June 2013 Open thread

More thread for you.

Comments

  1. #1 Betula
    June 1, 2013

    I’ll Start!

    “These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

  2. #2 Lionel A
    June 1, 2013

    Oooh! Bettttty! Citing Forbes and James Taylor. You must be becoming desperate to believe another James Taylor BS special. Some mothers do have them.

  3. #3 Lionel A
    June 1, 2013

    So Betty, I’ll ask again, remind us again what your day job involves?

    Come on stop dodging and ducking and diving, changing the subject.

  4. #5 Olaus Petri
    June 1, 2013
  5. #6 chek
    June 1, 2013

    What is it that you know-nothings don’t understand about sampling?
    And why has Tol foregone publishing his ‘criticism’ to instead make guest appearances pretending not to understand representative samples at joke blogs like Williwatts?
    Questions the numpty brigade will never ask themselves, but whose answers are all too obvious to the rest of us.

  6. #7 chek
    June 1, 2013

    On sober reflection, I’d like to withdraw the perjorative ‘numpty brigade’ from my prebious post, and instead sunstitute ‘insane minority political cultists’.

  7. #8 Betula
    June 1, 2013

    Lionel A…

    Let’s start with this statement in the article…

    “The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.”

    The “debunking” does not address the first part of the statement…
    “The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless.”

    “Meaningless”.

    The “debunking” does however, attempt to address the last part of the statement…

    “whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.”

    Here’s the response….

    “One only needs to look to what is happening in the Arctic with our Polar Ice Cap being transformed into a summer time oceanic solar absorption plate” and proceeds to supply a video by Jennifer Francis which concludes…

    “We expect to see an increased probability of extremes”

    She doesn’t expect an increase of extremes, but “expects” an increased “probability” of extremes. Um, ok, fair enough.

    Here are the “weather” extremes she mentions that run the gamut and all contradict each other without mention of where these will all occur…..

    “Droughts”, “flooding” (from the droughts), “heat waves”, “cold spells” (from the heat waves) and “prolonged snowfall” (from the droughts and heat waves)

    Makes sense to me.

    The “debunking” then addresses individuals mentioned in the article by attempting to discrediting them. Examples:

    “Craig Idso, has close ties to various contrarian think tanks”

    “Nicola Scafetta is a physicist at Duke University who published a 2006 paper claiming the sun was to blame for half the warming since 1900.”

    Nir Shaviv is….”another example of what I call a practitioner of “science in a vacuum”

    “Mörner may be a scientist, but he’s also a water douser and some would say even a grave robber among other eccentricities”

    “Willie Soon” “is an extreme outlier, who’s science gets refuted at every turn.”

    Yet, somehow, all these scientists were good enough at the time for Cook to include in his “consensus claim”.

    Shocking!

    By the way, the “debunking” article was written by that well known scientist (who carries no ideological bias) known as “Peter”

  8. #9 chek
    June 1, 2013

    The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming.

    Yes, it’s amazing how slippery you idiots are, and how you slime yourselves into whatever position finally becomes undeniable, almost as if you think everybody else can’t remember back more than 5 minutes and now believes we have always been at war with Eurasia.

  9. #10 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    June 1, 2013

    I’ve only come back to say thank you for today’s burst of, er, global warming. They (the Met Office – yeeeees, quite!) tell me that it should last all week. Then it’s back to rain and cold – again. Why am I not surprised?

    Anyway, knowing as I do your psychological necessity of believing that the end of the world is nigh, let me give you one more chance to jump on a bandwagon with much stronger possibilities than global (non)warming. I did mention this before but received no thanks but I will try again because in a funny (a very funny) way I have become rather fond of you all.

    “An asteroid nine times larger than the QE2 has sailed past the Earth – and is so big it even brought along its own moon.”

    Apparently, “Scientists have calculated that in 2182 there is a one in 1,800 chance of the object colliding with the Earth.”

    Well, that’s a bigger chance than your silly old global warming theories which are freezing over with increased alacrity these days. No, no, don’t thank me, I’m always here to help.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2333907/QE2-asteroid-sails-just-3-6million-miles-past-Earth-TONIGHT–scientists-moon.html#ixzz2UzoXdt9U

  10. #11 chek
    June 1, 2013

    You desperately love that old Chrissie Booker meme, don’t you Duffer. And is there anything sadder than a cod psychology groupie?

  11. #12 BBD
    June 1, 2013

    # 10 David Duff

    Confusion over regional weather and global climate. See the bigger picture.

    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.

    You also confuse the atmosphere with the climate system. Most of the energy accumulating in the climate system is measurable in terms of ocean heat content.

    The red line in the pretty picture is the 3 month mean. Look at it carefully, and consider what you understand by the term “cooling”.

  12. #13 BBD
    June 1, 2013

    Betula

    Unless you propose a mechanism you don’t have an argument.

  13. #14 BBD
    June 1, 2013

    Let me improve that.

    Unless you have a strongly supported scientific argument, you have nothing.

    The Idsos and Scafettas and Shavivs of this world do not provide the strong support necessary, which leaves you in a bit of a pickle.

  14. #15 bill
    June 1, 2013

    Duff is the archetypal silly old bugger. Best ignored.

    And, Batty, what is it with deniers and their remarkable inability to use blockquotes? It’s a persistent feature; you’d think they were all reactionary curmudgeons uncomfortable in the modern world, or something.

    <blockquote>blah blah blah</blockquote>

    If I wanted to have no idea who was saying what I’d be over at the Rabett’s, where the code won’t work.

  15. #16 rhwombat
    June 2, 2013

    testing learning.

  16. #17 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    June 2, 2013

    Well, Bill, this “silly old bugger” has no need of “blockquotes”, I just stick to English grammar and use inverted commas.

  17. #18 Lionel A
    June 2, 2013

    Duffer puffed:

    Well, Bill, this “silly old bugger” has no need of “blockquotes”, I just stick to English grammar and use inverted commas.

    Which does not indent and make a quote specific, this you would know about if you had ever engaged in university level education.

    Now WRT your #10 this, in an earlier thread, was aimed squarely at you: <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/05/09/may-2013-open-thread/comment-page-6/#comment-157126&quot; my #97 here.

  18. #19 Lionel A
    June 2, 2013

    Grrr! HTML snafu.

    Now WRT your #10 this, in an earlier thread, was aimed squarely at you: my #97 here.

  19. #20 Lionel A
    June 2, 2013

    Now, before the usual suspects come swinging in with their usual unrestrained glee at yet another nail in the ‘warmist’s coffin’ (the use of warmist of course is a term which identifies them as ideologues and thus addicts of bilge that comes from Nova/Card’Puff/WFUWT etc), namely the recent, yawn it’s all been debunked before, Qing-Bin Lu CFC-GCR fiasco.

    Currently being dissected demolished at:

    the Rabett’s , Rick Piltz’s place and Climate Progress.

  20. #21 Lionel A
    June 2, 2013

    Betula at #8

    Repeating Taylor’s BS does not make it smell any the sweeter. Look what you have done now, dragged it out on your feet.

  21. #22 Gingerbaker
    June 2, 2013

    Anybody know what’s going on with Tamino at his “Open Mind” blog? No new posts, comments are turned off. Is he well?

  22. #23 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    June 2, 2013

    @ Lionel #18
    Why am I not surprised that proper English is no longer taught at Universities. And @#19 you see what you get for relying on your silly, modish ‘computerese’!

  23. #24 Wow
    June 2, 2013

    Because you’ve never gone to university, duffski.

    Hence you’re unsurprised at anything you think may be going on there, since you’ll make any old shit up because you think that is the case.

    Meanwhile, look at your complete inability to understand basic English, never mind “proper English”.

  24. #25 Lionel A
    June 2, 2013

    …you see what you get for relying on your silly,modish ‘computerese’!

    Indented quoting has got nothing to do with any ‘comuterese’ you jackass. Furthermore, you jackass, that particular snafu had nothing to do with ‘blockquoting’ either. But then you never display much ability for critical thinking or grasp of context do you.

  25. #26 Lionel A
    June 2, 2013

    Gingerbaker, @ #22

    Last I noted was that Tamino was busy on some project, another book I think.

  26. #27 Lionel A
    June 2, 2013

    Floods in Europe involving that river described by one of my favourite music pieces Bedřich Smetana: Má Vlast Moldau (Vltava). Another data point for the records.

  27. #28 Lionel A
    June 2, 2013

    Doh!

    One of my favourite music pieces Bedřich Smetana: Má Vlast Moldau (Vltava). Another data point for the records.

  28. #29 johnl
    June 2, 2013

    At RealClimate,
    Susan Anderson says:
    25 May 2013 at 11:26 AM
    re Tamino: Barton Paul Levenson

    as noted here:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/05/unforced-variations-may-2013/comment-page-9/#comment-340323340323

    “I asked a mutual acquaintance who said:

    “working on fighting the proposed East West Corridor project that is supposed to bisect the town with a highway and utility/pipeline corridor that would destroy the town and most of central Maine from Calais to Coburn Gore. A bunch of us have been tasked by the town selectmen to come up with a moratorium proposal as well as strategies to educate the public on the implications of the the project.”

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/05/unforced-variations-may-2013/comment-page-9/#comment-340323

  29. #30 bill
    June 3, 2013

    Daft old fart: HTML links are ‘silly, modish computerese’!

    And we use blockquotes because this is gibberish. Even more so than usual.

  30. #31 johnl
    June 3, 2013
  31. #32 Bob
    June 3, 2013

    Tree ring update: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/06/yamal-and-polar-urals-a-research-update/

    Absolutely devastating to the deniers who have been banging on about this for the last half decade. A must read.

  32. #33 Bernard J.
    June 3, 2013

    Bob.

    Not only is it devastating to the denialists’ argument, it is damning with respect to their behaviour.

    Cue much wailing and gnashing of teeth…

  33. #34 Wow
    June 3, 2013

    Except that deniers are, by definition, going to deny that that has any effect on their claims.

  34. #35 Bernard J.
    June 3, 2013

    [Please excuse the cross posting - Rabbet Run's blogger didn't like the length of my post so I'm lodging it here]

    Viewer warning: much of this is just a venting, but there are a couple of half-interesting links in the middle…

    Willard at 2/6/13 10:19 AM, I missed your post previously. Anyway, fair cop. And the Brides reference was probably so abstract as to be indecipherable.

    Having said that… I do find it depressing that this issue has been beat up the way it has, and how it has been mendaciously manipulated the way it has. Whilst I am all for a constructive decontruction of any paper, the resistance to Cook et al shows little of any genuine motivation for understanding the truth, and a lot of dog-whistling and mud-slinging.

    I find it depressing too when too many people show no effective understanding of the situation. A few days ago Martin said (at 31/5/13 7:29 AM:

    This blog entry is tantamount [sic] to the uselessness of the paper, if measured against the expressed purpose for which it has been written in the first place. That the question overwhelming the whole discussion is [sic] if the authors did everything exactly right or not shows, in and of itself, its failure.

    Cook et al is certainly not “useless” – the whole notion that there is not a professional concensus with respect to the scientific understanding of the climatology has fueled much propaganda in the public domain. In Australia this has been an ongoing phenomenon for at least 6 years, and it has occurred even at the highest level of government – opposition leader Tony Abbott kicked off his leadership with his “climate change is crap” meme, which he has nurtured in one form or another ever since. He pulls a big chunk of his putative votes with this strategy, besides the fact that it aligns with his ideology. Although Abbott is now more guarded in expressing his resistance to the science, many of his senior colleagues are still happy to put their denial directly in the public domain – Cory Bernardi did so only about five hours ago on last night’s edition of Q and A on the ABC. I don’t have time to find and transcribe his comments now, but essentially he said there is no consensus, that it’s all bollocks. And this man will be a part of the next Australia government – which is hell-bent on reversing all pricing of carbon emissions…

    It is this willful (or otherwise) ignorance in the highest levels of government and media, and the propaganda that accompanies its, that has to date prevented humanity from commencing any effective move to seriously address carbon emissions. If such people insist on peddling this tripe, their falsehood must be addressed as it is in Cook et a. That some people (who should know better) choose to aid and abet the deniers and the delayers is the galling icing on the cake.

    In the end it wouldn’t matter if the consensus was only 10% – if the science itself withstands scrutiny (as it does) and all contradicting work fails under testing (as it does) the implications are still exactly the same. The laws of physics don’t give a shit whether corporate interests or conservative ideologues don’t like the message: the end result for humans and the biosphere will be the same.

    So, I find it damnably depressing that our governments and our corporations are rearranging deck chairs whilst the Titanic sinks. I find it even more damnably depressing that an engineer on the ship insists that it was only a small iceberg, because she couldn’t see the bit that was under the water, and therefore it can’t have been that damaging, and I find it just as damnably depressing that some bloody accountant doesn’t want to call in the response staff because the overtime would be onerous. History is replete with sinkings of ships because captains listened to everyone besides their navigators, and it seems that the Good Ship Gaia has the same sort of incompetence at its helm.

    And I find it depressing that even as the Tols and Watts who cluck and dog-whistle at Cook et al are shown to have no substantive case, they will have succeeded anyway because a sizable part of the middle-ground public are nevertheless left with the impression that the science is dodgy. If this is what Martin means by “useless” then my depress-o-meter just climbed down into the basement and started digging.

    Something’s broken in our society’s capacity to safeguard its collective future, and more and more I find it difficult not to get snippy with some of the perps. However, having vented I will attempt to keep future comments on this thread focussed on the the Cook et al paper itself.

  35. #36 Bernard J.
    June 3, 2013

    For those wondering about the context of the above comment, this will probably help to explain.

  36. #37 Olaus Petri
    June 3, 2013
  37. #38 Wow
    June 3, 2013

    Daily fail is called that for a reason, Lappie.

  38. #39 chek
    June 3, 2013

    So The Fuckwit Brigade (as represented by Olap above) are crowing that the Arctic is frozen over … in winter?

    Truly, they understand much, much less than you might reasonably think.

  39. #40 bill
    June 4, 2013

    Oily could be outwitted by a suet pudding. I heard he was once fleeced by an (admittedly particularly savvy) hamster.

  40. #41 bill
    June 4, 2013

    Re Bob #32

    They’re not sugar-coating it! –

    What can be condemned, however, is the long campaign of allegations of dishonesty and scientific fraud made against us on the basis of these false claims. That is the most disquieting legacy of Steve McIntyre and ClimateAudit.

    A must-read indeed!

  41. #42 Craig Thomas
    June 4, 2013

    ” He pulls a big chunk of his putative votes with this strategy, besides the fact that it aligns with his ideology. ”

    This is where I get a bit confused. Why do parties have policies that pander to demographics that are always going to support them regardless?
    It doesn’t matter whether Abbott says “climate change is crap”, the kind of idiots who think that are not going to vote ALP anyway.

    Same with the ALP – they’ve lost a huge chunk of the swinging vote by pampering illegal immigrants with $billion$, supporters of which are never going to vote Liberal regardless.

    It makes no sense.

  42. #43 Olaus Petri
    June 4, 2013

    Good morning fellas,

    amazing stuff wasn’t it? But no worries, the ice free arctic will be a fact this summer. ;-)

  43. #44 Bernard J.
    June 4, 2013

    Craig:

    Why do parties have policies that pander to demographics that are always going to support them regardless?

    This is the thing with Abbott’s strategy. His disparagement about the veracity of climate science will not put off-side his hardcore supporters, so he’s only reinforcing his base there, but it will sway the important swinging voters who may have conservative tendencies, or who are being impacted by factors that are tangential (or even unrelated) to emissions control and who are easily led to confabulation of issues.

    And easily led they are. Look at the mileage that Abbott has wrought simply from his “lie” meme.

    In late 2009 both the Labor Government and a large chunk of the conservative Liberal [sic] National opposition had negotiated to pass a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bill. At the eleventh hour Abbott used this agreement as a trigger to whip up the ideological antipathy to the science within a section of the coalition, and he ousted Malcolm Turnbull by only one vote. This was enough to eventually give Rudd the heebie-jeebies and he capitulated on bringing in the CPRS, which cost him his Prime Ministership. Julia Gillard came in on the backlash against Rudd’s prevarication and said that she would not bring in a carbon price in her next term – a claim on which she reneged, but one that was effectively a bipartisan-supported issue (and a necessity indicated by the hard science) until Abbott’s overweening ambition and ideology scuppered the original CPRS.

    In the overall scheme of things the eventual manner of introduction of the carbon tax should be a trivial historic footnote. The Coalition itself introduced the “never ever” goods and services tax, and broke countless other “non core promises” so Abbott’s hypocrisy is breath-taking, but for the last three years he and his political and media chums only have to mention the words “lie” or “liar” and they evoke impressions of some great calamity of justice and policy. This Pavlovian response in the mind of the uninformed sector of the public has spread from the irrational, hair-trigger but nebulous fear of a carbon price to just about any other subject that Abbott and his dog-whistlers care to label with the hint of a “lie”, but it always returns at a visceral level to the fundamental manufactured horror over the carbon tax.

    It matters not to Abbott that he has no objective moral high ground in the climate debate. It’s his ideological baby, and it works to sucker the voters, and that’s all that matters.

    And this abject lack of political discernment is a sad indictment of too large a portion of the Australian voting public.

  44. #45 bill
    June 4, 2013

    I understand Oily also bought a rather nice bridge in New Jersey from a particularly persuasive Gila Monster.

  45. #46 bill
    June 4, 2013

    And, yep, I’m with Bernard – what we’re about to get is The Stupid coming home to roost. Even some of the senior Libs must seriously doubt they can really ride this tiger. At least, not without ending up like the UK tories pandering to the UKIP crowd…

  46. #47 BBD
    June 4, 2013

    # 46

    The full horror of what is starting to happen in the UK hasn’t dawned on most people yet. The (swivel-eyed) lunatics; the asylum etc.

  47. #48 Wow
    June 4, 2013

    “But no worries, the ice free arctic will be a fact this summer”

    So that’s your prediction is it?

    Well, I predict your prediction will fail, Lappie.

  48. #49 Bernard J.
    June 4, 2013

    Speaking of crazy Liberal [sic] politicians, for those who missed it Cory Bernardi was in his usual form last Monday. His commentary can be found here:

    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3759900.htm

    Bernardi was countered by Bill McKibben, although I think that McKibben lost the opportunity for a few pithy rebuttals – in part because Bernardi is overly-appreciative of his own voice..

    There’s a panel to the right of the viewing window that has a direct link to the “Climate conspiracy” segment of the broadcast which starts at 24:20. It goes for about seven and a half minutes.

    I’m not sure how long these episodes are kept online, but anyone interested should take the opportunity soon to witness the (lack of) calibre of our next government.

    The blog entries attached to that segment are a reiteration of how blinding ignorant are too many Australians. It’s a wonder that some of these people can actually post something on the internet…

  49. #50 lord_sidcup
    June 4, 2013

    Oh my. Quote from GWPF’s Lord Lawson from a Radio 4 discussion last night:

    “my thinktank has some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists on its academic advisory board”

    Richard Lindzen is the only climate scientist I can see on their 24 man (they are all men) academic advisory board. Obviously Lindzen is eminent in Lawson’s eyes only because his views are what Lawson wants to hear.

  50. #51 FrankD
    June 4, 2013

    Jeepers, Bernard, those comment threads made my skin crawl – what a shouty bunch of morons.

    On the upside, I did discover a new low in denier-logic: I know Buzz Aldrin’s mother’s maiden name, so I know more about climate change than you.

    Under normal circumstances, I would think that would take some beating. Then again, as long as Karen and GSW are hanging around here, new lows are always in the offing.

  51. #52 Lionel A
    June 4, 2013

    Yes johnl at #13, it is good to see Tamino back and drawing out the comedy duo of Goddard and Bastardi again for more, ahem, comedy. The latter cannot even control a spell-checker and then blames it for his mistakes – priceless.

  52. #53 Sou
    June 4, 2013

    Okay chaps, you’ve gotta see it to believe it and you heard it here first. Coming hot on the heels of “it’s the sun”, “an ice age cometh”, “scientists no nuffin'”, “Greenland ice cores are less than 650 years old” (all in the space of 24 hours) we’ve got a new culprit:

    It’s the insects!

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/omg-its-insects-and-more-farce-from-wuwt.html

  53. #54 bill
    June 4, 2013

    The ice that scientists have stated is hundreds of thousands of years old can be no more than a maximum of 650 years in age. Were it not so, farming would have been impossible in Greenland prior to the Little Ice Age.

    Priceless! It’s a Logic Pit of Doom…

    (Perhaps it’s an experiment to see how far you can go and still get published on WUWT. Further yet, I’ll wager.)

    How many noddies are nodding along to that one?

    Of course, those Greenland farmers were using an early version of the Oily Arctic Ice Bus to get around. It’s true; a squirrel told him.

  54. #55 bill
    June 4, 2013

    Wow, noddies indeed; now they’re supporting ID.

    First, a post at WUWT denigrates the carbon-dating/lead-lead dating fiasco with real contrary evidence. Now, a post is destroying the ice core dating methodology.

    Don’t y’all realize we NEED Deep Time to support the tautology called “Darwinism?”

    What a fine wee circus your peers are running, Oily, Rudolph, Duffer,. Goosey etc.. Shameful, ain’t it?

  55. #56 BBD
    June 4, 2013

    So the Eemian was only 650 years ago? Everything we thought we knew is wrong!

    Thank God for WTFUWT keeping science on the straight and narrow.

    * * *

    Burn if encountered:
    Dahl-Jensen et al. (2013). Eemian interglacial reconstructed from a Greenland folded ice core

  56. #57 BBD
    June 4, 2013

    # 50 L_S

    Re Lawson:

    my thinktank [the GWPF] has some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists on its academic advisory board

    That is simply a lie. Lawson is usually more careful to avoid making straightforwardly dishonest statements. I think the surge of media misrepresentations, false balance, dubiously low TCR/ECS estimates etc is making the deniers and the shills and their conservative enablers over-confident.

    Meanwhile, “climate disruption” strikes in Europe. Again.

  57. #58 Wow
    June 4, 2013

    Or he’s finding out that he can get away with figurative murder right in front of everyone and that there’s no consequence, except that he gets cheered on by the crowd he’s fleecing.

  58. #59 chek
    June 4, 2013

    Given that Williwatts is a double-digit IQ moron run (according to Brer Eli) by Rog the Pielonker, is this the new level of dumbed-down-and-keep-drilling garbage that Corporate America (represented by Heartless) is signing off on now?

    You can’t get much lower than propagating bestial-level ignorance.

  59. #60 lord_sidcup
    June 4, 2013

    That is simply a lie.

    I contacted The World Tonight pointing that out and asking them to correct, but suspect my message will be ignored. You can listen to Lawson lie here:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qtl3

  60. #61 Betula
    June 4, 2013

    BBD @ 57

    “Meanwhile, “climate disruption” strikes in Europe. Again”

    That pesky climate always disrupting things…

    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/flood-wreaks-havoc-in-europe

  61. #62 Olaus Petri
    June 4, 2013

    Betula, no wonders since the global warming is at its best disrupting mode:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2013-0-07-deg-c/

    ;-)

  62. #63 GSW
    June 5, 2013

    @Olaus,

    Thanks Olaus! I was looking for the update earlier and it hadn’t appeared yet. Whatever happened to Global Warming?
    ;)

  63. #64 Craig Thomas
    June 5, 2013

    And easily led they are. Look at the mileage that Abbott has wrought simply from his “lie” meme.

    The irony being that it is Abbott who has been caught lying: as recently as last week he was caught making a flat-out lie on the subject of the electoral reform funding bill.
    http://www.news.com.au/national-news/opposition-leader-tony-abbott-backed-labor8217s-controversial-election-funding-plan/story-fncynjr2-1226653476176

  64. #65 Olaus Petri
    June 5, 2013

    It’s there allright GSW, the famous portentologist Monsieur Bonaparte has even seen the disruption first hand. Science is settled! ;-)

  65. #66 GSW
    June 5, 2013

    @Olaus,

    To be fair Olaus, he now claims he’s been misquoted and he didn’t witness anything “first hand”. Which I’m sure is disappointing to the others here. Good to hear from you Olaus!
    ;)

  66. #67 Olaus Petri
    June 5, 2013

    GSW, like Dr. Phil says:

    “No upward trend…has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried,”

    Let the force be with you GSW! ;-)

  67. #68 GSW
    June 5, 2013

    @Olaus

    Yes well again, I think in retrospect even Phil would admit that was a bit of a “Hillary”, he wasn’t in error, he simply “misspoke”.
    :)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl71Qo25T1I

  68. #69 BBD
    June 5, 2013

    Thanks Olaus! I was looking for the update earlier and it hadn’t appeared yet. Whatever happened to Global Warming?

    0- 2000m OHC update to March 2013.

    Look at the wiggly red line (3 month mean). Notice the huge jump at the end?

    You are unimaginably stupid.

  69. #70 Wow
    June 5, 2013

    Whatever happened to your brain?

    You make a claim about the trend BUT HAVE NOT SHOWN WHAT IT IS.

  70. #71 BBD
    June 5, 2013

    Betula

    1953 was an Atlantic storm and associated surge. This is another extreme precipitation event. Same thing happened in 2002. This is what happens when the hydrological cycle begins to speed up.

  71. #72 GSW
    June 5, 2013

    @BBD,

    Sorry BBD, “Whatever happened to Global Warming?” has become something of a comedy catchphrase response whenever Trenberth’s “travesty” crops up in conversation.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQlHaGhYoF0
    ;)

  72. #73 BBD
    June 5, 2013

    Still lying about Trenberth I see.

    I don’t do video links, especially not blind ones, so you will need to go to the trouble of actually writing down your point (if you have one).

    My point has been made before, but you never acknowledged it so here it is again:

    Big increase in 0 – 2000m OHC for JFM 2013. Really big (link at # 69 – just click the blue text… for once).

    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. Something in the order of 25*10^22 joules over the last half-century. At least.

    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.

    Everybody with a basic grasp of physical climatology knows that yammering on about short-term variability in the rate of surface warming is a red herring.

    Okay, I know you don’t understand any of this but that’s not the problem here. The problem is that, from a position of ignorance, you vociferously deny science that you don’t even understand.

    That’s obviously silly, so why do you do it? And equally to the point, why do you absolutely refuse to answer this question?

    There’s something really strange going on here and I think you should explain yourself now.

  73. #74 chek
    June 5, 2013

    Still lying about Trenberth I see.

    It’s all they’ve got. And it becomes some weird alternate reality for them when they come to believe their own (self) deceptions.

    Yet another rich area for Lewandowsky to investigate sometime.

  74. #75 GSW
    June 5, 2013

    @BBD,

    “There’s something really strange going on here and I think you should explain yourself now.”

    That’s just paranoia BBD. I see you’ve reverted to your comfort argument, “everyone’s a liar”(?), but you’ve said you never do that, do you?
    ;)

  75. #76 Wow
    June 5, 2013

    “I don’t do video links, especially not blind ones, so you will need to go to the trouble of actually writing down your point (if you have one).”

    His “point” was that it doesn’t matter what the link says, he can claim it says whatever the hell he likes and the rest of the slug horde will just accept it, even if you come back with a detailed list of what it contains (by pretending you’re lying about what it contains, that you’ve missed something, or that it never happened at all).

  76. #77 Wow
    June 5, 2013

    “The problem is that, from a position of ignorance, you vociferously deny science that you don’t even understand.”

    Gitters doesn’t see that as a problem.

    They’re a lying sack of crap, you see.

  77. #78 BBD
    June 5, 2013

    GSW

    Read the words.

    Especially these:

    Everybody with a basic grasp of physical climatology knows that yammering on about short-term variability in the rate of surface warming is a red herring.

    Okay, I know you don’t understand any of this but that’s not the problem here. The problem is that, from a position of ignorance, you vociferously deny science that you don’t even understand.

    That’s obviously silly, so why do you do it? And equally to the point, why do you absolutely refuse to answer this question?

    Now answer the fucking question.

  78. #79 Bernard J.
    June 5, 2013

    GSW said:

    That’s just paranoia BBD. I see you’ve reverted to your comfort argument, “everyone’s a liar”(?), but you’ve said you never do that, do you?

    You’re a fine one to talk GSW. You are a misrepresenter of the most extreme sort. Remember your last attempt to “summarise” the scientific literature? You screwed that up nicely, spreading conclusions that were at serious odds to the conclusions of the authors and their data.

    I suspect that you’re too ignorant though understand why this is the case, even after many people have explained it to you. The very act of holding an ill-informed opinion seems to tax your brain to its limit and ensure that it is too full to permit the entry of any scientific understanding.

    It’s cold comfort that phenotypes such as yours will be soon enough weeded out by natural selection.

  79. #80 FrankD
    June 5, 2013

    Oh, Sou, please tell me somebody archived that Greenland post before Willard Anthony realised it was too stupid to meet even his astonishingly low standards.

    Please…?

  80. #81 FrankD
    June 5, 2013

    BTW, here is (presumably the same) silly Hunt beating the same drum from six years ago: http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive113.htm

    “In addition, since the Greenland ice caps that they are drilling cores from didn’t exist before the Little Ice Age, how can they believe that they are taking the measure of thousands of years? The oldest ice can be no more than ~600 years old!”

  81. #82 GSW
    June 5, 2013

    @BBD

    You seem to think we’ve entered into some sort of bizarre relationship where you can issue (in your words) “f**king” demands with some expectation of compliance.

    We have not.
    ;)

  82. #83 Wow
    June 5, 2013

    “The trend is flat”?

    What sort of number is “flat”???

    Deniers are mathematically illiterate.

  83. #84 GSW
    June 5, 2013

    @Bernard

    I haven’t misrepresented anything bernard. The example you link to is your reponse to the summary of “Co2 fertilization in warm, arid areas”, which you claim is wrong because it only applies to warm, arid areas. Well Duh? There’s a clue in there somewhere for you ;)

    Anyway glad to see you are still on top form with regards to sorting wheat from chaff and arse from elbow.
    ;)

  84. #86 Lionel A
    June 5, 2013

    Meanwhile in the good ol’ USofA there is another voting scandal afoot The Idiot’s Guide to the Voting Rights Act. Anybody who has been following US politics for the last couple of decades will appreciate how Republicans have tried again and again to disenfranchise voters who may vote against them, those who have not explore Palast’s site further. I am sorry to have to put things like this but the trends are clear and have been seen many times before elsewhere in the world most notably in Germany between the two big wars of the 20th Century.

    At this time where these factors are combining partly in an attempt to avoid having messengers with uncomfortable messages, as if making life uncomfortable for all is preferable, we are also seeing a legislature full of industry place-men, or bought men (and women), scientific ignoramuses and those who purposefully distort the science.

    This needs to change for it has been going on far too long.

    Do you get that you knuckleheads here (we all know who you are) who try to deny the track record of the deniers and delayers well pinned here starting at about 3:40 in?

  85. #87 Turboblocke
    June 5, 2013

    AT the UAH site the anomaly in January was + 0.504 C, in May it was +.0.074. Eek that means the anomaly dropped 0.43 C in just 4 months. That’s over 0.1 C/ month. Surely we’ll be in an Ice Age in no time.

    Alternatively you might conclude that if you cherrypick, you can come to very stupid conclusions, can’t you?

  86. #88 Wow
    June 5, 2013

    “I haven’t misrepresented anything bernard.”

    Yes you have. He even linked to it, as have several others, but denial of reality is all you have left to cling to, isn’t it, gitter?

  87. #89 Wow
    June 5, 2013

    I think the slug horde is now solely about wasting your time, everyone.

    Wasting your time on them makes them know they’ve punished you for your message, even if only a little bit, and taken time away from productive research.

    That leaves this site really only for the promotion of their goal, really.

  88. #90 BBD
    June 5, 2013

    # 82

    We both know why you cannot answer me, fuckwit.

    You would have to admit that you know nothing and are serially wrong.

    The reasons for your illogical denial of the strong scientific consensus will include fear (denial) and perhaps the standard Republican stupidities.

    I only ask you because I *know* you cannot answer me honestly and I enjoy showing you up for the dishonest sack of shit you are.

    You richly deserve it.

  89. #91 Lionel A
    June 5, 2013

    Alternatively you might conclude that if you cherrypick, you can come to very stupid conclusions, can’t you?

    As with this prime example from the GWPF analysed by the redoubtable Tamino, although their nonsense should be recognizable for what it is, ideological propaganda (aka BS), by even the casual student.

  90. #92 Lionel A
    June 5, 2013

    Why am I not surprised that proper English is no longer taught at Universities.

    And how would you know Duff?

    But then your attitude makes clear that you do not know the context for the use of indented quotes.

  91. #93 FrankD
    June 5, 2013

    Bob – Marvellous! Thank you. It’s so much more entertaining with the addition of the comments from pseudoreality land.

  92. #94 GSW
    June 5, 2013

    @BBD

    “you up for the dishonest sack of shit you are.”

    Fair enough BBD, please keep trying. Presumably you’ll bear your continued humiliation with same good grace as you’ve shown to date, repeated accusations of “You’re a liar” aside no doubt.
    ;)

  93. #95 BBD
    June 5, 2013

    What humiliation? You are projecting. And not answering the essential question:

    – why reject science you don’t even begin to understand?

    Since you cannot find it in yourself to be honest and admit the truth, I will again fill in the blanks. You are a frightened, ill-educated, conservative who cannot cope with reality.

  94. #96 Wow
    June 5, 2013

    Like I said, the slug horde are now merely trying to waste your time.

    Respond to them for cathartic release or if you’re relaxing.

    But don’t put much effort into responding to them since they really REALLY don’t care what answers are given, they know what they want to say and they’ll damn well say it, come hell or high water (a rather appropriate saying in this case).

  95. #97 Bernard J.
    June 5, 2013

    GSW, did you or did you not say:

    As far as I am I aware, Trenberth’s work does not deal with the benefits of CO2 fertilisation of plants (aka CO2 as plant food), the subject of the paper in this case…

    There are two points worth reiterating here.

    The first is that the increase in photosynthesis described in Donohue et al does not occur so much from “CO2 as plant food” as it does from the fact that arid region plants appear to be taking the opportunity to close somewhat their stomata (compared to the situation of pre-Industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration), which results in an increased efficiency in the use of water rather than photosynthetic biochemistry being driven primarily by more CO2.

    CO2 is not “plant food” in this case so much as a selective shutter. You mischaracterised the paper.

    Secondly, your claim of “benefits” is an arbitrary one predicated on merely an inrease in photosynthesis and a non-valuation or arid ecosystems. The ecosystems present on these fringes doesn’t simply move elsewhere – there has already been much discussion here about how species can’t always just lift up their skirts and follow the climate.

    In the same vein, will it be a “benefit” when the integrated action of warming due to carbon emissions melts the Arctic sea ice and the planet’s glaciers?

    Will it be a “benefit” when the integrated action of warming due to carbon emissions dries the Amazon and turns much of the jungle cover to grassland?

    Will it be a “benefit” when the integrated action of warming due to carbon emissions moves rice-production climate to regions where it is not actually possible to grow rice? Will it be a “benefit” when the integrated action of warming due to carbon emissions results in the shifting or the loss of other present-day climatic influences that currently permit much agricultural/horticultural/forestry/fishery activity?

    Will it be a “benefit” when the integrated action of warming due to carbon emissions results in more extreme drought and flood events that destroys significant agricultural production at times when there is insufficient surplus to cope successfully? Will it be a “benefit” when these same extreme drought events result in conflict between nations attempting to secure more of their shared and limited water resources for themselves?

    Will it be a “benefit” for our children and their children when the integrated action of warming due to carbon emissions results in flooding of densely populated coastal areas?

    Will it be a “benefit” when the action of carbon emissions on ocean chemistry acidifies seawater to the extent that corals are lost, and planktonic calcifers are lost, and productive shellfish industries are lost, and whole marine ecosystems degrade and/or are lost?

    You seem to be mischaracterising (by omission) the other “benefits” of CO2…

    I stand by my comment.

  96. #98 Wow
    June 5, 2013

    Hell, it would be a “benefit” to plant and animal life if GSW were to be buried under the soil.

    Does it think this is a good thing to make happen?

  97. #99 Betula
    June 5, 2013

    BBD…

    “1953 was an Atlantic storm and associated surge. This is another extreme precipitation event. Same thing happened in 2002.”

    Ah yes, I forgot, there was no climate disruption in 1953, it was just weather back in the old days…

    I found this interesting article in the reference section of your 2002 link…
    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/news/2002/2002-08-18-wildweather.htm

    It would appear 2002 was just weather as well, according to the reference in your link….

    Oh wait, that article is wrong, the 2002 floods were actually the fault of the Americans..
    http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0912-07.htm

    Sorry about that.

  98. #100 Lionel A
    June 5, 2013

    Ah yes, I forgot, there was no climate disruption in 1953, it was just weather back in the old days…

    Betula you need to consult William Ruddiman starting with this book, as you may find “Earth’s Climate: Past and Future” a bit heavy going. That should start clearing your log-jam of ignorance.

1 2 3 12

Current ye@r *