I just found Eli’s post for Darko:
“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.
“…science is being abused”
Seems both sides are shouting this out
One side does no science and abuses scientists.
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?
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.
… Was it something I said?
Another above average month. Ho hum. 10th warmest March. Eighth warmest year to date.
“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.
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.
#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.
Another victim of the US gun culture. The land where crackpots have easy access to guns.
Speaking of deniers. Anthony’s telling fibs again and calling on Happer to do some sums. The science is beyond both of them.
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.
And a ‘characteristically blundering and pathetically simple-minded routine‘ from Monckton on NZ radio
I hear Monckton is quitting the entertainment business. Or at least giving up his tours. Hope so.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And climate change will f-k up the land in most places too.
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.
Thank you for the insight and apologies for any potential misrepresentation in my # 9.
The facts matter, as we all know.
Interesting new paper on the African coelacanth in Nature. No paywall for this one;
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.
“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…
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
“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:
economic and human geography,
spatial management and planning,
sustainable development (including regional and local development),
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;
transparent, comprehensive and fast peer review,
language assistance for authors from non-English speaking regions,
efficient route to fast-track publication.
20% – 30%”"
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
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
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.”
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…
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…
Good to see even the local paper is running with the PAGES-2K report:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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…
“Do you think you can will global warming into existence based on who opposes it? ”
Then again, since CO2 increases will do that just fine, why is “will” involved?
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.
“The thermometer says that the earth has been cooling for over a decade.”
It’s warmed 0.06C from 2011-2012.
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*.
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.
I’m laughing long and loud at Bradders though. Silly bugger.
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.
Boy is this boring.
Well looks like I was not the only one thinking that.
Traffic seems to have picked up.
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.
Apart from anything else thermometers only inform on sensible heat.
Do you know why that matters?
Time you learned to blockquote.
Start with one of these
then enter your text string followed by
one of these
Not sure what “one of these” is.
But thanks for trying
HTML tag for “blockquote”:
(blockquote)Text in quotation.(/blockquote)
*Replace* standard brackets with the chevron type.
TEST Testing, testing, testing.
You’re lying or stupid. Oh, wait … you’re both.
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.
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..
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.
# 61 No problem, Lionel. Sorry to hear you were off colour.
Oh look. CO2 at 398ppmv already. That was quick.
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.
Sou: ahh, honorary research fellow, we’ll, let’s hope.
Those of us who’ve figured young Dana is going places should check here…
(Along with Boncker’s best mate!)
bill @ #67
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.
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…
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.
Don’t forget BBD that the Torygraph (and the Daily Hatemail) are actually aimed at the unbalanced, if not downright insane.
lol, poor demented Dana.
“Those of us who’ve figured young Dana is going places should check here…”
Keep cool guys
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.
And we should think that Tony has it right this time (despite a terrible track record) why, spots?
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.
One point, it’s a Watts-Tisdale tagteam, world championship stupid.
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.
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.”
I wondeed why there was a suddenly influx of cranks into the comments appended to Dana’s article. Revenge of the Wattards.
My initial thoughts after reading Judith Curry’s ‘testimony’ and all the back-patting it elicited.
(As a planner I do not regard uncertainty as a monster.)
@John Mashey #66.
Seems there’s room for it
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.
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.
“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”.
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
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
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?
BBd, does that mean that the cute little polar bears are moving south ? They are breeding like flies I hear.
Jeff Harvey will be so happy
Saskatchewan has coldest spring in a century
hehe..the retard thought Canada was burning lol
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.
Blather. Respond like an adult or fuck off.
Disrupted polar vortex. Read the words.
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.
“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
Oh my my my, golly gosh Jeffferyy
Winnipeg chilled by record cold April
“The (US) tally to present for the last 6 weeks”
Seriously, weakest posting tirade from you ever, spots.
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
Are you blind as well as a cretin, Karen?
# 85 repeated at # 89
Read the words, Karen.
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.