February 2013 Open Thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    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.

  2. #2 Lionel A
    February 15, 2013

    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.

  3. #3 Lionel A
    February 15, 2013

    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.

  4. #4 Lionel A
    February 15, 2013

    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.

  5. #5 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    This is entirely why Bray continues to repeat insane waffle.

    Turn this place into a shithole.

  6. #6 chek
    February 15, 2013

    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.

  7. #7 Lionel A
    February 15, 2013

    This is entirely why Bray continues to repeat insane waffle.

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

  8. #8 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    No.

  9. #9 Lionel A
    February 15, 2013

    So Big Pharma’ have cleaned up their act, not all it would seem:

    Families face battle with GSK over dangerous diabetes drug.

  10. #10 Lionel A
    February 15, 2013

    Wow and ‘No’.

    Do you recall the saying about wrestling with pigs?

  11. #11 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Yup.

  12. #12 Wow
    February 15, 2013

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

  13. #13 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    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-protest/

  14. #14 Lotharsson
    February 16, 2013

    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.

  15. #15 Lotharsson
    February 16, 2013

    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!

  16. #16 Mack
    February 16, 2013

    “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.

  17. #17 bill
    February 16, 2013

    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!

  18. #18 Mack
    February 16, 2013

    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.

  19. #19 bill
    February 16, 2013

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

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

  20. #20 Mack
    February 16, 2013

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

  21. #21 Mack
    February 16, 2013

    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.

  22. #22 Lionel A
    February 16, 2013

    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.

  23. #23 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Whatever is convenient.

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

  24. #24 Lionel A
    February 16, 2013

    Yes Lotharsson, that whole sorry thread can be summed up by this probably inspired by Miguel De Cervantes .

  25. #25 Bernard J.
    February 16, 2013

    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.

  26. #26 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    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.

  27. #27 chameleon
    February 16, 2013

    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?

  28. #28 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    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?

  29. #29 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    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)?

  30. #30 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    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.

  31. #31 chameleon
    February 16, 2013

    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.

  32. #32 chek
    February 16, 2013

    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.

  33. #33 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    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.

  34. #34 Lionel A
    February 16, 2013

    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.

  35. #35 mike
    February 16, 2013

    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.

  36. #36 chek
    February 16, 2013

    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.

  37. #37 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    February 16, 2013

    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.

  38. #38 Wow
    February 16, 2013

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

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

  39. #39 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Weird. You can’t even predict the present correctly…

  40. #40 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    “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.

  41. #41 chek
    February 16, 2013

    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.

  42. #42 bill
    February 16, 2013

    Whanganui it is then…

  43. #43 bill
    February 16, 2013

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

  44. #44 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    I think you’ll find he’s been challenged “Go to Deltoid and show ‘em your nuts”…

    He just misheard.

  45. #45 Bernard J.
    February 17, 2013

    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.

  46. #46 bill
    February 17, 2013

    wow – boom boom! ;-)

    mike – seek professional help!

  47. #47 chameleon
    February 17, 2013

    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?

  48. #48 bill
    February 17, 2013

    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!

  49. #49 Sou
    February 17, 2013

    Some observations I made after reading an article on Curry’s blog, then onto RJ Pielke Jr. Not unrelated to Lotharsson’s comment above.

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/02/downside-of-conservative-brain.html

  50. #50 Sou
    February 17, 2013

    This might have been posted already – I haven’t read all the comments.

    Ben Pobjie and a bottle of Franklin as a remedy to stop climate change!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16B0hmlcYFA

  51. #51 bill
    February 17, 2013

    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!…

  52. #52 mike
    February 17, 2013

    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.

  53. #53 Sou
    February 17, 2013

    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!)

  54. #54 bill
    February 17, 2013

    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?

  55. #55 mike
    February 17, 2013

    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.

  56. #56 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    February 17, 2013

    @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 . . .”

  57. #57 Wow
    February 17, 2013

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

  58. #58 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “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.

  59. #59 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “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.

  60. #60 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    Bill, mike’s beyond seeking professional help.

  61. #61 bill
    February 17, 2013

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

  62. #62 chameleon
    February 17, 2013

    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’.

  63. #63 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “BradK said this could not have been a quote from a scientist”

    And he knows HOW, exactly?

  64. #64 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    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.

  65. #65 David Duff
    February 17, 2013

    @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!

  66. #66 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “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.

  67. #67 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “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.

  68. #68 chameleon
    February 17, 2013

    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’.
    :-)

  69. #69 Lionel A
    February 17, 2013

    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 .

  70. #70 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “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.

  71. #71 chameleon
    February 17, 2013

    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.

  72. #72 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    Yawn. Kick yourself. You’re stuck.

  73. #73 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    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.

  74. #74 Lotharsson
    February 17, 2013

    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.

  75. #75 Lotharsson
    February 17, 2013

    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.

  76. #76 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    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.

  77. #77 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    Lotharsson, not Lionel.

  78. #78 Lotharsson
    February 17, 2013

    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.

  79. #79 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    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.

  80. #80 chek
    February 17, 2013

    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.

  81. #81 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    February 17, 2013

    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!

  82. #82 chek
    February 17, 2013

    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.

  83. #83 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “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.

  84. #84 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “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.

  85. #85 Lotharsson
    February 17, 2013
  86. #86 Lionel A
    February 17, 2013

    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.

  87. #87 john byatt
    February 17, 2013

    Australians

    complete list of where our politicians stand on climate change

    https://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/election-2013/

    ,

  88. #88 chameleon
    February 17, 2013

    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?

  89. #89 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    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.

  90. #90 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “You have NOT ANSWERED that very simple question Wow!”

    Yes I have.

    Here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/february-2013-open-thread/#comment-149670

    Nothing gets through that denier-grade skull of yours, though, does it.

  91. #91 Vince Whirlwind
    February 18, 2013

    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.

  92. #92 chameleon
    February 18, 2013

    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.

  93. #93 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    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.

  94. #94 chameleon
    February 18, 2013

    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.

  95. #95 chek
    February 18, 2013

    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.

  96. #96 Lotharsson
    February 18, 2013

    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…

  97. #97 Lotharsson
    February 18, 2013

    Correction: “…and his subsequent slimy attempt at defending his it.”

  98. #98 David B. Benson
    February 18, 2013

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

  99. #99 Vince Whirlwind
    February 18, 2013

    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.

  100. #100 Bernard J.
    February 18, 2013

    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.

Current ye@r *