February 2013 Open Thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    March 3, 2013

    Better yet: is it happening.

    Or is it just in an echo chamber you hear many voices when actually it’s only one?

  2. #2 Wow
    March 3, 2013

    65% of USians think that AGW is a problem that needs to be dealt with.

    But in the echo chamber of the deniers, the support for action is minuscule.

  3. #3 mike
    March 3, 2013

    Wow,

    Yr: 99 on the previous pg.

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

    Help me out here, Wow. What is this “will” deal about. Either I “am” wrong or I “am not” wrong. Right? I mean, like, how does “But I will be wrong” work, Wow? I don’t get it.

  4. #4 Wow
    March 3, 2013

    mike, you should see about getting a sense of humour.

  5. #5 Wow
    March 3, 2013

    You will be wrong, mike.

    You will be wrong.

  6. #6 Wow
    March 3, 2013

    mike: “I don’t get it.”

    Yes, we know.

    And you never will.

  7. #7 mike
    March 3, 2013

    O. K. Wow,

    Thanks, I guess, for your mutliple fun-and-games responses.

  8. #8 Lionel A
    March 3, 2013

    Keyes, [1]

    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.

    Here’s an idea, either answer the questions put to you, and in the appropriate thread, or continue playing with your sand. You lie by evasion, simple.

    [1] You are too abrasive to deserve being addressed by your first, this especially as you think, because you assumed, that addressing me through the collective ‘A family’ would be an insult, it isn’t, I will leave you to work out why.

  9. #9 Lionel A
    March 3, 2013

    lord_sidcup wrt:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/february-2013-open-thread/comment-page-8/#comment-151630

    SkS has pulled its plug out of that nonsense Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies quite rightly.

    Lest anybody be in any doubt about the bad faith displayed by the likes of Nova/Codling then here is another eye opener as Lord Monckton Threatens Climate Scientists, Again with the Monckton’s nauseating letter being posted up at that aforementioned blog, which is in turn nauseating.

  10. #10 Andrew Strang
    Australia
    March 3, 2013

    @ 98
    I’m alive tonight to speak about the prophets and the geeks in mile aroma interride where the pool dogs send their missions. Maybe you could aim to enjoy some of our free steel wind in the engine room – it doesn’t have a resentful default.

  11. #11 Jeff Harvey
    March 3, 2013

    “Perhaps a better question to ask is why is this happening?
    Are you sure you’re pointing your finger at the right culprits?”

    Oh, I am certainly pointing my finger at the proper culprits alright. the corporate media, right wing think tanks and web logs – and, underlying this, the corporations themselves, and an entire culture of profit-driven overconsumption – are far and away the primary culprits. They prey on public naivete as well as the desperate desire most people have to believe that they are not a part of the problem.

  12. #12 mike
    March 3, 2013

    Andy,

    Yr: No. 10

    O. K., Andy, I’m beginning to get the feel for your schtick. I can see appreciation of it is an “acquired” taste and, I must confess, I’m beginning to “cotton” to it.

    There’s an interesting gent with the handle “willard”, who frequently comments at Dr. Curry’s blog. And willard’s comments have some qualities in common with yours–cryptic and over my head. In one of my rare ham-handed tries at that sense-of-humor “thingie”, that Wow seems to be urging on me lately, I described willard’s comments as seemingly the work of a “Krell” (reference to an old sci-fi flick) Ascended Master.

    I think, Andy, you’re probably my second encounter with the Krell-elect. I’m honored. But, fair warning, Andy, I’m wily enough not to engage Krell Ascended Masters on terrain of their choosing and with weapons of their choice–I know my limitations.

    Your last? Reminds me of some poems–“Symbolist”, I think they were called–my High-School, French teacher once assigned us ungrateful barbarians to read. To say the least, I didn’t “get” the poems (my laughable ineptitude in French undoubtedly contributing), but I did learn, to my surprise, that one could enjoy a poem without “getting” it. Kinda reminds me of your last.

    And I’m further glad that you’ve been so kind, Andy, as to toss a comment my humble way with multiple lines. I mean, like, who am I to judge a Krell Ascended Master, and all, but, still, IMHO, Andy, your one-liners just do not do your “art” justice.

    Ready to copy.

  13. #13 Brad Keyes
    March 3, 2013

    Lionel:

    answer the questions put to you … You lie by evasion, simple.

    ZOMG!

    Congratulations are in order, simple.

    You believalists have invented a totally new way of lying!

    Let me get this straight. Just by openly, honestly and patiently declining to answer questions

    — you’ve already answered multiple times
    — which became boring about ten iterations ago
    — with whose answer only a handful of people you find increasingly obnoxious and disturbing are preoccupied
    — for which you’ve got better things to do with your limited time than provide the “references required”
    — you’re not paid to answer
    and / or
    — you’re not qualified to answer,

    you now render yourself fair game for characterization as a liar?!

    This changes everything. No joke: you and your collaborators deserve a Nobel for this.

    You are too abrasive to deserve being addressed by your first [name, "Brad"], this [sic] especially as you think, because you assumed, that addressing me through the collective ‘A family’ would be an insult

    Ah. That clichéd thin line between genius and debilitating social paranoia.

    You think, because you assumed, that addressing you through the collective ‘A family’ was meant to be an insult. Why?!

  14. #14 mike
    March 3, 2013

    Hey Deltoids!

    I can see I’m losing vowels at the “cyclic” rate. So, I’m getting the message. Yep! time for me to gather up my grieving, orphan consonants and take my “act” elsewhere, it appears.

    Wish me luck, guys!

  15. #15 Wow
    March 3, 2013

    Back in your kennel, rabid dog.

  16. #16 chek
    March 3, 2013

    “Brad” #13 could have just said. “Lionel, because I’m incapable of a straightforward, honest, defensible answer”

    But no, instead we’re subjected to nigh on 200 words of self-pitying “Brad” spiel.

  17. #17 BBD
    March 3, 2013

    By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.

    Why the fuck is Brad still posting on the open thread?

    Here’s a suggestion. Let’s self-police:

    Lionel:

    answer the questions put to you … You lie by evasion, simple.

    ZOMG!

    Congratulations are in order, simple.

    You believalists have invented a totally new way of lying!

    Let me get this straight. Just by openly, honestly and patiently declining to answer questions

    — you’ve already answered multiple times
    — which became boring about ten iterations ago
    — with whose answer only a handful of people you find increasingly obnoxious and disturbing are preoccupied
    — for which you’ve got better things to do with your limited time than provide the “references required”
    — you’re not paid to answer
    and / or
    — you’re not qualified to answer,

    you now render yourself fair game for characterization as a liar?!

    This changes everything. No joke: you and your collaborators deserve a Nobel for this.

    You are too abrasive to deserve being addressed by your first [name, "Brad"], this [sic] especially as you think, because you assumed, that addressing me through the collective ‘A family’ would be an insult

    Ah. That clichéd thin line between genius and debilitating social paranoia.

    You think, because you assumed, that addressing you through the collective ‘A family’ was meant to be an insult. Why?!

  18. #18 Olaus Petri
    March 3, 2013

    Jeff’s still foaming about the Elders. Hilarious! He knows…. :-) While in the real world:

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/02/mikes-agu-trick/#more-17336

    ;-)

  19. #19 Wow
    March 3, 2013

    Oh dear, yet more empty insinuation from Olap. I guess since he doesn’t have anything to actually say, he has to resort to insinuation.

    Anything concrete can be dismantled so easily…

  20. #20 chek
    March 3, 2013

    Olap doesn’t recognise that McIntyre’s a paranoid always on the verge (but never actually) about to uncover something.
    It’s a tired act after all these years, but the peanut gallery have short attention spans.

  21. #21 BBD
    March 3, 2013

    Obviously climate science is a commie scam to overthrow capitalism and facilitate the establishment of a new world order run on good socialist principles.

    How can I have been so blind?!

    I’ve been working on my two (shoe) box climate model and my latest findings indicate that the astonishingly warm January may have been the result of absorption/re-radiation of thermal IR by black helicopters.

    Funny how the warmists want to talk about El Niño. You’ve got to watch the pea under the thimble with these guys.

    ;-)

  22. #22 Wow
    March 3, 2013

    Obviously, during the daytime, the black helicopters are blue helicopters. ‘else you’d be able to see them!

  23. #23 Jeff Harvey
    March 3, 2013

    Ha! The ‘real world’ to a nincompoop like Olaus is Climate Fraudit. A denier blog. Here’s a guy whose science education probably ended in grade 5 telling us he can tell real science from fake science.

    Olaus, go back to the Jonas thread where you can cheer on your hero. Without him you are even more intellectually bankrupt than normal.

  24. #24 Russell Seitz
    March 3, 2013

    Fools !

    Without life giving tar sand, where would you get your newspapers ?

  25. #25 BBD
    March 3, 2013

    # 22 Wow

    Just because you can’t see them doesn’t mean they aren’t there. It’s the same as the post-1970 warming. *We know* it wasn’t CO2 and *we know* that government-funded ‘climate science’ is blind to teh truth because it’s a scam.

    There is a mystery forcing at work there too and it’s *real*.

  26. #26 BBD
    March 3, 2013

    See how Russell Seitz tries to hijack the thread with his crazy theories about a semiotic carbon cycle. It’s *nothing to do with CO2*. This is how I know that I am close to teh truth.

  27. #27 chek
    March 3, 2013

    Actually Russell, that is really funny. Good going …er …<dude, as I believe they say nowadays!

  28. #28 Vince Whirlwind
    March 3, 2013

    Australian Climate Commission release report:
    “The Angry Summer”.

    http://climatecommission.gov.au/report/the-angry-summer/

    “Climate on steroids”.

    Key facts:

    The Australian summer over 2012 and 2013 has been defined by extreme weather events across much of the continent, including record-breaking heat, severe bushfires, extreme rainfall and damaging flooding. Extreme heatwaves and catastrophic bushfire conditions during the Angry Summer were made worse by climate change.
    All weather, including extreme weather events is influenced by climate change. All extreme weather events are now occurring in a climate system that is warmer and moister than it was 50 years ago. This influences the nature, impact and intensity of extreme weather events.
    Australia’s Angry Summer shows that climate change is already adversely affecting Australians. The significant impacts of extreme weather on people, property, communities and the environment highlight the serious consequences of failing to adequately address climate change.
    It is highly likely that extreme hot weather will become even more frequent and severe in Australia and around the globe, over the coming decades. The decisions we make this decade will largely determine the severity of climate change and its influence on extreme events for our grandchildren.
    It is critical that we are aware of the influence of climate change on many types of extreme weather so that communities, emergency services and governments prepare for the risk of increasingly severe and frequent extreme weather.

  29. #29 Andrew Strang
    March 3, 2013

    @ 14

    God luck mike!

  30. #30 bill
    March 3, 2013

    Back in your lonely boxxie wox there, little Braddie.

    See this as friendly advice.

    I, for one, would be more than happy to see you bounced altogether – yes, poppet; tyranny! diddums! – and each time you step outside it becomes just that bit more likely.

  31. #31 chameleon
    March 3, 2013

    JeffH @ 11?
    You were pointing your finger at ‘academic wannabes’ and people who hide in the shadows in your earlier comment.
    Now it sounds like you believe in some type of conspiracy that is being run by corporations.
    I would like to know your definition of ‘academic wannabes’.
    It read as if you were complaining that ‘scientists’ have been demonised and they have lost the ‘trust’ of ghe general population.
    You also seem to have missed the main point of my comment.
    If I substitued ‘agriculture’ or ‘manufacturing’ or ‘mining’ as 3 examples (all have science & technology arms) they would be making largely similar complaints to yours

  32. #32 chameleon
    March 3, 2013

    I should probably add medicine and/or health to those 3 above.
    Also, I did mean to re ask the question in the light of my original comment.
    Why is ‘social licence’ being lost so rapidly?
    Bill earlier highlighted the likely demise of the Labor govt later this year.
    Is that part of the symptoms/causes of loss of trust/social licence?

  33. #33 Craig Thomas
    March 3, 2013

    This is a great graph which provides a highly impacting visual interpretation of the progress of ice loss in the Arctic:

    http://haveland.com/share/arctic-death-spiral-1979-201301.png

    Prize awarded for anybody who can spot the “recovery”…

  34. #34 Vince Whirlwind
    March 4, 2013

    What’s Chameleon twittering on about?

    Chameleon, we established you had no idea what that paper on Eemian sea levels was on about.

    I find it hard to believe that you could even imagine yourself successfully participating in an intelligent discussion on the public’s trust in science following the deluge of well-funded professional anti-science PR propagated around the world’s mass media since the 1960s.

    You could read the excellent, “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes if you’re interested, though.

  35. #35 BBD
    March 4, 2013

    In less than four hours!

  36. #36 chek
    March 4, 2013

    With all the contemplation and comprehension that timespan suggests!

  37. #37 Vince Whirlwind
    March 4, 2013

    Maybe they could read half each ;)

  38. #38 Lotharsson
    March 4, 2013

    Can’t say I’ve followed McIntyre’s latest theory about Mann – following McIntyre’s largely quixotic obsessions in great detail is generally a waste of time – but if you can access this Facebook photo Mann appears to be addressing something McIntyre (and Watts?) recently wrote, which is probably what Olaus was referring to complete with his trademark fake winkey.

    According to Mann, in the real world, McIntyre is wrong in almost every claim he made in this matter and has invented a conspiracy theory to go with those falsehoods – and according to the first comment, McIntyre is also wrong what Oreskes said as part of that theory.

    Go read for yourself, especially if you’re inclined to take McIntyre’s claims at face value.

    And while you’re at it, go to Mann’s Facebook Timeline page and read the response to Joanne Nova’s post about Monckton’s recent claims that Mann fabricated the “hockey stick” and had given up suing Tim Ball for calling the graph “scientific fraud”:

    What is most peculiar about the false assertion that we “gave up” the defamation suit against Mr. Ball … is that this statement appeared on the very day that my lawyer … was DEPOSING BALL as part of the discovery phase of the lawsuit.

  39. #39 bill
    March 4, 2013

    Yes, Chebbie, please do equal the feat of reading MoD in less than 4 hours. As it flies past in a soothingly incomprehensible blur perhaps you’ll also be unable to ‘recall’ anything regarding the subject of the entire last chapter, and, who knows, you may even stoop to febrile, grotesque claims of ‘anti-semitism’ in an attempt to cover up your abject lack of comprehension?…

  40. #40 Vince Whirlwind
    March 4, 2013

    I follow Michael Mann on Facebook and Twitter – well worth keeping up with him, as he is the butt of all this attention.

  41. #41 bill
    March 4, 2013

    Yep, McIntyre sure does appear to have let his feet have both barrels… ;-)

  42. #42 chameleon
    March 4, 2013

    Pardon Bill?
    What on earth are you and Vince saying re MoD?
    Did you read it in 4 hours?
    Does MoD contain information about racial vilification?
    ?????
    Maybe you’re confusing me with someone else?
    Neither of you have done a very good job of promoting it to me BTW.

  43. #43 Bernard J.
    March 4, 2013

    Pardon Bill?
    What on earth are you and Vince saying re MoD?
    Did you read it in 4 hours?

    Odin on a stick. You’re truly so dense you’d make osmium blush.

    For someone who tries to hang off every one of Keyes’ words you seem to miss the most basic of his statements. It was Keyes who claimed to read Merchants of Doubt in less than four hours – is it that you don’t actually read his words as closely as you like to pretend? You wouldn’t be agreeing with him simply because he’s at odds with the best science on climatological change, and its consequences… would you?!

    Surely not…

  44. #44 Bernard J.
    March 4, 2013

    Speaking of Keyes, several people have already pointed out how he’s recently been sneaking away from his naughty corner whilst Tim Lambert’s not been looking. It seems that he seeks attention elsewhere now that the Bangelina thread has been depopulated as folk tire of the Keyes schtick.

    Hmmm… of which condition does Brad’s behaviour remind one?

  45. #45 chameleon
    March 4, 2013

    It’s possibly because a rather large % of the comments at this thread are about the BradK thread BJ.
    I should have realised that was what was happening again.
    Now that you mention it, I do recall a trade of insults over the time taken to read MoD.
    I actually thought that Bill and Vince were trying to recommend a book to me.
    That explains why they did a bloody awful job of it.
    BTW BJ?
    Did you get my answer to your question at the BK thread?

  46. #46 bill
    March 4, 2013

    Does MoD contain information about racial vilification?

    Absolutely not.

    Those who do context – and (irony) my point is that’s not you! – had already worked that out.

    And I haven’t done a very good job of promoting it to someone who still maintains, steadfastly – and, indeed, heroically – in the face of mere evidence and reason, that James Delingpole said something he very clearly did not? Oh woe betide me; now I shall sob myself to sleep!

  47. #47 bill
    March 4, 2013

    Bernard J – to avoid the ‘N’ word perhaps we could talk about “Jonas’ Syndrome”

  48. #48 Sou
    March 4, 2013

    @Lotharsson #38

    I went to climateaudit and found it as dense as usual and full of mangled conspiracist ideation.

    McIntyre has had 3 months to stew over his latest conspiracy theory. On other occasions he’s jumped straight into concocting paranoid conspiracies (the world conspired against him by banning him from the internet via his IP address).

    He’s weird. No other word for it. He railed at Lewandowsky while providing some good fodder for Recursive Furies. He managed to acquire and bury the AScott survey (a la Lewandowsky) of conspiracy theorists and free marketers at WUWT. Parlly because he doesn’t know how to analyse the data (as shown in his crazy series of articles about Lewandowsky). Mostly probably mainly because he hasn’t figured out how to ignore all the responses from conspiracy theorists without coming across as a dishonest fool.

    Obsessive, paranoid and serial harasser of climate scientists.

    Mann exposed him nicely – and did an excellent take down of batty Nova.

  49. #49 Sou
    March 4, 2013

    Should of course be Most probably mainly – and even that’s a bit awkward :D

  50. #50 Sou
    March 4, 2013

    I should add, the sum total of McIntyres’ latest conspiracy is that at one point in his presentation, Mann used an illustration from a 2008 publication.

    You’ve gotta laugh. McIntyre has spent numerous hours fretting over diagrams from more than twenty years ago (superseded/developed/confirmed by many more recent studies). Then complains about someone else using a graphic illustration from 2008.

  51. #51 Lotharsson
    March 4, 2013

    Whilst we’re on about McIntyre, I seem to recall someone reporting that he seemed to be following Mann around at a conference with what appeared to be a very … single-minded? … focus. One has to suspect that it was at the AGU conference that forms the context for McIntyre’s latest conspiracy theory…

  52. #52 Vince Whirlwind
    March 4, 2013

    Hmmm… of which condition does Brad’s behaviour remind one?

    Could it be Graves syndrome?

  53. #53 bill
    March 4, 2013

    You know, uncharitable people – no-one here, certainly – might think Brad keeps posting forlorn little items onto his thread in order to ensure it doesn’t completely disappear fro the ‘Recent Comments’ list… ;-)

  54. #54 Vince Whirlwind
    March 4, 2013

    Chameleon outdoes herself:

    I’ve said one thing about the excellent “Merchants of Doubt”:

    You could read the excellent, “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes if you’re interested, though.

    And you have come back twice now, claiming,:

    Neither of you have done a very good job of promoting it to me BTW.

    I actually thought that Bill and Vince were trying to recommend a book to me.
    That explains why they did a bloody awful job of it.

    Are you able to explain why I’ve done a bad job at promoting it to you? Calling it “excellent”?
    Sounds to me like you are scared of the idea of reading a non-picture-book and/or of reading something that exposes the cranks, crooks, frauds and liars from whom you get your climate information.

    Why don’t you read it and get back to us with what you think?

  55. #55 Lotharsson
    March 4, 2013

    You know, uncharitable people – no-one here, certainly – might think Brad keeps posting forlorn little items onto his thread in order to ensure it doesn’t completely disappear fro the ‘Recent Comments’ list…

    What, you mean like sunspot used to? ;-)

    One might also speculate what he will do when the remaining regulars get tired of responding to him, assuming that actually happens. The Jonas thread was active a lot longer than I imagined it would be.

  56. #56 bill
    March 4, 2013

    Ah, but, Vince, if people like you and I recommend a book, well… Guilt By Association, and all that.

    I certainly recommend that everybody who takes an interest in the climate debate and the history of our responses to the environment should actually read Merchants of Doubt.

  57. #57 Jeff Harvey
    March 4, 2013

    Chammy creates the usual strawmen:

    “Now it sounds like you believe in some type of conspiracy that is being run by corporations”

    There’s nothing conspiratorial about it. Its just a simple fact. Huge sums of money are being invested into the anti-AGW slush fund by a suite of industries who see legislation aimed at curbing fossil fuel use as a threat to the way that they do business. Hence their funding of think tanks, weblogs, public relations firms and astroturf groups with public outreach.

    If you don’t think this is happening, then you are even dumber than I thought. And that is saying a lot.

  58. #58 BBD
    March 4, 2013

    chamelon

    Read all about it!

    Then get MOD out of your local library and improve your topic knowledge still further. Two years hard work with climate textbooks and you’ll be about up to basic speed. Then, at last, we might start to get somewhere.

    Remember that a hallmark of pathological denial is the extreme reluctance (outright blanket refusal, really) of sufferers to even look at evidence which challenges their hermetic but comforting fantasy state.

  59. #59 Brad Keyes
    March 4, 2013

    Brad has been placed in moderation because of repeated violations of the rules.

  60. #60 Wow
    March 4, 2013

    Of course the reason why Bray posts here is merely because nobody plays with him on his thread to keep him visible.

    He has to make sure people see him, else he’d have to face the fact he’s irrelevant.

  61. #61 Wow
    March 4, 2013

    “Now it sounds like you believe in some type of conspiracy that is being run by corporations”

    So what would you call hidden payments to hundreds of blogs and commentators whose only remit is to deny the climate science?

  62. #62 bill
    March 4, 2013

    That was interesting – for a moment there, Braddie, you were only three posts away from being the only commenter in the recent list.

    You really, really need this, don’t you, poppet?

    Now, back in your box.

  63. #63 bill
    March 4, 2013

    SkS appears to be down – has anyone else found the same?

  64. #64 chek
    March 4, 2013

    SkS is down at present, bill.
    This link Down for everyone or just me is worth bookmarking for checking such eventualities in the future.

  65. #65 BBD
    March 4, 2013

    Don’t mind me, everyone—I’m not really here, as BBD says when he’s pretending not to be somewhere he promised he wouldn’t be.

    bill:

    Ah, but, Vince, if people like you and I recommend a book, well… Guilt By Association, and all that.

    Er, except that the book has bipartisan recommendation—see the main thread.

    But even if it didn’t, you have no right to project your fondness for the genetic fallacy onto Chameleon.

    Unlike adherents to a certain scientific proto-hypothesis which shall go unnamed, Chameleon (in common with me) goes out of her way to read and understand the other side’s views.

    So I’d like to emphasise to Chameleon: Oreskes’ book provides an excellent window into their ideation.

    Everybody:

    If you’d like to agree/disagree with my book recommendation, please don’t hesitate to shift over to the appropriate venue.

    But let’s not get into an argument here—I’m trying to minimize my visits to the minor threads, because I know how my presence upsets and frightens some of the littler deltoids. Just watch: all I’ve done is poke my head in, but they’ll be off their feed for 2 hours and nervously chattering about bradbradbrad. Naptime will be a nightmare!

    I think it would be much healthier to let them develop a life of their own with interests outside Brad, hence my resolution to stick to my thread unless intervention is truly needed elsewhere (e.g. if some particularly-obsessed player-hater keeps libellously hating on me or someone I like).

    Catch y’all sometime someplace else.

  66. #66 bill
    March 4, 2013

    Thanks Chek!

  67. #67 Bernard J.
    March 4, 2013

    But let’s not get into an argument here—I’m trying to minimize my visits to the minor threads, because I know how my presence upsets and frightens some of the littler deltoids. Just watch: all I’ve done is poke my head in, but they’ll be off their feed for 2 hours and nervously chattering about bradbradbrad.

    Keyes, to paraphrase an old chestnut, it’s better to shut up and be thought a narcissist than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.

    Now, back to the naughty corner with you.

  68. #68 Lionel A
    March 4, 2013

    Another blog which you may not have heard about is ‘Lack of Environment’ where this excellent post The nonsense of “Sustainable Growth” highlighting, well, what it says on the tin.

    It is worth following links to Nick Reeves’ original article and also his earlier THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF MOTHER EARTH.

    This rather than wasting time trying to get blood out of the stone that is Keyes who is simply in it for stirring people up.

  69. #69 Wow
    March 4, 2013

    Very close call there fore Bray, he nearly lost all relevance in his eyes.

    Not one post on the “recent discussion”?? No wonder he had to post outside his kennel…

  70. #70 bill
    March 4, 2013

    Speaking of losing relevance – is that Jonas I see popping-up on his thread in the recent list?

  71. #71 bill
    March 4, 2013

    Just when you think their arguments couldn’t get worse

  72. #72 Vince Whirlwind
    March 5, 2013

    Power bills will go up much less the more wind power we invest in:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/04/decarbonisation-target-lower-energy-bills

    Over time the costs of onshore and offshore wind are coming down as we get better at building them. Meanwhile, the cost of gas is increasing as fuel costs and carbon prices rise. The independent Committee on Climate Change thinks onshore wind will become cheaper than gas in 2023.

    This means that relying more on gas up to 2030 by building more gas-fired power stations would cost the economy £312m or up to £478m if gas prices are higher than expected. This equates to between £10 and £15 per household.

    By contrast, decarbonising the power sector and largely eliminating polluting gas will mean that energy costs are only likely to vary by around £51 per household.

    And moving to a cleaner energy system (in line with the amendment) would not lead to increases in energy bills as Halfon implies. In fact, it would result in small cost savings – across the economy of at least £163m if gas prices rise in line with DECC’s expectations. If gas prices are at the upper bound of expectations, the saving from going green could be £249m.

  73. #73 Nick
    March 5, 2013

    @71,that’s a great argument, especially when backed up by a round of poo throwing led by Brandon Shollenburger. Cutting edge science from the Bloggies nominees!

  74. #74 Vince Whirlwind
    March 5, 2013

    Food production continues its march towards corporatisation:

    Farmer buys grain.
    Farmer plants grain.
    (Farmer has no contract whatsoever with Monsanto)
    Monsanto sues for breach of patent.

    Monsanto is no stranger to patent battles: Think Progress reports that the company devotes $10 million per year and 75 staffers to investigating and prosecuting farmers for patent violations. It has also sued more than 400 farmers over the last 13 years for patent infringement.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/20/us-supreme-court-monsanto-soybean-patent

  75. #75 Lotharsson
    March 5, 2013

    Not sure if anyone saw this epic from a couple of weeks ago – Hotspot found by [Jo] Nova – she just didn’t realise it.

    I remember pointing out that her own posts showed the hotspot a few years ago and I’m sure I wasn’t even the first to do so.

  76. #76 David B. Benson
    March 5, 2013

    Lotharsson — Interesting thread, thank you. Amazing how many fail to understand basic physics.

  77. #77 Bernard J.
    March 5, 2013

    Vince at #74.

    It’s a worry that 90% of soy farms are using Monsanto seed. They’ve effectively contaminated most of the seed bank in the USA, so that anyone who seeks to use non-patented varieties would find it almost impossible to buy stock without Roundup-Ready seed in the mix.

    I’m surprised that this monopolisation of a whole species’ genetic legacy via the agency of contamination, which by the way was “guaranteed” to be preventable, doesn’t seem to break any laws.

  78. #78 bill
    March 5, 2013

    …and somehow, even more remarkably, it manages not to be a grotesque distortion of free trade requiring urgent correction!

  79. #79 chameleon
    March 5, 2013

    So Vince and BJ?
    You have confused me.
    Are you pro agriculture or anti agriculture?

  80. #80 zoot
    March 5, 2013

    So Chamois?
    You have confused me.
    Have you missed the point because you’re stupid, or are you just unable to parse ordinary English?

  81. #81 Wow
    March 5, 2013

    chubby, you’ve conmfused me.

    Are you pro-free market or anti free market?

  82. #82 bill
    March 5, 2013

    Yes, Chebbie, you’ve confused me too: you say you live in a regional centre, but you’re pro big agribusiness, rather than landholders?

  83. #83 Lionel A
    March 5, 2013

    There are now to good posts over at Tamino’s that Willard Watts fans should read:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/cherry-picking-is-childs-play/

    Fact-Checking the Cherry-Pickers: Anthony Watts Edition.

    Watts & Monckton always good for a laugh except too may duffers get taken in and politicians use this sort of crap to cover their activities:

    Oh, and, have you heard the one about an Australian mining mogul (not Hard-Heart) paying out for a full sized working replica of Titanic?

  84. #84 Jeff Harvey
    March 5, 2013

    “Are you pro agriculture or anti agriculture?”

    Pro what?!?!?! If I am correct, chammy seems to intimate that those opposed to the corporate takeover of food production and hence the human food chain are possibly ‘anti-agriculture’. That’s like saying those opposed to ginormous hydro-electric projects which devastate communities downriver as well as huge expanses of natural ecosystems are ‘anti-water’.

    Essentially its the old gambit that those who oppose environmentally destructive technologies are ‘anti-progress’ and hence ‘anti-human’. This comes straight out of the Wise Use/corporate public relations handbook. Trust chammy to bring it up.

  85. #85 bill
    March 5, 2013

    Lionel A

    Yeah, that’s a great example of how letting the rich keep it all – and grab some of yours for good measure – ultimately benefits the whole community.

    And Chebbie is merely a blousy reactionary for all seasons.

  86. #86 bill
    March 5, 2013

    Oh, and please do read Tamino’s latest. Watts ‘horizontal highlighter’ is hilarious.

    Also, perhaps any of our regular ‘skeptics’ would like to identify the ’16 year pause in warming’ the Earth has supposedly experienced in Watt’s own chart?

    What, nobody?

    From now on I suggest that anytime one of these fools drops that noxious little thought-virus into a thread, they should be referred to this chart – one of their own, after all – and be asked to identify it.

  87. #87 chek
    March 5, 2013

    Trust chammy to bring it up.

    As far as I can determine, Calumny’s sole purpose is to act as a weathervane for what the stupids are being fed.

    It’s a shit job for a piece of shit, but hey, somebody has to do it.

  88. #88 Vince Whirlwind
    March 6, 2013

    I’m pro-agriculture, obviously, as I am against farmers being sued by a megacorporation with whom they have no contract on account of that corporation’s product being allowed to contaminate the food supply.

  89. #89 Bernard J.
    March 6, 2013

    Chameleon.

    Your husband must have been drunk when he met and married you.

    Seriously, do you really need an explanation for my comment and Vince’s?!

    Or do you disagree with the principle that a farmer should have the right to plant seeds and grow crops without being stood over by a multinational holding out for a share of the profits? Given the ubiquitousness of Monsanto’s GE soy across the US market, and the tragically easy manner in which such seed contaminates sowing stocks, it will soon be effectively impossible for soy farmers to source open-pollinated/non-patented seed that does not contain material originating from Monsanto. That’s a very neat trick for co-opting a whole industry, even when many parts of that industry want no part of the co-opter’s influence.

    It strikes me that I could do the same. I could patent, say, a GE wheat variety, and sell it in the grain market. Of course, my trials would have shown that it is impossible for my variety to trespass beyond the confines of approved growing areas, so it would be self-evident that anyone growing it without a license was stealing my property. Given the sympathy that Monsanto has from regulators, if seeds from my strain just ‘happened’ to find their way into the crops and the sowing stocks of major wheat farmers who want nothing to do with my variety, all I’d need to do it to power up my lawyers – et voila! – and I’m raking in the fat from a whole sector.

    Of course, to you that might sound like extortion, like stand-over tactics. Or it might not – you’ve repeatedly demonstrated such an embarrassingly lack of cognitive process that it would surprise me to find that you have no issue with a company privatising public commons by the expedient of overly-protected patents.

  90. #90 Bernard J.
    March 6, 2013

    … it would not surprise me to find that you have no issue with a company privatising public commons…

  91. #91 Vince Whirlwind
    March 6, 2013

    Bernard, I think her husband enjoys taking photos of sea walls.

  92. #92 mike
    March 6, 2013

    Hy Brnrd J.!

    Yr: “Yr hsbnd mst hv bn drnk whn h mt nd mrrd y. “–ddrssd t chmln.

    knw bd d t y Dltd-brnd, lw-lf, bttm-fdr, c-dgnrt lmpn-shttds, bt, BJ, yr bv cmmnt t chmln nlctbly drws m bck nt ths blg’s grp-stnk, snkr-td nd fltr-td, css-pt dpths.

    Lt m jst pt my thghts n thr smplst frm, BJ–y dn’t rt cmmnt lk yr bv, l’ bddy. ndrstnd tht, ss-hl?!!

    S, BJ, jst whr d y cm ff ddrssng wmn–nd spclly n, lk chmln, wh hs bn nflngly cvl n hr cmmntry–wth lngg lk yr lst? Y’r sppsdly n “dctd” mn, BJ–t lst, y wr nc ddrssd s “Dr.” n ths blg nd s tk t y hld sch ttl. nd, yt, y s lngg lk yr lst, BJ?–y, BJ, sppsdly ldng “lght” f th clmt-scnc “ntllgnts”, nd ll? Jz…wht cntmptbl, swnsh, nmnly, bsv, mthr-fckr lt y r, BJ!

    n th thr hnd, BJ, y wnt t “slp” smn rnd, vrblly?– sggst y drct yr ht-sht-wnnb “lp” n my drctn, l’ sprt! ‘m p fr t, gy!

    nd jst fr Dltd-lnd’s gnrl nf–fck yr mmmy’s-lttl-ptty-mth-ct-p!, pck-ttck, mn-wn, smrt-mth, ll-mth ct-clls frm th sd-lns, spclly n ths n, Dltds! Ths s btwn BJ nd m! nd my “trgt fxtn” xclds yr crtns, tnrd-trd, vlgrn dstrctns–gt t, hv-bzs?!!

  93. #93 Jeff Harvey
    March 6, 2013

    “I know I bid adieu to you Deltoid-brand, low-life, bottom-feeder, eco-degenerate lumpen-shittoids”

    Then honor your words and GO. You are a complete idiot.

  94. #94 mike
    March 6, 2013

    Hey Deltoids!

    A bit awkward to say “bye-bye” to all and then show back up the next day or so, I know. But my little “farewell” decision was mine to make and, the blog-master permitting, mine to unmake.

    At the same time, after a spell of reflection–to include an episode of pounding on my forehead with the edge of my fist while intoning “Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!”–I’ve recovered my resolve to put “daylight” between myself and Deltoid-land. I mean, like, the last thing I want in my life is a tit-for-tat chit-chat with BernadJ. So, BJ, you get to claim the”bragging-rights”–I’m the one who quit the “field of honor.”

    Sorry for my back-sliding lapse, prompted by BernardJ’s irk-provoding comment to Chameleon, Deltoids.

    Have fun, guys

    This time, absent some compelling reason, I’m outta here for good.

  95. #95 BBD
    March 6, 2013

    May the road rise with you, and the wind be always at your back.

  96. #96 Andrew Strang
    March 6, 2013

    ‘May the road rise to meet you…’ that Irish Blessing is a knockout to sing.

  97. #97 chameleon
    March 6, 2013

    BJ?
    Your rather sexist and/or misogynist comment only reveals flaws in your character and your judgement, not my husband’s character or judgement.

  98. #98 chek
    March 6, 2013

    Hmmm, sexist eh?
    Calumny, I’m still not convinced you’re not “Brad’s” sock here to make him look more ‘intelligent’ (however that’s meant to work).
    Your partisan behaviour is a strong clue to such.

  99. #99 Wow
    March 6, 2013

    Chubby, you don’t seem to have managed to explain if you’re pro free market or anti free market.

    Is it that you don’t know?

  100. #100 Wow
    March 6, 2013

    “Your rather sexist and/or misogynist comment”

    Nope, not sexist or misogynist.

    Insulting someone isn’t sexist or misogynist merely because the person insulted is a woman.

    To assert so is misandrist.

Current ye@r *