April 2013 Open Thread

More thread.


  1. #1 Lionel A
    April 8, 2013

    So Karen @#57, what does it all mean, in your own words? Please use that paper for guidance only – once you have wiped your faeces off it, seeing as you are the one that projects poo, from both ends and also from your fingers. No one would want to adopt you as you are not house trained.

  2. #2 BBD
    April 8, 2013


    Heh. The crank feedshave picked up the hypothermic turtle story (this one had it yesterday). So we can *infer* that our Karen is a consumer of crank food!

    *Love* the name of the crank food dispenser in question:

    What Really Happened

    Conspiracy theory: a truth not yet forced into view

    Oh my sides!

  3. #3 Lionel A
    April 8, 2013

    Karen WRTthat #64 nonsense.

    So tell us what this means. Don’t post images without comment, are you really that much of an idiot.

    Here you go for some elucidation cutting through your Monckton Bunkum :

    New Video: Arctic Ice – The Death Spiral Continues.

    More here:

    February 2013 Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral Update.

    If it were not for lurkers that maybe visiting I would not otherwise waste my time on a stupid troll like you. After all you must be stupid to think that by trying to indicate that AGW is a hoax and there is nothing to worry about you are threatening your own future by encouraging inaction. Do you get that?

  4. #4 Rednose
    April 8, 2013


    So most of them grew up, probably modified their political views, tried to get proper jobs like the rest of us, and became pillars of society. Is that what you are inferring?

    But where are the present day band of would be plotters, anarchists and unwashed. What is their outlet?

  5. #5 Wow
    April 8, 2013

    No, maybe you’re just finding out you’re supporting Marxism, duffer.

  6. #6 lord_sidcup
    April 8, 2013

    Is that what you are inferring.

    I wasn’t inferring anything (nor was I implying, to use the correct word). I was just pointing a few facts out to you to highlight the stupidity of your original comment.

    But where are the present day band of would be plotters, anarchists and unwashed.

    Hiding under your bed, I guess.

  7. #7 Rednose
    April 8, 2013

    “nor was I implying, to use the correct word”
    Quite right too.

    The source you linked to has noble intentions:

    “What is SourceWatch’s role in increasing transparency and public scrutiny?
    SourceWatch provides simple tools to attract public participation in documenting information about the people, companies, and entities attempting to shape public opinion. With the experience of the Center for Media and Democracy
    (CMD) in researching and writing about spin and propaganda, CMD believes it is vital to a working democracy to increase public scrutiny and public awareness of the people and companies shaping public policy.”

    In practice it seems very Mcarthyistic (hope there is such a word). Also I cannot find any references to the role that unelected NGOs such as Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth etc have in the production of spin, propoganda and the lobbying process.”

  8. #8 chek
    April 8, 2013

    Also I cannot find any references to the role that unelected NGOs such as Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth etc have in the production of spin, propoganda (sic) and the lobbying process

    You’d find (if you weren’t so ideologically blinded by false equivalences and corporate spin) that the NGO’s you mention clearly state their aims, are supported by public subscription and are open books to anyone who wants to ‘investigate’ them.

    Neither do they funnel cash secretly through front organisations such as Donor’s Choice and other underhand means intent on subverting democracy.

    Of course, not being driven by a planet-raping profit motive puts them under intensely suspicion by the corporate agenda and you morons happily project that, likely without even knowing why as your unresearched, half-arsed query shows.

  9. #9 Turboblocke
    April 8, 2013

    Note that the base line of the sea ice area plot is the daily mean 1979-2008.

  10. #10 Anthony David
    April 8, 2013

    Skeptical Science has an article on a recent GRL paper –
    Land Surface Warming Confirmed Independently Without Land Station Data

    There is so much extra time and effort being spent showing already-statistically robust data is robust. Despite these “nails”, the deniers will carry on regardless, just as they did post-BEST. They are bent on protecting a particular way-of-life to the detriment of everyone, not on making scientifically coherent statements.

  11. #11 BBD
    April 8, 2013

    # 7 Rednoise

    Environmental NGOs operate from the basic premise that radiative physics works as advertised. The plethora of conservative ‘think tanks’ and vested interest lobbying essentially behaves as though it doesn’t.

    Nothing McCarthyite about that.

  12. #12 Stu
    April 8, 2013

    Conspiracy theory: a truth not yet forced into view


    Sheesh. I was having a good afternoon here.

    *headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk*

  13. #13 bill
    April 8, 2013

    Greenpeace, WWF etc. aren’t pumping out drivel that flies in the face NASA, NOAA, the Bom, the Met, NIWA, and every major scientific institution in the world.

    Nor are they acting as corporate whores servicing their client – the oil industry – for ideological and/or remunerative purposes.

    And they don’t create huge secretive slush funds whose sole purpose is to obscure their intentions and who’s actually paying for all of the above

    Therefore no equivalence.

    Not even the slightest.


  14. #14 BBD
    April 8, 2013

    # 12 Stu

    Sorry. I know what you mean.

    But Teh Stupid made me do it.

  15. #15 Karen
    April 9, 2013

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    lol, a very simple search…………….

    ‘Tonnes’ of dead fish found on Swedish lake, ” The lake was frozen to the bottom and the fish were trapped,” he added.” http://www.thelocal.se/47190/20130408/#

    10,000 animals, including Pashmina goats, may have died due to extreme cold in India http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/296329/pinoyabroad/worldfeatures/10-000-animals-including-pashmina-goats-may-have-died-due-to-extreme-cold-in-india

    The carcasses of more than 3,000 farm animals which died when a blizzard engulfed Northern Ireland have so far been collected in a state funded disposal scheme. http://www.sott.net/article/260608-3000-dead-farm-animals-found-after-Northern-Ireland-Blizzard

  16. #16 Karen
    April 9, 2013


    Farmed salmon die at Eastern Shore aquaculture plant
    Snow Island Salmon blames it on cold weather “[The fish] have cold water sores.” http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/03/03/ns-farmed-fish-deaths.html

    Hill farmers in Wales face one of their worst crises in 60 years as the melting snow reveals the carcasses of thousands of heavily pregnant ewes and new-born lambs.

    Many animals remain buried under snow drifts, farmers have been unable to get food to starving survivors and the bitter weather forecast to continue for at least a fortnight. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/01/wales-frozen-sheep-snow

    Too cold for comfort: British weather having a serious effect on wildlife http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/too-cold-for-comfort-british-weather-having-a-serious-effect-on-wildlife-8555232.html

    the nuffies in here only look in one direction, lol

    moderation = termination at dumbtoid

  17. #17 Karen
    April 9, 2013

    4 April 2013 14:00

    A LARGE number of dead seabirds have been washed up on Seafield beach as a result of the recent cold weather. http://www.fifetoday.co.uk/news/local-headlines/over-100-dead-seabirds-washed-up-on-kirkcaldy-beach-1-2877171

    The die-off has come at the start of the first dolphin calving season in the northern Gulf since the BP blowout.

    But scientists at the independent Dauphin Island Sea Lab in Alabama suggested on Thursday that unusually chilly water temperatures in the Gulf may be a key factor.

    “Everyone wants to blame toxicity due to the oil spill, said Monty Graham, a senior scientist at the Dauphin Island lab. “The oil spill … very well could have been the cause of the dolphin deaths. But the cold weather could have been the last straw for these animals.”

    He noted that water temperatures abruptly plunged from the upper 50s into the 40s off Dauphin Island in January, just before the first two stillborn calves found there were recovered. He said a second wave of dolphin carcasses washed ashore after temperatures dipped again. http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/what-caused-dolphin-deaths-oil-spill-or-cold-snap

    Sub-zero spring causes chaos across Europe, US http://www.rappler.com/world/24909-spring-weather-chaos-europe-us

  18. #18 Karen
    April 9, 2013

    German Wildlife Expert: The Easter Bunny Is Freezing to Death http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/hares-and-rabbits-are-freezing-to-death-this-easter-a-891673.html

    oh and I plagiarized this from somewhere for chek and BBD (no, its not for you to read Jeffery, your poor little bible might burst, lol),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    Feb. 2012: Europe and the Far East in the deep freeze. Coldest temperatures in Germany in 26 years; over 300 die from hypothermia and storm-caused accidents. Biggest Rome snowstorm since 1986. Three weeks of record cold in Europe: temperatures 25o C below normal; coldest February in 26 years; one of ten coldest in last 150 years. China temperatures hit -50 o C. Coldest winter in memory freezes 40% of Mongolian livestock. Temperatures down to -50 o C.

    March 2012: Warm first quarter in eastern USA, but Oregon and Washington have all-time record snowfalls. Second largest ice extent on record in Bering Sea. Record cold in Tasmania, Australia. Huge snowfall in China kills 90,000 livestock and impacts 25,000 people.

    April 2012: Sydney, Australia has coldest April 10th in 80 years.

    May 2012: UK has coldest May in 200 years.

    June 2012: Sweden has one of its coldest Junes since records began in 1789. Rare cold in New Zealand. Argentina frosts lead to agriculture crisis. Seattle has third coldest June in history.

    July 2012: Emergency in Argentina due to cold; a dozen people freeze to death in Chile. Tasmania has record low temperatures.

    August 2012: South Africa has snow in all 9 provinces for first time in recorded history.

    September 2012: Extent of Antarctic sea ice is the largest ever recorded on Sept 12.

    October 2012: Record cold grips part of Australia; earliest snow in a century. Surprise snow hits central Germany. Heavy snow catches Muscovites unprepared. For only the second time in recorded history all Austrian provinces have snow in October.

    November 2012: Early cold snap kills 14 in Poland. Hurricane Sandy causes record snowfall in Appalachians. Three tourists die from cold on Great Wall of China due to early snow. Winter hits early on three continents. Record snow around USA, including Northeast. Globe seized by record cold: UK faces coldest winter in 100 years; Arctic sees record refreeze; snow in New Zealand.

    December 2012: UK had coldest autumn since 1993. European deep-freeze kills hundreds. Record snow in Norway. Severe cooling grips Eastern Europe: over 600 die from cold; dozens die in Poland cold-snap. State of emergency declared in Ukraine due to huge snows; 37 dead in 24 hours. Russia faces strongest winter in decades: -50 o C temperatures; people freezing to death; over 125 dead so far; snow up to 16 feet deep. Motorists near Moscow trapped for days on highway during snowstorm – back-up extends 125 miles. State of emergency declared in Siberia; -61o F temperatures. Massive cold front grips Asia; northern India cold wave kills 25. USA has the most snow cover in ten years. Record snow in Minneapolis. December 2012 had largest Northern Hemisphere snow cover ever recorded.

    January 2012: Asia gripped with record cold: hundreds dead; Bangladesh has coldest temperatures since 1960s. Russia buried under snow. Over 300 die from brutal cold in Eastern Europe. 29 die from cold in Mexico. Bermuda has record daily low temperature.

    February 2013: New England snow is record. German winter temperatures are dropping at rate of 6o C per century. Alps cooling since 2000, according to peer-reviewed literature. Heaviest snowfall in a century hits Moscow. All-time low Northern Hemisphere temperature of -96o F recorded in Oymyakon, Siberia. Japan has heaviest winter snow in recorded history. Germany has darkest winter in 43 years.

    March 2013: Winter 2012-’13, November-February, ranked 4th largest snow in history; #2 for Northern hemisphere. December ’12 had most December snow ever. Arctic sea ice largest in a decade. UK in deep freeze: deaths from cold mounting; coldest spring since 1963; UK gas rationing as shortages mount with coldest weather in 50 years. Second coldest March in USA since 1969. Calcutta has coldest day in 100 years and record low March temperatures. Berlin has coldest March in 100 years. Germany’s coldest spring on record: late March temp of -33o C is coldest March temperature in over 100 years. Climate models fail to predict brutally cold European temperatures. Thousands of animals buried alive in Ireland by snow drifts.

    Never heard of most of this? If you live in the Eastern USA, where most of our news originates, that’s not surprising. It’s unlikely that most of what’s summarized above will have reached the USA’s liberal-controlled mainstream media. Record-setting cold and snow do not fit the global-warming story-line being peddled by liberal politicians and their media lapdogs. Thus, the average man-on-the-street will disbelieve these extreme-weather reports if he sees them. He still thinks we’re all going to roast and drown in rising oceans unless we pay all we have to the government.

  19. #19 Karen
    April 9, 2013

    Ohhhh……..I forgot, lol

    I’m such a ditzy girl, lol, CO2 makes it cold now, hehehe

  20. #20 Nick
    April 9, 2013

    Karen,outcast of the Thermosphere, thanks for that pile of….whatever.

    You claim ‘Tasmania has record low temperatures in July 2012’.

    BOMs monthly weather summary for that month in Tassie states: “No new temperature records appear to have been set for this month” and that mean daily maximum temperature was above to very much above average for the state. Mean daily minima were average to above average.

    So scratch that one,eh? Hope this is not indicative of the quality of your other infotainment….

  21. #21 Nick
    April 9, 2013

    Karen sez : November 2012: “UK faces coldest winter in 100 years”

    No,whatever the breathless speculation that inspired that entry in your scrapbook, winter turned out to be a little cooler than the 1981-2010 mean, but not ‘coldest in100y’.

    Scratch that one.

  22. #22 Nick
    April 9, 2013

    Karen claims: “May 2012: UK has coldest May in 200 years”

    Scratch that one as well: UK Met Office states: “the UK mean temperature was 0.5C above the 1971-2000 average”.

  23. #23 Magpie
    April 9, 2013

    Karen, c’mon. You know that an increase in the number and severity of extreme weather events of all types has been predicted as a consequence of climate change for a really, REALLY long time now. You *know* that.

    (…but if everyone could lay off the sexist language, I’d appreciate it. I know this place gets all insulty, and it’s fun, but anything gender-specific is out of bounds, IMO. That includes “dear”).

  24. #24 Nick
    April 9, 2013

    Karen : “Sydney, April 2012, has coldest April 10th in eighty years” So? The monthly mean was 0.9C above average.

  25. #25 Nick
    April 9, 2013

    Karen: “Alps cooling since 2000,according to peer-reviewed literature”

    No, a Swiss study of SNOW DEPTH trends showed that at low and medium altitudes there was some recovery in average snow depths in winter. Spring,summer and autumn remains stuffed…and no mention of temperature trends at all. Swiss glaciers continue to shrink,despite minor reversals in winter snow depth trends at altitudes lower than their accumulation zones.

    You must have got that from Pierre Gosselin,eh?


  26. #26 Nick
    April 9, 2013

    Record cold in Tasmania March 2012,Karen? Yes, some sites set new records for coldest max and min for March… a few set record high March minima….while the monthly mean was 0.3C above the average. Context,sweetie.

  27. #27 Nick
    April 9, 2013

    Karen ,yep, Karen again: “Record cold grips part of Australia October 2012, earliest snow in 100 years”

    ….um, October is in the SH spring,and snow in the mountains is not an uncommon event. Possibly…and at best the claim is anecdotal…. the ‘100 years’ refers to late snowfall on the northern tablelands of NSW, but this did not involve record cold temperatures for the area. Yes ,very cold for a few October days in the Victorian and NSW mountains and tablelands,some records set [though many stations did not have long records]. Likewise some October record warmth was recorded in Gippsland Victoria and in western NSW but was not deemed relevant by your source…. Victoria and NSW had above average day time temperatures,and while the cold outbreak reduced average mins, the mean temps for the month were above average.

    On the whole Australia in October 2012 was well above average in mean temperature.

    Is this helping you understand your world, Kaz?

  28. #28 peterd
    April 9, 2013

    D.Duff, #37:
    “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.”

    Duff: Presumably, the fall in the value of the $US against the yen, DM, and even the $A, in the tens years following the Plaza Accord of 1985, proves that the socialistic presidents Reagan and Bush, Snr., who held power for most of this period, were responsible for this destruction and debauching of the USA.

  29. #29 peterd
    April 9, 2013

    Duff, #37 (again).
    Oh, and Duff, if you were bothered much with history (and I suspect you are not), you would notice that the gross US debt started to shoot up in the early 1980s, under said Reagan, more under said Bush Snr., appeared to begin to level off under Clinton, then resumed its trajectory towards the stratosphere under Bush Jr. and the current incumbent. But it is a bit much to blame a Democrat president for all the accumulated sins of past Republican presidents.

  30. #30 Sou
    April 9, 2013

    Speaking of global cooling fetishes, denier Don Easterbrook gets really angry and shouts a lot at Cliff Mass on WUWT. This is after his geology faculty sent a letter to the Bellingham Herald correcting some of Don’s multitude of errors.


  31. #31 Jeff Harvey
    April 9, 2013

    Karen, weather, weather, weather, weather, weather. Funny too how you include a clip on USA weather in March 2012, which was the warmest March by far in the country’s history.I see you didn’t include temperatures some 20 C above normal over most of the central and east of the country in that month: Chicago experiendced 8 days over 30 C in March 2012, one more than the record for April!

    Its been shown that for every cold weather record set globally since 2000, 5 warm records have been set. This ratio has ioncreased in every decade since the 1960s. This is what we call deterministic evidence that is statistically significant.

    Typical of you, you brainless scientifically incompetent twerp to screw it up again.

    Why do you persist in self humiliation? Go away.


  32. #33 Jeff Harvey
    April 9, 2013

    To reiterate what I said above, Karen focuses on outliers. He/she/it (the thing) scrapes the media for articles showing a few events that he/she/it thinks counter the massive evidence for warming shown over MANY YEARS by biotic proxies.

    This isn’t science. Its an ignoramus making themselves look foolish. One year does not a data set make. If one goes through decades of data they find clear examples of phenological changes and distributional shifts polewards in many different taxa. Note that Karen does not refer to a single peer-reviewed study in his/her/its comments. Its all press pieces. This year has seen a cold spring in much of central Europe which can also probably be attributed to circulation patterns connected with the precipitous loss of Arctic ice. The atmosphere is being shaken and stirred by humans and the consequences are that more extreme weather events are occurring. Certainly, the area of the planet’s surface experiencing extreme events at aqny time during the course of a year has increased since the 1960s by many factors, as pointed out by James Hansen last year.

    Karen is just another example of a simpleton thinker who believes (a) that warming means warming everywhere, (b) that it must be linear (e.g. every year must be warmer than the one that preceded it), (c) that 10-15 years is sufficient tiem to extrapolate global trends at largely deterministic scales.

    The only reason I respond to this kindergarten level discourse is that I want to ensure that naive visitors to this site don’t get sucked in by Karen’s childish histrionics. In any scientific arena they would be spat out and ignored. Certainly, working as a scientist none of my colleagues would take Karen’s crap remotely seriously.

    However, expect Karen in her desperation to post even more bullshit here. Its in keeping with deniers: the more they are humiliated, the more they turn up the volume.

  33. #34 Jeff Harvey
    April 9, 2013

    Just as I said> look at Karen’s last post. One example. One data point.

    How does elevated C02 affect plant primary and secondary metabolism? How does it affect soil processes that are critical for primary production? How does it affect interafctions with AG and BG consujmers, both antagonists and mutualists?

    Karen does not understand basic plant ecophysiology, except to think that C02 is a plant nutrient that, if increased, makes plants bigger and better. Forget the fact that N is not limiting in terms of plant quality; N and P are. Forget the fact that many plant allelochemicals are C or N based and thus increased uptake will lead to changes in secondary metabolites with consequences up the food chain. Forget the fact that plant productivity is clsoely tailored with soil properties, especially pathogens, as well as soil chemistry.

    But Karen persists with her clown show. She actually thionks that she can debate me, a trained scientist, on matter dealing with plant biology and ecology. Heck, its only part of my main research field. I only published 15 papers in the area last year (with 522 citations of my work). Karen published 0 papers. Thats hardly unusual – she has 0 papers in her ‘scientific career’. That’s because – guess what – Karen has no scientific pedigree!

    He/she/it is amusing.

  34. #35 Lotharsson
    April 9, 2013

    Just got around to the ThinkProgress piece by Romm regarding Delingpole’s recent despicable Godwin-drenched screed. Romm’s piece is worth a read.

  35. #36 Wow
    April 9, 2013

    To reiterate what I said above, Karen focuses on WEATHER


    But Olap, who doesn’t know what climate is, hasn’t picked up on that, despite continually preening himself on knowing what the difference between weather and climate is and pretending that I’ve made claims of climate using weather.

  36. #37 bill
    April 9, 2013

    Let’s play ‘Source that Spam!’ Straight from the Ka(re)n.

    Other than that – well gee whiz; that solves everything!

  37. #38 Rednose
    April 9, 2013


    Very noble sentiments, but WWF do not seem to be having such a good press here:







    “It is unlikely that any other charitable organisation that depends on public support operates with such little accountability and in such secrecy as WWF…. It is easier to penetrate the CIA. And when WWF has been caught in embarrassing conducts it has engaged in damage control and cover-ups of the kind that might be expected from a company whose products have caused injury to consumers and the environment.”

    To name but a few.
    Possibly a bit more equivalence than you suggest.

  38. #39 cRR Kampen
    April 9, 2013

    Karen #18, the list of heat was too long to compile, no? A factor ten, about, if you just take the absolute records. Or are you still working on that list? We’ll wait for it then 🙂

  39. #40 Karen
    April 9, 2013

    Suck in some CO2 Sillybilly and grow up.


  40. #41 Karen
    April 9, 2013

    Kirkham, who has written a book on the subject, “Elevated Carbon Dioxide: Impacts on Soil and Plant Water Relations,” used data going back to 1958.

  41. #42 Karen
    April 9, 2013

    hahaha, look at that idiot Jeffery up there singing his own praises, lol

    Jeffery, do you scream like Tarzan when look at yourself in the mirror ?

  42. #43 Wow
    April 9, 2013

    hahaha, look at that idiot karenmackspot, avoiding the vapidness of its “arguments” by going off on another trollroll!

  43. #44 Jeff Harvey
    April 9, 2013

    Karen, in case you were wondering, there are a LOT of studies on the effects of elevated C02 on not only the soilm but on ecological communities as well as on secondary plant metabolites.

    You are such a blithering idiot that you try and give the impression that one person’s views or the results of their empircial research represent the ‘bottom line’.

    I had a colleague who studied the effects of enhanced atmsopheric C02 on soil mycorrhiza and other biotic properties and her results painted a very different picture. And of course very little of the C02 research has explored broader ecological community-wide effects. Those that have suggest that various members of a community wil respond differently – some may benefit, some may do less well or even have reduced fitness. Gosh, its that old ‘non-linear’ chestnut again that your simple brain just does not comprehend.

    In the field there is little doubt that some plants will grow much faster under elevated C02 regimes (C4s in particular). Many of these are early successional weeds, some of which are either highly invasive pests or else native ‘outbreaking’ species that thrive under anthropogenic conditions. Other mid or late successional plants may respond less positively. As a result, we will see competitive hierarchies amongst plants in a community change leading to asymmetric competition and a complete unraveling of food webs. Cronin’s research has shown that the incursion of an invasive grass into a native grass community can generate extinction cascades that amplify up the food chain. Differential responses of native and invasive vegetation to C02 increases will do exactly the same thing. And Cronin’s work was merely based on structural effects of invasive plants on dispersal; elevated C02 will not only affect structural aspects and thus local heterogeneity, it wil also lead to shifts if C:N:P ratios in plant root and shoot tissues, altering primary and secondary metabolites and thus affect the nutritional ecology of multitrophic interactions.Thus we wil see effects on both behavior and physiology. The end result of all of this is a crap shoot. There will be winners and losers. But its an experiment with potentially serious consequences for communities and ecosystem functions, given that these represent complex adaptive systems.

    Thus anyone who broadly claims that enhancing the atmsophere with C02 will benefit nature is speaking utter rubbish. Few if any scientists, and certainly no ecologists, would make such an outrageous prediction on the back of so many uncertainties. As I have said to your brick-thick head so many times, ecological communities, systems and biomes assemble and function in decidely non-linear ways. Get that through your head, will you Karen? NON-LINEARITY! Repeat that until it sinks in.

    Now, until you are capable of leaving the sandbox to debate me, my advice is to stay away. Of course, you won’t. Every time I categorically humiliate your latest argument, you return with more science-fiction waffle.

  44. #45 Jeff Harvey
    April 9, 2013

    I have to admit iot is fun smacking Karen around here, otherwise I wouldn’t do it… I am working simultaneously on 7 manuscripts right now, 6 of which deal with plant-insect itneractions. Every time I read one of Karen’s latest links, I have to pick myself up off the floor. The “C02 is plant food and benefits crop production and nature” canard was put to bed a couple of years ago with Tim Curtin, and yet dumb-skulls like our Karen still dredge up the odd study and try to make the results seem like ‘the rule’.

    But to reiterate, I am having fun shellacking her feeble little arguments. The more I do it, the more she comes back with more insults and waffle. Its an endless cycle, unfortunately.

  45. #46 Karen
    April 9, 2013

    Jeff Harvey #43

    “Few if any scientists, and certainly no ecologists, would make such an outrageous prediction on the back of so many uncertainties.”

    hehe….predictions like yours ? lol

    and also………..

    “Thus anyone who broadly claims that enhancing the atmsophere with C02 will benefit nature is speaking utter rubbish.”

    Environmental Research Letters Volume 8 Number 1

    James Hansen et al 2013

    “We suggest that the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal, since 2000 is a basic cause of the large increase of carbon uptake by the combined terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks. One mechanism by which fossil fuel emissions increase carbon uptake is by fertilizing the biosphere via provision of nutrients essential for tissue building, especially nitrogen, which plays a critical role in controlling net primary productivity and is limited in many ecosystems”

    “At first glance there seems to be some good news. First, if our interpretation of the data is correct, the surge of fossil fuel emissions, especially from coal burning, along with the increasing atmospheric CO2 level is ‘fertilizing’ the biosphere, and thus limiting the growth of atmospheric CO2.”


    Jeffery, did you hear that James has tossed his job in at NASA and is now going to grubby his mits with the noookar cabal ?

  46. #47 Nick
    April 9, 2013

    #23, Karen does not ‘know’ anything at all, no matter how much opportunity for learning is extended to her, but she is certain that knowing something is important, hence the lists and one-out references dragged in for ‘approval’.

  47. #48 Karen
    April 9, 2013

    Nick, one day Jeff may allow you to collect the monkey sperm, lol

  48. #49 Nick
    April 9, 2013

    ….there you go #23,what did I tell you? Karen thinks something must be important to her ‘argument’ with Jeff in this material dragged in @#45.

    Karen has seen the words “‘fertilizing’ the biosphere”,and thinks that is an unambiguous good…but she has ignored the caveat “At first glance there seems to be some good news” which is clearly connected only to “thus limiting the growth of atmospheric CO2” She has managed to inflate this clearly constrained positive facet into a claim of general benefit to nature, thus imaginarily triumphing over Jeff and placing him in imagined conflict with Jim Hansen.

    You can read the triumphal chortling of a genuine idiot in her ultimate sentence. So,Magpie, no amount of appealing to a hoped for intelligence will make it appear. Karen is thick and unaware of it,and that’s all there is to it.

  49. #50 Nick
    April 9, 2013

    Karen #47,shouldn’t you be preparing another list or something?

  50. #51 chek
    April 9, 2013

    Karen #47,shouldn’t you be preparing spamming another list or something?

    The funniest things about Karens sources are the ads. When even the advertisers attaching to those crank sites seem to be taking the piss out of your rub-your-nose-in-it stupidity, you’d think it’d be time to re-examine what’s going on there.
    But no, not Karen. Unaware of it, as you say.

  51. #52 Jeff Harvey
    April 9, 2013

    From the EPA:

    Effects of Elevated Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Temperature on Forests
    Statement of the Problem
    Concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other trace gases have been increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity. By the 1980s, accumulating evidence suggested that increasing levels of these gases could produce higher global temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns. More information on how the biosphere controls atmospheric CO2 was needed to understand the Earth’s carbon cycle. Foremost, an understanding of source-sink relations between the atmosphere and the various components of the biosphere was needed. Consequently, research was undertaken to delineate the relations between atmospheric CO2 concentrations, changes in global climate drivers, and responses of the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum (EPA 1993). The science questions governing the research were:

  52. #53 Karen
    April 9, 2013

    Great stuphhh Jeffery 🙂

    Are you having another epileptic fit ?

  53. #54 Jeff Harvey
    April 9, 2013

    My complete link didn’t work.

    Here it is:


    The key points are that soil N is often limiting, not C. Moreover, the effects of elevated C cannot be disentangled from elevated temperature. The two often generate antagonisms which affect primary production. And of course the effects of pollinators, herbivores, pathogens and their natural enemies up the food chain are extremely difficult to predict. My last post, which utterly demolishes everything Karen writes, makes this clear. He/she/it does not attempt to rebut a single point because he/she/it does not uinderstand what I wrote because he/she/it has no formal training in the field. So what does he/she/it express such confidence in her voodoo science? Because it fits with his/her/its political and economic views, and damn the science.

    Again, our scientific understanding of the rules govering the evolution, assembly and fucntioning of ecosystems is still in its relative infancy. So many extremely complex and interrelated parameters are involved, of which concentrations of atmsopheric C02 are one. But it must be remebered that current plant biodiversity evolved in response to relatively low ambient concentrations of C02. The atmosphere has not approached 400 ppm in many, many millions of years. And of course the other point is that the current rate of change exceeds by many factors the rate of change in this gas at other times. The scale matters. But dweebs like Karen do not understand the importance of scale or of non-linear aspects.

    Again, I am wasting my valuable breath on Karen’s histrionics. If he/she/it were remotely congiscent of basic plant ecophysiology and of larger scale processes, they wouldn’t be able to write the crap that they do. But, as we’ve said a million times, they vastlyu overestimate their knowledge, because they have no formal training in the field. They think they can get away with drawing vast generalzations in complex fields, whereas in academic circles they’d be laughed off the stage. And they keep coming back to be humiliated time, and tiem again.

    I have said that Karen can’t reach up to the sole of my shoe in science. From the posts he/she/it makes, maybe I have still raised the bar too high.

  54. #55 Jeff Harvey
    April 9, 2013

    Note Karen’s last resort: to insults.

    So predictable for deniers and anti-environmentalists. Humiliated and cornered, they lash out with alacrity, devoid of any substance. What a clown.

  55. #56 Karen
    April 9, 2013


    I agree 🙂

  56. #57 bill
    April 9, 2013

    Ooh, ooh! And again. You don’t exactly ‘read’ widely, do you, KanSpam?

    At first glance any moron who cannot interpret what must follow a phrase such as ‘at first glance’ is, well, a moron. It means ‘superficially’, referring to the kind of conclusion a complete klutz who’d be out of her intellectual depth in the cerebral paddling pool might draw.

    Ha ha, lol, drool runs down chin etc..

    Plus, also, here’s the bit the meatbag spambots ain’t chumming about –

    However, increased CO2 uptake does not necessarily mean that the biosphere is healthier or that the increased carbon uptake will continue indefinitely (Matson et al 2002, Galloway et al 2002, Heimann and Reichstein 2008, Gruber and Galloway 2008). Nor does it change the basic facts about the potential magnitude of the fossil fuel carbon source (figure 6) and the long lifetime of the CO2 in the surface carbon reservoirs (atmosphere, ocean, soil, biosphere) once the fossil fuels are burned (Archer 2005). Fertilization of the biosphere affects the distribution of the fossil fuel carbon among these reservoirs, at least on the short run, but it does not alter the fact that the fossil carbon will remain in these reservoirs for millennia.

    Humanity, so far, has burned only a small portion (purple area in figure 6) of total fossil fuel reserves and resources. Yet deleterious effects of warming are apparent (IPCC 2007), even though only about half of the warming due to gases now in the air has appeared, the remainder still ‘in the pipeline’ due to the inertia of the climate system (Hansen et al 2011). Already it seems difficult to avoid passing the ‘guardrail’ of no more than 2 °C global warming that was agreed in the Copenhagen Accord of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC 2010). And Hansen et al (2008), based primarily on paleoclimate data and evidence of deleterious climate impacts already at 385 ppm CO2, concluded that an appropriate initial target for CO2 was 350 ppm, which implied a global temperature limit, relative to 1880–1920 of about 1 °C. What is clear is that most of the remaining fossil fuels must be left in the ground if we are to avoid dangerous human-made interference with climate.
    The principal implication of our present analysis probably relates to the Faustian bargain. Increased short-term masking of greenhouse gas warming by fossil fuel particulate and nitrogen pollution represents a ‘doubling down’ of the Faustian bargain, an increase in the stakes. The more we allow the Faustian debt to build, the more unmanageable the eventual consequences will be. Yet globally there are plans to build more than 1000 coal-fired power plants (Yang and Cui 2012) and plans to develop some of the dirtiest oil sources on the planet (EIA 2011). These plans should be vigorously resisted. We are already in a deep hole—it is time to stop digging.

    Squashing morons is icky and tedious, but someone has to do it…

  57. #58 bill
    April 9, 2013

    Subliterates at work: ‘Hanson is an idiot’.

    Indeed – I always hated that band.

  58. #59 BBD
    April 9, 2013


    Why do you never answer question arising from your own rejectionism? Most recently, I asked you the following at # 65, # 70, # 78 and # 90 but you have not responded:

    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.

    You didn’t just reject the hypothesis on emotional grounds did you? I am starting to wonder since you seem to be incapable of explaining your reasoning.

    Rejecting the scientific understanding of AGW on emotional grounds is called “denial”.

    Either you explain your reasoning, or admit that you are simply indulging in emotive rejectionism, also known as denial.

  59. #60 BBD
    April 9, 2013


    Good tracking work there! So far we’ve got Karen spamming from Goddard’s Midden, the Hockey***** and the crank feeds.

    Not looking good for K’s credibility is it?

  60. #61 Karen
    April 9, 2013

    ……the flaccid taxi driver gave me the http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/ link BBD,

  61. #62 BBD
    April 9, 2013

    You are a spamming, time-wasting denialist ignoramus.

    Or perhaps not. Prove otherwise by answering the endlessly-dodged question repeated *yet again* at # 58.

  62. #63 BBD
    April 9, 2013

    Crank feeds…

    Denialist middens…

    Crank feeds…

    Denialist middens…

    Crank feeds…

    Denialist middens…



  63. #65 lord_sidcup
    April 9, 2013

    Karen spams his own spam. Tragic.

  64. #66 Nick
    April 9, 2013

    Despite Karen’s little ploy @45 being immediately obvious, she has proceeded, unaware, with her pitiful self-deluding conceit of ‘wedging’ Jeff with Hansen… Despite being here constantly you never actually engage with others,but we know all your bold assertions are simply the questions you are too proud or scared to ask. Questions which have been answered,often with great care.And you cannot fathom any of it….

    Karen, you have to stop your self-humiliation, there’s nothing left of you.

  65. #67 BBD
    April 9, 2013

    That’s not the answer to the questions posed above, Karen.

    Looks like you are aa spamming, time-wasting denialist ignoramus after all.

  66. #68 Karen
    April 9, 2013

    I’m telling you the flaccid taxi driver gave it to me, he mucked up double “GUESSING” where I got a link from and supplied with a link to that excellent website.

    here is his post….


    and just in case someone missed that link here it is again http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/

    thank you very much Bill 🙂

  67. #69 BBD
    April 9, 2013

    Ah one, two, ah one-two-three:

    Altogether now!

    Crank feeds…

    Denialist middens…

    Crank feeds…

    Denialist middens…

    Crank feeds…

    Denialist middens…

    😉 😉

  68. #70 Jeff Harvey
    April 9, 2013

    I am not saying anythign of the sort, you moron… you have taken whar Hansen said out of context and made it out to be what you want it to mean. As I said, the effects of C02 on primary production and ecosystem functions are likely to be non-linear. End of story.

  69. #71 BBD
    April 9, 2013

    Answer # 58 and I might tell you!

  70. #72 Karen
    April 9, 2013

    BBD, I heard on the grape vine that you are one of the extremely rare cases of a climate skeptic crossing over the divide and transmogrifying into a carbonazi.

    Is that true ?

  71. #73 cRR Kampen
    April 9, 2013

    Karen, just another climate revisionist troll. Her #15 is enough to have her quarantined where she can breed with the bradthing.

  72. #74 BBD
    April 9, 2013

    Very odd – comment out of numerical order. # 70 was response to # 71.

    But not unless you drop the Nazi references. I don’t like being called a Nazi, especially not by a fuckwit like you.

  73. #75 Karen
    April 9, 2013

    cRR Kampen, Newton’s 3rd Law

    Law III: To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.

  74. #76 BBD
    April 9, 2013

    Crank feeds…

    Denialist middens…

    Crank feeds…

    Denialist middens…

    Crank feeds…

    Denialist middens…

  75. #77 BBD
    April 9, 2013

    I name thee…


  76. #78 BBD
    April 9, 2013

    Or perhaps SpamKan? (h/t bill).

    Peeps should vote…

  77. #79 cRR Kampen
    April 9, 2013

    Karen, are you still compiling that other list?

  78. #80 FrankD
    April 9, 2013

    Nick, BBD – Karen at least has the intelligence to benefit from negative reinforcement training (which demonstrates she is at least an intellectual match for an insect). It was before your appearances here and it took a several-year run of blowout defeats by all comers, but eventually she learned – “engaging” equates to “having her arse handed to her”. .

    If she seems a little gunshy, its only to be expected – idiota probata and all that, as the discount viscount (or the bradthing) might say. I’m betting that however much you persist, she’ll just ignore you and keep flinging poo at the tourists. Dodging actual arguments, that’s all she’s got left.

  79. #81 cRR Kampen
    April 9, 2013

    Ahum. I will send the royalties to the discount viscount 🙂

  80. #82 BBD
    April 9, 2013


    Thanks for the back story – which runs much as I supposed. SpamKan is indeed an unkillable zombie: even head-shots don’t work. Not to worry; all I’m really doing here is letting it know that if it irritates me I will kick its kneecap out.

    As you say – conditioning.

  81. #83 bill
    April 10, 2013

    Who can take a blog thread
    fill it up with chum?
    Copy/paste some BS
    dump it and then run?
    The SpammerKan can!
    The SpammerKan can!
    Yes the SpammerKan can
    coz it regurgitates the junk
    it doesn’t even understand…

    Apologies to Dricusse, Newley, and Sammy Davis.

  82. #84 bill
    April 10, 2013

    Further apologies to Leslie Bricusse… 😉

  83. #85 Nick
    April 10, 2013

    Bill, swingin’ stuff! Though clearly Karen ain’t got no feel and can’t hold a melody. Drones are her thing…

  84. #86 Karen
    April 10, 2013

    BBD #58

    “Please explain why the hypothesis is wrong.”

    eg. “Why wouldn’t precipitation increase if”

    Supply a link to the post where I said your hypothesis is wrong? I would like to read what I said that has got you so sooky.

  85. #87 chek
    April 10, 2013

    A far more fitting action would be for you to re-read (and – although this might be too much to expect – even attempt to understand) the spam you post to find out, rather than demand others wade through your own trash.

  86. #88 Wow
    April 10, 2013

    Just admit you don’ t know and can’t understand, spots.

  87. #89 Wow
    April 10, 2013


    I think they don’t realise how deep denial goes with them. IT DOESN’T MATTER if denying a hockey stick makes the situation we’re facing worse, THEY MUST DENY IT EXISTS.

  88. #90 BBD
    April 10, 2013


    Fact: There is NO greenhouse signature to this flood, that would be only in the minds of those desperately looking for the CO2 bogyman, lol

    You are not in a position to be so certain – RTFR below.

    Listen Dumbo, the warmists were the ones that said it wasn’t “gunna rain again”.

    It doesn’t rain and then it pours…………

    This is a lie. Your discourse is based on some nonsense that you misunderstood or made up.

    RTFR, fuckwit.

    1/. Now, why wouldn’t precipitation increase if OHC, SST, LST and tropospheric T increase? Please justify this assertion:

    Fact: There is NO greenhouse signature to this flood, that would be only in the minds of those desperately looking for the CO2 bogyman, lol

    2/. Please summarise the effects you think warming will have on the hydrological cycle.

    Come on, SpamKan. You started this.

  89. #91 Karen
    April 10, 2013

    aha, I see what your waffling on about now BBD, your numptyness has you in a total state of confusion, poor dear.

    The subject at the centre of this is “was the Buenos Aires flood caused by CO2” ?

    If you had read my prior post http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/04/01/april-2013-open-thread/comment-page-3/#comment-154462 then you also should have concluded that there is evidence of a greater flood many years ago.

    At no time did I discuss evaporation rates and temperature, your barking up the wrong tree old chum (WOOF WOOF little doggy).

    Sooo…….getting back to the starting point………… how could you contend that the recent Buenos Aires flood is a byproduct of CO2 ?

    First, the recent flood would need to be greater than the much earlier and larger flood.

    Second, even if it was a larger flood, which it wasn’t, how would/could you prove that that it was caused by CO2 ?

    Oh…..maybe a quick link to Tammers ?

  90. #92 bill
    April 10, 2013

    The truly remarkable thing is that it apparently really does think it’s clever. Extraordinary.

  91. #93 chek
    April 10, 2013

    The subject at the centre of this is “was the Buenos Aires flood caused by CO2″ ?

    You don’t even possess the ability to frame a question logically, Spamkan. It’s no wonder your understanding of the process is so poor.
    The thing is, you seem to prefer it that way.

  92. #94 Wow
    April 10, 2013

    Clausius–Clapeyron relation, spots.

    Read up on it.

    Now prove that the weather would have been EXACTLY the same if there had been 280ppm CO2.

  93. #95 Nick
    April 10, 2013

    Karen,you do not know anything about the record 24 hr rainfall in Buenos Aires beyond that it fell in a 24 hour period one day in 1906. If that total accumulated over the full 24 hr period or even over half the day,then obviously [well,to reasonably intelligent people anyway] the hourly rate was pretty low. You don’t know that that early event even produced flooding of any note. The stat was introduced by the BA mayor without any further context at a press conference.

    We do know that the c 190mm falling in Buenos Aires in this recent event fell in two to three hours. And we know that La Plata [which is 40-50km SE of BA] received in that time frame 400mm…which blows the official figures out of the frame.
    It’s actually quite easy to associate such intense hourly rates with CC mediated changes to atmospheric water potential. The stats have been collected that show such events becoming more frequent.

  94. #96 Jeff Harvey
    April 10, 2013

    “The truly remarkable thing is that it apparently really does think it’s clever. Extraordinary”

    Exactly. Hence why it keeps coming back to be humiliated time and time again.

  95. #97 Karen
    April 10, 2013

    “According to the mayor of Buenos Aires, Mauricio Macri, this was the 2nd HEAVIEST rainfall in the city since records for such began in 1906.” http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=141

    Comprehension Nick, comprehension Nick

  96. #98 cRR Kampen
    April 10, 2013

    Karen, while Nick will simply repost #94 hoping perhaps this time you have someone who can actually read and read it to you – are you still compiling that list? I know it’s about a dozen times the length of the other one you compiled, but you’ve had your time by now.

  97. #99 lord_sidcup
    April 10, 2013

    You don’t even read your own spam do you sunspot:

    the majority of the rainfall occurred in just 2 or 3 hours.

    Now try reading what Nick wrote.

    Is it because you enjoy the humiliation?

  98. #100 Karen
    April 10, 2013

    BBD #89

    “Listen Dumbo, the warmists were the ones that said it wasn’t “gunna rain again”.

    This is a lie. Your discourse is based on some nonsense that you misunderstood or made up.”

    a recent reminder…………..

    “Should Tim Flannery be fed to the crocodiles for the role he has played in the fleecing of the Australian taxpayer and the diversion of scarce resources into pointless projects like all the eyewateringly expensive desalination plants built as a result of his doomy prognostications about water shortages caused by catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?”

1 3 4 5 6 7 12

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