February 2013 Open Thread

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


  1. #1 Jeff Harvey
    March 6, 2013


    Answer the responses – if you can….

    Do you think those opposing corporate takeover of the human food chain are ‘anti-agriculture’? You made this half-witted comment earlier, which is further evidence that your arguments appear to be made for the sole purpose of disagreeing with most of the contributors to Deltoid. The pro- or anti-agriculture comment was, let’s be honest, plainly DUMB. If you want to be taken seriously, you really need to think before you write in here.

  2. #2 Bernard J.
    March 6, 2013


    Like others here I doubt that you are female – it’s highly unusual for females to troll as you do.

    It’s also peculiar for females to engage in blatant displays of ignorance as do you, and it’s very odd for females to make comments about reserving sexual favours, as you did recently. If you choose to comment on such matters do not be surprised that others will comment on it: I would have made the same comment if you admitted to being a married male, and I’m sure that in that case your umbrage and Mike’s would have been non-existent.

    If you really are female I do not resile from making that comment, because as Wow points out it’s not one based on sexism. It simply an observation that you raise such ridiculously incorrect ‘facts’ and flawed understandings of science that the average sober adult human (of either gender) would be rather dissuaded from paddling in your (shallow) end of the gene pool.

    Which brings me back to the point in my previous post. Do you really think that it’s OK for a multinational company to use the flaws of patent law in order to game agricultural seed supplies to the extent that farmers effectively no longer have the freedom to store and use their own seed stock for replanting?

  3. #3 Vince Whirlwind
    March 6, 2013

    Where’s the March Open Thread?

    An interesting point being made about the destructive idiots like Chameleon and Brad:

    In this comment on a recent post of mine, I was commended for having a good, vigorous, constructive discussion. How did I manage to do it? By swiftly deleting about a dozen trolling comments as soon as they were posted. If I did not do that, half of the good comments would not have been posted as their authors would not have bothered. The discussion would have veered off-topic onto some silly tangent, and trolls would have taken over.

    I really think a blog run by somebody who mercilessly deleted anything completely stupid (like mike’s crap – completely useless, it should be deleted out of hand) would be good. Chameleon’s stuff is OK the first time you see it – she illustrates the gullibility of the stupids taken in by News’ agenda – but as soon as she starts repeating herself or diverting the discussion, she should also be mercilessly deleted. As for Brad – he has his own thread with 3000+ comments, and yet in all that thread I don’t believe Brad said a single substantive thing except for his erroneous assertion that sensitivity was 1.5. SO what’s the point of letting his comments stand? You just clog up your blog with junk, dissuading genuine commenters from engaging. And something tells me this is in fact the tactic of the astroturfers.

    How do you decide what is a trolling comment?

    The first definition of trolling is ‘posting comments in order to derail the discussion’, to take it away from the topic of the original article and onto a topic the commenter wants to discuss – his/her own pet peeve.

    If you want your comment threads to remain clean and civil, and to stick to the topic in the article, you HAVE to delete off-topic comments.

  4. #4 Vince Whirlwind
    March 6, 2013

    I am gradually teaching my spam filter to automatically send to spam any and every comment that contains the words “warmist”, “alarmist”, “Al Gore” or a link to Watts. A comment that contains any of those is, by definition, not posted in good faith. By definition, it does not provide additional information relevant to the post. By definition, it is off-topic. By definition, it contains erroneous information. By definition, it is ideologically motivated, thus not scientific. By definition, it is polarizing to the silent audience. It will go to spam as fast I can make it happen.

  5. #5 Vince Whirlwind
    March 6, 2013

    And let’s just remember the kind of operation the likes of Brad is engaged in:

    To build this capability we will create a set of personas on twitter,‭ ‬blogs,‭ ‬forums,‭ ‬buzz,‭ ‬and myspace under created names that fit the profile‭ (‬satellitejockey,‭ ‬hack3rman,‭ ‬etc‭)‬.‭ ‬These accounts are maintained and updated automatically through RSS feeds,‭ ‬retweets,‭ ‬and linking together social media commenting between platforms.‭ ‬With a pool of these accounts to choose from,‭ ‬once you have a real name persona you create a Facebook and LinkedIn account using the given name,‭ ‬lock those accounts down and link these accounts to a selected‭ ‬#‭ ‬of previously created social media accounts,‭ ‬automatically pre-aging the real accounts.

    Using the assigned social media accounts we can automate the posting of content that is relevant to the persona. In this case there are specific social media strategy website RSS feeds we can subscribe to and then repost content on twitter with the appropriate hashtags. In fact using hashtags and gaming some location based check-in services we can make it appear as if a persona was actually at a conference and introduce himself/herself to key individuals as part of the exercise, as one example. There are a variety of social media tricks we can use to add a level of realness to all fictitious personas


  6. #6 Vince Whirlwind
    March 6, 2013

    I seriously think obvious astroturfers should be deleted out of hand, their IPs permanently blocked.

  7. #7 Vince Whirlwind
    March 6, 2013

    We could also suggest that all Chameleon’s contributions undergo some form of peer-review process, perhaps similar to that adopted here:


  8. #8 bill
    March 6, 2013

    mike, did you notice that no-one gave a shit – at all – the first time you announced you were going to flounce a couple of days back? You are a waste of space. Zero.

    Chebbie seems to have just enough brain to have realised she’s made a fool of herself, and is hovering accordingly waiting for the imbecility to have passed!

    Otherwise, again: please explain how Monsanto’s shameless monopoly rent-seeking is ‘agriculture’.

  9. #9 Ian Forrester
    March 7, 2013

    There is a lot of activity in the GM debate concerning Mark Lynas who proudly boasted that he had converted from anti-GMO activist into a GM promoter. He made a speech in Oxford a couple of months ago where he admitted his conversion. He claimed that the reason he changed views was that he was persuaded by the science of GMO technology. Nothing could be further from the truth.


    What he claimed to be science was in fact nothing more than the myths put out by the GM PR machine and its accompanying “scientists”, who are no more than GM shills, from the Science Media Centre.

    These myths and science based responses to them can be found here:


    A couple of the more easily challenged myths are the ones that claim GMO’s have reduced pesticide use and increased yields. Neither are true.

    He was interviewed by Chris Mooney recently where he repeated most of these myths and included a few new ones. Near the end of the interview he made the ridiculous claim that European farming was so inefficient that they were importing food from Brazil. This is utter nonsense. What is being imported from Brazil, Argentina and other South American countries is animal feed and oils for bio-fuels.

    I put Mark Lynas in the same category as Bjorn Lomborg. I think both changed their career paths because they found a new one which was much more lucrative from a financial point of view and had nothing to do with science.

  10. #10 Vince Whirlwind
    March 7, 2013

    Now *here* is something cool:

    Some scientists had long suspected that magnesium sulfate was on the surface of Europa. But, Brown says, “the interesting twist is that it doesn’t look like the magnesium sulfate is coming from the ocean.” Since the mineral he and Hand found is only on the trailing side, where the moon is being bombarded with sulfur from Io, they believe that there is a magnesium-bearing mineral everywhere on Europa that produces magnesium sulfate in combination with sulfur. The pervasive magnesium-bearing mineral might also be what makes up the nonwater ice detected on the leading hemisphere’s surface.

    Brown and Hand believe that this mystery magnesium-bearing mineral is magnesium chloride. But magnesium is not the only unexpected element on the surface of Europa. Fifteen years ago, Brown showed that Europa is surrounded by an atmosphere of atomic sodium and potassium, presumably originating from the surface. The researchers reason that the sodium and potassium chlorides are actually the dominant salts on the surface of Europa, but that they are not detectable because they have no clear spectral features.

    The scientists combined this information with the fact that Europa’s ocean can only be one of two types—either sulfate-rich or chlorine-rich. Having ruled out the sulfate-rich version since magnesium sulfate was found only on the trailing side, Brown and Hand hypothesize that the ocean is chlorine-rich and that the sodium and potassium must be present as chlorides.

    I wonder how many epistemologists it took to get to this stage of our knowledge about Europa’s chemical composition?
    Something fairly close to zero, I suspect.

  11. #11 Bernard J.
    March 7, 2013

    Vince, I suspect that your suspicion has a likelihood of accuracy extremely close to 100%.

    Speaking of, I notice from the “Recent comments” box that there’s still a bit of traffic in that cesspit. Is Keyes’ still struggling to understand why his behaviour indicates excessive narcissism? I agree with previous sentiment that he’s best left to his own devices, with just the regular and spectacularly vacuous affirmations from trolls such as Chameleon to keep him satisfied.

  12. #12 Jeff Harvey
    March 7, 2013

    Lynas is a real disappointment, I exchanged ideas with him during the height of the Lomborg-period a decade ago, and he was a good guy then, However, given his views on GM crops and on Diamond’s arguments with respect to Easter Island, as well as other areas, in recent years it seems like he’s just become another post-Lomborg technophile.

    It seem like the fast-track to prominence is to claim to be an environmentalist and then to support the morons who are doing their best to destroy the biosphere for profit.

  13. #13 lord_sidcup
    March 7, 2013

    I started wondering about Mark Lynas when he tweeted a recommendation for Matt Ridley’s BS Wired article last year:


  14. #14 chameleon
    March 7, 2013

    BJ et al?
    So what aspects of agriculture do you support?
    I don’t believe there is a ‘free market’ in agriculture. Way too much subsidising going on in most countries.
    I’m a female rural Australian (despite your inability to believe that) so I tend to support Australian family farmers.
    They are among the most efficient farmers in the world.
    And no I don’t think it’s OK for the patent laws to be misused to game farmers.
    My earlier question was sparked by reading a culmination of links supplied here.
    Many of them point the finger at farming.
    And BJ,
    I was not impressed with your silly sexist insult and even less impressed by your poor attempt at justifying poor behaviour.
    As I said earlier, it reveals more about you than anything else.
    Your opinion of my husband or me has nothing to do with anything of any consequence.
    I don’t believe we know each other in the real world.
    You can’t even believe that I am female.

  15. #15 Wow
    March 7, 2013

    “I don’t believe there is a ‘free market’ in agriculture.”

    You still aren’t answering the question:

    Are you pro or anti free market?

    (PS the internet is full of lardy hairy blokes pretending to be 16 year old blonde schoolgirls. Merely asserting you’re a girl is no proof)

  16. #16 Bernard J.
    March 7, 2013


    I support agriculture by advocting for a climate that is at least sometimes anmenable to seasons of production. Climate change is going to be a big game-changer in the coming decades, and in many parts of Australia (and the world) not for the better. Given that future generations of farmers will be working without cheap (and one day, even available) oil, the last thing that primary producers need is for the fundmental milieu of their production environment to be FUBARed.

    Disbelieving this won’t prevent it from happening.

    And Chameleon, it wasn’t a sexist comment. It was an intelligentist one. If you concentrate sufficiently, you might even one day understand why this is so.

  17. #17 chek
    March 7, 2013

    It’s so cute when they try and ‘talk’ like real people. But there’s always that curious, almost itemised, stunted quality about it whenever they do.

  18. #18 Vince Whirlwind
    March 7, 2013

    Chameleon says,

    Way too much subsidising going on in most countries.

    On the surface, this kind of distortion appears unfair and promotes inefficiency.

    However, when you’re talking about a 1st-world economy where the value of primary produce is vanishingly small, the concept of food security comes into play.

    I am very interested in food security. The Yanks take it seriously, hence their massive subsidies and large, thriving agricultural sector. Here, we don’t take it seriously enough, with the result that much of our primary production has been lost or turned over to destructive corporate activities involving cotton and so forth, and country towns have become ghost towns while our urban population is at a disturbingly high proportion of our total population.

    For the same reason, we should be very interested in Monsanto’s efforts to present the contamination of our food species with their genetically-altered garbage as a fait accompli resulting from legislative absence and government inaction.

    And Bernard, I really don’t think lack of oil will ever become an issue: establishment costs included, wind power is now cheaper per KWh than coal power. The transition away from fossil fuel will happen especially quickly in the rural sector where everybody has plenty of room to plonk in a dozen or so wind turbines. Imagine a farming sector freed from the yoke of the energy sector? All the more reason to keep Monsanto out.

  19. #19 Vince Whirlwind
    March 7, 2013

    Bernard, 3,500 comments in and Brad is no closer to explaining how he forms his mistaken opinions, no closer to admitting being wrong, nor of displaying any evidence of absorbing any of the tutoring he has been receiving.

    Complete waste of space.

    At least with Chameleon you get the feeling that the occasional word is getting through and making a very small change to her perception of the issues on which she has previously acquired so much misinformation.
    Sadly, she still appears to be largely guided by her instant fantasies:

    My earlier question was sparked by reading a culmination of links supplied here.
    Many of them point the finger at farming

    I’ll put my hand up to “one link pointing the finger at Monsanto“, but I must have missed this “culmination of many links pointing the finger at farming“. Too lazy to analyse this thread in detail but suspect it’s a complete fantasy.

  20. #20 chek
    March 7, 2013

    I’ll put my hand up to “one link pointing the finger at Monsanto“, but I must have missed this “culmination of many links pointing the finger at farming“. Too lazy to analyse this thread in detail but suspect it’s a complete fantasy

    Almost completely bolloxed AI would be my guess Vince..

  21. #21 chameleon
    March 7, 2013

    Too busy, Vince, too busy.
    Lionel A and JeffH and BJ have also supplied OP’s and reports that do indeed demonise agriculture.
    Your last was more about Monsanto and sedd patents.
    Interestingly, I agree with your comment re the reasons behind agricultural subsides, but similarly to your monsanto example, the legislation does get used inappropriately.
    Wow’s question re ‘free market’ and agriculture is a nonsense and he clearly does not understand that it doesn’t and will probably never happen in the global agricultural market, precicely because of your point re food security.
    BJ has resorted to preaching doom & gloom re agriculture which is just a little bit akin to ‘biting the hand that feeds you’.
    And Vince, I was never attempting to be contrary or unreasonable, thankyou for recognising that could be the case.

  22. #22 Vince Whirlwind
    March 7, 2013

    Sorry Chameleon, but even though you have toned it down a lot, your early contributions to this thread were completely unreasonable.

    It is completely unreasonable to target Flannery for personal abuse due to his position as climate commissioner. It’s not his fault climate change is a reality. It’s not his fault that the general public, misled by the public media, cannot comprehend the science and must have it translated for them.

  23. #23 bill
    March 7, 2013

    OK, Chebbie; why did you make no response to Brad’s comments such as this one (notice that I even pointed it out to you immediately below it) or this one or this one?.

    (That last is followed by ‘Anyway thanks for raising the tone Jeff.’)

    Further, I’ll bet you simply pretend not to have read this comment and store no memory whatsoever that the above ever happened.


    You also have zero evidence for ‘pointing at farming’, and still haven’t explained how anyone could confuse an attack on industrial/chemical monopolists Monsanto with being ‘anti-agriculture’.

  24. #24 bill
    March 7, 2013

    Also, Chebbie, Vince is right – your arrival here with its silly and uninformed attack on Flannery, and your perverse refusal to admit a simple and undeniable error of fact regarding Delingpole’s ‘confirmation’ of your ‘fleeting fancy’ has set the tone for everyone’s response to you.


    As has your persistent support for wind-up merchants and blatant trolls.

    I’m sure where you live ‘everyone knows’ that what you say about Flannery is ‘true’, but the point is that it isn’t, and you – and far-too-many of your rural comrades – are letting your reactionary instincts sleepwalk yourselves into a disaster.

  25. #25 Lotharsson
    March 8, 2013

    BJ has resorted to preaching doom & gloom re agriculture which is just a little bit akin to ‘biting the hand that feeds you’.

    That goes close to being the stupidest thing I’ve read for a long time.

    If the facts point to serious upcoming issues for agriculture, pointing them out and advocating for strategies to avoid them is the very opposite of “biting the hand that feeds you”. Worse still, denying that the issues exist and advocating for policies that will lead to those issues constitutes “biting the hand that feeds you”.

  26. #26 chameleon
    March 8, 2013

    that reads like circular semantic nonsense.
    Most of the time, farmers need less legislative/ bureaucratic red tape: not more.
    Extra legislation/policy/red tape actually disadvantages genuine farmers and creates advantages for corporate farming and companies like Monsanto.
    I have not read MoD, nor have I met the lady, seen her interviewed etc.
    I therefore have not commented.
    Obviously you and BradK disagree about the content and the message.
    If you want my totally objective opinion about your disagreement, I would only be able to say that you have both probably made some valid and invalid conclusions about MoD and each other (including your respective reading abilities)
    Tim Flannery is a different case as I have met him, I have watched numerous interviews, I have read one of his books and I have watched several of his 2 men docos.
    I quite like him but I do not necessarily agree with several of his ideologies and his politics.
    He is human and no more infallible or above reproach than someone like Humlum or Marohasy (examples of 2 scientists I have mentioned as well).
    Neither do I think deliberately arguing with me via personal and rude comments does anything to advance a civil debate about political science issues.
    You are clearly not happy that the latest polling is not good news for the Labor Party.
    There may need to be some soul searching about the PR methodology and the engagement of the electorate perhaps?
    Calling people names and implying they’re stupid and gullible is not generally a successful engagement strategy.
    ‘Elitism’ and related behaviour has never been a succesful strategy in Australia.

  27. #27 Lotharsson
    March 8, 2013

    …that reads like circular semantic nonsense.

    Then I suggest you try and improve your comprehension to (say) year 10 high school level. Or ask a high school student to help you.

    Worse still: your reference to “legislation/policy/red tape” etc. doesn’t appear to connect in any way with the comment of yours that I was responding to, let alone to the comment by BJ that you were responding to when you wrote it. aybe there’s a connection in your head, but if so you haven’t bothered sharing it with the rest of us.

  28. #28 bill
    March 8, 2013

    you have both probably made some valid and invalid conclusions about MoD and each other

    Milquetoast ‘balanced’ babble.

    And you hardly need to have read MoD to determine if Brad’s comments regarding Oreskes’ appearance are offensive, do you?Pffft!…

    This kind of tawdry evasiveness neither fools – nor endears you to – anyone here.

    Also, if you and your cronies choose to be dense – to see yourselves as smarter than the CSIRO, fer Chrissakes! – that is not anyone’s fault other than your own.

    I am heartily sick and tired of this passive-aggressive ‘maybe if you were nicer to me I wouldn’t choose to believe what’s convenient for me’ crap.

    In 20 years time the likes of you will still doubtlessly be holding us responsible for your own stupidities – by then, of course, the joke won’t only be on you, it’ll be on everyone, including plenty of poor blameless bastards – and species – that never had an opportunity to employ their education and wealth to act in the face of what they knew was coming.

    Frankly, this sickens me.

  29. #29 Vince Whirlwind
    March 8, 2013

    You have a few problems there, Chameleon:

    1/ Marohasy may have once been a scientist, but she since accepted a paid gig writing politically-motivated PR for the IPA. Calling her a scientists would seem to be inaccurate.

    2/ Red tape disdvantaging farmers: where would farmers down the Murray be if there wasn’t red tape holding the cotton-farming land-pirates in check? Where would they be if there wasn’t red tape preventing paper mills from dropping bleach in the rivers? Where would they be of there wasn’t red tape aimed at keeping an eye on prickly pear?

    I’ve never met Tim Flannery, but I have read his books. “Throwim way leg”, in particular, because its final chapter showed me that Tim Flannery is a man of integrity, courage and convictions who isn’t prone to turning a blind eye to evil when he sees it, which doesn’t make him a natural supporter of the ALP.

  30. #30 Bernard J.
    March 8, 2013


    I really don’t think lack of oil will ever become an issue: establishment costs included, wind power is now cheaper per KWh than coal power.

    That’s been the case for a while now according to several groups, and its been encouraging to see.

    The issue is that agriculture in many Australian contexts requires periodic energy-dense inputs, and translating renewable energy into that level of density will still be costly. Getting renewable energy in a portable and dense form as we are currently used to with petroleum-based products, at volumes comparable to contemporary usage, involves much added processing, and that attracts added expense.

    It’s thermodynamics. We’ve partied hard by collapsing 200-300 million years of fossil energy accumulation into 200-300 years of energy release, and that level of mean per capita energy slurping (and it’s attendant environmental destruction) will not automatically be replaced with renewably-sourced energy.

    It’ll require significant restructuring of our society and its industries if our grandchildren are to live in a secure society, with the agricultural, transport, and power opportunites that we take for granted now, and that’s even without the looming spectre of climate change that will manifest over the coming decades.

    As to Brad and his never-ending autobiography, you’re a more stubborn man than I, Vince! I closed that tab a few days ago, thoroughly sick of the fact that he can’t actually put forward a scientific case for his personal stance that climate change is not a problem for humans and the rest of the biosphere. Kudos for your persistence!

  31. #31 Bernard J.
    March 8, 2013

    Chameleon said:

    <blockquoteLionel A and JeffH and BJ have also supplied OP’s and reports that do indeed demonise agriculture.

    and wonders why people regard her as having the intelligence of a turnip, and cannot help but comment about it…

    I’ll type this slowly Chameleon, so that you aren’t left behind.

    I strongly support agriculture. I should, as I am establishing several agricultural enterprises myself – an off-shoot of a decade and a half of an ever-growing project to grow most of my own food.

    I strongly support individuals and local communities and their right to grow/produce their own primary products. I also strongly support the need for this to be done sustainably.

    And as I posted previously, I strongly support the right of future generations to be able to farm in a climate that is amenable to such activity.

    Did you understand this? Or were the words I used to long for you to comprehend?

    Now, answer the question that has been asked by several people here – do you really think that it’s OK for a multinational company to use the flaws of patent law in order to game agricultural seed supplies to the extent that farmers effectively no longer have the freedom to store and use their own seed stock for replanting?

  32. #32 bill
    March 8, 2013

    And I’ll add that I, dear Chebbie, work in Landcare, which enables me to understand that not all bucolic opinion is as retrograde as your own.


  33. #33 chameleon
    March 8, 2013

    I already answered that question BJ.
    The answer is no.
    good for you for working in landcare.
    I do too.

  34. #34 chameleon
    March 8, 2013

    Marohasy is a scientist as well as being involved in other pusuits and projects.
    Flannery is multi skilled and involved in more than one endeavour as well.

  35. #35 Lotharsson
    March 8, 2013

    It’s thermodynamics.

    If this article is correct it’s that:

    Conventional food production is dependant desperately on oil for insecticide, pesticide and fertiliser, and for transportation over thousands of miles. Modern agriculture is an industry that converts oil into food.

    – and more:

    The most immediately threatening shortage is in our food supply, and not just from oil constraints. The bigger threats lie in four limiting inputs: water, soil, potassium and phosphorus.

    Current agricultural methods simply cannot continue on a global scale forever – maybe not even until the end of the century.

  36. #36 BBD
    March 8, 2013

    The grammar and vocabulary used by chameleon have altered recently on this thread, eg # 21 and # 26. There is real inconsistency here with the ‘simpler’ tone of many earlier comments.

    I call sock.

  37. #37 Wow
    March 8, 2013

    I believe you’ll find the socks being hubby and wife of the chubby team.

    The pair tag-team on here.

  38. #38 BBD
    March 8, 2013


    After watching the show for several weeks now, I’m profoundly suspicious. But of course one can prove nothing.

    There’s not actual *evidence* that certain commenters are gaming the system. Acting in bad faith.

  39. #39 chameleon
    March 8, 2013

    It doesn’t perhaps occur to you to discuss the actual message rather than forever attempting to shoot the messenger does it?
    Good grief BBD.
    Your imagination is running away with you.
    Do you also waste brain time worrying about things that go bump in the night?
    That inference is completely and hilariously absurd as well as being totally baseless.
    You need to follow some earlier advice and get out more.

  40. #40 Bernard J.
    March 8, 2013

    The most immediately threatening shortage is in our food supply, and not just from oil constraints. The bigger threats lie in four limiting inputs: water, soil, potassium and phosphorus.

    Indeed. Shields are down to 20%.

  41. #41 Bernard J.
    March 8, 2013

    It doesn’t perhaps occur to you to discuss the actual message rather than forever attempting to shoot the messenger does it?

    Oh, we’ve been trying to entice Brad Keyes to discuss science for over a month, but he simply keeps slip-sliding away. Keyes doesn’t actually want to discuss science, because it would bring him to the scarey place in his head where he is not the king of the world.

    And I still don’t believe that you’re female Chameleon. Your usage is wrong. And as BBD and others are pointing out your style is changing too, and both usage and style are inconsistent with your little sentence-to-a-paragraph quirk. There’s also that little tag-team appraoch to subject matter that dissonates.

    Shouls we pull down your bloomers and check Chameleon? Or is it Keyesmeleon?

  42. #42 Bernard J.
    March 8, 2013

    For example, which alter is being channelled with:

    That inference is completely and hilariously absurd as well as being totally baseless.

  43. #43 BBD
    March 8, 2013


    It doesn’t perhaps occur to you to discuss the actual message rather than forever attempting to shoot the messenger does it?

    I’ve tried for weeks to discuss specifics with you and BK. Without success. You are both entirely evasive. If you want to discuss specifics, why have you yet to respond to # 69 on the Brad thread?

    You have surpassed your namesake. You are transparent.

  44. #44 Jeff Harvey
    March 8, 2013

    “Marohasy is a scientist”

    Chammy forgot to insert the word ‘mediocre’ before ‘scientist’…

  45. #45 Jeff Harvey
    March 8, 2013

    Chammy’s posts get more puerile by the minute. She writes this: “Way too much subsidising going on in most countries”

    Most countries? You mean IN THE NORTH. At least be correct in your simpleton remarks. Countries in the poor south don’t have the collective power to stand up against the developed juggernauts, so we dump our own heavily subsidized agricultural products on them whilst refusing to let them protect their own markets. This is how the hair-trigger global economy works, Chammy. Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. This explains why so many farmers have been forced off their land in poor countries like Haiti and Honduras and into cities where they work for companies like Nike and Disney in sweatshops for 2 dollars a day.

    Its clear to me, Chammy, that your knowledge of the world is pathetically thin. I let most of your kindergarten level crap go by but some of it is just so egregiously simple that I have to respond.

  46. #46 BBD
    March 8, 2013

    @ 39 see # 43 and # 80 on Brangelina thread.

    Get on with it chammy.

  47. #47 Jeff Harvey
    March 8, 2013

    New study in Science covered in the Independent:

    From the article:

    The world is now warmer than at almost any time since the end of the last ice age and, on present trends, will continue to reach a record high for the entire period since the dawn of civilisation, a study has found.

    A reconstruction of global temperatures going back 11,300 years, which covers the historical period from the founding of the first ancient cities to the space age, has concluded the biggest and most rapid change in the climate has occurred in the past century.

    Scientists found that the warm period following the end of last ice age, called the Holocene, peaked about 5,000 years ago when the world began to get cooler. However, this cooling went into a dramatic and sudden reversal about a century ago when global temperatures shot up to levels not seen for thousands of years, the scientists found.

    The study, published in the journal Science, further undermines the frequent argument put forward by climate “sceptics” that global temperatures now are no higher than they were in previous centuries, long before the increase in industrial emissions of carbon dioxide”.

    Debate over. Time to move on.

  48. #48 BBD
    March 8, 2013
  49. #49 BBD
    March 8, 2013

    The 11.2ka temperature reconstruction from Marcott et al. (2013) is impressive.

    Here it is!

  50. #50 Lionel A
    March 8, 2013

    Too busy, Vince, too busy.
    Lionel A …have also supplied OP’s and reports that do indeed demonise agriculture.

    Demonise agriculture, Moi?

    Where, EXACTLY?

  51. #51 BBD
    March 8, 2013

    The Marcott et al. reconstruction really does put things into perspective. Here we are, matching or surpassing the highest temperatures of the Holocene Climatic Optimum thousands of years after the waning of precessional forcing.

    This really is the Hockey Stick to end them all. 😉

    Marcott’s graph shows temperatures rising slowly after the ice age, until they peaked 9500 years ago. The total rise over that period was about 0.6 °C. They then held steady until around 5500 years ago, when they began slowly falling again until around 1850. The drop was 0.7 °C, roughly reversing the previous rise.

    Then, in the late 19th century, the graph shows temperatures shooting up, driven by humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions.

    New Scientist.

    So, ~5.5ka of gradual *overall* cooling as the HCO fades away, then bang! Welcome to the Anthropocene.

  52. #52 bill
    March 8, 2013

    Ah, I was about to bring in Marcott et al.

    Face it guys, ‘the hockey stick is broken’ is broken. If this isn’t the hottest period since the dawn of civilization it soon will be!

    You’ll be astonished to learn that Andrew Montford – the Sticky Bishop – has wasted his life! Just like all his acolytes… yes, I do mean you, wastrels!…

    Also, I’m calling QED on this prediction above

    Further, I’ll bet you simply pretend not to have read this comment and store no memory whatsoever that the above ever happened.

    If there are any objections to Bernard’s latest, please refer her back to it.

    We also await evidence of Agricultural Demons with considerable interest. About as likely as providing evidence for Spring-heeled Jack, I’ll forecast…

    Chebbie, what do you imagine you are achieving here? If I hold that deniers are inclined both to the dim and to the dishonest, how does your behaviour affect my contention, would you say?

  53. #53 bill
    March 8, 2013

    Or was the Demonic claim merely a ‘fleeting fancy’, Chebbie? 😉

1 8 9 10

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