June 2013 Open thread

More thread for you.

Comments

  1. #1 Bernard J.
    June 10, 2013

    Betula at #94 on page 3

    Your comment is a complete non sequitur and thus bereft of any point germane to a discussion of climate change.

    Remember, logical fallacy is the refuge of the ignorant and the mendacious.

  2. #2 Betula
    June 10, 2013

    chek…

    Try Disulfiram.

  3. #3 Betula
    June 10, 2013

    Bernard @ 1….

    Unless (like Lionel @92) , we are talking about the courageousness of our climate change heroes, the likes of who went and faced the ugly beast of shifting zones in real. Surely, no guaranteed worst case only scenario denier could stand up to experiencing the dreaded climate change first hand!
    Algonguin – Where Uncommon Frostbite Was A Common Virtue.
    Not to be confused with – The Few, The Proud, The Marine Biologists.

  4. #4 chek
    June 11, 2013

    Y’know Betty, you should – and it’s in keeping with your beloved would-be macho miltaire thing – make ‘Ignore despatches from the front, things are pretty damn good here at HQ forty miles behind the lines’ your motto. Although just the first five words make it more pithy.

    As your cherry-picked phrases indicate, you’ve got nothing.
    Not even a semblance of a counter.

  5. #5 Bernard J.
    June 11, 2013

    Another non sequitur Betula.

    We’re discussing the evidence for climate change.

    On which subject, I note that you have yet to challenge any of the indications of warming that I’ve “witnessed”.

  6. #6 Bernard J.
    June 11, 2013

    On the subject of warming David Duff might be interested to know that the first 11 days of our winter have exhibited day temperatures 3.8° celsius above average, night temperatures 3° celsius above average, with and ocean temperature that is 2° celsius above average.

    Oh, and yesterday the snakes were out sun-baking. Usually they disappear by April at the latest.

    By David Duff’s own logic global warming is roaring along.

  7. #7 Craig Thomas
    June 11, 2013

    Even a Creationist has had enough of the “there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect” kooks:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/

  8. #8 Jeff Harvey
    June 11, 2013

    “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”

    Ya gotta love this clown. A self-righteous machismo comedian. Well, at least he thinks he is. Besides, give the US marines performance in recent foreign expansionist wars, I don’t hold them up to any kind of esteem.

  9. #9 BBD
    June 11, 2013

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

    Reference: NOAA global, GISTEMP, HadCRUT4

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

    Reference: any extreme weather event index, eg. this one and Hansen, Sato & Ruedi (2012), Public perception of climate change and the new climate dice.

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

    Reference: Levitus et al. (2012), World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010:

    The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 10^22 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth’s surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 10^22 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2(per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C. The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955.

  10. #10 BBD
    June 11, 2013

    # 9 @ Betula re: # 47 previous page.

  11. #11 BBD
    June 11, 2013

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

    Reference: the entire literature on the physics of the radiating atmosphere… but try Ray Pierrehumbert’s primer on radiative physics and planetary temperature in Physics Today for starters. But remember Betty – I can’t understand it for you. You have to read it yourself.

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

    Reference: orbitally-triggered deglaciations ~2.75Ma – Holocene; Shakun et al. (2012); *any* decent graduate-level paleoclimate textbook, eg. Ruddiman or Cronin.

  12. #12 BBD
    June 11, 2013

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

    Reference: Hansen & Sato (2012); Rohling et al. (2012); Hansen et al. (2013) (in press).

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

    Reference: IPCC AR4:

    The simple formulae for RF of the LLGHG quoted in Ramaswamy et al. (2001) are still valid. These formulae are based on global RF calculations where clouds, stratospheric adjustment and solar absorption are included, and give an RF of +3.7 W m–2 for a doubling in the CO2 mixing ratio.

  13. #13 BBD
    June 11, 2013

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

    Reference: US Global Change Research Program (2009); IEA Emissions Update 2012; IPCC AR4:

    Footnote 14:

    gases and aerosols in 2100 (see p. 823 of the TAR) for the SRES B1, A1T, B2, A1B, A2 and A1FI illustrative marker scenarios are about 600, 700, 800, 850, 1250 and 1,550 ppm respectively.

  14. #14 BBD
    June 11, 2013

    There you go, Betty.

    References for # 47, previous page.

  15. #15 bill
    June 11, 2013

    Ugh Mighty Marine beat brainy scientist; me smash’um with big rock! And polesaw…

    What a maroon! The decline of the US Empire in cartoon form…

  16. #16 Lionel A
    June 11, 2013

    Betula as seen in his #3 is now clearly rambling and not across Algonguin Park. Note also his inability to quote correctly turning his posts into meaningless porridge.

  17. #17 Karen
    June 11, 2013

    “Oh, and yesterday the snakes were out sun-baking. Usually they disappear by April at the latest.”

    hehehe, there goes barnturd flapping his puny little wings again, lol wot a nuffie

    You don’t know much about snakes barnturd, or climate change :)

    AAAAARRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr the sky is falling.lol

    All you guys in here must get extremely embarrassed when your fellow cultists babble about seeing the ghosts of climate change, huh, never mind go back to praying fellas.

    O’ almighty Lord of Climate, why dost thou torture us with a pause? Please please bring us the hottest, meanest and mightiest El Nino ever seen and burn burn burn…amen

    lol

  18. #18 Betula
    June 11, 2013

    Bernard…
    “We’re discussing the evidence for climate change”

    Then maybe you should follow the discussion more closely. While I was on the topic of Jeff’s reporting the “evidence for climate change”, Lionel et al. seem to be stuck on the perils of exploring climate change and the courage that it takes to protect us from the front lines….I felt a comparison to the Marines was in order, certainly you must agree these people are the Marines of scientists. Have you never heard the slogan……”First To Fright”?

    Your selective comprehension of the conversation is a bit puzzling, perhaps you missed a few lines earlier in the thread. Here, let me help you out…

    In response to Jeff admitting “of course I can’t describe things first hand”:

    Lionel @ 64…”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”

    @ 64 again…”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.”

    More @ 64…”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.”

    Note…this shows Lionel’s “macho” side. Did you catch that chek?

    Lionel @ 92….”Perhaps Betula should be sent to Algonquin Park for a similar sojourn”

    @ 92… “I wonder how courageous he would be when navigating melting ice watching out for crevasses and moulins.”

    chek @4…”Ignore despatches from the front, things are pretty damn good here at HQ forty miles behind the lines’ your motto.”

    Are you still there Bernard?

    Anyways, that last line is pretty humorous…could you imagine someone on the front lines reporting back… “I have experienced the enemy first hand” and ” I have seen the enemy in real”….only later to admit “of course I can’t describe the enemy first hand”. Meanwhile, his comrades circle the wagons to try and protect him with comments like…”If he said he experienced the enemy in real than I believe him!”

    Bernard, you’re a smart guy, please don’t become part of the joke.

  19. #19 chek
    June 11, 2013

    Did you catch that chek?

    Yup, the difference being I know for a fact Lionel was in the FAA, whereas every pop-gun blowhard and his dog in the U.S. are ‘ex-marines’.

    Plus I find it hard to believe even the lowest grade of grunt would be as poor at paraphrasing as you show yourself to be.

    But your evasions of Bernard’s and BBD’s equally salient posts do at least demonstrate you’re a deeply committed denier.

  20. #20 Bernard J.
    June 11, 2013

    You don’t know much about snakes barnturd, or climate change

    See, that’s the thing KarenMackSunspot. We almost never see snake out at this time of year because it’s too cold. It’s not surprising that they come out on warm days, but it is surprising that it was warm enough to lure them out multiple times at this time of year.

    That was my point to David Duff who thinks that examples of cold weather are disproof of climate change. It’s not surprising though that the significance of the converse sailed right over your head.

    And have you decided yet which post on Deltoid is your proudest ever moment?

  21. #21 Bernard J.
    June 11, 2013

    Are you still there Bernard?

    Yes, and I’m wondering why you think that Jeff couldn’t cut it at least as well as you (according to your account) in the Marines. After all, do you know what he’s able to handle? Do you have his test results?

    All the rest is still non sequitur.

  22. #22 BBD
    June 11, 2013

    Climate change is mainly driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions Betula. It is already beginning to cause climate disruption and this is just the beginning. It will get much, much worse.

    The big picture is overwhelmingly convincing. See # 47 previous page and # 9, # 11, #12 and #13 above, referenced for your convenience.

    “Sceptics” are either liars or fools or have simply retreated into denial because they can’t cope with reality.

  23. #23 Wow
    June 11, 2013

    Of course, Betty has two email accounts. And can’t even keep THEM straight…

  24. #24 Lionel A
    June 11, 2013

    Oh dear, the perennially confused, wooden heart Betula, following the deranged, Karen who has awoke from the depths, what a pair of clowns.

    Thing is, after hurling insults what have you two got left – nothing, nada, zilch. These are not even emperors without clothes for they have never garbed themselves with knowledge in order to recognize the truth. These Black Knights are too easy for they have no black mail.

  25. #25 Lionel A
    June 11, 2013

    More evidence for climate change that you can see for real, note that twentieth century spike Betula as it is about to get you in the butt.

  26. #26 Jeff Harvey
    June 11, 2013

    “Bernard, you’re a smart guy”

    Yes he is. Too bad Betula that you aren’t, as demonstrated by some of the appallingly simple arguments you have posted up here in recent weeks. Trouble is that you think you are clever… but when your arguments are blown to smithereens you constantly shift the goalposts and move elsewhere.

    Regarding the marines, please don’t make me laugh. US marines aren’t exactly feared abroad. And I am not sure that all of them would have been up to hauling 60 kg of stuff behind them over 23 days across Ontario wilderness…. and certainly not at 54 years of age. Turns out I am in pretty good shape for a guy of my age as I work out twice a week at the gym and are planning an 800 km canoe trek from lake Winnipeg to Hudson’s Bay as well as a hiking trip across Iceland. Being a scientist does not necessarily mean that one is a shapeless blob. Your marine joke was in keeping with your general demeanor.

  27. #28 Lionel A
    June 11, 2013
  28. #29 GSW
    June 11, 2013

    @Jeff

    “Regarding the marines, please don’t make me laugh. US marines aren’t exactly feared abroad.” (?)

    Eh.. Not sure if you are playing here or not Jeff, kind of a bizarre statement to make unless you are some kind of Eco-Jihadist (which I’m not going to rule out), but, to continue the Napoleon theme now you’ve arrived, I’ll quote Wellington,

    “I don’t know if they frighten the enemy, but they scare the hell out of me.”

    you obviously are made of sterner stuff.
    ;)

  29. #30 GSW
    June 11, 2013

    @Olaus,

    Thanks for the link. A few choice quotes,

    “As unlikely as this may sound, we have lucked out in recent years when it comes to global warming.”

    “The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.”

    “But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested.”

    At the risk of get all Rumsfeld, “the things we know we don’t know and the things we don’t.”

    Article sounds as though it is all very much still up for grabs and definitely not as “settled” as some would have us believe. So, quite fair overall.
    ;)

  30. #31 Betula
    June 11, 2013

    “And I am not sure that all of them would have been up to hauling 60 kg of stuff behind them over 23 days across Ontario wilderness”

    You’re not sure about a lot of things, are you?

  31. #32 Betula
    June 11, 2013

    “you constantly shift the goalposts and move elsewhere”

    No, the goalposts have remained at Algonquin for quite some time…

  32. #33 Betula
    June 11, 2013

    Lionel @ 25..

    “More evidence for climate change”

    Honestly? You are comparing a 2000 year ice core record to a 20 day hike in the park? How embarrassing for you.

  33. #34 BBD
    June 11, 2013

    Note that Betula has gone back to skip, skip, skip mode. As always, when faced with the big picture.

  34. #35 BBD
    June 11, 2013

    No, the goalposts have remained at Algonquin for quite some time…

    That is rather the problem Betula. You are avoiding any discussion except that of irrelevance, and within your own dishonest framing at that.

    We are not stupid, Betula. That’s why you are irritating. You are an insult to the intelligence of others.

  35. #36 BBD
    June 11, 2013

    Given the almost comically aligned double act, I have to wonder if Olaus and GSW aren’t aspects of the same mind…

  36. #37 GSW
    June 11, 2013

    @BBD

    No BBD, we are not, we’ve been thru all that before. It’s the paranoia that gets you lot in the end, look at Jeff!
    ;)

  37. #38 BBD
    June 11, 2013

    # 30

    Article sounds as though it is all very much still up for grabs and definitely not as “settled” as some would have us believe. So, quite fair overall.

    Settled science = radiative physics; “greenhouse effect”

    Questions remain over cause(s) of recent slowdown in rate of *atmospheric* warming.

    The energy appears to be going into the ocean – one only has to look at the strong upward trend in 0 – 2000m OHC data to see that. Note the very large jump up Jan – Mar 2013 (3 month mean; red).

    The likely mechanism is wind speed change perhaps with some help from the PDO and both anthropogenic and volcanic aerosols.

    See also Watanabe et al. (2013), Strengthening of ocean heat uptake efficiency associated with the recent climate hiatus.

  38. #39 BBD
    June 11, 2013

    Then stop fluffing each other so ardently and obviously. It is repellent to behold.

  39. #40 BBD
    June 11, 2013

    GSW, all the denialist bullshit in the world cannot get around some very simple facts:

    – The difference between the Holocene and the LGM is about 4.5C.

    – This difference is maintained by an increase in RF of about 6W/m^2 over the LGM.

    – A simple, but inclusive empirical estimate of fast feedback sensitivity to yields 0.75C per W/m^2 dF.

    - So if we manage to increase CO2e (including CH4, albedo etc) to ~4W/m^2 (which seems near-certain for a doubling of CO2 280ppmv -> 560ppmv) then dT = ~3C.

  40. #41 Stu
    June 11, 2013

    BBD: either a split personality or drinking buddies. Their stupidity is in the same neighborhood but of a different flavor.

  41. #42 Stu
    June 11, 2013

    To wit: GSW is an odd “no I didn’t say that stupid thing, let me disappear for a month” duck, while Olaus is more your garden-variety “here’s a link I did not read and/or understand” clown.

  42. #43 Wow
    June 11, 2013

    Oh, no Olap does the “duck for a month” dodge too.

    When I asked him how he would detect climate change (since he agrees that the climate DOES change), he just asked a bullshit nonsequitur of someone else and eventually ran off for a few months when the “look! Squirrels!!!” attempt didn’t work.

    They’re pretty much on a dead heat for stupidity.

  43. #44 GSW
    June 11, 2013

    @stu,

    Hi stu, how you? Ego recovered?
    ;)

  44. #45 Wow
    June 11, 2013

    “Questions remain over cause(s) of recent slowdown in rate of *atmospheric* warming.”

    Except that even that requires you go down the up escalator:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

    Since there’s no statistically significant pause in the trend, there is no pause to explain away.

  45. #46 BBD
    June 11, 2013

    # 44 trolling.

    Let’s have something substantive out of you that goes well beyond fluffing Olaus and quote mining shit churnalism.

  46. #47 GSW
    June 11, 2013

    @BBD

    Long story BBD, don’t think you were around then. It’s all to do with “six years of physics” and what that buys you.
    ;)

  47. #48 Stu
    June 11, 2013

    By the way, Betty, you are the most insecure douche I have encountered since… well, since Jonas.

  48. #49 Stu
    June 11, 2013

    Ah yes, GSW, the guy that felt it was very important to mention that if you do an experiment where a hand is pushing a box, and the box accelerates, the hand has to move faster too.

    No, I’m serious. He and Jonas have been arguing that for years now. Well, they switched to claiming they never brought it up at some point I think. Clinical insanity is hard to follow sometimes.

    GSW, the dunce so dense that not only the concept of irrelevant variables is too much, that pesky “cause and effect” thing still eludes him.

  49. #50 GSW
    June 11, 2013

    @stu

    I’ll take that as a NO.
    ;)

  50. #51 Wow
    June 11, 2013

    Remember, the dunderheads are conditioned to expect causeless effects.

    God.
    Climate.
    Movement.

  51. #52 Wow
    June 11, 2013

    Gitter, you’d take it whichever way you already wanted to take it.

    You’ve never yet let evidence change your tack.

    Because you’re a brainless moron.

  52. #53 Wow
    June 11, 2013

    But

  53. #54 Wow
    June 11, 2013

    there’s

  54. #55 Wow
    June 11, 2013

    no

  55. #56 Wow
    June 11, 2013

    point

  56. #57 Wow
    June 11, 2013

    to

  57. #58 Wow
    June 11, 2013

    this

  58. #59 Wow
    June 11, 2013

    blog

  59. #60 Stu
    June 11, 2013

    Wait, what did I miss… *scrolls up*

    Oh GSW, you sad little man… if you think my ego is tied up in getting the best of the mentally challenged on the Internet, I’m sorry to disappoint you.

  60. #61 Wow
    June 11, 2013

    any

  61. #62 Wow
    June 11, 2013

    more.

  62. #63 Wow
    June 11, 2013

    What the hell is the point coming here to read a bunch of idiot trolls pratt about and yell “POOPIE HEADS!!!!” because they’re ass-raped by the very IDEA that there’s something wrong with the way captialism is handling externalities and MAYBE government action is needed.

  63. #64 BBD
    June 11, 2013

    GSW

    Long story BBD, don’t think you were around then. It’s all to do with “six years of physics” and what that buys you.

    This isn’t what I asked for. Instead of trolling, engage substantively. If you want examples, see my comments and others’ above. Referenced, supported argument.

    You can’t can you? Quote mining shite churnalism is your limit.

  64. #65 BBD
    June 11, 2013

    See # 40 GSW? Say something intelligent about that.

  65. #66 Jeff Harvey
    June 11, 2013

    “No, the goalposts have remained at Algonquin for quite some time”

    B* they have. You have since ventured onto C02 fertilization effects, environmental quality in eastern NA and glacial loss. Only when your simplistic arguments in these areas were debunked did you return to the Algonquin meme. And, as I have repeated here over and over again, you consistently refuse to discuss the primary literature (some of which I have linked hon this thread). Either the results are too much for you to bear, or the science is way over your head.

    I opt for both options in your case.

    GSW: I suspect that your allegedly vaunted US marines are seen as illegal occupiers in a number of countries by the local populations. On this basis, they aren’t feared so much as despised.

  66. #67 GSW
    June 11, 2013

    @Jeff

    Well Jeff, (no offence intended Betula ;) ) the sheer combination of being A) American and B) Heavily Armed is enough to scare the crap out of most people I would have thought. The fact that marines are also trained to use them “effectively” would take it beyond a reasonable doubt in anybodys mind.

    Next time you visit the US, you could try it out, demonstrate your lack of fear that is, find a group of heavily armed americans and tell them how much you despise them. Looking forward to the field report on that one.
    ;)

  67. #68 Stu
    June 11, 2013

    the sheer combination of being A) American and B) Heavily Armed is enough to scare the crap out of most people I would have thought

    Words fail to express what a pathetic little man you are — whether you intended to be sarcastic here or not. Sad, insecure, uninformed, delusional and pathetic.

    Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself? Wait, are you just a masochist?

  68. #69 Jeff Harvey
    June 11, 2013

    ….”the sheer combination of being A) American and B) Heavily Armed is enough to scare the crap out of most people I would have thought”

    As Stu said. GSW really scrapes the bottom of the barrel with this comment – the usual chest-pounding machismo of ‘how great our nation is and how we like to scare the bejeezus out of nations that don’t toe the line’. Or as neocon Michael Ledeen once apparently said, “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” I am sure that numbskulls like GSW think this is a perfectly acceptable remark. Its OK for the powerful to crush the weak whenever they feel the need, and so be it. Utterly pathetic, of course. But then again, this is GSW we are talking about.

    Moreover, China for one doesn’t seem to be listening. They yawn whenever the us huffs and puffs and pounds the turf. But that is beside the point. That being whatever stupid point Betula was first making to give the impression that the only ‘real men’ out there are military trainees and certainly not scientists. Stan Goff would probably have something interesting to say about that, he being a former marine himself who loathes US foreign policy agendas. Or Andrew Bacevich, a West Point graduate who similarly decries US expansionist wars. And what about the huge numbers of US marines and military – most culled from the ranks of the poor – sent into harms way abroad to fight economic wars (the rich exempt themselves from military duty) and who return broken men, many of whom are either mentally or physically crippled and never able to integrate into civilian life again and who are often tossed onto the scrap heap? And for what? To support the interests of a privileged few at home?

    Really, GSW. You have sunk even lower than Betula with your latest machismo nonsense. Pretty pathetic, really.

  69. #70 Betula
    June 11, 2013

    “You have sunk even lower than Betula with your latest machismo nonsense”

    The Marines originally came into the picture because Lionel brought up how courageous one has to be to witness shifting zones in real….and we all know one is more courageous than Jeff.

    If suggesting Jeff join the Marines is considered “machismo nonsense”, it would appear Jeff’s response proves he’s as macho and nonsensical as one can get….he would teach them all a lesson!.

    Does it get any better than this?:

    “Regarding the marines, please don’t make me laugh. And I am not sure that all of them would have been up to hauling 60 kg of stuff behind them over 23 days across Ontario wilderness…. and certainly not at 54 years of age. Turns out I am in pretty good shape for a guy of my age as I work out twice a week at the gym and are planning an 800 km canoe trek from lake Winnipeg to Hudson’s Bay as well as a hiking trip across Iceland.”

    Now that’s a macho man!

  70. #71 GSW
    June 11, 2013

    @Jeff

    “Turns out I am in pretty good shape for a guy of my age as I work out twice a week at the gym and are planning an 800 km canoe trek from lake Winnipeg to Hudson’s Bay as well as a hiking trip across Iceland.”

    Thanks for sharing your opinion of you. We’ll file it alongside; “I’m a scientist”, a guitar hero, on your Kerry King signature series warlock, a “witness” of climate change “first hand” and being a big girl’s blouse.

  71. #72 Olaus Petri
    June 11, 2013

    GSW, I’m sure Jeffie’s “first hand” is the same one that can move boxes, don’t you think? ;-)

  72. #73 BBD
    June 11, 2013

    You can almost smell the fear of substantive discussion coming off Betula and GSW.

    I love it when the deniers start trying to pretend that long sequences of comments simply didn’t happen. They look so utterly, wretchedly dishonest and childish.

  73. #74 chek
    June 11, 2013

    Betty @ #70

    The Marines originally came into the picture because Lionel brought up…

    You’re getting confused Betty, as most liars eventually do. The marines ‘came into the picture’ in your bitter, 1000+ word rant at Jeff here.

  74. #75 chek
    June 11, 2013

    … not that I’d condemn anybody to bother reading BettyWorld (again).
    However what remains is that Betty has zero argument concerning AGW. His absolute best effort is merely to raise a sneer.

  75. #76 Karen
    June 11, 2013

    barnturd #20

    ” You don’t know much about snakes barnturd, or climate change

    See, that’s the thing KarenMackSunspot. We almost never see snake out at this time of year because it’s too cold.”

    You would squeal like a child if you seen a snake barnturd, lol

    hmmm…now what have here……….

    “Luckily, we only have 3 varieties of snake here (officially):

    Tasmania Tiger Snake – these come in a range of colours, and are often mistaken for mainland black snakes. Tassie tiger snakes can be black, black with yellow bellies, striped, and possibly other colours also. They have smaller fangs than the mainland version and seem to be less agressive also. Due to their smaller fangs they find it hard to penetrate thick materials. Gaiters and boots will usually protect you from these guys.
    Copperhead – Nasty little buggers! These are more agressive and will attack if cornered. These are also known to be out and about in winter, something not normally seen on the mainland.
    White Lipped Whip Snake – A small snake, only a couple of feet long and rather thin. Again, these will come out on sunny winter days.”

    http://www.realtasmania.com/topic/321-snakes/

    oh, barnturd all 3 varieties like to be patted and handled :) did you know that you only have pussy snakes in Tazzie, lol and obviously you don’t know much about them, your more the herb gardener type of guy.

  76. #77 Craig Thomas
    June 12, 2013

    the sheer combination of being A) American and B) Heavily Armed is enough to scare the crap out of most people I would have thought. The fact that marines are also trained to use them “effectively” would take it beyond a reasonable doubt in anybodys mind.

    Get real. “Effectively” and “US Military” are not concepts that coincide. The US military is renowned for its indiscipline, poor training, poor morale, fractured esprit de corps, and for the low average qualities of its individual soldiers, especially in the two areas that are most important to the most competent military forces: personal initiative and teamwork.

    The US Marines have a long history of being equipped with proportionately higher firepower than other formations, and for taking exceptionally high losses in action due to the primitive tactics they employ.

  77. #78 Betula
    June 12, 2013

    Lionel….

    Which one of the following sentences do you believe?

    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”

  78. #79 Betula
    June 12, 2013

    Bernard….

    Which of the following sentences do you believe?

    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”

  79. #80 Betula
    June 12, 2013

    Wow…

    Which of the following sentences do you believe?

    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”

  80. #81 Betula
    June 12, 2013

    BBD….

    Which one of the following sentences might you believe?

    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”

  81. #82 Betula
    June 12, 2013

    Hi Bill..

    I was just wondering, which one of the following sentences do you believe?

    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”

  82. #83 Betula
    June 12, 2013

    Hardley…

    Which one of your own sentences do you believe?

    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”

  83. #84 stephenk
    June 12, 2013

    While we are off on a tangent Craig, I read an interesting bit in the book of essays: “ANZACs Dirty Dozen” which I am currently working through.

    The author of one of the essays (Karl James) puts forward the idea that MacArthur more or less excluded the Australian troops from the more high profile areas of the Pacific war due to wanting to keep the spotlight on the US forces. James even gives some evidence that Blamey considered he could do with 5 battalions what the US was using 3 brigades to achieve (ie about 1/3 of the men) and that was why MacArthur, after promising to include the Australian forces in the invasion of the Philippines eventually excluded them. (Didn’t want to be shown up)
    I don’t have a huge interest in the second war generally or the Pacific particularly, but James produced, what appeared to me, to be some very reasonable arguments.

  84. #85 johnl
    June 12, 2013

    A us marine’s view of amerikan foreign policy:

    “There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, its “muscle men” to destroy enemies, its “brain men” to plan war preparations, and a “Big Boss” Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
    It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.”

    Smedley Darlington Butler was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps, an outspoken critic of U.S. military adventurism, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.

  85. #86 rhwombat
    old King Cole's Sphincter, NSW
    June 12, 2013

    Without wishing to invoke by naming one of the grottier manifestations of Troll taxonomy, stephenk, but I think that the very issue (the relatively abysmal performance of the US Marines in the early PNG campaigns) was what initially attracted the pathetically psychopathic lil’ mike to Deltoid. Those US Repiglican denialists are very insecure about their “victories”.

  86. #87 bill
    June 12, 2013

    So, Batty, you concede you have no point to make about AGW – unsurprisingly – so are reduced to out-of-context nitpicking of someone who clearly really threatens you, you great big macho ex-marine tree-pruner, you. Your sense of intellectual inadequacy is showing.

  87. #88 Sou
    June 12, 2013

    There is an ongoing effort at WUWT to calm all the deniers who are ‘freaking out’ or as likely to give them a reason to not freak out.

    The latest is an article about how species are adapting to climate change. Eg some tiny Arctic birds have to fly longer and further for food, which is apparently a good thing (but only if you are a Pollyanna and not a bird looking for food).

    The subject matter is unusual for WUWT and the writer assumes AGW from the look of it. So it will be interesting to see how the discussion pans out. So far it’s not looking too good or surprising. Comments encompass ‘she’ll be right’ through to “species die out is all part of nature” through to ‘It’s all good”.

    I haven’t seen a comment referring to any of the mass extinctions yet. I did see one that claimed that Australian greenie types are opposed to getting rid of exotic pests. I have no idea where he got that idea from. You have to build a straw man if you want to knock it down I suppose.

  88. #89 bill
    June 12, 2013

    Some Animal Lib types are opposed to the control of feral animal species. You even get the occasional Hippy nutter who applies the ‘it’s all natural, man’ logic to feral plant pests. Seeing the necessity for extrirpating pests – whether cute or otherwise – is one of the defining features that marks the distinction between Greenies and these types.

  89. #90 Bernard J.
    June 12, 2013

    KarenMackSunspot.

    Congratulations on missing the point yet again.

    I have 16 acres of wet forest and sphagnum grassland, and whip snakes and copperheads do not occur in my area. Tiger snakes are thick on the ground though, in both senses of the word. From late October to early March it’s typical to see at least one and often multiple individuals daily. For another 6-8 weeks either side there are occasional appearances, but I simply do not see them in winter. In my part of the world it is usually too cold and wet on the ground, even on a typical ‘warm’ winter’s day.

    That this winter has been so much balmier than usual is the reason why they are making winter appearances in a part of the state where they usually do not, and that is my bloody point Einstein. That the weather has been conspicuously and unseasonably warm.

    And nice ad hominem potty-mouth. Trouble is that you’re as wrong about that as you are about science. If you’re ever over here drop me a line and I’ll show you how to handle them – you can choose to squeal or not…

  90. #91 bill
    June 12, 2013

    What can you say about the kind of complete dipstick who uses the term ‘pussy snake’? And thinks tigers and copperheads are examples of this idiot genre?

    Dreck.

  91. #92 Sou
    June 12, 2013

    Yes, Bill, I do recall that there are some nutters who profess to be green. The commenter described them not as greenies but as: “…the same people who advocate reducing consumption of fossil fuels, “. Which is probably why I didn’t twig that that might be what he meant.

    We have lots of browns, tigers and red-bellied black snakes and probably others, but they are the ones I see. I don’t attempt to catch them, just watch where I walk. What I have noticed is a change in the bird population. We seem to have some permanent residents that I don’t recall being here twenty years ago.

    The other thing is that Bogong Moths seem to have been few and far between the last few years. I can’t blame them with the extreme weather of the past few years, which may have messed up their flight plans. Does anyone know someone who studies them?

  92. #93 Jeff Harvey
    June 12, 2013

    Betula is getting more and more desperate which each post. Its actually funny watching him desperately (and futilely) try and make my Algonquin Park comments into some BIG thing, whilst avoiding the discussion of biotic proxies and climate change, or the other embarrassing gaffes he has posted up here. He is also so desperate that he has to depend on his ignoranti mob consisting of GSW, Olaus and Karen to throw in the odd smear. Its strange how these guys operate – Betula makes a comment about scientists, or lat least me, not being ‘real men’ like US marines, I respond by saying that he doesn’t know anything about me or my physical shape which as it turns out for a guy of 55 is pretty good I would think, then GSW chimes in with nonsense about marines kicking my butt and then moves onto suggesting that I am boasting, with an additional vacuous jibe from Olaus. Hilarious all this really. This bunch of idiots hasn’t got anything left in the way of empirical arguments, so all they can do is try to smear scientists like myself. I am certainly used to this kind of thing, as I am sure many others are. In the case of Betula, he is resorting to utter desperation now: I posted a bunch of articles a few days ago highlighting the biotic responses to warming, and he hasn’t touched a single one. That’s because, as I said earlier, he doesn’t do science, doesn’t read the primary literature and wouldn’t understand the methods of these studies even if he did. Note also that his acolytes have not commented on a single one of these studies. Instead, expect Olaus to post up some crap from WUWY any time now,. Like Betula (and GSW) these jokers don’t read the primary scientific literature. I will say that Karen doesn’t either, but he/she/it does constantly distort the findings and conclusions of empirical studies.

    So there we have it: in 4 idiot deniers who contribute to this thread, we have 3 who never read published scientific studies and one who distorts the conclusions of the odd one. What a bunch of luminaries. And, with their ignorance laid bare, all they can resort to are smears and insults.

    BTW GSW, don’t belittle the talents of Kerry King – although I tend to like shredders like David Shankle and Joe Stump more.

  93. #94 Craig Thomas
    June 12, 2013

    Stephenk, ” puts forward the idea that MacArthur more or less excluded the Australian troops from the more high profile areas of the Pacific war due to wanting to keep the spotlight on the US forces. ”

    That was also my understanding.
    The US history of Buna-Gona and the Australian one differ significantly due to Macarthur’s revisionist accounts of what really happened there, his first opportunity to throw US troops into action where his leadership was inept and uninformed.
    His embarrassment after those actions was probably what led him to try to sideline the Australian troops thereafter. Later, he tried to get as many of them killed as possible by having them sent into a campaign in Borneo that had no strategic justification.

  94. #95 BBD
    June 12, 2013

    # 81 Betula

    I don’t care.

    The *reality* of AGW has exactly nothing to do with Jeff’s observations or your desperate attempt at hyper-focus on perceived inconsistencies in wording of same. As I said above, your framing and avoidance tactics are transparent, dishonest and childish.

    And they don’t work with me.

    What about my detailed provision of the references YOU asked for (# 9 – # 14)? What about that? You haven’t even mentioned those comments since. What about # 39 and # 40?

    Let’s have a substantive discussion. Except you can’t do that, can you? As this and every other page of every thread you appear on proves, beyond doubt.

    You are a pathetic, dishonest, cowardly idiot hiding in denial like a rat in a rotten log. Either come out and engage in good faith like an adult or fuck off.

  95. #96 BBD
    June 12, 2013

    # 93

    I never had you down as a shreddie-merchant Jeff ;-)

    Nothing like a bit of fretboard lunacy (with hammer-ons, of course) to bring a smile to the face.

  96. #97 chek
    June 12, 2013

    OT and perhaps not to everyone’s taste, but Prof. Shred (aka Guthrie Govan) is worth checking out if AFW (Anthropogenic Fretboard Warming) is a preferred measure of sanity.

  97. #98 BBD
    June 12, 2013

    Very tidy! If you like that, try Alan Holdsworth. Original, and best ;-)

  98. #99 chek
    June 12, 2013

    Indeed, I recall an incendiary AH gig at the Bridge House in Canning Town many years ago when I lived in London.

  99. #100 Lotharsson
    June 12, 2013

    Something a little more substantive, perhaps. An SkS analysis of a recent opinion piece by Myles Allen, suggesting that his knowledge of policy and economics is quite some way behind his knowledge of climate science.

    IIRC that article was cited by various denialists. I suspect most or all of the reasons it was cited for survive the analysis – as was evident to many people at the time ;-)

    I guess it’s too much to ask that the Australian Opposition take on board the information underlying this analysis, given that their policy position relies on some level of outright denialism.

Current ye@r *