April 2013 Open Thread

More thread.


  1. #1 BBD
    April 30, 2013


    And let’s not forget…
    Cold weather is just weather, hot weather is climate….

    Not if you can show multi-decadal change in extreme hot weather events. And we can. And I have pointed you at a good reference at least twice now. And you still haven’t bothered to read it. So you are lazy and ignorant as well as a denialist, which must be awful for you but is bad enough for those around you.

    Read the words. Go on. Do it.

    Don’t just come back here repeating the same bullshit over and over again.

  2. #2 BBD
    April 30, 2013

    Since the cold weather bullshit keeps on coming, I will repeat this comment once again.

    This is the frequency increase of extreme summer (JJA) hot events (NH, land) 1951 – 2011 (figure only). This is where weather becomes climate – in the record of sustained, multi-decadal change.

    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.

  3. #3 Jeff Harvey
    April 30, 2013

    Betula is singularly obsessed with my trek across Algonquin Park more than a year ago. Glad that someone still remembers it. Thanks, tree pruner for your unbridled support.

    The thing is, Betula couldn’t debate his way out of a wet paper bag where science is concerned. Like deniers, he sinks his teeth into one tiny, insignificant thing (a web article written by someone where I work after I returned from a winter crossing of the park) and won’t let go. For their part, the last stand of climate change deniers for the most part over the last decade has been Mann et als. hockey stick. Entire denial web sites have been set up CA, Hockeyschtick) to smear Mann and that single study. Again, the denier mind set is simple (hardly surprising since the vast majority of them are morons). Focus on one thing and leave out a huge empirical base…. if they think they can debunk one area, then they think that everything else will come down with it. Creationists do it as well. They are deniers in their own right.

    Thanks heaven Betula is too busy shearing branches off of trees to venture in here most of the time. He doesn’t know the difference between weather and climate; doesn’t understand the concept of time lags for large scale systems; hasn’t got a clue about the importance of scale in the Earth and environmental sciences. But he sure as hell doesn’t like someone saying that climate change will unravel food webs and undermine ecosystem functions (big words that probably go over his head). And he cannot stand someone suggesting that life-zone boundaries will have to shift as it warms rapidly. This was what I wanted to say in the now infamous press release last year.

    Note to ianam: this is precisely what i was saying when I said that I have to take truckloads of shit from people like Betula for waiving anonymity. Betula, Jonas, ‘Karen’ and their acolytes can spew out any garbage they like and get away with it. By saying who I am, Betula, Olaus and others expend their energies trying to dig up any dirt they can to smear me… and all they can come up with is some flimsy web link on our site in which I said that climate change effects are being manifested at the boundaries of ecological life zones. If Betula wants evidence, then look it up in the empirical literature instead of hounding me. Its there, but you are not interested in that; your primary aim is to hound me like many are hounding Michael Mann.

  4. #4 BBD
    April 30, 2013

    Fuck ’em Jeff.

    – You have the balls to post under your real name, for which you deserve respect

    – Your commentary here about the effects of rapid climate change on ecosystems has opened my eyes to something not sufficiently discussed in the blog wars, for which you have my thanks

    – I know what the buggers are trying to do, so my guess – no, it’s more than a guess – is that so does everyone else

    – so as I said, f—-

  5. #5 Craig Thomas
    April 30, 2013

    Climate Change Means Rising Seas, More Sewage Overflows

    Sewage treatment plants are usually placed near water in low-lying areas so that sewage can be piped to the plant via gravity and treated sewage can be easily discharged into receiving waters. These key factors in plant locations make them especially vulnerable to storm surges and coastal flooding. Compounding the inherent risk of their low-lying locations, many treatment plants have expansive, underground labyrinths of pipes, holding tanks and pumps that can remain waterlogged and incapacitated long after floodwaters recede. They also typically discharge their treated wastewater through large underwater pipes, which can cause facilities to flood from the inside as waters rise, long before the surface water levels overrun the outside of the structures.

    Nice – I hadn’t thought of things in that way before….I guess it makes no difference in places like Bangladesh where the sewage is all around you anyway.

  6. #6 Bernard J.
    May 1, 2013

    Changing the subject, a few years back there was a spoof paper knocking around in which Catweazle was listed in the references.

    Does anyone know to which ‘paper’ I am referring?

  7. #7 Jeff Harvey
    May 1, 2013

    Thanks BBD. Your comments and knowledge here are also very much appreciated…. I learn a lot for your posts and want to thank you for also standing up to the disinformation spewed out by the deniers.

  8. #8 cRR Kampen
    May 1, 2013

    Still compiling that other list, blóóndie?

    “995 daily snowfall records have been broken during the month so far”

    More precipitation. Aha. Imagine the future snowfall records resulting from open sea Arctic 🙂

  9. #9 cRR Kampen
    May 1, 2013

    “— You are 100,000,000,000 times more likely to die from a terrorist attack than to die from Global Warming (that is natural by the way)”, #62

    Really, blóóóndie? You know, one single heatwave killed more people than all terrorist attacks of the world and its history combined. 55.000 dead in just two months.
    Russia, 2010.

  10. #10 bill
    May 1, 2013

    And, of course, even if we assigned all non-AGW deaths as due to terrorism, the idiot’s invented ‘statistic’ is falsified – for all time – by just two of those deaths; and this leaving aside the obvious point that the most people existing terrorists could hope to kill in their wildest dreams is a mere 7 billion!

  11. #11 Wow
    May 1, 2013

    I think spots was being very VERY alarmist.

    I wonder, though, why those deniers whinging about “alarmists” making up shit are hiding…

  12. #12 Lionel A
    May 1, 2013

    The dimbo dumbos of the ‘nobody at home brigade’ Karen, OP, Betula, etc being paid up members of should grok this article taking down a recent by Roy Spencer (him and Christy being ‘…the twins ting-a-ling, the twins ting-a-ling, the brass bands play as they stroll along…’) Roy Spencer’s Catholic Online Climate Myths. These people are getting downright tedious.

  13. #13 JohnL
    May 1, 2013

    Dana also takes on another aspect Spencer’s interview in The Gruniad this morning.


  14. #14 Vince Whirlwind
    May 1, 2013

    Roy Spencer is a nutcase:


    We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
    We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it. With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if energy is to be abundant and affordable.
    We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
    We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.


    We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
    We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.
    We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.
    We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.

    Credibility = nil.

  15. #15 Jeff Harvey
    May 1, 2013


    Yikes! This is pure insanity. For instance: “We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant”.

    What utter nonsense! Carbon is certainly not a limiting nutrient for plants – nitrogen and phosphorus are. This is kindergarten level science. If Spencer is one of the ‘luminaries’ in the climate change denial camp, then that lot are in deep, deep trouble.

    And the political mumbo jumbo about taxing the poor? Good grief, its a small elite minority who profit from the profligate use of fossil fuels. What a smokescreen these fruitcakes try and create.

  16. #16 Jeff Harvey
    May 1, 2013

    It gets even worse:


    Check out some of the signatories of their ‘declaration’… in addition to Spencer its some of the other usual suspects.


  17. #17 chek
    May 1, 2013

    Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall_Alliance
    “Protection of the poor”

    Wiki would be thoroughly entitled to add “Rank, sickening hypocrisy” to its ‘category’ lusting.

  18. #18 chek
    May 1, 2013

    … or even better, its category listing.

  19. #19 Vince Whirlwind
    May 1, 2013

    The signatories are here:

    I notice Dembski in there, D’Aleo, and McKitrick as well

    So those three are happy to put their names to A big pile of Creationist bullshit.
    Dangerous loons.

  20. #20 chek
    May 1, 2013

    I’d rate it as manipulation of a mother lode of otherwise harmless loons by a cadre of far from harmless lunatics..

  21. #21 bill
    May 1, 2013

    Yep – and this is quite literally the best Denial can do.

    Then about 6 ranks below them we have the mouth-breathing Fundies that haunt this blog. Baby Jesus loves the Innumerates, right, SpamKan?

  22. #22 Craig Thomas
    May 1, 2013

    This is very funny:

    A group of elderly JFK conspiracy theorists were comparing notes when one of them suddenly had a heart attack. After going through the whole tunnel light scenario he finds himself facing God. He asks “Oh Lord, who really killed JFK?” And God replied “It was Oswald acting alone.”
    At that point the EMTs were able to jolt him back to life. Later in the hospital with his co-theorists he said in a low voice “The conspiracy is bigger than we thought.”

  23. #23 Lotharsson
    May 2, 2013

    This is (ahem) illuminating.

    “The more moderate and conservative participants preferred to bear a long-term financial cost to avoid purchasing an item associated with valuing environmental protections,” the study said.

  24. #24 bill
    May 2, 2013

    And there’s an endlessly recursive loop! A large group of people who won’t participate in fixing any problem they deem politically incorrect* if they’re made aware they’re fixing it. How the hell do you get out off that?

    Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.


    *Contrary to their equally perverse myth-making, in reality PC is a pervasive phenomenon of the Troglodyte Right; most notably in their aggressive – indeed, frequently hysterical – assertion that their confident ignorance is the equal of yer fancy-schmancy book lernin’ any day. I agree with the discussion that holds that in this respect Lysenkosim is a very close cousin of Denial, not science…

  25. #25 bill
    May 2, 2013


    And there’s an endlessly recursive loop! A large group of people who won’t participate in fixing any problem they deem politically incorrect* if they’re made aware they’re fixing it. How the hell do you get out off that?

    Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.


    *Contrary to their equally perverse myth-making, in reality PC is a pervasive phenomenon of the Troglodyte Right; most notably in their aggressive – indeed, frequently hysterical – assertion that their confident ignorance is the equal of yer fancy-schmancy book lernin’ any day. I agree with the discussion that holds that in this respect Lysenkosim is a very close cousin of Denial, not science…

  26. #26 Craig Thomas
    May 2, 2013

    In fact, there is an enormous amount of projection on display.

    From their ludicrous “global warming religion/high priests” aimed at the secular activity that is science research or the “follow the money” nonsense aimed at all those stupendously smart science academics who are pulling in $60k/year, to this latest garbage about Lysenko: they are transparently trying to pin their sins onto everybody else.

  27. #27 Craig Thomas
    May 2, 2013

    Some good news:

    What have Cuccinelli and McDonnell been hiding?
    By Brian Devine on May 1, 2013 10:37 AM

    Bob McDonnell and Ken Cuccinelli’s relationship with Star Scientific and its CEO is making headlines across the Commonwealth and generating questions about conflicts of interest and ethics violations. The story is complicated, with numerous gifts, vacations, flights, and law suits. To make sure you understand just what Cuccinelli and McDonnell have been up to, ProgressVA has put together this timeline to shed light on the lucrative relationship between one company, the Governor, and Attorney General of Virginia.

    From free flights, to wedding gifts, to FBI investigations, ProgressVA wants to help you see, understand, and then share with others, the extent of their exploitation and what McDonnell and Cuccinelli believe is acceptable.

  28. #28 BBD
    May 2, 2013

    # 20 chek

    I’d rate it as manipulation of a mother lode of otherwise harmless loons by a cadre of far from harmless lunatics..

    The whole thing is a particularly pernicious front, funded by the usual mix of fossil fuel vested interest and right-wing twisters.

    Details here.

    Read all about the Cornwall Alliance’s crazy and repellent founder Calvin Beisner.

    Some extracts from Beisner’s book, Resisting The Green Dragon:

    The Green Dragon must die…[There] is no excuse to become befuddled by the noxious Green odors and doctrines emanating from the foul beast…


    This slimy jade road…is paved with all kinds of perverted and destructive behaviours, leads to death itself, and finally, to the pains of hell forever…No Hollywood celebrity bunnies draped over its foul form can deny its native evil…


    It is no coincidence the rise of environmentalism as a significant political entity tracks the rising political clout of modern feminism…


    The fruits of the Green Dragon are not good, but evil…Humans are urged to surrender as many liberites as judged fit to save the world, which is pretty much all liberty that makes life worth living…


    Christians must resist Green overtures to recast true religion, nor allow themselves to be prey for teachers of pagan heresies…

    Yes children. THIS is what Spencer is endorsing. It is, as they say, worse than we thought.

    For an invaluable resource for debunking those who parrot Spencer’s scientific trickery, see here.

  29. #29 bill
    May 2, 2013

    I notice there’s a certain level of – entirely justified – schadenfreude going on over at Mike Mann’s twitter feed; justice may yet turn out never to have been quite so poetic!

    (It’ll be like he’s been cut-down by the HHRIJ!)

    And ‘Star Scientific’? Oh, the irony… 😉

  30. #30 Wow
    May 2, 2013

    Admittedly I didn’t know this until someone showed me, but Political Correctness’ only connection to the “left” and communism was that Marx said that “PC” complaints would be used to silence critics and would be used *by the right* to shame people into staying silent rather than speaking.

    The right refuse to acknowledge this, though. If complaining about PC is something they and the rest of the right do, IT CANNOT be something that communist thought complained about. In their minds, they have NOTHING to do with communism and are the exact opposite.

    Oddly enough, in many things, they are 360 degrees opposite…

  31. #31 bill
    May 2, 2013

    Parallel to their forthcoming paper the SkS team are looking for people to do a survey that involves reading several (short) abstracts of papers and then rating the extent to which they confirm/endorse the AGW hypothesis (or otherwise.)

    The survey can be taken here – http://survey.gci.uq.edu.au/survey2.php.

    As usual the range of papers is very intriguing. Contrarian blogs have been asked to post the link, too. Expect recursion…

  32. #32 bill
    May 2, 2013

    Ah – it seems you’ll have to go from one of the site links, so here’s the SkS page – http://www.skepticalscience.com/Participate-survey-measuring-consensus-climate-research.html.

    That might make for a more interesting measure of the affect of preconception on comprehension… 😉

  33. #33 Sou
    May 2, 2013

    I see on WUWT that someone’s fleecing deniers for $$ to make a short video with the nutters. It’s going to feature – wait for it:

    His Highness Viscount Lord Christopher “birther and not a member of the House of Lords” Monckton

    Jo “gold bug” Codling/Nova and partner

    Anthony “hide inconvenient data” Watts

    James “interpreter of interpretations” Delingpole

    and others from the fake skeptic menagerie.

    Apparently the film is going to try to persuade people it’s going to be cheaper to have more and worse floods, cities submerged by rising seas, heat waves, water shortages, horrendous bushfires and droughts than it is to stop global warming.

    It’s going to be based on Monckt(ec)onomics! I imagine with lots of upside down charts, dollar signs and swastikas if his presentations to date are anything to go by.

  34. #34 Sou
    May 2, 2013

    Ha ha – the you tube video is about this incomprehensible fiddling with decimals.

    Lead balloons!

  35. #35 BBD
    May 2, 2013

    That is a Lomborgian argument. Didn’t know Monckton was an advocate of recycling.

  36. #36 Craig Thomas
    May 2, 2013

    They *want* a climate emergency so they can go back to the good old days of 1941 where production took a front seat to unions, wages, and regulation of all types.

  37. #37 Craig Thomas
    May 3, 2013

    Here’s a fun survey, from John Cook:


  38. #38 Craig Thomas
    May 3, 2013

    The nutters at Jo Nova are drooling all over a new junk-science paper:

    Apparently cherry-picking 6 thermometer records (all in Europe) and one longer-term record (specifically chosen for its fit with the thermometer records), and then manufacturing 6 imaginary “cycles” to fit the data is all you need to do to disprove climate change.

  39. #39 Nick
    May 3, 2013

    #38,new? Ludecke’s cyccle fitting has no pants,removed back when it came out…but of course for Nova,it’s perfect.

  40. #40 BBD
    May 3, 2013

    WRT the Lüdecke nonsense, Eli was quick to strike 😉

    See here and here.

  41. #41 FrankD
    May 3, 2013

    What’s excellent about Lüdecke et al is that it makes very clear predictions of the expected temperature trajectory over the next 10-15 years. The fit is close enough that if their hypothesis is incorrect, the divergence will be apparent within a few years*.When the divergence is statistically significant, there will be an opportunity for Nova’s chetters to demonstrate their skepticism by publicly rejecting the Ludocycle hypothesis. It will be excellent to see skeptics to prove their skepticism.

    And yes, I believe in fairies! I do, I do, I do! Why do you ask?


    * I’m pretty sure it would already be apparent, if Lüdecke et al had used the last decade of data. I wonder why they didn’t…

  42. #42 FrankD
    May 3, 2013

    “chetters”? WTF are they? Was meant to be “chatterers”…

  43. #43 cRR Kampen
    May 3, 2013

    Lüdecke can already talk, apparently, otherwise what an ingnorant bunch.
    Labrijn, continuous to 1706 (we also got some stretches of instrumentals back to 1634). In Britain one can go even further back in time, when, according to Lüdecke et al earth temperature stood at like 10 degrees higher than now and dinosaurs were pets.

    Why don’t universities kick out cranks like this?? Why??

  44. #44 bill
    May 3, 2013

    Do you think it’s a strategy? Triumphantly flourish the paper only after the level of debunking has cooled, and hope that the real world has moved on sufficiently for the – ahem – ‘skeptical’ fan-base to lap it up without their sensitive souls being exposed to untoward refutation… 😉

  45. #45 BBD
    May 3, 2013

    cRR Kampen

    Why don’t universities kick out cranks like this?? Why??

    Perhaps even more to the point, given the complexities of tenure and employment law and freedom of academic thought, why do journals publish flawed studies?

    Zorita’s role in the decision at CP to publish is what disturbs me most.

  46. #46 cRR Kampen
    May 3, 2013

    ‘Freedom of academic thought’, my you-know-what! There is no ffing freedom in thinking about the ‘2’ in inverse square laws, or the (ir-)rationality of Pi, or the fact that CO2 is a GHG, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

  47. #47 BBD
    May 3, 2013


    I do understand what you are saying of course, but my point is that what you argue would lead to academics being dismissed *for being mistaken*.

    It is better that journal referees and editors detect mistakes and reject papers, surely?

    Which is what makes the editorial decision at CP to publish Lüdecke so disturbing.

  48. #48 cRR Kampen
    May 3, 2013

    “what you argue would lead to academics being dismissed *for being mistaken*”

    Or worse. Of course. Mathematicians going on quadraturing the circle ought to be kicked out of any university. People denying that CO2 is a GHG (all climate revisionists belong to this group) have to be booted – it is not even necessary to give a reason for that.
    One professor Blacquière of Wageningen University, he ‘studies’ bees, is a fraud who needs to be let off. Why? Because he not only dogmatically will not research anything to do with certain pesticides, he forbids his student explicitly to do so. That’s because this guy is a fraud: he works for Bayer. This has been known for years and guess what – he’s a government advisor.
    Ffing Alice in Wonderland.

    Journal referees/editors should reject cranky papers, yes, but the real consequences have to be taken by the academia. Publishing well known artefacts (without even bothering to try for any physical explanation for found ‘periodicity’) should result in the sack the moment de academia lays eyes on such a paper.

    I’d even suggest those authors should pay damages for being the nuisance they are.


  49. #49 BBD
    May 3, 2013

    If there is clear evidence of fraud, academic misconduct or paid advocacy for vested interests, then dismissal should be automatic, yes. Of course. Along with a bar against future employment in a teaching capacity. Students must not have their potential careers blighted because of “bad” professors.

    So long as the evidence is *clear*. I wouldn’t want to live in a world where academics were afraid to publish contrarian papers that run the risk of being mistaken. Then science stops dead.

    I think we probably agree but have blog interface problems 😉

  50. #50 cRR Kampen
    May 3, 2013

    BBD, we do agree (‘blog interface problems’, that’s a useful phrase 🙂 ).
    But there is a difference between, let us say, ‘contrarian’ and ‘quadraturian’, then. There is a reason I make use of the term ‘climate revisionism’ for garbage that is more usually called too neutrally ‘contrarian’.
    (incidentally, when I hit the free speech advocates of WUWT re censorship of the d-word, I instantly coined ‘climate revisionism’).

    Problem with Lüdecke et al is that one could also surmise the level of that work is far below academic, it’s high school experimenting at best. I have to agree with you that this kind of thing should be sorted out by the journals themselves.

    Unfortunately, with climate revisionism I consider authors guilty until proven naive or demented. Including Lüdecke.

  51. #51 BBD
    May 3, 2013

    cRR Kampen

    Oh yes, no free pass for Lüdecke. But no free pass for Zorita either. He is at least as culpable. To be honest this whole thing gave me a strong case of the WTFs. CP is most certainly not E & E.

  52. #52 Sou
    May 4, 2013

    Just been reading Bob Tisdale’s explanation of how his brain works. He admits that sees things in ‘bits’ and can’t seem to connect the different bits, which stops him from seeing the whole picture. But then we knew that already.

    Anyway, it got me to look at how people ‘see’ things. A few people on WUWT managed to say what they see in a surface temperature chart from WMO, before RichardSCourtney bit their heads off. I drew it in pictures. Interesting if you like that sort of thing.


  53. #53 TimB
    May 4, 2013

    What happened to Marcott et al. In the 20th century ?
    The tell me that bit is entirely made up, from a very few selected data points , giving a strong visual impression of an uptick, but with no evidential robustness whatsoever .

  54. #54 Sou
    May 4, 2013

    I put them all together into a single gif file.

  55. #55 Lionel A
    May 4, 2013

    I wonder how Tisdale would fair if he met a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necker_cube"Necker Cube or some of M C Escher’s work (I love this stuff BTW) such as Ascending and Descending and Waterfall. ‘Convex and Concave’ and ‘Print Gallery’ would likely send him out into the night screaming.

  56. #56 Lionel A
    May 4, 2013


    I wonder how Tisdale would fair if he met a Necker Cube

  57. #57 BBD
    May 4, 2013

    But as I sauntered by the tide
    I saw a something at my side,
    A something green, and blue, and pink,
    And brown, and purple, too, I think.
    I would not say how large it was;
    I would not venture that because
    It took me rather by surprise,
    And I have not the best of eyes.

    Should you compare it to a cat,
    I’d say it was as large as that;
    Or should you as me if the thing
    Was smaller than a sparrow’s wing,
    I should be apt to think you knew,
    And simple answer, “Very true!”
    Well, as I looked upon the thing,
    It murmured, “Please, sir, can I sing?”
    And then I knew its name at once –
    It plainly was a Cumberbunce.

    (Paul West)

  58. #58 Lionel A
    May 5, 2013

    Argue with this you dimbo dumbos of the denier/delayer brigade:

    Quick Video Wrap Up Of The Week’s Global Warming News.

  59. #59 Lionel A
    May 5, 2013

    And, as most of us realise, it isn’t only global warming that humans are causing but disruption to ecosystems by transport of invasive species. Of course this has been going on for years with e.g. horticulturists not always appreciating the consequences of their actions.

    One helper here: Scientists map global routes of ship-borne invasive species .

    Next time some sociopath tries to condemn wind turbines for killing birds this should be put under their nose How many birds are killed by windows?.

  60. #60 BBD
    May 5, 2013

    Never mind windows. What about cats?!

    When are the anti-wind campaigners going to start a campaign to ban cats? We should be told.

  61. #61 chrisb
    May 6, 2013

    Casting back to Tim’s long-lost youth, Lott has a new edition out – time to call Tim back to the colours…

  62. #62 Craig Thomas
    May 6, 2013

    Dr Paul Willis is trolling the anti-science cranks here:


    Heh – he’s keeping an eye on the comments and playing whack-a-mole with them.

  63. #63 bill
    May 6, 2013

    Yep, that’s fun!

    The ‘organic food causes autism’ chart made me laugh out loud, but the anti-vax brigade (often a strongly-intersecting set with the organic consumers*) is not a laughing matter.

    I have no doubt, however, of Internet Explorer’s capacity to induce homicidal rages.

    Such things cause me to recall recently encountering Neil de Grasse Tyson’s suggested response to folks who think the ‘if a tree falls in the forest…’ question embodies some profound and timeless wisdom – ‘How do you know it fell?’

    *And I say that as a devotee of the organic and minimum spray stalls at the local farmers market.

  64. #64 Sou
    May 6, 2013

    I learnt something new today, from reading Willis Eschenbach on WUWT. Well, not from him, needless to say.


  65. #65 bill
    May 7, 2013

    I see Eli’s added you to his blogroll, Sou, and flagged it in a post – well done!

  66. #66 Sou
    May 8, 2013

    Thanks, Bill. I’m seriously flattered.

    Almost too much happening in one day even for this tough old bird. I had a stoush with WUWT over Anthony’s recycling of a lynch mob attack on Peter Gleick.

    Tony’s mob of conspiracy theorists are a constant source of amazement/amusement.


  67. #67 bill
    May 8, 2013

    No worries Sou!

    Here’s a highly-recommended great little video I just found at Climate Crocks.

    The dim-bulb and pseudo-intellectual count around here has never been lower. Has epistemic closure finally become absolute? Has the gravity of The Stupid become utterly inescapable? You guys know Hawking demonstrated that black holes all evaporate eventually, right? 😉

  68. #68 Sou
    May 8, 2013

    Great video, Bill. It’s a must do post for HW in the next day or so. Thanks.

    I really don’t know if it’s gotten worse everywhere. The WUWT rabble seem to be reduced to name-calling of individual scientists and the general public en masse. If you’re game, have a look at some of the comments on the $$ for video thread on WUWT. “Alarmists are mass murderers” and worse – ad infinitum.

    I say keep the pressure on and make sure every sane person is aware of the problem, as well as show up the Dismissives for what they are.

  69. #69 Sou
    May 8, 2013

    To clarify: The “problem” being climate change, not the Dismissives. The latter aren’t about to go anywhere.

  70. #70 BBD
    May 8, 2013


    Honourable mention at Stoat too!


    And quite right too. I can’t face WTFUWT, so your synopses and commentary are very handy. For which many thanks.

  71. #72 Wow
    May 8, 2013

    And let’s not forget…
    Cold weather is just weather, hot weather is climate….

    Of course, betty had to forget that the claims are:

    We’ve had SEVERAL Hot Summers in a row: that’s climate.
    We’ve had ONE Cold Winter: that’s weather.

  72. #73 Karen
    May 8, 2013

    hmmm……. it’s still April in here, typical lol

    and jeffffery still believes what he reads in the Independent 🙂 so much for peer reviewed………

  73. #74 Wow
    May 8, 2013

    Ah, the fool is back.
    In April.

  74. #75 Betula
    May 8, 2013

    The sea level will rise how much?


    Love the contrast of words….

    “glaciers will likely slow their rapid retreat”

    “researchers resolve one of the biggest uncertainties”

    “We now have a good estimate of what’s going to happen in the next 100 years”

    “Now we know for sure”

    “looking at the changes from the last 10 years and extrapolating them is wrong,” she said. “It’s not science.”

    “The study predicts”

    “One 2008 study, a worst-case scenario”

    Sounds like they now know for sure they have a good estimate of their prediction that will likely resolve one of the biggest uncertainties involving a worst case scenario.

  75. #76 Betula
    May 8, 2013

    Wow @ 72…

    Of course, betty had to forget that the claims are:
    We’ve had SEVERAL Hot Summers in a row: that’s climate.
    We’ve had ONE Cold Winter: that’s weather.

    So the first hot summer was considered weather until the second hot summer changed it to climate, followed by one cold winter, which is weather, and a very cool spring which is also weather (bordering on climate). Now, if we get one cool summer, it’s not weather, but rather a changed climate even though it’s just one summer.

    Got it.

  76. #77 BBD
    May 8, 2013

    Betula, why don’t you read the link at the beginning of this thread?

    Summer hot weather trends are now decades old and very much climate. I keep on pointing you at the relevant information over and over again but you just won’t read the words.

    Why not? What is wrong with you?

  77. #78 VinceWhirlwind
    May 8, 2013

    Betula says, “Sounds like they now know for sure they have a good estimate of their prediction that will likely resolve one of the biggest uncertainties involving a worst case scenario.”

    Got to love how these fake “sceptics” place so much belief and trust automatically on *some* exercises in computer modelling, while rejecting *others*.

    Of couuse, their discrimination has nothing to do with understanding, analysis, and rational thought – Betula likes the results of this computer model because some crank site on the internet has told him to like it.

  78. #79 chek
    May 8, 2013

    Poor ol’ Betty grabs both feet of his comprehension and swings it around like he’s holding a cat with a 2m radius within the 1m radius of his comprehension.

    He knows (from his visits here) that the average global temperature is rising inexorably but with non-linear local effects, just as the trees he prunes don’t grow absolutely uniformly.

    But he beats the shit out of that cat because ‘murcan ‘publicanism values herd-following stupidity above all else – it’s their one growth industry – and so even though he fully comprehends non-linearity in his everyday work, Betty’s happy to pretend that he means something as long as it’s not what those gummint eggheads think about climate change.

    Thus down the tubes of history went American Thinking.

  79. #80 bill
    May 8, 2013

    Betty, even by the standards of Deniers, you continue to astonish.

    Gee, they’ve used confident words, and I’m choosing to believe what they’re saying helps my cause, so they must be right. However wherever authority and confident language combine in a message I don’t like I simply reject or ignore it. No matter how many times the same conclusion is reached.

    And, yep, like all the other dills you don’t get the distinction between weather and climate. Climate is where you get the warmest decade in recorded history, and probably for 10000 years. Weather is where we had a lot of snow last Wednesday.

    And, seriously, one winter grading into spring is ‘climate’? It’s like you’re a cartoon!

    You ought to be ashamed of your astonishing level of ignorance, and your equally shameless barging in on matters you clearly do not comprehend. But that’s impossible.

    “Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.” – John Stuart Mill

    Stick to lopping branches.

  80. #81 bill
    May 8, 2013

    [Greenland] is still losing a lot of ice,” she said. Just not as much as some of her peers had feared: “The last ten years it’s losing mass twice as fast as the ten years before. But in the next ten years it’s not going to be four times more.”

    Gosh, Betty, so if several tonnes of all this snow you’ve been having was poised to slide off a mountain onto your house, and the amount of snow accumulating had recently doubled, if you found out the rate of pile up wasn’t likely to increase to anything greater than that there wouldn’t be a problem at all! Right?

  81. #82 MikeH
    May 9, 2013

    Graham LLoyd at The Australian quoting from an interview on the “skydragon” website with nutter Habibullo Abdussamatov.

    “Abdussamatov said a new “little ice age” would start this or next year and hit a low around 2040, with a deep freeze that would last for the rest of the century.”


  82. #83 Craig Thomas
    May 9, 2013

    I can’t comment at Peter Gleick’s for some reason, so I can’t respond to the idiot who brought up Lindzen as a counter-authority to reality as we know it.

    I would respond with this:

    or this:


    Uh-oh – turns out Lindzen was horribly wrong. Who’d have guessed it?

  83. #85 Craig Thomas
    May 9, 2013

    Thanks, Mike.

    While not as egregiously misleading as previous Graham Lloyd efforts, one had to wonder what this article is actually meant to be about, seeing as its headline is obviously a bit of made-up nonsense, its reference to Russian crank theories is just a waste of time and space, and the rest of what it presents contains nothing new and nothing interesting beyond a deliberate attempt to confuse the scope of CO2-related forcing with the far, far smaller scope of solar variability forcing.

    At least Lloyd won’t have to issue a correction in relation to this one.

    Still warrants a spot on the checklist of The Australian’s War on Science, though.

  84. #86 BBD
    May 9, 2013

    # 82 Craig Thomas

    WRT unable to comment at PG’s…

    Last time this happened (several sites) I cured it by enabling the “accept third-party cookies” option in the innards of my browser. It is well worth checking to see if this is on or off as it is a common cause of mystery “lock-outs” from comments.

  85. #87 Wow
    May 9, 2013

    “So the first hot summer was considered weather until the second hot summer changed it to climate”

    So you think two is “several”, betty?

    Your lack of even basic counting skills is displayed to full effect here, betty.

    Go away and make me a sammich.

  86. #88 BBD
    May 9, 2013
  87. #89 Sou
    May 9, 2013

    MikeH #81 – I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t read it myself. What a twit.

    His twitter handle is very apt: @glloydtwit

  88. #90 BBD
    May 9, 2013

    I keep hearing about Abdussamatov. Doubtless he is Crank of the Month at various chumming sites – and now The Australian. Doubtless coming to The Daily Mail and The Telegraph soon.

    Always interesting to watch the climate liars spread misinformation from their blogs that finds its way up the media food chain into the MSM.

    Then listen to them whine that they are just a tiny, uninfluential minority crushed beneath the massive weight of “state-sponsored climate science” blah blah blah.

  89. #91 Sou
    May 9, 2013

    Lol – I got suckered. Thought @glloydtwit was Graham Lloyd – it’s a fake account.

    I’ve been conned before on Twitter with fake accounts. I recall reading an unbelievable tweet from Kevin Rudd – only it was the fake KRudd.

  90. #92 Anthony David
    May 9, 2013


    Craig, you’ve nailed the real divergence problem.

  91. #93 BBD
    May 9, 2013

    Ha ha ha. Silly me. The Abdussamatov fiction made it into the Daily Mail almost two weeks ago!

    Forget global warming – the Earth may soon be plunged into a 250-year cooling period, scientists have claimed.

    Russian climate experts believe that every 200 years the Sun’s activity temporarily wanes and it emits less heat.

    They believe this ‘cooling period’ could cause the earth’s average temperature to fall by several degrees.

    Interestingly, Abdussamatov was not mentioned by name, but the noise is coming from the the Pulkovo Observatory, so it’s him again. He’s been at it for years (at least since 2007) – I hadn’t realised.

    Notice the misleading description of these clowns as “climate experts” by both “newspapers”? They are astronomers of some sort or other. Calling them “climate experts” is like calling Kevin Trenberth a solar physicist – flat-out wrong.

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