June 2013 Open thread

More thread for you.

Comments

  1. #1 chek
    June 28, 2013

    Can we stop being as literal minded as a bucket for rhetorical effect now Betty? It’s getting really tedious.

    Betty “if a child were a denier” Betula would like nothing better than to keep the focus on him and his cartoonish projections.

  2. #2 BBD
    June 28, 2013

    I am much to blame. I know perfectly well how much deniers like to whine and play the victim. Betty’s interminable blithering was entirely predictable. Even if I’d put a great, clumsy parenthesis in the original comment saying look, y’know, it’s a metaphor, kids, this would probably still have happened.

    The laughable thing is that compared to what the public is going to do to the science-denying right and the climate clown troupe, I am a gentle zephyr.

  3. #3 chek
    June 28, 2013

    Well, it’s not like the issue is an honest difference of opinion, it actually is co-ordinated lying and cheating for personal profit.

    Personally, I’d think it will produce a backlash similar to the current public love for the financier class.

  4. #4 bill
    a little to the left and down a bit
    June 29, 2013

    Leaving aside the ongoing unreality show that is Batty’s personal meltdown, this is genuinely interesting.

    As is this.

    Any further word on David Rose and that graphic?

    Also, as a community service, here’s the html for blockquotes again.

    <blockquote>don’t mention it!</blockquote>

    gives

    don’t mention it!

  5. #5 Jp
    June 29, 2013

    To all the deniers running with the “CO2 is plant food” meme, it looks as if increased CO2 is not going to be of much benefit to trees dying of heat stress and drier conditions, which is happening on the west coast of Australia and other parts of the world. I note that the Amazon is getting drier as well. Big worry.

    As for the east coast of Australia, where they’ve had 3 major floods in the last 4 years, I don’t know how that’s affecting the health of the vegetation there. Considering that previous to the floods there was a 10 year drought, if there is any benefit it might only be temporary until drought conditions return. Maybe Jeff would like to comment.

    _______________________________________

    NARRATION
    The Rocky Mountains of North America – home to some of the most beautiful, pristine forests in the world. But the shades of burnt golden reds aren’t the changing tones of Autumn; they’re dead and dying trees. 

    Dr Craig Allen
    We’re looking at tree mortality over a scale of tens of millions of hectares in the last decade alone. 

    NARRATION
    In fact, right across the globe, there are reports of trees dying in mass numbers. 

    Anja Taylor
    From Europe, from Africa, even right across the Amazon, and right here in Australia. 

    NARRATION
    Here in the Perth hills, trees have been dropping by the tens of thousands. Inside their carcasses are thriving parasites. 

    Dr George Matusick
    So this is a larvae, a late instar larvae. 

    Anja Taylor
    Oh, he’s alive and well. 

    NARRATION
    These Long Horned borers have been feasting on the live wood of Jarrah and Marri, the two dominant eucalypt species in south-west Western Australia. The insect is a native, and until recently, wasn’t a problem. 

    Dr George Matusick
    The numbers are scary. Where we might have seen one, maybe two per square metre, now we’re seeing fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty. We’ve seen even as high as one hundred. So be one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve. 

    Anja Taylor
    Twelve larvae came off that one little spot?

    Dr George Matusick
    Yeah, that one spot where the eggs were laid. And they get larger as they go away.

    Anja Taylor
    What, because the larvae’s actually grown in size as they plough through the wood. 

    Dr George Matusick
    Yeah … yep.

    Anja Taylor
    And this has had it?

    Dr George Matusick
    This is dead, yeah. 

    NARRATION
    But don’t blame the borers. Unable to penetrate the moist wood of healthy trees, these insects are simply opportunists. 

    Dr George Matusick
    We don’t really know how it acts normally, but we suspect that it goes into dying and dead trees. 

    NARRATION
    Last summer provided an ideal feeding ground. 

    Anja Taylor
    This big eucalypt took hundreds of years to grow. And died in just a couple of weeks. 

    NARRATION
    In fact nearly every tree you see here, died suddenly and at the same time. 

    Prof Giles Hardy
    Last summer was the hottest, driest period on record, and we had some hundred and twenty-two days with no rain, we had weeks with over forty-two degrees, and we started to see large areas just collapsing and dying. So we took an aeroplane up and it was amazing to see the extent of the yellowing and purpling and the numbers of trees that were dead. In the Perth hills, we lost approximately twenty-thousand hectares of trees. 

    NARRATION
    Sadly, it’s not just a one-off extreme event. Since the 1990s, trees of many different species have been declining across south-west Western Australia. Along the highways, thousands of Marri Trees are in blossom. They look healthy from a distance, but step a little closer, and you’ll find they are marked for death. 

    Prof Giles Hardy
    Okay, so this a very good example of a typical canker in Marri.

    Anja Taylor
    Wow, that’s a really sick tree, isn’t it?

    Prof Giles Hardy
    Yes. The first things we look for is the red kino vein, the bleeding, and the way the bark is lifting away off the main stem. 

    NARRATION
    The canker is the tree’s reaction to a deadly fungus, which the eucalypt tries to wall off by surrounding it with a callus. Eventually though, the pathogen wins. 

    Anja Taylor
    If a Marri gets a canker like that, does it mean it will definitely die?

    Prof Giles Hardy
    Yes, this tree is definitely going to die between now and three or four years’ time. 

    Anja Taylor
    If you take a short walk along this highway, you see that Marri has a canker, that one has a canker, that one. In fact, most of the Marri trees here have cankers. That means that in ten years or so, this whole place will be unrecognisable. 

    Prof Giles Hardy
    The canker problem is probably the most severe thing that’s happening in our forests at the moment. We’ve never seen it causing these levels of deaths, and now it is. So something has changed. 

    NARRATION
    Something has changed too, for the Tuart trees. At Lake Clifton, south of Perth, their twisted skeletons rise through the peppermint groves. These ones died in the 1990s. In other areas, they are failing to fruit, and the species’ seed bank is drastically declining.

    Prof Giles Hardy
    Again, we don’t fully understand what’s driving these declines, but in some areas we’re losing a hundred per cent of the trees. 

    NARRATION
    Despite many different ailments, there is one obvious common stressor that could explain why so many trees are dying. They are facing higher temperatures with less water. The south-west of Western Australia has lost fifteen per cent of its rainfall in the past few decades. Average temperatures have increased by just over half a degree Celsius. Heatwaves have become longer, more frequent, and more intense. 

    Prof Giles Hardy
    We haven’t seen such scale of damage in the last fifty, sixty years, probably in recorded history. 

    Dr George Matusick
    These are some of, if not the toughest trees I’ve ever seen. Now we’re seeing conditions that are going outside their ability to cope. 

    NARRATION
    US forest ecologist Dr Craig Allen sees the situation in WA as typical of the trends being observed elsewhere in the world. He’s documented over a hundred examples of large-scale tree deaths in the past twenty-five years. 

    Dr Craig Allen
    We see all around the world in places where there have been droughts, that drought – particularly droughts and heatwaves – trigger mass waves of mortality. No major forest type is immune. 

    NARRATION
    Across the western US, tree death rate have more than doubled in the past few decades. 

    Dr Craig Allen
    Where I work in northern New Mexico, we see everything from grasses and shrubs to trees dying. 

    NARRATION
    Die-off events are quick and dramatic. 

    Dr Craig Allen
    There may be insects and fungal pests that emerge at that point in time, but underlying it is the physiological stress on the trees that compromises their defences. You could think of it actually sort of like HIV in humans. HIV doesn’t directly kill people, but by compromising our immune systems, it makes us vulnerable to secondary ah, you know, viruses and other things that can kill us. It’s similar in trees. 

    NARRATION
    The effect climate change may have on our forests is a huge concern. But an even greater worry – how will dying trees affect the climate? In 2005, the heart of the world’s biggest rainforest suffered a drought so hot and severe it turned the Amazon jungle from a carbon sink to a carbon source. A second once-in-a-century drought happened five years later. 

    Dr Craig Allen
    So what we’re seeing in these forest die-off events around the world are trees passing the tipping point of stress – the thresholds of mortality. Unfortunately we don’t know very much about these thresholds at this point. 

    NARRATION
    To better understand tree tipping points, Dr Martin Bader is monitoring several major Western Australian species. This drought-stressed Jarrah has instruments placed from the trunk to the outer leaves to measure how water is used across the tree. 

    Dr Martin Bader
    Okay, this is the canopy, this is where the tree loses most of its water, because the leaves are fully exposed to the sun. 

    NARRATION
    Leaves lose water via tiny holes called stomata. These need to be open to draw in carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. But if too much water is lost, the trees can shut down their stomata. 

    Dr Martin Bader
    We came out on a forty-degree day and did our measurements, and realised that shortly after nine o’clock, the tree basically shut down, because at that time of the day, there was only a small opportunity where the tree could actually photosynthesise. So it can’t basically eat. 

    NARRATION
    The tree avoids dying of thirst, but then begins to starve. Martin had measurements on a Banksia that died just a few months ago. 

    Dr Martin Bader
    Any time of day was over thirty degrees, the tree ran into pretty high stress levels, and then we had a couple of days consecutively over thirty, thirty-two degrees, and it was just too much, apparently. That tipped the tree over. Sixty or seventy per cent of the Banksias died last summer. 

    Anja Taylor
    Sixty to seventy per cent in this woodland?

    Dr Martin Bader
    Yeah, yeah. The Sheoaks, apparently last year we thought they died as well, but as you can see they are all, or most of them are sprouting.

    Anja Taylor
    Yeah, they’ve got re-sprouts. And so do the Banksias come back?

    Dr Martin Bader
    No, the Banksias are, are all dead, they’re gone for good. 

    NARRATION
    Almost overnight, this Banksia dominated woodland has shifted to one with mainly Sheoaks. The implications for nectar-loving birds, insects and mammals are profound. With climate change certain to intensify over the coming years, is there anything at all that can be done? There’s good evidence trees can be protected with booster-shots. This one’s a fungicide. 

    Prof Giles Hardy
    And the tree is transpiring, and the chemical is taken up into the, into the sap flow. 

    Anja Taylor
    This little capsule contains nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium and trace elements – all the nutrients a tree needs. Very good with a mallet. Good luck. 

    Prof Giles Hardy
    Sometimes we see the response within six weeks. The leaves can change colour from a yellow to a nice bright healthy green. 

    Anja Taylor
    And you can save a tree like this. 

    Prof Giles Hardy
    And you can save a tree. 

    Anja Taylor
    Which looks like it’s almost dead. 

    NARRATION
    It could be a savior for parks, gardens and golf courses, but ultimately injecting all the trees in the world is just not an option. Eventually climate will have the last say. 

    Dr Craig Allen
    What’s most alarming is that these die-off events may be just the tip of the iceberg. We know that warming, temperatures exacerbate tree mortality, and the climate predictions are that the world is going to get much warmer soon. Um, so we may be just at the very front edge of what could be wholesale mortality of the world’s forests – the forests that we know and care about today.

    Pasted from

  6. #6 freddy
    June 29, 2013

    jp baby: trees need water. if water is lacking then it is dry

    i hope this was not too complex for your small brain

  7. #7 freddy
    June 29, 2013

    lesson to all cagw fraudulents:

    when sun rays reach the surface (land, water) the surface will be warmed

  8. #8 Sou
    June 29, 2013

    Perhaps someone will check this and tell me if I’m right or wrong. I think I’m right and Willis is wrong but I could be wrong :D

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/wondering-willis-eschenbach-wonders.html

  9. #9 Lotharsson
    June 29, 2013

    I don’t know what’s more amusing: freddy ignoring more complete (and necessarily more complex) explanations in favour of his simplistic observations, or freddy’s condescension when making “points” that everyone else already understands. He’s a DKE exemplar on steroids – or a very successful Poe.

  10. #10 Olaus Petri
    June 29, 2013

    The new Yamal fellas:

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/06/28/cru-abandons-yamal-superstick/#comment-424827

    Any thoughts on the matter besides foul language? ;-)

  11. #11 chek
    June 29, 2013

    Any thoughts on the matter besides foul language?

    Yes, MicIntyre’s still a paranoid AND a c*nt

    “Claims of a deceptive and biased Yamal chronology turn out to rely on outlier data that should be omitted; our new research, based on a greatly expanded dataset, supports the finding that tree-growth (and inferred summer temperature) in this region are likely greater in the last 100 years than for any previous century in the last 2000 years” – Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn, Tom Melvin

    But Monty ‘sticky’ Bishop, the conspiraloon, will always swoon at his feet.

  12. #12 Olaus Petri
    June 29, 2013

    Didn’t think so chek.

    Constant drooling fetal position iis so your only forte chek. ;-)

  13. #13 chek
    June 29, 2013

    … and inability to do anything other than swim in the conspiraloon sewers is all you can do.

    That’d be because you have no answer to Osborn, Briffa and Melvin, except your second-hand paranoid fantasies.

  14. #14 BBD
    June 29, 2013

    Olaus

    Try to understand that none of this matters. The fake controversy that SM has desperately tried to keep alive all these years is an irrelevance.

    It tells us nothing about radiative physics that we don’t already know (eg that CO2 is a long-lived, non-condensing GHG and a moderately efficacious forcing). It tells us nothing about millennial climate behaviour that we don’t already have a pretty good picture of. It tells us nothing about climate sensitivity and nothing about C20th climate behaviour except that it is – apparently – rather unusual.

    It is a distraction. A misdirection. A means of creating smoke *without* a fire. A tactical diversion that also serves as an endless implied smear of climate science as a whole, even though it is utterly irrelevant (see above).

    You are apparently desperately naive. I get the sense you have never had to operate in a hardcore business environment. You have no apparent awareness of the games people play and they way they are played.

    You aren’t intellectually or experientially equipped for what willard calls “Climateball”. So you have become the played, rather than the player.

    * * *
    As if it mattered, Briffa et al. just buried McIntyre’s nonsense. Read the RC link check provides at # 8. Make an effort for once.

  15. #15 BBD
    June 29, 2013

    Fred-fred sez:

    when sun rays reach the surface (land, water) the surface will be warmed

    … and begin to radiate in the infra-red. This outgoing IR is absorbed and re-radiated by certain types of molecule in the atmospheric mix. These are commonly known as “greenhouse gasses”.

    As the atmospheric fraction of well-mixed GHGs increases, the absorption and re-radiation of IR continues at higher altitudes – altitudes where previously most IR was radiating out of the planetary atmosphere into space.

    The decreasing temperature with altitude *decreases* the efficiency with which the radiating upper atmosphere actually emits radiation to space. This is what is meant when we say GHGs increase the altitude of effective emission.

    The reduced efficiency in the radiation of energy from the planetary atmosphere into space causes a radiative imbalance to develop.

    For radiative balance to be restored, the entire climate system must heat up until the radiating upper atmosphere is warm enough to counterbalance the effect of its increased altitude.

    This is commonly known as “global warming” or AGW, as it is caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 – long known to be a greenhouse gas.

    :-)

  16. #16 Olaus Petri
    June 29, 2013

    Dendrohyperclimatism “isn’t radiative physics”, BBD says. :-D Correct, it is, or was, crap, now even confirmed by Briffa.

    :-)

  17. #17 chek
    June 29, 2013

    Olap, if I need the opinion of an intellectual vegetable, I’ll ask the veggie directly. As Briffa, Osborn and Melvin will confirm, at least the vegetable kingdom give honest answers.

    Your opinions, while long known to be of a similar calibre, suffer the additional handicap of being renowned for dishonesty, so you’ll need a reference to make it even register on the radar. And as you can’t, it won’t.

  18. #18 Bernard J.
    June 29, 2013

    Betula said:

    You can’t generalize a plants response on paper. Look at the plant structure, the species, the location, the soil structure, the competition, the maturity, the micro environment, the overall health.

    Two points.

    First, it is entirely possible to “generalise” in the context of my questions. Let’s start with the first question:

    What happens directly to roots that are too wet?

    Anyone who had done even first year of a horticultural certificate would know that the roots of plants that are exposed to excessive water have reduced or absent oxygen up-take, and as most plants are generally (oo, that word!) not able to function without some gaseous oxygen in the immediate vicinity of their roots they suffer adverse reactions. An excessively wet root zone also promotes the growth of pathogenic fungi such as Armillaria, Phytophthora, Pythium, and Rhizoctonia.

    Together these two sequelæ can cause “damping off” or root rot in many grasses, herbs, shrubs and trees. One doesn’t need to be specific in this – it is a general response seen in many species as a consequence of exposure to too much water.

    Which is the whole point – too much of a good thing is not necessarily good.

    The same valid generalisation approach can be applied to each of the subsequent questions, making the same overall point – more water is not necessarily better. It’s quite revealing that you balked and gagged on conceding this.

    Of course generality aside I have never said that plant growth responses are not complex – and indeed this has been my point and Jeff’s and BBD’s and Lotharsson’s and others’ the whole time! Your quote could as easily have been:

    You can’t generalize a plants [sic] response to increased carbon dioxide on paper. Look at the plant structure, the species, the location, the soil structure, the competition, the maturity, the micro environment, the overall health.

    See? That has been our point all along.

    You have been attempting to smooth over the effects of climate change with comments such as:

    CO2 fertilization isn’t as insignificant as [BBD] and [Jeff] would have us believe…

    and

    The effect of CO2 fertilization is unknown….so how can it be insignificant if you don’t know?

    which are both misrepresentations of what’s been said by many commentators here. Everyone acknowledges that increased carbon dioxide can enhance plant growth rates under optimal conditions – it’s been said countless times by myself and many, many others, and with much reference to hothouses and Gaussian distributions of growth cofactors and Sprengel’s (aka Liebig’s) Law.

    And it’s inaccurate to say that the “effect of CO2 fertilization is unknown”. Its effect is known – and its confounding by those cofactors is well understood in some cases and not so well in others. Enough is know however to infer that many places on the planet will receive such altered bioclimatic conditions that the increase in CO2 will not offset the damage caused by climate change, and indeed may exacerbate it – as has been observed in contexts where lowered nitrogen content occurring in plants subjected to in high CO2 growth results in increased rates of herbivory as pests attempt to acquire the nitrogen they need.

    You have been attempting to play up the benefit of one aspect of carbon dioxide emissions Betula, whilst cavalierly dismissing or just completely ignoring the many other complex (to use a word that you use yourself) factors involved. These complexities are better understood than you make out, and the consequences are not as rosy for many species and many ecosystem functions on which humans rely.

    Of course, if you have evidence to the contrary, you could blow us out of the water by listing the areas of human endeavour and in ecosystem function where there will be a better, braver new CO2-laden world.

    You are stuck in academia….just as I predicted, with “stunning accuracy”

    Oh, you predicted it did you? The problem for you is that I am not in fact “stuck in academia” but I am stuck with the inconvenient (for you) habit of relying on the best science and the weight of empirical evidence.

    You remind me of some of the fishing industry lobbyists with whom some of my colleagues locked horns in the late 80s and early 90s. Even within the year before the ’92 moratorium on cod fishing these industry shills were wingeing about “academics” who were trying to tell them that the industry estimations were way off beam… except it turned out that the independent population biologists were right and the fishing lackies were wrong – so wrong that when the Canadian government stepped in at the 13th hour the North Altalntic fishery was completely FUBARed and the the industry had shot itself in both feet and through the head for good measure.

    It’s the same with ecology and climatology today. Your impression of the cliché garret-cloistered, “academic” don is a far cry from the bloody hard-working field researchers who spent years of their lives in often extreme environments, in direct, intimate contact with their subject material and with the non-scientific people who work in the area. The three biggest issues with scientific knowledge that I’ve seen are:

    1) journalists who spin it for a story rather than teasing out the facts,
    2) bureaucrats who mangle it for political ends, and
    3) ignorant non-scientists who presume that they know better and come up with the sort of nonsense peddled by YE creationists, anti-vaxxers and climate change denialists.

    Now, if you were to come work for me, with your arrogant attitude, seething with ideology and over generalizations, I would fire you “immediately and with no recourse to appeal, with no hesitation”.

    Betula, I wouldn’t make the mistake of ever seeking in the first place employment with a Dunningly-Krugered anti-intellectual who confuses ideology (to which they are ironically prone themselves) with objective assessment of the best outputs of the scientific method. I don’t give a shit for people who regard themselves as Boss Hogs bestowing on their slave class the privilege of being an employee – all I care about is that the people that I work for and with know how to use their brains.

    It was numpties like you who thought that their “professional” expertise informed them that it was fine to continue throwing their cod nets over the sides of their boats in spite of what the “academics” said – and those numpties are the sort of boss that the world is better off without.

    It’s certainly not the sort of employer for whom I’d waste my time working.

  19. #19 BBD
    June 29, 2013

    Thanks, again, to Bernard J. for taking the time to review the fertilisation blether on this thread and summarise what is correct, and what is not.

    Bernard J, like Jeff Harvey, brings expert knowledge to the table. I have no doubt that many here are grateful for the opportunity to learn something.

  20. #20 BBD
    June 29, 2013

    O’louse, you are spamming the thread with pointless crap about Yamal.

    Please read # 11 again. Try to understand what the words actually mean.

    Then feel free to select a topic which actually matters. Fake controversies confected by denialists over the detailed interpretation of dendro proxies in millennial climate reconstructions is so… yesterday.

    Being boring is one of the worst conversation crimes, you know. However, being flat-out misleading is also frowned upon. Do, please, read the Briffa et al. article at RC. Briffa and colleagues are more reliable sources of information than SM.

  21. #21 BBD
    June 29, 2013

    Sorry, I missed the link to the RC article by Briffa and colleagues:

    Yamal and Polar Urals – a research update

  22. #22 Olaus Petri
    June 29, 2013

    Ya-malpractice = Catastrophic Mannmade global warming. ;-)

    Deal with it. :-)

  23. #23 BBD
    June 29, 2013

    Olaus

    Umm, no. See explanation as to why this is nonsense at # 11

  24. #24 chek
    June 29, 2013

    “Deal with it.”

    Already done, by the professionals who do the work.
    What YOU have to deal with is your misplaced faith in a vain, self-appointed, idiot-paranoid like McIntyre.

  25. #25 BBD
    June 29, 2013

    We could simply delete the entire dendro proxy “debate” and it would make exactly no difference to the laws of physics.

    So why do contrarians argue about it with such obsessive tenacity?

    One day, I’ll puzzle this out…

    :-)

  26. #26 Betula
    June 29, 2013

    “You will be metaphorically beaten in the streets of public opinion”

    Realizing he exposed himself for who he really is…BDud now changes his tune. The beating has now turned into a metaphor beating…

    Dud…will you metaphorically not lift a fucking finger to stop it?

  27. #27 Olaus Petri
    June 29, 2013

    Dendrotruth with some help from Steve M good news, isn’t it? Cheer up, will ya(mal). ;-)

    By the way, there seems to be a scale problem regarding the Aussie hottie:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/australias-angry-hot-summer-was-hot-angry-hype-satellites-show-it-was-average/

    ;-)

  28. #28 chek
    June 29, 2013

    Betty finally catches on, and it only took mere days.

    Meanwhile Olap continues his swim in his favourite sewers of fuckwittery authored by know-nothing nobodies.

  29. #29 BBD
    June 29, 2013

    Dud…will you metaphorically not lift a fucking finger to stop it?

    Nope!

  30. #30 BBD
    June 29, 2013

    Realizing he exposed himself for who he really is…BDud now changes his tune.

    Not at all.

    Deniers in general are being given shorter shrift, but not nearly short enough. The public lacks insight into just how dishonest, self-serving and vile this behaviour is. If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it.

  31. #31 chek
    June 29, 2013

    Oops, sorry folks I seem to have fucked up the second paragraph of #25 which should have read:
    “Meanwhile Olap continues his swim in his favourite sewers of fuckwittery authored by know-nothing nobodies honking on about that of which they know nothing
    Compare the abstract with Codling’s attempted spin:
    “Anthropogenic contributions to the record hot 2013 Australian summer are investigated using a suite of climate model experiments. This was the hottest Australian summer in the observational record. Australian area-average summer temperatures for simulations with natural forcings only were compared to simulations with anthropogenic and natural forcings for the period 1976–2005 and the RCP8.5 high emission simulation (2006–2020) from nine CMIP5 models. Using fraction of attributable risk to compare the likelihood of extreme Australian summer temperatures between the experiments, it was very likely (>90% confidence) there was at least a 2.5 times increase in the odds of extreme heat due to human influences using simulations to 2005, and a five-fold increase in this risk using simulations for 2006–2020. The human contribution to the increased odds of Australian summer extremes like 2013 was substantial, while natural climate variations alone, including El Niño Southern Oscillation, are unlikely to explain the record temperature.

    Ever wonder why you and your like-minded crew sit in that hard-to-attain spot between contempt and being a pitiful joke Olap? Well, hopefully that clarifies it.

  32. #32 Betula
    June 29, 2013

    BDud..

    Then it is confirmed. You are a sadistic, sick fuck who condones and wishes to watch the beating of anyone, regardless of age, race or sex as long as your delusions convince you that their thoughts may harm you.

    Metaphorically speaking of course.

  33. #33 chek
    June 29, 2013

    Oh, and I should add – because Olap and the Scandinavian troll collective farm really ARE that stupid – that satellites don’t measure surface temperature.

    Apologies for stating information redundantly obvious to the regulars here, but the Scandinavian troll collective farm clowns really do know less than zero.

  34. #34 chek
    June 29, 2013

    Predictably, (and oh, how very much you wish they could avoid the dullness of that inevitability) Betty wanks himself up into a full prissy victim froth. How very and comedically October 2010 (10:10).

  35. #35 BBD
    June 29, 2013

    Bettty-John, sayin’ it don’t make it so.

    But don’t let that stop you!

    :-)

  36. #36 bill
    June 29, 2013

    Hey, Batty, could you point out any of your condemnations of James ‘Not Enough Bullets’ Delingpole? Points will be awarded for sententiousness. Ta.

    An, the pathetic tragedy that is Oily – he really, truly seems to imagine he has a point! These brains really must be studied by science…

  37. #37 Bernard J.
    June 30, 2013

    Chek at #31.

    It’s not just that the Scandinavian Troll Collective is that stupid – it’s that it’s even more stupid.

    They were reminded only a few days ago of the fact of satellites being a temperature proxy, so you’d think that they would have approached any science mangling from Joanne Codling with a truck-load of hypercautious scepticism. Some people just can’t take a hint.

    And by the way, isn’t it cute that they like the satellite proxy, with it’s long and sorry tale of embarrassing gaffs and failures and hefty corrections, but they don’t accept other proxies which are far better callibrated, procedurally straightforward and demonstrably reliable?

    What’s with that, eh?

  38. #38 Bernard J.
    June 30, 2013

    It’s a sad indictment on the recalcitrant stupidity of the Denialatus brain that they studiously ignore the point that the dendrochronology proxies are independently confirmed by at least five other proxies.

    Remember back in February this year when I drew this to the attention of one Brad Keyes* and he jumped about and skirted and hedged and blathered and generally ignored the inconvenient fact of tree rings being confirmed by these other proxies? It seems that they have the intellectual*equivalent of Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses when it comes to having truth laid out before them.

    Those readers who did not catch the February bruhaha should consider reading it for a page or so from the link in the preceding paragraph. Oloaus Petri’s, freddy’s, Betula’s et at behaviour here uncannily mimics Keyes’ dodging and weaving around uncomfortable fact, and around some of the subsequent points I make about the Aono data. The data themselves are quite interesting, and the temperature reconstruction is exquisitely simple and robst.

    [*I use the word advisedly]

    [**Caution people - mentioning his name twice more may invoke the Beetlejuice effect...]

  39. #39 Bernard J.
    June 30, 2013

    …robust…

  40. #40 Bernard J.
    June 30, 2013

    Heh, I was wondering what might have caused this latest bout of “CO2 good” nonsense, and it seems that Joanne Codling has had a hand in that too.

    The poster “Dead agrostologists society” counters with the same arguments raised here, and raises some interesting confounders to boot.

    The congregation there hasn’t figured out that the organist has collapsed, and they’re still singing the first verse of their hymn – over and over.

  41. #41 bill
    June 30, 2013

    Wow, that ‘DAS’ poster really wipes the floor with them! They seem genuinely lost as to what to do…

    (It’s a notable feature that to the denier mind all ecosystems are the same, aren’t they, so here’s this cherry-picked snippet from a forest or a lab I’m tossing in even though that’s not the frickin’ landscape under discussion. Just like here! And Spangly dips an oar in!)

    Did you notice another agrostologist – that’s the thing I’ve learned for today – popped up to say he was going to make the same points?

    I’ll explain it for the Hard-of-Thinking: yet again, if the people who actually know what they’re talking about appear, your simplistic sloganeering – in this case ‘CO2 is plant food’ – dies an exquisite and humiliating death.

    (That’s a metaphor again, Batty; don’t get excited! Still waiting on that condemnation of The Egregious Delingpole…)

  42. #42 chameleon
    June 30, 2013

    Good grief deltoids!
    Come back a week later and discover such a sad place :-(
    And no doubt. . . because even the moderators must be depressed. . . I will ‘languish’ in moderation for quite some time.
    A question. . . can you see a pattern developing here? ? ?

  43. #43 chameleon
    June 30, 2013

    Yep :-)
    For absolutely no reason. . . still awaiting moderation.

  44. #44 Rednose
    UK
    June 30, 2013

    Dead agrostologists society” counters with the same arguments raised here

    Is that the “ad hominem”
    “patronising and kindergarten way of speaking”
    “unable to post any argument or referewnce to support claims”
    “hand waving own opinion and filler”

    Do you mean these same arguments?

  45. #45 BBD
    June 30, 2013

    No, it’s substantive commentary by eg Jeff Harvey, Bernard J. both bringing expert knowledge to the table.

    Read the thread before posting any more stupid shite like this.

    Thanks!

  46. #46 bill
    June 30, 2013

    Yeah, I know, all that sciencey shit about landscape categories and complex causation and C3s and C4s is hard, isn’t it, Rudolph? So you just let all that go through in the usual blur until you found something you could react to. You poor little victim you!

    Boring. Next.

  47. #47 BBD
    June 30, 2013

    And so the chum swirls, round and round. This week, the (re)turn of the CO2 is plant food misrepresentation. Next week the stinking carcass of some other long-dead misrepresentation will be ladled up for the delectation of Teh Stupid.

    And they can’t even see it for what it is.

  48. #48 chek
    June 30, 2013

    Y’see Redarse, while there are politically motivated groups (your kind of people!) quite content to mangle reality by proxy to further their aims (and the reality proxy here is science) by definition they’re creating a cloud-cuckoo, la-la land.

    This is a modern phenomenon coincident with the rise of the zealots of neo-liberalist radicalism who actually or cynically – it really doesn’t matter which – believe the Rovian philosophy of creating realities to suit political agenda who have hi-jacked old-school conservatism. By old school I’m referring of course to pre Reagan-Thatcher times. The hated-by-wingnuts Jim Hansen is a conservative, as are other leading climatologists such as Kerry Emanuel.

    Needless to say, denying reality or placing its demands in other than primary consideration is a loser’s game which can never end well. Think the last days of Berlin’45 as a good example of wingnuts attempting to defy the inevitable through willpower alone regardless of the needless and avoidable mass misery caused even in that short period.
    Oh and fuck Godwin

    As with pregnancy, you’re either rational or you’re not. It’s not something you switch off according to mood or circumstance.
    Best you stick to your false equivalences and propaganda sites, it’s obviously what you’re more comfortable with. For now.

  49. #49 Betula
    June 30, 2013

    Sadistic-Because-your thoughts are harming me-Dud.”

    “Bernard J, like Jeff Harvey, brings expert knowledge to the table. I have no doubt that many here are grateful for the opportunity to learn something”

    SBD – I think you have some chocolate cake on your nose….oh shit!

  50. #50 Rednose
    UK
    June 30, 2013

    #41-43

    Patronising way of speaking
    Hand waving
    Own opinion
    Filler.

    Q.E.D.

  51. #51 Jeff Harvey
    June 30, 2013

    Its too bad the Betula’s understanding of ecological complexity is at the level of a primary school student. Bernard and I have demolished ever mute point he has raised, but he STILL comes back with more vacuous remarks.

    The problem is, in true Dunning-Kruger fashion, Betula THINKS he is an expert in areas he knows very little about and about. He clearly does not read the primary literature, and instead appears to glean his ‘expertise’ from sites like the GWPF or, even more absurdly, Lubos Motl’s blog. He also thinks being a forester, and having a BS degree in forestry, confers immense wisdom in fields he has never studies and in which he does not publish.

    All that is left is for him to once again try and smear me with flippant remarks about a winter trip I made to a Park in Ontario more than a year ago. He has nothing os substance to say; he cannot with any kind of depth respond to the points Benrard and I made about the ecological and physiological consequences of increasing atmospheric concentrations of C02. And that is because our points are way over his head. What does Betula know about plant allelochemistry? the nutritional ecology of consumers up the food chain? About environmental stoichiometry? Has he ever read any of the important primary scientific literature in the field? For instance Rick Lindroth’s research as well as that of many other scientists?

  52. #52 Jeff Harvey
    June 30, 2013

    One thing is certain though: Betula does not give up. Either he is desperate to have the last word or else he thinks he is ‘winning’ here. Given that most of the other deniers have abandoned him, he must be pretty thick if he thinks the latter.

  53. #53 chek
    June 30, 2013

    #45 – The sure way to tell Redarse is when the pseudo-scientists come out to play. That’s the constituency you’ve chosen – cranks and pseuds.

  54. #54 BBD
    June 30, 2013

    # 44 Betty-John

    You aren’t even convincing yourself any more, let alone anyone else.

  55. #55 BBD
    June 30, 2013

    Can anyone else here a sort of whining noise in here, or is it just me?

    There it is again! A thin, irritating whining like someone playing the victim for rhetorical effect. Seems to get louder as I approach #39 and #45.

    Most strange…

  56. #56 Betula
    June 30, 2013

    Sadistic – Because Your Thoughts Are Harming Me – Dud…

    “Can anyone else here a sort of whining noise in here, or is it just me?”

    It’s you. Your nostrils are filled with “cake”.

  57. #57 chek
    June 30, 2013

    Betty – taking a break from indoctrinating his cadre of denier children – whined about ‘thoughts’.

    Nobody cares about the third hand ignorance that constitutes the thoughts of deniers Betty. Otherwise we’d be forever mired in the petty small-minded vendettas that you for instance engage in.

    Try something coherent (in the real world that is, not just whatever passes muster between your ears) next time.

  58. #58 BBD
    June 30, 2013

    It’s interesting watching Betty-John’s lies evolve over time. This is where we are now:

    Then it is confirmed. You are a sadistic, sick fuck who condones and wishes to watch the beating of anyone, regardless of age, race or sex as long as your delusions convince you that their thoughts may harm you.

    Below are the original comments which provoked all the lying, misreprsentation, whining and playing the victim. Compare Betty’s vindictive smear above with what was actually said:

    Page 9 #20

    - You [Betty-John Birch] have no basis for your claims

    – You lack the expertise to make them

    – You are simply *misrepresenting* the consequences of warming for selfish political reasons

    – This makes you an enemy of mankind.

    Deniers in general are being given shorter shrift, but not nearly short enough. The public lacks insight into just how dishonest, self-serving and vile this behaviour is. If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it.

    Later:

    Page 9 #53

    I am simply getting angrier and angrier with the stupid amorality of denialism. The absence of any recognition by vocal science deniers like Betty that they are simply shilling for vested corporate and political interests that will, eventually, bugger up the planet.

    The sheer unacceptability of this behaviour is not sufficiently emphasised in public debate. Deniers have, to some extent, managed to normalise their shilling and lies simply by persistent repetition. Given the potential consequences, this should not be tolerated.

    Deniers should be asked the same basic questions:

    – what relevant expertise do you have to deny the validity of the scientific consensus on AGW?

    – demonstrate a robust scientific counter-argument that substantively challenges the scientific consensus on AGW

    If they have no expertise and no scientific argument (eg John Birch, serially, above), then it’s time to point out that they are politicised, lying, self-serving vermin whose actions threaten the future of our children and their descendants.

    It’s hard not to conclude that Betty-John’s cameo of me is rather… distorted. In fact it’s hard not to conclude that our Betty is being somewhat dishonest :-)

  59. #59 BBD
    June 30, 2013

    Also amusing that reminding Betty that the credentialled experts commenting here think he’s an ignorant buffoon provokes accusations of devotional anulingus…

  60. #60 freddy
    June 30, 2013

    climate fuckwits

    the next lesson for you ignorants in decent scence:

    LEARN TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS, YOU ASSHOLES!!!!!!!!!

    YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS: ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 WARMS THE ATMOSPHERE AS MEASURED 2M ABOVE THE SURFACE BY THERMOMETER READINGS

    THIS HYPOTHESIS HAS SO FAR NEVER BEEN VERIFIED OR FALSIFIED!!!!!!!

    HOWEVER, YOU BOLLOCKS MONGERS BEHAVE AS IF IT HAS BEEN VERIFIED, ARSELCKS, STINKING FROM SHIT

    YOU BETRAY THE WHOLE WORLD AND YOU INFLICT INCREDIBLE DAMAGE ON HUMANITY!!!!!!

    MORONS!!!!!!!! FUCKWITS!!!!!!!!

  61. #61 BBD
    June 30, 2013

    Freddy

    You can deny the laws of physics which demonstrably do produce a “greenhouse effect” and have always done so.

    You can deny that known paleoclimate behaviour is inexplicable without accounting for the radiative properties of the atmosphere.

    You can be a self-parody of all-caps and spittle until your ears fall off, but it won’t change anything.

  62. #62 Betula
    June 30, 2013

    Berntard @ 15….

    “Together these two sequelæ can cause “damping off” or root rot in many grasses, herbs, shrubs and trees.”

    I’m sure my words at #74 were just an oversight on your part: “Depending on species, tolerance and susceptibility. Overall. too much water creates a habitat for many fungi….root rots, leaf spots, anthracnose etc”

    You state…”One doesn’t need to be specific in this – it is a general response seen in many species as a consequence of exposure to too much water”

    Maybe not, if you’re sitting in a stuffy office or classroom all day, however, if you are in the field all day diagnosing and problem solving, then yes, you have to be specific.

    Have you ever been involved with a wetland renovation project Berntard? Other than on paper of course…

    Have you ever treated a tree for Phytophthora? Phomopsis? Borers? Other than in the classroom of course…

    So your shocking point is, too much of a needed thing, say water, could be detrimental….generally speaking.

    You use this as a comparison to CO2, where, generally speaking, too much CO2 is not necessarily better…(or worse).

    Here’s where you are wrong. I never said CO2 fertilization was a good thing, or a bad thing, yet somehow it is you who claim there are “misrepresentations of what’s been said”

    Is this how you run your classes, misrepresenting what you claim was misrepresented?

    You claim I “have been attempting to smooth over the effects of climate change with comments such as:”
    CO2 fertilization isn’t as insignificant as [BBD] and [Jeff] would have us believe.

    And you call it a misrepresentation.

    Yet, here is B-Dud at #72 pg 7…
    “CO2 fertilisation is a fucking irrelevance compared to the effects of abrupt climate change on plant physiology and global agricultural productivity.”

    Well Berntard, “sayin’ it don’t make it so”…… (BDud @ 32)

    Wanting it to be irrelevant (or insignificant), without truly understanding it’s relevance, is a blatant misrepresentation.

    Additionally, claiming climate change will be “abrupt” and claiming to know all the effects on plant physiology and global agricultural productivity.” without knowing the relevance or specifics of all the unknown interactions is strictly picking and choosing scenarios that fit an ideological criteria.

    ..

  63. #63 Betula
    June 30, 2013

    BDud….

    “devotional anulingus”

    Yes, that’s it!

  64. #64 bill
    July 1, 2013

    Boy, Batty’s another poo-obsessed freak. You’re losing it, Sunshine. Devolving into Mike…

    (Also, Australians don’t do much treating of trees for Phytophthora – if you actually want to know why JFGI, but you don’t – and what freakin’ difference would it make to what Bernard’s saying if they did or he had? ‘You call youselves ecologists, but have you ever held a sick elm in your arms and comforted it as it lay dying?’ is just overwrought stupid, Batty, and another indicator that you macho types are hysterics at heart…)

    Freddy, sod off, you’re boring.

    (I’ll point out again that one can learn a lot by paying a visit to the Stoat’s Burrow.)

  65. #65 chek
    July 1, 2013

    Tell you what Betty “child deniers” Betula.
    Why not condense your last five years of dull, drivelling, self-aggrandising denial into one single, clear, unambiguous sentence, and we’ll take it from there.

  66. #66 chek
    July 1, 2013

    Christ Bill, that pointer to Will’s basement should oughta come with the warning that you may find yourself wanting to set fire to your own hair after reading five or six comments.

  67. #67 Bernard J.
    July 1, 2013

    Betula.

    Whether deliberately or through unadmitted ideological obstinance, you’re not getting it.

    I asked you some simple questions about what happens when plants are subjected to too much of a substance essential for growth. You spent a lot of time prevaricatingwith ifs, buts and maybes, in order to disguise the simple fact that too much is not good. You can’t even explicitly admit that even optimal levels are dependent on the cofactors behind which you try to hide when confronted with “too much is not better”.

    The message is simple, even though is galled you to get there. Too much water has negative consequences for most plants, and for their ecosystems. Too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has negative consequences for most plants, and for their ecosystems.

    So your shocking point is, too much of a needed thing, say water, could be detrimental…generally speaking.

    I know that this sticks in your craw, but get over it – it is simple fact. And Betula – the same applies to CO2, especially as it’s effects are manifested climatically as well as chemically and biologically.

    You claim I “have been attempting to smooth over the effects of climate change with comments such as:

    “CO2 fertilization isn’t as insignificant as [BBD] and [Jeff] would have us believe.”

    And you call it a misrepresentation.

    [Poor formatting corrected]

    Betula.

    1) No-one has denied the effect on plant growth that increased CO2 can have.

    2) Jeff, BBD and others are correct to say that the overall advantages of increased CO2 growth are not significant compared with the confounders resulting from Sprengel’s Law, from disrupted nutritional sequelæ, from more complex ecological interactions such as altered symbiont responses and pest/weed/disease species responses, and from the impending climatological effects that will occur in the 21st century and beyond as a result of carbon dioxide induced climate change.

    Wanting it to be irrelevant (or insignificant), without truly understanding it’s relevance, is a blatant misrepresentation.

    Betula.

    Betula, Betula, Betula.

    I don’t want enhanced plant growth in response to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide to be “irrelevant” or “insignificant”. I want it to be without serious negative ecological/agricultural impacts, and I want it to very much be without serious climatological impacts.

    It’s these sequelæ that you keep sweeping under the carpet – what’s up with that?

    Additionally, claiming climate change will be “abrupt” and claiming to know all the effects on plant physiology and global agricultural productivity.” without knowing the relevance or specifics of all the unknown interactions is strictly picking and choosing scenarios that fit an ideological criteria.

    In ecological terms human-caused climate change with be very abrupt. A few centuries is nothing in the span of evolution, and in the capacities of species and ecosystems to adapt.

    And going from a scenario where the planet is benign and optimal for the sustenance of human civilisation to being pretty much impossible for the continuance of said civilisation at the global level and likely even at the national level several hundred years later is abrupt, even in human terms. This is what will happen if humans persist with business as usual for more than a few decades from now, and it may happen even if we act in the immediate future.

    Let me ask you some more questions (with at least some hope of a direct answer, that is…)

    1) Do you think that the benefit of increased atmospheric CO2 for plant growth is significant and clear?

    2) If yes to #1, what is your evidence base?

    3) If yes to #1, to what agricultural systems and ecosystems do you think that the benefit of increased atmospheric CO2 for plant growth applies?

    4) If yes to #1, what is the nature of the benefit of increased atmospheric CO2 for plant growth that you accept is occurring?

    5) What negative biological sequelæ do you accept as occurring in response to increased atmospheric CO2 levels, and in what agricultural systems and ecosystems?

    6) What negative biochemical sequelæ do you dispute as occurring in response to increased atmospheric CO2 levels, and in what agricultural systems and ecosystems?

    7) On what evidence you do base your responses at #5 and #6?

    8) Do you think that the benefit of increased CO2 for plant growth overrides the negative biochemical sequelæ of increased atmospheric CO2 levels? Note – in this response you can and should include the effect that CO2 also has on marine ecosystems.

    9) Do you think that the benefit of increased CO2 for plant growth overrides the negative climatological sequelæ of increased atmospheric CO2 levels?

    10) On what evidence you do base your responses at #8 and #9?

    If you are wondering why I have put another series of questions to you it is because you persist in your denigration of the physical and the biological aspects of mainstream climate science, without ever explicitly stating what it is that you accept, what it is that you dispute, what sources you rely on for your position, and why you dispute that the consensus science is not correct.

    None of my questions are trick questions. They are intended to elicit from you a clear and simple description of your understanding and position of each of the matters that is encompassed by the respective questions, and it is fascinating indeed that you avoid most of them like the plague.

    It’s very curious…

    I’ve taught primary school and high school students, and I’ve taught technical college and university students. My pedagogical approach has always to get the student to answer their questions where possible, with appropriate guidance, and to put questions to them where they can’t immediately see how/where to ask such themselves. I offer direct answers in circumstances where it is appropriate to do so, but I find that students learn much better and advance their own critical thinking, research and analysis skills if they learn a schema for asking the right questions and understanding how and where best to find the answers.

    My students have always thanked me profusely for the effort I put into their education, and for making the subject matter interesting and accessible. The smarter ones even figure out that I taught them how to learn under their own steam. With ideologues however it is a fraught exercise to instill even basic eduction. There seems to be an intellectual phenomenon occurring, well known to psychologists dealing with mental illness, where habits of pathological thinking over-ride any rational capacity for new learning or acquiring new, positive habits.

    This phenomenon is starkly apparent in the the Denialati on this thread.

    Now…

    Have you ever been involved with a wetland renovation project Berntard? Other than on paper of course…

    Actually, yes, except it was a “rehabilitation project”.

    As a student teacher (before I was distracted by 15 years in immunology/oncology/pharmacology/microbiology) I taught K-12+ in the educational centre, and later in my postgraduate work I surveyed creeks in the wetlands that were to be opened to tidal flushing. After that I worked in the same catchment with freshwater species plant and animal subjected to salinity.

    If you want to distract with a discussion about wetland rehabilitation go for it – I also topped my final year uni course in wetland ecology so I have the paper creds as well as the years of practical experience.

    Have you ever treated a tree for Phytophthora? Phomopsis? Borers? Other than in the classroom of course…

    As Bill has already told you Phytophthora is rarely treated in Australia because doing so is usually impractical in our circumstances. What we do practice is prevention and remedial hygiene, and yes I have done both. Much of my ecological fieldwork has involved driving 4WD through and surveying in dieback areas where there are specific decontamination protocols for vehicles and trailers leaving, and for cleaning camping equipment and other potential fomite material.

    And further to that I advised state government officers on the original establishment of hygiene protocols for mitigating chytrid spread. As you should know some chytrid species are plant pathogens so that should give you an idea of what was involved in the establishment of protocols.

    Phomopsis? Not a problem here as we don’t have it. In other parts of the country where I worked previously it did occur, although many diagnosed instances were actually Eutypa lata and Diaporthe perjuncta. And I know what I’m talking about, because I used to socialise with vignerons and was once offered a job as a vineyard manager – although I refused it because I knew the company was about to be taken over, and because I was about to move to ecological research.

    Borers? Yes. They’re common ‘pests’ in Australian natives. In the end I figured out that they rarely need to be ‘treated’ though – in most circumstances that I saw they were not nearly the serious pest that some people seemed to think.

    It’s just a shame that there’s no effective and guaranteed treatment for Stupid.

  68. #68 bill
    July 1, 2013

    Upon rereading my own comment above regarding Hysteria in the Defence of Liberty being No Vice, I recall that I’m often struck that a lot of the worldview – and foreign policy – of our American cousins can be summed-up in Dr. Necessiter’s classic line from The Man With Two Brains:

    If the murder of twelve innocent people can help save one human life, it will have been worth it.

  69. #69 Bernard J.
    July 1, 2013

    Lest it be twisted out of context, when I said:

    A few centuries is nothing in the span of evolution, and in the capacities of species and ecosystems to adapt.

    I was referring to the fact that changes over a few centuries are occurring at a rate far beyond the capacities of species and ecosystems to adapt.

  70. #70 Bernard J.
    July 1, 2013

    And Betula.

    It hasn’t gone unnoticed that neither you nor your denialist colleagues still haven’t addressed the questions about signal and noise

  71. #71 Lotharsson
    July 1, 2013

    Bernard and I have demolished ever mute point he has raised, but he STILL comes back with more vacuous remarks.

    Apparently his greatest hero is from Monty Python: The Black “Come back here and take what’s coming to you. I’ll bite your legs off!” Knight.

  72. #72 Bernard J.
    July 1, 2013

    Jeff’s Freudian slip is especially apposite – Betula has been particularly mute with regard to specifics and with science when it comes to actually making his points and addressing the substantive issues!

  73. #73 freddy
    July 1, 2013

    bill troll, i understand your ambition why you want to elicit the impression that you are not intelligent or wise.

    that’s the reason why you are unable to answer the following questions:

    why does phil jones not disclose

    a: which temperature stations he has taken per year to calculate a mean global temperature?

    b: why he had chosen certain temperature stations and left out others per year to calculate a mean global temperature?

    c: how he had changed the raw temperature data of the chosen temperature stations per station and year to calculate a mean global temperature?

  74. #74 Bernard J.
    July 1, 2013

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/06/01/june-2013-open-thread/comment-page-11/#comment-158874.

    There are multiple independent data sets that show global warming, and they exhibit high consilience.

    Are you still fixated on the GISSTemp version? I hope you remember that I smacked you good and properly over that screamingli incorrect howler of yours…

  75. #75 Bernard J.
    July 1, 2013

    Take 2.

    Freddy.

    There are multiple independent data sets that show global warming, and they exhibit high consilience.

    Are you still fixated on the GISSTemp version? I hope you remember that I smacked you good and properly over that screamingli incorrect howler of yours…

  76. #76 freddy
    July 1, 2013

    bernard troll, you always miss the point, BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG, AND:

    Remember, one is sampling a large planet with imperfect tools at flawed land sites and with almost NO useful oceanic data. Antarctica was terra incognita; much of the Arctic, much of Siberia, much of China, even large parts of Canada and the United States were virtually unmeasured except in very specific locations back in the 19th century. Only satellite measurements of LTT and ARGO measurements in the last decade form anything like defensibly precise measures of global temperature without unknown UHI and method/sampling errors, and ARGO is by no means stable yet in its results and still horrendously undersamples the surface area of the sea.

    THAT’S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY “CLIMATOLOGY” IS SHUTTY JUNK SCIENCE

    and you bernard troll are a true ZERO in meteorology, the only thing you do is copy paste without knowledge, information and understanding. you are a primitive moron who wastes taxpayers money

  77. #77 freddy
    July 1, 2013

    @jp and all other co2-is-plant-food deniers:

    LEARN BASICS OF PLANT BIOLOGY, YOU FUCKWIT IDIOTS

  78. #78 freddy
    July 1, 2013

    again, next chance for poor level bernard:

    why does phil jones not disclose

    a: which temperature stations he has taken per year to calculate a mean global temperature?

    b: why he had chosen certain temperature stations and left out others per year to calculate a mean global temperature?

    c: how he had changed the raw temperature data of the chosen temperature stations per station and year to calculate a mean global temperature?

    WHEN I WRITE PHIL JONES, I MEAN PHIL JONES, bernard bastard fuckwit

  79. #79 mike
    July 1, 2013

    Hey bill!

    Yr no. 59: “…poo-obsessed…”

    “Poo”? “Poo”–as in rhymes with “Winnie-the-pooh”, bill? Jeez, bill, what can I say? At least we can be sure mummy is just delighted with her little, junior-boy bill’s baby-talk style of cutie-pie, smart-lip invective.

    Be honest, bill, you’re having a real problem in the “undescended testicles” department, aren’t you, guy? I mean, like, it shows and all, you know. I mean, like, what a gross, creep-out, little, lady-like shit you are, bill.

  80. #80 bill
    July 1, 2013

    Coprolalic fellow-travellers of young Freddy here are scarcely in a position to be speculating on the inadequacies of others, Michael.

  81. #81 Jeff Harvey
    July 1, 2013

    “@jp and all other co2-is-plant-food deniers: LEARN BASICS OF PLANT BIOLOGY, YOU FUCKWIT IDIOTS”

    Um, er, Freddy, I am a senior scientist and my research involves a good deal of plant biology. And the C02 is plant food meme is so utterly wrong and simplistic that it does not deserve a cogent response. How many times must it be said that C is not limiting in terms of plant fitness but other nutrients – especially N and P are? How many times must it be said that consumers have much lower C:N ratios than plants, meaning that increased foliar C will have profound effects on the metabolism of species up the food chain and will require either compensatory feeding or else rapidly evolve alterations in metabolic pathways to deal with excess C in their diets? How many times must it be said that increased foliar C will affect plants with N or C based allelochemistry? How many times must it be said that responses in natural systems will be association and species-specific, leading to competitive asymmetries and changes in hierarchies that will greatly simplify plant communities and food webs? And so on and so forth.

    So increased atmospheric C02, in answer to Betula’s nonsense, is most certainly a BAD thing in the short term because it alters a range of ecophysiological properties in very unpredictable ways. As for you Freddy, I do not know under which slimy rock you crawled, but most of us here would be quite happy if you were to return there with your profound arrogance and stupidity as soon as possible. Please don’t take your time.

  82. #82 BBD
    July 1, 2013

    Teh Stupid has been shown that the gridded surface temperature reconstructions are validated by the satellite data on the other thread.

    So why is Teh Stupid repeating this debunked bollocks here?

    why does phil jones not disclose

    a: which temperature stations he has taken per year to calculate a mean global temperature?

    b: why he had chosen certain temperature stations and left out others per year to calculate a mean global temperature?

    c: how he had changed the raw temperature data of the chosen temperature stations per station and year to calculate a mean global temperature?

    Look at the pretty picture, Teh Stupid. Note the extremely good agreement between the UAH TLT satellite reconstruction prepared by prominent sceptics John Christy and Roy Spencer, and the faked surface temperature reconstructions prepared by noted alarmist conspirators James Hansen and Phil Jones.

    UAH TLT, GISTEMP, HadCRUT4 1979 – present; monthly means; common 1981 – 2010 baseline

    You know this because we’ve only just been through it. You are deliberately repeating debunked rubbish.

    You are a fucking liar.

  83. #83 Bernard J.
    July 1, 2013

    Freddy.

    You don’t handle having your errors and deficiencies exposed to the light of day, do you?

    Admit it, you were wrong when you said that Phil Jones is with GISS.

    You’re also wrong with your comment about measuring the Earth’s temperature. The thing about measurements over time, especially when measuring changes in a mean, is that systematic biases even when they do actually exist are effectively irrelevant. What matters is the change in anomaly over time for the reference points used. The data sets used by various independent agencies all indicate that the planet is warming, as do the melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice, the retreat of species to increasing altitudes and latitudes, the altered phenologies, the satellite observations, and a vast array of other empirical evidence.

    You might disagree with reality, and that’s your prerogative, but you’re still wrong.

  84. #84 BBD
    July 1, 2013

    Time for some DIY moderation again:

    again, next chance for poor level bernard:

    why does phil jones not disclose

    a: which temperature stations he has taken per year to calculate a mean global temperature?

    b: why he had chosen certain temperature stations and left out others per year to calculate a mean global temperature?

    c: how he had changed the raw temperature data of the chosen temperature stations per station and year to calculate a mean global temperature?

    WHEN I WRITE PHIL JONES, I MEAN PHIL JONES, bernard bastard fuckwit

  85. #85 BBD
    July 1, 2013

    And while we’re at it, this shite can go in the can too:

    Yr no. 59: “…poo-obsessed…”

    “Poo”? “Poo”–as in rhymes with “Winnie-the-pooh”, bill? Jeez, bill, what can I say? At least we can be sure mummy is just delighted with her little, junior-boy bill’s baby-talk style of cutie-pie, smart-lip invective.

    Be honest, bill, you’re having a real problem in the “undescended testicles” department, aren’t you, guy? I mean, like, it shows and all, you know. I mean, like, what a gross, creep-out, little, lady-like shit you are, bill.

  86. #86 Bernard J.
    July 1, 2013

    And freddy – and potty-mouth mike and Betula and all the rest of the Denialatus knuckle-draggers here – if you can’t actually construct a reasoned and coherent argument against even the simplest of points of science, you’re wasting your own time as much as anyone else’s. Nothing clever about that.

    If your capacities for physical proprioception are as buggered as your comprehensions of basic science, your mothers will be kept busy cleaning up after you in the littlest room in the house.

  87. #87 rhwombat
    Hobart
    July 1, 2013

    lil’mikey (…& freddy, Oilly, Johnny Birch and all the rest of the Ayn Rand Fanboi & Masturbatory Technique Appreciation Society): keep conjugating that cestode and one day you might grow up to be a proglotid.

  88. #88 BBD
    July 1, 2013

    And Stoopid Betty is still peddling his right wing alternative reality despite being corrected into oblivion by all and sundry. GFY Betty. We’ve all heard enough of your tripe to last us a lifetime.

  89. #89 freddy
    July 1, 2013

    whatever you bastard agw junkies say, you are on unsafe grounds of pure speculation BECAUSE (one of the many reasons you retarded ugly nobrain fuckwits):

    Remember, one is sampling a large planet with imperfect tools at flawed land sites and with almost NO useful oceanic data. Antarctica was terra incognita; much of the Arctic, much of Siberia, much of China, even large parts of Canada and the United States were virtually unmeasured except in very specific locations back in the 19th century. Only satellite measurements of LTT and ARGO measurements in the last decade form anything like defensibly precise measures of global temperature without unknown UHI and method/sampling errors, and ARGO is by no means stable yet in its results and still horrendously undersamples the surface area of the sea.

    whatever you second class spectators of ridiculous “eco”-pseudosciences (eco-shit-physioolgy, eco-shit-sociology, eco-shit-economy, eco-shit-population-betrayal, eco-shit-assholes, etc.) from the true science arena, to which you NEVER will belong, whine: THIS, YOUR RUBBISH IS IRRELEVANT AND SOCIETIES ARE GRANDIOUSLY IGNORING YOUR SHIT OF DELUDED SHIT. YOU ARE A WASTE OF WORKING SOCITIES AND YOUR “WORK” MUST BE THROWN INTO THE WASTEBASKET, AS IT IS A NASTY AND IMMORAL TO A HEALTHY SOCIETY, FUCKING IDIOTS, ASSHOLES

  90. #90 Bernard J.
    July 1, 2013

    Freddy – Kai – which school was it that produced you, this paragon of high literacy, expansive vocabulary, nuanced scientific knowledge and sophisticated statistical understanding?

    It would be a public service to document your astonishing educational background…

  91. #91 Bernard J.
    July 1, 2013

    And freddy, I’ve already asked once but I’ll ask again – does God like it when you say so many naughty words?

  92. #92 bill
    July 1, 2013

    You have problems, Sunshine. Anyone who’s crazier than l’il mike has serious issues indeed…

  93. #93 BBD
    July 1, 2013

    Are you blind?

    Look at the graph:

    UAH TLT, GISTEMP, HadCRUT4 1979 – present; monthly means; common 1981 – 2010 baseline

    You have been debunked so stop repeating rubbish.

    Remember, one is sampling a large planet with imperfect tools at flawed land sites and with almost NO useful oceanic data. Antarctica was terra incognita; much of the Arctic, much of Siberia, much of China, even large parts of Canada and the United States were virtually unmeasured except in very specific locations back in the 19th century. Only satellite measurements of LTT and ARGO measurements in the last decade form anything like defensibly precise measures of global temperature without unknown UHI and method/sampling errors, and ARGO is by no means stable yet in its results and still horrendously undersamples the surface area of the sea.

  94. #94 BBD
    July 1, 2013

    How can anybody be this stupid and manage to breath and type at the same time?

  95. #95 BBD
    July 1, 2013

    Clearly, emphasis and repetition are both required.

    Freddy – read the words:

    Note the extremely good agreement between the UAH TLT satellite reconstruction prepared by prominent sceptics John Christy and Roy Spencer, and the faked surface temperature reconstructions prepared by noted alarmist conspirators James Hansen and Phil Jones.

    Do you get this yet?

    Do you?

    Look at the graph, Freddy.

    Look at it.

  96. #96 freddy
    July 1, 2013

    bbd asshole: i don’t look at graphs with corrupt data from climate scientology church

    did you get it?

    i don’t look it for health reasons, one get’s infected with all the methodological flaws from your climate scientology church

    read again, fucking arselick: i don’t look at your pervert graph, you nasty satan!!!

  97. #97 freddy
    July 1, 2013

    bbd and other climate scientology greenarses, why are incapacitated do take note of:

    Remember, one is sampling a large planet with imperfect tools at flawed land sites and with almost NO useful oceanic data. Antarctica was terra incognita; much of the Arctic, much of Siberia, much of China, even large parts of Canada and the United States were virtually unmeasured except in very specific locations back in the 19th century. Only satellite measurements of LTT and ARGO measurements in the last decade form anything like defensibly precise measures of global temperature without unknown UHI and method/sampling errors, and ARGO is by no means stable yet in its results and still horrendously undersamples the surface area of the sea.

    before you continue to spread your usual fucking bullshit, you must understand why your faith basis is so insanely corrupt.

    your speculation about human harm to nature is the most stupid nonsense anthropoid brains have ever invented. you alarm fuckwits are such a ridiculous nonsense, not consense, community. i am sure you will undergo purgatory and punishment by satan for all your incredible unmoralities and unethicalities

  98. #98 chek
    July 1, 2013

    Professor Fuckwit, then the flaw in your ideological purity maintenance stance is obviously, then how can you possibly know? More pertinently, how can you tell for yourself without some other possibly even bigger moron telling you second hand?

    Inquiring minds want to know, although in all honesty many, many more don’t give a flying fuck what goes on in that pointy little head of yours.

  99. #99 freddy
    July 1, 2013

    @spoiled bernard brat why are you unable to meet justified criticism?

    why does phil jones not disclose

    a: which temperature stations he has taken per year to calculate a mean global temperature?

    b: why he had chosen certain temperature stations and left out others per year to calculate a mean global temperature?

    c: how he had changed the raw temperature data of the chosen temperature stations per station and year to calculate a mean global temperature?

    WHO OF THE CLIMATE MORONS DARES TO ANSWER THOSE 3 QUESTIONS????

    SHOW SOME COURAGE, FUCKWIT CRAPS

  100. #100 freddy
    July 1, 2013

    chek asshole, this was no answer, try again, climate hypocrite