February 2013 Open Thread

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


  1. #1 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    bill, what annoys the self-centred little prick even more is talking about him (not to him) especially on other threads.

  2. #2 chek
    March 1, 2013

    “Brad’s” always good for a round of Crank Bingo.
    So far we’ve had:

    1) You people are losing the argument
    2) Fantasising his interpretation of science as synonymous with Feynman’s and superior to the professionals here.
    3) Reliance on crank sources, never primary literature
    4) Unable to admit error even when shown it.
    5) A sucker for false equivalence.

    … and probably a bunch more that isn’t worth the effort researching over in his swamp.

    But feel free to add any others that spring readily to mind.
    Just head your post “Brad Crank Bingo”.

  3. #3 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    Well he’s recently gone back to asserting that replication of papers in science is pointless, since unless YOU YOURSELF replicate EVERY science assertion used in a paper, you’re merely taking the word of authority from someone else and this, in his view, is untenable.

    Of course, it doesn’t stop him doing just that, as long as it’s a crank he’s taking the authority from. It seems the amount of people who disregard the ravings is the “proof” of accuracy.

    Truly deniers are a breed apart.

    Pity they keep shitting in the gene pool.

  4. #4 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    Bray is no longer even bothering to appear rational.

    ” [Brad] certainly dons a martyr’s cape over his banning at Lewandowsky’s


    Quote me ever lamenting my expulsion from that paradise, liar. Ever.”

  5. #5 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    The general approach is, “I’m not a scientist, so I am ideally placed to assess what they say and to determine that they have no idea what they are talking about.”

    Andrew Bolt did a beauty earlier this week – he took a report about the trend towards more droughts – some assessment that said by 2050 droughts would be 15%-30% more frequent – and then triumphantly pointed at record rainfall in Queensland for Jan 2013, “scientists proven wrong!”.

    Complete fucking retard.

    Rainfall in 2013 somehow disproves trend projected long-term to 2050.

    And they have no idea just how idiotically retarded they are – they genuinely believe they have personal insights that set them above the multiple-phds they are pooh-poohing.

  6. #6 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    This goes for others totally lacking in self-awareness of their intellectual limitations, such as the devious Steve McIntyre, the simpl-minded bombast, Anthony Watts, and the bitter harpy Judith Curry.

    For some reason they have developed a self-belief that immunises them to auto-criticism in the face of any superior knowledge they may become exposed to.

    I can’t wait to see if Lewandowsky is clever enough to find a next level for his monumentally successful troll-trolling effort.

  7. #7 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    “Rainfall in 2013 somehow disproves trend projected long-term to 2050.”

    It also demonstrates how incompetent McIntyre is.

    If he were competent at it, he’d be telling them how and why they get it wrong.

    But he doesn’t.

    Therefore he’s not competent in his own specialist field.

  8. #8 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    I tried, not sure he published all my comments – pretty sure I pointed out that “data from 2013 can’t possibly disprove a long-term trend to 2050” and that comment got moderated, although he seems to have let through a good 3 or 4 other comments where I’ve tried to set his cheer-squad of retards straight.


  9. #9 Lotharsson
    March 1, 2013

    Crank Bingo, courtesy of Wow in #5:

    6) “I never said that!”

  10. #10 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    Wow, weirldy, on another thread where he was repeating the “Met confirmed 16 years of no warming” fabrication by that Delingpole idiot, he seems to have allowed this comment of mine through:

    You are wrong, Andrew.

    The increased CO2 in the atmosphere is still there (and increasing), and that CO2 still has the same physical properties as ever before, and it is trapping heat that would otherwise be escaping to space.

    Let’s take 1kg of H2O in the form of ice: Apply 300,000 Joules of heat to it.
    – Is the temperature of the H2O increased?

    Answer: No.

    Accumulation of heat isn’t necessarily synonymous with temperature increase. In spades when you’re talking about a system as complex as the Earth.

    In the case of global warming, it’s still happening, and you really have to stop getting your information from foreign lobby groups.

    John Cook has produced an excellent video which in very simple terms explains why you are wrong. Look it up and learn from it.

    I sometimes wonder if Andrew Bolt will ever realise he’s wrong and get with the program – I say that because otherwise, I very much agree with Bolt’s tilting at various sacred cows, which he used to be very good at until he got diverted by Tea Party spastics.

  11. #11 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    “that”, of course, being nothing he was accused of saying in the first place.

    Do deniers think it actually works?

    I can understand doing this to the home crowd on denier blogs, since everyone there wants the science to be wrong and any method found is acceptable, but nobody here is taken in by it.

  12. #12 lord_sidcup
    March 1, 2013

    Leo Hickman has an excellent article on ‘sceptic’ efforts to game blog awards. Take a look at some of the nominations for the ‘Best’ ‘Science’ or Technology catogory:


    Some of those are must be obscure even on the denier-sphere, and how can a site – motls – that is so badly designed it makes your eyes hurt be nominated for a blog award?


  13. #13 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    And there you have, yet again, deniers making up what someone else said so as to claim something nefarious.

    In this particular case, asserting that ballot stuffing shouldn’t be allowed that Leo said meant that denier blogs should be banned.

    Fair enough, deniers flock to Graun and circle-jerk each other up over their fantasy world, so not *entirely* wasted, in so far as it ensures no denier strays from the pack.

    But it doesn’t work on anyone in the least bit attentive.

  14. #14 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    Hey, here’s an idea!

    If it so upsets and frightens you when I comment in this thread, then don’t lie about me in this thread, you idiots.

    Vince, you lied that,

    Well he’s recently gone back to asserting that replication of papers in science is pointless, since unless YOU YOURSELF replicate EVERY science assertion used in a paper, you’re merely taking the word of authority from someone else and this, in his view, is untenable.

    The dishonesty of your comment practically advertises itself with its absence of actual quotation, but just to remove any doubt that you’re a liar, let me clarify for our readers that all I did was repeat Huxley’s famous dictum that the improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such, and that for him, skepticism is the highest of duties and blind faith the one unpardonable sin! It’s hardly my fault Vince so grotesquely misunderstood these words—I had no idea his ignorance of the history of science was so encyclopaedic that he’d fail to recognise such an immortal saying (which, like so many of the best lines, tells us something we’d always known but had never quite found les mots justes for).

    Lotharsson, you lied that,

    [Brad] certainly dons a martyr’s cape over his banning at Lewandowsky’s

    and when I pointed out that I’ve never done so, rather than admit being caught out in a lie, you had the shameless lameness to try to convert the situation into a geriatric parlour game:

    Crank Bingo, courtesy of Wow in #5:

    6) “I never said that!”

    Newsflash, grandma:

    if you accuse me of saying something I never said, you’d better expect a fist full of I never said that in your lying gums.

    Stop lying, idiots.

  15. #15 BBD
    March 1, 2013

    Fuck off back to your own thread Brad. It’s piss-poor manners to be in breach of the terms of your restraining order.

  16. #16 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    He doesn’t even know what’s going on. He lives entirely in his make-believe world.

    Seriously broken.

  17. #17 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    Bray, what you claim you never said nobody else claimed you said.

    Therefore nobody here is lying.

    Your brain is damaged.

  18. #18 BBD
    March 1, 2013


    I also noticed at the Brad K thread, BBD, that you wanted to sneer a little at Kopp?

    No, that’s a complete fabrication. Don’t lie about what I write. I’ve got a low enough opinion of you as it is.

    Right – back to Kopp et al. (2013):

    Analyses of palaeo-temperature data suggest that [Eemian/LIG] global mean temperature was ~1.5C warmer than today (Turney & Jones 2010) and that global mean sea surface temperature(SST) was 0.7 ± 0.6C warmer than pre-Industrial conditions (and hence about 0.2 ± 0.6C warmer than today; NOAA National Climatic Data Center 2011; McKay et al. 2011).

    This modest difference in GAT between Eemian and Holocene is within conservative estimates of ECS to 2 x CO2.

    The Eemian is not a direct analogue for the Holocene under sharply increasing CO2 forcing. It is an example of past SLR response to a slightly warmer climate than the Holocene. The late Eemian MSL highstand was *at least* 5m above Holocene MSL. K13:

    The last interglacial stage (LIG; ca. 130–115 ka) provides a relatively recent example of a world with both poles characterized by greater-than-Holocene temperatures similar to those expected later in this century under a range of greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Previous analyses
    inferred that LIG mean global sea level (GSL) peaked 6–9 m higher than today.

    Are you with me so far? Small increase in GAT = >5m increase in MSL.

    K13 is NOT a paper about C20th/C21st SLR. It is a paleoclimate study of the rates of change in MSL during the Eemian.

    The tripe you culled from the Hockey Schtick liar – who fooled you blind – can be ignored. The take-away from K13 wrt future SLR under GHG forcing is that substantial SLR can occur *within* an interglacial. Rapid SLR is not solely a feature of the deglaciation phase when the major NH ice sheets and the Antarctic cap experience maximum melt rates. K13:

    Despite these caveats, the record of LIG sea level variations suggests that the ice sheets currently extant are likely capable of sustaining rates of melting faster than those observed today for at least a millennium.

    Emphasis added to aid comprehension.

  19. #19 BBD
    March 1, 2013

    lord_sidcup # 13

    Good piece by LH there; thanks for the link. Nice to see another example of widespread, calculated dishonesty by the so-called ‘sceptics’.

    Did you notice that SkS asked to be *withdrawn* from the Best Science shortlist because of the cheating going on?

    Says it all, really.

  20. #20 Lotharsson
    March 1, 2013

    Lotharsson, you lied that,…

    Nope. What Wow already said, BK.

    You have a propensity to paraphrase what people said into a strawman, and then project “lying” onto others on that basis – and you may have a faulty memory about what you have said to boot. (It can be so hard to keep it all straight when you’re more interested in ducking and weaving than being straightforward, can’t it?)

    You’re not fooling anyone here but chameleon and mike, and that should give you pause – but probably won’t.

  21. #21 Ian Forrester
    March 1, 2013

    It’s too bad that Keyes has a short attention span and doesn’t read all of an article he chooses to mangle.

    Here is the total of what Huxley said, note that it says the exact opposite of what Keyes tries to tell us he said. That is just complete disregard for facts, honesty and decency, lying to your audience is a despicable tactic and should be one of the primary reasons for banning of a commenter..

    The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin. And it cannot be otherwise, for every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority, the cherishing of the keenest scepticism, the annihilation of the spirit of blind faith; and the most ardent votary of science holds his firmest convictions, not because the men he most venerates holds them; not because their verity is testified by portents and wonders; but because his experience teaches him that whenever he chooses to bring these convictions into contact with their primary source, Nature—whenever he thinks fit to test them by appealing to experiment and to observations—Nature will confirm them. The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification.

    Note the final two sentences, they explain the difference between deniers like Keyes (faith) and real scientists (verification by experiment and observation).

  22. #22 BBD
    March 1, 2013


    Perhaps we shouldn’t encourage BK to breach the terms of his restraining order by addressing him directly here?

    If, as is probable, he is trying to get himself banned as an exit strategy that will allow him subsequently to claim that he was winning and is a martyr, we shouldn’t assist him.

  23. #23 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    “If, as is probable, he is trying to get himself banned as an exit strategy that will allow him subsequently to claim that he was winning and is a martyr, we shouldn’t assist him.”

    I see no reason why we should care if we assist him or not. We DEFINITELY aren’t helping him claim that he is winning, and that isn’t going to change if he gets banned either.

    And since we are talking ABOUT him, not TO him, we have no more reason to post on his jail thread than he has the requirement to ONLY post on Michael Mann’s blog when talking ABOUT Michael Mann (or any of the other real scientists he’s denigrated).

  24. #24 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    Note, he still insists he is winning, even though he isn’t.

    Even if we never did anything that made him decide to violate his terms of access and get permabanned, he would still decide, if he wished to, that he was winning and is a martyr.

  25. #25 BBD
    March 1, 2013


    I long ago suggested we should just stop talking to him. I see this has come up again and I endorse the idea wholeheartedly. He will hate it, and it will put a stop to his nonsense but *he won’t be able to claim martyrdom*.

    Shall we resolve to give it a go?

    In fairness to BK, we can similarly resolve not to talk about him on this or other threads. Just… leave him to it.

  26. #26 Lotharsson
    March 1, 2013

    If, as is probable, he is trying to get himself banned as an exit strategy that will allow him subsequently to claim that he was winning and is a martyr, we shouldn’t assist him.

    It’s a moot concern.

    He’s repeatedly dishonestly portrayed his ban from Lewandowsky’s site and falsely claimed to be “winning” on any number of points here – never mind the number of times he has falsely accused other commenters here of lying even after repeated rebuttals. I don’t expect him to change his ways if and when he gets banned from Deltoid – and anyone who bothers to check those kinds of claims by perusing his thread here will probably conclude he’s full of it, especially since Tim will leave a comment as he closes BK’s thread explaining exactly why he was banned.

  27. #27 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    “I long ago suggested we should just stop talking to him.”

    Which causes him to rush about screaming on other threads because he demands attention.

  28. #28 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    Note: if it works or is expected to work, this is no different than Tim just banning the twat, except it requires everyone else to do work and lets Tim pretend he’s a Free Speecher.

    Pretty cowardly IMO.

  29. #29 BBD
    March 1, 2013

    After all, it is abundantly obvious that the man is sunk in denial and quite unreachable. He’s turned away from reason. I believe we’ve all seen absolute demonstration of this now. So let’s talk about soup recipes or that oddly warm January, or how to skin a cat or anything, really, so long as it isn’t you-know-who in the basement, howling and sloshing about in the cess of denial.

  30. #30 Lotharsson
    March 1, 2013

    Just… leave him to it.

    Yep, works for me. I’ve been thinking much the same the last couple of days as he’s looping over his talking points and his style of unintentional comedy doesn’t benefit from replaying the joke, and I simply can’t see him decide to start having a good faith discussion after all this time.

  31. #31 Lotharsson
    March 1, 2013

    So…soup recipes? I’m partial to rasam and sambar myself, but couldn’t create one if my life depended on it 😉

  32. #32 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    However, the only source of utility is the illustration of the inward-spiralling idiocy of the standard unshakeable denier that he displays.

    Talking about him is not talking to him and no more requires us to post on his jail walls than his slating of Lewandowski requires he post on his blog rather than here.

  33. #33 BBD
    March 1, 2013

    Wow # 29

    Come on, you’ve done astonishing things here. I’ve never seen endurance like it. You have nothing left to do. TL may be being a little more hands-off than we would prefer, but it’s his blog… what can one do?

    Unless of course you enjoy talking to BK? I have done, but the novelty has worn off. And he is, as we know, unreachable. Denial protected by intellectual arrogance. It’s a nasty pathology, denial. Nasty.

  34. #34 BBD
    March 1, 2013

    # 31 Lotharsson

    I noticed that you were more absent than not, and secretly envied your resolve. I still had a bit to get through with patient X, but I think I’m about done now. As you say, recursive is boring.

    I’m sure you could make a passable rasam if you had a crack at it 😉

  35. #35 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    “but it’s his blog… what can one do?”

    All the work.

    Which when that load is carried by a dozen or more regular posters is rather more a lapse in Tim’s integrity to allow than if it were only one or two, which is more a different way of apportioning approximately the same strait effort.

    But a score or more is rather more shirking from one whose blog it is than can be accommodated with “well, it’s his, innit”, and becomes “yes, it is. Which is why he bears responsibility”.

  36. #36 BBD
    March 1, 2013


    I’m much too recent a visitor here to be able to comment on this. I leave the matter for the long-term regulars and TL.

  37. #37 Jeff Harvey
    March 1, 2013

    Speaking as a scientist with more than 20 years of experience in my field of research, I find it sad that the internet is the final refuge of so many deluded souls anxious to downplay the human fingerprint on the environment. Deltoid has its fair share of academic wannabes who appear to suggest the blogging is an adequate substitute for a university education in the relevant fields. These people (we all know who they are but let’s repeat them for clarity: Brad, Chameleon, Spangled Drongo, Jonas, Mike, Olaus, GSW, Karen, Sunspot, Betula, PentaxZ and more) stay in the shadows because their wafer-thin arguments would be shot down in a fraction of a second were they to venture into an academic venue – a university, research center, conference, workshop etc. – where these issues are studied, debated, argued and discussed.

    I’ve been away in Sri Lanka for the past three weeks, but on cursorily going over the various threads in Deltoid when I returned, the same pattern emerges over and over: people with no expertise whateoever in any scientific field wade in here thinking they have pearls of scientific wisdom to impart. They also write as if the field of climate science doesn’t exist outside of blogs. They haven’t read more than a very small number of studies, and most of these are cited because they are the minuscule number of papers that downplay AGW and have gone viral on denier blogs. The most important thing is that their world views are not shaped by being insiders but on being outsiders.They consistently misquote esteemed scientists like Huxley and Feynman to give the impression that, were they alive, these scientists would side with those who downplay AGW and other anthropogenic threats to the environment. This is despicable, but nothing is beyond the anti-science brigade. Given that most of them are inveterate liars, anything and anyone is fair game. As a colleague once told me, he wouldn’t debate a climate change denier for the simple reason that they will lie through their teeth (as they have nothing to lose by doing so) whereas the scientist they debate would see their cautious honesty work against them.

    One shoudl read Andrew Rowell’s quirte excellent 1996 book (as relevant today as it was then) “Green Backlash” as it details all of the sordid tactics used by anti-environmentalists – and AGW deniers fall firmly in thios fold – against their opponents.

  38. #38 mike
    March 1, 2013

    Jff Hrvy,

    Yr: “…dldd sls nxs t dwnply th hmn fngrprnt n th nvrnmnt…” nd “‘v bn wy n Sr Lnk fr th pst thr wks…”

    S Jff, m nmd “dldd sl” n yr lst. bdg f hnr, f crs.

    S Jff, gvn, lk, y knw, tht “hmn fngrprnt n nvrnmnt” clp-trp f yrs, nd ll, tht s bssss yr wrry-wrt, “mkn’ –bck-ff-th-dl, “n-dldd” sl, jst wht th “frck” d y thnk y’v bn dng tkn’ fssl-fld, frst-wrld-ccmdtns-nd-mnts-ncldd , lttl, crbn pg-t jnt t Sr Lnk, nywy? Wht’s th dl, gy?

    mn, lk, Jff, f yr plltn-pgg, t-my-C2-spw-y-psnt-nbds!, h-s-rgnt trp t Sr Lnk ws fr “scntfc” prpss, thn why ddn’t y jst dpnd n Sr Lnk’s rsdnt scntsts fr th fld wrk nd skp yr whl nvrnmnt-nsltng trp? r, Jff, f y ddn’t thnk th Sr Lnkn “lcls” p t th tsk nd n nd f “Bwn” Jff’s cntrl-frk vrsght, thn why ddn’t y jst s vd-cnfrncng nd n-st, vd p-lnks t srvl thr wrk? nd, y knw, lk, Jff, thrgh th sm md, cnvy yr whtby-knws-bst, crck-th-whp crrctns f thr shddy wrk nd nsr t s brght p t tht hgh-stndrd, frst st by Dr. Mnnt’s drwnd plr-br srvy, tht hs bcm yr dscpln’s pnt-f-rfrnc fr qlty-cntrl vr snc?

    Cld t b, Jff, tht y r jst lctrng, slf-rghts, hypcrt crp-t, wh cld cr lss bt crbn-“plltn”–t lst whn t cms t yr wn tnrd-trgh, crbn-swn gd dls? Cld tht b t, Jff? r, jst myb, t cld b tht y dn’t vn blv ll th B. S. y pddl nd tk mlcs, cyncl, bttr-thn-y-hlt-dlts, smrty-pnts hstlr’s plsr n flng vryn wth bnch f scncy-sndng flm-flm s y rp-ff th “lttl-gy” txpyr? m n t nythng thr wth tht lst ttlly ff-th-wll, crzy, rrtnl, “cnsprcy thry”, plckd-frm-thn-r, thnkn’-t-ld, jst-syn’, dl spcltn f mn, Jff?

    r, myb, Jff, y wr n Sr Lnkn t fght th chld sx-slvry ndstry thr. mn, lk, th Wk ntry fr “Prstttn f chldrn” rprts 40,000 chldrn r prstttd n Sr Lnk. f tht’s t, Jff, tk vrythng bck, sd bv, nd jn wth my Dltd brthrn n ppldng nd dmrng th mprtnt wrk y r nggd n t nd th vl f Wstrn pdphls pryng n thrd-wrld chldrn.

  39. #39 BBD
    March 1, 2013

    And where is dear Chameleon? After her hilarious attempts to conceal that she hadn’t read/understood K13 I was looking forward to continuing our ‘conversation’.

    If you so see this chammy, look upthread to # 19. RSVP!

  40. #40 mike
    March 1, 2013

    Jeff Harvey,

    Still savoring your last guy. This one caught my eye:

    “…academic venue…university, research center, conference, workshop, etc”

    I mean, like, Jeff, the above sounds like the list of planet-killing delicacies on the 5-star menu of the “Carbon Eco-Piggie Cafe”. I mean, like, the mind reels at the thought of all that CO2-spew you guys throw off incessantly jetting from one greenshirt gab-fest to another.

    So, Jeff, don’t you think you and your lefty hive-bozo pals need to do your part to eliminate all that “human fingerprint on the environment” business that you guys, personally, contribute? You know, like, don’t you think you guys should just stay home and video-conference all those buncha-losers, boondoggle, CO2-Chernobyl enviro-conferences of yours and thereby keep your sleaze-ball, greasy finger-prints off Gaia (though the raddled trollop probably likes all the feel-up attention) and either firmly attached to the fingertips of your dirty-fingernail, roving trough-claspers or, at least, confined to the immediate vicinity of your wanker work-outs?

    Huh, guy?

  41. #41 BBD
    March 1, 2013

    Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimble in the wade;
    All mimsy were the borogoves,
    And the mome raths outgrabe.

    “Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
    The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
    Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
    The frumious Bandersnatch!”

  42. #42 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    Yeah, BBD, but mike’s has bett\er metre….

  43. #43 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    Yes, the Jonas-killing thread has been through enough iterations of lie/strawman/astonishingly dim assertion/crank quotes for me.

  44. #44 Jeff Harvey
    March 1, 2013

    Mike, you are about as witty as a bad dose of the clap. Why don’t you get a life, you sad, pathetic little human being? All of this ‘lefty’, ‘greenshirt’, etc. ad nauseum bullshit. Really. Man, you are one twisted dude.

  45. #45 Jeff Harvey
    March 1, 2013

    Let’s hope Tim cottons on to your pathetic drivel Mike and that you end up in the sin-bin along with Tim Curtin. As I said, you are one twisted, bitter fruitcake.

  46. #46 Jeff Harvey
    March 1, 2013

    Oh, and by the way, Mike Mr. self-righteous know-nothing, the local term for Sri Lankans to describe caucasians is ‘Suddha’. Bwana is some sort of racist term that westerners use as jargon for Africans to describe caucasians. Trust you to invoke that.

  47. #47 BBD
    March 1, 2013

    Does anyone know the correct term for animals that can change their skin colour?

    Fiddling around with chro- mim- poik- isn’t getting me anywhere.

    Chameleons, obviously, but other lizards IIRC and certain cephalopods. Doubtless others.

    Is there a word for this facility?

  48. #48 bill
    March 1, 2013

    Brad is dull.

    mike is just sick

    Speaking of the far-reaches of the loonasphere, this WTD systematic take-down of the distasteful and disturbing origins of Galileo Malcolm Roberts bizarre assault on the CSIRO is intriguing.

    And genuinely repulsive.

    Scratch a Denier – and, let’s not forget, this ‘movement’ boasts the likes of Roberts, Monckton and Delingpole at its apex – and this is the darkness you reach.

    And further to lord-sidcup upthread – only the other day I was reading an earnest discussion among the fanboys over at Jo Nova’s about how she might get (a well-deserved) ‘best Science Blog’, but, you know, they were up against stiff competition like Watts and Tallbloke…

    You could not make it up!

    Also, isn’t it interesting that supposedly the first-round of Lewandowsky’s online survey was gamed by the evil Warmist hordes in order to make Deniers look like idiots, and yet it appears we can’t even be arsed to rig the results of the Webbies… you see, conspirators see conspiracies everywhere…

    The awards are just a big pile of shite anyway. Like mike. Watts has the best Science blog like McDonalds is the best restaurant and the Twilight Saga is the greatest set of movies ever made…

  49. #49 BBD
    March 1, 2013

    @ 43

    Philistine dog!

  50. #50 Andrew Strang
    March 1, 2013


    Shoot from the hip much, tiger?

  51. #51 bill
    March 1, 2013

    It’s the sort of thing you might expect from excitable teenage fans of One Direction to make sure all their favourite band members were included in an online vote for “Lushest Boyband Singer”.

    Leo Hickman on Deniers gaming the Bloggies. Yep, that’s about the level we are talking here.

    And, how apt a comparison: One Direction would be mike’s favourite band, surely?

  52. #52 bill
    March 1, 2013

    Oh, and BBD – no, I don’t think there is a general category name for animals that can change their skin-colour to match their surroundings (or not!).

    Bit of a surprise, really.

  53. #53 BBD
    March 1, 2013

    @ Bill

    It is, isn’t it?

  54. #54 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013


    from my always-civil disagreements with Jeff Harvey the impression I get is that you’re accusing the wrong climate “believer” of hypocrisy.

    I could be wrong, but for all his many human failings, Jeff does seem to have the courage of his convictions.

    Unlike the legion of poseurs and poseuses who wear climate angst as an ideological accessory, Jeff doesn’t (to my knowledge) make gratuitous trips by air, live in the lap of luxury or otherwise “betray” his belief system—however misguided you and I may consider that system.

    And your digression into the subject of third-world sex tourism wasn’t edifying.

    Unless I’m missing some relevant rhetorical history between Jeff and yourself, that stuff was really uncalled-for.

    With all due respect, mike, while I generally find your comments interesting, in your latest exchanges with Jeff I reckon you lost the plot somewhere. Time to relax, recalibrate your targeting system and take out the righteous anger on those who deserve it much more than Jeff.

  55. #55 StevoR
    Adelaide hills
    March 2, 2013

    Good doco linked here :


    In case folks here are interested and haven’t yet seen.

    (Haven’t read comments yet so sorry if this has already been noted / linked.)

  56. #56 bill
    March 2, 2013

    Getting lonely in solitary there, Brad? 😉

    And your digression into the subject of third-world sex tourism wasn’t edifying.

    This is one of mike’s pet themes; previously he’s worked himself into a fine old lather, to such an extent that some – no-one here, certainly – might begin to think ‘methinks thou dost…’

    ‘Interesting’? Phhht! If you want to see yourself as some kind of peer with this scatalogical obsessive that’s definitely your problem.

    Then again, I seem to recall that you were praising the egregious ranter Tucci78 as being somehow the equal of the anti-religious bigot and war-criminal Hitchens…

  57. #57 mike
    March 2, 2013


    Yr: “nlss ‘m mssng sm rhtrcl hstry btwn Jff nd yrslf…”

    Y r. nd ‘m stsfd wth my cmmnts, vn f y r nt, Brd. Bt thnk y fr yr fdbck, rgrdlss.

    Bt lt m nt, Brd, s n wh ws fmsly tggd n ths blg s “…hvng n prblm wth ppl thrtnng t rp clmt scntsts’ fmls” (nt by Jff nd lt m dd tht tht scrrls, ttlly nfndd ccstn dd nt prvk th slghtst pp f prtst frm my dr Dltds), tht chld-rp (.k.. pdphl) sms t b srprsngly “snstv” sbjct mng crtn f th nvrnmntlly cnscs–xcpt, f crs, whn t cn b hkd p t n ff-th-wll prpgnd ptch (rpng fmls ntls rpng chldrn) ntndd t smr “dnrs”.

    nd dn’t ndrstnd why, Brd. Lk t tht Wk ntry ndr “Prstttn f chldrn” nd s th tns f thsnds f kds wh r frcd t t spnd thr chldhd n hllsh brthls ctrng t Wstrn pdphls n nmbrs sffcnt t spprt wrld-wd “ndstry”, yr-n-nd-yr-t, wth tht mny chld vctms.

    n thng w ll shld gr n, t wld sm t m, s tht ths ds, sx-slvry xplttn f chldrn shld nd. Hck! Lt m g t n lmb hr–‘ll vn sggst tht svng tns f thsnds f kds frm dly gng-rps s mr mprtnt mttr thn vn–sttng dwn?–svng fw fckng Plr Brs! (prdn my Frnch).

    nd n tht rgrd, ‘m sck nd trd f ths vrs, hgh-prfl c-cnfbs sttng p shp, n my txpyr dm, n lcls ntrs fr thr tlrnc f pdphls r, wrs, ntrs dstntns fr pdphl sx-trsts. Wht n th hll s th N (nd thr s-clld prstgs nstttns) dng ptrnzng sch Stnc-pts wth ts cnfrnc bsnss? ‘m ll rs fr th xplntn frm whmvr. nd scrw th “dfctn” crpl.

    nd lt m dd tht ‘m ls jst lttl rkd tht mst ntrst n spprssng th sx-slvry f chldrn s cnfnd t fmnsts wh typclly pprch th ss frm th stndpnt f th sffrng f grls–wth lttl r n ntrst n th cmprbl sffrng f bys. gn, dn’t ndrstnd th tqtt hr.

    S, Brd, Jff’s lttl trp t Sr Lnk llwd m t slp n psky rmndr t Dltd’s “btfl ppl” tht thr r mttrs t prs mr wrth n’s whl thn prmtng mk–bck/mk–glg grnshrt hstls. S s m!

    . K. Dltds, w’v ll bn rnd th mlbrry-bsh n ths pdphl bsnss bfr. knw ll th “Tks n t knw n!” psh-bck hwlng tht rpts frm th sl sspcts hr n ths blg whn th sbjct s rsd. S g t t, pls, s knw y wll, bt ‘v hd my lttl sy nd hv n ntrst n nggng wth Dltd-lnd n ths sbjct frthr, vn f dd brng t p n th frst plc.

  58. #58 chameleon
    March 2, 2013

    BBD @# 19
    This is the comment I referred to.
    I apologise if I have misinterpreted it.

    February 28, 2013

    Oh chameleon, my dear…? Kopp et al?

    To me, it looked like that comment was being dismissive of Kopp et al?
    Perhaps you actually meant to be dismissive of me (and not Kopp) considering this comment of yours at #19:
    No, that’s a complete fabrication. Don’t lie about what I write. I’ve got a low enough opinion of you as it is.

    Either way BBD, I don’t regard that as a particularly good way to foster a discussion about this new paper. I actually don’t really care about your opinion of me BBD, why would I?
    I thought you wanted to discuss the paper….not your opinion of me?

    And I am not sure on what specific grounds you’re being so argumentative with me about the Kopp et al paper?

    I didn’t find it at the hockey schtik (until you mentioned it had been discussed there I don’t believe I have ever read anything at the hockey schtik).

    I also don’t particularly disagree with anything you have said about the actual content and/or conclusions of the actual research.

    My comments about any references to the 20th and/or 21st century were in response to Vince not to the paper.

    I am once again a bit disappointed in you BBD.
    You do ask quite reasonable questions sometimes.
    Unfortunately however, it seems if you don’t get the answers you expect and/or if you are asked qualifying questions (before an answer is provided) you like to just launch into rather abusive, personal, pseudo psychological/political attacks.
    I can only conclude from that behaviour that you aren’t actually interested in a civil discussion, you’re only interested in trying to prove that something is amiss and dreadfully personally wrong with whoever you have questioned.
    Sorry if that sounds harsh but that’s how it appears to me at the moment.

    I merely linked up some of the latest research on SLR, partly to steer away from having to read more about Lotharsson’s apparent worship of Lewandowsky.
    I am astounded that JeffH called it a ‘denier paper’ and that you and Vince and Lotharsson got all tetchy because I linked it and made some general outline comments about it.
    Why so tectchy?

  59. #59 bill
    March 2, 2013

    I’m sick and tired of these various, high-profile eco-confabs setting up shop, on my taxpayer dime, in locales notorious for their tolerance of pedophiles or, worse, notorious destinations for pedophile sex-tourists.

    Yep, top mate you have there, Brad. What do you think this sleazy little fellow is implying? Why does it leap so readily to his mind?

  60. #60 bill
    March 2, 2013

    I mean, seriously – mike, you are an appalling little shit. There is no excuse for you, you sad, sorry wretched little well of ugliness. All you can do is blight the lives of others. It’s too much to hope that you’d ever have the decency to simply leave after this sordid episode – because decency is what you lack in spades – but that is what you should do.

    And if any of your fellow travellers weren’t snivelling little tribalist cowards they’d do the same.

  61. #61 bill
    March 2, 2013

    …they’d tell you you should do the same.

  62. #62 Lotharsson
    March 2, 2013

    I merely linked up some of the latest research on SLR, partly to steer away from having to read more about Lotharsson’s apparent worship of Lewandowsky.

    I expect that the fact that your tactics (a) don’t achieve your goal and (b) aren’t necessary to achieve your goal never crossed your mind at the time, given that you posted it anyway. 😉

    I am astounded that … you and Vince and Lotharsson got all tetchy because I linked it and made some general outline comments about it.

    Your famous lack of comprehension once more allows you to claim reasons not in evidence – and ignore the reasons that are, and blithely sweep right past the errors that you repeat even after repeated corrections.

  63. #63 Olaus Petri
    March 2, 2013

    What’s good enough for Lewandowski doesn’t meet the standards of John Cook?



  64. #64 bill
    March 2, 2013

    Let me guess, more unfunny, amateurishly drawn crap by Josh? A run-of-the-mill illustrator who would otherwise be illustrating colonic health pamphlets? Another classic example of the anti-science crowd’s elevation and adulation of palpable mediocrities?

    Who cares?

    Why SkS left the bloggies. Precisely because of the undeserved promotion of the utterly third-rate by dreary little zealots who resent real success and have nothing better to do with their lives. I’d imagine drooling little cyber-Orc Olap has done his duty many times over…

  65. #65 Olaus Petri
    March 2, 2013

    Bill, are you feeling OK?

  66. #66 Jeff Harvey
    March 2, 2013

    “I’ll even suggest that saving tens of thousands of kids from daily gang-rapes is a more important matter than even–sitting down?–saving a few fucking Polar Bears!”

    What an unbelieveably naive and insidiously stupid remark. Mike writes as if these two things are correlated; as if protecting children in the third world from western pedophile predators means that Polar Bears have to be sacrificed. As if protecting the environment upon which we all depend has to be traded off against eliminating perverts from traveling to developing countries.

    I don;t even know where to begin dismantling this illogical spew. In fact, I won’t even try. I think the reader should be left to themselves to read it for what it is.

  67. #67 bill
    March 2, 2013

    So, Olap, whose sad little barrow did you push – Watts? Jo Nova? Tallbloke?

    You people cannot see yourselves from the outside at all, can you?

    In the whole wide world of Science online -some of which is actually excellent – this misbegotten horde of monomaniac apparatchiks manages to foist a risible gaggle of ideologues upon us all; did you seriously think that everyone-who’s-not-a-freakin’-nutcase-already wouldn’t draw he only conceivable conclusion?

    You really are the barbarians.

  68. #68 Olaus Petri
    March 2, 2013

    Sorry to hear that you are ill Bill.

  69. #69 bill
    March 2, 2013

    Certainly we’re all sick of you.

  70. #70 chek
    March 2, 2013

    What you have to remember aboiut Olap, is he’s somebody else’s dog who’s lost his owner. And thinks tenth rate cartoonists are worth recommending. Sad, but that’s his life.

  71. #71 Wow
    March 2, 2013

    “as if protecting children in the third world from western pedophile predators means that Polar Bears have to be sacrificed.”

    Maybe mike is saying unless we kill off the polar bears, he’s going to continue buying little slave boys from Africa to bum.

  72. #72 Wow
    March 2, 2013

    Olap, how come you turn up some empty words with no point at all to them?

  73. #73 BBD
    March 2, 2013

    reptile @ 58

    Here’s my conclusion:

    You lied about not finding K13 at the Hockey Schtick

    You haven’t read it and don’t have a *clue* what it is about

    You *thought* there was some denialist mileage in it because the liar at the Hockey Schtick conned you and you are too lazy/scientifically illiterate to check for yourself

    You made a tit out of yourself here and got nailed for it.

    Spare us the passive-aggressive whining. You have acted in bad faith and blind ignorance and got badly caught out. You know it; I know it; everybody else knows it.

    Next time, RTFR or I’ll rip you another one.

  74. #74 Jeff Harvey
    March 2, 2013

    Its not a denier paper Chammy – its that the deniers are distorting the paper to derive their own pre-determined conclusions. That’s what deniers do. And by deniers I mean the climate change denial blogs, since few of them have any scientific bonafides…

  75. #75 BBD
    March 2, 2013

    I wonder if we are witnessing the birth of a new denier meme: “AGW is refuted because the Eemian.”


  76. #76 bill
    March 2, 2013

    Joe Romm points out that rational people have tended to reverse the famous 5 stages of grief

    Finally, you end up in a kind of denial. It just becomes impossible to believe that the human race is going to be so stupid. Indeed, my rational side finds it hard to believe that we’re going to avoid catastrophic global warming, as any regular CP reader knows. But my heart, in denial, is certain that we will — see “How the world can (and will) stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm: The full global warming solution (updated).”

    The great New Yorker write Elizabeth Kolbert perhaps best summed up this form of denial. Her three-part series, “The Climate of Man,” which became the terrific book, Field Notes from a Catastrophe, famously ends:

    It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing.

    Again, by the end of the year we are going to have a Tony Abbott government – elected by sullen children who want everything, but neither want to pay for it nor be made aware of its true cost – dominated by Tea-Partyite cadre who live in the epistemic bubble and dismiss the notion that there’s even an ‘outside’ to engage with.

    Australia will go into Stupid reverse – not just on climate, but on the entire vast expanse of issues where reality and Neocon ideology conflict – and nobody will believe it’s possible to go forward again until the shit has really hit the fan and they’re contemplating casting lots for who ends up as Soylent Green.

    In which case ‘forward’ will be ugly indeed, and the shits that barracked us into the disaster, whether that be the forthcoming Cabinet or the dim-bulb foot-soldiers that haunt this blog, will be doing their unseemly damnedest, sans shame, to ensure that it’s not them who suffers the consequences.

    Because doing their unseemly damnedest to further the religion of Me!Me!Me! is what they do…

  77. #77 Wow
    March 2, 2013

    So the Australian public have no problems with obeying a US led coup to replace your legally elected government?

    You know that Wikileaks showed how the USA discussed how to remove Gillard and get a more US-friendly man in power, right?

    So after that, you’re going to do of your own free will what they tried to get done behind your backs???

  78. #78 chek
    March 2, 2013

    The really frightening thing is Bill, that it’s only the old that are fooling themselves. The young, or at least some of them – and I’m referring to the under 30s who will bear the brunt of today’s inaction – are already aware of what’s coming down the line.

    My son, a microbiology student and a keen gamer since he was 11 (had his own ‘mods’ website at age 12) have – like the Pentagon – ‘wargamed’ the future and fouind that if we can make it through to c. 2200 AD we (humanity) may be OK to continue on.

    There’s just ane awkward period of about 75 years to get through where we (humanity) need to be able to do five things at once on a planetery scale but can only afford to do about two at a time.

    Even shooting the bastards pretending otherwise at present in pursuit of an illusory personal gain would amount an unaffordable waste of energy and materials.

  79. #79 Lotharsson
    March 3, 2013

    You know that Wikileaks showed how the USA discussed how to remove Gillard and get a more US-friendly man in power, right?

    On average the kind of people who think Alan Jones knows what he’s talking about with respect to climate science tend to think Wikileaks is some sort of nefarious left-wing plot.

    And then there is the Australian cohort of “low information” voters …

  80. #80 Lotharsson
    March 3, 2013

    Re bill’s #76, over the last year or two I’ve gone past the denial phase into stage 6, whatever that is. I don’t think humanity will deal with the situation without suffering very significant detrimental impacts that would be entirely avoidable if collectively we showed reasonable intelligence and foresight – but collectively we haven’t yet and most probably won’t.

    I also think that the recriminations when the situation becomes bad enough for almost everyone to stop denying the consequences will be severe and will be thoroughly misdirected.

  81. #81 Andrew Strang
    March 3, 2013

    A handy accompaniment to the Rational Discussion Flowchart here –

  82. #82 chek
    March 3, 2013

    but collectively we haven’t yet and most probably won’t.

    That doesn’t even bear thinking about Lotharsson, by which I of course mean we must. There’s no question about losing this civilisation, because after a collapse there’s no coming back.

    All our near-surface resources have been used up so there’s not even the chance of an Iron Age Pt 2 or industrial revolution redux on any meaningful scale, and it’ll take the oceans centuries to recover enough to be amenable to lo-tech exploitation.

    Consequences indeed, ‘Alarmist’ is too mild a word.

  83. #83 Eli Rabett
    March 3, 2013

    garbage is a resource

  84. #84 BBD
    March 3, 2013

    gomi no sensei

  85. #85 chek
    March 3, 2013

    garbage is a resource

    Aparently that’s been gamed too, but is extremely subject to the law of diminishing returns.

  86. #86 bill
    March 3, 2013

    Speaking of garbage, surely we have some sort of record for the number of sharks jumped here? Lord Christopher Monckton, self-anointed voice of the silent, broken millions.

    I kid you not.

    h/t HT

  87. #87 Lotharsson
    March 3, 2013

    Speaking of garbage, surely we have some sort of record for the number of sharks jumped here?

    With denialists as with Republican legislators, a useful rule of thumb is: it’s always projection.

  88. #88 Lotharsson
    March 3, 2013

    I noticed that you were more absent than not, and secretly envied your resolve.

    The returns – even factoring in the comedy – have been diminishing for some time now (and I had a long “discussion” with him at Lewandowsky’s so I’d already gone over some of the ground he tries to claim). And while it can be fine for a while – everyone has to have a hobby 😉 – I have more interesting things to do now.

    …but I think I’m about done now.

    All you have to do is … stop … reading, let alone responding (here or over there). There’s no need to look at what he subsequently writes because the information content is almost zero given that you could predict the bulk of it from what you already know.

  89. #89 bill
    March 3, 2013

    More on the Lord of the Shark Jumpers. The first quotation is so surreal and bellicose it’s like he’s actually some situationist performance piece.

    And yet don’t they just lap it all up over at Nova’s?

    (Plus I’ve realised I went to school with the VC at UTAS!)

  90. #90 bill
    March 3, 2013

    Ah, I see ‘mike’ has been disemvowelled.

    Could not have happened to a more deserving bloke!

  91. #91 Sou
    March 3, 2013

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

    Maybe they will go even further and start calling for regulations to cut CO2?

  92. #92 mike
    March 3, 2013


    Yr. 90

    Fck y!

  93. #93 bill
    March 3, 2013

    Ww, wht rtrt! Dd y thnk f t ll by yrself, r dd mmm hlp y?

  94. #94 mike
    March 3, 2013


    Yr 93

    Fck y, Mmmy-Fckr!

  95. #95 bill
    March 3, 2013

    All obsessives are boring, mike.

  96. #96 Andrew Strang
    March 3, 2013

    @ 94
    … and good luck in your abuse field.

  97. #97 Wow
    March 3, 2013

    Jeesus, you deniers have to get a sense of humour and laugh it off.

  98. #98 mike
    March 3, 2013


    Yr 96

    I may be mis-reading the situation, here, Andy, ol’ buddy, but I gotta say that those serial, dumb-ass, borderline-scary-dude-inflected, suspect-stalker-dork, one-line-weirdo comments of yours are beginning to come across kinda creepy-like, and all–you know what I mean, Andy? Anything I should know about you, Andy, ol’ sport?

    “Abuse” you say, Andy? Hmm…you know, Andy, that’s got me sorta thinkin’ that maybe a peon, like me, sassing back to some one or another of my hive-betters, like, you know, disturbs the hive’s sense of “Platonic” orderliness, and all. You know, like, us expendable, useless-eater hoi-polloi are, ideally, like, you know, just supposed to know our place, tug at our forelocks, bite our tongues and take it, and all. Defer reflexively to the hive’s nomenklatura, and all. That sort of thing, I’m thinkin’ Andy. And when one of us serfs doesn’t seem to be going along with “the program”, then our back-chat is termed–in Philosopher King parlance– “abuse”, right, Andy? Am I on to something here, Andy?

    And my thoughts are kinda runnin’ along the above lines ‘cuz, Andy, I don’t see you much interested in the true “abuse” hurled incessantly at “deniers” by this blog’s greenshirt hive-worthies, and all. You know, Andy, us uppity helots notice little things like that.

    But I could be wrong, Andy.

  99. #99 Wow
    March 3, 2013

    “But I could be wrong, Andy.”

    Only one word is incorrect there. “could”. Change it to “will”.

  100. #100 chameleon
    March 3, 2013

    JeffH @#37,
    I wonder if you realise that your complaint can be repeated accross a number of professions and academic disciplines not just science?
    Maybe what you’re really complaining about is a loss of trust or ‘social licence’?
    Perhaps a better question to ask is why is this happening?
    Are you sure you’re pointing your finger at the right culprits?

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