conspiracy against them, because, you know, they're, like, not, even though there clearly is a plot against them...

Does anyone have an estimate of how long it will take for the carbon tax to correct climate change? Is it too early for people to feel good about themselves or should they continue with their guilt until they are told otherwise?

Boring.

Does anyone have an estimate of how long it will take for the ban on smoking in pubs in Adelaide to reduce the cancer rate? Is it too early for people to feel good about themselves or should they continue with their guilt until they are told otherwise?

Betula --- The Australia 'carbon tax' will make no noticeable difference. Consider China's actions.

By David B. Benson (not verified) on 05 Feb 2013 #permalink

The carbon tax will make little difference in itself.

These arguments are tedious.

As always, if the globe was divided evenly into 320 nations the size of Australia each of them could justly claim there little bit of CO2 makes no difference, and everything they do makes no difference.

As it is, we live in a global community.

Also, which nation in the world has gained the most due to China's rapid industrialization, would you say - hint; which first-world nation and raw material exporter weathered the GFC best?

And who's buying all the gew-gaws the Chinese are now manufacturing?

Bill,
Your comment does not deal with the actual point.
The carbon tax will make no noticeable difference.
You are conflating economic and moral arguments.
As David B correctly highlights above, countries like China are completely dwarfing anything that Australia may or may not achieve.
Your comment/rhetoric re Australia's trading relationship with China does not change that.
Even if we stopped trading with China it would not change what David B pointed out above.

By chameleon (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

Nice.

http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyRecFury.html

I'm not a fan of sociologists and psychologists due to the fact their work tends to be more fashion than science, but Lewandowsky's found a perfect vehicle for criticism of the entirely anti-factual anti-science brigade.

Using established criteria to identify conspiracist ideation, we show that many of the hypotheses exhibited conspiratorial content and counterfactual thinking. For example, whereas hypotheses were initially narrowly focused on LOG12, some ultimately grew in scope to include actors beyond the authors of LOG12, such as university executives, a media organization, and the Australian government. The overall pattern of the blogosphere's response to LOG12 illustrates the possible role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science,

I suspect Joanne Codling inadvertantly provided a good proportion of the data used in this analysis.

Let's see if she chooses to provide *even more* data this time around.....

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

John Cook's comment adds to the fun:

Interestingly, one of my favourite recursive theories was that the LOG12 paper was originally conceived to provoke the very reaction documented in Recursive Fury. It's a deliciously recursive theory when you think about it - suggesting that the LOG12 result linking conspiracy ideation to denial wasn't a real study but that the conspiracy theorising reaction to LOG12 was real. Hard to figure out the thinking that went into devising that theory.

Actually....if I could be bothered going back through back issues of Deltoid, I'm pretty sure I could find evidence that that was my conspiracy theory....

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

But, Vince, the gold bars! Don't forget someone's really been fiddluing with the gold bars!...

Chebbie, you appear to mistake me for someone who gives a damn what you 'think'.

Chameleon says,

The carbon tax will make no noticeable difference

This is incorrect.

The Carbon Tax is a classic application of Pigovian taxation, and has been devised by properly qualified professionals who understand the application of economic theory.

It is perfectly clear that the Carbon Tax is a very straightforward application of a tax on a negative externality which will increase the cost of that externality and therefore both discourage the use of, and offset the cost of, that externality.

Perhaps Chameleon can present her reasoning behind her assertion?

Or is she just parroting something she doesn't understand that she read it in The Australian?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

Yep, WUWT has published a massive long rehashing buy the ever-cranky Tom Fuller of the entire panoply of climate conspiracy theories. from his apparently persisting inability to understand what "nature trick" and "hide the decline" mean all the way to cranky accusation of "fraud".

Funny how Tom Fuller hasn't spotted Pat Michaels' undeniable fraud, eh?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

Vince, it's immediately obvious Fullofit is full of it again. He clearly hasn't even read either paper properly, as *neither* claims most pseudoskeptics are conspiracy theorists.

Ummm Vince?
It was actually DavidB who 'asserted' that the carbon tax will make no difference because of what's happening in places like China.
Bill also 'asserted' that it will make no difference in itself but claimed it was a type of mathematically induced moral choice to have it.
My point was that Bill's argument was not dealing with what David B pointed out.
You're off with the fairies somewhere talking about Pigovian taxation and external negativities which have NOTHING to do with any of the comments!
The POINT that was made was that BECAUSE of what's happening in the rest of the world, particularly in places like China (regardless of Bill's comment re our trading relationship), the carbon tax will not make a difference (and we are talking about GLOBAL emissions in this instance I'm assuming?)
Also Vince, just so I don't have to keep repeating it at this thread and the BradK thread:
I DO NOT VISIT WUWT MUCH!
I only ever visit BLOGS when someone recommends a particular article or if a search for a particular piece of information sends me to a BLOG.
That's how I turned up here just before Xmas.
I have also read articles at SS and RC and Climate Etc
The only article I have read at WUWT recently is the Matt Ridley piece that was relevant to this site.
Your accusation that my link re BEST was influenced by WUWT at the BradK site was highly amusing.
I actually went to BEST (and linked it for you) and I also went to all your links (none of which supported your assertion about BEST and MBH98 and the hockey stick!)
I linked the Lomberg article for some BALANCE as it discusses PRACTICAL concerns and NOT because I am a die hard supporter of Lomberg or anyone else in particular.
What about a comment on Lomberg's points in that article rather than just launching into an entirely irrelevant personal attack?

By chameleon (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

Chameleon seems unable to read what she is typing:

chameleon
February 6, 2013

Bill,
Your comment does not deal with the actual point.
The carbon tax will make no noticeable difference.

(my emphasis)

No "David said..." or anything, just a flat repetition of the statement. Reasonable readers will assume that this means Chameleon also supports this contention. Therefore, hiding behind Bolt-like implausible deniability is an obvious fail.

And in any case, even were the "make no difference" meme correct, it would not invalidate the merits of a price on carbon (by whatever means). As Vince correctly states, the "carbon tax" is justified as a correction to a market distortion. It requires no further justification.

If it has further benefits - whether measureable or intangible - excellent. If not, still worth implementing for economic reasons alone.

Chameleon's inability to discern this vital point as being any different from being "off with the fairies" is her problem, not Vince's.

"'Anyone can speak Troll,' said Fred dismissively, 'all you have to do is point and grunt.' "
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Chapter 8.

The new Lewandowsky paper attracts a bunch of comments, including a series arguing something along the lines of "there was no conspiracy, Lewandowsky manufactured the whole controversy" from one A Scott.

That's the same commenter at Shaping Tomorrow's World who tried to "recreate" the survey at WUWT and despite copious attempts to explain the issues, simply could not/would not grok that the difference in participant priming between the two surveys would mean that his was not directly comparable to Lewandowsky's, even if it used exactly the same questions.

(BTW, I seem to recall him promising at the time that the results would be processed and published quickly because it was a simple process to execute, but it's been months and months and he reports that they are still being processed. Wonder what's taking so long?)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

There are also commenters arguing that the UK Met Office has proved that the climate is not as sensitive to CO2 as previously thought (!) and that "there is little funding for scientists who do not support the theory that human greenhouse gas emissions are the primary climate driver" and those scientists experience "difficulty getting non-conforming papers published".

Hmmm...starting to sound a bit ... conspiratorial there.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

The POINT that was made was that BECAUSE of what’s happening in the rest of the world ... the carbon tax will not make a difference.

And what an exceedingly misinformed POINT it is!

That's like arguing that if I my car brakes fail when I'm driving down a steep hill, that putting on the handbrake "will not make a difference".

Any idiot can tell you it will.

It may or may not be a sufficient difference on its own to meet whatever your near-term goal is - perhaps the goal of being able to make it safely around the corner at the bottom of the hill - but it sure as heck means you will be travelling slower than you would be if you didn't apply it when you get to the bottom of the hill. That's a difference.

(And that analogy doesn't address the wider problem of managing the Commons, which others have already touched on - and which I and others have previously explained to chameleon last time she tried this particular line of bullshit.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

Leave it to the denying scientists to believe that CO2 fertilization exists and can be beneficial.....I mean really, who who are these people?

"It estimated that the damaging effects of warming would cause the release of 53 billion tonnes of carbon stored in lands throughout the tropics, much of it in the Amazon, for every single degree Celsius (1.8F) of temperature rise."

"The benefits of CO2 fertilisation exceeded those losses in most scenarios, which ranged up to a 319 billion tonne net gain of stored carbon over the 21st century. About 500 to 1,000 billion tonnes of carbon are stored in land in the tropics".

http://tinyurl.com/ancdxb6

Gosh, betty, since your opening statement isn't supported by the quote you make, why did you make that statement and pair it to that quote?

Anyone would think you're an ignoramus for doing that!

Hey Deltoids!

Remember that great ol' 60's era flick where Mia Farrow gets, like, you know, date-raped by the Devil and then, like, 9 months later she gives birth to the anti-Christ or something like that? Remember that one, Deltoids?

Well, I'm kinda thinking out loud, here,--not sayin' anything, mind you, just thinkin' out loud--that the demon-child in that movie would be, like, you know, age-wise, smack in the middle of the demographic cohort inhabited by Deltoid's regulars and all. You following me, Deltoids?

And so, like, I've noticed that you Deltoids have "Love-Potion No. 9" , goo-goo eyes all over the place for rip-off carbon tax hustles, and all, but, like, in contrast, you never hear even a peep from you greenshirt, booger-brain, pit-spawn Beelzebubs about a "sulphur" tax. You know what I mean, Deltoids?

So, like, my question is why is that, Deltoids?

It's because you're a loon, mike.

It's because you're afraid of women Mike, and build your byzantine pathology around that.

Re sulphur taxes: Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.

And in the UK aren't low-sulphur fuels taxed differently? I think they once were at least.

And it's for a different reason, but a number of US states that have sulphur production facilities are subject to a sulphur production tax per some mass produced.

Hey Mike! Remember when you were a completely irrelevant abrasive incompetently trolling douche-canoe?

I do! It was just now.

P. Lws,

Yr: "R slphr txs..."

h grt! P. Lws drps n hr lk sm Dbls x mchn wth sm ltrl-mndd, hmrlss-wrd, dsnfrmtn fctds bt slphr txs. h brthr! Y Dltds r sch mprbbl drks.

S, snc y'r sch snppy-cmbck, smrty-pnts knw-t-ll, P. Lws, l' sprt, myb y cld jst prvd vrybdy wth th ltst scp n th ntrntnl stts f "tnns rt" txs. Cld y d tht, gy?

mn, lk, bt th nxt thng y'll b srvn' p, P. Lws, s, lk, y knw, lttl rmkn f chclt mss nd ll. Rght?! Thnks, bt n thnks!

Lil' mike. You really need to go back and see your therapist, despite her being a woman and all that, mike, 'cause you are evidently escalating. We are not the (mainly) male authority figures you are looking for. I regret that your early adolescent experience left you with such scars, but it wasn't us who abused you. While your personal (e)scatology is occasionally imaginative ('cause you're not dumb, despite the problems), it is really not much more than standard half-bright DK trolling (a la Jonas &the STC, GSW & the confused chameleon etc.), with added poo-flinging. Boring.

mike is the poster-boy for the dangers of early and severe potty-training...

This blog's shrink-wannabe freud-toids are out in force tonight, I see. But then, sometimes a Deltoid, nerd-ball creep-out is just a Deltoid, nerd-ball creep-out.

Though I am gratified to see, Deltoids, that your doofus, spastic-dork, whiny-retard, pathetic forays into the world of trash-talk so transparently reveal that my prior taunts directed at your conspicuous lack of stud-ready, masculine "charisma" has so deliciously touched a big-time, blood-raw hive-nerve.

But, then, that mommie-dearest, wanker-fantasy, matriarchal, authority figure of yours--Gaia--you lefty, fratricidal, back-stabbing, Tim's-little-moderator-protected-crybaby, momma's pet, geek-sneak groupies so jostle, in that hissy-prissy-Aunt-Pittypat, passive-agressive, girlie-man way of yours, to please, is there to kiss away any psychic boo-boos I may have inflicted. So you Deltoids will all be O. K.. I know.

Go give your mom a kiss, li'll mike. You'll feel less antsy. For a while at least.

Then you can go back to shooting and maiming digital figurines or whatever version of it your intellectual high water mark finds satisfying.

Mike, please see your nursey for your overdue medication.

Your hyperdysphemia is manifesting again.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

Hmmm - Dr. Bernard, my diagnosis was Tourettes characterised by marked Scatalogical Fixation and Castration Anxiety.

Bill, I considered Tourette's but without any capacity to observe other signs and symptoms, and with the likelihood that Mike's generalised verbal spraying is voluntary rather than being an uncontrollable exclamation of specifically coprolalic terms, I settled on hyperdysphemia.

This is not to say that scatalogical fixation and castration anxiety are not concurrent conditions, of course...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

I may be late to the party but I see that Uncle Roy has dropped the 3rd-order polynomial fit from his UAH temp graph.
I wonder why?

Remember Beenstock et al. which argued that climate change could not be caused by anthropogenic CO2 based on polynomial co-integration tests, with shades of Curtinesque thinking?

Here's a reply (PDF) to consider.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

Congratulations are due ex- Economist writer Matt Ridley on his election to Britain's Upper House.

It will be intereesting to hear what perennial House of Lords reject Viscount Monckton has to say about this reversal of fortune, and to see what Matt, freed by tenure of the necessity of kowtowing to Monckton's press baron inlaws, has to say for himself.

By Russell Seitz (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

Apparently none of the people who lost their jobs as a result of the collapse of Northern Rock got a vote.

Although most hereditary peers were kicked out of the Lords in 1999 reforms, 90 were allowed to remain.

Whenever one of them dies, a by-election is held to replace them where the voters and candidates are all hereditary peers.

Ridley, who acquired the title last year after the death of his father, fought off competition from 26 other hereditaries, including former Tory MP Douglas Hogg, who quit after claiming for moat repairs on his expenses.

Obviously a very classy field.

It is good news of a sort, but I'm waiting for Chameleon to condemn Betula's claim because it's based on models, and as we all know Chameleon thinks they that models in climate science are merely statistical extrapolations that have essentially no predictive skill, or just aren't good enough to take into consideration when formulating policy, or something along those lines.

I reckon I'll be waiting a looooooooooong time ;-)

Meanwhile, the article only discussed outcomes up to 2100. Anyone know whether the research looked at timeframes beyond that?

I also note the warning about the results not being so robust if methane plays a larger role, which dovetails with what seems to be more and more signs that methane releases are going to significantly increase.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

Matt Ridley is a peer? I'll put down some sawdust...

Vince,
the article and the paper it refers to actually has some good news re CO2.
However your assertion re the BEST papers and the Age article are not supported.
Betula's comment was employing irony or perhaps sarcasm.
It was however valid in context :-)

By chameleon (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

Lotharsson,
I am interested in ALL the research, especially the updated research.
Aren't you?

By chameleon (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

Wow,
Here is a SMH report on the information that Betula posted.
Seems it wasn’t taken out of context after all?

Huh? Where does your link show that?

And where did you get the idea that I was making Betty's irrelevant quotation out to be out of context?

You're obviously reading in a different reality to the rest of humanity.

Chameleon, do you subscribe to the concept that the models behind the article that Betula cited are just statistical extrapolations or projections of little predictive value? Or do you reckon this model is useful, unlike all those other models?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

Chameleon wrote: "I am interested in ALL the research, especially the updated research."

Now, it's always nice to see someone express an interest in real research results, so some current and not so current climate research papers can be found here, here and here.

And those are but a mere drop in the expanding ocean of climate-related research. Enjoy the reading.

Of course they are useful statistical extrapolations Lotharsson,
They're particularly useful when they're updated with real time data.
That's how they're supposed to work aren't they?

By chameleon (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

Try answering his question, chubby.

I know understanding comes hard to you, but give it a go, eh?

Of course they are useful statistical extrapolations Lotharsson,...

OK, so let's see if I've got this straight.

You claim when you arrived - despite all evidence to the contrary - that (paraphrasing) climate models were merely statistical extrapolations of unproven predictive value, just like economics models were. (I think you went further and said - despite all evidence to the contrary - that climate models were obviously failing when compared to measurements.) You absolutely insisted they weren't heavily based on well-known physics.

You now claim the model that produces the result that Betula cited is also a "statistical extrapolation", but that it is "useful".

Hmmm, I wonder? What property of the models seems to consistently correlate with Chameleon's approval or disapproval of their usefulness?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

Here's a question for the old guard...

A few years ago I commented on energy and human impact on the environment. In the process I came up with an equation:

I = SPEND

but try as I might I can't dig up the thread on which it was posted.

Anyone remember where it is?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

Google isn't indexing a LOT of thread. Even recent ones miss large portions. Someone at National Geographic needs to fix this.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

Google isn’t indexing a LOT of thread. Even recent ones miss large portions.

Could, partly, explain Latimer's recent remark in that Matt thread.

Lest anybody is still in doubt:

Climate change and 2013 Queensland floods: Dispatches from the climate debate No.2 ...

and for those in the UK then

there was a worrying section in last Sundays BBC 'Countryfile' programme on biomass burning. Here is an i Player link to that programme, note the caveat from about 31:00 in: Countryfile 27.01.2013

When it becomes available the Sunday 2 Feb 2013 edition has a segment on the 'flooded' state of the countryside as exemplified by the plight of this farmer:

Prize-winning North Devon beef farmer forced to sell herd due to 'impossible' weather. There is due to be a follow up on what this could mean for food supplies in general in the coming months, particularly in the light of other extreme weather events globally.

and

Africa: The Future. with David Attenborough i Player. Note the effects that climate change is already having across this huge continent.

Keep up with that hand-waving Duff, you may find a use as a rescue chopper.

Scotland's huge waves.

I well remember following working up of ship and air group in the Moray Firth steaming through the Pentland Firth and then round the corner and down through The Minch overnight in a Force 11 or so on Ark Royal (IV with cat's and traps) in June 1970.

Who needed a flight in a modified C-130 to experience weightlessness. The thirty or so traps down on the for'ard heads on 4 deck were spewing 10 ft plumes of water as we hit trough bottom. Super bidet plus as one poor soul discovered. Working the flight deck ensuring all aircraft and ground equipment were secure and weather-proofed was 'interesting'.

For the record: We heart Tim Lambert.

By We the people (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

Chameleon does the type! type! type! and I for one have no idea what she's on about:

the article and the paper it refers to actually has some good news re CO2.

You mean - trees fix CO2, therefore trees are good? Gee whiz, who knew?!

However your assertion re the BEST papers and the Age article are not supported.

What assertion is that?
I doubt very much that I have ever though of BEST in relation to The Age, therefore I am in doubt that this alleged assertion exists outside of your imagination. Please prove me wrong.

Betula’s comment was employing irony or perhaps sarcasm.

It's called sarcasm, not irony.

It was however valid in context

Can you explain why?

And just to simplify it for you, this is what we've got:
- A newspaper article reports that trees fix more CO2 if it's available
- Betula says, sarcastically, that 'denying scientists believe in CO2 fertilisation and that it is beneficial'

I *do* hope you and Betula aren't going to go all Green on us and advocate the preservation of the environment including reforestation, because that would be so disappointing to see you adopt such a politically activist position.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

Re dodgy indexing, thread derailments and unfindable things - I'm finding that the 'recent comments' list is generally about an hour behind. I do wish that NG had more of a commitment to making this a truly first-class platform.

I'd appreciate even 2nd class at the moment.

BTW, SkS apparently has a new WYSIWGY comment editor that seems to be meeting with approval. Maybe NatGeo could license it from them?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

Anthony Willard has managed to simultaneously confuse absolute SSTs with anomalies, and anomalies with absolute SSTs, in the same post. A new low has been reached in the stupid.

Anthony vs anomalies vs Willard vs absolutes

Your charts are of anomalies not the absolute SSTs themselves. The Gulf stream looks like this:

http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/metoc/nogaps/giffiles/globalsfcsst0.gif

or this (at its start):

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/islands01/background/islands/media/bump_deflection.html

Like it or no, there has been a persistent warm anomaly in the NE Atlantic along the coast of New England and Labrador for the past few months. Your basis for a claim that the warm anomaly falls apart? A map of the absolute SSTs. Of course it is cold in the NE Atlantic, it is winter. The point is it is actually relatively warm, as an anomaly chart shows.

Countering the latest bullshit from the Batshit Viscount recently brought to my attention via the ever reliable purveyor of vacuous ignorance epitomised by troll contributor PantieZ, is this study on the future viability of polar bears given the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice.

From the Guardian article based on the paper:
"The day may soon come when some of the 19 polar bear populations in Canada, Alaska, Greenland, Norway, and Russia will have to be fed by humans in order to keep them alive during an extended ice-free season or prevent them from roaming into northern communities. Some bears may have to be placed in temporary holding compounds until it is cold enough for them to go back onto the sea ice. In worst-case scenarios, polar bears from southern regions may have to be relocated to more northerly climes that have sufficient sea ice cover.

Far-fetched, draconian, and unlikely as some of these scenarios may sound, 12 scientists from Arctic countries are, for the first time, suggesting that the five nations with polar bear populations need to start considering these and other management strategies now that sea ice retreat is posing serious challenges to the bears' survival. In worst-case scenarios, the scientists say that polar bears with little chance of being rehabilitated or relocated may have to euthanized. Zoos, which are currently having a difficult time acquiring polar bears because of stringent regulations that prevent them from doing so, will at some point likely be offered as many animals as they can handle, according to the scientists.

This crisis management plan for polar bears as Arctic sea ice disappears is laid out this week in an article in Conservation Letters, the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology. Polar bear experts Andrew Derocher, Steve Amstrup, Ian Stirling, and nine others say that with Arctic sea ice disappearing far faster than originally estimated, it's time for Arctic nations to begin making detailed plans to save as many of the world's 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears as possible.

"We really never have been here before," says Amstrup, chief scientist for Polar Bears International and a lead author of a landmark U.S. government-appointed panel that predicted in 2008 that two-thirds of the polar bears in the world could disappear by mid-century.

The University of Alberta's Derocher added, "We have covered the science side of the issue very well, but the policy and management aspects are locked in the past. We still manage polar bears in Canada like nothing has changed. Other countries are moving on some aspects of future polar bear management, but it is glacial compared to the actual changes we're seeing in sea ice and the bears themselves."

The alien-sounding concepts presented in this week's paper — with names like supplemental feeding, diversionary feeding, translocation, and intentional population reduction — may become increasingly put into practics as Arctic sea ice, continues to disappear in spring, summer, and fall. Forty years ago, when the first International Polar Bear Agreement was ratified, the threats facing polar bears were chiefly hunting and mining and oil development. But the overriding threat now is climate change.

Without adequate sea ice for enough of the year, many bears will not be able to use the ice as a feeding platform to hunt their favored prey, ringed seals. As a consequence, polar bears will be forced to spend more time fasting on land, where they pose a greater risk to human populations in the Arctic. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Polar Bear Specialist Group recently concluded that only one of the 19 polar bear subpopulations is currently increasing. Three are stable and eight are declining. For the remaining seven subpopulations, there is insufficient data to provide an assessment of current trends.

Derocher and some of his colleagues have been thinking about the need for dramatic rescue plans for polar bears for at least five years. The scientists say a record disappearance of Arctic summer sea ice in 2007 increased the urgency for emergency planning, as did research by Peter Molnar — Derocher's one-time graduate student and now a post-doctoral fellow at Princeton University — suggesting that the collapse of some polar bear populations may occur sooner than climate models predict.

Over the past two years, scientists began considering a specific list of actions to save polar bear populations. A draft paper by Derocher and others was circulated last August just as Arctic summer sea ice hit striking new lows, with sea ice volume dropping 72 percent from the 1979-2010 mean, and ice extent falling by 45 percent from the 1979-2000 mean.

"If you talk to any of the polar bear biologists, you'll find that the public is already asking us about the issues we cover in the paper," Derocher said in an interview. "I've had well-positioned conservationists waiting to start the fund-raising to feed polar bears.

"I don't view the options we lay out as a way of not dealing with greenhouse gases," he added, "because without action on that front, there's little that could be done in the longer term to save the species, and we'll see massive range contractions and possibly extinction."

Two key ideas in the current paper are supplemental feeding, to make up for the loss of ringed seals that polar bears can kill on ice, and diversionary feeding to draw hungry polar bears on shore away from human settlements. Supplemental feeding is nothing new; it is done for numerous species, from elk in the United States to brown bears in Eastern Europe. But feeding polar bears poses major challenges.

Derocher said in an email that the goal would be to distribute food, such as seals, in sufficient quantities over large distances so that hungry bears, forced ashore by lack of ice, would not come into conflict by vying for the same food. The goal would be to keep bear populations widely scattered, as attracting too many bears to central locations could increase the risk of disease transmission. Helicopters could be used to deliver the seals, but the logistics and expense of such a plan would be daunting. Thousands of seals would have to be killed by wildlife officials every summer to meet the needs of hungry bears, who each consume up to five seals a week.

"There is not a lot of experience with any of these issues, so it would take coordination and learning from the east Europeans, who already feed brown bears," said Derocher. Still, he is convinced that we will someday be feeding polar bears in the wild. "The public pressure will be intense to do so," he says, "and the public influences policy."

Another possible measure would be to relocate bears from more southerly regions, such as Hudson Bay, to more northerly regions, such as M'Clintock Channel in Nunavut in the high Canadian Arctic. The number of bears in the icier M'Clintock Channel area has been significantly reduced by overhunting, so there is room to relocate bears from Hudson Bay and James Bay without creating territorial conflicts, scientists say. Cubs from one population could also be flown to more northerly regions and placed with females that would rear them as "foster" cubs, Derocher said.

In Derocher's view, feeding and relocation will only work for polar bears so long as they have some habitat remaining, which is unlikely in the next century if greenhouse gas emissions are not curbed dramatically. "Keeping hundreds of semi-wild bears on a diet of bear chow doesn't fit my personal philosophy, but perhaps centuries from now, it will be viewed as visionary, if we eventually control those greenhouse gases," Derocher says.

The paper notes that another option is holding polar bears temporarily in the Arctic in enclosures during low sea ice periods. A similar thing is now done with problem bears around Churchill, Manitoba on western Hudson Bay.

The report acknowledges that in a worst-case scenario, where the primary goal is to preserve the genetic structure of the species, zoos around the world could play an important role. Amstrup, the U.S. zoologist, says there are signs that the U.S. is at least considering the idea of easing restrictions on the importation of orphan cubs found in the wild.

"Regardless of whether reintroducing polar bears or their genes ever is practical, we cannot overlook other ways zoos may contribute," he says. "Dozens of species are healthier and more abundant in the wild today because of captive breeding and other zoo programs."

As a last resort, the paper mentions "intentional population reduction'" — the killing of starving bears. "Controlled reduction of population size through harvest might be necessary to ensure both human safety and a viable but smaller polar bear population as a result of declining habitat," the paper said. "Euthanasia may be the most humane option for individual bears in very poor condition that are unlikely to survive. Under these circumstances, it will be important to develop clear guidelines for identification of starving animals."
Amstrup emphasizes that the purpose of the article is not to promote one management strategy over another or to suggest that they will all work. "The purpose is to remind the readers, and hopefully policy people, that the long-term future of polar bears is in jeopardy," he says. "It makes managers and policy people aware of the various kinds of on-the-ground actions that may be applied and makes them begin to think of the varying levels of cost that may be involved in the different options they may choose."

Stirling, a biologist at the University of Alberta, said in an e-mail that the paper is "a starting point that clarifies the need to be developing some preliminary plans for dealing with such problems." The scientists realize that it will be difficult to sell these controversial management strategies to the public and to policy makers. One impetus for action will likely be an increasing threat to humans in the Arctic from hungry bears being forced off the ice and onto land. "The sooner we consider the options, the sooner we'll have a plan," said Derocher. "The worst-case scenario is a catastrophically early sea ice break-up with hundreds of starving bears, followed by inappropriate management actions.

"It has always seemed that we've been behind the curve on climate change and polar bears," he said, noting that conservation planning for polar bears has typically extended several decades into the future. "That time frame leads one to think you've got time. But the science is clear that this is a fallacy."

We can be sure that the stench from Brenchley kept that information well away from his moronic flock.

Thanks chek.

Link to article: Polar bears 'may need to be fed by humans to survive'. Stay clear of the batshits below in the comment thread - some will hurt the brain.

So who was that demeaning those images of polar bears on melting floes?

The plight of polar bears was indicated in a BBC documentary which used innovative remote cameras to film them, the Discovery Channel in the US (land of the free and the brave - hic) refused to broadcast the final, climate change, episode of Attenborough's 'Frozen Planet'.

Note that polar bears Ursus maritimus are a different species from the brown bears Ursus arctos such as the Kodiak Ursus arctos middendorffi and Grizzly (North American Brown) Ursus arctos horribilis so any talk of saving the polar species by mixing with the land-based brown species is founded on mendacious ignorance, and largely due to the imbalance in broadcast programming which Attenborough was irked by, and rightly so.

How is this for an idea, coming from that once used to send offenders on holidays to Africa or such.

As Brenchley is a repeat offender at wild claims of belonging to the legislative House of Lords maybe he should be rounded up and forced to go on an Arctic holiday long enough to span the seasons and taking in points of special interest. He could build himself a fancy igloo with a pink portico (cochineal in the ice).

Maybe the bears will mistake him for a food parcel, with a bit of luck....

There is a great article up over at Tamino's Open Mind showing how one Willis Eschenbach posting at WUWT misreads an article about area loss of Greenland marine-terminated glaciers thinking that it is all about the whole of the Greenland ice.

Eschenbach then produces a graph, with a very misleading Y axis which makes confusion worse by bearing the legend 'Total Ice Are of Greenland (km3)'.

You just cannot make this kinda stupid up.

Now, do you DKs around here Pentax, Betula, OP, Duff, chameleon, GWS, Karen etc., realise why your links to sites such as WUWT (that includes Cardinal Puff, Nova, etc,) are treated with such derision?

Lionel, are you serious? They quote Monckton for crying out loud.

For anyone who finds that kind of thing interesting, there's a guy on a post about the latest Lewandowsky et al. paper who is trying to claim that his "skepticism" of scientific propositions is reasonable - for various bad reasons, including citing "skepticism" of economic actions to reduce carbon emissions thereby generating still more data for Lewandowsky. (He also relies on a whole load of simplistic "analysis", most of which seems to be trivially incorrect or confused - par for the course. One of his latest claims is that I don't understand feedback because a loop gain of 0.67 apparently implies instability.)

Meanwhile on the other post about the paper the "skeptics" are (predictably) trying to co-opt Annan's statement about the tails of the climate sensitivity distribution as a statement about the most likely value, and Peter Cox's updated research on the Amazon as proof that science isn't settled, so "skepticism" must be reasonable. I haven't waded in there thus far.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

Lotharsson, you have my admiration.

I got fed up with that lot long before you'd got even halfway into dealing with all that icecream-jelly-cordial-swirl after-party mess.

He's dug in deeper, which is kind of amusing in a sad way, and now performed the all-important "You're wrong and I've made my point" First Flounce.

We'll see if he sticks it.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

And adelady, everyone's got to have a hobby ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

The Australian Financial Review have an article in their weekend edition which at first glance is a weekend paper puff piece abut catching up with Mr Monckton for lunch. Reading the article with more care, the writer makes three main points in the article - Mr Monckton likes to talk up his education and his accomplishments; he likes to lecture his interviewers; and he never lets the facts get in the way of a good story.

By Anthony David (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

My correspondent at Lewandowsky's is back.

Not to answer any of the pertinent questions, mind you. Just to assert that this talk of conspiracy theorising doesn't apply to him, no sir, and what's more his reasons for disbelieving are perfectly valid.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

On a scale from 1-10 for 'lack of self-awareness' - with 0 being pretty-damn-self-aware-indeed and 10 being, well, James Delingpole, how high would most deniers you've encountered rank?

I'd say 8+, in my experience; It's a feature, not a bug...

Definitely 8+, mostly 9 and above - and several 10s who've spent time at Deltoid.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

It's pretty well all or nothing. I've come across just one at another site who goes along pretty well for a while and then, whammo, yet another cite of yet another paleo paper which seems unfailingly to have overturned all preceding conclusions of the whole of the aggregate body of paleo work.

It's almost like playing peek-a-boo with a littlie. You go along happily and next time, out of the blue, angelic little Phoebe is sticking her tongue out at you!

But the rest, it's either 3 or less or 8 or more. There is none of the famous "middle ground" here.

h, xcs m, Dltds....

Ht t ntrrpt yr ntrmnbl, gk-bll, flccd, grnshrt-pk cht-cht, bt y mght b ntrstd t knw tht ths thrd hs, lk, ttlly dgnrtd nt trsm-br, c-lsr, t-plt-grp-thnk, drk-pt, dlt-fst crpshw. Bt thn tht's th nrm n Dltd-lnd--rght, hv-bzs?

mike scores at least a 15

Oh lordy yes!

I am beginning to wonder if

mike = Delingpole

therefore

Delingpole = 15

Something about the modus lingua (Amos, Amas, Amat... and all that ).

Lotharsson

your comments at shapingtomorrowsworld are beautiful to watch as your antagonist doubles down on the stupid with his confusion between conspiracy theory and conspirators being a classic of its type of failed logic and poor comprehension.

Thanks Lionel.

I thought about responding to Sapa as well, but those comments seemed even further into the land of vague generalisations only loosely connected with reality.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

I think someone mentioned Ridley's "ten tests" document on this thread? Ridley gets another mention at SkS in a post about lukewarmers. The background is Ridley's Wired magazine article, the SkS-sourced debunk, and Ridley's attempted debunk-debunk - including the GWPF "Ten Tests" piece.

Ridley and Fuller get some attention from Stoat as well with regard to the same Ridley presentation.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

And if you would like to step in another pile of poo we find Matt trying to moving the goal posts here where he consults another oracle of the calibre of WUWT, namely CO2Science.org whilst pointing out that that entity is run by 'Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change'.

As if an impressive sounding title makes it so. Here is SourceWatch's take on that:

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is one of Mother Jones magazine's 2009 global warming skeptic "Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial"[1]. Founded in 1998 by members of the Idso family, its income has increased in recent years.

Idso hard to take Ridley seriously when he cites this shower as well as Nova and WUWT.

Lord Bonckers outloons even Bolt.

After the great winnowing Denial is now made up of people who think the world is secretly run by the 'banking families' *wink wink*, while others project their toxic fantasies outward outward, hysterically wailing that fully-justified criticism of Seitz and Singer is 'anti-Semitism', and wittering on about Rachel Carson being 'worse than Hitler'.

Truly, has there ever been a more ridiculous and appalling rabble?

Denial is unravelling at the seams at the moment.

As I've said before, you can tell A LOT about a movement by assessing the calibre of people it raises to prominence...

Denial is unravelling at the seams at the moment.

Hell, see Joan, chubbie and Brat for ample evidence of the decline.

Fueling the self-importance of dissembling, narcissistic prats is a significant error, in my opinion.

I disagree. After a certain point, it becomes pointless to attempt engage them into meaningful discussion since they are by definition not interested in anything of the kind... but I think there is still value in backing them into a corner and poking them occasionally to expose them for the sad, narcissistic douche-canoes they really are. For example, I've already seen references on low-traffic blogs to the Jonas thread. Without fail, things end really badly for deniers when people actually follow that delusional black hole all the way down.

I think after last night it's patently clear that Brad has no scientific basis - indeed, he appears to have actively chosen to remain ignorant of the relevant evidence - for his claims about ECS (and it's almost as clear that he's full of shit when he talks about Mann's work). And in an attempt to maintain his self-delusion that his opinion carries as much weight as the scientific consensus does he's tying himself in logical and rhetorical knots.

On that basis I don't think there's any point adding further to that thread :-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

I think we're contending with bona-fide pathology there - and that particular Emperor in His Own Mind is now so far beyond merely naked he's pretty-well flayed alive. It's literally grotesque.

Ridley and the lukewarmers get a further caning at SkS.

My correspondent at Lewandowsky's failed to stick the flounce again.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 Feb 2013 #permalink

Tamino has another excellent take-down of goings on over at WUWT with a very apposite title Some people can’t be reasoned with considering that monster thread of BK's.

Where are all the trolls on this still open thread?

Yeah I know over at that BK thread which appears to have gotten way past the point where BK has enough thread to hang himself with.

Yep, the Brunning-Kruger thread is a good exemplar of where Denial is at - the Arrogant Sophist, the Giggling Cretin, the Bona-fide Psycho, the Libuurtard Fanboy; virtually all the Denio-fauna caged in our private zoo (all we need is The Pretentious Old Tosser to make a reappearance there and we've got the whole set!)

Speaking of denial, dishonesty, dimwits, and desperation - 'The Greatest Ever Sea Ice Recovery'; what a frickin' hoot!

This chart says it all...

Goddard and Watts are behaving like men who know full well they're going to end up despised - as well they should be - and they'll clutch at any risible straw to forestall the inevitable...

Tamino calls it as it is -

What’s really rather hard to believe is that these people can actually be that blinded by ideology, or gullible, or stupid, or all three. What’s really stunning is the vanishing of Arctic sea ice, during all months, all seasons of the year, at its annual minimum and its annual maximum.

This much is certain: they are not skeptics. Don’t call them that, and don’t put up with it when they call themselves that. They aren’t...

This is so deliberately misleading, it’s a bit hard to believe they would sink so low. It’s so transparently stupid, it’s a bit hard to believe they would risk revealing their willingness to buy into such drivel.

There is absolutely no hope — none whatsoever — for any kind of “dialogue” with such blind ideologues. You can’t reason with some people.

Hear hear!

It is reported that a peer-reviewed study finds that the roots of the Tea Party "movement" extend back to tobacco industry anti-tax campaigners and the Koch Brothers (and most of us are familiar with the strong crossover in both methods and personnel/entities between anti-climate science and pro-tobacco advocates for hire). It's also reported that the anti-tax advocacy on behalf of the tobacco industry is an ongoing effort.

Go read the whole thing - and check out the 2002 "US Tea Party" website archive!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Feb 2013 #permalink

Thanks Lotharsson,

That was info' I was looking for yesterday to throw at some ignoramus on another blog but could not find, although it wasn't sourced from Esquire.

On another topic I have just got hold of Ben Goldacre's new book Bad Pharma: How drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients

and it makes me wonder if systematic studies have ever been carried out across the climate change research field.
In other words, how many did Idso, Lindzen, Michaels etc bury never to see the light of day.

Bad Pharma and how GPs are deceived made me think of that scenario where during a televised presentation 'down under' Stephen Schneider had an uphill struggle trying to inform, using the bathtub analogy, an Aussie GP on how the CO2 quantity in the atmosphere is affected by human activity. It would seem that some GPs are not the brightest of candles.

Bad Pharma is so freakin' depressing I had to stop reading it! It's like David Michaels' Doubt is Their Product - imagine Merchants of Doubt with a scope an order of magnitude larger - page after page of institutionalised bad-faith, cynicism and criminality pretty-well all of which goes willfully unnoticed and unlamented gets pretty wearing!

(Similarly I tried to take up Matt Taibbi's Griftopia again last night, but the big insurance cartel's 'we see no wind damage from Hurricane Katrina' was too much for me!)

In a nutshell, pharmaceutical companies are not obliged to publish inconclusive or outrightly unfavourable results of supposedly scientific studies. The gap between the number of pre-announced studies and the actual numbers published in the literature is what gave this away.

Basically, these companies have been failing to cure, making sicker, and even killing people in order to maintain profitability.

Now, that's sick.

And it's because we live in a world like this that Jim Hansen has been arrested again, I note.

Further to Loth's link, what those sick of the endlessly recursive meanderings of narcissists and sociopaths might also find interesting - The Guardian does a thorough take-down of Donors Trust.

To see the unpaid footsoldier Useful Idiots of this vile clique of oligarchs, plutocrats and literal tobacco scientists in action, just hit the other 'prison' thread...

Getting in ahead of John Mashey(?) - watch the video from 1:17:45 - turns out you've been working for the tobacco lobby all along, guys!

Over at TheConversation, "There's no such thing as climate change denial". (Nitpick: there is, but you don't see it very often. But the article is about scientific consensus denial.)

I was thinking about consensus of evidence the other day in the light of the Brangelina consensus denialfest, and this timely article is about scientific consensus denial. makes the point that probably hasn't been brought out strongly enough on the Brangelina thread that the consensus of evidence leads to the consensus of scientists. Maybe someone can point Brad at it and start using the term "consensus of evidence" to make a point (but I'm pretty confident it won't make any difference to his opinions, let alone to his hangers-on ;-) )

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 15 Feb 2013 #permalink

Forgot to add that deliberately stoking scientific consensus denial was pointed out in links in earlier comments as a necessary and likely effective strategy in one or both of the set of "roots of the Tea Party" articles and the Guardian's articles on the Donors Trust.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 15 Feb 2013 #permalink

And BTW, the very first comment on that Conversation article fulfils the specific cherry-picking prediction made in the body of the article.

'twould be astonishing, if we hadn't seen it all before at Deltoid.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 15 Feb 2013 #permalink

makes the point that probably hasn’t been brought out strongly enough on the Brangelina thread that the consensus of evidence leads to the consensus of scientists.

Oh, no, it's been made strongly enough for even the thickest of idiots to get.

However, an idiot who clings on to their self deception is an impenetrable thicko^Det.

Bill,

Bad Pharma is so freakin’ depressing I had to stop reading it!

I agree and I have only just started reading through it although have, as my usual practice, scan read and index mined before hand. I have thus seen enough to become even more angry at the regulators and the politicians who allow these creatures room to breath. That is breath out dangerous nonsense as good practice.

You will 'like' (irony) the review from a Pharma'-apologist found here:

from DavoWolf , the use of such a handle by that reviewer is in itself informative.

As I have a number of serious health issues I may become more actively engaged in push back against this sickness.

It all comes down to the same thing as climate denial in the end - filthy lucre and the power that it can bring alongside the fear of losing those distorters destroyers of ethical behaviour.

And while the septics deniers play word games and practice mud slinging climate research claims more victims:

Antarctic Plane Crash Kills 3 Canadians.

whilst their own country's bureaucrats (their actions should be actionable) do all they can to hinder scientific progress by gagging the messengers Science Silenced: US Scientist Caught in Canadian Muzzle. It is no surprise, to this grizzled veteran of the twentieth century, that politics is now in the hands of PR merchants. From big tobacco to climate, from asbestos to big pharma it is no surprise that such sierra-hotel-india-tango should float to the top.

And as a counter to the WUWT/Goddard crazy on Arctic Ice this is the real story: Arctic Death Spiral Bombshell: CryoSat-2 Confirms Sea Ice Volume Has Collapsed.

Of course those crazies still lurking here, who don't seem to stray far from the Brangalina thread why would they as the Recent Comments pane is too polluted by Brangalina posts for them to notice, won't understand this message seeing as Willis of their ilk thinks that area is measured in km3.

This is entirely why Bray continues to repeat insane waffle.

Turn this place into a shithole.

You will ‘like’ (irony) the review from a Pharma’-apologist found here:

I'm not sure if I've mentioned this before, but my son's a microbiologist who has confirmed in discussions that big pharma companies would rather 'disappear' a cure for cancer (for instance) should they discover one, in favour of supplying drugs for palliative care that can be prescribed for life. Profitability and continuous revenue streams being more important in the corporate view.

This is entirely why Bray continues to repeat insane waffle.

Well walk away from the smell and leave him stinking himself out.

Wow and 'No'.

Do you recall the saying about wrestling with pigs?

Look at it this way, as long as that shit-flinging monkey is here, someone has to clean up the shit.

Money, money, money...

Earn quick and easy $20 for an hour or less of work (Midtown East)

Our firm needs 100 volunteers to attend and participate in a rally in front of the British Consulate embassy in Midtown Manhatten... The event is being held in order to protest wind turbines that are being built in Scotland and England...

Compensation $20 cash.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/24/1493101/astroturf-wind-prot…

Look at it this way, as long as that shit-flinging monkey is here, someone has to clean up the shit.

No, they really don't. His shit is on a side thread where all serious attention to it can easily wither - but trolls depend on other people having a dependable SIWOTI response to get attention and traffic on "their" threads.

Brad's looping through the same set of bullshit over and over now. It has been adequately demonstrated that he doesn't know what he's talking about on any number of issues, and that he either doesn't particularly care or is incapable of understanding. So his thread currently stands as a monument to the stupidness he has attached himself to. Anywhere else he shows up one can simply link to the thread and invite readers to form their own opinion of his schtick. Prolonging interaction with him on the thread won't make it a significantly better monument - but it will continue to propel the thread to the top of the most active lists and clog up the recent comments list for the site. Ignore him, and soon there will be no traffic (or just him and his tiny fan club) posting there.

Consider that the Jonas thread was a solid monument to his brand of bullshit a long time ago, and the subsequent interactions only marginally added to the thread's value as a monument. Similarly the sunspot thread stands as a monument that was more than sufficient to debunk sunspot's particular brand of bullshit. You don't see it pop up very much any more - but IIRC sunspot only got bored of posting bullshit when no-one bothered to respond to it.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 15 Feb 2013 #permalink

Check this out. Unfortunately it's not light reading - it's arguing that actively drawing down atmospheric CO2 may be necessary (which I've been suspecting will likely prove necessary for a while). The costs are likely to be huge - but wait, wait...wasn't mitigation allegedly too expensive to consider so we should do nothing until adaptation is clearly needed?

Also on a meta level note the moderator's comment at #8 on that thread. That's how you deal with it!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 15 Feb 2013 #permalink

"The nets are on the vineyard, the peaches are picked and the pool is warm, friends are scheduled....." boasts the truffle farmer Gareth Renowden at Hot Topic Yep, a farm in Nth Canterbury, vineyard, orchard, swimming pool, frequent OS trips, books published, time to spend running a blog 24/7.....mmmm the sort of wealth you people here despise so much.
So Bill, some advice, they say that money talks but only a fool would listen to it.

You cannot be serious? Trying the Al Gore thing with Gareth? Phhhhttt!

Funny, isn't it, how the comfortably-off are completely unproblematic when they're bog-standard selfish acquisitive individualists or our pollutocrat overlords? But if anyone with the opportunity to do so should ever try to do anything to benefit the planet...

Good on him, says I!

Har, har, har ...gotta larf at our good staunch hammer and sickle, trade union, "what about the workers" man Bill here from Wyalla, (who shares his house with a lot of people?) sticking up for his rich yuppie chardonnay swilling socialist counterpart in NZ. Sucking up to a kiwi Bill? You're the pits.

'Wyalla'? Say what? I mean, are you from Ackland, or Dundin?

So, are you Joe Fone, 'Mack'? If so, how's the book going?

Yep sorry billbaby....Whyalla.
No Bill , I'm not Joe Fone, are you Joe 90 with a tinfoil hat?

Bill, I guess I dropped the "h" out of Whyalla because I'm subconsciously annoyed by the PC brigade in NZ wanting to change Wanganui to Whanganui. Wanganui being my childhood town of the 1950's.

Wanganui being my childhood town of the 1950′s.

So, what is your childhood town at the moment?

This from the quality of your recent posts here.

Whatever is convenient.

Reality is an encumbrance to deniers, so they learn to jettison it.

Ah, mention Mackulatus' name and presto! I wonder if Frontline would help...

I'm with Lotharsson on the Keyes issue. He's simply peddling the denialist treadmill, without ever addressing or making a substantive point. And he's too chickenshit to admit that Arctic summer sea ice is an immediate and significant proxy for serious planetary warming, let alone to wager on it, which essentially indicates that the dreaded consensus wins by Keyes' default.

And the troll called mike is simply smearing his fæces all over the walls there - the only saving grace with respect to that is that it shows that I'm in under his tissue-skin more firmly than a case of gnathostomiasis. Note especially how mike is trying to distract from Brad's cowardice by harping on about the legality of wagering, rather than about the science of climate change that is the subject of the wager. Poor precious pup - his moral outrage seems to be consuming any vestige of coherence he might ever have been able to pretend to possess.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Feb 2013 #permalink

At least now we know why BK is completely out of his tree.

He avers that he won't learn anything if he reads denier stuff because they all agree on what they say.

That means he believes it's cooling, the temperature is steady, it's caused by volcanoes, it's caused by the sun, it's caused by cosmic rays, the greenhouse gas effect is real, the greenhouse gas effect is false because it disobeys the laws of thermodynamics, it's only CO2, it's anything but CO2, H2O is a far bigger greenhouse gas (that doesn't exist!) than CO2, that CO2's effect will be undone by H2O...

In short, he's nuts because he believes anything that deniers tout.

How very amusing,
:-)
To get any traction on this thread at deltoid you need to discuss what's happening at the BK thread.
Chuckle.
BTW Wow,
There is a question waiting for you at the BK thread.
Who is that 'someone' you quoted and then inferred was a scientist?
And Lotharsson
I have done my homework :-)
http://www.scitechnol.com/ArchiveGIGS/articleinpressGIGS.php
Here is that BEST paper (again).
Where is that confirmation of MBH98 and the hockey stick in this paper?

By chameleon (not verified) on 16 Feb 2013 #permalink

Where is that confirmation of MBH98 and the hockey stick in this paper?

250 years of near identical temperature trend.

Which includes a lot of the "haft" of the "hockey stick".

Seriously, why do you keep asking the same silly question when the answer has been given to you multiple times, chubby?

Are you seriously retarded, or just play one on the internet?

There is a question waiting for you at the BK thread.

There can't be, because the question has already been answered.

Or do you refuse any answer you don't like and excise it from your mind (what there is of it)?

To get any traction on this thread at deltoid you need to discuss what’s happening at the BK thread.

Yet more insane hallucination from chubby.

I love your MO Wow :-)
You answer other people's questions with gay abandon but refuse to answer simple questions directed to you.
Let's try again.
THIS IS A QUESTION FOR WOW.
You put up a quote by 'someone' at the BK thread.
Who is that 'someone' Wow?
In answer to your question to me Wow:
I haven't refused your 'any answer' or excised your 'any answer' to that particular question because you haven't answered that particular question.

By chameleon (not verified) on 16 Feb 2013 #permalink

You answer other people’s questions with gay abandon but refuse to answer simple questions directed to you.
Let’s try again.

Indeed. So I repeat - please point out the key differences in the unprecedented rate of warming shown by MBH98 and BEST for the 20th Century.

You answer other people’s questions with gay abandon but refuse to answer simple questions directed to you.

Except this isn't the case.

See post #28.

The insane are oblivious to anything they wish not to see, though.

PS keep it up, chubby. At this rate you'll get your own cage thread.

To get any traction on this thread at deltoid you need to discuss what’s happening at the BK thread.

It Ain't Necessarily So , unless of course you cherry pick but then we know that YOU rely on that strategy.

Hy BJ!

s, frm yr bv cmmnt, tht y sctd yr wll-kckd, chckn-ss btt vr t ths thrd t drp-ff yr prckly-lttl-snk, "Hl Mry!" bst sht t fc-svng rtrvl f th sttn fllwng tht dlcs bt-dwn dmnstrd t y n th "Brngln" thrd.

nd yr clcltn ws prtty stt, BJ--y lmst slppd yr lttl rtrt-bgr pst m. mn, lk, whn lst plld p ths "pn Thrd" nd, t glnc, sw t ws n th thrs f yt nthr n f Dltd's fms, hr-w-g-gn, wrthng, bddy-bddy, hvy-pttng, drk-td bndng-sssns, lv wth th mns nd shts f fkd grnshrt-rgsms, my nstntns rctn ws t mmdtly xt th whl crp-t, frk-shw dl. Bt, nlcky y, BJ, jst hppnd t ctch yr mnkr n n f th cmmnts nd s hr m.

'd lk t sy, BJ, snc spr t gnrsty f sprt, tht rgrt mkng y lk th yth-mstr, cpn-dddy, gr-tht-fld dfs n frnt f yr stpdly-nv, sck-p, Mmmy-knws-bst, brnwshd, grl-grcn c-clyts n ths blg, bt jst cn't brng myslf t d t, gy.

Awwww,there's li'll mike showing the world he's alive with a little peek at his derangement.
But not able to show why that matters, and even less why anyone should care.

Look, if it's really spot-on, deadly accurate forecasts for the future you are looking for then, er, look no further. After all, my forecasts, unlike those of the climate scientology cult, were the real deal.

If you remember, in a typically generous effort to stop you all topping yourselves as your forecasts of a frizzling earth ground to a disappointing but (so far) 15-year cool stasis, I gave you all something else to be alarmed about. I told you then that that God, or The Prime Mover, or Al Gore, or someone or something, was hurling lumps of rock at us. And lo, it came to pass - well, actually, it came to pass about 17,000 miles away but in celestial terms that's tinier than George Moonbat's brain! No doubt pissed off at the failure of the 'Big Rock', He, She or It then threw a handful of pebbles at us. Fortunately they all landed in Russia - so no harm done, eh?

Well, you sneered at me then, when I warned you, but perhaps now you will take my prognostications more seriously.

By David Duff (not verified) on 16 Feb 2013 #permalink

disappointing but (so far) 15-year cool stasis,

Nope, trend is up duffer: 0.14C per decade.

Weird. You can't even predict the present correctly...

"Well, you sneered at me then, when I warned you, but perhaps now you will take my prognostications more seriously."

I'd see the doctor about your prognostic.

perhaps now you will take my prognostications more seriously.

You mean like this one?

but (so far) 15-year cool stasis,

You morons really need to get the period of your fable consistent, but no matter for now. Far more to the point is: Where did the heat that caused the record Arctic melt in the summer/autumn of 2012 come from, Duffer?

Don't report back until you have a satisfactory answer.

Whanganui it is then...

Isn't it nice that mike keeps dropping in to show us all his willy?

I think you'll find he's been challenged "Go to Deltoid and show 'em your nuts"...

He just misheard.

Aw, I missed the latest bout of mike's hyperdysphemia.

He must just about have exhausted the use of every word in the potty-mouth thesaurus.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Feb 2013 #permalink

wow - boom boom! ;-)

mike - seek professional help!

Chek,
I was not the one who asserted that BEST confirms MBH98 and the hockey stick.
I have linked the BEST paper for you.
I cannot find that confirmation.
Maybe you and Vince etcetera have access to extra work done by BEST and/or to Muller et al?
Vince didn't assert there were some similarities.
He asserted several times that MBH98 and the hockey stick was CONFIRMED by BEST.
When questioned he even then asserted that it was the SAME hockey stick.
So asking me to point out the differences (which is not hard to do BTW) does not answer the question I asked above.
And similarly to my comment to Wow, I asked others that question, not you.
Why are you answering for them?
But since you have now weighed in, here you go.
Where is the information that leads some of you to agree with Vince that BEST confirms MBH98 and the hockey stick?
It isn't in the published BEST work.
Is it in a peer reviewed published article somewhere else?
Did Muller et al say it somewhere else?

By chameleon (not verified) on 16 Feb 2013 #permalink

Urine luck - I swear to you that that's a real sub-editor's gem from the front page of the Guardian online. And, yes, it's about Climate Change and I'm not taking the piss!

Sou, I shudder to think what HC's 'science' forums would be like - in the past I've spent a bit of time there contending with the boosters of environmentally damaging mining projects,and some of those players made some of our regular trolls here look like peace-and-love hippies!

Anybody who still believes in a perfect market based on rational actors with access to complete information should spend a bit of time at HotCopper!...

Hy, Brnrd J!

h drn! S y mssd my rlr, "hyprdsyphm"-nsprd cmmnt, BJ, 'cz by th tm y gt t t, th pr thng ws, lk, y knw, ll ds-mvwld nd ll. Wll, shcks nd glly!-- mn, lk, DBL DRN!!! mn, lk, m s spr bmmd-t nd crshd by ths whl trgc trn f vnts nd vrythng!!

. K., BJ, l' sprt, s nw tht w'v bth gn thrgh th mtns f ths lttl drll, y'v nstgtd, lt m gt rl nd pnt t tht y--Brnrd J.--dd, n fct, rd my prr cmmnt bfr t ws svgly mtltd by th Phlstn "Tm"-ntty, whs md-dg vndlsm ws prmptd by yr crybby rprsnttns, bt nt ctlly nflctd n my nbl rnt ntl h jdgd th vlm f pg-vws grnrd by my zngr mstrpc ws wll pst ts pk. Bsnss-s-sl n Dltd-lnd, n thr wrds.

Bt mst dmt, Brnrd J., yr tctcl hndlng f ths mnr skrmsh ws srprsngly clvr--flly xpltng yr hrtfr ndr-dvlpd tlnt fr slz-bll, Glck-wnnb, snk-td strtgms.

Bill, it was a good place to catch up on denier memes - all in one place - as a stepping off point for research to sharpen my understanding of climate science.

Agree totally on your 'market based on rational actors' comment. Eventually the mods/operators ban posters who rely on reason rather than wishful thinking. They upset the rabble too much. (It's one of the best spots I've found to see confirmation bias in action - on their share discussion forums as well as their 'lounge' forums!)

I tell you, some of the tales investors used to tell each other about the project I was mainly dealing with were gob-smacking - particularly regarding the genuinely magical influence and Solomonic sagacity of a former Qld coal-baron who passed from us before arriving at his day in court!

They also knew just what the SA Premier and cabinet was going to do at any given time, because, well, it's obvious, innit? Always just happened to benefit them! Because it goes without saying that the only thing you can do is what's good for them... logic, mate, logic!

Seems they'd never quite grasped the concept of the limits placed on elected officials by the very fact of their being elected officials! The government doing what ~90% of the public actually wanted them to do was so outrageously unexpected that it really had never crossed their tiny minds it could happen! Not faaaaaiiiiirrrrrr!!....

Speaking of the child-minded and delusional; mike, you're a booger-soaked sputum-flecked douche-doused tessellated (why not?) knobhead!

Are you happy now?

bll,

Yr: N. 54

knw, bll, y'r n bnxs, lttl-snt, yth-mstr-xpltd, c-wn spld-brt wh hs bn cndtnd by lftm mmrsn n lfty ht-bth f drng-mm, nrnd, ffsv prs fr yr vry ndy, ttntn-skng, shw-ff ntc. r s Frd wld pt t, bll--y sffr frm PS (Ppl-ssr Syndrm).

nd, f crs, smn wth yr bckgrnd, bll, s hypr-snstv t crtcsm nd s y vd th sm, skng th xclsv, mtl-dmrtn cmpny f fllw PS sffrs, wh spr y ny crtcsm, hwvr cnstrctv, t f fr tht y'll rcprct. Bt, bll, y rlly d nd t ndrstnd hw th wrld ss y, gy. nd snc 'm nrml prsn nd, s nrml prsn, smn wh ds nt blng t yr tght-knt crcl f gf-bll, trgh-hggng, grp-thnkng, drkd-p, hv-bz, wrd pl-tds, bll, cn ffr y tht hlp y s dsprtly nd n th rlty-chck dprtmnt. Hr gs.

Y knw, bll, y'v md cmplt, stnshng, ncmfrtbly crpy, mbrrssd-fr-y, dfs fl f yrslf wth tht phny-ss, whtby-gk (nd ys, bll, 'm rfrrng hr, mst spclly, t "bgr-skd", "dch-dsd" nd "tsslltd knbhd"--h brthr!), ttlly cllss, flk-wnnb, frtck-dd, grtsqly ndmtc, trsh-tlk rp f yrs, p-thrd thr.

Y'r jk, gy!-- frk-shw, slss-tr, prst, clwn-ct spctcl! sclly-ncmptnt, cybrg "tsslltd-knbhd" wh cn nly smlt mrgnl hmnd fnctnlty wthn th rtfcl rlty f Dltd-lnd nd, thn, nly bcs th hvy-hndd mdrtr (jst lk mm) s ttlly "n th bg" fr y. n thr wrds, bll, y r th prfct Dltd.

@Wow

"0.14 per DECADE"!!!!!

Oh my Gaaaaard! How will we cope - we're doomed, I tell you, doomed . . . er, but . . . Lord Stern, a High Priest of the Climate Scientology cult, reckons that global temperatures will have increased by 4oC by the end of the century. Is he right, Wow? If your current figures continue, and eye-wateringly huge increases in carbon emissions do not seem to have had any effects for the last 15 years, then by the end of the century global temps will have increased by a little over - wait for it - 1.2oC.

Is that it? I mean, is that what you lot have been kicking off about for the last 30 years? An increase of 1.2oC!

Look, Wow, save yourself the embarrassment. Take up a new alarmist cause - Cosmic Rubble Against People - apart from anything else it makes for a nice acronym! And when those noisy neighbours across the Milky Way hit us with a really large piece of debris your famous last words will be, "I told you all but you wouldn't listen . . ."

By David Duff (not verified) on 17 Feb 2013 #permalink

So, now that you're lie is exposed, you pretend that 0.14C per decade isn't anything????

"I was not the one who asserted that BEST confirms MBH98 and the hockey stick."

Nobody said you had.

You wouldn't. You're a denier.

BEST confirms MBH98's temperature reconstruction. Get over it.

"Oh my Gaaaaard! How will we cope – we’re doomed, I tell you, doomed "

By facing the problem as opposed to your denier Chamberlain strategy.

Bill, mike's beyond seeking professional help.

mike apparently doesn't do irony, either... still, that's a national trait, isn't it?

Wow!
You're back!
You left this quote from 'someone' on the BK thread:
......
"There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion. As the evidence piles up, you inevitably end up with near-unanimous agreement among actively researching scientists: a consensus of scientists."
BradK said this could not have been a quote from a scientist. You repeatedly said he was wrong and that these ARE the words of a scientist, yet you were strangely reluctant to name the 'scientist'..
You are now hanging out at this thread and complaining about Brad K to this audience.
BradK can't possibly argue with you here.
How about you reveal the source of that quote here Wow?
You obviously liked this quote from 'someone'.

By chameleon (not verified) on 17 Feb 2013 #permalink

"BradK said this could not have been a quote from a scientist"

And he knows HOW, exactly?

Tim, I think that chubby needs banning to Brayd's thread, it doesn't seem to be able to manage not to pretend to be Brad.

@Wow

"So, now that you’re lie is exposed, you pretend that 0.14C per decade isn’t anything????"

I didn't say that *I* agreed with your forecast, far from it, because I suspect that all attempts to pin down this magical, mythical thing called a 'global temperature' is about as dodgy as one the old bits of 'shrapnel' I used to sell back in the day!

But, I have given you a face-saver, Wow, by suggesting you switch causes, I can do no more!

By David Duff (not verified) on 17 Feb 2013 #permalink

"I didn’t say that *I* agreed with your forecast"

And I never made a forecast.

I told you what the past actually did. Last 16 years: trend +0.14C per decade.

Entirely NOT a "15-year cool stasis".

So stop pretending.

"I suspect that all attempts to pin down this magical, mythical thing called a ‘global temperature’ is about as dodgy as one the old bits of ‘shrapnel’ I used to sell back in the day!"

So you're now saying that your earlier post was extremely dodgy, and also you have past record of fraud.

Why don't you prove Brad K wrong Wow?
I don't know HOW he would know.
YOU would be the one who knows if this 'someone' responsible for the quote is a scientist.
YOU....as in YOU... Wow... copy/pasted the quote from somewhere by this 'someone'.
:-)

By chameleon (not verified) on 17 Feb 2013 #permalink

Duff,

Well, you sneered at me then, when I warned you, but perhaps now you will take my prognostications more seriously.

We will always sneer at you as long as you persist with the faux bonhomie packaged selective quoting idiocy.

But of course instead of engaging in your current witless occupation here you could try to elevate your brain power by engaging in some real study of what is happening and why.

Here is just one session which will be of benefit to you, the start alone will inform you, if you have the intellectual capacity to take it in that is and also consider the implications of what is being presented: Weather and Climate Summit - Day 3, Dr. Jennifer Francis .

"I don’t know HOW he would know."

Then his claim has no evidence for it. Until he has evidence, there is nothing needing saying.

You have supplied no evidence either Wow.
Who was responsible for that quote?
Why so coy Wow?
It would be snap easy to prove Brad wrong on this one by simply naming the scientist responsible for the quote.

By chameleon (not verified) on 17 Feb 2013 #permalink

Yawn. Kick yourself. You're stuck.

Indeed it is impossible to prove to Brad he's wrong.

Look at his insistence that Dr Jones hid something despite it being false and the evidence presented to him time and time again.

Or look at Duffer here, despite being shown a temperature trend in the past the he says is flat but isn't, he still insists he's right.

Or, indeed your own self. Never accepted any proof you are wrong, have you.

So it is laughably plain you're lying when you claim "it is easy to prove Brad wrong", since you deniers deny any evidence you are wrong. It is the reason why you're called deniers.

Indeed it is impossible to prove to Brad he’s wrong.

Indeed.

He's spent half his time making claims that have been very clearly rebutted when he presented them before (especially re: his Mann and Jones fetish). He's spent most of the rest making claims that - when people push - are based on his own rank ignorance of the evidence, despite having been pointed to copious evidence and having plenty of elapsed time to digest it. (And his ignorance extends not only to the core parts of climate science, but to the allegations that arise from his obsession with Mann and Jones.) He's spent the balance of his time misinterpreting other people, alternating between sloppy conflation and hyperfine parsing - both laden with a heavy dose of rank sophistry - apparently depending on which tactic he thinks suits his "argument".

He shows next to no signs of being interested in where the evidence leads, and only a fool or someone who hasn't been paying attention would allege that he actually is.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Feb 2013 #permalink

Speaking of "consensus of evidence" and sophistic hyperfine parsing, both Chameleon and Brad appear to have ignored the context which explains the meaning of the phrase - the "many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion" bit. This is par for the course for both of them though - for at least Brad it appears to be a tactic that is pulled out when something cannot be challenged on its merits.

For everyone else the contextual definition belies Brad's allegation of the phrase being a category error. Tellingly both of them are more focused on who said it than whether what was actually written is a valid and useful observation.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Feb 2013 #permalink

Hell, he's now making up yet more quotes about your statements, Lionel, just to pretend he as a point, when all he has is a pathology.

Lotharsson, not Lionel.

That's not surprising, Wow, as he's made up his own interpretations about what I've written several times in the past, often based on erroneous paraphrases. A pathology looks entirely plausible - when one points out his error in unambiguous terms he simply Gallops to the next thing.

... just to pretend he as a point...

That's why I've left his thread. He's merely doing loops just like he did at Lewandowsky's, and I'm satisfied I've said enough to demonstrate that he hasn't got a point. I also think it was worth giving BBD room for his approach which seemed to be a useful alternative - noting that BBD was already pointing out Brad was looping by the time I left.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Feb 2013 #permalink

Yup, he's still not answering BBD's questions, despite them being waiting for much much longer.

Yet all the idiots Brad and chubby want to know is who wrote a quote that Brad doesn't understand. They keep asking "Why so coy?" despite being answered, and yet ignore their extreme coyness over BBD's lack of answers from them.

I was looking for something I'd seen recently maybe at Eli's, maybe not, about how children's stories were constructed for childlike minds (think "Brad's" obsession with' hide the decline' and what he imagines 'Climategate' tells him), when I came across this quote from Gavin Schmidt declining attendance at the Curry/Tallcrank Lisbon Conference some years back:
I’m a little confused at what conflict you feel you are going to be addressing? The fundamental conflict is of what (if anything) we should do about greenhouse gas emissions (and other assorted pollutants), not what the weather was like 1000 years ago. Your proposed restriction against policy discussion removes the whole point. None of the seemingly important ‘conflicts’ that are *perceived* in the science are ‘conflicts’ in any real sense within the scientific community, rather they are proxy arguments for political positions.

No ‘conflict resolution’ is possible between the science community who are focussed on increasing understanding, and people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.

Spot on Gavin.

I would suggest, with all due deference, that a 'rise' in global temps of, er, 0.14 per DECADE and allowing for errors could be described as being about as flat as a witch's tit!

Whatever, it's absolutely nothing over which to lose a second of sleep!

By David Duff (not verified) on 17 Feb 2013 #permalink

Except Duffer the figure you've been given to crow over is misleading. If as you say temperatures have been 'more or less' static for that period, where did the heat come from to cause the then record Arctic melt of 2007and the even greater collapse of 2012?

That - should you care to ponder it - is likely the best explanation for why morons and idiots have no business commenting on science, until such time as they take the time and trouble to inform themselves. Which supercilious gasbags like you will never do.

"that a ‘rise’ in global temps of, er, 0.14 per DECADE and allowing for errors..."

...Could be over 0.3 per decade.

What you can't do is claim it as flat.

"Whatever, it’s absolutely nothing over which to lose a second of sleep!"

And this is based on you being dead before it fucks anyone over, right?

Sociopathic that's called.

James Taylor bounced onto Steve 'junkscience' -(how apt) Milloy to Marc Morano about the results of a survey of 'scientists' (industry shills) and engineers in Alberta Mordor.

Like Orcs one and all, these types, and those who like to tease us here, were thrown together in a pit from bits sans heart and brain. I'll bet Watts is about to pop out with this one and Delingpole too before long.

When will these droids learn that nature pays no attention to fricking surveys.

Wow and Lotharsson,
If you want to discuss BradK, then I respectfully suggest that you do that at his thread so that he can engage with you.
There is only one word I can think of that describes what you are doing here and it stars with C!
It makes for highly amusing reading but nothing else!
And Wow,
I notice you are still not forthcoming with the name of that 'someone' who is responsible for your copy/pasted quote?
Here is your latest claim Wow:
" Yet all the idiots Brad and chubby want to know is who wrote a quote that Brad doesn’t understand. They keep asking “Why so coy?” despite being answered..........."
DESPITE BEING ANSWERED??????????
Rubbish Wow!
Absolute and utter TOSH ! (to borrow that terminoly from JeffH yet again)
You have NOT ANSWERED that very simple question Wow!
Who is this 'someone' or maybe you could supply a link to the paper/article/speech/presentation or whatever?

By chameleon (not verified) on 17 Feb 2013 #permalink

We can discuss him here.

It's only if we want to talk to him we should go there.

You really don't understand anything, do you.

I notice Chameleon is still in denial as to the import of BEST's published results.

Maybe this is an opportune time to remind her of what Watt's promised before BEST produced its results:

I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.

And what did Anthony Watts do, when BEST proved Mann was correct?

Broke his promise and went into denial mode.

What a cranky duufus.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 17 Feb 2013 #permalink

Where did the quote come from Wow?
Linking back a few spaces does not answer that question.
Vince,
You asserted that BEST confirmsMBH98 and the hockey stick.
I have asked you to show me where that confirmation is in BEST!
What Watts says has nothing to do with it.

By chameleon (not verified) on 17 Feb 2013 #permalink

Where did Vince say that what Watts said had anything to do with BEST confirming MBH98?

Nowhere.

But Watts threw his temper tantrum because he'd hoped that BEST would be "the final nail in the coffin" of the hockey stick and when it wasn't, he lost his rag.

NOTE: the bit where BEST proves MBH98 is in the graph of temperatures over the past 250 years.

You can find it on the berkleyearth website.

Wow,
You are evading your question in favour of answering someone else's question.
Who is the 'someone' whose quote you copy/pasted.
BTW I have never read Watt's opinion of either BEST or MBH98.
What does Watts have to do with Vince's assertion that BEST confirms MBH98 and the hockey stick?
The only place I have seen that claim is here.
It is certainly not in BEST and I can't find any report/article/comment from Muller et al that asserts their work CONFIRMS the hockey stick and MBH98.
Neither does it PROVE the hockey stick and MBH98 Wow.
It neither PROVES or DISPROVES it.

By chameleon (not verified) on 17 Feb 2013 #permalink

Cammy's problem, as with PantieZ, seems to be she can't comprehend what the graphs are presenting. Or what the 'lines' are saying, in moron-speak.

If you want to discuss BradK, then I respectfully suggest that you do that at his thread so that he can engage with you.

Respectfully, hell no! (For starters, Brad clearly isn't respectful himself - see his recent spew at Bernard J. for just one example - so appeals either to or from respect are invalid.)

Then there's the fact that he's blatantly dishonest - just check out his twisting of BBD's straightforward agreement with a hypothetical for the sake of argument into an actual non-hypothetical agreement - and his subsequent slimy attempt at defending his it. And that's far from the first example of outright dishonesty. One of his specialities is asserting a particular definition for a term that it, and then asserting that people are agreeing with him because they continue to use the term after clarifying the sense in which they are using it is different to his definition. Another similar tactic is asserting a disputed proposition and then imputing the implications of the disputed aspects to the very people who dispute the aspect that he relies upon. (He' not only applying these tactics to commenters at Deltoid, but also to the writers of the "ClimateGate" e-mails.)

This is deeply slimy.

And even if we disregard those forms of sliminess, he's not arguing in good faith. He makes assertions he can't back up and then Gish Gallops to the next stop in his little loop when it becomes clear he hasn't got a case. After a while he's travelled all the way around the loop and starts reasserting previously rebutted claims - this is most clearly seen with his obsession with M & J, but if you watch long enough you'll see it on other topics too.

Brad is practically providing a case study demonstrating most of the ways to have a bad faith discussion.

Furthermore it's clear by now that he's a denialist based on the positions he takes and the fact that he isn't even aware of the basic set of evidence that leads to the key conclusions of climate science that he is denying. It's just as clear that he is delusional on a number of things...and that he simply will not let go of those delusions no matter what counter-evidence is presented.

I'm not interested in spending more time engaging with him because what I sought to demonstrate by doing so has been more than adequately achieved. Not to mention that others are continuing to show him up as having no clothes on these topics...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Feb 2013 #permalink

Correction: "...and his subsequent slimy attempt at defending his it."

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Feb 2013 #permalink

David Duff --- Take decadal averages of a global temperature product. Each decade has been warmer than the one before since the 1960s.

By David B. Benson (not verified) on 17 Feb 2013 #permalink

Let's put it this way Chameleon - your favourite purveyors of climate-misinformation pooh-poohed the "Hockey Stick" and looked forward to BEST supporting their scepticism.

As it turned out, BEST provided agreement, not argument, with Mann's "Hockey Stick", thus confirming that Mann was correct, not his idiot detractors such as Watts and McIntyre.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 17 Feb 2013 #permalink

I would suggest, with all due deference, that a ‘rise’ in global temps of, er, 0.14 per DECADE and allowing for errors could be described as being about as flat as a witch’s tit!

Whatever, it’s absolutely nothing over which to lose a second of sleep!

Erm, no.

Even at 0.14° C per decade, there would be a 2.8° C increase by the end of the next century. On top of the 0.8°C warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution, that amount of warming would push around 30% (or more) of higher taxa to extinction, and it would destroy cohesive global civilisation.

And that's assuming that the rate of warming is linear, and that it follows the median of current estimates. The actual trajectory appears to be greater than linear, and with several tipping points passing or soon to be passed, it is likely that the global temperature anomaly will be greater than 4° C by 2200.

Now I know that you don't give a shit about your decendants Duff, but I'm rather more concerned for my great-great grandchildren and the world in which they live.

It's about time you stopped fantasising about geriatric jugs, and started taking your Alzheimer's medication again.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 18 Feb 2013 #permalink

"Now I know that you don’t give a shit about your decendants Duff,"

Probably hasn't got any. They're expensive and stops him from complaining that the taxes are going to educate other people's kids, so why should HE pay for it?

He doesn't, of course, care about anyone else's descendants either. Because he's a sociopath.

AGW isn't "just for the grandchildren" anymore; it's affecting us now: food prices, insurance costs, not to mention all the weird weather.

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 18 Feb 2013 #permalink

For those who remember a certain A. Scott over at Lewandowsky's claiming that the surveys behind the LOG12 paper were totally flawed, and how he was going to "replicate" them - but didn't understand the priming effect meant his methodology couldn't - he appears to be providing more research material at the thread on the follow-up paper.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 18 Feb 2013 #permalink

Not only obsessive, but a tad...conspiratorial.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 19 Feb 2013 #permalink

'Karen' you can't even be relied upon to know what year it is!

Can you point out the bit at the link that supports your claim? Because I just read everything available there, and, you know what?, it's not there!

That's because this is your source, isn't it, you cut-and-paste cretin!

You really have no capacity to asses this stuff for yourself, do you? You just swallow it then regurgitate it whole...

Ah! Yes Bill. That 'hockey shtick'[ - another home of propaganda and nonsense listed amongst all these found on another such blog 'Global Warming Science' (to which I refuse to include a live link), the list included here:

Anthony Watts WUWT blog
Steven Goddard / Real Science
Tom Nelson blog
GlobalWarming.org
CFACT
Tallbloke Talkshop
Bob Tisdale SST blog
No Frakking Consensus
World Climate Report
Hockey Schtick blog
Science & Public Policy
GWPF
Foundry Energy/Environment
Haunting The Library
ICECAP
C3 Headlines
Clive Best
Paul Homewood
JoNova
Roger Pielke Jr blog
Roger Pielke Sr blog
Climate Depot
P Gosselin No Tricks Zone
Roy Spencer
Omnologos Climate
CO2 Science
Heliogenic Climate Change
Climate Change Dispatch
Climate Conversation
Climate Audit - Steve McIntyre
Hide the Decline
Bishop Hill
Digging in Clay
The Air Vent
Climate Realists
Minnesotans For GW
Inconvenient Skeptic
Die Klimazwiebel
Niche Modeling
Climate Lessons
Climate Skeptic
Ice Age Avengers
Lawrence Solomon blog
Honest Debate
Lucia's Blackboard
NZ Climate Science Coalition
Climate Change: Happ/Wolk
Climate Sanity
National Post Deniers Series
Global Warming Articles
Warwick Hughes
Reference Frame (Motl)
Real CO2 (Beck)
John Daly Climate Info
AGW Heretic Blog
Global Warming Hoax
US Senate EPW Report
Lucy Skywalker
Gore's Falsehoods
Heartland
Peer-Reviewed Papers
NIPCC
Climate Resistance
Paul Macrae - False Alarm
Jennifer Marohasy
Coleman's Corner (KUSI)
Global Warming Quiz
Skeptic GW Summary
Global Cooling
OISM - Petition and Paper
Independent Summary for Policymakers
RealClimate.org
The Green Agenda

Now that inclusion of 'RealClimate.org' second from bottom puzzled me until I hovered over the link and saw that the name was a spoof for 'populartechnology.net' which looks like more trash.

Gavin and co at the genuine RealClimate site should fall on this like a ton of bricks.

Make note all you members of The Wendy Club, including the following:

BK
chameleon
PentaxZ
Karen
Bolt4PM
David Duff
Olaus Petri
GSW
janam
spnangled drongo
Jonas N
A N Other

citing any of those sources is going to bring opprobrium down on your heads.

I happened to be looking at the numerous links between right-wing think-tanks, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, and the University of Buckingham earlier when I came across this summary of a 'Seminar on Climate Change' held at University of Buckingham 3 years ago:

Dr Bob Bradnock, Senior Visiting Fellow at Kings College London, gave a seminar on 14 October entitled “Climatic Change: A Threat to the Future?”. He began by disappointingly stating he was not really an expert on climate change, but then disarmingly pointed out that, such was the complexity of the subject and the range of disciplines needed to be fully expert, no one else was either.

He said that the climate has been changing throughout history and we can only be uncertain of the likely changes in the future. Our present interglacial warm period is just that, unusually warm, and the climate panic of thirty or forty years ago was about the earth becoming much colder. Rising CO2 levels do serve to increase global temperatures, but the dominant factor, solar radiation, is itself unpredictable. The earth’s orbit may be affecting climate over millennia.

Although the ‘average’ global temperature appears to have risen between the 1970s and 1990s, there has been no rise in the last decade, despite the continuing rises in CO2 in the atmosphere. Many other mechanisms, including the effect of the oceans and the clouds and the unknown positive and negative feedbacks in the system, mean that the level of certainty insisted on by the global warming / climate change consensus, with its talk of ‘climate change denial‘, is highly suspect.

In his discussion of whether warming might be raising sea levels, particularly in the Maldives and Bangladesh, Dr Bradnock mentioned that sea levels are actually 180 metres higher in South Africa than Sri Lanka. The land area of Bangladesh is growing, not falling; the shoreline in the Maldives appears to be going down relative to the land. Altogether, a lot to think about for both climate change proponents and opponents.

http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/latest-news/seminar-on-climate-change/

I count at least 20 thoroughly debunked denier talking points crammed in there. Unbelievable.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 19 Feb 2013 #permalink

A whistle-stop tour of the incestuous world of the UK science deniers.

The executive director of the think-tank the International Policy Network is Julian Morris - Visiting Professor in Economics at the University of Buckingham. The following people associated with the GWPF are also linked to the University of Buckingham - Benny Peiser, Prof Sir Alan Peacock, Dr Terence Kealey, Philipp Mueller, and Indur Goklany.

Nigel Lawson and Matt Ridley from the GWPF both have honorary degrees from the University of Buckingham.

Julian Morris has written articles with Indur Goklany and they are both associated with the US think-tank the Reason Foundation.

Julian Morris is on the editorial board of science denier vanity publisher Energy and Environment,

In 2010 the International Policy Network gave James Delingpole the Bastiat prize for 'journalism'. One of the judges that year was Matt Ridley.

Julian Morris is also an advisor to the Institute of Economic Affairs as is Alan Peacock. Michael Hintze is a trustee of the Institute of Economic Affairs and has given money to the GWPF.

And so it goes on and on.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 19 Feb 2013 #permalink

How could I forget, Ross McKitrick was Visiting Professor of Economics at University of Buckingham in 2009.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 19 Feb 2013 #permalink

.. and Terence Kealey was also a judge when Delingpole got the Bastiat prize.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 19 Feb 2013 #permalink

Benny Peiser currently has an office at Uni. Buckingham, I think.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 19 Feb 2013 #permalink

Lotharsson said about A. Scott:

Not only obsessive, but a tad…conspiratorial.

Obviously, he's just there to provide more material for Lewandowsky's research.

Which makes me wonder...perhaps A. Scott is a Lewandowsky sock puppet - fits with the "fraudulent survey responses" in the first paper, don't you think?
It's all starting to make sense.....

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 19 Feb 2013 #permalink

Just looking at Buckingham Uni - their course in "Global Affairs" seems to be at the centre of this dodginess.

So it's not science-based, but based on politics.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 19 Feb 2013 #permalink

So it's not science-based, but based on politics?
:-) :-) :-)
ROFL!
And of course the comment re the carbon tax for this Feb thread is what?
Science based?
Chuckle :-)

By chameleon (not verified) on 20 Feb 2013 #permalink

It’s all starting to make sense…..

LOL!

(Don't tell anyone - no-one else is supposed to know!)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 Feb 2013 #permalink

Speaking of politics as opposed to science.
It has been an interesting 24hours in Australia.
The Greens have decided to withdraw their partnership with Labor and the latest polls are not indicating any good news for the Labor Party either.
Of course the 'other side' is perfectly capable of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory :-)

By chameleon (not verified) on 20 Feb 2013 #permalink

And of course the comment re the carbon tax for this Feb thread is what?

A demonstration of your confusion between science and policy responses to science.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 20 Feb 2013 #permalink

Just want to test something...

"NikFromNYS" is seriously undermedicated.

And Firefox rules...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 20 Feb 2013 #permalink

chameleon:

And of course the comment re the carbon tax for this Feb thread is what?
Science based?
Chuckle :-)

Perhaps your moniker should be changed to chuckle-head.

Whatever, you appear to have trouble grasping that political actions to counter the the destruction of our habitat , from excess use of fossil fuels to slash and burn agriculture and from overfishing to overexploitation of forest resources should be informed by science.

There are some indicators that this is so but unfortunately we have the likes of you who wish to not only continue polluting the planet but also the discussions on the science and the political discourse which follows. It is the likes of you who delay concerted action on tackling many of the planetary problems we face.

You are either one of those small minded individuals so prominent in 'The Wendy Club' and who use the sources outlined in my comment above which was held up in moderation, failing to understand that these are propaganda sites worked by shills of the vested interests that are trying to control the populations thought processes and actions or are you another tool for those vested interests?

And of course the comment re the carbon tax for this Feb thread is what?

A rhetorical question pointing out that deniers were all alarmist about the consequences of the tax yet have been absolutely wrong about it. Yet still whine on about how bad the carbon tax is, demonstrating their denial of evidence and facts inconvenient to their ideology.

You'll notice that "Git Says Whut?" ran with that meme of lolicons.

chubby is like the sycophant of the school bully, standing behind the big lummox and then leaning out from behind to say to the kid being bullied "Yeah, right!" and waving their fist like they're actually capable of using it.

You know, actual scum.

Oh, dear.

I've been skimming Brad's thread every day or two for the unintentional comedy, but maybe not for much longer. Brad's recent "contributions" have skidded into the realm of tragicomedy - or maybe just tragedy - with his delusional comparison of his scientific expertise being on a par with that of John Cook, his bigoted slur against John Cook, his remarkably misguided invocation of "$90 billion", his slanderous misrepresentation of Schneider, and even his sad belief that Brad gets to decide who is "welcome" to comment on his jail thread - never mind his rampant projection.

And after all his shucking and jiving, IIRC he still hasn't backed up a single contrarian scientific claim with any robust evidence. Hmmmmmm.......

And as to his other obsession, perhaps next time he alleges that ClimateGate shows that climate science is corrupt, someone might ask him which peer-reviewed papers were retracted as a result. Then place bets on how fast he throws out a dissembled smokescreen and a series of changed subjects!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 Feb 2013 #permalink

About the only continuing use for Bray's idiocy is when he continues to claim this is HIS thread and that he's been requested especially to "aid" everyone's understanding here of the "facts and truth".

This is entirely what happens when the deluded moron is given publicity and no consequence.

China to introduce a carbon dioxide tax...
China will proactively introduce a set of new taxation policies designed to preserve the environment, including a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, according to a senior official with the Ministry of Finance (MOF).

The government will collect the environmental protection tax instead of pollutant discharge fees, as well as levy a tax on carbon dioxide emissions,...

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-02/19/c_132178898.htm

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 20 Feb 2013 #permalink

That's 'cos the Chinese are in on the communist/fascist UN world government takeover bid. Obviously.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 20 Feb 2013 #permalink

Monckton is currently lying his arse off on Tasmanian ABC radio.

It's the biggest Gish gallop ever, and he has a new twist on his "no warming for 15/16/23 years.

I'll link to the mpeg later...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 20 Feb 2013 #permalink

WhyTF does our ABC use our taxes to give a platform to cranks?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 20 Feb 2013 #permalink

Lotharsson,
if you have a comment about Brad K then show some intestinal fortitude and make the comment where you can legitimately engage on this blog.
The only word I can think of to describe your behaviour re Brad K starts with C and ends with D.
What's the point of making that comment here?
If you move accross to the correct thread, you may get some decent traction and decent engagement.
At the moment you are just thumping your own chest.

By chameleon (not verified) on 20 Feb 2013 #permalink

Lionel,
get a grip!
I am neither your enemy nor an enemy of the environment.
Your accusations re 'the likes of you' are baseless and counter productive.

By chameleon (not verified) on 20 Feb 2013 #permalink

If you move accross to the correct thread, you may get some decent traction and decent engagement.

P.T. Barnum used to give his groteques similar jobs.

if you have a comment about Brad K then show some intestinal fortitude and make the comment where you can legitimately engage on this blog.

Grow up, chameleon. This transparent attempt at primary-school level manipulation won't work.

For one thing, your argument is based on a false assertion. I've more than adequately demonstrated "intestinal fortitude" via precisely the mechanism you espouse - legitimate attempts to engage with Brad.

For another, the fact that Brad doesn't actually want to legitimately engage in a good faith discussion is obvious to just about everyone here except you, so the result of further "engagement" that you hold out as some sort of prize is an illusion.

Thirdly, as Brad has demonstrated, he is perfectly capable of reading comments here and responding on his jail thread which provides yet another reason your claims are moot.

You sure pack a lot of wrong into one sentence!

The only word I can think of ...

We are familiar with your frequent invocation of the fallacious argument from personal ignorance. No need to further demonstrate it.

What’s the point of making that comment here?

To discuss current phenomena on the blog, and to discuss denialist tactics being used here. One may legitimately discuss these things without confining oneself to the thread on which the denialist is confined.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 Feb 2013 #permalink

Lotharsson?
Your argument and your comments are about BradK.
Of course you CAN make them here.
You CAN go to any deltoid thread wherever you choose and make comments about Brad K.
But why not go to the relevant thread despite the fact that you correctly point out that you CAN say it here?

By chameleon (not verified) on 20 Feb 2013 #permalink

But why not go to the relevant thread ...?

This is not a difficult concept, and has been explained to you before - the Brad thread is not the only "relevant thread" unless I wish to speak to Brad.

I don't. I've done plenty of that and now I have other priorities.

This thread is sufficiently relevant, and I find it a better choice under the current circumstances. For example this thread reaches a different audience and has a much much higher signal-to-noise ratio (due primarily to a distinct lack of Brad's trademark "engagement". And yes - those were scare quotes.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 Feb 2013 #permalink

Nope,
You've got basically the same people commenting here Lotharsson.
In actual fact I think there are over 2,000 more comments at the BradK thread and if we count the number of times it has been mentioned here as well; I think the traffic is probably way higher than here don't you?
But that's OK.
You are indeed correct that you CAN comment here.
It's also correct that Brad K CAN'T comment here.
I still think your behaviour is a bit questionable despite the fact that you CAN do it.

By chameleon (not verified) on 20 Feb 2013 #permalink

Chameleon, it's not hard for everyone else but you to understand.

The Brad thread is not about Brad per se; it is to prevent Brad contaminating the other threads. If I want to talk to Brad it's appropriate to go there. If I want to talk about him in a place where his crap doesn't overwhelm the discussion, I can't do that there so I do it here.

The fact that you can't understand this doesn't change the facts.

In actual fact I think there are over 2,000 more comments at the BradK thread and if we count the number of times it has been mentioned here as well; I think the traffic is probably way higher than here don’t you?

Thank you for reinforcing my point about the poor signal-to-noise ratio on the Brad thread.

Oh, wait...you didn't mean to do that?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 Feb 2013 #permalink

Brad's an idiot. He's now asking for Hockey Sticks not made with tree rings. *Precisely* something I've posted in response to his nonsense before.

Clearly, he is not capable of integrating information incompatible with his world view. He just ignores it.

Has he offered any opinions on ocean acidification? Or was that not on his script, do you think?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 20 Feb 2013 #permalink

He’s now asking for Hockey Sticks not made with tree rings.

This is the same guy who confidently asserted that Mann was not just scientifically corrupt but a criminal, yet he is deeply ignorant of most of the relevant evidence about Mann's work and the work of those who claim to have rebutted it - and that's after I pointed him at a whole bunch at Lewandowky's and other people have pointed him at a whole bunch here. The same goes for his ECS position and for the implications of a couple of degrees or more of warming.

He appears to be merely regurgitating what he read at denialist websites - which he claims he can't learn anything from because it's not challenging his beliefs - but then doesn't learn anything significant from places that do. So I think this is probably an accurate diagnosis:

Clearly, he is not capable of integrating information incompatible with his world view.

(And that extends to his belief that he's "running rings around his opponents" with respect to the science.)

Either that diagnosis, or he's just not particularly competent when it comes to scientific evidence.

Ironically, a certain John Cook tends to point out that information that challenges a belief system can end up reinforcing it, depending on how it is presented. Cook bases this claim on 3rd party scientific research (that, even more ironically, Brad would probably deny is scientific because he only deigns to recognise the "physical sciences".) That might explain Brad's animus towards Cook.

I reckon Dunning and Kruger would have a field day with this one.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 21 Feb 2013 #permalink

For another, the fact that Brad doesn’t actually want to legitimately engage in a good faith discussion is obvious to just about everyone here except you

Oh, don't worry, it's obvious to chubby too.

Chubby doesn't care.

Chubby just wants to pretend that you're a coward for not engaging someone whose brain never engages into reality so that she can pretend you're a bad person.

Brad's an idiot.

There really isn't any more to it than that.

Chuckle-Head:

In actual fact I think there are over 2,000 more comments at the BradK thread and if we count the number of times it has been mentioned here as well; I think the traffic is probably way higher than here don’t you?

You could share Brad's epitaph. 'Never mind the quality, feel the width.'

I think you meant "thickness".

chubby's claim is no different from"EAT SHIT! A BILLION FLIES CAN'T BE WRONG!".

And, by the same logic, Lance Armstrong is the greatest sportsman in history...

Heck, since Bray is referencing this thread, by chubby's measure, does this make this thread more important?

Uni. California study demonstrates links between pro-tobacco lobby/Tea Party/ Fox News/Climate disinfo/etc...:

"'To quarterback behind the scenes, third party efforts’: the tobacco industry and the Tea Party"

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/07/tobaccocontrol-2…

Stanton Glantz:
“Nonprofit organizations associated with the Tea Party have longstanding ties to tobacco companies, and continue to advocate on behalf of the tobacco industry’s anti-tax, anti-regulation agenda.”

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 21 Feb 2013 #permalink

…the conservative media, including Fox News and the network of conservative talk radio hosts and bloggers, provided a unified forum to amplify these messages. The tobacco industry has played a part in building this network, both by working with Roger Ailes (who subsequently became Fox News CEO) and funding the National Journalism Center which ‘train[s] budding journalists in free market political and economic principles.’

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 21 Feb 2013 #permalink

To think, The Australian is now an organ of disinformation working for a foreign political lobby.

Might as well have them on the same rack as the "Green Left Weekly" and any other rags working for foreign political masters.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 21 Feb 2013 #permalink

Whilst I'm posting audio, I will point out an audiovisual presentation given by Peter Stott and Linda Mearns when Peter was over for the recent Australian IPCC meeting.

The direct link to the file seems not to work, so if one goes to:

http://www.utas.edu.au/channel-utas/media/streaming-media-channels

and looks for "Climate Change Science & Adaptation Challenges" it's easily enough found. It's currently the first, but it will descend in the list over time.

John Ralston Saul's talk is worth catching too.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 21 Feb 2013 #permalink

WOW!
You're very funny!
This comment of yours reads like a hyperbolic paraphrase from that quote from 'someone' (aka Cook) that you pasted a few days ago:
"chubby’s claim is no different from”EAT SHIT! A BILLION FLIES CAN’T BE WRONG!”.
:-)

By chameleon (not verified) on 21 Feb 2013 #permalink

Our resident halfwit does the TYPE! TYPE! TYPE! again.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 21 Feb 2013 #permalink

And also appears to be unaware of the meaning of the word 'hyperbolic' - or 'paraphrase', for that matter - that, of course, is no reason for her not to use it, since, in her world, reality is whatever you want it to be!

But maybe I'm wrong; for those of us back down here on Earth, would you be kind enough to point out the link between a quote from John Cook and what you've just typed out? Ta.

(I sense another 'James Delingpole said' moment coming on...)

...would you be kind enough to point out the link between a quote from John Cook and what you’ve just typed out?

I suspect she's merely following Brad's ever more desperate lead in (personally denigrating Cook and) putting words into Cook's mouth.

Cook wrote a piece about denial of the scientific consensus that humans are disrupting the climate. It explicitly indicates that there are two ingredients to scientific consensus. Firstly, a "consensus of evidence" - a metaphorical turn of phrase which is immediately explained by Cook, only for Brad to pretend that the explanation didn't exist in order to attack a strawman. Cook cites an analysis of the strength of the "consensus of evidence" in the literature (and for variety, here is a more recent rough attempt). He explains that as the "consensus of evidence" piles up it almost inevitably leads to the second aspect of scientific consensus - near-unanimous agreement amongst the relevant scientists. Cook then cites polls that shows that the general public thought there was still significant disagreement amongst scientists about the simple question of whether global warming is happening.

Brad argues that this is an attempt to revive an "argument from consensus" - about which he has a particular fetish - and from context he means within climate science because he talks about said argument being "banned" from science for 200+ years. Needless to say it's obvious that the piece argues no such thing - firstly, the emphasis on evidence being the cause of near-unanimous agreement here, and secondly the subject being the denial by the general public of the scientific consensus. Ironically, said general public includes one Brad Keyes who denies the scientific consensus on a number of things, but denies denying them and utterly fails to scientifically back up his positions when challenged. The rest of Cook's article discusses how general public denial of the scientific consensus has been cultivated - including at least one aspect that seems to fit Brad's methods quite admirably. One suspects that Brad's hissy fit about Cook helps to distract from Brad's own denial and the parts of the article that discuss denial cultivation methods.

So, back to chameleon. Given someone allegedly possessing a degree requiring basic comprehension skills has mangled what Cook was saying to suit his own purposes, it's not surprising that chameleon has latched on to the concept of making unfounded allegations about him as well.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 22 Feb 2013 #permalink

I should point out that Brad says he doesn't deny AGW, which if correct probably means that he doesn't deny that "humans are disrupting the climate" as per Cook's piece. He merely denies the consensus on climate sensitivity and the severity of the consequences.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 22 Feb 2013 #permalink

He merely denies the consensus on climate sensitivity and the severity of the consequences.

Which takes us right back to the point of Cook's piece!

Never met a Philosophy / PoMo-ish academic graduate yet who didn't fetishize semantics and wasn't happy to beguile the hours with pointless, quasi-mystical definitional disputes that I find pole-axingly dull (hence the loaded language!)*. I'm with Pinker - the words are all riding on our thoughts, and not vice-versa (with some symbiosis, certainly)...

Brunning-Kruger appears to be asking us to believe that the Scientific method insists that there somehow cannot be a consensus, even when there clearly is one -one of those irrefutable facts they find so galling - and that it's illegitimate to point out that the overwhelming majority of people who actually know what they're doing have examined the evidence and concluded this is almost-certainly the situation we find ourselves in (because I'm always going to omit the key phrase!)

One wonders how we could ever really know anything, then!

Absurd! I mean, really - is that the best they can do? I blame Popper and Feynman, doubtlessly unfairly, for empowering these numpties.

*My favourite all-time quote from an actual discussion with one - "the problem with Chomsky is that he assumes that there are facts". Academeologists should be able to give an approximate date to that conversation from that one sentence alone!

Brad argues that this is an attempt to revive an “argument from consensus”

Though you'll note he has a couple of times resorted to just such an argument from consensus and refuses to acknowledge that other deniers, such as chubby, use that precise argument several times.

He's in denial about their actions, not merely of the facts.

What unfounded allegations were those Bill?
I don't believe I made any allegations about Cook?
I just wanted to know who the 'someone' was that Wow quoted.
When we finally discovered (with your help) who that 'someone' was, my only comment was that his quals did not fit inside the definition that was discussed.
Oh! I did also point out that the quote was lifted from an opinion piece which further disqualified it as per the discussed definition.

By chameleon (not verified) on 22 Feb 2013 #permalink

...has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office”...

...which would require the 17 year linear trend on this graph to be flat or falling.

Hmmm...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 22 Feb 2013 #permalink

Oops!
The question was for Lotharsson.
My apologies Bill.

By chameleon (not verified) on 22 Feb 2013 #permalink

Except that it was Bill who revealed the identity of Wow's 'someone'.

By chameleon (not verified) on 22 Feb 2013 #permalink

What unfounded allegations were those Bill?

"Unfounded allegations" was my characterisation of your "...reads like a hyperbolic paraphrase from that quote from ‘someone’ (aka Cook) that you pasted a few days ago...". The reason your comment drew a skeptical response is that readers don't see how it "reads like a hyperbolic paraphrase of that quote", which makes your claim look like an unfounded allegation. Feel free to explain how in your mind what Wow said is like a hyperbolic paraphrase of a measured statement about the two aspects of scientific consensus.

You might also wish to attempt to rebut Wow's characterisation of your own logic while you're at it, seeing that currently seems to stand unchallenged by your characterisation.

I did also point out that the quote was lifted from an opinion piece which further disqualified it as per the discussed definition.

I also love the way you're apparently totally on board with restricting what is "science" to Brad's perversely limited definition.

But I love even more the way you're totally on board with retrospectively "disqualifying" from discussion in a thread created to confine someone who apparently has a grand total of zero science degrees, a piece about science by someone with two science degrees who appears to be engaged in still further scientific research. I love further that you do this on a basis that I don't even recall being mentioned, and despite the piece appearing in The Conversation, a forum which is almost entirely dedicated to academics writing about the subjects of their expertise for communication to and discussion with the general public.

It says so much about you.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 22 Feb 2013 #permalink

Oh wait, the Met Office didn't say by way of 'confirmation' what The Oz claims Pachuri 'acknowledged'.

“what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850.”

Yes, chubby you've said nothing. We know.

Please use the appropriate number of words.

PS I find it highly amusing that you're here talking about the other thread when you find it "highly highly amusing" that people are here talking about that thread.

You never look in the mirror, do you.

…which would require the 17 year linear trend on this graph to be flat or falling.

Like down the up elevator. Do you get that chuckle-head?

I dunno, where is Duffer with his "flat lines mean nothing".

I guess it's only a problem when people he disagrees with say it, huh?

I always get a good laugh when scientifically challenged deniers such as Keyes and Monckton claim "science is not about consensus, consensus does not exist in science". Nothing could be further from the truth (of course we all know how dishonest the likes of Keyes and Monckton are).

Are they suggesting that "measurement" is not a science? Measurement is surely the basis for all science since if we couldn't measure we could not do experimental science.

The history of science shows great confusion when researchers in one part of the world tried to compare their results with those in an other part. The biggest problem was the use of differing measuring scales and standards.

Eventually consensus was reached among scientists by setting up a number of bodies (General Conference on Weights and Measures, International Bureau of Weights and Measures and International Committee for Weights and Measures) in 1875 to set international standards of measurement. Surely this is a "consensus". With out it, science would never have achieved the world wide acceptance of scientific results that has allowed the technological developments of the past 100 years.

Anytime a denier says "consensus is not science" they should be ridiculed and told that they are ignorant of the history of science and are behaving in a dishonest manner and one that is most detrimental to the future well being of present and future generations.

They are to be despised.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 22 Feb 2013 #permalink

They are to be despised.

And doubly so when they use Feynman as cover and miss-characterise the words of Schneider and the work of others.

The likes of Keyes are beyond contempt.

Ian, consensus does not exist in REAL science. I thought you knew.

Anytime a denier says “consensus is not science” they should be ridiculed and told that they are ignorant of the history of science and are behaving in a dishonest manner and one that is most detrimental to the future well being of present and future generations.

We've done that.

Oh yes.

Big time.

They are to be despised.

Oh, yes.

Anytime a denier says “consensus is not science” they should be ridiculed and told that they are ignorant of the history of science...

It was pointed out to Mr. Keyes much earlier that "scientific consensus" is practically synonymous with "accepted scientific theory", and thus that pointing out accepted scientific theory - and the strength of the acceptance, and the strength of the underlying evidence - to the general public is a necessary and vital part of communicating science to the general public.

The fact that he circled back to claim either or both of:

1) that "argument from consensus" was being used (as he appears to imply) within the relevant branch of science in place of argument from evidence, despite zero evidence of this happening;

2) scientists cannot legitimately point out the consensus when communicating science to non-scientists (and they certainly can't legitimately assess the strength of the general agreement amongst the relevant set of scientists!);

indicates either bad faith or difficulties with comprehension and logic - or both. (Based on some of his comments I still suspect he has difficulties separating (1) and (2) in his own mind.)

One can certainly reasonably conclude that he is attempting to delegitimise the communication of certain subsets of science to the public, but there's also a pretty good case based on examples where he has been asked for reasons/evidence for specific claims (and BBD's doing it again right now) that he doesn't know (and doesn't want to know) the evidence underlying the scientific consensus in the areas relevant to his claims.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 22 Feb 2013 #permalink

Head vices on

Graham Lloyd the Australian
In a wide-ranging interview on topics that included this year's record northern summer Arctic ice growth, the US shale-gas revolution, the collapse of renewable energy subsidies across Europe and the faltering European carbon market, Dr Pachauri said no issues should be off-limits for public discussion.

By john byatt (not verified) on 23 Feb 2013 #permalink

Ho ho - the NYT has noticed the Lewandowsky affair, phases 1 and 2 -

So, a paper about a tendency among this group to believe in conspiracy theories was met by … a conspiracy theory.

Dr. Lewandowsky and his collaborators were taken aback, but not for long. As far-fetched ideas about the survey ricocheted around the Internet, they realized that manna was falling on them from heaven.

And I love the sting of faint praise in the tail of the obligatory (at least in the liberal media - Fox and the Oz don't bother!) 'balance' observation -

Indeed, some of the strongest online reaction to Dr. Lewandowsky’s original paper came from intelligent climate contrarians who were offended at being labeled part of the tinfoil hat brigade. Whatever you think of their position on global warming, some of them have remarkable statistical skills and have made contributions, generally modest, to the scientific literature.

The link's to McI, so don't go, it'll only encourage him. 'Remarkable' is indeed a great choice of words! ;-)

another regurgitator... do you imagine anyone imagines there's any content to be found at the end of that link?

you're as stupid as karen - scroll up to see her latest drive-by vomited imbecility, which fell with an almighty 'clunk', along with the usual brownish splat; your latest cretinism is no different

do you ever despair of your inability to be any better? i suppose, in it's own way, DK is a mercy; if you could really see just how galactically pointless and worthless you really are you'd die of the shame of it...

Keyes has really jumped the shark now.

Ian Forrester argues against the proposition that "consensus does not exist in science" (my emphasis) which appears to be a reasonable paraphrase of one of Keyes' positions despite Keyes feebly asserting it is not. Keyes ridicules this argument on the basis that "science is not consensus" (my emphasis). Hands up if you caught that sly redefinition? Now, hands up if you see the logical error in that "rebuttal"? (And this is from a guy who claims to have a philosophy degree, which normally entails some sort of competence at basic parsing and basic logic!)

For good measure Brad bases some sort of wild conspiracy theory, complete with another bout of rampant projection, comprising an "alarmist edifice built on such an absurdly feeble basis" on what Ian didn't say, and subsequently doubles down by expanding the list of people to which he imputes his false redefinition. They sure teach 'em good how to raise a bunch of strawmen in them philosophisin' classes!

Speaking of parsing and logic, in response to my previous comment Brad has time to look up and quote an earlier response of his that does not address the comment in question - but he says he doesn't have time to read all of the comments responding to him, let alone all of the references provided. Around and around the little denial loop he goes and never shall new evidence interrupt his mantra invocation.

Brad's also arguing that scientists have "systematically [overestimated] the threat of anthropogenic warming” on the basis of - wait for it - secondary textual analysis! This propensity to avoid primary sources in favour of secondary textual analysis which typically leads to a fallacious appeal to authority is a common logical failing for Brad. In this case he has avoided all published research on the question - including a recent paper that IIRC Brad was pointed to that finds the opposite, and evidence for the motivations for it which are illustrated by some of the scientists Brad cites.

This is ROFL-worthy foolishness from the guy who (for example) is sufficiently incompetent at climate science that he implied that scientists were significantly overestimating the likely value of ECS - but didn't seem to be aware of the evidence that strongly rebuts his preferred value (nor the evidence that pretty strongly supports theirs). This is also the guy who alleges there's some sort of planetary thermostat based on his argument from personal ignorance.

I admit I was wrong - the comedy continues unabated, and Brunning-Kruger is an exceedingly apt moniker.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 23 Feb 2013 #permalink

Who or what is prey for the Germans, pray?

another regurgitator...

...who is tellingly slow off the mark, only regurgitating once the piece in question is highlighted by the reliably unreliable Mr. Watts, apparently entirely unaware that the central claim he is regurgitating is laughably trivially demonstrated to be false.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 23 Feb 2013 #permalink

Lothar, I do agree. Its the fault of Elders of fossil fuel that the hiatus came about (despite what the crystal balls are telling us). The German shamans have been stabbed in the back, for sure. ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 23 Feb 2013 #permalink

Olaus,
There seems to be a lot of backstabbing going on at the moment.

By chameleon (not verified) on 23 Feb 2013 #permalink

There seems to be a lot of backstabbing going on at the moment.

...because "backstabbing" means making comments in public where everyone including the subject can read them, right?

Oh, wait, you were referring to Brad's tortured interpretation of Schneider's words? Or maybe his putting words into Ian Forrester's mouth? Or his determined missing of Cook's point? Or his denigration of Mann and Jones based on his personal ignorance? There's so much to choose from it's hard to know which one(s) you mean.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 23 Feb 2013 #permalink

Olaus is obviously in a parallel universe on a parallel thread - hell, now we're apparently getting bizarre acusations containing references to the Dolchstoßlegende, which says a lot about Olaus' interests (and projections).

Plus, appropriately enough, we can add 'backstabbing' to that ever-growing list; Words that Chebbie may well Type Out, but Does Not Understand.

(And you forgot the smiley) ;-(

@76 Lotharsson

Thomas Jefferson stated:
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.
This certainly applies to our present crop of idiots.

Lotharsson

including a recent paper that IIRC Brad was pointed to that finds the opposite...

Yes. I have made IIRC three precise references to that paper now with the latest copied here:

Brysse, K., et al., Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama? Global Environ. Change
(2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.008

Keyes is another classic 'won't look in case it pricks his bubble' type.

Graham Lloyd the Australian
In a wide-ranging interview on topics that included this year’s record northern summer Arctic ice growth

A parallel universe in which ice grows in summer.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 23 Feb 2013 #permalink

Dear Bill, here's a clue for ya: the Elders-analogy is about lack of evidence for "the well funded right wing conspiracy against climate science" (and the data confirming "it's worse than we thought!!!!) ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 23 Feb 2013 #permalink

You mean apart from all the information from Peter Gleick's investigative journalism into HI? Or the other "think tanks" that have been shown recently to be nothing more than a front to shovel around slush money to "charities" that, just co-incidentally, lobby against restrictions to those funding parties?

You mean no evidence if you exclude all the evidence, right?

OP

Are you a Kochhead too?

Looking from the inside out into the bright light is hard ain't it?

If it's from a Koch, Olap will swallow it.

I count at least 16 words Olap apparently doesn't know the meaning of. I say apparently because even Olap can't be that stupid, no matter how long he's been associated with Jonarse.

He certainly don't know the meaning of 'projection'.

C'mon deltoids, the rapid global warming and the massiv well funded right wing conspiracy against cimate sicience, have something in common. Nobody seems to find any proof of their existance. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 23 Feb 2013 #permalink

Well, you sure proved chek wrong.

You really DIDN'T understand any of those words!

Nobody seems to find any proof of their existance [sic].

I have plenty of proof of my existence thanks and this post is one such.

Oh, no, say it ain't so!!!

Even Mr. Pachauri, the well-known 'dhobi-wallah', ooops, sorry, I mean railway engineer, in charge of the IPCC has admitted that there has been no global warming for the last 17 years!

Even worse, this rascal had the temerity to suggest that people have the right to question the science, indeed, that questioning was good!

Whodathunkit?!

By David Duff (not verified) on 24 Feb 2013 #permalink

Epic Fail.

Duff is even slower than Olaus with the latest already debunked talking point. Although Duff does add his own brand of racism to the pathetic effort.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 24 Feb 2013 #permalink

Ol' Duffer seems unaware of the fact that his 'railway engineer' was a Bush-era Republican placeman.

Unfortunately for such shenanigans, he took the job seriously.

So did he say it or didn't he?

By David Duff (not verified) on 24 Feb 2013 #permalink

Yes, you did say it, Duffer, you UKIP nazi bastard.

Last 16 years trend: +0.14C/decade.

Hey Deltoids!

What do you say, guys, you take a break from your usual, motor-mouth, clap-trap hive-yapping for just a second or two and celebrate that the secret "crush" you sicko's have on gulag-utopias (the foundation, as we all know, of your whole enviro-humbug drill) has just been revealed for all to see!:

-Google: "climate depot Australian Academics: Democracy should be replaced by 'elite warrior leadership' in order to fight global warming" A delightful read!

-And for a good evisceration of the whole deal, above,--from a "lefty" perspective, no less--Google: "resilience the secret of herding cats" ( Warning! This last article might be offensive to those overly-sensitive Deltoids whose frankly unattractive, spastic-temper-tantrum, spoiled-brat , little-snot, high-dudgeon reflexes are triggered by exposures of their trough-hugging, do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do hypocrisies.)

-And just for yucks, comrades, a couple of oldies-but-goodies: Google "youtube Larry Grathwohl on Ayer's plan" and the Wikipedia article for "Richard Parncuff" (especially the entry's discussion of "Dick's" "Politics--Global Warming and the Death Penalty")

Hey Deltoids! Did you catch, amidst all that "thinkin'-big", doom-butt chit-chat, above, that improbable business about how you wimp-toids are all poised to morph into "elite warriors" and all?!! Oh brother! I mean, like, I haven't had such a guffaw at the expense of you macho-fakes and your preposterous, scary-dude pretensions since that "Climate Hawks" knee-slapper, laughing-stock, slicko-PR, dud-on-arrival, re-branding attempt of yours that quickly sunk into oblivion beneath waves of blogospheric, cat-call merriment. Oh brave new world!--Jeez.

So, Deltoids, maybe you complete weenie-rejects figure if you can just repackage yourselves as "elite eco-warriors" then maybe the popular-kids and the school athletes will finally quite making fun of you and calling you a "Dork!" and all (those all too abundant scenes of your youthful humiliation are always at play in a continuous loop within your "still-angry-about-it!", vindictive, "they'll-be-sorry-when-I'm-a-commissar!, brain-washed pea-brains--right Deltoids?). Is that it, Deltoids?

Or, maybe, Deltoids, it's more along the lines that you see yourselves, when all suited up in your "elite warrior" leathers and jack-boots, as finally getting your wanker-ass laid. Right? What a joke, that last! Let's get real Deltoids--what woman would ever want to get it on with one of you nerd-pukes knowing that at least one of your forefingers, its nail chewed to the quick, has spent its every waking moment either groping for goobers in some one nostril or another or transporting said nasal-harvest to some one creep-out, greenshirt pie-hole or another to Gaia's greater glory! You really, really don't want to get your booger-eating hopes up here, Deltoids.

Hate to break the news to you aspiring "elite warriors", but you Deltoids need to just stick with your little-sneak, tattle-tale, suck-up, chicken-little, Tim!-the-big-boys-are-being-mean-to-me!, I-just-can't-stand-it-when-the-girls-all-laugh-at-me-when-I-ask-them-for-dates-and-then-you-see-them-later-in-little-groups-all-giggling-and-sneakin'-peeks-at-me-and-pointing-in-my-direction-when-they-think-I'm-not-looking!, whiny-crybaby, in-your-face-sell-out-parasite schtick. At least you're credible in that mode, guys.

Graham Lloyd does it again:

Dr Pachauri said the record accumulation of Arctic ice this northern summer - following a record melt last winter - was consistent with the current understanding of climate change.

You'd think that somebody paid to write this crap would at least pay attention to what he is writing.

Dr Pachauri's views contrast with arguments in Australia that views outside the orthodox position of approved climate scientists should be left unreported.

I see, Graham's angling to up his income by being given a new weekly column discussing the evidence that moon landings were faked.

Unlike in Britain, there has been little publicity in Australia given to recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies in Britain and the US of what has been a 17-year pause in global warming.

Does Graham Lloyd use James Delingpole and other secondary sources instead of primary sources? That would explain why he has yet again made a mistake that warrants a correction and apology, again.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 24 Feb 2013 #permalink

Can we just get rid of the under-medicated freak altogether?

Seriously, his posts amount to nothing more than a litany of poo-based abuse - they are as devoid on content as his nappies (sorry, moron, 'diapers') were brimming.

Hey mike, isn't that your momma coming? She's looking really cross - and is that the secateurs she's holding?

Who's mike?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 24 Feb 2013 #permalink

Vince,

yr: "Who's mike?"

Good question, Vince. "mike" is the "little-guy", you hold in such contempt, the "uppity-peasant", the "serf-with-an-attitude", the "helot-whose-consciousness-has-been-raised", the "peon-who-has-you-hive-bozos-spotted". and the "expendable-useless-eater-with-the-impertinence-to want-a-say-in-his-betters'-Philosopher-King/Cull-Master-big-plans".

In other words, Vince, "mike" is your worst nightmare and an inconvenience in your pursuit of your parasite, screw-you-I-got-mine, eco-aristocrat monopoly on rip-off-the-little-guy good-deals.

Like I said, Vince, a good question you posed--and, please, if you don't like the answer then don't ask the question. Fair enough?

bill,

And, oh by the way, bill, ol' sport, I think my comment's calling attention to the anti-democratic character of you greenshirt creep-outs is hardly just "a litany of poo-based abuse." But you already know that, don't you, bill? And that's why I so got under your skin with my previous comment and extracted from you an especially booger-brain, frantic display of your "Tim! Tim!" fearless trough-defender crybaby-reflex.

Some goose who thinks its worth using up over hundred of our increasingly scarce hyphens to tell us two academics agree with Plato - crikey, thats never happened before!

"The sailors are quarreling with one another about the steering—every one is of the opinion that he has a right to steer, though he has never learned the art of navigation …"

Plato forgot to mention that some of the sailors are working with a gang of wreckers, and will make an obol or two out of ensuring the ship runs onto the rocks. Morano is just the guy hanging up the false lights in this instance.

"mike" is more interested in being the hero in his own cartoon world. He wants to be 'worst nightmare' for somebody, anybody.

'Democracy' as constructed by morons - everyone must endlessly and uncomplainingly endure the consequences of my abusive toilet training.

I think not. There are fetish sites all over the net. Go find one, and leave the grownups to their discussion.

Oh, I see - mike's that imbecile who drops big chunks of drivel which I always skip over in order to get to the next comment.

I've noticed that occasionally Tim Lambert edits Mike's posts to make them more compact and comprehensible.

Either way, back to Graham Lloyd - he will have to issue yet another correction over his repetitiion of James Delingpole's false statement about what the UK Met Office has said, right?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 24 Feb 2013 #permalink

Hey Deltoids!

Any of you--even just one--of you care to take exception with the "elite warrior leadership", anti-democratic ideas of those estimable "academics"--Smith and Shearman.

You know, Deltoids, I'm beginning to think you good-comrade, eco-Stasi-wannabes are all bought into the top-down,hive-masters-know-best, nasty designs of the above, golden-souled gentlemen of the academy. But then, I'm one of those lost-souls that "Comrade Lew" studies all really scientifically-like and all, and who is given over to completely irrational "conspiracy theories."

I mean, like, Smith and Shearman are just saying "out-loud" what you hive-bozos have been saying all along behind our backs--right, Deltoids?

Again, though, any Deltoid want to step-up and denounce the noxious views of Smith and Shearman?

See the thing is, mike, that most of us just scroll right past your distasteful spatterings.

The sum of your life - you are a skidmark in the gusset of humanity.

Vince@ p5#14: mike's not a who, it's a rather pathetic what-pathology-is-that (need to use some of the endangered hyphens before they're all gone).

Mike seems very hurt, to have cultivated so much spite in his heart.

By Andrew Strang (not verified) on 24 Feb 2013 #permalink

I don't know who Smith and Shearman are, but from mike's "academics", I assume they are in fact academics, and mike is suffering a severe case of intellect-envy.

If there's one thing these morons *really* hate, it's smart people. With a passion.

They hate us because the chicks love a clever guy, and don't much love a fat, spiteful, moron.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 24 Feb 2013 #permalink

Guaranteed, mike is fat.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 24 Feb 2013 #permalink

Fatter than Al Gore.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 24 Feb 2013 #permalink

Does Graham Lloyd use James Delingpole and other secondary sources instead of primary sources?

Nah, he uses tertiary and higher sources - beautifully illustrated by our collection of trolls, Brad Keyes included - who themselves only use secondary sources at best - and even then they have a strong preference for the dodgy ones.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 24 Feb 2013 #permalink

I'm tempted to call James Delingpole a Primary source, though - most of what he writes is completely original and unrelated to anybody's research.

Unlike Graham Lloyd, who obviously logs in to Anthony Watts' crank blog every day for inspiration (never more so than now that no Aussie climate scientist accepts his calls), that dickhead Delingpole sits down and makes up his nonsense from scratch.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 24 Feb 2013 #permalink

'Shearman' will turn out to be David Shearman, no doubt, a medical doctor and the former head of the Conservation Council here in SA. He co-wrote this book 6 years ago. Move outside Denier world and actually read the authors' notes to get the point.

The fact that you've never heard of it speaks volumes for the enthusiasm with which this "endorsement of authoritarianism" was received. The central point that the longer we allow ourselves to be held back by heeding the squelchings of muck like mike, the more likely it is that measures taken to deal with the crisis will have to be draconian remains perfectly valid.

The first I heard of it was the usual-suspects touting it predictably - here's the egregious Alex Jones, mike's intellectual mentor, for instance 'IPCC Professor calls for Eco dictatorship'. I.e. it became one of those 'how many lies can you cram into one sentence' exercises the Denialati are so fond of.

This formed a pretty-good introduction to the ethical and intellectual level of Denial.

Vince!
I am starting to fear for your sanity!
Comments like these are just ridiculous and laughable:
" If there’s one thing these morons *really* hate, it’s smart people. With a passion."
Is that right Vince?
How do you come to that amazing and rather passionate conclusion?
and :
" Unlike Graham Lloyd, who obviously logs in to Anthony Watts’ crank blog every day for inspiration (never more so than now that no Aussie climate scientist accepts his calls), that dickhead Delingpole sits down and makes up his nonsense from scratch."
You have supplied no evidence for these type of comments Vince.
Ironically, you are more than likely guilty of simply making up nonsense from scratch.

By chameleon (not verified) on 24 Feb 2013 #permalink

Chebbie - are you mike's mum?

a/ Mike's a moron
b/ he hates us

= intellect envy.

Check out the halfwits busy leaving their comments on Andrew Bolt's blog - they hate scientists, they hate all smart people.

= intellect envy.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 24 Feb 2013 #permalink

Now that little mike's taken his quetiapine , cleaned up the furtive stains around his keyboard and returned to his nightly battle with the enuresis monster, perhaps we could return to goring Chief Murdorc Lloyd.

Worth looking at Croakey for Melissa Sweet's (now there's a tautological name) commentary on Leigh Dayton's lament:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2013/02/24/from-the-perfect-job-to-a…

Ooh, I note there's a veritable spate of regurgitating the 'Warmist Academics / IPCC Professors call for Totalitarian World Government' meme across the blottosphere based on reheating this one 6 year-old non-event .

Well, that's groupthink for you; this dismal little exercise in recycling is the idiot meme du jour!

See, when you don't have any fancy-schmancy science to back you up you gotta go with re-gurg-it-ation

Phhhht!

Pa.

Thet.

Ic.

Nearly as drearily predictable and as tendentious as Lloyd's latest effort in the Oz.

Meanwhile, the grownups really shouldn't be missing this one.

Does anyone else find it as ironic as I do that Brad is a walking case study highlighting the dangers of bucking the scientific consensus in a field you're not personally competent in?

(That, and the irony of his obsession with arguing that scientific consensus isn't scientific evidence - which few if any subscribe to - whilst he appears to repeatedly indulge in appeals to individual authority which are far more likely to mislead those who aren't personally competent than going with the scientific consensus - and worse still, to the authority of secondary sources?)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 25 Feb 2013 #permalink

I find it amazing that you comment about Brad K where he can't engage with you Lotharsson.
Go to the appropriate thread C****D!

By chameleon (not verified) on 25 Feb 2013 #permalink

Amazing how you had to say that here on this thread, chubby.

Go fuck off, you ignorant twat.

I find it amazing that you comment about Brad K where he can’t engage with you Lotharsson.

I see you're still reliably unable to distinguish between talking about someone and talking to someone. It must be particularly challenging to go through life that way.

BTW, if talking about someone is not kosher in your book, I look forward to your condemnation of Brad as a C****D! for talking about Mann, Schneider, Jones, Cook and others instead of talking to them. When can we expect to see your comment to this effect?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 25 Feb 2013 #permalink

I don't even understand why chubby has her knickers in a twist over it. It's not like they don't talk about other people on that thread rather than talk here.

And Bray continues to think that he's been especially invited as "guest speaker" on this blog, so if he's right and wanted to, he could post here.

But I fail to understand why chubby worries in the least about it.

I'm also chuckling at the (ahem) cowardice involved in calling someone a "C****D". Truly, self-awareness is not strong in this one.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 25 Feb 2013 #permalink

Brad's legendary comprehension skills - and his occasional ability to type someone's name when it's sitting right in front of him - fail him once more:

But your lame attempt to paint me as a C****D is pure p********n, Lothar.

I was pointing out based on the evidence at hand at the time that chameleon was (once again) applying double standards.

Furthermore, it's rather interesting that Brad judges my comment based on evidence NOT on hand to anyone but Brad. That's beyond "lame" - that's mendacious. C'est la Brad, c'est la Brad.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 25 Feb 2013 #permalink

"Brad’s legendary incomprehension skills"

FTFY.

Gee, Mann and Jones got to experience a brush with pure greatness...

Basil Brush?

C****D

Custard?

p********n

Perihelion?

Wow: I thought it was Cupid and Passion :)

Well, given Bray's penchant for making up words, it could be Carboned and pianofortedn.

And another thing,

BBD

I note that you have commented on Rotten to the Core and indeed Tamino has jumped on this one too.with 'Ludeckerous.

Now BK isn't going to like that word 'Ludeckerous', it not being in a dictionary but he will discover who Willard is if he reads through. On the way he will also discover the difference between science and pseudo-science of the Willard kind and why we discount Willard Climatology.

Duffer Duff and hangers on take note:

So did he say it or didn’t he?

Did who say what?

You never ever write anything with accurate and relevant citation do you Duff.

Whatever, if it is this you are faffing about:

Even Mr. Pachauri, the well-known ‘dhobi-wallah’, ooops, sorry, I mean railway engineer, in charge of the IPCC has admitted that there has been no global warming for the last 17 years!

then here is your answer Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?.

So in short, on the basis of lack of provable veracity of the noises coming from the arch-miscommunicator, Graham Lloyd building upon the already debunked words of another, David Rose, then the answer is probably not.

Meanwhile the planet continues to heat up. Why do you think water is used in cooling (auto's) and heating systems (domestic)?

news.com.au have relayed the following article - how long before Graham Lloyd comes up with his own idiosyncratic take on this? And will he go for mis-quoting, re-interpreting, or adding-in crank commentary?

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/new-study-links-extreme-weat…

Only time will tell....

Incidentally, I notice news.com.au doesn't have an "environment" or a "science" section.
I was sure they used to have one....

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 25 Feb 2013 #permalink

Here is another example of the lies, ignorance and arrogance shown by Keyes. He is a know nothing who just likes to disgree with anything anyone says.

Back on page 4 of this thread (comment # 72: I wrote:

I always get a good laugh when scientifically challenged deniers such as Keyes and Monckton claim “science is not about consensus, consensus does not exist in science”. Nothing could be further from the truth

Keyes responded in his usual insulting, dishonest and completely wrong fashion by stating (page 28 comment #7 of his thread):

Citation?

Oh, that’s right—you just made it up.

Well here is a list of those who have made these statements:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22science+is+not+about+consensus%22&ie=…

https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22consensus+does+not+exist+in+science%2…

Anyone who checks these citations will see that they are made regularly by well know and not so well known AGW deniers.

I wont hold my breath waiting on an apology from Keyes since that would show a sign of humility which he completely lacks.

It is also interesting to review what is meant by "scientific consensus. That can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Another interesting point is "scientific opinion":

Scientific opinion

A "scientific opinion" is the general opinion of a professional scientific body gained through extensive research with a reproducible, unbiased conclusion soundly based upon the facts derived from the experiment. A scientific opinion which represents the formally-agreed consensus of a scientific body or establishment, often takes the form of a published position paper citing the research producing the scientific evidence upon which the opinion is based. "The scientific opinion" (or scientific consensus) can be compared to "the public opinion" and generally refers to the collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations and entities and individual scientists in the relevant field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

Seems that Keyes' sphere of intellectual aptitude is rapidly shrinking.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 25 Feb 2013 #permalink

Re: Ludeckerous, this episode has the potential to provide a significant hit to Zorita's credibility, particularly since he is being quoted saying he was happy with both the review process and its outcomes - despite reviewers publicly pointing out that their strongly negative comments were effectively ignored.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 25 Feb 2013 #permalink

Brad is an incompetent sophist. People in the corner bar are impressed with his thesaurus skills, and he's trying them out in the Interwebs. He was initially very offended to be ridiculed and then banished to his own thread, but DUM-DUM-DUM... cognitive dissonance to the rescue! It is now a thread he feels is in his honor, where he can make the rules, and where he can feel justified having little po-mo snits whenever his wisdom is challenged.

He reminds me of someone.

There’s simply no way this clown ever made it through a single college-level course on propositional logic or set theory.

Back in the day I lectured and tutored some final year Comp. Sci subjects, including some with a more technical/mathematical focus.

The number of students who were graduating despite having major difficulties with the subject was almost astounding. It did give me a useful insight though - if I were hiring for a commercial position, I would only consider the top 10% or so, as anyone scraping through the subject really didn't have useful competence in it.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 25 Feb 2013 #permalink

Hey Deltoids!

Just got the chance to review the earlier, up-thread comments addressed to me, by Deltoid's finest. Typical doltish, feckless, waste-of-my-valuable-time , phony-big-talk-act, snot-nosed, complete-loser, spastic-dork, make-mummy-proud, two-bit-freud-toid, social-reject, Deltoid-land B. S., of the sort I've come to expect from you improbable, creep-out eco-retards. And to think you Philosopher King wannabees are supposed to be the hive's ace smartypants and its alpha, smart-mouth dudes. Jeez--I'm embarassed for you, guys.

One exception to the above critique of this blog's relevant commentary. And that's FrankD's comment with it's memorable, put-down-zinger reference to me as a "goose", no less! I'll be honest, I was (and am) flummoxed by that one. And my somewhat lame immediate response to FrankD, reflects that.

I mean, like, I ask you, what sort of riposte connects with a guy, like FrankD, who comes at you with that unique, hair-in-a-bun, Mary-Poppins-bad-ass invective of his? Been kickin' it around and here's the best I've got so far:

I'm thinkin' maybe, like, I could disparage FrankD's Julie Andrews collection on the basis that, while complete, it's not in vinyl? Or maybe I could correct his pronunciation of "Supercalifragislisticexpialidocious? Or just maybe, I could point out with a feigned, really unctuous delicacy and sensitivity that he can't lip-synch "Chim Chim Cher-ee" for shit? Or maybe, even, I could just maliciously poke ribald fun at FrankD's parasol? I dunno, but, despite their undeniable merits, I really just don't feel like any of the above counter-zingers will really work with FrankD.

So I mean, like, you know FrankD, guys, so help me out, will yah--what works with him?

Nobody reads your crap, mike.

BTW, Is it true you self-inflicted a brain injury while attempting an act of auto-felching? With a dirty straw?

Anyway, how do you contend with people whose entire raison d'etre appears to be to ceaselessly pump out the shite? Ben Cubby has wondered..

Whenever li'll mike appears the first thing that springs to mind is the expression 'waste of space'.

But li'll mike goes on and on and bloody on saying nothing, so 'waste of space-time' seems more appropriate.
And it's hyphenated.

If deniers weren't so apt to deny anything they didn't want to acknowledge, mike would be of some use: he'd be used to point out how the anti-IPCC brigade are as bad or worse than any pro-IPCC brigade.

But mike's antics aren't even read by his fellow denier trolls.

"Previous studies have shown that there are 50-year-long trends in the properties of the Antarctic bottom water, and Williams said the latest study will help better assess those changes, perhaps providing clues for climate change modeling."

Assess? Clues for climate change modeling? I thought the future (based on current climate change models) was settled?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/26/us-australia-antarctic-seals-…

I thought the future (based on current climate change models) was settled?

Only the numptiest of numpties takes 'settled' to mean 'everything is known'. Which is why you can always count on deniers to hit that lowliest of levels.

I thought the future was settled?

Yes, you probably would.

Bray is busy whistling for help over in his jail.

Poor little lamb, lost without someone to say something he can quote mine or complain "LIAR!!!" about.

Wow,
Are you saying the future prediction for climate change may be wrong?
Denier!

re 58

I prefer the sing-zing silence of the master above Mike.

By Andrew Strang (not verified) on 26 Feb 2013 #permalink

"Denier!"

Really?

Denying what, Betty?

# 50 Lionel A

Sorry for the slow response. Believe it or not, this is my first look at this thread. I see that I should have been paying more and closer attention...

And Christ there's a nauseating stink on the other thread. It's nice to be away from that.

Ian Forrester:

I wont hold my breath waiting on an apology from Keyes since that would show a sign of humility which he completely lacks.

Hmm. That’s strange, because I apologized to Lionel A when it (belatedly) dawned on me that I’d been attributing your mendacious claims to him.

(Lionel, I’d like to reiterate my apology to you and your family.)

It is also interesting to review what is meant by “scientific consensus. That can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

No it can’t.

If you’re genuine in your desire to know “what is meant by” words, you need to use a freakin’ dictionary, not Wikipedia. Your determined avoidance of legitimate lexicography is telling.

Another interesting point is “scientific opinion”:

Scientific opinion

A “scientific opinion” is the general opinion of a professional scientific body…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion


*Sigh.* Your determined avoidance of legitimate lexicography is telling.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 26 Feb 2013 #permalink

Naughty boy.
Back in your cage: liars aren't welcome here.

That's odd. Did someone leave a door open?

I hope Brad isn't going to spend weeks not answering straightforward questions here as well. That would be too much, even for me.

There's a stink wafting in.

'sfunny, looks like "Brad" somwhow forgot to apologise to Stu for his unacceptable reaction when callled out on his disgusting and evasive behaviour to comment #75 here

Strangely, Calumny also failed to be offended too.

Betula says,

I thought the future (based on current climate change models) was settled?

Gosh, turns out you were wrong. Isn't that a surprise?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 26 Feb 2013 #permalink

If you’re genuine in your desire to know “what is meant by” words, you need to use a freakin’ dictionary, not Wikipedia. Your determined avoidance of legitimate lexicography is telling.

And yet....even Wikipedia does better at defining this concept than does Brad.

What a shame - expensive Arts degree and you're less use than Wikipedia.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 26 Feb 2013 #permalink

These responses will be going back to Bray's jail thread.

As quite a few of the commenters here use their service here's a little heads-up:

webcitation.org is asking for donations in order to keep up their service. Go visit their homepage for more info.

It's true, in their own way, each of Betula, mike, Chameleon, and Brad demonstrate their politically-motivated position rests on lies and/or stupidity.

Remember Chameleon's concocted Tim Flannery quotes? And now she claims she isn't on anybody's "side".

Sure you aren't Chameleon, that's why all your mistakes go in one direction only....

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 26 Feb 2013 #permalink

Andrew Strang,

Yr: "I prefer the sing-zing silence of the master above Mike"

Hey Andy! Look, guy, I like a cryptic, oracular, mysterioso zen-goober as much as the next guy. But I've been havin' a little ptosis problem with my "third eye" here lately so could you kinda, like, you know, be so kind as to spell out for me just what the "frack" you're talkin' about in that latest guru-flake-wannabe, mind-blowing-I-guess, ascended-master-of-the-booger-phage-brotherhood, etheric-body-cosmic-joy-ride, underage-drinking, like-totally-far-out-man, In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida-baby-Iron-Butterfly utterance of yours?

Thanks, guy.

Andrew Strang,

Hey, Andy! Please change that "underage-drinking" term in my last comment to "possible-underage-drinking-related".

You know I'm just joshin' with you, Andy. You know, like you've been just joshin' with me and all. It's what ol' buddies do, right, Andy?

Someone is seriously damaged.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 26 Feb 2013 #permalink

Nah BJ, li'll mike's a harmless overweight retired insurance clerk who wishes now that he'd had the guts to go kerouacing fifty years ago. But didn't.

Bernard J,

Yr: "Someone is seriously damaged."

For once, BJ, we are in total agreement and I'm sure your referent is Wow (Wow is Mom; Mom is Wow) for his "Go fuck off you stupid twat"--said to chameleon, a lady commenter on this blog. Of course there are many more "damaged" Deltoids runnin' their mouths on this blog, so you may have had others, as well as, Wow in mind, I know.

I mean, like, BJ, you do think Wow, at a minimum, is one, big-time, "damaged" Deltoid, don't you?

It's like controlled crying, li'l mike, something else you'll have to ask an adult about.

re 81, 82

I don't believe your mask.

By Andrew Strang (not verified) on 26 Feb 2013 #permalink

I think between BBD and Wow and Bernard J and Vince (and more) they've nailed BK.

He simply won't answer a straight question about his reasons for believing things that go against the mainstream conclusions of climate science, preferring instead to throw up a smokescreen of his own questions (which lately, rather Latimer-like, are almost entirely irrelevant quibbles about definitions that no-one here is relying on in their critique of BK's climate science position).

His pattern of behaviour makes it hard to simultaneously rule out all three of: lying, mental illness and ignorance. See for instance merely the latest few of many - the assertion that he's "defending the scientific process tooth and nail" when he personally refuses to accept the results of that process and literally denies rejecting those results, the apparent self-delusions about the superiority of his own faculties and the complete lack of change of position on any number of issues when it is demonstrated that his argument is fallacious or that evidence undermines it.

His latest dodge - we have to totally agree on his definition of "evidence" before he will provide any otherwise it is "pointless" to do so - is not only fallacious, but appears to be a transparent attempt to avoid the question (and one must speculate on the possibility it is an attempt to prepare the ground for some rather dodgy "evidence", but we may never know as he seems to be heavily invested in NOT providing "reasons" for his position despite the negative impact on whatever credibility he imagines he has here).

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Feb 2013 #permalink

Andy,

Yr: "I don't believe your mask"

Mask? I have a mask? A mask that lacks credibility even?

Is all that right, Andy? Care to elaborate?

This should be fun.

Nobody reads your crap, mike.

Hey Andy!

Did you catch bill's, "Nobody reads your crap, mike." I mean, like, since you read my "crap", Andy, it kinda inescapably looks like ol' bill just called you a "nobody"!

Anything you might want to say to bill, Andy?

Hey mike, sorry the "zinger" didn't live up to your need to be other peoples buttmunch. I'm not sure if your from Oz, but in case you aren't, "goose" is the sort of tag you would use for the harmlessly stupid - someone who is so ridiculous that their daftness is not worth wasting any decent insult on.

See, I don't often read your posts - often they've been disemvowelled before I see them - and when I do they mostly don't inspire any reaction, except a faint giggle at your attempts at catchy neologisms - it's like watching the little kid throwing punches at the bigger kid who's holding him at arms length. I don't think your a fucktard or a moron or whatever else you're fishing for. I just think you're a goose.

By the way - you got the wrong sort of "wrecker". I guess even rolling over a link is a bit tricky.

And as to what works on me - that's simple. I'm totally oblivious to anything said to me here unless its by someone who has previously earned my respect. That's not you.

Keep on hyphening, goose.

# 88 Lotharsson

Good summary. To be clear, while I agree with Bernard J on the narcissism, when I say mental illness, I refer explicitly to the pathology of denial.

Since BK is adamant that his rejectionism is not motivated by politics, and he admits to knowing nothing about the science, he is either lying about his politics or he is in denial.

He is apparently unable or unwilling to clarify this further despite repeated, specific questioning on these points.

FWIW I think he is both lying about his politics and in denial. Not to mention his admitted ignorance of the scientific evidence.

The man is a disgrace.

Hey Deltoids!

Check out FrankD's last (#92)! That's how it's done, guys.

hey, mikeunt, check out FrankD's post. Why do you never do it that way?

BBD, I agree that it would certainly be unwise to rule out combinations of more than one of the factors you proposed.

I am further amused by BK's assertion that he hasn't claimed to have rejected climate science, which is an obvious strawman and a continuation of the bad faith tactics. I suspect that he's used to having an audience who buy the shit he's selling and he hasn't got a clue what to do when there aren't any takers (other than chameleon).

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Feb 2013 #permalink

Wonder if someone can have a peep at this and tell me who is the crazy person - me or the subject of my latest post:

A curious tale of a bloggie winner and his dog

Neither he nor any of his commenters seem to have figured out what UCS found wanting, which leaves me wondering.

(Hope no-one minds me linking to me, or interrupting. I couldn't believe my eyes so my eyes may be betraying me! Who better to ask than the crowd at Tim's blog, I said to myself :D)

In a change from discussing BK ... or is it? ;-) ... a post about the recent Lewandowsky et al. paper appears at the Denialism Blog, where the poster writes:

Finally the authors discuss implications for science communication, and, unlike most people, I think they actually understand the problem. That is, you can’t fix this problem with more communication, and more data. The nature of the conspiracy theorist is that all additional data and all contradictory data will only be used to demonstrate further evidence of conspiracy, that the conspiracy is even larger, or that the data are fraudulent. The “self-sealing” nature of the conspiracy theory, as the authors describe it, makes it fundamentally immune to penetration by logic, reason, or additional information.

The extended quote from the paper that follows will no doubt set off certain commenters, what with its message that science communicators should probably not bother with direct engagement with conspiratorial ideationists (because it's ineffective and their numbers are actually quite small), but especially due to its recommendation to underscore the "breadth of consensus among scientists" where necessary ;-)

The poster continues:

Don’t argue with cranks. I can’t agree more. And historically this is what has worked with denialist groups. You don’t debate them as if they’re honest brokers, you treat them as the defective brains that they are, and eventually, their influence dwindles, and they’ll be reduced to a small community of losers sharing their delusions of grandeur and righteous indignation in some tiny corner of the internet.

That kinda fits some of our troll jail threads, no? ;-)

And comments #8 and #9 seem particularly apt too.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Feb 2013 #permalink

"The extended quote from the paper that follows will no doubt set off certain commenters"

And blog owners here. If ever they said anything.

Neither he nor any of his commenters seem to have figured out what UCS found wanting, which leaves me wondering.

Historical evidence demonstrates that that's not a good basis for wondering.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Feb 2013 #permalink

"That kinda fits some of our troll jail threads, no?"

No.

The jail threads are still a platform given to them to prattle on. Let them prattle on their own turf or public property.