May 2013 Open thread

Past time for more thread.

Comments

  1. #2 bill
    May 24, 2013

    Mathturbation!

  2. #3 Karen
    May 24, 2013

    barnturd gets told it’s hot where she lives so she thinks it is hot !

    barnturd is very weak minded, lol

    http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2009/indicator/13/index.php

  3. #4 Karen
    May 24, 2013

    hehehe, Bill….you lisp when your playing with your flaccid old thang, lol

  4. #5 bill
    May 24, 2013

    Assuming that’s the last we’re going to hear of that particular joke, I mentioned the other day that the ABC is well and truly in the sights of Tony Abbott and co. (i.e. Gina Rinehart, the IPA, etc..) – and, lo and behold, guess what Victoria’s Libs are voting to do tomorrow?

    GetUp! are looking for support to oppose this arrant ratbaggery.

  5. #6 bill
    May 24, 2013

    Karen, is this you?

  6. #7 rhwombat
    May 24, 2013

    It certainly smells like Karen…down to the Agenda 21 trope. How surprising.

  7. #8 Karen
    May 24, 2013

    We discussed this very subject while you were away stalking wombats rh

  8. #9 Karen
    May 24, 2013

    Bill did you stumble on that “get up” link while looking for……..um, you know…….
    what you said in post # 1

  9. #10 bill
    May 24, 2013

    So, is it?

    And, tell you what, why don’t you also tell us in your own words what that page you dropped the link to is saying?

    I’m predicting *crickets* on both counts.

  10. #11 Jeff Harvey
    May 24, 2013

    First of all, I wish to thank rhwombat, Chek, Wow, Bill, Lionel, Lotharsson et al for the support. When one takes on the ignoranti, one can expect to be smeared and attacked. I am used to it since I co-reviewed Lomborg’s error filled tome for Nature. The Betula’s, Karen’s and GSWs are a picnic by comparison with the orchestrated attacks I have faced in recent years.

    One thing I wanted to discuss is something I considered after reading Betula’s latest childish rant. That is the subject of what makes a person an expert in a field, when to defer to the expertise of others, and how this applies to fields like climate and environmental science.

    Betula did shoot himself in the foot in more ways than one. Let me elaborate. He says that he has a BS degree in Forestry and more than 30 eyars of experience in forestry-related practices. Good for him. But therein lies the rub. What he is implying is that his career has equipped him with all of the necessary expertise to be considered an expert in environmental science. Or something similar. Along with that comes the unspoken assumption that scientists are a bunch of namby-pamby spoil sports who don’t know what is really happening out there. He works in a professional field where he thinks he has accumulated as much or even more expertise and wisdom than trained environmental scientists who work in labs and teach at universities. This is what comes out of his long post.

    So where does one being to respond to that? First, it is clear to me that many people without the requisite professional training consider them to be experts in fields like ecology, environmental science and climate science. Not only people like Betula with similar professional backgrounds as him, but also people like Jonas N who routinely derided scientists like James Hansen and Michael Mann but who – as was clear in his evasive responses when challenged – possesses no relevant scientific qualifications. If he did, we would know all about them.

    The problem with the Jonas’s and the Betula’s is that they ARE classic examples of the Dunning-Kruger model. There are many other examples too, of people who work in professions where they think they know more than scientists and yet where the actual empirical evidence demolishes the belief. For example take fisheries. For years it was argued by marine scientists that humans were overexploiting marine fish stocks, and especially of species like cod, herring and sharks that occur towards the terminal end of the food chain. Based on the recommendations of scientists, it was argued that strict quotas needed to be implemented to limit the damaging effects that overfishing would have not only on commercially important species but on marine food webs and the health of marine ecological communities. Against this background, many fisherman bitterly argued that the scientists were full of hot air, that they were ‘out of touch’ with reality and that they themselves not only knew better how to manage fish stocks but that they also knew their current status better than the scientists who were monitoring them.

    What happened eventually? Well, its common knowledge that fish stocks in many regions collapsed, driving amny fishing fleets to oblivion, and also greatly harming the structure and function of coastal marine ecosystems. Cod are gone from the Grand Banks and stocks in the North Sea are teetering on extinction. As numbers of these fish were being decimated, fleets began to catch smaller and smaller individuals, harming recruitment and further driving the stocks down. Alternatively, they switched to other species that were once considered less economically viable (the decimation of baleen whale populations is a case in point of the limnits of the ‘switching’ model). Scientists had warned of this eventuality for years, and for years it fell on silent ears. The fishermen claimed that they knew better than the namby-pamby scientists. In recent years an attempt has been made to rehabiliate the industries reputation by blaming crashes in fish populations on seals and other marine predators (this is especially prevalent in Canada). Of course this is utter nonsense, given that seal numbers are strongly bottom-up regulated, and that they play a small or non-existant role in driving trophic cascades. But anything that can be done to shift the blame has been done. Eleven of 15 of the world’s major fisheries are being overharvested, and the result can be seen in places like the waters off of the Spanish coast where, thanks to the decimation of marine fish predators, jellyfish have ascended to the terminal end of the food chain. This would have been straight out of a science-fiction novel a century ago but is now reality.

    A similar scenario is unfolding in much of western Europe as a result of the common agricultural policy and its attendant intensive agriculture. Its been known for some time that the heavy use of industrial fertilizers, pesticides, and the destruction of hedgerows and other marginal habitats would have negative effects on biodiversity. Certainly many ecologists warned of this, but they were often confronted by the farming lobby, which (as with the fishing industry) argued that they worked the land and had a finger on the pulse of landscapes in agro-ecosystems. We now now that intensive agriculture is a major culprit in the precipitous declines of many birds and insects such as butterflies and solitary bees. In the UK, skylark populations have deceased by about 90% since the 1970s, as have popualtions of tree sparrows, corn buntings and other birds that inhabit rural landscapes. Even once abundant species like blackbirds and song thrushes have become much less common in rural habitats, and only appear to be remaining stable in semi-urban gardens and parks. Still, for years the farming lobby has defended its practices whilst claiming that they know more than the scientists.

    Betula falls perfectly into the two categories described above. His posts clearly reveal that his understanding of nature, of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, and of cause-and-effect relationships in the demographics of species and communities is poor. He thinks, however, that by being involved in a forestry-related field, that he knows more than ecologists and environmental scientists. But when he commented on the effects of C02 on natural and managed ecosystems, he revealed a very simplistic (and non-scientific) understanding of complexity. Then yesterday he cites some pretty weak examples suggesting that nature in the Anthropocene is doing fine: coyote range expansion, booming populations of white taiiled deer and wild turkey recovery. As I said yesterday, coyotes are highly intelligent habitat generalists; white tailed deer are also habitat generalists that have lost their two main predators; wild turkeys did not expand their depleted ramges naturally but were re-stocked under strict protection.

    I gave a number of examples (and only of birds but I could cover many more phylogenetically unrelated taxa) where once-common species are in population freefall. In the Unitred States there are many passerines that are disappearing from traditional parts of their ranges. More worrying is the fact that some of the worst declines are occurring not at range edges but at the heart of the range where one would consider conditions to be optimal (e.g. Cerulean Warbler).

    The only way that one can accuratley gauge the effects of climate change and other factors on individuals, populations and communities is through the assiduous gathering of data. We know that Loggerhead Shrikes are in trouble because we have gathered a lof of data on breeding success – natality – and on mortality over many years. Simply sticking one’s finger to the wind and making cursory observations does not work. Only when data sets are collected and statistcially analyzed can we begin to see an emerging picture.

    This is why I am wasting my breath on people like Betula, who appear to think that they are as qualified in environmental science as trained scientists. They are not qualified to comment in this field. Not at all. At least not enough to be taken seriously. I am not saying that his profesion is that important. I am saying that his comments on climate science and on the state of the environment are shallow. The same applies to GSW, Olaus, Rednose and Karen. GSW also once thought that he had something useful to say about the demographics of Polar Bears and of the current status of amphibians around the world. His comments were equally gumbified. However, when their poor understanding of science is pointed out to them, the Betula’s and GSWs react accordingly. They go on the attack, notably not defending their ‘science’ but in attacking the messenger.

    Its so, so predictable.

  11. #12 Karen
    May 24, 2013

    Hey Bill…..ssssshhh…..don’t tell anyone that it is ssssssummerrrr in Scotland.

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/scotland-s-summer-weather-snow-and-road-closures-1-2943285

  12. #13 Karen
    May 24, 2013

    So is it.. wot ?

    You stoooopid old retired taxi driver,

  13. #14 Lionel A
    May 24, 2013

    Jeff this post of yours is a classic of concise description of complex trends in the ecological webs of which we are a part. Thank you for that eloquent response to inanity.

    The likes of Betula, who clearly works for a privileged clientèle, should take notice before the stitching which supports their life styles unravels, as it surely will if those who support the propaganda campaign against taking action on climate change and other deleterious activities are not censured.

    So you were a marine engineer officer Betula, I was once an aircraft engineer in the military (RN) but I continued to mature and broaden my education. Maybe you should bite the bullet and do likewise for you cognitive framework is limited and patchy and is seen to collapse like a pack of cards when you post here.

  14. #15 Lionel A
    May 24, 2013

    Karen @ #10

    The same year that this happened Firefighters extinguish wildfires on Skye.

    Much of the Western area of Scotland has been experiencing drought conditions which helped produce the above. Now, why did you not mention that too?

    Answer – you are an ideological cripple.

  15. #16 Karen
    May 24, 2013

    “Members of the public should take care not to use camp fires, barbeques, (and not) carelessly discard cigarettes, glass bottles etc which can result in significant wildfires,” he said.”

  16. #17 Wow
    May 24, 2013

    “Answer – you are an ideological cripple.”

    Be fair: someone had to hammer that ideology through that thick skull in the first place. It would be churlish of us to demand that all that hard work of his programmer be removed so easily.

  17. #18 cRR Kampen
    May 24, 2013

    #10 Karen, still compiling that list?
    ““The estimates suggest the mean UK temperature for spring will be around 6.1C, which would make it the sixth coldest spring in national records dating back to 1910 and the coldest since 1979.”

    No records, of course. You want records? You want extremes? Go a little east: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/global_monitoring/temperature/tn27612_30.gif and stay there :)

  18. #19 Lionel A
    May 24, 2013

    Yes Karen, the normal warnings to remind people of the dangers posed by the presence of lots of tinder dry fuel in an area not normally known for such.

    Have you every trudged terrain like that, I have and my enduring memory is wet, wet, wet with plenty of that underfoot.

    Your #14 marks yet another point on your ideological cripple score.

  19. #20 cRR Kampen
    May 24, 2013

    #13, she’ll mention that when she’s finished with her list. Except she won’t ever, because every year doubles it.

  20. #21 Jeff Harvey
    May 24, 2013

    While you are at it Karen, if youj are so obsessed with weather, why not check out temperatures in the Yukon and NWT in Canada: some 5-10 C above normal. Dawson in the Yukon is expecting temperatures of up to 25 C – when it should be 15-17 C. And what abour central and northern Indi?. Its 47 C in New Delhi today. That is incredible. Repeat: 47 C – and humid.

    Hell on Earth conditions.

  21. #22 Karen
    May 24, 2013

    That is great news JeFfeRy, they all had such a ccccooold winter they deserve a warm spell :)

    I noticed few cultists kissing your butt, you love it don’t you, lol

  22. #23 bill
    May 24, 2013

    You lose on both counts, SpamKan.

  23. #24 Karen
    May 24, 2013

    Recently you have had….

    Nick the lick….

    RMWombutt……

    Licking Lionel…..

    BumBuddyD……..

    oh…………yuckie

  24. #25 Wow
    May 24, 2013

    Spots, the reason why you get your name mangled is because nobody here gives a shit for you and think you ridiculous.

    You’re doing the same because you’re butthurt, but the problem is, we don’t give a shit about your opinion, since it’s evidently available to the highest bidder. So it really REALLY doesn’t work when you try it.

  25. #26 BBD
    May 24, 2013

    Karen

    Somehow you missed this when it came up a few days back, which is a shame. The article directly addresses your confusion over regional episodes of cold winter weather and global average temperature:

    While some places were cold, the northern hemisphere was warmer than average in March, and indeed across the winter, consistent with long-term warming trends. The US National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC) has recently described such conditions as “pockets of cold in a warming world”.

    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.

    And that’s it. End of discussion. I’ve explained all this to you several times now and enough is enough. Please find some other denialist meme to bore us all with.

    * * *

    Have you worked out why the Rowley et al. study you linked tells us nothing about the WAIS other than it must have collapsed during the Pliocene? Arguing about how much or how little the EAIS contributed to MSL highstands ~3Ma is interesting, but pretty much irrelevant to the sensitivity of the WAIS to fairly modest increases in GAT. As, for example, occurred during the Eemian – when MSL was at least 6M higher than the present.

    You made no response at all to my fairly detailed comment on this. Why not? You threw Rowley et al. into the mix. Why the apparent lack of interest?

    It’s almost as though you don’t give a fuck about the science at all.

  26. #27 Lionel A
    May 24, 2013

    And Karen, somewhat earlier you were on about Russians driving across Arctic ice, well it looks like they have fallen through.

    If this topic were comic you would be a class act, sadly it is naught but rotten eggs, fruit and veg’ for you. Off! Off! Off!

  27. #28 BBD
    May 24, 2013

    Oh my. Homophobic vitriol. Whatever next?

  28. #29 Jeff Harvey
    May 24, 2013

    Judging by the intellectual content of Karen’s posts (or lack thereof), he/she/it/whatever is really beginning to lose it.

    What a sad, pathetic individual.

  29. #30 FrankD
    May 24, 2013

    “It’s almost as though you don’t give a fuck about the science at all.”

    BBD, you’re relatively new in these parts, so you may not be as familiar with Karen’s past form as some. “She” thinks:
    Adding two negative numbers gives a positive number.
    Less ice at Svalbard is the same as more ice at Svalbard.
    Celsius and Fahrenheit are interchangable.

    Give a fuck about the science? “She” wouldn’t know science if it bit her on the arse. All pop and no fizz.

  30. #31 BBD
    May 24, 2013

    FrankD

    Oh, I get the picture, have no fear. I was being sarcastic, and as so often, the result was ambiguous.

    It’s sad though. There are interesting discussions to be had – even about scientists over-egging their own puddings – but K is too lost in space to have them.

  31. #32 Betula
    May 24, 2013

    Bill @ 90….”Batty, if you were ever in contact with a plot, you’ve clearly lost it now”

    Bill, did my post at #27 ever help you out? Just wondering why I never heard back from you…..not even so much as a “thank you”.

  32. #33 Wow
    May 24, 2013

    True, Betty, you were never in contact with a plot, the plot was always lost with you.

  33. #34 BBD
    May 24, 2013

    # Betula

    Speaking of non-responses, I am waiting for yours to this, from yesterday:

    Why do you invest so much time rejecting climate science when you are not qualified to do so?

    As a layman, your only logically consistent option is to accept the expert (scientific) consensus.

    So why are you routinely to be found here in comments spouting denialist clap-trap?

    Why?

  34. #35 Betula
    May 24, 2013

    @ 32…

    In response to my question to Bill, Bill By Desire asks…”Why do you invest so much time rejecting climate science when you are not qualified to do so?”

    Climate Science is a big field, please be more specific about which part I deny.

    “As a layman, your only logically consistent option is to accept the expert (scientific) consensus.”

    What is the option for an expert scientist who doesn’t accept the expert consensus?

    “So why are you routinely to be found here in comments spouting denialist clap-trap?”

    I’m getting the feeling you believe this site is available to only those who agree with your predicted worst case scenario outcomes based on the possible interactions of extremely complex systems that have been changing since the beginning of time.

  35. #36 cRR Kampen
    May 24, 2013

    FrankD #28 -
    “Adding two negative numbers gives a positive number.
    Less ice at Svalbard is the same as more ice at Svalbard.”

    Hesitated to ask, but this I got to see. Where did these happen, please?
    I am hardened to an AiW-idea by one Dick Thoenes, who contends that from the fact that melting ice consumes heat while ice formation gives it off and the observed melting of sea- and land ice it follows climate is cooling. So I think I can take the worst.

  36. #37 cRR Kampen
    May 24, 2013

    #33, you deny that CO2 is a GHG.

    Also, you believe in magic.

  37. #38 BBD
    May 24, 2013

    # 33

    You appear to reject the scientific consensus that modern warming is principally caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, that S_ff is in the range 2C – 3C and that because of this, without emissions limitation policy the effects of climate change will be increasingly severe and increasingly disruptive.

    You are also fucking me around, dodging the questions and acting in bad faith. Already.

    Why?

  38. #39 BBD
    May 24, 2013

    What is the option for an expert scientist who doesn’t accept the expert consensus?

    Make a robust scientific case and stick it to their peers. Something that has never happened, hence the existence of a scientific consensus on AGW.

  39. #40 BBD
    May 24, 2013

    Now, without further dodging and other exhibitions of bad faith, please answer the question repeated here for the third time:

    As a layman, your only logically consistent option is to accept the expert (scientific) consensus. Why then do you invest so much time rejecting climate science when you are not qualified to do so?

  40. #41 chek
    May 24, 2013

    … extremely complex systems that have been changing since the beginning of time.

    Right, so Betty’s position is that his own incomprehension is shared by everyone else, and rather like the Attention Span of God, is and always will be ineffably Unknowable.

    I guess that’s the danger with getting your views from crank sites Betty. You get to know to two decimal places what percentage of tungsten is debasing the gold standard and how many meetings FEMA had with Algore and Hillary at the Georgia Guidestones. But nothing about the real world so you come to believe that clowns like Watts or Nova know as much as the world’s climate scientists, combined.

    From the bio you’ve provided, there’s not an awful lot of time left for you to grow up Betty

  41. #42 Betula
    May 25, 2013

    #38…
    “Why then do you invest so much time rejecting climate science when you are not qualified to do so?”

    I reject that you presume to know for a fact, that the future can only contain bad, worst case scenarios, based on a myriad of complex envionmental interactions, uncertainties and unknowns.
    Are you qualified to deny this?

  42. #43 Betula
    May 25, 2013

    @ #39…

    “From the bio you’ve provided, there’s not an awful lot of time left for you to grow up Betty”

    If by “there’s not an awful lot of time left” you mean the same amount of time Al Gore has been stating “time is running out”….then I definitely have a lot of time left.

  43. #44 MikeH
    May 25, 2013

    SKS’s consensus project has the lukewarmers running about like headless chooks. You have one branch of the family whining “what consensus, conspiracy, conspiracy, (lucia, tol)” while another branch is going “pfft, consensus, everyone knows that, you are just offending important people by mentioning it (pielke jr)”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science/2013/may/24/climate-sceptics-winning-science-policy

    Pielke is right in one respect – the cranks like Watts are a sideshow – the real enemy to a effective climate policy are the lukewarmers. And the lukewarmers like Pielke know their enemy – the scientists like Hansen, the information resources like SKS and the activists like 350.org who all continue to point out that the lukewarmers are full of shit.

    Note the subtle lie in Pielke’s piece – “Conventional wisdom on climate policy has long been that energy prices need to be made more expensive.” No Roger that is not true – the wisdom says that energy prices need to include the cost of the damage been done to the environment – according to Chris Hope – $80 per tonne of CO2 if Otto et al is taken as gospel.

  44. #45 FrankD
    May 25, 2013

    cRR K – In April every year, around the annual maximum for Arctic sea ice cover, Kazza makes a seasonal reappearance here bringing us the bullshit du jour is about how great Arctic Sea Ice is looking. Her effort last year was hilariously weak, becoming true comedy when she panicked under Bernard’s incisive logic: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/31/april-2012-open-thread/comment-page-2/#comments

    In the course of that discussion about sea ice at Svalbard (which continues onto the following page), she claimed:
    less = more, less+zero = more, less+less = more, and less x longer = more. To her, all numbers implicitly carry an ABS(n) function.

    And as regular as the geese flying south for winter, she popped up on cue this year spouting the same old crap, but now enhanced by an inability to distinguish Celsius from Fahrenheit.

  45. #46 Jeff Harvey
    May 25, 2013

    Betula writes, “extremely complex systems that have been changing since the beginning of time”

    In this he is correct. What he doesn’t get, because he lacks the relevant training is expertise, is the importance of scale in determining the rate of change. The again, why would he? He’s never studied the field, and therefore bases his opinions on scarps on information he’s picked up here and there in combination with his own views of the ways in which the world works. After categorically demolishing his most recent long rant, he has again moved on in the classic baiting and switching mode. And once again, he’s never done more than scratched the thinnest of surfaces in his discussions of this ‘complexity’ on Deltoid. Again, it is because he does not understand it, does not attempt to read about it in the primary scientific literature, and so a cursory wave of the hand is all that he needs to dismiss it.

    Yet he writes as if he somehow has as much knowledge of this environmental complexity as the scientists trained in the field. Hence why Betula deserves his Dunning-Kruger diploma with Honors.

    And once again, the discussion is not about change being the norm in complex adaptive systems. Of course it is (even though there isn evidence that stability also drives adaptive radiation as evidenced in the riotous species and genetic diversity in tropical biomes`). What is of great concern is the rate at which humans are transforming the chemical composition of the atmosphere and both the structure and biogeochemistry of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems. This rate far exceeds anything the biosphere has experienced in many millions of years, and against the background humans are reducing both species diversity and genetic diversity, the latter a vital pre-requisite that enables species to respond to the suite of stressors humans are inflicting. A 1998 paper by Hughes et al. in PNAS argued that, at that time, human activities were probably driving as many as 30,000 genetically distinct populations to extinction on a daily basis. Now, if this is indeed true it is profoundly worrying. Underlying this is the combined assault our species is inflicting on nature, with climate warming perhaps being the biggest factor of all.

    So why do I bother to counter his wafer thin arguments? Like arguing that healthy white-tailed deer populations, coyote range expansion and wild turkey reintroductions are symptoms of a healthy environment? (Those comments indeed were straight out of the sandbox, although I am sure GSW loved them, given he plays in the same sandbox as Betula). Its because I hope to reach others here who think logically and with common sense, and don’t let any idealogical blinkers cloud their judgment. To reiterate, Betula’s understanding of complexity is poor. He won’t like to hear it, and expect a lengthy response from him, egged on by equally simple supporters like GSW and Olaus about what an arrogant and repulsive putz I am, but its only because he doesn’t like to be told that he lacks any knowledge of this complexity. Sure, nature is noise and ecologists like myself are working to tease apart the noise from the processes it masks, but there is abundant empirical evidence that humans activities, including climate change, are having seriously negative effects on nature across multiple scales. If he wants t discuss some of these studies, I am more than willing to enlighten him. But the fact remains that he doesn’t want to learn. he thinks he knows all that there is to know, and this is also true for the few supporters he has here. None of them are particularly well-informed about the science underpinning global environmental change (and that is being kind).

  46. #47 Wow
    May 25, 2013

    What betty doesn’t get with that statement is that it doesn’t prove anything about AGW except that it’s possible.

  47. #48 Betula
    May 25, 2013

    chek @39

    “From the bio you’ve provided, there’s not an awful lot of time left for you to grow up Betty”

    If by “not an awful lot of time” you mean the same amount of time that Al Gore has been stating “time is running out”, then there’s no doubt I have plenty of time…mate.

  48. #49 bill
    May 25, 2013

    Here’s a quiz question, sunshine.

    Do you imagine that Gore is referring to time running out before some hypothetical ‘end of the world’ – or do you think he’s referring to time running out to prevent dangerous warming by the end of the Century.

    If you answer honestly you cannot possibly claim the former.

    But if you’re merely tossing around straw-men in numbers sufficient to build a sea wall or two we’re going to need, and if you’re fundamentally a propagandist hack – i.e. your attack on Gore is nothing more than projection (yet again!) – well, then; that’d be you, wouldn’t it?

  49. #50 Jeff Harvey
    May 25, 2013

    “then there’s no doubt I have plenty of time”

    You may have of plenty of time but future generations don’t. This will in fact be the first generation in the United States where the parents had it better than their kids will. Get used it it. Humans have overshot the carrying capacity of the biosphere and no amount of technology can counter the effects of nature biting back. There’s ample evidence that we are undermining the health and vitality of our ecological,life support systems to such an extent that we are approaching (or have already passed) critical thresholds. Its just too bad that so many of us are so insulated in our urban environments and/or ensconced in the latest techno-gimmicks that we fail to see the predicament looming before us.

    The biggest victims of our own stupid short-sighted over consumptive arrogance will be our own species. Now there is some irony.

  50. #51 Sou
    May 25, 2013

    While you are all trying to keep Karen/Betula in the real world, I’ve kept on with WUWT. Willis has been writing a series of posts and galloping further towards dunning and kruger with every word he writes. His current fixation is volcanoes, which he uses to demonstrate how the laws of thermodynamics and all the climate scientists are wrong.

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/wondering-willis-volcanoes-and-dunning.html

  51. #52 Wow
    May 25, 2013

    “then there’s no doubt I have plenty of time”

    You have eternity if you die from violence.

    Does this mean that everything is fine?

    NO.

  52. #53 JohnL
    May 25, 2013
  53. #54 BBD
    May 25, 2013

    Betula

    I’m waiting for a response.

    Without further dodging and other exhibitions of bad faith, please answer the question repeated here for the *fourth* time:

    As a layman, your only logically consistent option is to accept the expert (scientific) consensus. Why then do you invest so much time rejecting climate science when you are not qualified to do so?

  54. #55 Lionel A
    May 25, 2013

    And from SkS we have the news that Matt Ridley is talking bollocks again>, put your coffee down before going on:

    There is little doubt that the damage being done by climate-change policies currently exceeds the damage being done by climate change, and will for several decades yet. Hunger, rainforest destruction, excess cold-weather deaths and reduced economic growth are all exacerbated by the rush to biomass and wind.

    Now he is bright enough to know different, so what does that make him?

  55. #56 BBD
    May 25, 2013

    A libertarian.

  56. #57 Russell
    May 25, 2013

    Heartland’s James Taylor has distinguished himself with a brace of Forbes op-eds , one before and one after the megatornado that decimated Moore Oklahoma.

    The first celebrated the absence of one category of tornado in a cherry piked interval.

    The second, writtten one wek and thirty fatalities later, labastes Warmists for scaring people about tornadoes.

  57. #58 Olaus Petri
    May 25, 2013

    Latest on Danascience:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/25/josh-on-great-moments-in-use-of-the-d-word/#more-87052

    Look how well the jeffiecone fit. :-)

    Can’t be fun being trapped where you are fellas. ;-)

  58. #59 chek
    May 25, 2013

    We already know reality is hard for you in the Jonarse libtard camp Olap.
    Confirmation – Oh Jeezus Christ on a barnacle, by Josh ‘cartoon’ – isn’t required.

  59. #60 Nick
    May 25, 2013

    #51. A not very bright hypocrite. Extraordinarily ambitious humbug from the Northern Rockhead.
    #54, ‘Savaged’ by a sycophant. Can’t be fun trapped at the emotional age of an eight-year old,OP. Even trolls deserve a better cartoonist.

  60. #61 rhwombat
    Old King Cole's Sphincter, NSW
    May 25, 2013

    Sou: Excellent demolition. The cumulative desperation of the denialati is both laughable and graphable , as Lewandowski and Cook et al. have demonstrated. In some respects, the benthic (lovely term, Jeff) brainfarts of the Wattslickers into the scientosphere resemble small eruptions (attempting an attenuation of albedo by aerosolised ad hom argument?) . Unfortunately that image perpetuates their delusions of being Toba events, when, if fact, they are more like the methane emissions of a vast hoard of wildebeest (Look out! He’s got a gnu!).

  61. #62 bill
    May 26, 2013

    Is there a worse caricaturist than Josh?

    His work certainly fits with the third-rate aspect of the entire Denier enterprise.

  62. #63 bill
    May 26, 2013

    After perusing Sou’s pages I feel compelled to link to this classic flashback (2012) over at Willard W’s. (Don’t worry, it’s a “nofollow”)

    A more blackly hilarious depiction of the general level of scientific knowledge, logic, and, well, ‘skepticism’ of that set could scarcely hope to be found.

    A couple of well-known woodland creatures – i.e. the Stoat and the Rabett – take on the role of their arboreal cousins and try heroically to round up the nuts, but to no avail.

    SpamKan and Oleaginous, of course, will be literally unable to see the joke.

  63. #64 Nick
    May 26, 2013

    #63,a bulging showbag from Watts’ exhibit at the Internet Clown Convention. Absolutely chockers!

  64. #65 bill
    May 26, 2013

    On another note, re my own #5, GetUp! informs us that ‘the Victorian Liberal Party State Council decided to abandon its plans to vote on privatising the ABC and SBS.’

  65. #66 Sou
    May 26, 2013

    #63 – Bill, I’m reading some of the comments now. What an amazing collection of DuKEs:

    David Evans: Radiation is a minor player in planetary energy loss too.

    Then tries to recover: Sloppy phrasing on my part. :-( Surface radiation is a minor player in planetary energy loss too. would probably be more accurate and was what I actually meant.

    Myrrh: The Greenhouse Effect is a fraud, deliberate sleight of hand by excluding the Water Cycle. Without water the Earth would be 67°C – the greenhouse gas water vapour cools the Earth by 52°C to get to the 15°C.

    Theodore White: Applying the principles of my expertise of the science of astrometeorology, I have forecasted that the world is headed toward Global Cooling, officially beginning later in this decade. Storms will be bigger, more damaging and we will require not less – but MORE energy sources to survive. This cooling regime will begin about 2017-18, increase into the 2020s and will peak by the mid-2030s before global cooling eventually begins to wane in the mid-2040s. We will see increasingly more La Nina-grade storms and lesser El Nino-grade storms.

    Robert Murphy to Theodore White: Theodore, do you have any copies of the reports you made in the 80′s? The only Theodore White I can find with Google with any connection with climate is an astrologer. I’m sure that is not you. This should be an easy thing for you to produce, Yes?

    And yes, he admitted he is one and the same :)

  66. #67 Sou
    May 26, 2013

    Sorry – didn’t add no follow to the astrology links.

    BTW all links to denier sites like WUWT from blog.hotwhopper.com have ‘no follow’ attached.

  67. #68 Bernard J.
    May 26, 2013

    Pre-National Geographic (id est, back in the good old days…) Deltoid was definitely a ‘no follow’ enterprise. I pine for those fjords…

    Sou at #66, you’ve pinged two of the most stupid posters on that thread. Myrrh’s a rock-solid numpty, but Theodore White is A-grade bat-shit crazy.

    I gagged the first time he said:

    Richard, the laws of thermodynamics make a global greenhouse an impossibility on Earth. That is all you need to know. Do you understand? The laws of physics which govern the Earth’s climate makes it mathematically impossible for the Earth to become a greenhouse – no matter how much any AGW goober wants those physical laws not to be true.

    and I only wish that the thread was still open so that I could ask him why satellites that orbit the Earth are so much colder than Earth, and why (for several reasons) the moon is so much colder too. Amusingly, WTFUWT tried to address the latter with a hilarious mangling of radiative physics by Willis Effenbachtoschool, but the denialati in the comments section are proof positive that what the Flying Spaghetti Monster hasn’t put there, intelligent humans cannot improve on.

  68. #69 bill
    May 26, 2013

    I loved Richard Simons’ response to Evans’ first statement about radiation being ‘a minor player’.

    Priceless! So is energy lost from Earth by convection or by conduction?

  69. #70 john byatt
    May 26, 2013

    Great moments in stupidity

    “Trenberth and his researchers have never been able to find the ‘missing heat’. He still insists it is at the bottom of the ocean. This is despite sea surface temperatures declining,”

    Anthony Cox

  70. #71 Lotharsson
    May 26, 2013

    So is energy lost from Earth by convection or by conduction?

    I seem to recall we assayed this implication with the redoubtable Tim Curtin at one point as well. Maybe he got the idea from Evans or WUWT.

  71. #72 bill
    May 26, 2013

    John Byatt #70 – yeah, that’s another beauty!

    T Curtin, T White and W Eschenbach; now, there’s a trio! I’m reminded of Wilde’s succinct review of a production of The Three Musketeers; ‘Athos, Pathos and Bathos’.

  72. #73 Sou
    May 26, 2013

    Ooh! That moon post is fantastic.

    It’s before I started WUWT watching, but not that long ago. The more I read of Willis the more I think my “wondering Willis” fits him to a T. Pity he doesn’t read up on anything before he shoots his mouth off. He’s probably got a brain but just doesn’t know how to use it.

  73. #74 Bernard J.
    May 26, 2013

    Sou, I’ve always felt that WUWT should preface its blog title with ‘Really Stupid People pretending/deluding themselves that they understand science better than do scientists…’

    WUWT is symptomatic of an intellectual necrosis that in the decades to come will probably end up killing off a goodly chunk of USAdian society, if not the whole body of the country and perhaps of the rest of the planet. It’s a shame that there is no effective cure for Stupidosis.

  74. #75 BBD
    May 26, 2013

    # 69 bill

    Priceless! So is energy lost from Earth by convection or by conduction?

    Clearly by wishful thinking ;-)

    Reminiscent of the confusion about how energy leaves the ocean. In some circles the fact that it must conduct though the surface skin layer is not widely accepted.

  75. #76 BBD
    May 26, 2013

    To be clear, I don’t mean to imply that Richard Simons was confused. Far from it.

  76. #77 bill
    May 27, 2013

    It’s truly gobsmacking to watch people invent a reality based solely on rejecting inconvenient truths that violate ideological preference (Gore chose his title well; with such types ‘my convenience’ and ‘my ideology’ usually amount to the same thing) and the ridiculous notion that the (perhaps) couple of hours of ‘it’s only common-sense’ rationalising that follows it is the equal of many years of hard-won expertise.

    (Or you can skip right over the tiresome introspective bit and just regurgitate away without enduring the needless strain of digesting anything at all! See trolls above.)

    Such irresponsibility can scarcely hope to go unpunished. If only the resulting harm could be inflicted only upon the idiots in question!

  77. #78 Lionel A
    May 27, 2013

    And for those of the gang of scientific illiterates that get their ‘feed’ from the pseudo-science blogs ( I have provided a list previously) here are some articles that explain why those blogs exist and an indication of who is propping them up.

    The props,

    Study Confirms Tea Party Was Created by Big Tobacco and Billionaires

    FOIA Facts 4 – George Mason Takes The Money And Breaks The Rules, another from the tireless John Mashey.

    One of the whys,

    Exxon’s Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?.

    What are Exxon trying to hide? It isn’t as if they really care about their crimes against humanity and the world’s ecosystems becoming widely known, is it Tillerson.

    Time to build Tillerson a log cabin in the middle of that mess and see how he enjoys his vacation in Mordor, he can invite the Kochs along and Tim Phillips (an AFP ‘oily rag’) too. And no Tillerson, you are not allowed to take your own bottled water.

  78. #79 Jeff Harvey
    May 27, 2013

    I see our resident loony loser (Jonas) still visits his own sad little thread to preach to his tiny (and shrinking) fan club. These days it consists only of GSW. Nobody else reads his bilge.

    I am also still waiting for him to publish his Magnum Opus in which he enthralls the world with his self-taught expertise in climate science (given that he certainly didn’t get it through the normal channel – a university education).

    Goodbye Jonas.

  79. #80 Lionel A
    May 27, 2013

    And of course the slap-heads in the US like nothing better than to shoot the messenger or in the case highlighted here prevent the messengers being produced and deployed in the first place Weather Satellite Outage Points to Larger Problems. The let’s bury our heads in the sand again strategy.

  80. #81 Olaus Petri
    May 27, 2013

    I see little swaybacked Napoleon Harvey still tries to find some punters ready to by his crap. :-)

    Can’t be easy these days Jeffie?

  81. #82 BBD
    May 27, 2013

    God I wish I could knock ‘em out like you, Olaus.

    Our new Churchill.

  82. #83 bill
    May 27, 2013

    Yep – it’d be a nicety indeed to judge who is the greater clown; Spam, or Oily.

  83. #84 Betula
    May 28, 2013

    BBD @ 54…

    “Why then do you invest so much time rejecting climate science when you are not qualified to do so?”

    You need to rephrase your question to be more accurate. It should read something more like….’why do you invest so much time pointing out that Climate Science refers to many fields and isn’t an exact science when it comes to predicting future worst case only climate scenarios when I’m not qualified to predict future worst case only climate scenarios?”

    I reject that you treat as fact, that the implications of climate change can only result in bad, worst case pinpointed hypothetical scenarios based on myriads of extremely complex environmental interactions filled with uncertainties and unknowns by speculating on average worldly temperatures caused by the potential doubling of an essential natural gas over a presumed amount of time, caused mostly by wealthy nations and disproportionately effecting poor nations over a minute time scale relative to the history of the earth, upon which the climate has been and always will be changing and can only be corrected by enforcing emissions regulations to a select group, while ignoring other groups, with the hopes of redistributing monies to the innocent poor nations, as encouraged by the United Nations who just happen to mention such nonsense in their Millennium Development Goals and who, coincidentally, started the organization (IPCC) that is filled with representatives from the aforementioned poor countries and used as the reference when it comes to speculating about hypothetical future scenarios that are treated as fact.

    But thanks for asking.

  84. #85 rhwombat
    Old King Cole's Sphincter, NSW
    May 28, 2013

    That’s one of the longest unstopped lickspittle brainfart I’ve ever seen. Exxon’s cheque’s in the mail.

  85. #86 bill
    May 28, 2013

    Shorter Batty – Stupid smart people claim to know things; as if! It’s all too much for me, so no-one else knows anything, either.

    Total fail. You’re every bit as pathetic a conspiracy theorist and ignoramus as your peers.

    Next time you claim any phoney concern for the impact of AGW avoidance or mitigation strategies on the poor, rest assured I’ll refer you back to this nasty, small-minded little missive.

    Yep; your money’s what counts, you first-class global citizen, you!

  86. #87 bill
    May 28, 2013

    Rather than wasting further time on cloth-eared ninnies, The Australian’s War on Science #477-and-counting can be found over at SkS – the ludicrous mis-reporting of the Karoly and Bodman study discussed in the post can be found in the discussion thread.

  87. #88 John Mashey
    May 28, 2013

    In case anyone needs a break, one finds that FOIAs can cut both ways, in FOIA Facts 1 – More Misdeeds By Ed Wegman, Yasmin Said, George Mason University.

    For those South fo the Equator, among the books that were fond of the Wegman Report were Plimer(2009), Wishart(2009) and Carter(2010).

  88. #89 bill
    May 28, 2013

    Ah, time for the popcorn!

  89. #90 Olaus Petri
    May 28, 2013

    Thanks BBD. Spanking enemies from afar is Jeffie’s MO, and his efforts to compensate his shortcomings with more and more self idolatry, are beyond anything found in the litterature on denialism.

    ;-)

  90. #91 bill
    May 28, 2013

    Litterature – that’s you, Oily, that is.

  91. #92 rhwombat
    old King Cole's Sphincter, NSW
    May 28, 2013

    John Mashey: Thanks for all your work. Have there been any consequences for Wegman &/or Said outside the swamp?

  92. #93 Olaus Petri
    May 28, 2013

    Thanks bill! ;-)

  93. #94 Jeff Harvey
    May 28, 2013

    “I see little swaybacked Napoleon Harvey still tries to find some punters ready to by his crap.Can’t be easy these days Jeffie?”

    Well, Olaus you scientifically illiterate little insignificant twerp, given that we are talking about >95% of the scientific community, then I wouldn’t only say that it is easy. I’d say its a cake-walk.

    So if you mean by ‘my crap’ the vast majority of empirical evidence as well, then I don’t feel particularly alone against the likes of dolts like you, Jonas, and a few others who have no scientific education at all.

  94. #95 Jeff Harvey
    May 28, 2013

    By the way, Jonas, Oily’s hero, was one of those demanding to know what scientific qualifications I possessed when I initially challenged him. So when I relented and told him, I was suddenlyaccused of bragging about my CV, exhibiting ‘self idolatry’ etc. In other words, if one is humiliated by the bonafides, then the last resort is to accuse their opponents of being self-infatuated and arrogant. Utterly predictable the denier lot is.

    If the shoe fits wear it, Oily (I like that Bill; its a perfect metaphor for Olaus!).

    Oily here is as predictable as the rest of the denier loons.Thick as two old planks and never reads the primary literature.

  95. #96 Wow
    May 28, 2013

    You need to rephrase your question to be more accurate

    Ah, politico-speak.

    Translated from weasel into human, this means “I can’t answer that without showing myself up, so here’s the question I can and will answer that has nothing to do with it, but I’ll pretend it does and hope nobody notices”.

  96. #97 Wow
    May 28, 2013

    Given Joan isn’t giving Olap a lap to be a lapdog on, I guess that term is not longer applicable to his actions.

  97. #98 GSW
    May 28, 2013

    @Napoleon

    Come of it Bonaparte, nobody is/was in the least bit interest in your “bonafides”, if I remember correctly, they were your refuge as you were incapable of putting any kind of argument together based on evidence, just emotions, prejudices and your bizarre left wing politics.

    “I [jeff] is a scientist, honest I is, just ask anyone, I go to conferences and everything”

    The very embodiment of pseudoscience, don’t worry about the facts, you just make stuff up and pass it off as being science because you go to conferences. Very funny, Ha!, Ha!, Ha!

    All that CV waving was you Jeff, I know in your mind it was everybody else’s fault, but it was still definitely all you.
    ;)

  98. #99 bill
    May 28, 2013

    GooseSez”Wha’?” reckons he’s ever posted anything resembling an argument, does he?

    ‘Emotions’, ‘prejudices’, ‘bizarre politics’, ‘pseudoscience’: tsk tsk tsk. Project, projection, projection.

    As an intellectual you’re on a par with Spam and Oily, LooseyGoosey. What a bunch of peers, in the ‘I’ll just put down some sawdust’ sense…

  99. #100 bill
    May 28, 2013

    Or to put it another way, in your case, sunshine, CV could only mean ‘Cerebral Vacuum’.