April 2013 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Sou
    April 18, 2013
  2. #2 Rednose
    UK
    April 18, 2013

    “It is highly relevant here because science is being abused”

    Seems both sides are shouting this out.

    “many of the most vociferous critics of AGW come from the far end of the political right wing”

    And it has been argued, many of the most vociferous supporters of CAGW seem to come from far end of the political left wing, “bring on world government and control.” “Down with democracy and freedom of speech.”

    Maybe better to keep the politics out of any scientific discussion otherwise its in danger of becomming advocacy.

    Voted Lib-Dem myself.
    :-)

  3. #3 Nick
    April 18, 2013

    “…science is being abused”

    Seems both sides are shouting this out

    One side does no science and abuses scientists.

  4. #4 bill
    April 18, 2013

    He’s at it again: ‘It has been argued’, which is a gutless way of saying ‘and I think’.

    Again: bullshit. Crediting the science crosses the political spectrum, as it should, and climate scientists come from all persuasions.

    Bet then there’s the Leninists of Capitalism, the actual other side of this debate: the Libuurtarian Loons, Free Market™ Fanatics and anti-environmentalist, ‘we hate the future’ hyper-curmudgeons, who are locked in a perpetual struggle with both science and reality, because neither will ever support their insane world-view. Some of them appear to imagine they’re Solomon – ‘I voted for the Lib-Dems': Gordon Bennet! – but you’re probably the only person you’re fooling.

    What’s the conservative position on conducting a radical experiment on the one atmosphere we possess, incidentally?

  5. #5 BBD
    April 18, 2013

    Rednoise

    Maybe better to keep the politics out of any scientific discussion otherwise its in danger of becomming advocacy.

    You have no scientific case to discuss (see our entire previous exchange history, which I will be delighted to revisit, with generous and relevant illustrative quotation). You are clearly engaged in political advocacy *masquerading* as “scientific discussion”.

    That you think others here might be fooled is, frankly, risible.

  6. #6 BBD
    April 18, 2013

    … Was it something I said?

    ;-)

  7. #7 Sean
    April 18, 2013

    Another above average month. Ho hum. 10th warmest March. Eighth warmest year to date.
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/3

  8. #8 Jeff Harvey
    April 18, 2013

    “And it has been argued, many of the most vociferous supporters of CAGW seem to come from far end of the political left wing, “bring on world government and control.” “Down with democracy and freedom of speech.”

    The more you say, the deeper the pit of shit you sink into Rednose. Defend your statement. Name those at the ‘far end of the political left wing’ who are supporters of (C)AGW. I bracket the ‘C’ because that is a corporate funded think tank invention. Certainly it is likely that AGW will have serious effects on certain ecosystems across the biosphere, but the C has been added for some kind of political effect.

    But back to my point: who is advocating ‘world government control, whilst eliminating democracy and free speech’? This is a Tea Party-type narrative. Or it comes from Wise Use, or some other right wing crackpot source. There’s absolutely no evidence for it at all. To be honest, its a form of insanity. Seems like you are afflicted, Rednose. Seek medical help.

    On the other hand, I could provide reams of support of corporate-funded PR groups, think tanks and the like actively lobbying to eviscerate the role of the government in the economy in the pursuit of privater profit.

    I like where we are headed here, because Rednose comes up will swill that he cannot defend with any kind of evidence. It shows that he couldn’t debate his way out of a sodden wet paper bag.

  9. #9 BBD
    April 18, 2013

    Climate sensitivity misunderestimates :-) seem to be in vogue at the moment.

    I’m sure many here are familiar with Christopher Monckton’s much-touted “American Physical Society paper” Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, which was indeed a submission to the APS.

    I have to admit that I didn’t know why the APS will accept absolutely anything, no matter how crazy.

    It is a genuinely sad story.

  10. #10 Nick
    April 19, 2013

    #9 Sad indeed. Monckton took advantage of the APS’ collegial discussion space to follow an audacious PR strategy that APS shouldn’t be expected to anticipate. They didn’t know who Monckton was,and what he’d try on. The editor[s] involved were certainly pretty annoyed at his antics.

  11. #11 Chris O'Neill
    April 19, 2013

    It is a genuinely sad story.

    Another victim of the US gun culture. The land where crackpots have easy access to guns.

  12. #12 Sou
    April 19, 2013

    Speaking of deniers. Anthony’s telling fibs again and calling on Happer to do some sums. The science is beyond both of them.

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/knock-me-down-with-happer-anthony-watts.html

    And Monckton who claims to be a math wiz writes:
    A characteristically elegant and beautifully simple analysis by Will Happer.

    I suppose he got the “characteristically” part right – though the rest is a pile of hogwash.

  13. #13 Nick
    April 19, 2013

    And a ‘characteristically blundering and pathetically simple-minded routine‘ from Monckton on NZ radio

  14. #14 Sou
    April 19, 2013

    I hear Monckton is quitting the entertainment business. Or at least giving up his tours. Hope so.

  15. #15 Lionel A
    April 19, 2013

    And for all those who don’t understand how downright perverse, devious and dishonest, not to mention behaving like sovereign rogue states the oil companies are, here is some news from Arkansas .

    What are they trying to hide. Standard procedure now as noted with the Deep Water business is to cordon off from those who might ask legitimate but awkward questions.

    There is a ‘ War of the Worlds’ with the fossil fuel oligarchs playing the role of the Martians.

    Not only that having wriggled out of responsibility for cleaning up THEIR mess whilst making inane claims about impacts whilst Exxon et. al. hang on to fossil fuel subsides and tax breaks by buying ‘Democracy’,

    Once again, analysis has discovered that Big Oil has paid to secure their yea votes on Keystone, with members of the Energy and Commerce Committee who voted to approve H.R.3 having received eight times more in career contributions from the oil and gas industries. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, members voting to approve the pipeline received $8,686,427 while members voting against received only $1,020,631.

    So all you who deny that oil and coal are buying influence to perpetuate their filthy ways take note – and that includes you Keyes.

  16. #16 Lionel A
    April 19, 2013

    Continuing on a theme from my above well some GOP idiot had to come out with something inane as seen here Oklahoma Congressman: ExxonMobil ‘Should Be Patted On The Back’ For Arkansas Oil Spill. Such are the socio-paths that have been put in authority above their educated capacity Put there by the funds from other socio-paths in fossil industries

    These industries and their placemen do not care about the future of biosphere or that many are going to be adversely affected whilst the profits go to the already rich and those at the extraction sites and along transport route are hit with the ‘externalities’ as is clearly illustrated by mountain top removal. The conversion of ever larger areas of the planet into a version of Mordor is not the future I want for my grandchildren.

    Whilst idiots like the above belong to that group who are trying hard to avoid public understanding of Wind Vs. Oil Tax Credits.

    Those who are trying to argue against the science of climate change as currently understood should wake up and realise that they are being duped many times over, unless they are a part of that evil cabal, and being slapped with the costs of clean up whilst tax exemption for the fossil industries means that YOU are also paying more tax to compensate all whilst paying inflated energy costs.

    So are you the dupes or are you amongst the evil. Time to call.

  17. #17 Wow
    April 19, 2013

    Mordor isn’t what they want for their children either. But by making a shitload of cash turning earth into Mordor will ensure that their children can buy the nice bits to live in.

    Inheritance tax of 100% would solve this problem and so many more.

  18. #18 BBD
    April 19, 2013

    They’d find a way to cheat. As in fact they do now, here in the UK. They buy vast tracts of agricultural land and pass that on to their heirs. It is exempt from IHT.

  19. #19 Wow
    April 19, 2013

    Severely diminishing returns, though. There’s only so much land and if you put £1Bn into it but can’t make more than £10Mil per year off it, it’s not going to be worth it.

  20. #20 BBD
    April 19, 2013

    What the bastards managed to achieve in the UK was huge land price inflation for agricultural land. Their cheating actually increased the value of the asset they can bequeath – tax-free – to their heirs.

  21. #21 Wow
    April 19, 2013

    It still has to be farmed, and that can still only bring in so much money. If it gives the same monthly return as an investment in a bank at a value 1/10th the “list price”, it isn’t giving you an investment worth the list price.

    Property already is taxed and there are several responsibilities in it (though these are being killed off by the toffs both in the labour party as well as the traditional tory one). If they don’t keep the land useful, they can lose it entirely.

  22. #22 Wow
    April 19, 2013

    And climate change will f-k up the land in most places too.

  23. #23 John Mashey
    April 19, 2013

    APS and Monckton:
    This happened in a non-peer-reviewed newsletter, APS FPS.
    The editors, neither climate knowledgeable, wanted to have an issue with best arguments from both sides, as there is a tiny fraction of physicists, mostly angry old guys, who reject AGW.
    They asked friends and participants in APS FOS for suggestions. Gerald Marsh (whose views turn out to be strong) gave them a list that included Freeman Dyson, other physicists and Monckton. All asked declined, except Monckton.
    The editors just assumed he was done Brit physicist, addressed him as Dr Monckton, an error that did not get corrected.

    When I saw the article, I alerted a Nobel physicist of acquaintance,who raised the issue, strongly, within half an hour. At least one of the editors was horrified, as was the APS leadership. Editors were replaced.

    However, this goes in all the time: learned societies like APS have special interest groups and local chapters.
    Sometimes junk filters through by accident, as happened here, but occasionally somebody gets in control in a volunteer job.
    Laurence Gould, at U of Hartford, got Monckton invited to speak, was involved in 2009 APS petition and spoke at Heartland conference. For years, until the latest issue, he was coeditor of the APS New England Section newsletter, often featuring Fred Singer, etc.

    But the APS FPS fiasco was an accident.

  24. #24 BBD
    April 19, 2013

    John Mashey

    Thank you for the insight and apologies for any potential misrepresentation in my # 9.

    The facts matter, as we all know.

  25. #25 jerryg
    April 19, 2013

    Interesting new paper on the African coelacanth in Nature. No paywall for this one;
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7445/full/nature12027.html

  26. #26 Sou
    April 20, 2013

    I had a go at demolising a gish gallop from a chap in WA called Ollier. I believe he’s another geologist. Sad there are people like who give geologists such a bad name – undeservedly so in the main.

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/dissecting-denmors-denial.html

  27. #27 Jeff Harvey
    April 20, 2013

    “as there is a tiny fraction of physicists, mostly angry old guys, who reject AGW”

    Don’t I know it. There are several of these old fossils here in Holland who fir the bill…

  28. #28 Lionel A
    April 20, 2013

    Sou, those like Ollier deserve to be loudly wrist-slapped for they should know better and probably do.

    There really is no longer any excuse for such behaviour, behaviour that helps feed propagandists like Watts and Delingpole.

    As for Denmor’s

    “Scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable sin.” Huxley

    Now who does that remind us of? For Huxley exchange Feynman.

  29. #29 FrankD
    April 20, 2013

    Sorry if this has been posted before, but I just came across this rather interesting half-hour presentation on the dynamics of sea level rise (from ice sheets melting), by Jerry Mitrovica of Harvard University:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhdY-ZezK7w

    Readers who followed Spangles the Clown’s “sea level aggressively seeking equilibrium” twaddle from a few months back will also find it amusing, in that this illustrates the extent to which the gravitational geoid evolves over time.

    While he covers several seperate factors, I think the presentation misses that SLR will tend to be greater at the equator due to inertia (I don’t know by how much), but in other respects is quite illuminating.

  30. #30 Sou
    April 21, 2013

    Thanks, Frank. Looks good.

    On another note (my update!), I don’t normally bother with Bob “ENSO” Tisdale, but his little post about models made it too easy. Interesting comparisons, if they are accurate (I don’t know). But his ‘analysis’ of differences leaves much to be desired.

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/tisdales-tricks.html

  31. #31 Sou
    April 21, 2013

    Lionel #28, I agree. I sent a letter to the Head of School yesterday. I should have sent it to the Dean – will do that later today.

  32. #32 John Mashey
    April 21, 2013

    re: Ollier
    Unless you can catch someone on clear academic fraud (and maybe that’s possible), just complaining to administrators doesn’t get very far.

    If somebody cares, they might just:
    a) Contact the journal, and point out that they have destroyed their own reputation for peer review. Journals without competence in a topic should not publish works on it. Copy de Gruyter. OR
    b) Do a blog post showing that.
    That is, they are free to publish what they like, even to thje point of damaging their reputation, i.e., this is not asking for a retraction.

    I think it’s basically incompetence on the part of a Polish geography journal run by one university:
    http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/quageo
    The E-i-C, 2 Managing Editors, and 2 Executive Editors are all from Adam Mickiewwicz U in Poland.

    They may be eager to get papers, and not overly competent about climate science, of which they publish little.
    I have seen this before: climate anti-science paper slipped through weak peer review/editorial process at a marginal journal.
    The paper is actually labeled a “Polemic Paper,” a curious category.

    http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/quageo
    “Quaestiones Geographicae was established in 1974 as an annual journal of the Institute of Geography, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland. Its founder and first editor was Professor Stefan Kozarski. Initially the scope of the journal covered issues in both physical and socio-economic geography; since 1982, exclusively physical geography. In 2006 there appeared the idea of a return to the original conception of the journal, although in a somewhat modified organisational form.
    Quaestiones Geographicae publishes research results of wide interest in the following fields:
    physical geography,
    economic and human geography,
    spatial management and planning,
    sustainable development (including regional and local development),
    environmental science,
    GIS and geoinformation, and
    tourism and recreation.

    Aims and Scope

    Why subscribe and read

    premier source of high quality geographical research;
    source of the latest news, achievements and research inspirations from full scope of physical and human geography;
    international forum for the dissemination of research data from various areas of geography;
    designed to facilitate the exchange of ideas between researchers from different countries;
    excellent articles authored by researchers from all over the world, who appreciate our fast, fair and constructive peer review provided by experts in all fields of geography;

    Why submit

    transparent, comprehensive and fast peer review,
    language assistance for authors from non-English speaking regions,
    efficient route to fast-track publication.

    Rejection Rate

    20% – 30%””

  33. #33 Sou
    April 21, 2013

    This is what I wrote:

    I am writing to draw your attention to a recent “polemic paper” by one of your honorary adjunct professors, Cliff Ollier. The paper is a gish gallop of climate science denial – which does unfortunately occur from time to time in little known ‘journals’. However it is being circulated on various popular anti-science blogs and there is a (faint) risk it will bring your University into disrepute. I do not believe that ‘academic freedom’ covers promoting disinformation.

    The paper lists UWA under Ollier’s name, implying endorsement – though I’m sure that’s not the case. And I notice that on the UWA website, the author has listed another paper in the same journal as being “peer reviewed”. If the journal does any peer review it is obviously not by any ‘peers’ in climate science.

    Ollier’s paper is:Global warming and climate change: Science and Politics, pp. 61-66, of Volume 32, Issue 1 of Quaestiones Geographicae

  34. #34 Sou
    April 21, 2013

    @John Mashey,
    All true re the complaint, but being able to call oneself an “Honorary Research Fellow” is at the discretion of the University and of fixed term. Perhaps alerting the faculty will persuade them to not give him another term. Or not :(

  35. #35 JohnL
    April 22, 2013

    Another nail in the deniers coffin at RC,

    “In a major step forward in proxy data synthesis, the PAst Global Changes (PAGES) 2k Consortium has just published a suite of continental scale reconstructions of temperature for the past two millennia in Nature Geoscience…

    …The main conclusion of the study is that the most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the 19th century, and which was followed by a warming trend in the 20th C. The 20th century in the reconstructions ranks as the warmest or nearly the warmest century in all regions except Antarctica. During the last 30-year period in the reconstructions (1971-2000 CE), the average reconstructed temperature among all of the regions was likely higher than anytime in at least ~1400 years. Interestingly, temperatures did not fluctuate uniformly among all regions at multi-decadal to centennial scales. For example, there were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age. Cool 30-year periods between the years 830 and 1910 CE were particularly pronounced during times of weak solar activity and strong tropical volcanic eruptions and especially if both phenomena often occurred simultaneously.

    The key takeway is:
    “For example, there were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.”

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/the-pages-2k-synthesis/#more-15406

  36. #36 bill
    April 22, 2013

    So, what you’re saying is, Mike Mann didn’t ‘disappear’ the MWP? ;-)

    Golly; that’s one of the Core Articles of the Faith for the Church of Denial.

    A church that has been whittled down until only the most fervent – and often incoherent – zealots are left to propagate their (that’s the third-person plural possessive pronoun, SpamKan) Holy Truth; see above.

    So, I think we can safely anticipate a trebling-down; more claims of conspiracy, nuancing that would bring a blush to the cheek of a Creationist, and general Bad Faith.

    Still, should be fun, in a train-wrecky sort of way…

  37. #37 Lotharsson
    April 22, 2013

    Bill, rather than heads exploding en masse amongst denialists we’ll simply see an expansion of the conspiracy to include some fig leaf that allows them to dismiss the new study as well. An interesting case study might be those people whose websites or books embed the allusion that the “hockey stick” is/was broken/fraudulent in their titles (never mind the content). I very much doubt you’re going to see websites being renamed and books recalled…

  38. #38 Sou
    April 22, 2013

    Good to see even the local paper is running with the PAGES-2K report:

    http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/1447638/20th-century-hottest-in-1400-years/?cs=7

  39. #39 ianam
    April 22, 2013

    It is highly relevant here because science is being abused

    “Seems both sides are shouting this out.”

    Shouting things out has nothing to do with whether they are true. It is true that deniers are abusing science.

    many of the most vociferous critics of AGW come from the far end of the political right wing

    “And it has been argued, many of the most vociferous supporters of CAGW”

    It has been argued that humans haven’t landed on the moon; whether something has been argued is only relevant to fools; intelligent people care about whether the arguments are valid.

    And “CAGW” is denier language; rational people don’t use it.

    “Maybe better to keep the politics out of any scientific discussion otherwise its in danger of becomming advocacy.”

    Oh dear, yes, we must not advocate for rational evidence-based policies that might mean a better chance of future generations having a livable planet … that would be an awful thing to do.

    “Voted Lib-Dem myself.”

    It doesn’t mean you’re not a dolt.

  40. #40 ianam
    April 22, 2013

    Popping my head in here and I see the same quite intelligent people still arguing with some of the stupidest cretins on the planet. Olaus? Karen? They are so beneath you folks.

  41. #41 bill
    April 22, 2013

    Here’s another challenge for those who hold sacred the Central Tenets of the Church of Denial.

    See if you can spot the malevolent ideologues and totalitarian political apparatchiks in this movie.

    Truly, you are caricatures that live in a cartoon.

  42. #42 Lionel A
    April 22, 2013

    The key takeway is:
    “For example, there were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.”

    So much for any flack from the usual suspect here that has its roots in the Soon, Baliunas and Idso, Idso, Idso camp.

    Here are some pointers for them to start with, for neophyte Keyes too,:

    Sallie Baliunas, pick up on the others mentioned by following links therein.

    Now here is some on the Idso Family The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial – No. 8: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (A.K.A. The Idso Family) – & CO2 Science.

  43. #43 Rednose
    UK
    April 22, 2013

    LA#42

    Your link to a blog from 2009 managed to get 5 comments.
    This one caught my attention:

    “Boy, is this boring—
    I ask again—what’s the point? Do you think you can will global warming into existence based on who opposes it?

    The thermometer says that the earth has been cooling for over a decade. Why don’t you try arguing with Mr. Mercury?

    This is the same mistake Hadley CRU made—politics is not science and science cannot be politics. When it is, we default to superstition and abuse.

    I am sure that the Aztec priests claimed a direct correlation between the number of virgins and warriors sacrificed and the amount of rainfall in any given year.”

    :-)

  44. #44 bill
    April 22, 2013

    And what of Pages 2k, Mr. Lib-Dem voter?

    Also, watch the film I provided the link to. By which I mean actually watch it, don’t just claim to (we get a lot of that here). Then tell us who’s playing politics…

    But, of course, to assess the validity of the science, you have to have some capacity to discern science from, say, tendentious narrative, which I don’t believe you, or any other fellow-member of your benighted congregation, possesses.

    Projection is what it’s called – you see your own ugly souls in the mirror…

  45. #45 Wow
    April 22, 2013

    “Do you think you can will global warming into existence based on who opposes it? ”

    No.

    Then again, since CO2 increases will do that just fine, why is “will” involved?

  46. #46 chek
    April 22, 2013

    The thermometer says that the earth has been cooling for over a decade.

    Oh goody – another tripe repeater. So Redarse, given that you claim the Earth has been ‘cooling’ – where did the heat come from that accelerated the decline in Arctic sea ice from a then record low in summer 2007 to an even greater record low in summer 2012?
    Oh and p.s., before you trot out the usual crap, storms don’t melt ice.

  47. #47 Wow
    April 22, 2013

    “The thermometer says that the earth has been cooling for over a decade.”

    It’s warmed 0.06C from 2011-2012.

  48. #48 BBD
    April 22, 2013

    # 43

    Sigh. For the nth time:

    OHC. OHC. OHC. OHC. OHC. OHC. OHC.

    “Global warming” is not just surface air temperature.

    Can you understand nothing at all?

    Try this: take a ten year temperature time series. Include a powerful “double-dip” La Nina at the end. What do you think happens to the linear trend? Now try for the intellectual leap: try to understand that this short linear trend is uninformative because it is short and because of the LNs at the end.

    Try to *think*.

  49. #49 BBD
    April 22, 2013

    To be clear: PAGES2K is the end of the road for the denialist lies and framing about “getting rid of the MWP”.

    That dog is now dead.

    There never was a global *and* synchronous “MWP” to “get rid of” in the first place. Teh Stupid has been conned blind by the climate liars.

    I don’t suppose there’s the remotest chance that an enraged and ashamed Teh Stupid will now rise up and tear the professional liars to shreds. But it’s a lovely thought, all the same.

  50. #50 BBD
    April 22, 2013

    I’m laughing long and loud at Bradders though. Silly bugger.

  51. #51 Wow
    April 22, 2013

    Maybe duffer should say why the temperature graph goes up and down all the time. The basic problem seems to be he has absolutely no idea what is going.

    Duffer, here’s something you need to know: the air temperature record depends on much more than just the CO2 levels.

    Here’s a second thing you need to know: just because something is not the only cause of something else doesn’t mean it has no effect on that thing.

  52. #52 Rednose
    UK
    April 22, 2013

    Boy is this boring.

    Well looks like I was not the only one thinking that.
    Traffic seems to have picked up.
    :-)

  53. #53 Bob
    April 22, 2013

    Monckton meets people with even more ‘interesting’ ideas than his own: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok9HTyasopo

    The comments on the video show quite clearly that some people are even further down the rabbit hole than climate deniers.

    What is interesting is the fact that Monckton will happily endorse several flavours of climate denialism, occasionally hinting at a global conspiracy (Agenda 21 etc.), but will not accept such wacky theories as chemtrails. It must make him uncomfortable to be lauded by the conspiracy theorists that believe such things. It’s clear, in fact, that he understands the value of peer review and the scientific method. It’s just that when applied to climate change he is very, very selective in the papers he accepts – at least publicly.

  54. #54 Lionel A
    April 22, 2013

    The thermometer says that the earth has been cooling for over a decade. Why don’t you try arguing with Mr. Mercury?

    Apart from anything else thermometers only inform on sensible heat.

    Do you know why that matters?

  55. #55 Lionel A
    April 22, 2013

    Rudolf

    Time you learned to blockquote.

    Start with one of these

    then enter your text string followed by
    one of these

    Simple. Yes.

  56. #56 Rednose
    uk
    April 22, 2013

    Not sure what “one of these” is.
    But thanks for trying

  57. #57 BBD
    April 22, 2013

    HTML tag for “blockquote”:

    (blockquote)Text in quotation.(/blockquote)

    *Replace* standard brackets with the chevron type.

  58. #58 Rednose
    UK
    April 22, 2013

    TEST Testing, testing, testing.

  59. #59 ianam
    April 23, 2013

    The thermometer says that the earth has been cooling for over a decade.

    You’re lying or stupid. Oh, wait … you’re both.

  60. #60 Chris O'Neill
    April 23, 2013

    The thermometer says that the earth has been cooling for over a decade.

    There is no statistically significant cooling over any measured period ending now.

    By denialist logic (/irony), this means there is no cooling over any period ending now.

  61. #61 Lionel A
    April 23, 2013

    TEST Testing, testing, testing

    Which is what I was doing and saw it had failed was but taken ill before I could fix (well I am ill all the time but then there are bad spells). Thanks BBD..

  62. #62 Lionel A
    April 23, 2013

    Rudolf re’ thermometers and sensible heat why it matters.

    Here is one reason, from which others cascade:

    Arctic Ice Mass Loss Visualized

    Another reason for why Keyes’ deluges of words in Gish-gallops of faux-arguments are totally irrelevant.

  63. #63 BBD
    April 23, 2013

    # 61 No problem, Lionel. Sorry to hear you were off colour.

  64. #64 BBD
    April 23, 2013

    Oh look. CO2 at 398ppmv already. That was quick.

  65. #65 Rednose
    UK
    April 23, 2013

    #61
    Thanks again for that Lionel, BBD also. Hope you are feeling a bit better now.
    I was trying to show off and put a heading in as well but it didn’t quite come off.

  66. #66 John Mashey
    April 24, 2013

    Sou: ahh, honorary research fellow, we’ll, let’s hope.

  67. #67 bill
    April 24, 2013

    Those of us who’ve figured young Dana is going places should check here

    (Along with Boncker’s best mate!)

  68. #68 Lionel A
    April 24, 2013

    bill @ #67
    Indeed,

    As expected CP has picked up on this In Hot Water: Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years, New Study Of Oceans Confirms.

    Oh look. Dana Nuccitelli a science literate colleague of that other scientific literate John Cook have raised awareness that the myth of a slowdown in global warming is just that a myth. No wonder Keyes has to keep trying to shoot the messenger particularly if allied to SkS.

    Facts, cannot have those buzzing about when we can make up perfectly good Gish-gallops of faux-arguments and spread them here, there and everywhere which makes me [Keyes] feel good therefore I [Keyes] must look good.

  69. #69 bill
    April 25, 2013

    Notably the SkS post on the new Graun blog suggests Graham Readfearn is also about to be given a guernsey; ‘Planet Oz’ being the working title…

  70. #70 BBD
    April 25, 2013

    It’s always good to see talented pro-science communicators like DN, JA and GR achieving greater visibility. I only wish the editors of the right-wing press would recall that little thing about journalistic balance.

    We hear much about this when it is used as the justification for placing the views of a lying crank/contrarian outlier alongside expositions of the state of scientific understanding of climate change – creating the misleading impression that the views of the lying crank/contrarian outlier are of equal weight to those of the scientist.

    Yet no gig for Nuccitelli, Abraham or Readfearn at the Telegraph, providing journalistic balance to Delingpole and Booker.

    How… unbalanced.

  71. #71 chek
    April 25, 2013

    Don’t forget BBD that the Torygraph (and the Daily Hatemail) are actually aimed at the unbalanced, if not downright insane.

  72. #72 Karen
    April 25, 2013

    lol, poor demented Dana.

    “Those of us who’ve figured young Dana is going places should check here…”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/25/dana-nuccitelli-misleads-and-misinforms-in-his-first-blog-post-at-the-guardian/

    Keep cool guys :)

  73. #73 Jeff Harvey
    April 25, 2013

    Karen comes back with some typical bullshit from about the most anti-scientific blog out there. This is her/ihis/its ‘refuge’ for ignorance. Nothing new there, though, for old Karen.

  74. #74 Wow
    April 25, 2013

    And we should think that Tony has it right this time (despite a terrible track record) why, spots?

  75. #75 chek
    April 25, 2013

    I’m unable to read the WTFWT post (crank and hate sites are blocked on this educational network) but … Williwatts complaining of someone misleading and misinforming?
    There goes yet another industrial strength irony meter.

  76. #76 JohnL
    April 25, 2013

    One point, it’s a Watts-Tisdale tagteam, world championship stupid.

  77. #77 bill
    April 26, 2013

    Karen is like a fly; whenever she’s buzzing enthusiastically you always know what she’s found is a nice fresh steaming pile of shit!

    Endorsement form the likes of you, SpamKan, is the kiss of death.

    Meanwhile the SkS kids steam ahead again.

  78. #78 Anon
    April 26, 2013

    WTFIT crank Bob Tisdale claims that global warming is caused by ENSO.

    ENSO works as a recharge-discharge oscillator (with La Niña as the recharge mode and El Niño as the discharge mode)

    Given that ENSO has been around for 130,000 years or more, the fact that the warming (after a long cooling) only started in the 20th century is not explained by sideshow Bob.

    Our knowledge of ENSO in the paleoclimate record has expanded rapidly within the last 5 years. The ENSO cycle is present in all relevant records,
    going back 130 kyr.

    The evolution of El Niño, past and future,Earth and Planetary Science Letters 164 (2004) 1-10

    I noticed that Deltoid regular Olaus Petri had his mouth wide open in the presence of Bob.
    Olaus – “A Climate scare Bob exposed by Climate scientist Bob. Well done Dr. Tisdale!”
    Tisdale – “Thanks for the kind words and the degree…but I do not have a doctorate.”

  79. #79 lord_sidcup
    April 26, 2013

    I wondeed why there was a suddenly influx of cranks into the comments appended to Dana’s article. Revenge of the Wattards.

  80. #80 Sou
    April 26, 2013

    My initial thoughts after reading Judith Curry’s ‘testimony’ and all the back-patting it elicited.

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/unreasonably-reasonable-confusing.html

    (As a planner I do not regard uncertainty as a monster.)

  81. #81 Sou
    April 26, 2013

    @John Mashey #66.

    Seems there’s room for it :)

  82. #82 BBD
    April 26, 2013

    Well, things are looking as bleak as ever, if not worse.

    We’ve got Curry speaking yarbles to power in Washington, various misunderestimates (sic) of climate sensitivity in the journals and the press and blogosphere full of rubbish about same.

    Not good.

  83. #83 Karen
    April 26, 2013

    hmmm………seems like you boyz are struggling to keep a lid on your lie box :)

    and,,, um…hahaha Sou, you really can tell a whopper lol

    It’s quite obvious that you have never had a bushfire come at you hehe,

    no wonder no one comments at your bog.

  84. #84 Wow
    April 26, 2013

    “seems like you boyz are struggling to keep a lid on your lie box”

    Yes, spots, however, we’re not *trying* to put a lid on you, so failing to do so is hardly “struggling”.

  85. #85 Karen
    April 26, 2013

    hey woW, here some tantalizing tidbits for you honey :)

    The (US) tally to present for the last 6 weeks

    High temperature records: 1214

    Low temperature records: 3464

    High minimum temperature records: 1957

    Low maximum temperature records: 4323

    Snowfall records: 2000

    There is no corresponding anti-snowfall record.

    h/t to Robert W. Felix at iceagenow.com

    :)

  86. #86 BBD
    April 26, 2013

    Glaciations do not begin with the non-linear melt of the Arctic ice cap, Karen.

    A disrupted polar vortex during the winter *does* lead to spells of cold weather in the NH mid-latitudes.

    I think you need to think about this ;-)

  87. #87 BBD
    April 26, 2013

    Glaciations do not begin with global OHC increasing all the way down to 2000m either…

    Nor with the majority of the world’s glaciers in recession…

    This “ice age is coming” meme is beyond stupid. It is deep in the Land Of Crank.

    How can you deal in such rubbish? Have you no shred of intellectual integrity at all?

  88. #88 Karen
    April 26, 2013

    BBd, does that mean that the cute little polar bears are moving south ? They are breeding like flies I hear.

  89. #89 Karen
    April 26, 2013

    Jeff Harvey will be so happy :)

    Saskatchewan has coldest spring in a century

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2013/04/22/sk-cold-spring-1304.html

    hehe..the retard thought Canada was burning lol

  90. #90 BBD
    April 26, 2013

    Anyway, since you are waving temperature records around, let’s look at the bigger picture. The contiguous US is less that 2% of the Earth’s surface area. This is the frequency increase of extreme summer (JJA) hot events (NH, land) 1951 – 2011.

    This is not what the beginning of a glaciation looks like, Karen.

    ***

    Source: Public perception of climate change and the new climate dice, Hansen, Sato, Ruedy (2012)

    “Climate dice,” describing the chance of unusually warm or cool seasons, have become more and more “loaded” in the past 30 y, coincident with rapid global warming. The distribution of seasonal mean temperature anomalies has shifted toward higher temperatures and the range of anomalies has increased. An important change is the emergence of a category of summertime extremely hot outliers, more than three standard deviations (3σ) warmer than the climatology of the 1951–1980 base period. This hot extreme, which covered much less than 1% of Earth’s surface during the base period, now typically covers about 10% of the land area. It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small. We discuss practical implications of this substantial, growing, climate change.

  91. #91 BBD
    April 26, 2013

    # 87

    Blather. Respond like an adult or fuck off.

  92. #92 BBD
    April 26, 2013

    Disrupted polar vortex. Read the words.

    # 85

  93. #93 Sou
    April 26, 2013

    I’ve had more than one bushfire “coming at me”, Karen. I don’t know what you think is “obvious” otherwise.

    I’ve also got climate change “coming at me”. Difference between you and me is that I’m not paralysed by fear into denying the fact.

  94. #94 Karen
    April 26, 2013

    “I’ve also got climate change “coming at me”. Difference between you and me is that I’m not paralysed by fear into denying the fact.”

    Poor baby, I see that your a trader, lol

    How did you much did you lose on renewables ?

    lol…are you trying to prop up the carbon markets…hehehe, good luck luv :)

  95. #95 Karen
    April 26, 2013

    Oh my my my, golly gosh Jeffferyy

    Winnipeg chilled by record cold April

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2013/04/22/mb-weather-cold-record-april-winnipeg.html

  96. #96 Wow
    April 26, 2013

    “The (US) tally to present for the last 6 weeks”

    Winter?

  97. #97 Wow
    April 26, 2013

    Seriously, weakest posting tirade from you ever, spots.

  98. #98 Karen
    April 26, 2013

    woW I seem to recall that the few times there has been a slightly warm spring and the cherry picking trees have started to blossom one hour early barnturd would wave his puny little hands (with his gloveywuvvies on) and scream to us all that global warming is going burn us all to hell…..WAH WAH WAH WAH, hehehe WAAAAHHHHHHH
    its coming qwickkker than weeeee THOUGHT AAAHHHhhhhhhhh.

    Well now its colder woW :)

  99. #99 BBD
    April 26, 2013

    Are you blind as well as a cretin, Karen?

    # 89

  100. #100 BBD
    April 26, 2013

    # 85 repeated at # 89

    Polar vortex
    Polar vortex
    Polar vortex

    Read the words, Karen.