June 2013 Open thread

More thread for you.

Comments

  1. #1 Lionel A
    June 7, 2013

    Good one Craig @#83 and Betula should grasp the opening statement in the

    Summary
    Extreme weather events, now escalating around the world, are evidence of major changes to our
    climate, which inevitably will lead to a fundamental re-design of our democratic, economic, business
    and social systems, with long-term survival as the prime objective.

    Betula something else you don’t understand about Jeff’s ’20 days’ is that the period in question is well enough time to appreciate how fast climate is changing from comparing now to previous times through the filter of a substantial knowledge base about the systems in the area in question. It is to gain mastery over such fields that scientists spend huge amounts of time and effort in learning the basic physics, chemistry and biology involved and then collecting and analysing fresh data to carry the study forward.

    Thus in 20 days one can ‘see’ much evidence for climate change when compared to much earlier times.

    If you looked at a map of Europe today you would be able to instantly appreciate how it has changed since a century ago. Providing of course you knew what it looked like back then. Africa similarly.

    To crow as you do you really have to be some kind of ignoramus, one with a brain wiped messily by ideology such that you can hold only one factor in mind at any one time.

    Sorry, but you really have become a similar waste of space to his lordship Keyes.

  2. #2 Wow
    June 7, 2013

    I guess we can say with “certainty”, that Wow believes Jeff actually witnessed climate change

    “I guess we can say…”????

    Do everyone the favour of allowing them more intelligence than you have, Betty.

    And let them say what THEY can say, don’t YOU say what YOU want them to be saying.

  3. #3 Wow
    June 7, 2013

    Yes, deductive reasoning…..comparing a 20 day hike in the woods to a slight change in plant zones over a 50 year period

    And this is another fine example of Betty World in action.

    In Betty’s world, only events personally witnessed by Jeff is evidence of a change.

    But when Betty is the one proclaiming evidence, the fact of their nonexistence for most of the period in question is converted by its insanity into “you must be denying the past existed!”.

    What a loon.

  4. #4 Lionel A
    June 7, 2013

    I wonder how Luboš Motl is getting on , or will get on if he tries to return home?

  5. #5 BBD
    June 7, 2013

    Oh do give it a rest Betula.

    Find another topic to make a pig’s breakfast out of. Please.

  6. #6 Betula
    June 7, 2013

    Lionel A….

    “Thus in 20 days one can ‘see’ much evidence for climate change when compared to much earlier times.”

    No doubt. Hey, like finding sharks teeth in Kansas.

    Only he didn’t see climate change “first hand”…so it was a lie….but I appreciate the fact that you are trying to cover for him.

    Harvey, May 4th 2012…

    “As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand”

    Actually, a lie with an embellishment, because that “warm winter” where his friend got frostbite, averaged -2C during the day and -12C at night.

    But Jeff doesn’t do anything the rest of the alarmists don’t do…. embellish and exaggerate to heighten the importance of the message….I know the game.

  7. #7 Betula
    June 7, 2013

    BBD…

    “Find another topic to make a pig’s breakfast out of.”

    You must be hungry….given that you believe you can accurately predict the future climate of the world and the resulting scenarios that come with it without question…. or is it that you can just predict the future with some degree of accuracy, is that it?
    How many accurate predictions have to fall in place for your accurate predictions to materialize? Do your accurate predictions weigh all scenarios against each other or just certain hand picked scenarios?
    If you post a link to make a point, and the link states the following…
    “the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions”….
    then what does that mean? You posted it. They said it. They printed it. Why did they say it? Are they lying? Why would it upset you that they said it…you linked the articla! Are you embarrassed, is that it? Did I embarrass you because I posted it?

    I find it interesting how you seem to deny the mention of uncertainties. You deny the mention of unknowns. You deny the mention of inaccuracies. You deny conclusions that aren’t definite. You deny the possibility of beneficial scenarios. You deny the scientists statements in the links you post. You deny that climate has been changing since the beginning of time and will always change. Wake up BBD, you’re a denier!

    Now, why can’t you deny that you have the ability to accurately predict all the complex systems of the earth and solar system and how they will react with each other throughout the earth, based on predicted averages, assuming a myriad of other predictions fall in place, minus the uncertainties, inaccuracies, personal interests, government interests, biases etc. and only based on weighing worst case scenarios?

    Open the box.

  8. #8 Lionel A
    June 7, 2013

    Only he didn’t see climate change “first hand”…so it was a lie….but I appreciate the fact that you are trying to cover for him.

    Groan. So, Brad Keyes it is you slithy tove, go gyre and gimble on your own in the corner.

  9. #9 Wow
    June 7, 2013

    Only he didn’t see climate change “first hand”…so it was a lie

    Yet more examples of Betty’s personal own little world where reality is never allowed to intrude.

    The question was:

    when the USDA updates its Plant Hardiness Zone Map which it did in 2009 do you think they’re seeing climate change ‘first hand’ and advising growers accordingly?

  10. #10 Wow
    June 7, 2013

    But Betty is back now to Shroedinger’s Climate Change.

    Thinking is something that happens to other people, isn’t it Betty.

  11. #11 Betula
    June 7, 2013

    Wow @ 9….

    “The question was:”….

    No. You’re confused again Wow, honestly, I don’t know how to help you….maybe Ritalin would help.

    You really are clueless

  12. #12 Betula
    June 7, 2013

    Wow…

    Hint: 91 comes before 93.

  13. #13 BBD
    June 7, 2013

    # 7

    How many accurate predictions have to fall in place for your accurate predictions to materialize? Do your accurate predictions weigh all scenarios against each other or just certain hand picked scenarios?

    Unless the laws of physics are plastic and paleoclimate behaviour all faked then increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will cause energy to accumulate in the climate system. Indeed, it is already doing so, as we can readily see from some data*.

    Unless the laws of physics are plastic and paleoclimate behaviour all faked, ECS/2xCO2 is very unlikely to be below 2C and probably closer to 3C (Rohling et al. 2012).

    What the hell you are on about eludes me.

    (*The yellow line wibbling along at the bottom is TSI – the sun – not really varying much compared to GHG forcing, which is the dark blue line rising strongly after 1960.

    The red line is the total net forcing, with major eruptions showing up as sharply negative excursions. Exactly like the last time I linked this graph for you.)

    * * *

    Your next statment is bollocks:

    I find it interesting how you seem to deny the mention of uncertainties. You deny the mention of unknowns. You deny the mention of inaccuracies. You deny conclusions that aren’t definite. You deny the possibility of beneficial scenarios. You deny the scientists statements in the links you post. You deny that climate has been changing since the beginning of time and will always change. Wake up BBD, you’re a denier!

    See above: laws of physics; paleoclimate behaviour.

    * * *

    Once again, you are avoiding the bigger picture. Doubtless because denying it is essentially impossible without standing revealed as insane or profoundly mendacious, or perhaps both.

  14. #14 BBD
    June 7, 2013

    Thinking is something that happens to other people, isn’t it Betty.

    As is honesty, apparently.

  15. #15 Wow
    June 7, 2013

    Wow…

    Hint: 91 comes before 93.

    Indeed it does.

    Now back to the point:

    The question was:

    when the USDA updates its Plant Hardiness Zone Map which it did in 2009 do you think they’re seeing climate change ‘first hand’ and advising growers accordingly?

  16. #16 Wow
    June 7, 2013

    “The question was:”….

    No. You’re confused again Wow,

    No, I’m not.

    The question was:

    when the USDA updates its Plant Hardiness Zone Map which it did in 2009 do you think they’re seeing climate change ‘first hand’ and advising growers accordingly?

    And rather than answer it, you not-answered it with non-sequiturs.

    Such as “you’re confused again, Wow”.

  17. #17 Wow
    June 7, 2013

    Well, honesty (hell, answering questions) is devastating to Betty’s World, so it avoids doing that and instead flails about insanely as if this somehow means that the response becomes an answer.

  18. #18 John Mashey
    June 7, 2013

    Paging lord_sidcup
    John #23
    Nice article John, but no mention of the University of Buckingham?’

    I thought about including that, given McKitrick’s visit and its other connections, but it seemed peripheral. The challenge with all these folks is that when tracking the social networks, they’re all connected, but to write anything manageable, one has to stop following links. I take for granted some kind of internal-UK connections ,but the interesting tidbits in FOIA 5 were the breadth and depth of international connections.

    Again, no surprise to those of us who study this, but nice confirmations.

  19. #19 Betula
    June 7, 2013

    @ 13…

    “Unless the laws of physics are plastic and paleoclimate behaviour all faked then increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will cause energy to accumulate in the climate system.”

    So this means you have the ability to accurately predict all the complex systems of the earth and solar system and how they will react with each other throughout the earth, based on predicted averages, assuming a myriad of other predictions fall in place, minus the uncertainties, inaccuracies, personal interests, government interests, biases etc. and only based on weighing worst case scenarios?

  20. #20 Betula
    June 7, 2013

    Wow @16..

    “No, I’m not”

    Actually, you are. I posted a question at 91 on pg 2. The response was a non answer at 93 in the form of the question that you keep posting, In other words, you’re confused.

    Additionally, I answered the question you keep posting at #94. This would make you confused and retarded.

  21. #21 Wow
    June 7, 2013

    So this means you have the ability to accurately predict all the complex systems of the earth and solar system

    So this means that unless you have 100% perfect information about everything, you don’t know anything?

    I guess it’s one way for someone who knows fuck all about anything to make themselves feel better, I suppose.

  22. #22 Wow
    June 7, 2013

    Wow @16..

    “No, I’m not”

    Actually, you are.

    No, actually, I’m not.

  23. #23 BBD
    June 7, 2013

    # 19

    So this means you have the ability to accurately predict all the complex systems of the earth and solar system and how they will react with each other throughout the earth, based on predicted averages, assuming a myriad of other predictions fall in place, minus the uncertainties, inaccuracies, personal interests, government interests, biases etc. and only based on weighing worst case scenarios?

    No. It means that paleoclimate behaves in accordance with the laws of physics. Unless the laws of physics are plastic, modern climate will do likewise. Crank up a forcing and the climate system will respond – by warming. Roughly speaking, the equilibrium response looks likely to be 0.75C per W/m^2.

    I know this is going to be hard for you to accept, but there really isn’t *any* scientific support for the belief that modern CO2-forced warming will be neutral or benign.

  24. #24 Betula
    June 7, 2013

    @22

    How old are you?

  25. #25 Betula
    June 7, 2013

    “So this means that unless you have 100% perfect information about everything, you don’t know anything?”

    Never said that. I asked the question:

    “So this means you have the ability to accurately predict all the complex systems of the earth and solar system and how they will react with each other throughout the earth, based on predicted averages, assuming a myriad of other predictions fall in place, minus the uncertainties, inaccuracies, personal interests, government interests, biases etc. and only based on weighing worst case scenarios?”

  26. #26 Betula
    June 7, 2013

    “there really isn’t *any* scientific support for the belief that modern CO2-forced warming will be neutral or benign.”

    Anywhere on earth?

  27. #27 BBD
    June 7, 2013

    Oh FFS.

  28. #28 Wow
    June 7, 2013

    Betty, how does the age of someone pwning you to hell and back have ANY bearing on reality?

  29. #29 Wow
    June 7, 2013

    “So this means that unless you have 100% perfect information about everything, you don’t know anything?”

    Never said that.

    Then there’s nothing to answer to your question as stated.

    Because there’s no need for 100% of all information to be 100% accurate before you can draw a conclusion or plan an action.

  30. #30 Wow
    June 7, 2013

    Anywhere on earth?

    You’re confused. He never said that. He asked:

    there really isn’t *any* scientific support for the belief that modern CO2-forced warming will be neutral or benign.

  31. #31 chek
    June 7, 2013

    So this means you have the ability to accurately predict all the complex systems of the earth and solar system and how they will react with each other throughout the earth, based on predicted averages, assuming a myriad of other predictions fall in place, minus the uncertainties, inaccuracies, personal interests, government interests, biases etc. and only based on weighing worst case scenarios?

    I’m gonna go out on a limb here and surmise that you have no evidence or specific examples for those dearly held, think-tank devised, chum-chunk beliefs you nurture.

  32. #32 Betula
    June 8, 2013

    “You’re confused. He never said that”

    That’s right, I asked it…and didn’t get an answer..

  33. #33 Betula
    June 8, 2013

    “Because there’s no need for 100% of all information to be 100% accurate before you can draw a conclusion or plan an action.”

    So you admit you don’t have all the information. Then why are you bothered when scientists state:

    “the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions”

  34. #34 Betula
    June 8, 2013

    “Betty, how does the age of someone pwning you to hell and back have ANY bearing on reality?”

    You’re confused. 91 comes before 93….that’s reality.

  35. #35 Lionel A
    June 8, 2013

    Betula is just another time wasting buffoon who would rather play word games and who will never admit to the truth here.

  36. #36 Wow
    June 8, 2013

    That’s right, I asked it…and didn’t get an answer..

    No, you did get an answer: “He never said that”.

  37. #37 Wow
    June 8, 2013

    You’re confused.

    Nope. Wrong.

    91 comes before 93

    Yes, correct.

  38. #38 Wow
    June 8, 2013

    So you admit you don’t have all the information.

    Yes.

    Then why are you bothered when scientists state:

    Because:

    there’s no need for 100% of all information to be 100% accurate before you can draw a conclusion or plan an action.

  39. #39 Wow
    June 8, 2013

    So you admit you don’t have all the information.

    Yes.

    Then why are you bothered when scientists state:

    Actually, because you’re wrong.

    I’m not bothered by it at all.

  40. #40 Betula
    June 8, 2013

    “No, you did get an answer: “He never said that”.”

    You really are retarded…not that there’s anything wrong with that, I just feel sorry for you.

    @ 30, you state “He asked” followed by this…
    “there really isn’t *any* scientific support for the belief that modern CO2-forced warming will be neutral or benign”

    That’s not a question, it’s a statement, so what do you mean “He asked”?

    In response to this “statement” I previously “asked”:

    “Anywhere on earth”? Which is a legitimate question to anyone sane. CO2 forced warming is an average warming, not equal throughout the earth. Some areas may be colder, some warmer, some the same….exactly where is a question you can’t answer…..which obviously is why you avoid the question.

    Your non answer just proves my suspicions that you are either severely handicapped, or just a blithering idiot. Either way, I feel sorry for you, honestly, and I’m done trying to sever the loop that you are trapped in.

    Anyone with half a brain that can see what I asked at #91 on page 2, followed by a non answer in the form of question @ 93, followed by me answering the non answer @ 94, followed by the continued insanity Wow thereafter….

    If you can’t follow the words in front of you on a blog, if you can’t back up what you say even though the words are there to try and prove me wrong, if you can’t read the words in the scientific papers and if you can’t comprehend your own words, then it looks like your own personal worst case scenario has come to light. Your future catastrophic scenario is here, and it is you.

  41. #41 Betula
    June 8, 2013

    Me @33…

    “Then why are you bothered when scientists state:”

    “the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions”

    Wow@ 39…

    “Actually, because you’re wrong. I’m not bothered by it at all.”

    I’m impressed, you’re making progress Wow. Did you mitigate some of your own CO2 to lesson the affect of your own worst case scenario…you?

    When BBD originally linked those words to me under the heading “read the words”, there seemed to be some backlash when I actually posted them.
    I was getting the feeling from you and others that the scientist’s conclusion might be wrong, that you were actually bothered by their own words. It didn’t make sense to me that you would be bothered, because BBD linked it and scientists stated it, so I knew it had to be true…

    “the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions”

    And BBD, just a quick thanks…by linking those words, you helped get Wow started on the road to recovery…

  42. #42 Lionel A
    June 8, 2013

    Anyone with half a brain that can see what I asked at #91 on page 2,

    Well Betula, it seems that you cannot even manage the ‘half a brain’ else you would have learned how to direct to a specific post here at Deltoid like this where Jeff Harvey nails you exactly.

    Now, before ‘mouthing off’ again with more bilge maybe you should read these other posts of Jeff’s more slowly and take the time to understand what he is describing. After all, one day even your job may depend upon your understanding of the forces underneath your occupational stomping ground.

    There is this one and also this other one, amongst a number of others.

    To be sure if Jeff said he saw evidence for climate change then I believe him, after all only those divorced from reality cannot see change happening and faster than at earlier times in their lives and certainly faster than during recorded history.

    It is up to you to show that Jeff has erred. Find the evidence behind your accusations.

  43. #43 BBD
    June 8, 2013

    And BBD, just a quick thanks…by linking those words, you helped get Wow started on the road to recovery…

    You are a dishonest buffoon, Betula.

    And instead of the usual denialist hyper-focus and misrepresentation, you still need to read the words. All of them. Not *just* the sentence when the scientists say “we’re pretty sure about this, but the time period under study is too short to make a definitive statement”. Yet.

  44. #44 Betula
    June 8, 2013

    Lionel…

    “It is up to you to show that Jeff has erred. Find the evidence behind your accusations”

    What you call “erred”, I call lying, and the evidence is easy to see…if you don’t have blinders on, or if you can read.

    I originally called out Jeff on his seeing climate change “first hand”, because in the article, he never followed up on what climate change he saw. After countless attempts by me to get an answer, he responded with this….

    “As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand”

    So Jeff, when pushed, had to admit he never saw climate change “first hand”…but it sounded good at the time. Is that considered evidence Lionel? Obviously not, because when I showed you this exact statement at #6, you replied with “Groan” at #8.

    So, even though Jeff had to admit he didn’t see climate change “first hand”, you still believe he did……”To be sure if Jeff said he saw evidence for climate change then I believe him”.

    Genius.

    Hmm, completely fake and you still believe. Here Lionel, I have something for you:

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.262213-Students-believe-in-the-tree-octopus

  45. #45 Betula
    June 8, 2013

    BBD…

    “And instead of the usual denialist hyper-focus and misrepresentation”

    You state I misrepresented something, what? That the scientists say they don’t have a definite conclusion? How is that misrepresentation….they said it. I can’t help that you don’t like it. Live with it.

  46. #46 BBD
    June 8, 2013

    Betula, you have yammered on about the not-quite-definite conclusion to the absolute exclusion of the rest of the message: the reasonably high confidence that the effect is real and caused by AGW.

    You are misrepresenting the PiK study and have done so, insistently and dishonestly, ever since I linked to it.

    This hyper-focus on uncertainty is a standard denialist tactic familiar to all.

    You may think I am stupid, and even that others here are stupid, but we are not.

    The fact that you absolutely refuse even to *acknowledge* my REPEATED comments on the bigger picture is equally obvious – and instructive – to everyone else.

  47. #47 BBD
    June 8, 2013

    Remember a few things, Betula:

    – 2000 – 2010 was the hottest decade in the instrumental record.

    – The years since the 1998 El Nino have been characterised by a string of extreme weather events of remarkable severity

    – OHC has risen by ~25*10^22J since the mid-C20th

    – The laws of physics are well established, and the “greenhouse effect” is real

    – Paleoclimate behaviour demonstrates that the climate system is sensitive to radiative perturbation

    – Empirical estimates of sensitivity to a change in forcing suggest an equilibrium response of about 0.75C per W/m^2 dF

    Forcing from 2xCO2 (~560ppmv) is approximately +3.6W/m^2

    Emissions trajectories look almost certain to reach >800ppmv by the end of the century

  48. #48 chek
    June 8, 2013

    But… but … if you take away his selectively mined quote routine, Betty’s left with nothing. At all.

  49. #49 Wow
    June 8, 2013

    “No, you did get an answer: “He never said that”.”

    You really are retarded

    Look, betty, just because you didn’t get an answer you wanted or could abuse and did not understand does not mean that everyone else in the world is retarded.

    The problem is you’re an ignorant fuckwit.

  50. #50 Wow
    June 8, 2013

    When BBD originally linked those words to me under the heading “read the words”, there seemed to be some backlash when I actually posted them.

    Another example of the fake world betty resides in.

    No, that never happened.

  51. #51 Lionel A
    June 8, 2013

    What you call “erred”, I call lying, and the evidence is easy to see…if you don’t have blinders on, or if you can read.

    No Betula that just will not do! What I am after is a citation, I wish to see what Jeff actually wrote in toto and not some rearranged, snipped, hacked or otherwise perverted version that you are trying to peddle. After all, your track record for truthful and honest quoting is in tatters from early on in this thread.

  52. #52 Jeff Harvey
    June 8, 2013

    I have been away doing field research in southern Europe and I come back and find our resident libertarian loony still hard at it. Figures. And he claims to have ‘called me out’ on a web article written by a colleague last year after I crossed Algonquin Park in winter.

    With respect to being ‘called out’, note how Betula quietly moved on after his b* trumpeting the alleged benefits of increased C02 on complex adaptive systems was pointed out, as well as his estimation of healthy ecosystems in his neck of the woods (easter NA) on the basis of three pathetically poor examples. Once I pointed these glaringly simplistic examples out with far better ones, old Betty retreated back to his original hole.

    As for the study Karen pasted, the authors of course would go nowhere near the areas suggested by Karen, GSW and Betula. Total biomass in now ay is a measure of fitness in plants or indeed many and perhaps most other organisms. In plant in particular, C is not a limiting nutrient for fitness but P and N most certainly are. And these are of course being shunted out of plant tissues as atmospheric C02 levels increase. Other pertinent areas such as species-specifci responses (e.g. leading to the potential of asymmetric competition), allelochemistry, primary metabolism and interactions with consumers are also ignored by the army of simpletons who parade this C02 is plant food nonsense. Trust the flag-bearers here to be the usual dunce brigade.

    Note also the utter hypocrisy of Betula him. With respect to climate forcings, the system is ‘too complex’ t be able to make verifiable predictions; but when it comes to the effects of C02 on the health and stability of natural systems, which are many times more complex even than the atmosphere, he draws a simple correlation.

    This kind of behavior is typical of anti-environmentalists. Hence why I think that Betula and his acolytes are not only well out of their depth in any scientific discussion, but they are a waste of time. The only reason I bothered to counter his two recent examples was because I wanted to make sure that any layman entering this thread would not be drawn in by his verbiage. Both examples stink, to be direct, but those downplaying various threats to the environment will spew any crap if it suits their purpose. Some of it – like the white-talied deer/coyote/wild turkey example comes straight off the top of Betty’s head. What they showed is that he clearly does not read the primary scientific literature. Journals like Ecology Letters, Diversity and Distributions, Ecology, Oikos, Oecologia, Journal of Ecology, Global Change Biology, Journal of Animal Ecology, Ecosystems, Conservation Biology, Biological Conservation, and many others are certainly NOT on Betula’s reading list. He doesn’t think he needs to read scientific literature to be an expert.

  53. #53 Jeff Harvey
    June 8, 2013

    BTW Lionel, thanks for your support and for linking to three posts on Deltoid where I countered Betty’s appalling nonsense earlier and where does he go? Back to Algonquin Park, that’s where. Last refuge of a scoundrel.

  54. #54 Betula
    June 8, 2013

    “No Betula that just will not do!”

    You mean Jeff’s own words aren’t good enough for you? DENIER!
    That was easy…

    Anyhow, let’s review which words “will not do”…

    1. Jeff saying…..”In my work as an ecologist I work on shifting zones, and here I could see it in real.”

    Notice how he never gives an example of a shifting zone he could see “in real”

    2. “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand”

    What did he experience first hand ? The cold? It was winter!

    3. “It was 12 degrees warmer than average, with around -2 oC during the day and -10 at night”

    12 degrees warmer than average? That goes against Jeff’s own 70 year temperature compilation for the area!
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=345845282134899&set=a.345844975468263.92530.252626654790096&type=1&theater

    And I like how he chose to use a 20 day scale to accurately hypothesize about his embellishment. Nice touch.

    4. Harvey on Deltoid… May 4th 2012:

    “As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand”

    A “warm winter” where Mark got frostbite….any warmer and one of them may have lost a digit.

    The article – http://www.nioo.knaw.nl/en/node/2137

    Now Lionel, instead of accusations, why don’t post something I quoted that wasn’t truthful. How about you be truthful instead of being a closed minded phony attempting to defend something indefensible….and it bothers you that I know it.

  55. #55 rhwombat
    Old King Cole's Sphincter, NSW
    June 8, 2013

    Scene: a moderately well known science blog. Misty daytime.
    Cast:
    Arthur, King of the Britains – Jeff Harvey.
    Patsy, Faithful Servant & coconut clopper – Lionel/ BBD/ Wow/ chek/ et alia.
    Black Knight – Betty Bloop

    [Arthur is challenged by the Black Knight, disarms (!) him, and kneels to give thanks. ‘Armless Black Knight kicks Arthur in the head while he is praying]
    BLACK KNIGHT: Come on then.
    ARTHUR: What?
    BLACK KNIGHT: Have at you!
    ARTHUR: You are indeed brave, Sir knight, but the fight is mine.
    BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, had enough, eh?
    ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard, you’ve got no arms left.
    BLACK KNIGHT: Yes I have.
    ARTHUR: Look!
    BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound.
    [Headbutts Arthur in the chest]
    ARTHUR: Look, stop that.
    BLACK KNIGHT: Chicken! Chicken!
    ARTHUR: Look, I’ll have your leg. Right! [whop]
    BLACK KNIGHT: Right, I’ll do you for that!
    ARTHUR: You’ll what?
    BLACK KNIGHT: Come ‘ere!
    ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
    BLACK KNIGHT: I’m invincible!
    ARTHUR: You’re a loony.
    BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on then.
    [whop]
    [ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT’s other leg off]
    BLACK KNIGHT: All right; we’ll call it a draw.
    ARTHUR: Come, Patsy.
    BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, oh, I see, running away, ‘eh? … You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what’s coming to you…. I’ll bite your legs off!

  56. #56 chek
    June 8, 2013

    Thanks for the Cliff Notes guide to how your dishonesty works, Betty.

    By the way, did you notice on that Facebook graph the coldest dip (around 2008ish) was about level with the mid 1940s average?

    I guess you’re too blinded by your own stupid to see you just blew your own foot off.

  57. #57 Jeff Harvey
    June 8, 2013

    Come on Betula. Let’s see you wriggle your way out of your own corner. So you have retreated back to the Algonquin canard. You are a pitiful jerk.

    Besides, there’s plenty of evidence for climate change on biomes in North America as well as elsewhere. That is, if you bothered to look for it or if you can read. What is obvious is that you never read the primary literature. If you had one ounce of scientific acumen you’d read numerous studies showing climate change related effects on numerous ecological parameters. You are trying vainly to nail me on a web site article. You can try all you like, but since you don’t even have a basic understanding of ecology, you will lose every time.

    Let’s see you put your immense wisdom (snicker) into effect here responding to just a few studies from hundreds published showing clear effects of recent warming on plants, animals and trophic interactions. I have pasted them below. Yes, I know you hate science and don’t read scientific journals, but its high time you got off your ass and did. If you want to debate properly you have to be up on the empirical literature. You clearly aren’t. You stick your finger to the wind and draw your conclusions that way. Is it any small wonder why its easy to demolish your arguments? And why you have to return to Algonquin Park again and again and again?

    http://www.discoverlife.org/pa/or/polistes/pr/2010nsf_macro/references/Parmesan_and_Yohe2003.pdf

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC26486/

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21622303

    http://www.amjbot.org/content/97/9/1431.full

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0053788

    http://www.amjbot.org/content/98/6/935.full

    http://www.pnas.org/content/108/51/20645.full

    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/1/198.full

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n7002/abs/nature02808.html

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01193.x/abstract;jsessionid=D1C27952E0DA23AF968FA946036AEF79.d03t01?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

    Oh, and BTW, I can paste up dozens more. Your only recourse now will be to say that these studies are either wrong or else that the response is to warming that is ‘natural’. But its warming alright. Nature doesn’t lie. It only responds.

    Happy reading. I hope that we don’t hear back from you for a long time… if ever. Its my guess that these studies will be way over your head.

  58. #58 Jeff Harvey
    June 8, 2013

    Oh, and one last thing… our Faceback graph left out the 2012 data, which was the warmest winter ever recorded in the park and surrounds. The 2012 dot would have been higher than all of the others. The temperature in the Park has warmed by about 2 C since the 1940s. I could also give other examples of shifting species in Ontario to zones that were once too cold for them. But Betty has to do some reading first.

  59. #59 BBD
    June 9, 2013

    Global land surface temperature has risen sharply since the 1970s.

    BEST 10yr mean

  60. #60 Wow
    June 9, 2013

    “Patsy, Faithful Servant & coconut clopper”

    The job of coconut clopper sounds intriguing. Can I subscribe to the newsletter?

  61. #61 Jeff Harvey
    June 9, 2013

    A recent thesis on the projected effects of climate change on the Algonquin-Adirondack corridor:

    http://qspace.library.queensu.ca/bitstream/1974/8053/1/TAVENOR_MES_Project.pdf

    Algonquin Park lies at the boundary of two important biomes. Given that there are significant differences in soil properties of these biomes, as well as in plants and animals, a warming climate will certainly impact them. The problem is that there are very few scientists studying these effects, but that does not mean that there will not be responses and consequences. A colleague at the University of Toronto told me last year that some species of invasive Eurasian plants that are adapted to temperate climates are establishing as far north as along the shore of Hudson’s Bay, even though they have been established in North America for over a century and had until recently been restricted to habitats farther south. But the main point is that, whether Betula likes it or not, anthropogenic changes and in particular warming will impact biomes boundaries more than areas at the center of biomes. Given that soils in the Canadian shield differ profoundly from those in the mixed and eastern deciduous forest zone (they are much more acid), it will certain that species adapted to one soil type will not merely shift northwards onto acid soils in the time frames involved. Consumers up the food chain (both vertebrates and invertebrates) are intimately adapted to specific types of ecosystems and vegetation zones – I gave a lecture on this recently at our institute – and their ability to track abiotic conditions and shifts will be impeded by shifts in biomes to which they are adapted. In other words, species have evolved in response to both biotic and abiotic windows, and these are likely to become uncoupled as local climatic conditions rapidly change. There is little doubt that declines in many species are the result of decoupling of biotic and abiotic stressors linked with climate warming. If one reads the primary scientific literature, which I do as part of my job, then one is aware of the various forces at work in a changing world. Betula doesn’t clearly read the primary literature and instead goes on his own ‘instincts’ as a forester in which he thinks he knows as much (or more) than the scientists who are studying processes and mechanisms. This is akin to a fisherman who claims that he knows more about the health of marine fish stocks that the scientists studying them.

    Like it or not, climate warming poses a profound threat to many of the world’s ecosystems. There is a huge pile of empirical evidence to prove it. I trust this over the ‘instincts’ and ‘intuition’ of a forester.

  62. #62 Wow
    June 9, 2013

    Remember, Betty thinks that climate can change but doesn’t thnk that changing weather is proof of climate change, without which, there can be no climate change.

    However, betty is too dumb to think that through, but (only just) smart enough not to admit they don’t believe climate can change. Hence Shroedinger’s Climate.

  63. #63 Lionel A
    June 9, 2013

    What you call “erred”, I call lying, and the evidence is easy to see…if you don’t have blinders on, or if you can read.

    Maybe you should learn to read Betula because you still are failing to provide a citation (that means a link if you are really that stupid) so I will repeat:

    No Betula that just will not do! What I am after is a citation, I wish to see what Jeff actually wrote in toto and not some rearranged, snipped, hacked or otherwise perverted version that you are trying to peddle. After all, your track record for truthful and honest quoting is in tatters from early on in this thread.

    Now do you understand or should I remain suspicious as to why you are evading fulfilling this simple request. It appears, by your own admission, that you know the date of the exchange concerned. It is you throwing out aspersions and thus it is up to you to back them up in an honest fashion.

  64. #64 Lionel A
    June 9, 2013

    And here is more Betula, having found a relevant article I know that you are either bullshitting or comprehension challenged, because anyone with integrity and ability will see that Jeff describes that which demonstrated to him ‘climate change at first hand’ in the clearest terms.

    Considering the dangers and discomforts and also the sheer effort that Jeff, and his colleague, put in in the interests of furthering our understanding of the planet I consider that you are being a pedantic, word-shifting jerk not fit to be in the same company.

    You do not seem to appreciate that hundreds of scientists or their aids and survival mentors have perished or become disabled through their activities in human hostile places of the world.

    Anybody who has traveled on foot over rough terrain with a heavy load, as I have, can appreciate all to easily the immense effort involved. These plucky scientists deserve our respect (on a number of other counts too), It is time for you to clean up your act and cease being a jerk.

    But do keep on digging this hole for with every post you make we are able to demonstrate to any lurkers how vacuous your lines of argument are.

  65. #65 Lionel A
    June 9, 2013

    The wonders of the deep a place we know all too little about having barely begun to explore the breadth of species therein.

    One fascinating creature is almost straight out of fantasy tales here is one very informative video on Video of the Oarfish, Regalecus glesne .

    Isn’t that wonderful more on the Oarfish here.

    How sad that many species are now under threat and note the location of the video clip cited above. And keep in mind a novel that I read whilst a kid ‘The Kraken Wakes’ (‘Out of the Deeps’ in the US and I do wish they would not do that – change book titles) by John Wyndham who also wrote ‘The Day of the Triffid’ and ‘The Midwich Cuckoos’.

  66. #66 Lionel A
    June 9, 2013

    Here you are Betulant, seeing climate change for real.

  67. #67 Lionel A
    June 9, 2013

    Whilst on creatures in the seas, the trend in jellyfish numbers is up around many coasts we in the UK having had plagues of these in recent years. This is partly climate change and partly overfishing and deep sea trawling removing the fish which would have controlled the numbers whilst in the planktonic phase (larval and polyp).

    Here is one looming problem as Jellyfish Surge in Mediterranean Threatens Environment.

    Check out also the troubles in the Pacific caused by Nomura jellyfish.

    I once saw a documentary with video of desperate Japanese trawler men trying to dispose of net fulls by cutting them up and jettisoning the back to the sea not realising that they were making the problem worse because the jellys as they were dying released thousands of eggs and sperm thus laying the foundations for a massive increase in population.

  68. #68 jerryg
    June 9, 2013

    @Lionel A

    Wow, 87 degrees Fahrenheit in Finland – North of the Arctic Circle. That can’t be normal – well, maybe it is now :(

  69. #69 Bernard J.
    June 9, 2013

    Betula.

    I’ve “witnessed climate change first hand” in my region, and I’ve often commented here on those changes.

    Do you dispute those changes?

  70. #70 Betula
    June 9, 2013

    Lionel’s answer to Jeff’s Algonguin lies and embellishment :

    @63… I don’t appreciate the discomforts Jeff went through to be able to lie and embellish.

    @65…someone else named Jeff wrote in a blog about a 20 day flood occurring in Algonguin .

    Sorry,I mean a 100 year flood occurring in Central Europe. I’m sure you can understand the confusion….

  71. #71 Betula
    June 9, 2013

    Jeffs response to his lies and embellishment in Algonquin:

    Deltoid, May 4th 2012:

    “As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand”

    Lionel @ 42…

    “To be sure if Jeff said he saw evidence for climate change then I believe him”

  72. #72 Betula
    June 9, 2013

    Bernard…

    “I’ve “witnessed climate change first hand Do you dispute those changes?”

    1. I don’t know what you have witnessed so how can I dispute it?

    2. If you are comparing what you witnessed, to what Jeff witnessed in Algonguin, then Jeff will first have to tell us what climate change he experienced “first hand” and what shifting zones he could “see in real” over a 20 day period….
    otherwise, there’ nothing to compare to.
    3. You may have a hard time comparing what you saw to what Jeff saw because he later admitted “of course I can’t describe things first hand”

    4. Don’t worry Bernard, whatever it is, you will always have Lionel on your side.

  73. #73 Betula
    June 9, 2013

    Lionel’s thoughts about Jeff having to admit he couldn’t describe things first hand…

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.262213-Students-believe-in-the-tree-octopus

  74. #74 Betula
    June 9, 2013

    rhwombat @ 55…

    Now that’s funny.

  75. #75 Wow
    June 9, 2013

    Bernard…

    “I’ve “witnessed climate change first hand Do you dispute those changes?”

    1. I don’t know what you have witnessed so how can I dispute it?

    Well, since you dispute Jeff’s experience and statements, that must mean you were with Jeff, then, right?

    Or were you just plain avoiding the question, AGAIN, Betty?

  76. #76 BBD
    June 9, 2013

    Notice how – *yet again* – Betula won’t even acknowledge anything written about the big picture?

    Like # 47, for example.

    Skip, skip, skip…

  77. #77 BBD
    June 9, 2013

    Meanwhile, it turns out that the extreme flooding currently afflicting parts of Europe was caused by blocking highs – bringing us right back to the Petoukhov et al. study published in February that Betula was desperately trying to bury in FUD.

    Looks like they’ve got a bit more information to add to their time-period now, eh Betula?

    More information here.

  78. #78 Betula
    June 10, 2013

    “Well, since you dispute Jeff’s experience and statements, that must mean you were with Jeff, then, right?”

    You’re Hopeless Wow. Jeff was forced to admit he couldn’t describe thing first hand. Why are you disputing what he said?

    Hopeless.

  79. #79 Betula
    June 10, 2013

    BBD…

    Link your sources.

  80. #80 Betula
    June 10, 2013

    BBD…

    Sorry…Link your sources at #47.

  81. #81 Betula
    June 10, 2013

    BBD @ 77….

    “Looks like they’ve got a bit more information to add to their time-period now, eh Betula?”

    Actually no. Where is the “more information”? Your link to a blog doesn’t give more information, in fact, if you look at the end of the article, it links to Stefan Rahmstorf’s blog as a source….and what does Stefan Rahmstorf have to say?

    “Not only the amplitude of the waves is particularly large, but the waves remain for a long time are almost stationary. Allowing the same weather conditions last for weeks”

    “Does this have anything to do with global warming? This question can not be answered with certainty”

    “Current global climate models can not resolve correctly the mechanism of planetary waves because the grids are too coarse”

    No more information BBD. Same partial information, computer capacity limited, can’t say with certainty. However, I’ll give you an “A” for, well…. I’ll give you an “A”.

  82. #82 Jeff Harvey
    June 10, 2013

    Betula is sinking deeper and deeper into the mire. Note how he has not responded once to any of the points I or others have put to him. He is singularly obsessed with one short web article written by a colleague here after I crossed Algonquin Park in winter in 2012 in which it was written that I observed climate change first hand.

    I certainly did, if one considers that many inverts were active in January in habitats that should be frozen solid. We also experienced temperatures way above normal, two rainfall events (unheard of in this area Januarys 2 or 3 decades ago) and waters that were unfrozen when they should have had a dense layer of ice. If one observes climate change effects at a given time, they can only look for symptoms, and not the ultimate effects. Moreover, one thing I did was linked a number of studies showing biological responses to warming – a small snippet of a huge and growing data base. And I included one by a Masters student based on the Algonquin-Adirondack corridor.

    Betula has no empirical arguments except to suggest that nature in the eastern United States is doing fine on the basis of three piss-poor examples. He has abandoned this and his C02 benefits nature nonsense after these arguments were shredded.

  83. #83 Wow
    June 10, 2013

    Remember though Betty *says* that climate change can happen, they absolutely 185% believe as stone cold fact that it can’t actually do any change whilst anyone is around watching.

    And Betty still doesn’t know what that means.

  84. #84 Bernard J.
    June 10, 2013

    I don’t know what you have witnessed so how can I dispute it?

    I’ve repeated many times on Deltoid the changes that have occurred in my own area. Perhaps you missed those comments the first, second, and third times around…

    Search for comments about snow that fell in the 70s to the extent that it prevented school buses from travelling, where today snow never falls at all*.

    Search for comments about chill hours decreasing to the point where fruit set in orchards is jeopardised.

    Search for comments about the salmon industry here (with which I have had direct contact) having to consider alternative species because the summer temperatures are approaching the species’ upper thermal tolerance limit.

    Search for comments about lower latitude species moving south, including the sea urchins that are wiping out the giant kelp forests… Of course, searching for information seems to be something beyond your limited intellectual capacity, so perhaps you could take a short cut and just read:

    http://www.climatechange.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/129269/Last_et_al_2010-Climate_paper.pdf

    http://www.redmap.org.au/news/2012/12/13/tracking-wayward-fish-the-history-of-redmap-tasmania/

    http://www.redmap.org.au/article/leaving-home-in-a-huff-range-shifts-in-australian-seas/

    I’ve seen these changes directly Betula. I’ve seen the salmon displaying the early signs of thermal stress. I’ve seen the novel fish species appearing in nets and dredges. I’ve seen roads that used to be covered in snow no longer being sprinkled even with frost. I’ve seen the trees and berry bushes that yield less because the winters have not been sufficiently cold.

    Are you going to tell me that I’ve not “witnessed climate change first hand”?

    *Speaking of snow fall, the Australian ski season opened this weekend without any snow. Embarrassing for Accuweather, which predicted otherwise.

  85. #85 Jeff Harvey
    June 10, 2013

    Betula also distorts what I said about the temperatures during our Park crossing. Indeed, the temperature was way above normal the entire duration (the average over many years was – 7 C day and – 19 C night, when it was typically -5 to +5 by day and 0 to -15 at night when we were crossing). In the end,.it was the warmest winter ever recorded in the Park. Snow depths and ice thickness were well below normal, and as I said earlier there was plenty of invertebrate activity – spiders, collemboles, caddisflies were all active when just a coupl;e of decades ago this would not have been possible. The winter collemboles are normally observed in late February thru March, so they were active some 4 weeks earlier than normal. These events are exceptional, given that I crossed the Park as a challenge (it had never been done in winter) and not for research purposes, even though I know it would a great area as it lies on the boundary of two major biomes. If I was doing research there, as many studies across the North American continent have reported (see my earlier listing of just a few of them), then of course I would find many examples of biotic responses to warming.

    The reason Betula sticks to this topic like glue is because all of his other feeble arguments have been shot down. He began with it over a year ago and its been his running theme ever since. He has ventured into other areas, only to have his arguments categorically debunked, so then he retreats back to a short article written about my Algonquin Park crossing. He’s done this repeatedly.

    Essentially, given that he has very few allies here (GSW, Olaus and Karen are it), I wonder why he persists. Certainly not out of any chance of winning any kind of debate.His earlier posts on C02 and environmental quality in eastern NA showed clearly how out of his depth he is on those subjects. So its back to me and Algonquin Park. Ad libitum.

  86. #86 BBD
    June 10, 2013

    Betula

    Sorry…Link your sources at #47.

    No. Can’t be bothered. You tell me what you are going to try and lie about, and I will rebut your attempt point for point. With references.

    And Betula – two 500-year floods in 11 years with a 500-year heat wave in between during the hottest decade in the instrumental record is AGW-induced climate instability starting to emerge. Your stupid denial of the blindingly obvious notwithstanding.

  87. #87 BBD
    June 10, 2013

    And what a fucking troll you are, Betty.

  88. #88 Betula
    June 10, 2013

    Harvey…

    1. “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand”

    2.“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand”

    3. “I certainly did, if one considers that many inverts were active in January in habitats that should be frozen solid.”

    4. “with around -2 oC during the day and -10 at night”

    Harvey… with his hand in the cookie jar.
    It’s ok Jeff, you can have a cookie…

  89. #89 BBD
    June 10, 2013

    Nitpicking troll.

    Modern climate change is mostly human caused. See # 47

  90. #90 Wow
    June 10, 2013

    Betty, still completely hoping that nobody notices you said fuck all there?

    It isn’t working, little girl. It isn’t working.

  91. #91 Jeff Harvey
    June 10, 2013

    Betty is more than a troll. He is a joke. He thinks he’s actually cornered me, whilst refusing to respond to any of the debunkings of his own pathetic examples. I’ve pasted up a number of studies here that clearly show climate change related effects on plants, animals and trophic interactions. There are many times more. Betty of course will ignore them because they totally undermine his arguments that warming is not being demonstrated in natural systems. Given his paucity of expertise in environmental science, which has been amply demonstrated here time and again, there is little left for him to do except to go back to the starting point and to hang onto it like a bulldog. And to reiterate, its proof that he never reads the primary literature.

    If this gives him the feeling of securing some kind of intellectual ‘victory’, then my advice to others here is to pat him on the back for his immense wisdom and then to send him packing. He clearly has nothing to add of value here on the environment, given the crap he’s been spewing out earlier about C02 fertilization and Betty-style indicators of environmental health in his neck of the woods.

    It is telling that when I and others countered both arguments, he was unable to respond and went back to his Algonquin Park theme. His one and only seeming refuge.

  92. #92 Lionel A
    June 10, 2013

    Perhaps Betula should be sent to Algonquin Park for a similar sojourn to yours Jeff and when he is done there go to Greenland for the summer season on the ice with some other scientists.

    Heck he could even join up with James Balog and colleagues to witness climate change at first hand. I wonder how courageous he would be when navigating melting ice watching out for crevasses and moulins.

    And there is more, he could also link up with Jason Box and discover even more about climate change in your face.

    He could also search out E.O.Wilson for more discoveries.

    But no, he will just continue playing the silly ignoramus.

  93. #93 Lionel A
    June 10, 2013

    Betula at #81, dribbled

    Actually no. Where is the “more information”? Your link to a blog doesn’t give more information, in fact, if you look at the end of the article, it links to Stefan Rahmstorf’s blog as a source….and what does Stefan Rahmstorf have to say?

    Well as we have already shown, Rahmstorf has said a good deal more than that as from The Conversation we have seen:

    What does climate change have to to with it?

    Climate change caused by greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning does not bring a uniform global warming. In the Arctic, the warming is amplified by the loss of snow and ice. This in turn reduces the temperature difference between the Arctic and, for example, Europe. Yet temperature differences are a main driver of air flow, thereby influencing the planetary waves. Additionally, continents generally warm and cool more readily than the oceans.

    These two factors are crucial for the mechanism now detected. They result in a changing pattern of the mid-latitude air flow, so that for extended periods the slow waves get trapped. The irregular surface temperature patterns disturb the global air flow. This analysis is based on equations that our team of scientists developed, mathematically describing the wave motions in the extra-tropical atmosphere. The conclusions drawn from the equations were tested using standard daily weather data from the US National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP).

    During recent periods in which several major weather extremes occurred, the trapping and strong amplification of particular waves – like “wave seven” (which has seven troughs and crests spanning the globe) – was observed. The data show an increase in the occurrence of these specific atmospheric patterns.

    This analysis helps to explain the increasing number of unprecedented weather extremes. It complements previous research that already showed that climate change strongly increases the number of heat records around the world, but which could not explain why previous records were broken by such stunning margins. The findings should significantly advance the understanding of weather extremes and their relation to man-made climate change.

    The new data show that the emergence of extraordinary weather is not just a linear response to the mean warming trend, and the proposed mechanism could explain that.
    Still, things are not at all simple. The suggested physical process increases the probability of weather extremes, but additional factors certainly play a role as well, including natural variability. Also, the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definitive conclusions.

    So there’s no smoking gun on the table yet – but quite telling fingerprints all over the place.

    And yes we know that natural variability is in the mix but that does not change the fact that global temperatures are climbing due to a well understood area of physics which explains why there is an energy budget surplus building up in Earth’s systems. The elevator is going up.

  94. #94 Betula
    June 10, 2013

    Perhaps Betula should be sent to Algonquin Park for a similar sojourn to yours Jeff.

    I would love it. And then we can send Jeff to the U.S. Marine Corps for a short spell to see how he handles that.

  95. #95 Betula
    June 10, 2013

    “So there’s no smoking gun on the table yet – but quite telling fingerprints all over the place.”

    No smoking gun? DENIER!

  96. #96 Wow
    June 10, 2013

    More taxing questions evasion from Betty.

    Which leaves nobody surprised.

  97. #97 Lionel A
    June 10, 2013

    No smoking gun? DENIER!

    Well, unlike you I am upfront on sources and provide complete quotes including those that relay caveats. Even caveats from a scientist using the renowned scientific understatement and non-committal.

    But the honest person sees beyond this and puts such statements in the context of what is happening around the globe. By ignoring that it is you that is the DENIER.

  98. #98 Lionel A
    June 10, 2013

    I would love it

    Go on then, go. Do a spell with Box and Balog too we will all be interested in how you get on. Now until you have followed up on this I suggest that you shut up about Algonquin, you were becoming tedious anyway, and much else besides. Don’t remain the clueless one with only a wooden line of argument.

  99. #99 BBD
    June 10, 2013

    Big-picture-denying troll: modern climate change is mostly human caused.

    See # 47.

  100. #100 chek
    June 10, 2013

    And then we can send Jeff to…

    The difference being of course that Jeff actually went to Algonquin Park rather than fantasizes about it.

    Whereas your (unrequested) tale of being the hard wurkin’ ‘murcan ex-muhrine now successful SME owner made to feel like Rosa fucking Parks while working in a millionaire/billionaire Dem-oh-crit ghetto ticks so many GOP victim boxes it’s too funny for words.

Current ye@r *