“Ah, yes, Wow, that would be the Svante Arrhenius who:”
Doesn’t agree with duffer’s denial, therefore isn’t actually a “pre-eminent scientist”.
Olap, don’t mention that you haven’t actually proven you know what the difference between weather and climate is.
And don’t mention that all duffer wanted was “pre-eminent scientist of his age” to be believed as a sole and accurate source of authority.
And Chek, true to form, out wows Wow with this little gem:
“science and scientists are not the same thing”
Believe me, Chek, I have studied the Unified Church of Global Warming for long enough to learn that!
And Olaus, thank you, my word, what a hero Arrhenius must be to Wow et al, on “the board of Sweden’s State Institute of Racial Biology” no less. Not, of course, that that has any bearing on his scientific abilities but it says much about his judgment on other matters.
The history of climate change science is well-known, and can be reviewed here. There is no corruption, no fakery, no left-Green politics and there is a great deal more to it than Arrhenius.
By engaging in a franklyt ridiculous ad hominem instead of saying anything substantive about science you simply emphasise that you have no argument.
It is, as ever, a miserable *but instructive* spectacle.
Not to mention that in his glee to condemn, Duffer andhis new sidekick Olap would probably be surprised that many prominent thinkers in the late 19th, early 20th Century were interested in the benefits of eugenics, from Churchill to Beveridge (yes, that one), Grorge Bernard Shaw, Alexander Graham Bell and many, many more. It was the brutal extermination program of the German State in the 1940s that has made the subject taboo since.
Mind you, when the cretinous calibre of denialism and its whacky belief system is examined, it may be that those early intellectuals in favour of eugenics could foresee the dangers of a world inhabited by morons in turn guided by demagogues.
Now you pay attention Duff of #87, most of us around here have been well aware of Freeman Dyson’s support for the denial-o-sphere and for some time.
Dyson’s opinions on this topic are of little import for he has gone the way of Edward Teller before him, astray down a path he does not fully understand, or maybe pretends not to.
A good path to enlightenment for you is Dyson Exegesis.
And OP, yes we did know of some of the beliefs of one Svante Arrhenius, don’t forget that ‘the past is a different country, they did things differently there‘, but thanks for the hook here is an article which you ignoramuses around here would find beneficial, you see it isn’t all about models:
The History of Climate Science.
It is a common theme amongst deniers and delayers that they forget the huge amounts of knowledge accumulated about radiative physics.
I’ll be damed, the Skippy bunch tries to look well read. Not that I will argue the eugenics-point but there are plenty of that kind of creepy thinking to be found in the currents of the climate scare hype.
I am so glad you cleared up the mystery of Jeff Hardy’s identitiy.
I thought it might be this individual
Our Jeff is much more fluffy.
“Believe me, Chek, I have studied the Unified Church of Global Warming for long enough to learn that!”
That’s OK, duffer, you can say the URL where you studied that: http://www.wattsupwiththat.com
“I’ll be damed, the Skippy bunch tries to look well read”
Whereas you have no cares about the fact that you don’t know what climate is.
Just to be clear, I have no objection to the study of racial biology, it’s *how* you do it and *what* you do with it that matters. In fact, you could say the same thing about climatology. Alas, BIG fail in both!
And so, BBD, you can say with hand on heart that there was “no corruption, no fakery, no left-Green politics” and absolutely no “hide the decline”!
So why did you whine about it, duffer?
Duff is still having to deal with the embarrassment of his calling Obama a communist. How he can write in here any more after that clearly ignorant statement is beyond me. Obama is a corporate president if ever there was one, which makes anything Duff claims to be taken with a huge bag of salt.
Rednose has had to search the internet to find some post in which a guy with the same name as me (but who looks older if I may say so) has been arrested for DUI in Maine. Considering the name Jeff Harvey is hardly rare, methinks Rednose’s joke is a little flat. But give him his due. He’s had to do everything he can since I exposed his inability to understand the importance of scale in the the Earth and environmental sciences. After my demolition, the idiot disappeared for a week or so, clearly licking his wounds. But then, for some weird reason, he wades back in here to spew out more bilge.
What’s clear here is that not a single AGW denier has even the most basic grounding in science. Every one of them sticks their foot in their mouth with every comment. They continually confuse weather and climate. They do not understand why large scale systems exhibit deterministic properties whilst small scale systems exhibit stochastic properties. They are the equivalent of someone who claims to be an expert in taxonomy but who cannot tell a grasshopper from an elephant.
And yet they persist. In a way, its a good thing, because first time visitors with open minds visiting Deltoid who read their garbage should quickly realize that the intellectual level of many climate change deniers is benthic.
Well done Skippy!
Thank you, Jeff – no, no, I mean it, really, thank you!
You see I do like discovering new words and “benthic” is absolutely new to me. However, on looking it up in my trusty OED and after due consideration, I would rather be described as “benthic” than as a ‘floater’, which good manners constrains me from applying to anyone here, much as I would like to do!
Oh, and by the way, I think I described Obama as a “Marxist” rather than a “communist”. There is some evidence to support my claim (which should give you pleasure, Jeff) because America has just become the first country anywhere to comply with 1997 Kyoto protocol targets with regard to CO2 emission. Er, not because their daft Greenery laws has had any effect but simply because the US economy is failing due to Obama’s Marxist policies.
So, BIG WIN for you, Jeff, and final victory will be announced when we are all back living in caves and eating bark!
the US economy is failing due to Obama’s Marxist policies
Care to cite which ‘Marxist’ policies?
Or might it be the $1.5 quadrillion in derivatives (for scale the global GDP is ~$60 trillion) borrowed from the future by those clever financial instrumental virtuosos with no hope in hell of ever paying it off with the anthropocene now upon us..
duffer, you’ve already shown that what you think and what is objectively there parted ways years ago.
Plimer, Monckton, Carter, Pell, Aitken and the denierbots frequenting this blog all have one thing in common. They are all carrying on from the Cold War. Having “stared down the Soviet Union”, they have turned their bleary gaze on what they think are “sleeper fifth columners” working to bring Capitalism down from within. Because these warriors see every perceived threat to their lifestyle through the prism of the Cold War, they are blind to facts that do not fit with their long-gone reality. They know some pinko scientist, so every scientist is a pinko and is not to be trusted.
I described Obama as a “Marxist”
Dictatorship of the proletariat, innit.
I had no idea you were that nuts, Duff.
# 8 Clown
Nice to see you reduced to desperate and silly behaviour like this. I have little doubt that the JH commenting here will agree.
Argument ad hominem is both a logical fallacy and a tell. It tells us that you have exactly nothing left in your magazine.
You could be right for a lot of the teabagger-level deniers we get on here, Anthony.
Hey, Olap, I see you admit you do not know what climate is.
Well Wow, you are the one constantly claiming that singular and regional events are a proof of CAGW, not me.
Lets be happy about the coral reef shall we?
Well, you were the one asserting you knew the difference between climate and weather and have now shown yourself to have lied.
Have you absolutely no sense of humour?
Even Jeff raised a little smile.
“Argument ad hominem is both a logical fallacy and a tell. It tells us that you have exactly nothing left in your magazine”
Whereas you have Argument ad Hominem and Strawmen in yours.
Ah, yes, “I was only kidding”.
It doesn’t work, duffer.
And now we learn that ‘arctic amplification’ (a predicted effect of AGW) is sold to the fuckwits, as selflessly exemplified by Olap here, as a ‘regional effect’ – therefore decoupling it entirely from the global picture.
Thus the circle is easily squared when you’re a fuckwitted, right-wing ignoramus with nary an original thought to ripple across the activity-free, mill-pond like mind of the corporate-fed denier moron.
# 24 Clown
You are scuppered and you know it. But witter on for form’s sake by all means.
# 11 David Duff
Enough to “corrupt” a multi-disciplinary field of science? You are a conspiracy theorist!
And a fuckwit.
Denial goes completely feral.
Yep, this is a good-faith debate with honourable people who really have a case! (/sarc)
Me, i’d just say Delingpole is a tosser and go back to ignoring him.
In, one notes, The Telegraph.
Delingpole, like Keyes, clearly wasn’t schooled in the notion of being careful what you wish for…
Previous Deltoid subject Ridley appears once more as the subject of a recent SkS article. One of the Ridley claims examined is the one Duff(?) touted Dyson making – that more CO2 is better for agriculture, so keep on keeping on.
No doubt we’ll see the same argument made again a few months, and then again a few months after that…
The dickhead Delingpole concedes that the climate “debate” is over politics not science.
I note that warmists are often banging on about the fact that sceptics like Christopher Booker and myself “only” have arts degrees. But actually that’s our strength, not our weakness. Our intellectual training qualifies us better than any scientist – social or natural sciences – for us to understand that this is, au fond, not a scientific debate but a cultural and rhetorical one.
This argument postulated by Dyson and rehashed by Duff (essentially Curtin redux) of a C02 fertilization effect is kindergarten level science. There are far more factors that affect plant biomass than atmospheric C02 concentrations. Biotic and abiotic processes (both soil,and above-ground) are critical, as well as the plant’s evolutionary history with respect to C, N and P ratios in its shoot and root tissues. Then there is the little matter of other primary and secondary metabolites, and of course interactions with consumers up the food chain, including pollinators, antagonists and natural enemies.
All of these salient facts are conveniently ignored by the army of ignoranti who are clueless when it comes to ecophysiology. Again, natural systems are characterized by decidedly non-linear dynamics and complexity. Both of these factors are beyond the understanding of those bolstering political agendas masquerading as ‘sound science’.
“Oh, and by the way, I think I described Obama as a “Marxist” rather than a “communist”.
Big difference Duffer – given Obama’s slavish support for the military-industrial complex and the billions he received from the banking and corporate sectors for his election and re-election campaigns, one can only conclude that his politics fall safely within the boundaries set by the elite establishment. He was vetted long before he came within a light year of the Oval Office by corporate lobbyists (Street, 2008), who made sure that he was no threat to them. Time you learned a little bit about the world, Duffer, instead of parroting the line laid out for you by right wing pundits.
Your comments are infantile rubbish for the most part, packaged with witless prose. I’d advise you to stick to your feeble little weblog.
I noticed that. Bit of an own goal by Delingpole – and those who eagerly cite him as (what they think is) a good argument with respect to climate science.
Jeff, I’d stick to benthic matters if I were you and avoid political philosophy of which you have a less than commanding grasp. Here are some quotes for you to ponder upon in those few precious minutes you can spare from saving the globe:
“The surest way to destroy a nation is to debauch its currency”: The dollar has dropped 20% in value against a basket of currencies in the last 10 years. Currently the US government owes the world $16 trill. By the time Obama leaves it will be $20 trill.
“Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state”: Anyone for Obamacare?
“One of the basic conditions for the victory of socialism is the arming of the workers (Communist) and the disarming of the bourgeoisie (the middle class).” Gun control legislation?
“…first ascertain exactly the position of the various capitalists, then control them, influence them by restricting or enlarging, facilitating or hindering their credits, and finally they can entirely determine their fate.” And you think the banks control Obama?!!! Do me a favour, the Fed Reserve can switch the money printing services on or off!
“We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.” Read the US press recently, Jeff? Or listened to their TV networks, to say nothing of “un-named spokesmen” in the White House.
“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” Obama wants to raise taxes, and printing money = inflation.
Jeff, when you’ve saved the world, read up on Saul Alinsky, Obama and his cohorts were brought up on him!
I award 4 tinfoil hats to the Duffer’s latest contribution. I would have given an extra hat if he had mentioned the birth certificate.
Duff, can you point to the specific clauses in the gun control legislation that would allow guns to stay in the hands of the workers and out of the hands of the bourgeoisie?
When you are done with that, could you please tell me how Obama controls the Fed? Last time I checked, it does not need presidential approval for any actions it takes, nor does it take orders from the president.
Rednose appears to be commenting under Duff’s nym. Whatever happened to the avuncular old tosspot with the gravy stains on his cardigan? Has Rednose bumped off the memsahib as well? Is it still snowing in Bristol (epicentre of the new ice age)?
Marco, who appoints the Fed Governor?
The point, dear Marco, is first to disarm the bourgeoisie. After that he has a multiplicity of government security agencies all armed to the teeth.
And, Mike, what birth certificate, I haven’t seen it, have you?
Yep, faulty persona control strikes again.
Usual boring bubblehead paranoiac blather, sans the faux bonhomie / used-car salesman patter, which is a minor relief. It’s impossible to debate this industrial grade, NRA-level Stupid – nought one can do, really, but scoff briefly and ignore.
I’m with Noam Chomsky: the CIA is one of the world’s most prominent Marxist organizations: they’ve just reverse-engineered the analysis to assure the other side wins.
Watching idiots bandy about terms they have not the slightest grasp of is never edifying.
“They are all carrying on from the Cold War. Having “stared down the Soviet Union””
You might be onto something there.
Its always puzzled me as to what happened to those little groups of unwashed, bearded Socialist Workers, Trotskyists and the like, you used to see huddled around their posters proclaiming the benefits of “The Soviet System” and the imminent downfall of The West.
Where are they today?
Duffer, who appointed the last Fed Governor?
Ah dear God. Delingtool strikes again and a nation hangs it head in shame. Next, somebody will mention The Corbyn and I will have to go to my study and shoot meself.
I literally couldn’t finish it, and you know how hot I am on RTFR. But I couldn’t. There are limits.
I am amazed that even litter tray liner like the Torygraph allows this swivel-eyed ranting to appear under its banner. WTF? One day, this shite will come back to haunt them. Editorial blind-spot.
..what happened to those little groups of unwashed, bearded Socialist Workers, Trotskyists and the like..
Some of them morphed into libertarians and AGW deniers:
Piers Corbyn is now lauded by AGW deniers.
Does anyone know, does Corbyn still consider himself a Marxist?
Joe Romm has a good article on this latest tirade from Delingpole (I am beginning top wonder if Delingpole is related to Melanie Phillips.):
Denier Delingpole Wishes For ‘Climate Nuremberg’, Says ‘Hanging Is Far Too Good’ For Climate Scientists!. Some good comments at Tamino’s too.
How are you getting on polishing Delingpole’s boots Duff? Don’t forget to use plenty of spit – you should remember how to do this.
And WRT rain and Buenos Aires, or anywhere else for that matter, Karen you were saying?
When It Rains, It Pours: Study Confirms Climate Change Will Keep Driving More Intense Precipitation.
@ Wow #45:
“Bernanke was confirmed for a second term as chairman on January 28, 2010, after being re-nominated by President Barack Obama.”
Uh, we were talking about the Feds, FBI, not the federal bank.
On February 1, 2006, President Bush appointed Bernanke to a fourteen-year term as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and to a four-year term as Chairman.
(but the federal bank can’t arrest people, so can’t be used to oppress the populace)
Whoops. Thought you were speaking metaphorically.
Duff, the Board of Governors is not the sole group that makes the decisions at the Federal Reserve. And while Obama reaffirmed Bernanke’s position as chairman, he did not elect him to the Board of Governors.
Lien Nell, @ #50 here is the (toilet) paper
 Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) is the greatest accumulation of precipitation for a given duration meteorologically possible for an area. Climate change effects on PMP are analyzed, in particular, maximization of moisture and persistent upward motion, using both climate model simulations and conceptual models of relevant meteorological systems. Climate model simulations indicate a substantial future increase in mean and maximum water vapor concentrations. For the RCP8.5 scenario, the changes in maximum values for the continental United States are approximately 20–30% by 2071–2100. The magnitudes of the maximum water vapor changes follow temperature changes with an approximate Clausius-Clapeyron relationship. Model-simulated changes in maximum vertical and horizontal winds are too small to offset water vapor changes. Thus, our conclusion is that the most scientifically sound projection is that PMP values will increase in the future due to higher levels of atmospheric moisture content and consequent higher levels of moisture transport into storms.
“climate model simulations”
and…drum roll……… “Thus, our conclusion is that the most scientifically sound projection is that PMP (new buzz word. lol) values will increase in the future due to higher levels of atmospheric moisture content and consequent higher levels of moisture transport into storms.”
hehehehe, it only seems like yesterday that we were told repeatably that “it was never going to rain again” LOL,
It now appears that a really really really really smart carbonazi had a nano second of brilliance recently.
der, maybe if it gedz hodder dare mite b mor vap a rashun,
derrrrrrrr, dat mite mene mor wane ?
meanwhile……………….as planet earth emerges (naturally) from THE LITTLE ICE AGE many many the marxist cult of carbonazi’s are desperately twisting and turning their pathetic tales of doom and gloom in an effort to convince the sheeple that weather is climate.
Yes, “der, mabe if it gedz” is about your level of comprehension.
Interesting link, though “Sourcewatch” seems a little paranoid seeing conspiracies all over the place.
“The Institute of Ideas (IoI) is a successor project to Living Marxism and an intellectual home of the LM group. A flagwaver for the political network’s libertarian agenda, the organisation has been described by critics as “media-friendly Tory extremists.” ”
Not sure if IDS and Theresa May fit into LM and the cause of international socialism.
Anyway. What happened to Smithy?
One wonders why Karen here isn’t a world reknowned scientist with hundreds of publications and thousands of citatiosn when he/she/it routinely dispenses out opinions on what classifies as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ science.
Instead, Karne has no scientific crednetials, has never published a paper in any format in any scientific journal, he/she/it has never attended a conference or workshop where these issues are discussed and debated.
Instead, Karen is a grade A schmuck. Best ignored.
as planet earth emerges (naturally) from THE LITTLE ICE AGE
So just how does a planet ‘naturally emerge’ from an LIA event, Karen?
For those of you out there in LA LA Land
Global sea ice has been above the 1979-2008 average FOR 50 DAYS
(OT) Margaret Thatcher 1925-2013
Duff you blithering old fool,
Who wrote Obamacare? The bloody Heritage Foundation, with support for the pharamceutical and insurance companies, that’s who. Obama is no more itnerested in social health care than was Kerry before him.
Gun control? You actually think the gutless Democrats are actuially interested in this? Seriously? And you think that those who advocate some minor limits on gun ownership and assault weapons are socialists?
You are as daft as a loon. Obama is well embedded in the corporate state. An integral part of the link between industry and the Pentagon. Richard Nixon was to the left of Obama politically; even Barry Goldwater, for heaven’s sake, was probably not far off on the political spectrum from the current Obama administration.
As I said before, the corporate-political establishment in the US realized that Bush and the neocons wore their political ideologies on their sleeves, and hence they needed to put an acceptable apparently ‘liberal’ face on a new leader who would, in reality, be no threat to their interests. Obama was the perfect individual. Liberalism is dead in America. Chris Hedges has written about this extensively but what is now in place is a supine Democratic Party which is essentially indistinguishable from the Republicans. In the 1960s and 1970s the democrats hasd a little spine, but that’s been lost since the 1980s and the rush to embrace absolute free markets and the attendant predatory capitalism which now characterizes US domestic and foreign policy. John Perkins has written about this as well in his books; the best critiques of Obama come from Paul Street, however.
I won’t waste any more of my valuable time on this grade-school posturing of Duff. His post in response to mine was basal.
Why wouldn’t precipitation increase if OHC, SST, LST and tropospheric T increase?
Please explain why the hypothesis is wrong. Please provide your explanation for what effects you think warming will have on the hydrological cycle and why.
Take note that previously Jeffery has spouted off that if someone doesn’t believe the CO2 fairytale then they are politically motivated.
GO FIGURE THAT !!!!!!!!!!
…three things from Karen’s graph:
1. It reveals a definite downward global trend;
2. Its lumps all global data into one and does not show regional anomalies;
3. It says nothing about ice thickness, which is certainly in freefall.
What did I say about the ‘thing’ (Karen) above? It all stands. Not a scientific qualification in sight but he/she/it thinks it knows more than the experts. Dunning-Kruger personified.
BBD I am sure that you are one those climate “bots” I have heard about, a computer generated reply numptie
Note that Karen, (the thing) claims, without a single scientific qualification, that there is a “C02 fairytale”.
This view, of course, is totally at odds with most expert opinion and with the empirical evidence. Karen’s scientific bonafides wouldn’t reach up to the sole of my shoe, yet he/she/it think that he/she/it is somethng of an expert.
A bonafide idiot, more like, with delusions of grandeur (Dunning-Kruger redux).
Radiative physics isn’t politically motivated.
Denial of radiative physics frequently *is* politically motivated.
And now, for your thoughts on # 65…
..and your preferred disinformers are correctly certain that you’ll be satisfied with that, because you’re too dim to know the difference between area and volume and the longevity of first year ice when the melt season starts.
In the same way that you’d be satisfied with a gold plated trinket rather than a solid gold one. The area of gold’s the same, innit?
Too dim for words, like the ‘naturally emerging from LIA bollocks – as if the Earth just flew through a ‘cold area’ of space or whatever asinine mechanisms morons imagine within their pointy little heads. Because ‘naturally’ it’s not something you’d ever bother to research, is it Karen?
re: 66, yeah, you’re lying. Again.
“Global sea ice has been above the 1979-2008 average FOR 50 DAYS”
Nope. There has been far far less sea ice than ever before.
Spreading your butter more thinly doesn’t mean you have more butter.
Take note that in post # 67 Jeffery thinks “regional anomalies” are climate. lol
this guy tells us he is the climate god. hahaha
take not that spots still hasn’t managed to answer 65.
nor show any proof of their assertions.
spots merely states. accuracy is expendable in the fight against rationality.
You guys are looking pretty dumb right now, lol
no, spots, you’re looking in the webcam again.
Karen, why haven’t you explained your reasoning yet?
These are reasonable questions, so I am at a loss to explain your bizarre ‘response’ above:
BBD I am sure that you are one those climate “bots” I have heard about, a computer generated reply numptie
Unless of course it is a crude attempt to avoid answering the *actual questions* that I asked.
Could that bit it, Karen?
“You guys are looking pretty dumb right now, lol”
Look in the mirror, thing…
And yes, regional patterns are indeed ‘climate’ if the temporal scale is sufficient.
You are really a scientifically illiterate moron..
“Spreading your butter more thinly doesn’t mean you have more butter.”
No, but you have a bigger shiny yellow patch, keeping radiation from the bread underneath, to continue along this food analogy.
Time for lunch.
Listen Dumbo, the warmists were the ones that said it wasn’t “gunna rain again”.
It doesn’t rain and then it pours…………
nothing new about that numptie
I award 4 tinfoil hats to the Duffer’s latest contribution.
The weak attempt to garner the extra hat is discounted for being submitted after the buzzer. A protest has also been lodged alleging athlete substitution using a false identity which is being adjudicated as we speak…
“No, but you have a bigger shiny yellow patch”
Uh, winter. No sunlight, nothing to shine.
“keeping radiation from the bread underneath”
Since ice is not 100% perfectly reflective, the ice would absorb some energy and do you know what happens when you heat ice?
It melts, duffer.
And if it’s spread thinly, then it doesn’t take much to melt it all the way through.
Then it’s all gone.
But it still doesn’t mean you have more ice just because it’s spread thinner. Maybe you need to take this up with spots.
You won’t, since deniers never upbraid their fellow deniers, but you should.
Jeffery……….um………why don’t you write us an epic saga again about the northward march of the biota because its getting tooooo warm ?
yup, more assertion of someone else’s statement from spots in #81.
What a comedy tag-team – Karen and Rednose – neither of whom understands the importance of scale in Earth and climate science but who seem content to wade in here repeatedly with their kindergarten level science.
Both of these dolts are graduates of the Dunning-Kruger school of overestimating one’s knowledge.
PS: Karen, or whoever the hell you are, I never claimed to be a climate scientist. But I certainly have an infinite better understanding of environmental science than you do. And your consistent inability to be able to separate stochasticism from determinism and to understand at which point one scale tips in the favor of another demolishes every point you feebly try and make here. But if you insist on making yourself a continual laughingstock, go ahead.Your posts are so simple that they are always worth a good laugh. Trouble is, you honestly think you are on top of the field.
Think again, darling.
Translation: I can’t cite anything to support the contention apart from my own obviously faulty thinking, but ‘they ‘said that, yes I’m certain ‘they’ did. And they meant everywhere too as I understood it. Take my ever-so-trustworthy word for it, dumbos.
And just when you think the stupid’s bottomed out, it dives to new depths.
Karen’s last post illustrates exactly what I said.
Pure, wilful ignorance. Take one data point and try to make that appear to be a general trend. He/she/it does this over and over and over again on Deltoid. I could cite hundreds of studies shwoing phenological and/or geogrpahical shifts in species activities or distributions in response to long-term warming. Karen finds a single non-peer-reviewed newspaper piece showing one outlying example and pastes it here as if this is the norm.
Gee, Karen, you make annihalating your arguments so easy. As I said, your posts are elementary school level science personified.
…and read the article, for heaven’s sake. Marine turtles do not normally spend winters as far north as New England! The article reveals that last years record warm winter may have been responsible for these reptiles staying well north of their normal wintering waters.
Sheesh, Karen’s straws are getting shorter and shorter. What a hoot.
Answer the questions please. Explain your reasoning.
Argument by denial and by assumption is not sufficient.
I rather suspect that karenmackspot is a genuinely paid troll and they google for links to papers to prop up on science blogs and are only looking for keywords, never actually reading up on it.
Not sure if IDS and Theresa May fit into LM and the cause of international socialism.
They don’t, have never been associated with LM, nor are they AGW deniers. No idea why you mention them. Must be reading comprehension failing again.
I won’t speculate on motive, but I know from our past exchanges that ‘Karen’ never reads the stuff she references – only pap from WTFUWT etc.
She is, as Jeff has repeatedly and correctly demonstrated, scientifically illiterate but I would go further: she is simply not interested in scientific evidence or rational discussion of same.
Therefore she is clearly and demonstrably a troll here. We can be certain of that.
Amazing the correlation between the trolling and dodgy reading comprehension. Teh stupid, it’s everywhere.
Aye, but spots finds them and they aren’t as easily seen as sourced from denier blogrolls like the shit duffer drags on here.
Hence I think the search is actually a job and resources allocated to do so.
Hence spots is paid-for shilling.
It’s an interesting point. She does come up with some unusual references but there’s a mass of disinformation swirling around out there.
You just need to know where to look for it.
Here’s where Karen got the ’50 days’ stuff from. And this was my first serious guess; I didn’t even need Google – just went to the stinking midden that is Goddard’s site and started digging down through the strata of putrefying chum.
I was thinking more the turtle thing.
Yes, that was odd…
Just her bad luck to run into Jeff Harvey with that one
You could be right but my point is that we can’t demonstrate it. We can only show that she’s a DK troll who doesn’t even read the stuff she references.
Suggestive – but not conclusive. Such is life…
Duffer the Puffer (Magic Dragons by courtesy of Cardinal Puff maybe),
“We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.” Read the US press recently, Jeff?
You sure know how to pick them do you NOT.
NOT, have your read Delingpole’s recent frothings? Maybe you could help him with more as it seems like your style.
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.