May 2013 Open thread

Past time for more thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Jeff Harvey
    May 28, 2013

    Gormless Stupid W*****,

    Piss off you twit. You belong in the intellectual garbage heap with the few like-minded idiots like Olaus, Jonas and Karen that hang out here. Your science is certainly is benthic, as illustrated by the few times you’ve dabbled into ecophysiology. That was an embarrassing for you, wasn’t it?

    You wouldn’t know sound science if it hit you in the head. You can huff and puff all you like, but the last two posts I made in response to Betula’s kiddie level stuff were clearly well over your head. As I said to Olly above, the vast majority of scientists agree over the issue of climate change and its causes. That leaves schmucks like you on the outside. Yet, no matter how many times this simple fact is repeated, you come back trying to give the impression that proper climate science is only done by a tiny minority of qualified scientists.

    As for conferences, publications and scientific qualifications, you and your equally dim buddies don’t reach up to my shoelaces, or those of the vast majority of my peers. Its you gormless, who is on the outside, not me.

  2. #2 Jeff Harvey
    May 28, 2013

    I’d like to add to what I said above in response to GSWs latest vacuous musings….

    “Yet, no matter how many times this simple fact is repeated, you come back trying to give the impression that proper climate science is only done by a tiny minority of qualified scientists… AND A SMALL ARMY OF BRAINLESS IDIOTS WHO EITHER WRITE OR COMMENT IN BLOGS ON THE INTERNET”…

    These idiots have no formal scientific qualifications in climate or environmental science yet by sticking their finger to the wind they think they become instant experts in complex fields. Moreover, they don’t hesitate to tell everyone who will listen how much more they know then the scientists who are trained in these fields.

    On Deltoid we have Karen, Jonas, GSW, Betula et al. who fall into this category. Olly is a member of their adulation club. But as I said in my last post, these clowns continually give the impression that they occupy the scientific high ground, and on the basis of what? Reading piffle on WUWT, Climate Depot, Bishops Hill of Climate Audit?

    I repeatedly refer back to the overwhelming agreement amongst scientists on the causes and potential consequences of AGW, and these people repeatedly ignore it. They try and give the impression that my views as a scientist are outside the mainstream, as if somehow my arguments are controversial.

    They’ve been doing this for years. Its important that they downplay the fact that an overwhelming majority of scientists are in agreement over AGW and the consequences of doing nothing about it. In the last 14 years of my career as a senior researchers I can count on one hand the number of peers I have met at universities, research institutes and conferences who are AGW deniers. What the Olly’s and GSW’s try and do is, because I am one of few scientists who write into Deltoid who is not anonymous, imply that my views lie well outside the mainstream. That is pure and utter b*, but it’s all the have.

  3. #3 chek
    May 28, 2013

    It’s as if Griselda thinks nobody else is aware of the ‘if you can’t attack the science, attack the scientists’ and such transparent tactics of his troll collective.

  4. #4 Lionel A
    May 28, 2013

    And now for something completely different.

    Do you like drinks with fiz and a bang .

    Another from the news roundup of the day.

    Elizabeth Kolbert sure hit a nail on the head finishing up her ‘Field Notes from a Ctastrophe':

    “It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing.”

    Doing in many more ways than one. When will the troll collective wake up and smell the non-coffee because the crops have failed?

  5. #5 FrankD
    May 28, 2013

    Jeff, with respect, they couldn’t make it about you if you didn’t let them.

    Anyway, this is GSW your lathering about. Remember him? Author of the most boneheaded collection of posts on a single Deltoid thread ever. Took over 50 posts for him to get the joke, and had to be told that the joke was him. For the collective amusement, I tender: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/17/more-on-the-threats-on-and-abu/comment-page-2/#comments

    The fun begins with John at #39. If it was a chess game, John’s posts would all be !! and GSW’s would be ??. Classic blog comedy. (you have to mentally filter out Frank-swifthack’s hammering of a seperate point).

  6. #6 BBD
    May 28, 2013

    Betula

    You didn’t answer the question. Why does a know-nothing like you spend so much time attacking the scientific consensus on AGW?

    You aren’t remotely qualified to do this, so it is profoundly illogical. What interests me is your motive. Why do you engage in absurd posturing of this type?

    Please answer the question.

  7. #7 Betula
    May 28, 2013

    BBD…

    I guess you didn’t read the part where I stated you need to rephrase it to make it more accurate. C’mon man, the words were right in front of you!

    You need to learn to live with the fact that what you believe the future holds is a probability based on many unknowns. It is your problem that you can’t accept this as fact. It is your problem that the worst case scenarios are speculative, and not fact. Your problem that you can’t admit this.. Your problem that every paper by every expert states this, yet you can’t see it.. Your problem that you get annoyed when I point it out. It’s actually humorous, that you believe someone has to be qualified to know that a probability of only negatives, based on many uncertainties and unknowns, is just that, a skewed probability…. not a fact. You are either educated beyond your intelligence or blinded by ideology or have a hidden phobia, or I don’t know what. Regardless, I’m done with your Napoleon type complex. What gives you the qualifications to predict the future of all things on Earth and question those who state you just made a prediction? A prediction of the future of all things on Earth!

    I’m beginning to think you love yourself more than Harvey…there’s a very good possibility, which of course, if I were you loving myself, would mean it’s a fact…

    Save the world, keep holding your breath.

  8. #8 GSW
    May 28, 2013

    @All

    Don’t know if this has been covered already, but Myles Allen’s had something of an epiphany in this weeks Sunday Mail.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331057/Why-I-think-wasting-billions-global-warming-British-climate-scientist.html

    “that 90 per cent of the measures adopted in Britain and elsewhere since the 1997 Kyoto agreement to cut global emissions are a waste of time and money – including windfarms in Scotland, carbon taxes and Byzantine carbon trading systems.”

    I suppose he’s better late than never, but that’s little consolation to the rest of us stuck with paying for it all.

    Funny bunch climate scientists, I think the B Ark’s calling for them.
    ;)

  9. #9 Wow
    May 28, 2013

    BBD…

    I guess you didn’t read the part where I stated you need to rephrase it to make it

    Different.

    We know you didn’t answer it. And pointing out that you didn’t answer it isn’t explaining why you didn’t answer it, betty.

    Truly the stupid hammer hit you hard when you were a nipper.

  10. #10 BBD
    May 28, 2013

    Betula

    I guess you didn’t read the part where I stated you need to rephrase it to make it more accurate.

    No rephrasing is required. This is an evasion. The question is perfectly clear: given that you lack the expertise to challenge the scientific consensus, why do you persist in doing so?

    * * *

    What gives you the qualifications to predict the future of all things on Earth and question those who state you just made a prediction? A prediction of the future of all things on Earth!

    You misrepresent the nature of the consensus and the uncertainty included within it entirely. *I* am not making “a prediction of the future of all things on Earth!” and the scientific consensus on AGW isn’t either. The standard scientific position is that increasing CO2 emissions will warm the climate system. Even if ECS/2xCO2 is as low as ~2C, entirely plausible emissions scenarios would see *average* temperatures rising by more than 2C by the end of the century. Average land surface temperatures will excede the global average of ~2C, particularly in the NH. Even if ECS is ~2C, average NH land surface temperature will rise by ~3C.

    There is near unanimity within Earth system science that this will be potentially dangerous, with negative impacts on agriculture, fresh water availability etc. This is to say nothing of ocean acidification and eventually, sea level rise.

    You cannot counter the scientific consensus with feigned agnosia. It is a mask for denial. You need a sound scientific counter-argument. And there isn’t one.

    I repeat, it is illogical to reject the scientific consensus when you do not have the wherewithal to do so, either in terms of professional expertise or a robust scientific counter-argument.

    So why do it? What is your motivation?

  11. #11 Jeff Harvey
    May 28, 2013

    Frank,

    I get your point and you are correct. Thanks.

    From Betula: “I’m beginning to think you love yourself more than Harvey”.

    What a hoot. Betula’s posts reveal that he thinks he actually knows a lot about environmental science. Factoid: he doesn’t.

  12. #12 bill
    May 29, 2013

    Frank D @ #5

    Thanks for that! I still have to wipe away a tear recalling –

    So, I’m going to regret this, but do you all think that the Earth’s Climate has not changed for millions of years?

    Priceless stuff. I don’t think old Goosey has ever figured out what the joke was…

  13. #13 bill
    May 29, 2013

    I’m sure we’ve all noticed that all the idiots have simultaneously hit on the notion that they can identify a ‘Napolean complex’. This belief is certainly as well-founded as all their others…

  14. #14 Nick
    May 29, 2013

    #8, I notice that Myles Allen’s ‘epiphany’ is sandwiched between the sub-editors dumbly provocative intro and a mind-numbingly stupid ‘quiz’ which straight out invents a position from the IPCC 1990 FAR. Sunday Fail nevers fails to fail.

    Allen’s comments are unsurprising, but the bogans of course will attack scientists for the failure of political and economic leadership.

  15. #15 Stu
    May 29, 2013

    and his efforts to compensate his shortcomings

    This, coming from someone who has posted the creepiest sexually deviant comments on this site, is absolutely precious.

    IT’S ALL PROJECTION. (Thank you sadlyno)

    are beyond anything found in the litterature on denialism.

    “Litterature”? That’s the funniest Freudian typo I’ve seen in ages.

  16. #16 rhwombat
    May 29, 2013

    Welcome back Stu.

  17. #17 Stu
    May 29, 2013

    Thank you rh!

    I was working in the garden yesterday and the world just seemed pervaded by something that felt comforting, reassuring even. I had just had a nice conversation with my wife, our bulls came when asked, our dogs listened when scolded about chewing up random objects… I just felt the presence of, I don’t know… “Intelligence”.

    So yes, I am a masochist and decided to check up on the Jonas thread. Not too much going on there, other than the poor insensate jackwagon STILL going on about the hand-box thing. No biggie, Just a quick cut-and-paste to make sure that any innocent passerby doesn’t mistake our resident vegetative parrot for anything sentient. Then I wander in here and see that the not-yet-banned coterie of hangers-on is still at it…

    Wow. Just wow.

    By the way, I am still giggling over “litterature”. It’s just so perfect.

    Now back to watching “The Billionaire’s Tea Party” on NetFlix. Holy crap. I urge you all to watch it, but bring PLENTY of perspective and soda. The stupid, it burns.

  18. #18 Craig Thomas
    May 29, 2013

    Here is a good article about the NBN:

    http://delimiter.com.au/2013/05/29/fairfax-columnist-prints-blatant-nbn-falsehoods/

    This excellent article warrants wide dissemination.

  19. #20 Marco
    May 29, 2013

    Nick, that article by Myles Allen is already cherry-picked for choice quotes supposedly meaning something it doesn’t say (as in: climate policy is wasteful, no need to do anything).

  20. #21 Marco
    May 29, 2013

    Olaus Petri: no; ask yourself why serial distorter Pat Michaels stops his data in 2011. Here’s the answer:
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

  21. #22 Olaus Petri
    May 29, 2013

    Marco dear, read the comments in the thread and you will see that you are wasting your energy. ;-)

  22. #23 Jeff Harvey
    May 29, 2013

    Olly, ever hear of something called the ‘primary literature’… or are those words over your simple little right wing head?

  23. #24 bill
    May 29, 2013

    You forgot ‘pointy’.

  24. #25 Jeff Harvey
    May 29, 2013

    Olly writes, “Marco dear, read the comments in the thread and you will see that you are wasting your energy”

    He forgot to add several important words (added in CAPS):

    “Marco dear, read the comments in the thread ‘BY SEVERAL ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE DENYING LAYMEN WITH NO FORMAL QUALIFICATIONS IN ANY FIELD OF SCIENCE and you will see that you are wasting your energy.

    You see, Olly does not read the primary literaure. His entire worldview is based on WUWT and a fewe other counter-science denier weblogs. Their job is in turn to distort and mangle the empirical literature to bolster a pre-determined worldview.

  25. #26 bill
    May 29, 2013

    Marco #21 – another great example of the level of, *cough*, ‘skepticism’ at WUWT.

    And among the trolls here.

    Did you notice that after someone finally – comment 32 – points out this is blatant cherry-picking we see this from Michaels himself? –

    May I humbly point out that I posted this for funsies? If we lose our sense of humor, we become like Mikey Mann.

    So, well aware of what he was doing, then. I mean, Pat, it would have been another Hockey Stick if you hadn’t been ‘having funsies’, wouldn’t it?

  26. #27 lord_sidcup
    May 29, 2013

    read the comments in the thread and you will see that you are wasting your energy.

    Reading the comments on WUWT is always a waste of energy.

    Admit it Petri, you took that WUWT post seriously up until Michaels was caught and claimed it was a ‘funsie’.

  27. #28 bill
    May 29, 2013

    Check out the latest cover of Australasian Science!

    Shall we have a sweep on the threatened law suit?

  28. #29 BBD
    May 29, 2013

    Olaus, Michaels is a paid shill and you are a credulous buffoon:

    Notorious climate skeptic Pat Michaels of the CATO Institute finally admitted openly on CNN this weekend that 40 percent of his funding comes from – wait for it – Big Oil.

    DeSmogBlog readers have known for years about Michaels’ long-time association with a network of at least eleven think tanks and industry front groups funded by ExxonMobil. Many of these same outlets have received funding from other oil interests like the Koch Family Foundations.

    Michaels’ admission that he receives around 40 percent – his guess – of his funding from Big Oil is important, because he is quoted widely in the media for his skepticism about manmade climate change. As the ExxonSecrets profile of Pat Michaels sums up well, he is “possibly the most prolific and widely-quoted climate change skeptic scientist.”

    Like all fake sceptic fake experts, Michaels has zero credibility and a long, dishonourable history of public misrepresentations of climate science behind him.

    Not to mention being a paid shill for the fossil fuel industry.

  29. #30 jerryg
    May 29, 2013
  30. #31 Betula
    May 29, 2013

    BBD @10

    “There is near unanimity within Earth system science that this will be potentially dangerous, with negative impacts on agriculture, fresh water availability etc.”

    “Unanimity” that “potentially”…. possible, but not actual.

    “with Negative impacts”….and no mention of any “potentially” positive impacts.

    Are there any “potentially” positive impacts somewhere on earth “if” “average” temperatures rise 2C?. Where will the positive impacts occur and what will the “average” temperature be at those particular locations? Can any “possible” positive impacts “potentially” negate some of the only negative impacts? What “average” weight do you give the positives vs. the negatives? Can some “potential” negatives “potentially” create positives for some species?

    “If” C02 doubles and “if” climate sensitivity “averages” 2C and “if” this occurs over the time frame you believe and “if” there is the “potential” for only negative impacts and “if” those “potential” impacts disproportionately affect the poor nations and “if” there’s no time to adjust or adapt or migrate and “if” the wealthy nations don’t pay what they are morally obligated to pay and “if” the U.N. doesn’t reach their Millennium Development Goals…..might Al Gore and other wealthy liberal elites finally give up their wealthy C02 emitting “potentially” earth destroying lifestyles?

    Consensus?

  31. #32 BBD
    May 29, 2013

    Betula

    I asked you a fucking question. Have the good grace to answer it please.

  32. #33 BBD
    May 29, 2013

    It is illogical to reject the scientific consensus when you do not have the wherewithal to do so, either in terms of professional expertise or a robust scientific counter-argument.

    So why do it? What is your motivation?

  33. #34 FrankD
    May 29, 2013

    We might have done this already, but I’m pretty pissed about the misrepresentations about the Bodman/Rayner/Karoly paper, even in sensible literature. Unfortunately, it stems from indifferent wording in the abstract of the paper itself.

    Its being routinely reported in all corners of the interwebs as increasing confidence in 2100 temperatures being in the +2 to +6 degree range, but (even though that is what a too-casual reading of the abstract implies) that does not seem to be the case. The chart they posted on the Conversation shows above+2 (2.3, actually) at 95% confidence, but staying below 6 degrees is only at 67% confidence.

    If you want to compare similar round fruit, the range is not 2 to 6, as one might assume from misinterpreting the abstract, but 3.5 to 6 (67% confidence) or 2 to 9 degrees (95% confidence).

  34. #35 Wow
    May 29, 2013

    “Have the good grace to answer it please.”

    She’d need to borrow it from someone. Unfortunately, Betty doesn’t know anyone with some to spare.

  35. #36 Lionel A
    May 29, 2013

    Having trouble connecting to Skeptical Science – DoS attack?

  36. #37 Betula
    May 29, 2013

    BBD @ 33

    “It is illogical to reject the scientific consensus”

    The consensus is that there is the “potential” for catastrophic future scenarios, based on many other potentials. How can someone reject a consensus about a potential on top of a potential on top of a potential? I don’t reject multiple potentials that all rely on each other to potentially happen….I reject that the only available potentials are potentially negative.

    Exhale BBD….easy, easy….now, inhale and hold.

  37. #38 BBD
    May 29, 2013

    The consensus is based on solid radiative physics which means that increasing the atmospheric fraction of CO2 will increase GAT. Your attempt to portray this as uncertain is misrepresentation, plain and simple.

    What I want to know – and what you are desperately trying to avoid telling me – is WHY you are rejecting the scientific consensus.

    You don’t have the expert knowledge to do this. You don’t have someone else’s robust scientific counter-argument because there isn’t one.

    In short, you have nothing.

    So, WHY are you investing so much time and energy in rejecting the scientific consensus?

    No further twisting, altering evasions. Just answer the fucking question.

  38. #39 Jeff Harvey
    May 29, 2013

    Here is an analogy for Betula’s latest vacuous views. Humans have cut down about 50% of the world’s tropical forests since the industrial revolution, with most of that occurring since the 1960s. The effects of this loss on biodiversity and clear and unambiguous, but how this in turn will affect evapotranspiration cycles, nutrient cycling and other vital ecosystem level processes is unclear. Shukla and colleagues argued that the loss of tropical forests in the Amazon Basin would eventually impact the Mata Atlantica forests through effects on rainfall regimes. In effect, precipitation is recycled perhaps several times across the continent after falling on the east side of the Andes, with primary forest playing a critical role in this process. The continued destruction of tropical forests may eventually exceed some threshold that has continent-wide effects on seasonal rainfall regimes. The loss of biodiversity will also probably have profound effects on a range of ecosystem services, and ultimately on primary production via a series of feedback loops

    But much of this is uncertain. Betula probably thinks therefore that its perfectly OK to continue slashing and burning, or logging the primary forests of South America (and in other tropical wet forests of the world) until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the loss of these forests will have serious or even catastrophic consequences for nature and humanity.

    Essentially, Betula is as predictable as day and night. Like other people who broadly fall under the banner of being ‘anti-environemntalists’ he demands 100% unequivocal proof that some human activity will have dire consequences down the road. I have encountered a lot of like-minded people over the years, especially after co-reviewing Bjorn Lomborg’s screed for Nature back in 2001. The topics vary (acid rain, ozone depletion, extinction rates, over-harvesting etc.) but the strategy never does.

    Totally and utterly predictable.

  39. #40 Stu
    May 29, 2013

    No Jeff, you have to prove to Betula that there isn’t something or someone, somewhere who could possibly benefit from destroying that forest. You know, like hogs or locusts.

  40. #41 Betula
    May 29, 2013

    Hardley…

    “Betula probably thinks therefore that its perfectly OK to continue slashing and burning”

    And here comes Hardley bringing up a topic that has nothing to do with anything I’ve stated…. and there’s that word “probably” again. Everything is “probably” with you Hardley, is nothing in your world an actual fact?.

  41. #42 Betula
    May 29, 2013

    “So, WHY are you investing so much time and energy in rejecting the scientific consensus?”

    “I don’t reject multiple potentials that all rely on each other to potentially happen….I reject that the only available potentials are potentially negative”.

  42. #43 Lionel A
    May 29, 2013

    …I reject that the only available potentials are potentially negative”.

    In other words, ‘I don’t know what I am talking about but I am going to talk anyway.’

    Tell us please what have you learned about the interdependence of species whilst engaged on your day job?

  43. #44 Stu
    May 29, 2013

    And here comes Hardley bringing up a topic that has nothing to do with anything I’ve stated

    Obvious and stupid lie. It’s called an analogy, you molasses-filled-sack-of-hammers-for-brains. If you were to apply your logic, you would wholly support deforestation unless it could be conclusively proven to you that nobody and nothing anywhere would benefit.

    Betula, did you argue against banning CFCs? Lead paint? Restrictions on smoking?

  44. #45 chek
    May 29, 2013

    Shorter Betty: “Duh – whatever”.

  45. #46 Marco
    May 30, 2013

    Olaus Petri (and others):
    To see the lies of Pat Michaels exposed even more, that graph on WUWT came from here:
    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/09/10/sea-level-acceleration-not-so-fast/
    “just for funsies”, eh?

  46. #47 Jeff Harvey
    May 30, 2013

    Betula, face it man, you are a joke. I brought up an example that, on a scientific basis, is analogous to AGW. You harp on at BBD about the lack of absolute proof that climate change will have serious repercussions on humanity. Forget that fact that every Academy of Science in every nation on Earth has affirmed the seriousness of AGW and have argued that we should take immediate measures to deal with it – the example I gave with respect to rainforest loss falls exactly into your “wait until all the data are in”.

    Yo are a complete and utter clown, Betula. You also wrote a lengthy post a week or so ago in which you gave three “examples” in which you posit that nature is doing well in the eastern US. I was somewhat more diplomatic then, but if truth be told your three examples stink. The status of white-tailed deer and coyote range and populations and the re-intriduction of the wild turkey are piss-poor examples of the state of the environment over there. I countered those with much, much better examples culled straight from the empirical literature and what is your response? To move on to attack BBDs quite outstanding arguments.

    I repeat what i said earlier: your tactic on Deltoid is to hit-and-run in the hope that readers swallow your crapola whole before you move onto another topic in which you don’t know very much. When your arguments are easily rebuffed, you either ignore them completely or make some snide remarks. Bait and switch, bait and switch.

  47. #48 Wow
    May 30, 2013

    “Betula, did you argue against banning CFCs? Lead paint? Restrictions on smoking?”

    Of course Betty did, she’s a fuckwit.

  48. #49 bill
    May 30, 2013

    Stu, I suspect you’d already answered your own question.

  49. #50 Lionel A
    May 30, 2013

    Here is another one who does not understand the importance of species, one Kristjan Loftsson (google on his name for best overview) an Icelandic whale pirate who is doing his best to make Fin Whales extinct. Will he slaughter a load more this year and ship the carcasses via the Netherlands, Germany and Finland having outlawed such shipments, to Japan for dog food or can he be stopped by embarrassing the Dutch government?

    See here for a way to assist a ban by the Dutch: Days to stop the whale massacre.

  50. #51 Lionel A
    May 30, 2013

    And another thing.

    I would have posted this yesterday but the link to SkS failed.

    Has our ‘friend’ Keyes a twin or has he adopted another handle here as Brandon Shollenberger, but then it could be another from a similar walk of life like Law.

  51. #52 Lionel A
    May 30, 2013

    Taking up on Shollenberger this provides useful background .

  52. #53 bill
    May 30, 2013

    It simply offered to host my material, and I agreed.

    When Tim first asked me if I’d be willing to contribute a whole thread to scienceblogs, I was honoured to be singled out.

  53. #54 Jeff Harvey
    May 30, 2013

    Great interview in which James Hansen puts BBC interviewer in her place with respect to rates of climate change

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=geS6mtY0XsQ

    Of course Jonas, Karen and other deniers without any formal training in any scientific field think that they know more than Hansen and that they are themselves the real ‘experts’…

    Dunning-Krugerites oner and all….

  54. #55 BBD
    May 30, 2013

    Lionel A

    The aptly initialled BS does like to play irritating, tricksy little games rather like BK, but Shollenberger isn’t Keyes. I’ve read enough by both of them to be quite sure about this.

  55. #56 Betula
    May 30, 2013

    Hardley…@54

    “Great interview in which James Hansen puts BBC interviewer in her place with respect to rates of climate change”

    Did you watch the interview with earmuffs on?

    The interviewer states a fact….that the GAT has not gone up over the last decade as predicted, and he “corrects” her that it has gone up a tenth of a degree which is “just natural variability and no reason to be surprised”

    How is that a correction? Apparently, it’s not even a surprise!If 10 years ago someone said the temperature would only go up a tenth of a degree over the next decade, they would be labeled a denier. Surprise!

    Let’s continue…

    Hansen goes on to talk about how temperature will average 2 tenths of a degree over 30-40 years, but not necessarily over each decade due to too much natural variability and other forcing factors ie, Sun Brightness etc…and says “we understand what the eventual response will be”…..assuming too much of that natural variability and other factors too hard to predict don’t get in the way.
    He continues…..” how it tracks over a period of time, a decade or a few decades, does depend upon on how fast the ocean is taking it up heat for example. But these are really details, and this is a diversionary tactic.”

    That’s right….being put in a spot to explain “details” is now a “diversionary tactic”….

    He then goes on to state…” I didn’t come to Europe to talk about details, which are very technical details”.

    Of course not, do you blame him?

    He then proceeds to use his own “diversionary tactic” to changes the subject and talk about Canada and how they are trying to get Europe to agree that tar sands are no different then conventional oil ”

    Yes, that’s right, let’s not talk about “details”, like why the temperature didn’t go up as expected, let’s use our own “diversionary tactic” by saying it’s actually a “diversionary” tactic to discuss details, and then change the subject. Then, when his diversion tactic doesn’t work and the interviewer brings up the subject again, Hansen goes into his classic name calling “deniers want the public to be confused” mode…

    But these points I bring up are just details, let’s talk about something else….Jeff, tell me a little about yourself.

  56. #57 Lionel A
    May 30, 2013

    BBD, I agree, I was indicating more ‘birds of a feather’.

    Jeff on the BBC and Hansen clip did you catch this comment below from a handle 1000frolly using a picture of his Laudship (Monckton) as an avatar,

    More slimy weasel words from Hansen, trying to keep the CO2 gravy train going until he dies.

    . The language used is consistent but that doesn’t mean much.

    However if it can be shown that 1000frolly is Monckton then I figure he will have a case to answer.

  57. #58 Lionel A
    May 30, 2013

    Betula pharted, must be all that wood-chewing:

    He then proceeds to use his own “diversionary tactic” to changes the subject and talk about Canada and how they are trying to get Europe to agree that tar sands are no different then conventional oil ”

    No it was the BBC interlocutor that was going off piste still trying to claim warming had stopped after already being corrected on that. This gave Hansen a legitimate hook to correct her and explain one of the big issues that will lock in huge warming trends if expanded as the Harper government dictatorship intend. Any tar sands pipeline should be directed up Harper’s ‘seventh rock from the sun with Chaldean town dropped’ for he needs his brain flushed.

  58. #59 Wow
    May 30, 2013

    “Did you watch the interview with earmuffs on?”

    Did you, betty?

  59. #60 Lionel A
    May 30, 2013

    Betula would make a good CEO of a fossil fuel given this brain dead comment from one such:

    “What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?”

    Rex Tillerson 2013

    see here :Exxon CEO: ‘What Good Is It To Save The Planet If Humanity Suffers?’.

    Un ******* believable!

  60. #61 BBD
    May 30, 2013

    # 56

    Big increase in 0 – 2000m OHC for JFM 2013. Really big.

    Big increase in OHC since ~ 1970. There’s an absolutely massive amount of energy accumulating in the climate system because of the radiative imbalance caused by the increasing fraction of atmospheric CO2.

    A very slight increase in the rate at which energy mixes down through the upper ocean layer is enough to slow the rate of surface warming for a decade or two.

    Only fuckwit deniers keep on and on about the diversionary slowdown in the rate of surface warming. People who understand the science – like Hansen – know that it’s just a diversion.

    So once again, you out yourself as a fuckwit denier.

    Now look, we know you know nothing. That is no secret here. The mystery is why a know-nothing keeps denying the strong scientific consensus on AGW. That’s a really fuckwitted thing to do.

    So why do you keep on doing it? What is your motivation to come out in public and make a fuckwit out of yourself again and again and again?

  61. #62 GSW
    May 30, 2013

    @Betula

    Nice post at #56, indeed. Hansen “out in the wild” trying to make current climate science sound as clueless and unconvincing as possible, he did a good job if that was his intention. Let’s hope he has the opportunity to do more of these in the years to come. Often thought Gore and Hansen were the best allies the “deniers” ;) had.

    Seems to be working too!
    ;)

  62. #63 Jeff Harvey
    May 30, 2013

    Betula: “Yes, that’s right, let’s not talk about “details”, like why the temperature didn’t go up as expected”

    Seems like you had the earmuffs on, but that’s hardly a surprise for you. Hansen explained three things: a minor decrease in solar activity, natural variability and the fact that China and India have been burning huge amounts of coal that put aerosols into the atmosphere which as we well know by now depress the effects of C02. Seems like he explained it pretty well.

    Then GSW: “Nice post at #56, indeed”.

    Yup, this puddle-deep comment comes from gormless as expected. Its amazing how Betula and GSW – both of whom have about as much scientific ‘expertise’ as a plank – puff up their own egos by bitterly denouncing a senior researcher who has spent years in the field of climate science. And these two guys accuse me of being arrogant and of having a superiority complex….

    Talk about the blind leading the blind…

  63. #64 Jeff Harvey
    May 30, 2013

    Lionel,

    Yes that comment by the Exxon CEO is hilarious indeed – an oxymoron if there ever was one. These people might as well be living on Mars. They think that human welfare and that of the natural world are mutually exclusive. But then again, they have an army of equally vacuous-minded followers.

    Putting it another way, he could have said, “Save humanity! Destroy nature!”.

  64. #65 GSW
    May 30, 2013

    @Jeff

    Nobody has accused you of having a superiority complex, chip on your shoulder yes, scientific accumen you rate about ~0 (whether you agree with it or not). This is all in your dreamy world, you, the poor victim. Among the many criticisms levelled at you, is that you don’t even seem to know anything about your own field (you’re a Zoologist right?), I think they’ve dropped the soothsaying module at Liverpool since you attended, they’re more “Save the Squirrel” oriented these days I believe.

    Anyhow, I’m sure your more of an embarrassment to them than they of you.

    Regards to Ney when you see him!
    ;)

  65. #66 Wow
    May 30, 2013

    “like why the temperature didn’t go up as expected”

    Uh, have you LOOKED at the temperature graph for the past 150 years? There are lots of ups and downs on that track, Betty, yet the overall trend has been increasing at an increasing rate.

    Despite the past 30 years of you AGW alarmists predicting the end of warming “any day now”, it still goes up.

    Like your lunatic brethren “The End Of The World Is Nigh” prophets, you just pretend that you meant NEXT year.

  66. #67 Betula
    May 30, 2013

    BBD @61….

    “The mystery is why a know-nothing keeps denying the strong scientific consensus on AGW”

    I don’t reject multiple potentials that all rely on each other to potentially happen….I reject that the only available potentials are potentially negative

  67. #68 BBD
    May 30, 2013

    # 67

    .I reject that the only available potentials are potentially negative

    Thus rejecting the scientific consensus on the basis of zero expertise and no supporting scientific case.

    As I keep pointing out, but you are apparently too thick to recognise.

    And I still want to know *why* you are doing this and you still haven’t told me.

  68. #69 BBD
    May 30, 2013

    Betula

    like why the temperature didn’t go up as expected

    Wow was right to nail you for this. You are doing much more than simply denying the scientific consensus that rapid warming will be disruptive and eventually dangerous. You are rejecting *everything*. The it’s-not-warming-meme as you tout it is essentially a claim that the fundamental science is wrong.

    Full-spectrum denial of the scientific consensus.

    When you look at the data it is very obvious what is happening. You can see that GHG forcing is the major component of the increase in total net forcing. You can see the response in OHC increase and in GAT.

    Click and look:

    GAT 10yr mean (purples); 0 – 700m OHC 5yr mean (red); GHG forcing (green); total net forcing (yellow).

    Why are you attempting to deny the undeniable?

  69. #70 GSW
    May 30, 2013

    @BBD

    I think Betula has explained his position perfectly adequately. The whole basis for CAGW is that it relies on an endless series of “Ifs”,”coulds” and “mights”. And, certainly at the moment, those “ifs”, “coulds” and mights look a little out of field.

    CS is looking at the low end (if not lower) than the forecasts, sea level rise, similarly, is looking not that much of a problem. Increases in Extreme weather events, at least according to the empirical evidence (forget the loons here), aren’t an issue. So what’s there to be alarmed about?

    Betula is very unalarmed, why should he be? He’s not Jeff. The most alarming thing here is that Jeff thinks he is a Scientist.
    ;)

  70. #71 Craig Thomas
    May 30, 2013

    I’ll let you in on a secret, GSW: when I want to know the implications arising from the increased temperatures that are now occurring, I will be listening to what scientists like Jeff have to say, and I will be ignoring anything from non-experts with a background in publishing misinformation, such as the Heartland Institute and anybody who takes money from it, or journalists working for The Australian.

    Your, opposite, approach is evidently a flawed one.

  71. #72 GSW
    May 30, 2013

    @craig

    Ah,

    ” I will be listening to what scientists like Jeff have to say”

    No chance you’ll put any effort into understanding it yourself then. Makes sense, your bizarre outlook is based on what Jeff says. Each to their own I suppose, great advocate of education and rational thought myself, but you stick with Jeff as an alternative, you’re comfortable with that it would seem.
    ;)

  72. #73 chek
    May 30, 2013

    great advocate of education and rational thought myself,

    That’s your conceit. But the reality is a vapid, self-imposed ignorance entirely subject to your comfort zone, as evidenced by your desperate clutching at every bone-headed denier meme that passes by.

  73. #74 bill
    May 30, 2013

    I don’t reject multiple potentials that all rely on each other to potentially happen….I reject that the only available potentials are potentially negative

    Not only is this semi-literate, and scientifically illiterate, as has been repeatedly pointed out your argument is absurd, and could be used to deny the negative implications of any hypothetical future event; flood, bushfire, earthquake.

    But you’ve stalled – you’ve reached the point where the ridiculousness of your position is apparent even to you, which means all you can do is set your stubborn – reactionary – little head and double down on The Stupid.

    So much so that you’ve won the admiration of Goosey! Well-done; you’ve reached rock bottom…

  74. #75 BBD
    May 30, 2013

    GSW

    I think Betula has explained his position perfectly adequately.

    I don’t, and I asked the question.

    * * *

    The whole basis for CAGW is that it relies on an endless series of “Ifs”,”coulds” and “mights”. And, certainly at the moment, those “ifs”, “coulds” and mights look a little out of field.

    This is pretty clear:

    GAT 10yr mean (purples); 0 – 700m OHC 5yr mean (red); GHG forcing (green); total net forcing (yellow).

    Clear and undeniable, one would think.

    CS is looking at the low end (if not lower) than the forecasts

    Sensitivity estimate from the instrumental record are problematic. They are very sensitive to decadal OHC variability which is further complicated by uncertainty in OHC reconstructions and natural variability. Then there’s uncertainty over negative aerosol forcing. As Hansen points out in a footnote:

    A frequently cited alternative, use of observed climate change of the past century, does not yield a useful constraint because the net climate forcing is unknown (assumed aerosol forcing can be described best as an educated guess) and inferred sensitivity also depend on uncertain transient ocean mixing.

    sea level rise, similarly, is looking not that much of a problem.

    MSL is trending up, strongly. And nobody ever said SLR would be a problem NOW.

  75. #76 Craig Thomas
    May 30, 2013

    GSW, I don’t have the time to spend several decades at university gaining multiple PhDs in physics, chemistry, biology, geology, or ecology in order to “understand it myself”.
    That’s why we have specialists.
    I defer to their learning.

    You, on the other hand, reject what the relevant, educated experts have to say, and use instead uneducated opinions that reflect your complete lack of understanding of all these areas.

  76. #77 Chris O'Neill
    May 30, 2013

    CS is looking at the low end (if not lower) than the forecasts

    The low end of CS (2C) is still the same as it’s been for a fair number of years. The high end may have come down from 4.5C to 4C.

    Hardly cause for complacency but then that’s what denial is all about.

  77. #78 Jeff Harvey
    May 31, 2013

    GSW opines, “you don’t even seem to know anything about your own field (you’re a Zoologist right?)”

    According to who? You?!?! A third rate chemistry dropout? What the hell do you know about the field?

    You’re a real hoot, GSW. Full of yourself. Never got over my demolition of your fatuous comments re: global amphibian declines and polar bear demographics. Note also how Betula quietly let his comments about the state of nature in NA drop. Hardly surprising, since his examples were appalling. Next he’ll be saying that brown rat populations are booming, or that cattle never had it so good in former tall grass prairie habitats, as proof that nature is doing well.

    You are a waste of space. Sadly, you can’t stay away from Deltoid. But go ahead – keep on making an idiot of yourself. There’s also some enjoyment in seeing your arguments shot down one after the other.

  78. #79 Wow
    May 31, 2013

    “According to who? You?!?! A third rate chemistry dropout?”

    Isn’t gitter the bush mangler? Or is that one of the other interchangeable idiots?

  79. #80 Wow
    May 31, 2013

    “I think Betula has explained his position perfectly adequately.”

    No, gitter, the point is you DON’T think. Can’t think, won’t think. Refuses to try.

    Just flap that knee about like a maniac.

  80. #81 Wow
    May 31, 2013

    “The it’s-not-warming-meme as you tout it is essentially a claim that the fundamental science is wrong.”

    Actually, it’s a non-statement, BBD.

    “It’s not been warming for the last X years” is not a refutation of the IPCC report when claimed at this time, because the IPCC report isn’t refuted by the temperature trend of the last X years for any value of X the idiots come up with.

    It’s no refutation therefore there’s nothing to see. A completely pointless point, which is all the idiots have nowadays.

  81. #82 Wow
    May 31, 2013

    I don’t reject multiple potentials that all rely on each other to potentially happen

    OK, so you will accept potentials that all rely on each other to potentially happen.

    WE KNOW.

    That’s what ALL deniers do.

    “Potentially, clouds could cause a cooling as water vapour goes up”
    “Potentially, the GCRs could cause more clouds”
    “Potentially, the plants will grow massively reducing CO2″
    “Potentially, this is just a cycle and has nothing to do with CO2″
    Potentially.

    Then presume they are all right.

  82. #83 Bernard J.
    May 31, 2013

    Jeff.

    You make be interested to know that Shub is up to his old tricks…

    http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/tol-erasion.html

  83. #84 bill
    May 31, 2013

    Is that Shub Niggurath? The associated website was a real den of charmers…

    I noticed he hasn’t tried to substantiate his risible claim about ‘ecologists’. What a ridiculous fellow!

  84. #85 chek
    May 31, 2013

    Shub doesn’t deal in data – he just dogwhistles to his fellow know-nothings for whom assertion is fact.

  85. #86 bill
    May 31, 2013

    And the Lovecraft thing? Like, woo… scary.

  86. #87 Betula
    May 31, 2013

    Wow @ 82…

    “That’s what ALL deniers do”
    “Potentially,”
    “Potentially,”
    “Potentially,”
    “Potentially,”
    “Potentially.”

    BBD @ 10….

    “that this will be potentially dangerous, with negative impacts on agriculture, fresh water availability etc.”

  87. #88 chek
    May 31, 2013

    Betty ,surely even you can’t be as dumb as you’re playing at being.

    Let’s try a simple substitution test.
    ‘Driving your car into a brick wall at 70 mph with no seat belt or airbag will be potentially dangerous, with negative impacts on bones, flesh, organs etc.”

    It’s not ‘guaranteed dangerous’ in science speak, only ‘potentially dangerous’ because it’s a prediction that hasn’t yet occurred. And who knows – the laws of physics might magically change, or a passing unicorn will intervene.
    The chances that such likelihoods may happen are incalculably small, but aren’t completely discounted, hence ‘potentially’.

    Why you choose to be so moronic about it based on nothing except your own poor comprehension is a mystery. But one I’m not particularly interested in solving.

  88. #89 bill
    May 31, 2013

    ‘Potentially’ is actually the language of responsibility, dingbat. The opposite of alarmism.

    You just don’t get it, at all, and yet still you wade in.

  89. #90 Wow
    May 31, 2013

    “That’s what ALL deniers do”

    Yup. Like I said:

    “Potentially, clouds could cause a cooling as water vapour goes up”
    “Potentially, the GCRs could cause more clouds”
    “Potentially, the plants will grow massively reducing CO2″
    “Potentially, this is just a cycle and has nothing to do with CO2″

    Then presume they are all right.

    What you’re trying and failing miserably to do is equate “There’s a possibility of something going wrong, so lets head that off” and “there’s a possibility that it won’t go wrong, so lets do nothing”.

    What ISN’T potentially is AGW will have “negative impacts on agriculture, fresh water availability etc.” which are POTENTIALLY dangerous.

    It MAY not be dangerous, but it will happen.

    Silly old betty.

  90. #91 Wow
    May 31, 2013

    Betty, so you’re complaining that everyone does what you think is acceptable for you to do.

    Is that it?

    Is THAT your “argument”?

    “I’m allowed, you’re not”???

  91. #92 BBD
    May 31, 2013

    # 87

    The potential for danger is determined by the amount of CO2 we allow ourselves to emit over the next few decades. It’s potentially dangerous NOW. It will be actually dangerous if we get up to >600ppmv.

    It’s hard to believe you are this stupid, so stop fucking me about with the wind-ups.

  92. #93 Betula
    May 31, 2013

    Wow…

    “What you’re trying and failing miserably to do is equate “There’s a possibility of something going wrong, so lets head that off” and “there’s a possibility that it won’t go wrong, so lets do nothing”.

    Wrong.

    There’s the potential for negative reactions if a myriad of complex environmental systems all react in a predicted way, even though the way many of those complex systems will react is not fully understood….it’s too complex.
    Of course, there’s the potential for positive reactions as well, if a myriad of complex environmental systems react a certain way.
    Some of the negatives may outweigh the positives in some locations and some of the positives may outweigh the negatives, depending on a myriad of potential reactions in a myriad of locations….all too complex to be able to predict accurately.
    The problem here is that all possible positive reactions are taken out of the prediction equation….they carry no weight in the projection of predictions that potentially may happen to a system that is too complex to possibly know how all the interactions will react. Why is that?

    In addition, we have to assume that all the people making the predictions are even keeled and don’t allow personal motivations, ideologies, feelings, outside pressures, politics, deadlines, goals, conceit, representative governments, the need for funding, complexes and pride etc. to get in the way of the prediction decision making process…..particularly if they are from poor developing nations that just happen to be looking for a piece of pie….

    Let’s ask our friend Saleemul Huq, who states things like this…(2009):

    “rich countries seem to want to run as fast as possible from their legal and moral obligations. But their premature call to kill the Kyoto Protocol has been fiercely resisted by poor countries. Can rich countries put deep cuts and adequate financing and technology on the table in time to save the deal and prevent globally catastrophic climate change?”
    http://www.theecologist.org/tv_and_radio/radio/342208/the_300350_show_the_bangkok_climate_talks.html

    Is there the “potential” that the prediction decision making process could “possibly” be influenced by the need for money?

    Oh, I don’t know….

    “a little-noticed paragraph in the agreement that came out of the Cancún, Mexico, talks in 2010, the need “to reduce loss and damage associated with climate change” was recognised by all countries. In legal terms, that potentially opens the door to compensation – or, as the negotiators in Doha say, “rehabilitation” ”
    “as ministers from 194 countries fly in to take over the political negotiations, “loss and damage” has become a “red line” for more than 100 developing countries, led by the Alliance of Small Island States, the Least Developed Countries block and the African Group of Nations”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/dec/03/climate-change-compensation-doha-talks?goback=.gde_934207_member_192229766

    “Developing countries are saying it needs a new [negotiating] track, which means action, not just further discussions. But the developed countries do not want to open that door,” said Saleemul Huq”

    But what does this have to do with the prediction decision making process?

    “Saleemul Huq is Senior Fellow in Climate Change at the International Institute for Environment & Development – who has also been a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s last two assessment reports.”

    And no Hardly, the “conceit” part was not meant for you…why, did you think it was?

  93. #94 BBD
    May 31, 2013

    Listen, you idiot, the entire multi-disciplinary complex of Earth System science is against you. There is a strong consensus on the cause of warming, and strong consensus that abrupt warming will be net negative in consequence for the majority of the marine and terrestrial ecosystem. Also that it will be net negative for our interactions with the ecosystem, otherwise known as agriculture and fisheries.

    You are a fucking know-nothing denier without a shred of evidence to support your subliterate blatherings, hence the mockery.

    Ignorant, wrong, ridiculous and intellectually arrogant.

    Fuck off and do some reading.

  94. #95 BBD
    May 31, 2013

    This is a fucking flat-out lie:

    The problem here is that all possible positive reactions are taken out of the prediction equation….they carry no weight in the projection of predictions that potentially may happen to a system that is too complex to possibly know how all the interactions will react. Why is that?

    Why are deniers so fucking dishonest?

    Why is that?

    Well we know, don’t we? It’s because they are arguing against a robust scientific consensus without benefit of a scientific counter-argument.

    So they need to tell lies all the time.

  95. #96 BBD
    May 31, 2013

    I dealt with your last tranche of dishonest rubbish at # 75. I notice that you have nothing to say in response to that comment.

    Evasion is an aspect of intellectual dishonesty, just like telling lies.

  96. #97 Lionel A
    May 31, 2013

    Meanwhile for those (Duff, Rednose, et. al) who have not yet grasped that already happening warming is having a decided impact on disturbing weather patterns, and climate, into the foreseeable future. A disruption that will continue to promote extremes in strength, duration and out of season of adverse events need to study this:

    A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming.

    You will also get a clue of how complex Earth’s systems are and here we are only involving the physical effects.

    Here is a handy Jetstream Forecaster for the North Atlantic.

    What you persistently fail to grasp Betula is that there are not going to be many positive ‘reactions’ (not the best choice of words BTW but that is your terminology which misses the mark as ever) as you try imply here,

    Of course, there’s the potential for positive reactions as well, if a myriad of complex environmental systems react a certain way.

    .

    Your thinking is fuzzy as is clear from your choice of words.

    Remind us again what your day job involves?

  97. #98 chek
    May 31, 2013

    Betty may well be an expectant responder to those schemes advertised with the ‘potential’ to earn a million dollars a day from your home computer.

    Neither does it appear within the Confidence or Likelihood terminology scales used by the IPCC, making it so flexible as to be a useful word for deniers or others not in possession of good faith..

  98. #99 bill
    May 31, 2013

    But what does this have to do with the prediction decision making process?

    What decision making process? As to whether AGW is real?

    Absolutely nothing.

    Because, little man, Huq is

    ‘Lead author of the chapter on Adaptation and Sustainable Development in the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Lead Author of the chapter on Adaptation and Mitigation in the IPCC’s fourth assessment report.

    He takes the science and looks at its projected impact in the Third World.

    Of course, to mean-spirited shits and forelock-tuggers the world over, this just means he’s after their money, or the hoards of the rich mean-spirited shits they idolise.

    And, because their own relationship to truth is entirely predicated upon what’s convenient for them, they automatically assume all information is manipulated to serve the same ends.

    Rest assured, Batty, we only kick you for the benefit of onlookers – you’re a lost cause, a small component of the ossified venality that will eventually collapse the US empire.

  99. #100 Jeff Harvey
    June 1, 2013

    “Rest assured, Batty, we only kick you for the benefit of onlookers – you’re a lost cause, a small component of the ossified venality that will eventually collapse the US empire”

    Well put, Bill. More colloquially, he is as thick as two planks. I realized that when he (1) argued that C02 was a nutrient that would increase primary production and thus benefit natural systems, and (2) more recently claimed that environmental quality in the U.S. was improving on the basis of three piss-poor examples. In both cases when challenged and counter arguments were made, what did old Batty do? Ignore them and shift the goalposts again. And once again, as BBD, you and others have demolished those arguments, expect him to go onto something else.

    Like Karen, Duff, GSW et al., Batty is a lost cause. Thinks he knows a lot more than he does. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, because in pure Dunning-Kruger fashion, it gives the deniers bloated egos and inflated images of what they think they know.

Current ye@r *