May 2013 Open thread

Past time for more thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    May 15, 2013

    Craig, the change is much faster now.

    Ever dug into sand and ice? Which one’s easier to move?

  2. #2 Wow
    May 15, 2013

    By god, deniers are desperate.

    Look at the comments on slashdot here:

    http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/05/15/1228253/global-warming-shifts-the-earths-poles

    E.g. “This is going to cause earthquakes and locusts, people!!!!!! The end is nigh!!!!! Pray to Mother Earth for forgiveness!!!!!!”

    Slashdot: invasion of the Zombie Hordes.

  3. #3 Lionel A
    May 15, 2013

    How the heck are ecosystems expected to adapt to this Extreme Weather Whiplash: 106° in Iowa on the Heels of Record May Snows?

    Sensible people wish to know, how is your answer developing Rex?

  4. #4 Craig Thomas
    May 15, 2013

    Wow, I don’t see where the journalist has quantified any change in, for example, annual flow down the river that’s eating away at the site of the village, Or maybe quantified the increase in days where thawed riverbank is exposed to moving water.

    All I see is a story about “climate refugees” backed by a misleading reference to a US Army Corps of Engineers report that doesn’t mention climate change but talks about erosion as a long-term issue for the area.

    Not a very good article, in my opinion.

  5. #5 Russell
    May 15, 2013
  6. #6 Sou
    May 15, 2013

    My write up of the new Cook et al paper showing growing scientific consensus (97% plus), with lots of well-earned snark for the conspiracy-theorising deniosaurs at WUWT and The Blackboard.

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/cook-et-al-paper-confirms-97-scientific.html

  7. #7 bill
    May 16, 2013

    The Cook paper is interesting, not so much for confirming what we already knew, but because they really were extraordinarily conservative in their assumptions, casting thousands of papers into the ‘neutral’ pile if they didn’t specifically state ‘oh, and AGW.’

    This was an issue when doing Cook’s related ‘rate the precis’ survey, where I kept finding myself thinking “well, it seems obvious the whole reason this study has been done at all is because the authors assume temps/SLs/CO2 levels etc. are going to rise and keep on rising, but it doesn’t specifically cite AGW, so is this ‘implicit’ or ‘neutral’?”

    They rated it ‘neutral’. I don’t think anyone can complain about that.

    (But they will, of course.)

    As Cook says, AGW is the assumed background of the field; you no more have to restate it than a geology paper author would feel the need to state that ‘and our findings support the tectonic plate theory’!

    That’s a consensus, people!

  8. #8 MikeH
    May 16, 2013

    The Conversation web site has now opened in the UK.
    http://theconversation.com/uk

    The Australian site has had numerous high quality articles from climate scientists over the past two years. Here is one from the UK site.
    http://theconversation.com/how-cold-has-it-really-been-in-the-northern-hemisphere-14083

    Only a matter of time before the cranks discover it and commence trolling if the Australian site is any indication.

  9. #9 Craig Thomas
    May 16, 2013

    You mean Mark Hendricks, or whatever his name is? What a turkey.

  10. #10 BBD
    May 16, 2013

    @ MikeH # 8

    Thanks for the pointer.

  11. #11 Wow
    May 16, 2013

    “quantified any change in, for example, annual flow down the river that’s eating away at the site of the village”

    That would be because it isn’t the change in annual flow down the river that’s causing the erosion, Craig. They (in this case quite reasonably) didn’t put something down that wasn’t in the paper they were reporting on.

    I asked you the question “[have you] ever dug into sand and ice?” for a reason.

    The reason why erosion is increased markedly is that the FROZEN SOIL is now thawing.

    The loss of a protective ice shelf that used to stop the waves hitting the ground beyond is also a noted factor in the report and the paper.

  12. #12 BBD
    May 16, 2013

    @ Karen, Rednose and other Clowns.

    Remember all those “arguments” about regional cold weather vs global average temperature?

    Remember how we told you that you were confused and wrong?

    See How cold has it really been in the norther hemisphere? (an excellent tip from MikeH)

    TLDR? Here’s the micro-synopsis for lazy clowns: “warm with pockets of cold”:

    The last time the northern hemisphere recorded a month — any month — that was cooler than the 1961-1990 long-term average was in February 1994. The last time a whole northern hemisphere winter was colder than average was 1984.

    Here’s the obligatory pretty picture for the text-averse.

  13. #13 Betula
    May 16, 2013

    BBD @ 12…

    Great article BBD, here’s my favorite part:

    “Is there a link to climate change?”

    “One way of assessing how unusual the atmospheric conditions were in March is to make use of an index of atmospheric circulation, known as the Arctic Oscillation (AO) index”

    “In terms of climate change, there is no clear long-term trend in average values of the Arctic Oscillation index. However, a number of recent model-based studies have suggested a possible link between decreased Arctic Ocean sea-ice cover, driven by global warming, and extreme phases of the Arctic Oscillation”.

    “This is still a new and active area of research, and it is too early to draw firm conclusions. The possibility will need to be monitored closely over the coming years.”

    It would appear there is a “possible link” between “it is too early to draw firm conclusions” and “will need to be monitored closely”.

    Keep sending them BBD…

  14. #14 Karen
    May 16, 2013

    I always get a good laugh when I come here Betula :)

    hehehe, look at #7 lololo, there is a flaccid old taxi driver desperately trying to hold the faith, lol

    and BBd #12 offering up copies of GISS comic’s

    hehehehehehe

  15. #15 lord_sidcup
    May 16, 2013

    @Betty

    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.

    Charles Darwin

  16. #16 chek
    May 16, 2013

    I always get a good laugh when I come here

    Indeed you do Karen, indeed you do. Just maybe not in the way that you mean.

  17. #17 BBD
    May 16, 2013

    It’s really true. Naming does call.

  18. #18 BBD
    May 16, 2013

    # 13 Betula

    Why do you say absolutely nothing about your moronic shite about glaciers, addressed in some detail on the previous page, here and here?

    What is wrong with you?

  19. #19 BBD
    May 16, 2013

    Karen

    Going to deny the validity of every single gridded global temperature data set one after the other?

    Here’s HadCRUT4 for you to deny next.

    Go on, do it. Perhaps even you can tell how unhinged you look, frantically rejected everything like the frightened child you so clearly are.

  20. #20 Wow
    May 16, 2013

    So still incapable of saying anything, I see, Betty.

    You like some words in the paper. But you can’t say anything other than that, apparently. So, given we couldn’t give two shits and a holler what you like what the fuck was the point?

  21. #21 Betula
    May 16, 2013

    BBD…@18.

    Having no response to my dissection of your article at #12, you understandably respond by changing the subject to this…

    “Why do you say absolutely nothing about your moronic shite about glaciers, addressed in some detail on the previous page, here and here?

    Perhaps you should take it up with the author of the LiveScience article, but since we know you won’t, let’s go with the embarrassing you again method…

    Here’s, what you stated at # 99 of the previous page in response to what I sent at # 88…

    You at # 99 – “So you need to look at the general behaviour of glaciers in a region and globally, rather than focus on specific glaciers”

    Here’s # 88 (from the article) –

    “they have not yet established a firm connection between the mountains’ changes and climate change”

    “While Everest isn’t the only Himalayan region seeing the effects of climate change, not all of the region’s glaciers are melting”…. in fact, some “may even be growing”.

    Do you see the word “region” in there? Did you see the words “not yet established a firm connection”? Did you happen to notice the words “not all of the region’s glaciers are melting”? Did you spot the word “region” again?

    Do you actually read your links or do you just not understand what you write? It would appear you miss the obvious words only to see the ones you want to see, even when the obvious ones are smacking you up top the head.

  22. #22 Wow
    May 16, 2013

    Betty, you have to SAY SOMETHING before it can be a “dissection”.

    All you did was make a couple of quotes, say nothing about them, taking some time over them, then leave with a question mark.

    That isn’t a dissection.

    Hell, it’s not even conversation.

  23. #23 BBD
    May 16, 2013

    #21 Betula

    Instead of repeating the absurd denialist meme that there is any doubt whatsoever that *global* glacial recession provides corroborating evidence for *global* warming, you repeat your rubbish once again.

    It is still rubbish. Look at the figures I linked for you. Global glacier recession in response to global warming mainly driven by CO2 emissions. Face the evidence instead of cringing away in terror. Face up to what is actually going on. Your moral cowardice is sickening to behold.

    You have *never* embarrassed me, so the “again” is a self-serving delusion we can all safely ignore. You only embarrass yourself, over and over again.

  24. #24 BBD
    May 16, 2013

    Fucking hell I am sick of these miserable, lying, evasive, cowardly, delusional DENIERS.

    GLOBAL spatio-temporal mass balance change 1946-2005

    GLOBAL glacier length change 1845 – 2005. Red indicates recession; blue indicates advance.

    Mean annual mass balance of reference glaciers 1980 – 2011.

    Mean cumulative GLOBAL mass balance change (blue dashed) vs referenece glaciers (red) 1980 – 2011

    Just look at the evidence you craven little shits.

  25. #25 BBD
    May 16, 2013

    Grrrr.

  26. #26 Jeff Harvey
    May 16, 2013

    BBD and others,

    Ignore Betula’s bilge. He’s an expert in baiting and switching. A few days he ago he was ranting about the benefits of C02 on primary production; that argument, long discredited, was summarily dispensed, so then he moves onto something else. In this case, another area in which he knows absolutely nothing: glacial retreat and climate change. Heaven knows what he will switch to next. Karen is also a baiter and switcher. The denier ranks are full of these Dunning-Kruger intellectual wannabes.

    He is a rank embarrassment and belongs with Karen and the other brainless deniers who seem to think they have something useful to say.

    They don’t. Never have, never will.

  27. #27 BBD
    May 16, 2013

    What I simply cannot understand is the mindset. If I screw up and it is pointed out to me, while I might not revel in it, I accept the correction. It’s how we learn. Nobody knows everything and nobody is right all the time, so we screw up and we *learn*.

    But not the deniers. Oh no. Stop them dead with a solid rebuttal and they ignore it and come back with something totally different. Then a week later they are back with the rubbish you debunked the week before as if nothing had happened.

    I find this kind of intellectual dishonesty incomprehensible. How can anyone actually function like this? I asked “Brad” how he could face himself knowing that his entire position rested on intellectually dishonest rhetoric and deliberate evasions. No response, of course, but the question was absolutely sincere.

    How the fuck does anyone get through their life with a head full of lies and shite and contradictory nonsense? More than that, how do they cope with turning up in comments in places like this and getting annihilated, over and over and over and over again?

    How?

    What the fuck is wrong with them all?

  28. #28 Craig Thomas
    May 16, 2013

    How does anybody believe in God (whichever flavour), BBD?

    It’s the same inner mental process: blank out reality, focus on some irrationally-held belief.

  29. #29 jerryg
    May 16, 2013

    Craig @28

    Is that why they’re always talking about the ‘church of climatology’ ? 459,00 google hits – ‘al gore church of climatology’ gets 1,390,000.

  30. #30 bill
    May 17, 2013

    Yep, it’s all projection. Every bizarre, conspiratorial accusation is an insight into their own Medieval mind-set…

  31. #31 bill
    May 17, 2013

    Fish migrating en masse to the poles, have been for 3 decades.

    Currently not being replaced with warmer water species.

  32. #32 bill
    May 17, 2013

    I suspect we’re not going to realise the extent to which we thought the conditions particular to the Holocene were just ‘how nature works’, more or less eternally, until it’s gone.

    Which the natural system that was basically so reliable it was invisible to us is clearly in the process of doing, and irreversibly in human-scale terms.

    The fact that this is being denied – if not outrightly cheered on – by a bunch of strident muppets who proclaim themselves ‘conservatives’ may yet turn out to be the blackest joke humanity’s ever played on itself…

  33. #33 Craig Thomas
    May 17, 2013

    Jerry – precisely. I have always found the strongly religious flavour of much of the denialist ranting stood out as revealing a lot about their mindset.
    “High priests of CAGW” – for example.
    Not just utterly bizarre, but so consistent a theme that there is obviously a reason.

    Hmm…could be a question for Lewandowsky?

  34. #34 Craig Thomas
    May 17, 2013

    er…”reason” was obviously not the correct word.

    You know what I meant.

  35. #35 lord_sidcup
    May 17, 2013

    Strange edition of the Today Programme on BBC Radio 4 today. At 7.30 they ask a couple of scientists and a Chartered Accountant with a blog ‘Has global warming plateaued?’. At 8.20 they have James Hansen. I missed the start of the Hansen interview unfortunately. They didn’t seem to give him much time to make the main point he wanted to make about Canadian tar sands and tried to tie him down on some pointless stuff. Despite that he seemed to do pretty well. His lecture at the LSE last night was excellent.

  36. #36 Barry Woods
    May 17, 2013

    best to leave religion out of it (ie both sides)?

    for example John Cook, Prof Lewandowsky’s co-author (of peer reviewed papers) and of the Sceptics Handbook, is an evangelical Christian. (as is Sir John Houghton) both did physics I believe?

    ie there are elements of both sides that have strong religious convictions (thus religion is a distraction) also the REV Wahl.

  37. #37 Wow
    May 17, 2013

    Barry, nobody has said anything other than why do some people believe in a religion.

    When it comes to science, Cook and Lewandowski aren’t believers in their religion, they believe in doing their job.

  38. #38 BBD
    May 17, 2013

    # 36 Barry Woods

    See # 27.

    You are a case in point. And a tiresome one.

  39. #39 lord_sidcup
    May 17, 2013

    #35

    The Hansen interview is now available online, starts at 2:23:09:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01sdtxc

    The ‘Has global warming plateaued?’ thing starts at 1:33:42.

    Think Hansen does a great job at setting the interviewer straight. I note that she doesn’t mention the ‘revised down’ Met. Office forecast was just a 5 year forecast:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2013/decadal-forecasts

    All-in-all, another crap effort at doing climate science from the Today Programme. Full marks to Hansen.

  40. #40 Lionel A
    May 17, 2013

    lord_sidcup #39

    All I have found is this excerpt

    Today 17/05/13: Has global warming stalled?

    Where is the Hansen segment?

    Whatever, in that excerpt I consider that Roger Harrabin allows Montford too much elbow room early on without a rapid injection of emphasis that warming has not slowed as he, Harrabin, repeatedly states throughout. Same old Harrabin – unbalanced reporting in the name of balance.

  41. #41 BBD
    May 17, 2013

    The view from nowhere, as per.

    WTF is Montford doing on the radio anyway? The man has exactly *no* credentials to speak on this topic. He is a libertarian noise-maker, which, if anything, should permanently disqualify him from the interview go-to list, which should only contain credentialled experts.

  42. #42 BBD
    May 17, 2013

    You could have had a discussion about the flattening of surface warming trends with no need to invoke libertarian propagandists.

    All you need is Hansen (emphasising role of aerosol negative forcing) and Trenberth (arguing the greater influence of ocean diffusion).

    For good measure, they could have dug up a solar expert to describe the apparently minimal role of SC24.

    As Lionel says, the usual crapola. And I’m paying for it.

  43. #43 Wow
    May 17, 2013

    “Today 17/05/13: Has global warming stalled?”

    Posted on another blog:

    “nearly flat trend” is missing error bars.

    Indeed, the problem that all such idiots have with “the trend is flat” or “no statistically significant warming” is that neither disprove the IPCC or AGW, since the models assert that the trend should be around 1.7C per century, and that if they want to PROVE that wrong, they have to PROVE that the trend calculated PRECLUDES a trend of 1.7C per century.

    Saying “nearly flat trend” doesn’t do that.

    Both logic fail and statistics fail.

  44. #44 Wow
    May 17, 2013

    Lionel, if they give the science a hard time, they’ll get told off by other scientists for partisanship.

    If they give the deniers a hard time, they’ll get death threats and complaints to the Prime Minister, raised at PMQ.

    Guess which one they avoid.

  45. #45 chek
    May 17, 2013

    I don’t understand why Jim Hansen doesn’t slap these know-nothing news poppets upside the head with something along the lines of: “Well, while you’ve been noticing and brainlessly repeating misleading denier memes about flat lined temperatures, actual climate scientists have instead been noticing accelerating record melting in the Arctic over the same period. What is this ‘plateau’ you’re talking about”?

  46. #46 Wow
    May 17, 2013

    Because they aren’t allowed to. They’d shitcan him quick. Of course, Screaming Mad Lord Monckfish would have his mate and mucker Lord Lawson complain to the IPCC and the prime minister himself if he were treated so shabbily as to be put in his place!

  47. #47 lord_sidcup
    May 17, 2013

    #40 Lionel

    Hansen begins at 2:23:09.

  48. #48 Lionel A
    May 17, 2013

    lord_sidcup

    I know not what link I am missing there but all I keep finding myself at is this:

    Has global warming stalled?

    Which provides this misleading crap, my emphasis on the blatant lie:

    On Thursday 9 May, a measurement of the daily average atmospheric carbon dioxide exceeded 400 parts per million.

    Last time CO2 was this high was three to five million years ago, when it was so hot that crocodiles roamed the Arctic.

    Scientists thought that this rise would have an impact on climate change and temperatures would be driven steadily upwards by rising CO2, but figures show that they been at a standstill since 1998.

    The BBC’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin hears from climate sceptics who are saying they were right to question the science behind global warming.

    I think the BBC are being threatened by the powers that be and Harrabin & Co’ should be made to watch this:

    Lifting the Lid on the Politics of Climate Change .

  49. #49 BBD
    May 17, 2013

    This is arrant nonsense too:

    Last time CO2 was this high was three to five million years ago, when it was so hot that crocodiles roamed the Arctic.

    These lightweights don’t know their Pliocene from their Eocene ;-)

  50. #50 Rednose
    UK
    May 17, 2013

    Lionel#48
    Lionel
    There is a link to the Hansen interview on the Today program at Bishop Hill
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/5/17/hansens-scandalous-interview.html#comments

    just for BBD there is also a link to Will Happer being interviewed on CNBC
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/5/17/happer-on-cnbc.html

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/storage/Hansen%20on%20Today%20170513.mp3

  51. #51 Rednose
    UK
    May 17, 2013

    #50

    Ignore the last link

  52. #52 Turboblocke
    May 17, 2013

    No problem in ignoring all three of them :-)

  53. #53 Wow
    May 17, 2013

    Oh, look, dai is back.

    Still pegging zip on the old “comprehension” monitor. And, like cohort betty, unable to actually say anything.

  54. #54 Sou
    May 17, 2013
  55. #55 Sou
    May 17, 2013

    It’s all because of this (a nice little slideshow I put together):-

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/ninety-seven-per-cent-consensus-and-more.html

  56. #56 Rednose
    uk
    May 18, 2013

    Can someone explain where the ‘dangerous bit! is mentioned in this 97% consensus in the Cook paper.

  57. #57 Rednose
    uk
    May 18, 2013

    #53

    Casting pearls before swine springs to mind.:-)

  58. #58 Rednose
    uk
    May 18, 2013

    Sorry #52
    I usually ignore bow wow

  59. #59 bill
    May 18, 2013

    Do you have a point, Rednose? Didn’t think so.

    Nice work, Sou. The tweet from Obama – and associated publicity that craps on ‘Climategate’ – has Willard in a tizzie… diddums!

    And, yep, he’s lost the plot in the middle of the hissie fit.

    I’ve seen lots of whining about the Cook paper, but no substantive criticism. As you say, anyone can get involved and do the assessments themselves. The jackasses are caught in a bind there – they’d love to jump in and wreck, wreck, wreck away, but if they try to twist the precis to pretend they say what they so desperately want them to it’s going to be obvious – even to themselves – that that’s what they’re doing, not least because even if they can ignore their own dissonance as they’re doing it, they’ll regularly receive the numbers telling them just how far away from the norm – and from the authors – they really are.

    That last is an absolute killer.

    The numbers are rock-solid. Your ‘science’ is a tiny, withered rump that gets less relevant with each passing year. You cannot refute melting glaciers, sea-ice and extraordinary species migrations – that’s not computer models.

    You are, in a word, fucked.

    I also think you’re scared – if you live in Wattsworld you really have very, very little idea just what a staggering amount of research has and is being done – the whole debate is lost in SurfaceStations or similar well-beaten,. thoroughly -dead ruminant quadruped – and it must be genuinely staggering to realise just how mind-bogglingly irrelevant you are.

    Right, Rednose? You really didn’t have a clue about the great big world out there, did you? Scary, isn’t it?

  60. #60 bill
    May 18, 2013

    Just to rub it in, here’s Graham Readfearn on his new blog at the Graun.

    You see, boys and girls, there’s only one group of muppets being led by the nose via their slavish, quasi-religious worship of a bunch of terminally greedy manipulative deadshits in this debate. Hint: that’s Rednose, Karen, Batty, etc.

    You see (and let’s grind the egg right into every pore of your deer-in-headlights faces again) we have all the papers – thousands of them – you, on the other hand, have The Telegraph and Daily Mail.

    Or, if you like, you are, in short, a bunch of Foxwits.

  61. #61 Mack
    May 18, 2013

    Nice rant Bill, feel better?

  62. #62 Jeff Harvey
    May 18, 2013

    Ah, Rednose, another of the denier ‘baiters and switchers’.

    Every one of these clowns is the same. Doesn’t understand basic science, has a pre-determined worldview based on their (also) limited political views, gets pretty well all of their ‘information’ from weblogs run by vehemently anti-science, anti-intellectuals on the far right, and then are sent like missionaries to dispense their ignorance far and wide.

    Predictable.

  63. #63 Jeff Harvey
    May 18, 2013

    Mack is another one… just add his name to the list….

  64. #64 Mack
    May 18, 2013

    A little rant from you too Jeff baby. Our pretentious,Know all, fingers in the ears, Cannuck ” scientist” . Still cycling are you Jeff baby? Still keeping yourself trim taut and terrific?

  65. #65 Wow
    May 18, 2013

    Karen has decided to put her trousers on, I see.

    Still empty of any substance, though.

  66. #66 Jeff Harvey
    May 18, 2013

    Mack (aka Sunspot) is back.

    A complete w*****. And Dunning-Kruger alumnus.

    Nice to know that he/it/whatever thinks I am a ‘know it all’ and ‘pretentious’. Just because I tend to know more about environmental science than him/it/whatever.

    I’ve explained many times that I am not a climate scientist and defer to their expertise on matters dealing with this science. On the other hand, know-nothings like Mack, Rednose, Betula, Karen and others, with no expertise whatsoever in any scientific field, continually try and give the impression that they do have the requisite knowledge and expertise. At the same time, they never hesitate to ridicule esteemed scientists like James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth, Ben Santer and Michael Mann.

    So who are the ‘know-alls’? The ‘pretentious’ ones?

    Mack, like his acolytes, is a bloody hypocrite.

  67. #67 Mack
    May 18, 2013

    Oh , We’ve all got to pay attention to you Jeff baby. After all , you’re a scientist of ” PEDIGREE”
    Aaahahahahahahahahaha

  68. #68 Lionel A
    May 18, 2013

    Here you are Mack, a little present, your theme tune .

  69. #69 BBD
    May 18, 2013

    Apropos of nothing other than it being interesting, how about the discovery of the oldest water on Earth – ~1.5 – 2.6 billion years old…

    If correct. This is the Canada National Post, after all.

    Either way, this is what open threads are for ;-)

  70. #70 Rednose
    UK
    May 18, 2013

    #56 and #59

    The Cook paper quotes the following in the abstract:

    Among abstracts expresiing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming

    This result seems to be based on 65 of
    200 abstracts (5%) that considered

    human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).

    So a survey of these 65 abstracts found 97% of them were in agreement with John Cook

    So how did this become?

    97% of scientists agree climate change is real, man made and dangerous

    Well, Bill did ask

  71. #71 jerryg
    May 18, 2013

    BBD @69:

    I saw a less detailed story in a local paper about that. I was kind of surprised they weren’t wearing some type of glove or protective covering in that last picture where they’re taking samples.

  72. #72 Rednose
    Uk
    May 18, 2013

    Should be 65/12000 abstracts 0.5%

  73. #73 jerryg
    May 18, 2013

    BBD, It appears to be true. Paper behind paywall
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7449/full/nature12127.html

  74. #74 BBD
    May 18, 2013

    jerryg

    Thanks for the link. And well, just wow.

    As for contamination, the water hasn’t apparently done anyone harm in the >100y history of the mine. Nor are researchers likely to make obvious mistakes when collecting *uncontaminated* samples ;-)

    It’s just pictures for the newspapers.

  75. #75 Jeff Harvey
    May 18, 2013

    Well Mack, in terms of ‘pedigree’ I am certainly miles ahead of you or of any of the other idiot deniers who parade their ignorance here. Its also comforting to know that the only run-ins I have are with clowns like you – people who lack scientific qualifications in any way, shape, or form.

    I am content with that. My qualifications speak for themselves. What are yours, perchance?

    Let me guess. None.

    I rest my case.

  76. #76 Jeff Harvey
    May 18, 2013

    One thing the deniers always try and do is to downplay the broad consensus amongst statured climate scientists that humans are forcing climate and that we ought to do something about it. Rednose, Karen, and other non-scientist deniers do this the time. The denier weblogs do it.

    But the important point is that those doing it are NOT scientists and are on the outside. These people have never attended a scientific conference in their lives, they don’t interact with scientists, and most don’t have access to the Web of Science where it is easy to access the peer-reviewed literature.

    By contrast, many of those arguing in favor of the consensus are scientists, do attend conferences and interact with colleagues at work and at meetings. I’ve met a lot of climate scientists in my career, have spoken on the effects of various anthropogenic stresses on the environment, and in my career spanning more than 20 years I have yet to meet a single climate scientist who downplays the human fingerprint on the current warming. At one workshop in Copenhagen, Denmark in which I presented the final lecture on the potential ecological effects of warming, I met a number of climate scientists and all agreed that the effects of human-mediated C02 was the main driver. I’ve attended many ecological conferences since then and when the topic of climate change on biodiversity comes up, its virtually taken as ‘given’ that the burning of fossil fuels is the major factor driving climate change.

    Only on blogs where non-scientist deniers write as if they are experts who think they know more than those trained in the field is there any real controversy. Hence why the internet is the main venue for idiots to spread their gospel of doubt. In academic circles deniers are few and far between.

  77. #77 rhwombat
    Upper Transylvania, NSW
    May 18, 2013

    Recently dead bodies are surprisingly noisy: many a fart and belch ( and the occasional moan) can be heard postmortem. Seems a reasonable analogy for the contributions of Spotty McKrap, Brownnose, Blastula, et al., especially when combined with the lingering smell of Scandinavian Troll Collective and decomposing bits of WTFUWT, The Daily Fail & The Torygraph. Gas-powered corpses all..

  78. #78 bill
    May 18, 2013

    For God’s sake, Brownnose, read the paper, not your regular blogs.

    This result is rock solid. Even you can wander over to SkS and have a crack at the papers yourself – but you’re too much of a coward to do that (and not very bright, to boot.)

    Aren’t you ashamed to be so paralysingly credulous? You’re in to the bitter end, aren’t you? When Watts starts asking the true-believers to form orderly lines in front of the Kool-Aid tubs, you’ll be there…

  79. #79 Rednose
    uk
    May 19, 2013

    Bill#78

    I checked the original abstract.
    There is no mention of and dangerous

  80. #80 bill
    May 19, 2013

    So freakin’ what?

    Explain to me again, genius: what’s the conservative position on conducting a radical experiment with the one atmosphere we possess?

    What’s that? You don’t have an answer?

    Why don’t you do something really brave and toddle over the SkS and have a look at some of the papers? I’m sure none of you has the slightest conception of the sheer breadth and scale of what you are up against. Your constant projection means that you assume the capability of the human species is limited – and that’s the right word – to items such as yourselves.

  81. #81 Wow
    May 19, 2013

    And so what, duffer?

    Is the problem that you can’t think and have to be told what something means?

    Sounds right.

  82. #82 Rednose
    Uk
    May 19, 2013

    So freakin’ what?

    Because it is incorrect.
    But what the hell.
    Lets sex it up a bit.
    It might sound more convincing.

  83. #83 Rednose
    Uk
    May 19, 2013

    Is the problem that you can’t think and have to be told what something means?

    I dont have to be told what to think by Cook or Dana Nuttyjelly who sound as convincing as Double Glazing Salesmen

  84. #84 Lionel A
    May 19, 2013

    So freakin’ what?

    Because it is incorrect.

    A plaster for your confusion and self inflicted injury is here – read it slowly .

  85. #85 Lionel A
    May 19, 2013

    And when The Register chimes in then you should know you have a problem Rudolf.

  86. #86 bill
    May 19, 2013

    Jesus, what a pointless and pathetic attempt at distraction. You really are a creature without shame, aren’t you?

    Go and look at all the papers, coward.

    The reason you won’t go off and look at the work of all the clever people you despise who studied hard and did their jobs with diligence is that you’re afraid to confront just what an utterly empty cipher you are.

    I mean, CO2 – the critical greenhouse gas no matter how much smoke the rabble blows – at levels the highest they’ve been in 3 million years, and climbing, climbing, climbing; how can that possibly go wrong?

    The. Science. Is. NOT. On. Your. Side. You have no case. All you have is blinkered arrogance, a toxic ideology, and a volume level in inverse proportion to your capability.

    Face it, you are just another crank cadre of an extremist sect, thrust into utterly undeserved prominence by a bunch of venal deadshits who just happen to be very rich crank extremists. That is the sum total of your achievement.

  87. #87 Jeff Harvey
    May 19, 2013

    “There is no mention of ‘and dangerous’”

    Oh my word, what an imbecile. I don’t know why we waste our breath on these kindergarten-level distractions from Redarse and his ilk.

    There are hundreds of papers showing that humans are negatively affecting biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, for example, but the word “disaster” or a similar epithet is rarely mentioned. It is taken as a given that these effects can lead to potentially serious effects down the road.

    Similarly, scientific studies are based primarily on determining the link between the human combustion of fossil fuels and regional and global climate patterns. The studies stop there, but the potential implications are clear or at least should be. Joint statements from every National Academy of Science form every nation on Earth clearly lay out the potentially serious implications of inaction on global warming. That should be the end of it. But for the Dunning-Kruger brigade any distraction or obfuscation will do. These nitwits do not have the foggiest idea how science works because pretty well the lot of them AREN’T SCIENTISTS. Redarse isn’t, that is for sure.

    The (ab)use of the words ‘ catastrophic’ or ‘disaster’ are straight from the ranks of the denial and denial-for-hire industries. They are bastardizing the science in any way that they can to influence policy. Hence how they continually shift the goalposts. First they wanted evidence that most of the published empirical data supports the theory of AGW. It is provided. the they demand to know how many include the words ‘disastrous’ or ‘catastrophic’. The same trick is being used to downplay the number of scientists who agree that humans are forcing climate. And so on it goes. On and on and on.

  88. #88 Wow
    May 19, 2013

    “So freakin’ what?

    Because it is incorrect.”

    What was incorrect, duffer? Everything you’ve said is incorrect, so you need to narrow it down a hell of a lot more.

  89. #89 Wow
    May 19, 2013

    “I dont have to be told what to think by Cook…”

    Yeah, you need to get told what to think by Willard and Monckfish. They’ll tell you who you can be told what to think by.

  90. #90 Rednose
    UK
    May 19, 2013

    I checked the original abstract.
    There is no mention of

    and dangerous

    So this extra “sexing up” in the endorcement by Obama, which SKS proudly exhibit, without correction, is not shown by this paper.
    ie It is incorrect.

  91. #91 Rednose
    UK
    May 19, 2013

    what’s the conservative position

    I was under the impression this blog had intentions of being vaguely scientific rather than political.

    My mistake.

  92. #92 luminous beauty
    May 19, 2013

    Rednose makes an ideological statement about ‘dangerous’ and complains about others pointing to his contrived political stance as those others being ‘political’.

    It’s always projection with those in denial.

  93. #93 cRR Kampen
    May 19, 2013

    #87, that’s why we need 4 Sandy’s a year at 900 hPa each, but not on New York: they got the message. The mansions at sea in New Jersey do need to go.
    We need the drought in the Midwest to become permanent.

    Anything to save Bangladesh.

  94. #94 luminous beauty
    May 19, 2013

    I would challenge Rednose to specify under which scientific discipline/s the survey, the conclusions of which he seeks to obfuscate, falls; and why.

  95. #95 BBD
    May 19, 2013

    Red noise from the Clown.

    But then, pointless nit-picking is all that’s left.

  96. #96 BBD
    May 19, 2013

    Rednoise, exactly how is altering the distribution and intensity of rainfall across the temperate mid-latitudes not dangerous? This being where most of the world’s food is grown…

    How is that safe or very low risk?

    How is cranking up the GHG forcing at a rate literally unprecedented in Earth’s history not dangerous? Without serious risk?

    How can you be so stupid?

  97. #97 BBD
    May 19, 2013

    Here are the pretty pictures from Dai (2012).

    Those of us not engaged in a hopeless argument with the laws of physics know that CO2 forcing is going to take us down roads that lead in this general direction.

    This is dangerous.

  98. #98 cRR Kampen
    May 19, 2013

    #97 oh look at all the sunshine in the States, the corn loves it :)
    Those pictures are pretty indeed. What’s more, it has begun and looks right on track too.

  99. #99 Wow
    May 19, 2013

    “There is no mention of

    and dangerous

    So this extra “sexing up””

    No, it’s not.

  100. #100 Rednose
    UK
    May 19, 2013

    I would challenge Rednose to specify under which scientific discipline/s the survey, the conclusions of which he seeks to obfuscate, falls; and why.

    I would suggest it comes under the discipline of marketing. Is “marketing” a science? An interesting discussion.