June 2013 Open thread

More thread for you.

Comments

  1. #1 Lionel A
    June 12, 2013

    Tar sands increase climate change and Climate change meets Tar Sands.

  2. #2 Betula
    June 12, 2013

    Lionel..

    Is flooding the new term for climate change?. Just curious because I don’t see the words “climate change” in the article. Additionally, I don’t see where flooding has met the tar sands.

    Oh wait, I get it. This is one of those embellishing things like Jeff does to bring attention to the message… Ok, I’m with you (wink wink.)

  3. #3 Betula
    June 12, 2013

    Rain increases flooding and flooding doesn’t reach Tar Sands….

    http://www.xe.com/news/2013-06-12%2016:26:00.0/3392757.htm

    Yes, but It just doesn’t have same ring to it.

  4. #4 chek
    June 12, 2013

    The message from Betty is the worst is over, and it can only get better from here on in.

    Unfortunately, that’s because he understands nothing that has been presented to him.

  5. #5 Betula
    June 13, 2013

    “The message from Betty is the worst is over, and it can only get better from here on in”

    Actually, the message was this: “Rain increases flooding and flooding doesn’t reach Tar Sands”…and it was a message from Thomson Reuters, you know, the link at # 3…..just before your comment at # 4. If you went to # 2 you went too far, though it is a lovely little post and I would highly recommend reading it.
    Anyhow, glad I could clear that up for you chek.

  6. #6 Craig Thomas
    June 13, 2013

    http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/land/oseroi.php
    http://independentreport.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/tar-sands-too-inefficient-energy.html

    The EROI for oil shale is considerably less than the EROI of conventional crude oil, both at the wellhead and at the refined fuel stages of processing. Even under marginal conditions, such as smaller and deeper well fields, loss of artesian pressure, etc., conventional crude oil still generates a significantly larger energy surplus than oil shale – approximately 20:1. We cannot yet say with certainty that the EROI for oil shale is unequivocally greater than 1.

    the EROEI for tar sands amounts to 7:1 for extraction and drops to 3:1 after it has been upgraded and refined into something useful, such as gasoline.

    Ultimately, squeezing oil out of tar sand is an extremely wasteful process, requiring between two and four tons of tar sand and two to four barrels of water to produce a single barrel of oil. The current level of water consumption is enough to sustain a city of two million people every year, according to an analysis by Energy & Capital. And after the water has gone through the entire process, it is so toxic with contaminants that it cannot be released into the environment.

    Another non-solution to our energy needs devised by those who are desperately trying to keep us saddled with 20th century technologies.

  7. #7 Craig Thomas
    June 13, 2013

    The mining and processing of 1000 million tons of oil shale in Estonia has created about 360-370 million tons of solid waste, of which 90 million tons is a mining waste, 70–80 million tons is a semi-coke, and 200 million tons are combustion ashes (8). The carbon footprint is higher than that of conventional oil with up to 4 to 6 times more emissions (9) (10). Oil sand extraction technology is more developed than that of oil shale, which explains why the United States has been importing Canadian oil sand resources instead of producing oil shale. Most oil shale is harvested through strip mines, which produce tremendous waste known as spent oil shale.

    http://altenergysources.webs.com/oilshaletarsands.htm

  8. #8 Betula
    June 13, 2013

    BBD @ 95

    “I don’t care”

    Of course you don’t, I already knew that. If someone lies or embellishes, it’s ok with you as long as their message is the same as yours.

    Look, we all know it would be very difficult for someone to come back from a 20 day trek (supposedly to research climate change) and say to the world… “all I got out of it was frostbite”.

    Jeff had to resort to embellishment and lies to make getting frostbite seem worthwhile, to heighten the importance of the his trip, to have an excuse for another trip, to boost his ego and to gain attention..

    Does anyone here actually believe “macho man” Jeff, who is tougher than the average Marine, and probably most UFC fighters, doesn’t require attention?

    I would imagine this happens occasionally in the science world, where, because a lot of time and money is spent on research, results are necessary to prove the funding worthwhile. Embellishing on the results of the work and the potential consequences ensures further study (and funding) is needed. It also gives a boost to the ego.

  9. #9 bill
    June 13, 2013

    Projection. Boring. Next.

  10. #10 Bernard J.
    June 13, 2013

    Bill.

    Exactly.

    And Betula’s persistent ad hominem doesn’t change the laws of physics – at least, the last time I checked those laws didn’t give a shit if some grunt from a falling empire had a Very Big Gun.

  11. #11 Jeff Harvey
    June 13, 2013

    “Does anyone here actually believe “macho man” Jeff, who is tougher than the average Marine, and probably most UFC fighters, doesn’t require attention?”

    Good grief, Betula is in serious need of medical attention. The guy is becoming seriously unhinged. That’s what happens when your arguments are summarily debunked. He’s now resorting to this kind of crap.

  12. #12 Jeff Harvey
    June 13, 2013

    Finally, to put this sucker to bed, the Algonquin trip wasn’t for research – I was on vacation. I paid for it myself.

    Betula has a serious affliction. After showing his earlier C02 and coyote/white tailed deer arguments to be hilarious oversimplifications, he’s returned to his Algonquin meme in full force. Heck, I even tried to educate the sad sack by linking to studies showing biotic effects of climate change, but he won’t go there, because he knows he’s out of his depth. So Algonquin it is. Boring. Boring. Boring.

  13. #13 chek
    June 13, 2013

    Betty @ #5

    Anyhow, glad I could clear that up for you chek.

    The only thing you cleared up is that your denial is still going strong. You gloat that the flooding didn’t “reach the Tar Sands”, although what you meant to add was ‘this time’.
    The future however doesn’t look so good as your denial would have you believe.

    Those more informed say this:
    “Northern areas are projected to become wetter, especially in the winter and spring. Southern areas, especially in the West, are projected to become drier.
    Heavy precipitation events will likely be more frequent. Heavy downpours that currently occur about once every 20 years are projected to occur about every four to 15 years by 2100, depending on location.
    More precipitation is expected to fall as rain rather than snow, particularly in some northern areas”.

  14. #14 cRR Kampen
    June 13, 2013

    “Heavy downpours that currently occur about once every 20 years are projected to occur about every four to 15 years by 2100, depending on location.”

    That is already, in 2013, underestimated.

    Anyway, let’s confuse the hollow earthers again: same locations will ALSO suffer more intense droughts (hollow earthers believe, among other nonsense, that water comes from nowhere as needed and goes to nowhere too).

  15. #15 mike
    June 13, 2013

    Hey Deltoids!

    Don’t waste my valuable time much, any more, on you creep-out, hive-bozo booger-brains, but I see droppin’ in here was worth my while for once:

    Hey rhombat!

    So rhombat, you doofus, fuck-up, you’re now an “expert” on the “abysmal performance of U. S. Marines in the early PNG campaign” (yr. no. 86 on the previous page). Do tell? A couple of things or two in that regard, rhombat, ol’ sport, if you don’t mind:

    -First off, rhombat, I have a conspiracy-theory “ideation” about you. Namely, my “theory” of you, rhombat, ol’ buddy, is that you’re actually not a lizard, after all, but rather you’re really just a noisome, loud-mouth, loutish, shape-shifting, mutant cockroach. That, and I harbor a further “ideation” that only in a country afflicted with “socialized medicine” would a patent retard, like you, be entrusted with the health care of its citizenry.

    -Secondly, would you be so kind, my dear rhombat, to be a little more specific about this “abysmal performance” claim of yours, with regards to Marines in “PNG” (you love slinging the shit and gettin’ off on makin’ like you know what you’re talkin’ about, don’t you rhombat–you little, insufferable-prick fake). You know, rhombat, like maybe you could cite some specific , Marine actions in PNG that could be characterized as “abysmal performance” (and please do include the unit designations for those Marine units that have failed your performance evaluation).

    -In the meantime, I’ll pleasurably anticipate the deliciousness of your discovery that there was no Marine presence, of any consequence, in PNG in 1942–Marines were employed in the Solomons in 1942 (Guadalcanal, specifically, and their performance there is not usually characterized as “abysmal”). And the best part of this whole deal, rhombat, is imagining how you–everyone’s favorite, can-never-admit-he’s-wrong, know-it-all, war-historian-wannabe, tough-talkin’, hipster phoney–are going to try and weasel out of your predicament when you realize what a fool you’ve made of yourself. Believe me, rhombat, I’m sitting back and enjoying the show!

    -Finally, guy, I’ve noticed, of late, a real effort, for obvious reasons, by you lefties to target the USMC with your agit-prop bull-shit. And especially noteworthy, in that respect, has been the effort by you greenshirts to undermine the profound bond, that was forged between Australian and American comrades-in-arms, in WWII. Obviously, the historic, fellow-feeling shared by Australians and Americans interferes with some one or another of the hive’s incessant frauds, hustles, con-jobs, bait-and-switches, and false-flags. But which ones, exactly, rhombat?–care to spill the beans on this one?

    Hey Jeff!

    You know, Jeff, I didn’t think it possible to top rhombat in the clown-act department, but you managed the seemingly impossible with your utterly preposterous macho-man pretensions that litter the previous page (and appear to be spilling over onto this page).

    I mean, like, Jeff, you don’t just give “male-posturing” a bad name–no! rather, you actually reduce “male-posturing” to a laughingstock, freak-show comedy-routine. Bravo, Jeff!

    O. K. guys, the clothes-pin on my nose is beginning to chafe, so time for me to take a “powder” from this here “porta-potty” of history you sinker-toid and floater-toid, loose-stool, Deltoid excreta call home.

  16. #16 Jeff Harvey
    June 13, 2013

    Mkie, Betula, Jonas, Olaus, et al. all the same bunch of losers.

    Here’s their strategy: Bait and then riducle. Examplë 1:

    I was harangued over and over again by Jonas and otrhers that I am not a ‘real scientist’. So, to prove I am, I gave a brief olverview of my CV including publications, citations, h-factor, etc. Thereafter I am constantly accused of ‘waving my CV’. That continues to this day.

    Then, earlier in this thread, Betula writes some flippant comment intimating that scientists are wimps and goes on the claim that I wouldn’t last even a tiny stint in the marines (like him, presumably). I respond that, for a 55 year old guy, I keep myself in pretty good shape. Then I am accused by Betty (and now Mike) of being a macho-man and other such nonsense.

    You see, this is how the shit-for-brain denier mindset works. Bait their opponents with bullshit, and then, then their opponents respond, make up all kinds of garbage about them. The two major points from my own examples are that none of the climate change deniers here has any relevant qualifications in Earth or environmental science, and that it was Betty who was intimitating that he is Mr. Macho by making a stupid comment about the marines in the first place.

    Now another of our illiterate idiots (Mike) wades in with his tuppence of wisdom. Anyone visiting Deltoid can see that the intellectual level of the deniers is somewhat below that of a procaryotic bacterium. And perhaps that is being too kind. They don’t do science; they are simply baiters and switchers. As well as a sad bunch of losers. Mike fits well into both categories.

  17. #17 Betula
    June 13, 2013

    “the Algonquin trip wasn’t for research”

    Right, it was for “exploring the effects of climate change” and frostbite.

  18. #18 Betula
    June 13, 2013

    chek…

    “You gloat that the flooding didn’t “reach the Tar Sands”, although what you meant to add was ‘this time’”

    Reality check chek….What I “meant” is the flooding didn’t reach the tar sands, because it didn’t, what Lionel “meant”, is that it did, even though it didn’t.

    Lionel @1….”Climate change meets Tar Sands.”

    It must be difficult being you.

  19. #19 BBD
    June 13, 2013

    Still not a single iota of substantive argument Betual. You have – yet again – skip, skip, skipped over all my previous *substantive*, reference and supported arguments.

    Mental illness or sickening dishonesty?

  20. #20 Betula
    June 13, 2013

    Harvey @16..

    “Here’s their strategy”

    Let’s put a face on your idea of “their strategy”..

    1. In response to me exposing Jeff’s lie, Lionel emphasizes the need to appreciate the courageousness of Jeff and others, including himself.

    @ 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 “macho” Lionel’s arrival on the scene.

    2. Lionel suggest I be sent to Algonguin, wondering aloud if I were as courageous as he, Jeff and other recipients of The Climate Change Medal Of Horror and other declarations.

    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

    3. I state “I would love it” and in turn, suggest Jeff should be sent to the Marine Corps, where men of such courage are surely needed.

    Note the “in turn”.

    4. Jeff laughs at the mere idea and suggests many Marines couldn’t handle what he did:

    Jeff @ 26, pg 4…”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”

    Then Jeff, feeling a need to prove he’s tougher and certainly more courageous than many Marines, explains his reasoning by stating he works out twice a week and is going canoeing:

    @ 26…”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”

    Yes folks, there it is. The stench of “Macho” mixed with ego, delusion and cluelessness seeping through your computer to the point your eyes water……many U.S.Marines probably couldn’t keep up Jeff, because he works out twice a week.

    Give it up Jeff. You’ve been exposed in more ways than one…. and frostbite is the least of your problems.

  21. #21 chek
    June 13, 2013

    Yes Betty, it’s already established you’re both stupid and dishonest. You don’t have to keep giving examples.

  22. #22 BBD
    June 13, 2013

    Yack, yack, yack.

    - 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 indicate an equilibrium response of about 0.75C per W/m^2 change in forcing

    - Forcing from 2xCO2 (~560ppmv) is approximately +3.7W/m^2

    - Unabated emissions and global industrialisation could drive CO2e to >800ppmv by the end of the century

  23. #24 BBD
    June 13, 2013

    That’s baffled ‘em, Wow.

  24. #25 Betula
    June 13, 2013

    BBD @ 19…

    “You have – yet again – skip, skip, skipped over all my previous *substantive*, reference and supported arguments.”

    “Mental illness or sickening dishonesty?”

    1. No. I can’t be bothered. (BBD at 86 page 3)

    2. I don’t care. (BBD at 95, page 4)

    It must suck to be frustrated by your own responses.

  25. #26 Lionel A
    June 13, 2013

    It looks like our Betula has been infected by something that has sapped the sense out of him, maybe a dose of Piptoporus betulinus when he was in the US Marines. All he can do now is keep presenting as the clown. What a tedious, boring twerp he has become. Her is his theme tune, probably learned whilst doing that jogging thing singing songs that the US Marines do.

  26. #27 Lionel A
    June 13, 2013

    Here you are birch, climate change in your face.

  27. #28 BBD
    June 13, 2013

    # 25

    It must suck to be frustrated by your own responses.

    Everything you do to avoid engaging substantively simply proves my point.

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

    Reference:
    Hansen & Sato (2012) Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change
    Rohling et al. (2012) Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity
    Hansen et al. (2013) (in press)

    - Forcing from 2xCO2 (~560ppmv) is approximately +3.7W/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.

  28. #29 BBD
    June 13, 2013

    # 27 Lionel A

    Wildfires. More all the time. One might suppose that the fact that 2000 – 2010 was the warmest decade in the instrumental record had something to do with this.

    A staunch sceptic like Betula might want further evidence that climate was changing in ways that would increase the likelihood of wildfires.

    Instead of models, Betula would request analysis of historic observational data.

    And here it is.

    Sorry it’s not very big, but then it doesn’t really need to be, does it?

    Reference:

    Hansen, Sato & Ruedi (2012), Public perception of climate change and the new climate dice.

  29. #30 rhwombat
    June 13, 2013

    re #15. Flush.

  30. #31 rhwombat
    June 13, 2013

    re re #15:
    Oh dear, I am undone. Lil’ mike is absolutely correct. It wasn’t the USMC that was responsible for the general contempt that many (? most) Australians hold for US MacArtherism. The Philippine-American war, Buna-Gona, My Lai & the abuse that seems so seminal in mike’s world view were US Army, not USMC, operations, so he is absolutely correct in his castigation of all things Left, such as the myths of climate change, socialised medicine, Psych majors who won’t put out (which changes in meaning in a military context), and real scientists who won’t concede defeat at the nimble mind of manly ex USMC engineering officers like John Birch. Keep on inseminating the cestode, mike.

  31. #32 Craig Thomas
    June 14, 2013

    Mike’s spittle-flecked rant includes this gem:

    Marines were employed in the Solomons in 1942 (Guadalcanal, specifically, and their performance there is not usually characterized as “abysmal”).

    Actually, it was 1943, and if I have time later today I will dust off my copy of Osmar White’s “Green Armour” and regale you with snippets of his description of the impotent cafuffling of the Marines who landed at Viru and Mendova.

    What Mike and so many of his compatriots have fallen for is their own legend. The US Marines are renowned for taking high casualties as a substitute for being inventive and/or effective.

  32. #33 bill
    June 14, 2013

    If li’l mikey spent more time imbibing his medication, rather than quaffing the Patriotard Kool-Aid by the litre, we’d all be better off.

  33. #34 Betula
    June 14, 2013

    BBD,

    I’ll throw a bone into your cage of confusion.

    What exactly do you think your links prove? That the average temperature of the earth has warmed over time? I have never said it hasn’t. That there are “extreme weather events”?….I never said there weren’t. That climate changes?…of course it does dimwit, you wouldn’t be here if it didn’t….if only we could have stopped it from changing earlier.

    The links you posted, for the most part, are used to make predictions about worst case scenarios. The problem is, by their own words, they are mostly estimates, predictions and assumptions filled with words
    like “if””, “might”, “may”, “could”, “depends”, “unknowns”, “uncertainties” and “possibilities”. .

    Here are just a few from your links:

    1..”if warming continues unabated”… “Models are imperfect and we will never be sure that they include all important processes”….”It is assumed that, to a useful approximation”…”If the CO2 amount in the air is doubled”…”Climate variability at other frequencies in the observational data is expected, because orbital changes are more complex than three discrete time scales and because the dating of observed climate variations is imprecise” etc…
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.0968.pdf

    2.. “The precise magnitude of the resulting warming depends on the fairly well-known amount of amplification by water-vapor feedbacks and on the less-known amount of cloud feedback. There are indeed uncertainties in the magnitude and impact of anthropogenic global warming”
    http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

    3 “These uncertainties notwithstanding, we suggest “… “although we do not account for analytical uncertainties or uncertainties related to lack of global coverage and spatial bias in the data set”…”To simulate uncertainties in the model”…”which
    could have initiated the reduction”…”that may have ultimately
    caused the increase”…etc.
    http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/shakun-et-al.pdf

    4. “Climate models, numerical climate simulations, provide one way to estimate climate response to forcings, but it is difficult to include realistically all real-world processes. Earth’s paleoclimate history allows empirical assessment of climate sensitivity, but the data have large uncertainties.”
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1211/1211.4846.pdf

    So, obviously this isn’t an exact science, yet you treat the predicted future worst case scenarios, derived from predicted climate sensitivity, which is derived from incomplete data, mixed with facts and filled with assumptions and uncertainties, as all fact.

    And isn’t it a bit curious that the only future scenarios are worst case scenarios , without hardly a mention of any possible positive scenarios or biological interactions or how they weigh against the possible negatives at any given location on earth, at any time, whether it be above, below or at predicted GAT?

    Now, throw into the mix, human greed, ego’s, politicians, the need for funding, rich vs. poor, the U.N, the hatred of Capitalism, power grabs, hypocrisies, lies, biases, distortions, agendas, embellishments and delusions, and you begin to realize that…..wait, I’m describing you.

  34. #35 Betula
    June 14, 2013

    “The US Marines are renowned for taking high casualties as a substitute for being inventive and/or effective”

    High casualties compared to their adversary? Examples? How do you define effective. Examples?

  35. #36 bill
    June 14, 2013

    Shorter Bircher – ‘if I pour salt into this aquarium I demand that you recognise that something may benefit.’

  36. #37 Craig Thomas
    June 14, 2013

    Betula
    June 14, 2013
    Betula, stupidly, asks,

    “The US Marines are renowned for taking high casualties as a substitute for being inventive and/or effective”

    High casualties compared to their adversary?

    No, high casualties as a substitute for being inventive and/or effective.

    I am under no illusion that telling you this twice will discourage you from additional strawmen, tangents, and/or red herrings.

    What we see here is a perfect example of Betula’s inability to participate in a discussion due to her deafening internal voice that tells her what to think.

  37. #38 Bernard J.
    June 14, 2013

    Betula says:

    So, obviously this isn’t an exact science…

    No-one said it was. If you dispute this, please link.

    More to the point, and what do you think statistics are for? Do you understand what “signal” is, and what “noise” (not your sort) is?

    …yet you treat the predicted future worst case scenarios, derived from predicted climate sensitivity, which is derived from incomplete data, mixed with facts and filled with assumptions and uncertainties, as all fact.

    The data are derived from best available estimates. Spin it however you want to, it won’t change the fact that the professional experts are much better at the science than are you or any of the contrarians you trumpet. Again, if you believe otherwise, you have only to link to your best example that contradicts me.

    That aside, when we are talking about changes that have the potential to effectively dismantle human civilisation several generations hence, and to cause species extinction on the same scale as occurred with super-vuclanism and with major asteroids strikes, one should be looking at the high-end risks. Especially when those risks are not on the order of one in a million or one in a thousand, but of one in one hundred – or greater*.

    And the upper tail of the probability distribution aside, even the certain “business-as-usual”scenarios are sufficiently grave as to result in severe consequences. The major difference is largely of a few decades/centuries to reach the various end-points. That might be reassuring to amoral ignoramuses such as yourself, but those of us with consciences and functional ethical frameworks have rather more concern for the generations and the species that don’t have a voice in the mad burn to sustain indulgent Western-style consumerism and egocentric ideology.

    [*That's greater risk, not greater denominator, in case your innumeracy continues to disable you.]

  38. #39 mike
    June 14, 2013

    @ Craig Thomas

    Yr. No. 32

    What is it about your basic, Deltoid, geek-ball dork, Craig, that compels him to play the phoney-baloney, know-it-all military “expert”, as a part of his comically inept, macho-man posturings?. Perhaps you can’t speak for all Deltoids, Craig, ol’ sport, but you can certainly speak for yourself, right, guy? What gives with improbable, wimp-toid weirdos, like you, Craig, anyways?

    So let’s see now, Craig, you seem to think that Marines fought in Guadalcanal in 1943, not 1942. I, on the other hand, hold the view that Marines fought on Guadalcanal, as the allies’ main force, in 1942 not 1943. I’m right and you’re wrong. Simple as that. Yes, the battle of Guadalcanal slopped over into the first two months of 1943, but the fighting at that time was, in the main, conducted by U. S. Army forces, not Marine forces, with the fighting, at that point, limited to a mopping up of a Japanese rear guard by the allies while the Japanese desperately attempted to evacuate what forces they could.

    Mendova? Perhaps you mean Rendova? A walk-over landing ( less the casualties caused by an air-raid). And, oh by the way, Craig, Rendova was taken by U. S. Army troops, not Marines. Viru? A neat little victory by Marine Raiders in difficult jungle terrain which not only gained the objective but did so with small loss to the Marines and a considerably larger loss to an enemy fighting with the advantage of the defense. You know, Craig, it really sounds like you have rhwombat’s doofus, fuck-up tendency to sling around a bunch of bullshit you know nothing about, but in a way that makes you sound like Mr. In-The-Know, among the uncritical, clueless, momma’s-boy, hive-bozo, brainwashed cretins whose company you keep.

    Now, Craig, as far as the business about Marines, high-casualties, and your big-talk allegations that Marines lack “inventiveness” and “effectiveness”, some comment.

    -After the debacle at Gallipoli–with ineptly led ANZACS perishing by the thousands in a failed amphibious landing–virtually all military establishments “wrote off” amphibious assaults as a viable tactical evolution. Except the Marines, that is, who quite “inventively” and “effectively” found solutions to all of the problems posed by amphibious operations, as events in WWII showed.

    -And as far as “high” Marine casualties go, amphibious assaults on the narrow frontage of small, entrenched islands in the Pacific sometimes inevitably produced high casualties. Similarly, in 1944/45, when the Japanese adopted new tactics that ceded the beachhead in favor of protracted, fight-to-the-last-man, interior defenses, high, attritional casualties did, indeed, ensue. But perhaps you could have done better, Craig? Let’s hear your “inventive” and “effective” solution to Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

    -On the other hand, a number of the Marines’ WWII landings, especially those conducted on large islands that provided room for maneuver, were successfully executed with limited casualties–the landings at Bougainville, Cape Gloucester, the Marshall Islands, Guam, and Saipan, for example. Of course, a million or so Japanese were also by-passed by Marine amphibious operations and left to starve on various islands with no Marine casualties.

    -Marines also pioneered “vertical envelopments” and “close air support” (still the best in the business).

    -Having said all that, there was an internal critique in the Corps with respect to tactics in the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam war and there was a thorough over-haul of Marine tactics and the “operational art” under the general rubric of “maneuver warfare.” The low casualty, brilliant victories the Corps subsequently achieved in Kuwait and the assault on Baghdad speak for themselves in terms of the success of that “re-think” of Marine tactics.

    -So, Craig, your little tin-pot-master-tactician, cheap-shot, arm-chair-general critique of the Corps is a silly-assed “canard”, in the main. At the same time, there is indeed a “fog” of war that attends battle; likewise, no plan survives the line of departure; and, if you ransack the military history of any organization or nation, you’ll find a military debacle or two. Though, in the case of Marines you’ll find precious few.

    -And, of course, no one has fully gotten a handle on insurgency warfare. But, Craig, without going into detail, you might wonder why you don’t see reports anymore of Marine sniper casualties. Ditto Marine mortar casualties. And IED casualties have been greatly reduced. All that a product of the Marine Corps’ “inventiveness” and “effectiveness.”

    As I discussed with rhwombat, Craig, you lefties are all huffin’ n’ puffin’ overtime, here lately, in a quixotic, whiny-fault-finding quest to discredit the Marine Corps’ hard-earned and well-earned reputation for fighting prowess. Obviously, the Corps is seen as an obstacle to the success of some one or another of the hive’s incessant scams, hustles, rip-offs, bait-and-switches, con-jobs, false-flags, agit-prop memes, and various other, assorted greenshirt duplicities and intrigues. That much is clear. But which ones, Craig? C’mon, be a good sport and tell us all which ones, specifically.

    A little anecdote, Craig, in closing. The provisions of the Korean War armistice, at the insistence of Kim Il Sung, himself (at least, that’s the story–and a credible one), forbade establishment of permanent Marine Corps bases on the Korean peninsula. It seems that NK’s “Glorious/Great Leader”, having been on the receiving end of the USMC’s showing in the defense of the Pusan perimeter and subsequent Inchon landing, was hard-over determined, big-time, not to get his butt kicked again by those darn, ole, “ineffective” (as you would have it) Marines. Interesting anecdote–no?

  39. #40 bill
    June 14, 2013

    Wow, what a wrist!

  40. #41 Wow
    June 14, 2013

    “The US Marines are renowned for taking high casualties as a substitute for being inventive and/or effective.”

    Arrogant, too.

    One major reason for the US heavy casualties in the normandy landings was due to the USA’s refusal of Naval bombardment cover. They thought they didn’t need help.

  41. #42 Bernard J.
    June 14, 2013

    Ah, Mike is back, with coprolalia as florid as ever.

    Mike, the ANZACs were a damned brave, resilient and modest bunch of men who were cavalierly used as cannon fodder by Winston Churchill in a campaign that was always doomed to fail. Your piss-poor reframing of history to try to improve the appearance of the Marines is a disgrace.

    I reckon that if the ANZACs had the benefit of the Marines’ modern training and equipment, the ANZACs from a 100 years ago would shit on half of today’s Marines and wipe their arses on a good chunk of the rest.

  42. #43 mike
    June 14, 2013

    Wow (Wow is Mom; Mom is Wow).

    Yr: “Arrogant, too”

    I really don’t want to crush your little “zinger” like a bug, there wow, knowing how sensitive you are and all. But, except in ship’s detachments offshore, there were no Marines to speak of in Normandy. Again, U. S. Army, not Marines.

    And, oh by the way, wow, the USMC pioneered the use of naval gunfire, in a highly controlled manner (trained spotters ashore and aloft in radio contact with their fire-support ship), in support of its amphibious operations. And believe me, wow, Marines don’t refuse naval gunfire in support of their landings. Join Deltoid’s bullshitter ranks, wow–oops! I see you were already there. Oh never mind.

    This is amazing! Marines are the target of Deltoid’s standard-issue, tag-team, bad-mouth, razzle-dazzle, horse-shit roll-out routine, but every specific “complaint” lodged against Marines, by Deltoid’s finest, turns out to be a U. S. Army deal.

    I mean, like, about this time ol’ Craig Thomas is flippin’ through his books and discovering that the New Georgia campaign was mostly a U. S. Army affair and the “problems” with that enterprise (a division commander was relieved), had nothing to do with Marines.

    C’mon hive-bozos–sharpen up your agit-prop! I mean, like, you’re not makin’ mummy proud, you know, Deltoids, with your latest, dumb-ass smear-campaign, directed at the Corps. Jeez…I’m embarrassed for you guys (especially you wow–you little, “me-too!” shit!).

  43. #44 BBD
    June 14, 2013

    # 34 Betula

    Once again, a weak attempt at obscuring the big picture with FUD. You say nothing substantive. If you disagree with the *substance* of a paper you need to point to the problem and produce a referenced counter-argument.

    You have not done so. Not once, in all your long, waffling comment.

    Try again, with more content and less FUD. FUD is just denialist noise. It’s what you do when you haven’t got a coherent scientific counter-argument.

    If you cannot mount a coherent and reference counter-argument to specifics (below) then the consensus stands and you are revealed to be profoundly misguided.

    So let’s see some substance, or an admission that you have *nothing* of substance to support your denialism.

    * * *

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

    Reference:
    Hansen & Sato (2012) Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change
    Rohling et al. (2012) Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity
    Hansen et al. (2013) (in press) Climate Sensitivity, Sea Level, and Atmospheric CO2

    - Forcing from 2xCO2 (~560ppmv) is approximately +3.7W/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.

  44. #45 Wow
    June 14, 2013

    I was talking to grown ups, mike.

    Not wannabe adults.

  45. #46 mike
    June 14, 2013

    BJ’s no. 42,

    You now, BJ, you don’t have to lecture me on ANZAC’s exceptional personal qualities as soldiers. Such qualities were noted in Gallipoli veterans and in their sons of WWII and their descendants in the uniform of their countries to this day (not many Deltoids in their ranks though, we can be sure, right guys?). I’m well aware of all that, BJ, and admire ANZAC troops unreservedly (though even they had their ups and downs–e. g. Singapore 1941/42, but haven’t we all).

    But praising ANZACS was not really the point of your comment was it, BJ? Rather, your comment was a nasty, manipulative, nice-try effort to put words in my mouth–make out that I held ANZACS in contempt, which I do not and none of my previous words suggest any such thing.

    And why would you want to pull a slicko, little, greenshirt trick like that, BJ? Well, I think the answer is pretty clear there BJ, my ol’ buddy. Your sleaze-ball, agit-prop objective is to divide Americans and ANZACS and destroy the close, comrades-in-arms, fellow-feeling that developed between Americans and ANZACS during the last century. Right, BJ?

    I mean, like, as I think about this whole improbable chit-chat session I’m having with you Deltoid shittoids, the more mind-reeling the whole thing becomes. I mean, like, you preposterous, mummy’s-little-obnoxious-spoiled-brat-weenie-bubber-bubber, milquetoast weirdos have set as your propaganda goal a smear of the USMC as an organization that it really isn’t that tough, you know. Good luck with that one, hive-bozos!

  46. #47 BBD
    June 14, 2013

    Yes, let’s avoid discussing the denialist lies and misrepresentations of climate science at all costs…

    I mean anything’s better than focussing on the unpalatable truth.

  47. #48 Lionel A
    June 14, 2013

    Another in your face example of a warming world from Antarctica this time.

    Which coupled with the loss of Arctic Sea ice – established fact, and increasing loss of ice fro Greenland – another established fact – should shout a warning to even the most die hard (like the US Marines and Bruce Willis) ACC denier.

  48. #49 FrankD
    June 14, 2013

    Jesus wept, it there an adult in this room at all?

    Mike (sadly) is mostly right that many of the disparaging remarks about the USMC are pretty much horseshit. What a shame that he is too busy making “booger-flicking, hive-mind” zingers to maintain any grounding in reality. The Marines weren’t incompetants, but they weren’t supermen either.

    Lets consider a few aspects:
    “high casualties as a substitute for being inventive and/or effective”. The one generalisation I’d be happy to make is that I don’t like generalisations. However, I can certainly point to one crystal clear example where the Marines took this line. Though not a conventional marine action, Belleau Wood, in 1918 (now known as “Bois de la Brigade de Marine”) is legendary in Marine annals – books stuffed with Marine myth abound, they named a landing ship after it, the brigade of marines was led by “the greatest of all leathernecks” John Lejeune. Sadly, the reality does not live up to the myth – having spent nine months ignoring the training they were getting from the French (I know, right, what could the cheese-eating surrender monkeys have learned about trench warfare in four years of experiencing it?), the Marines were put into the front line to “save Paris” (which is also a fiction). The Marines did take the wood, but from hungry, undermanned and battle-weary troops wracked by Spanish flu, and with such straight-ahead, stupid tactics resembling the 1916 attack on the Somme took vastly heavier casualties than they should and achieved less than they should. The French troops on either side fought through similar country against similar troops with weaker forces and achieved as much or more. When you get right down to it, all the myth making about Belleau Wood is how willing the Marines were to die, not how effective they were. But to quote (Army) General George Patton, no one ever won a war by dying for their country, they won it by making the other dumb bastard die for his.

    While I’m not sure about Craigs comment in general, I can say it is a sentiment shared by many of the ADF members I work with. Its not like I breathlessly ask every one what they think of the USMC, but those opinions which have been expressed have generally not been too favourable about the average level of competance. That might be unfair – perhaps the Corps has a perception management problem…. :)

    Mikes ridiculous assertion that “virtually all military establishments “wrote off” amphibious assaults as a viable tactical evolution” simply shows the degree of his ignorance of events after Gallipoli. The planning of Operation Hush (which never went ahead) and Operation Albion (which did) alone prove this claim to be nonsense.

    “the USMC pioneered the use of naval gunfire”. One of my uncles ran small boats under the nose of the Japanese to land the US survey parties and artillery spotters that made this possible, so my natural instinct would be to say “Oo-rah!”…if it wasn’t utter tat. They might have improved it (or not, WW2 does not really lie within my domain knowledge), but they certainly did not “pioneer” it. Naval gunfire has been used with varying degrees of skill going back to the Romans. Get real.

    One last thought – The ANZACs weren’t incompetants (nor were their leaders, mostly), but they sure as hell weren’t supermen either. A few relos and some others I met before the last of them pegged out – once you went a bit deeper than the “warries”, few had much hesitation admitting that they were shit-scared the entire time and just wanted to get back home. Their combat results were very good (after Gallipoli), but not – as the advertising suggests – off the scale. There were probably 50 divisions of equal calibre to the five Australian divisions serving at the same time, counting all colours of uniforms.

    Now can we leave the whole “my dad could beat up your dad” malarkey and get back to the denier meme du jour? I kind of tuned out Betula’s stalker-like obsession with Jeff’s Algonquin trip which really only relates to his inability to grok simple American-English, so I think the last sensible conversation was probably about Willard Anthony posting that the Greenland icecap is only 650 years old…

  49. #50 rhwombat
    June 14, 2013

    mike. It’s ANZAC not ANZACS you cheeto-stained, basement-dwelling war-wanker. My grandfather was a light-horseman (Gallipoli and Palestine). My great uncle was in M Special Unit (look it up). I’m a reservist (1CDO), and have deployed. I have a fair idea of how Australians in general, and ADF members in particular, regard pathetic wanabes like you. Go back to drooling over your posable jarhead dolls.

  50. #51 chek
    June 14, 2013

    Yes, let’s avoid discussing the denialist lies and misrepresentations of climate science at all costs.

    And let’s also avoid mentioning that the USMC – as characterised by Smedley Butler are but one arm of US corporate gangsterism ensuring that 4.52% of ther global population consume 25 % of the coal, 26 % of the oil, and 27 % of the world’s natural gas, and 40% of other resources whilst an estimated 65 % of U.S. adults are overweight or obese.

    Note that the direct descendants of Butler’s corporate gangsters and fascist plotters are those now running the tooth and nail opposition to curbing CO2 emissions, and turning it into a partisan issue for the benefit of simple-minded oiks like li’ll mike and betty..

  51. #52 BBD
    June 14, 2013

    FrankD

    Jesus wept, it there an adult in this room at all?

    Yes. You will note that I have made exactly no disparaging remarks about the USMC.

  52. #53 Wow
    June 14, 2013

    Mike (sadly) is mostly right that many of the disparaging remarks about the USMC are pretty much horseshit.

    And those disparaging remarks exist WHERE?

  53. #54 Bernard J.
    June 14, 2013

    It’s interesting in a far-too-much-cosmetic-surgery type of way to see that the “marines are better than you and yours” argument was introduced and maintained in order to distract from the fact that Betula, GSW, KMS, Mike and other attendants simply cannot make a case against the simple fact that human carbon emissions are responsible for most (and likely more than all) of the warming that the planet is demonstrating.

    It does show however the propensity of denialists to indulge in false equivalence. It’s futile comparing contemporary marines to other cohorts of men because their backgrounds are conpletely different. Just as their pseudoscience is inconmparable to the actual science of cliamte change.

    Perhaps we can try for the thousandth time to wangle from this denying rabble exactly why it is that they are right and the professionals are wrong. Or as Brere Eli pointed out today it might be best to just drop the stick

  54. #55 Betula
    June 14, 2013

    BBD..

    “If you disagree with the *substance* of a paper”

    I disagree that there is enough presentable information to be able to claim only future worst case scenarios as fact.
    I disagree there are no biases presented in predicting only future worst scenarios.
    I disagree that the “substance” of your papers aren’t surrounded by assumptions.
    I disagree people like Jeff don’t lie and embellish.
    I disagree that you can control all the interactions of the environment and obtain the results you desire.
    I disagree that funding for research plays no role in guiding desired estimates and predictions.
    I disagree you are sincere and open minded.
    I disagree that the U.N. does not play a major role in influencing the redistribution of money’s from rich nations to poor nations.
    I disagree that any Polar Bears have been directly affected by climate change
    I disagree that every extreme weather event can be linked to climate change.
    I disagree that there isn’t a campaign to exaggerate claims to shape opinion.
    I disagree that there are 2500 scientists on the IPCC
    I disagree that Al Gore et al aren’t hypocrites.
    I disagree you aren’t blinded by ideology.
    I disagree that I will be discussing this with you again.
    Agreed?

  55. #56 chek
    June 14, 2013

    Yup that’s Betty – all wind, piss and disagreeable disagreement.
    Just no actual evidence apart from his carefully clown formed and drip-fed beliefs.
    Just as with most ranting street-corner nutters.

  56. #57 John Mashey
    June 14, 2013

    For long time Deltoid fans who might recall Tim’s jousts with Benny Peiser, the Executive Director of GWPF:

    Lord Lawson’s climate-change think tank risks being stripped of charitable status.

    Whether Charities Commission is strong enough to do something is unclear, but we’ll see. I’ve updated FOIA Facts 5 with that and some other new thinktank information.

    Now, are there any :”charities” in Oz that shouldn’t be?

  57. #58 chek
    June 14, 2013

    The benevolence of the public purse when it comes to these third-rate grifters, liars and shysters working against the public interest is a mystery, so good luck to Bob Ward.

    Having said that, an overly sympathetic (IMHO) judge saved them after a previous challenge to reveal their funders by declaring them not “influential enough.”

  58. #59 mike
    June 14, 2013

    @ BJ’s overwrought, despairing, world-weary, ass-hole-in-a-funk no. 54.

    “Perhaps we can try for the thousandth time to wangle from this denying rabble [good stuff, BJ! "denying rabble"--has that sort of superior, Philosopher King, feudal-lord, hive-master wannabee quality to it us "rabble" so admire in our betters] exactly why it is that they are right and the professionals are wrong.”

    First off, BJ, reading between the lines of the above:

    -You really mean–why hasn’t the hive’s agit-prop worked more effectively to manipulate us despised “little-guy” peons, serfs, helots, and peasants into accepting the Agenda-21 compliant, rabbit-hutch, low-carbon, reduced-lifestyle hell our betters have planned for us?

    -You know, like, why won’t us utterly inconsequential, useless eater, hoi-polloi just doff our caps and tug at our forelocks whenever one of the hive’s Platonic, pompous asses comes strutting by. And, most especially, why won’t us same, filthy, riff-raff nobodies do the right thing and acknowledge our betters’ natural right to an eco-hypocrite, pig-out, in-your-face, CO2-spew, bunga-bunga, party-time, high-carbon lifestyle, that our betters would deny us?

    -In other words what’s wrong with us, technically human, cattle our betters are trying so hard to herd? That’s what really has you all up-tight, and your sphincter under max compression and all, isn’t it, BJ?

    O. K., BJ, with all that out of the way, I’m now going to reveal to you how to really “sell” your little BS, rip-off, greenshirt agenda. The only way really. Got your attention?! Good! Here’s the keys to the kingdom, BJ: PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH!–LEAD FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE!

    But one thing’s for sure, BJ, you hive-heroes have no intention to PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH AND LEAD FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE!–right, BJ. So I guess we’re all gonna fry since our betters prefer to feed their demon-carbon addictions rather than set the carbon-reduction example and save the world. Too bad, so sad. No wonder you’re in such a bummer, bad-mood, BJ.

  59. #60 BBD
    June 14, 2013

    # 58 chek

    Yes, I recall that vividly. There is, as they say, no justice.

  60. #61 Betula
    June 14, 2013

    “denying rabble”–has that sort of superior, Philosopher King, feudal-lord, hive-master wannabee quality to it us “rabble” so admire in our betters]

    And we all know who the King of Deltoid is. The man who has witnessed first hand the horrors of climate change, the man who has faced shifting zones for real, the man who scoffs at Marines and dares them to match his unearthly canoeing abilities, the man who Sir Rhwombat himself compared to the legendary King Arthur….bow my fellow peasants to the all knowing high priest of himself…. King Hardley.

  61. #62 BBD
    June 14, 2013

    # 55 Betula

    Unsupported, content-free rant. You demonstrated nothing except your inability to mount a scientific counter-argument so you lose.

    We have established that ECS/2xCO2 is in the range ~2.5 – 3C.

    Which argument would you like to lose next?

  62. #63 BBD
    June 14, 2013

    Mike, I can confirm that since you took your leave, nobody has graced comments here with the word “milquetoast”.

  63. #64 chek
    June 14, 2013

    … and anyway, what sort of milquetoast uses a word like “milquetoast”?

  64. #65 BBD
    June 14, 2013

    He said “poetaster” once, you know.

  65. #66 Lionel A
    June 14, 2013

    John Mashey at #57 given the amount of material that the GWPF have produced in recent years which give the lie to Peiser’s claim

    “Our reports, which are peer reviewed, are subjecting climate change policies to dispassionate analysis based on hard evidence and economic rigour…..Corrections are published if and when errors are discovered,” he added.

    one such being the recent ‘GWPF Background Paper’ which has Peiser’s name under the title on the front page then this organisation should not be able to withstand scrutiny..

    In a world the right way up the GWPF would not be able to slip from under Ward’s accusations and should be put under considerably scrutiny with an official inquiry.

    It is monstrous that those who support this den of deception should be able to claim tax benefits for gifts to charity without complete transparency into their affairs.

    I note the ‘roaches at work in the comments below that article.

  66. #67 BBD
    June 14, 2013

    # 57 John Mashey

    GWPF closed down? I’ll believe it when I see it. Lawson is plugged firmly into the heart of the Establishment (see previous court ruling) and I very much fear that nothing will be done. Despite the egregious lies.

  67. #68 Lionel A
    June 14, 2013

    In case some have missed it Tamino had a recent take apart of Peiser’s bumff. Over there there is also a most useful link to a Tamino archive at Skeptical Science.

  68. #69 BBD
    June 14, 2013

    -You really mean–why hasn’t the hive’s agit-prop worked more effectively to manipulate us despised “little-guy” peons, serfs, helots, and peasants into accepting the Agenda-21 compliant, rabbit-hutch, low-carbon, reduced-lifestyle hell our betters have planned for us?

    You think the Greens run the world? As opposed to corporate money? You are more of an idealist than any Green I have ever met :-)

    Come on, Mike. I know you aren’t stupid. You don’t really deny the laws of physics and known paleoclimate behaviour. You aren’t stupid.

    So what is this all about?

  69. #70 Sou
    June 15, 2013

    Ex-television weather “expert” and “expert” weather blogger Anthony Watts says “it’s been two years of La Nina” and mocks people suffering drought.

    What an idiot. What compassion, not! Some expert he is!

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/callous-amusement-and-display-of.html

  70. #71 Betula
    June 15, 2013

    We have established that ECS/2xCO2 is in the range ~2.5 – 3C.
    Which argument would you like to lose next?

    You have an established estimate…not a fact.
    You are arguing with yourself, that is a fact.
    You are a loser…no argument.
    .

  71. #72 mike
    June 15, 2013

    BBD,

    We’ve had some good-fun zinger-exchanges in the past and you may even be the only real, live human being there is amongst (remember “amongst”, BJ?) the Deltoids (FrankD might be one too–if not, he’s a very convincing replicant). The rest of the hive is, of course, either pure, booger-phage arthropod or electronic, hive-bot.

    I must say, BBD, that I’m thoroughly “bored out of my gourd” with Deltoidland’s “attractions” at the moment, but since it is you that has asked for a response, I’ll oblige. But, please, just this one comment–I need a break!

    I can’t be sure what the real “science” of Climate Science is, in fact. However, I strongly suspect that the science has been politicized and the Climate Science consensus “rigged”, at least to some extent. But maybe not. And I don’t have the G2 to personally sort all that out. So I live with a cloud over that whole aspect of the issue.

    Further, I harbor even stronger suspicions that the probable kernel of “science”, such as it might be, in Climate Science has been hi-jacked by “the hive” and deployed as a hyped, scare-mongering, CAGW bogey-man, intended to promote this, that, and another of my betters’ make-a-green-washed-buck/make-a-gulag grand designs. But maybe not. And, in that regard, if I really must make sacrifices “for the kids” and to “save the planet” then I’m up for those sacrifices, if I become convinced they are truly needed and will actually make a difference for the good.

    So, BBD, given the very uncomfortable “feeling” I have about the whole CAGW rigamarole (indeed, I’ve noticed that the odor of rat is very strong in my nostrils whenever the subject comes up–curious, don’t you think, BBD, given that the hive is 99%+ insectoid), but, at the same time, wanting to do the “right thing”, I apply the “analytical tool” to the problem that us “little guys” have historically employed with great success to sort out these sort of quandries.

    Namely, BBD, I look for basic, bullshit-detector “tells” to evaluate the merits of those trying to sell me something and their products. You know, BBD, just a basic, common-sense sorting out of the wheat-from-the-chaff amidst the hype, puffery, agit-prop flim-flam, and the like offered up by those nice people, interested only in what’s best for me, hawking “things” like magic beans; Brooklyn Bridges; Nigerian e-mail scams; and, even, carbon-taxes with a complimentary, matching Agenda 21 compliant, carbon-austere, rabbit-hutch, hive-hell life-style thrown-in to sweeten the deal (assuming I survive the cull, that is).

    And here’s what I see when I examine the CAGW business (and, please, BBD, absent the putative “C” in CAGW, the whole discipline of Climate Science would attract about as much general interest (maybe even less) as Hamburgerology ):

    I see those seemingly most convinced and alarmed by the carbon-peril–the alpha, lecturing, worry-wart pests, themselves–nearly everyone, living piggish, in-your-face, high-carbon lifestyles–some even ostentatiously taking their “jaunts” about the globe in gas-guzzling private jets, or bullet-proof limousines or yachts and living in multiple rambling mansions, even. Again, these conspicuous consumers of demon-carbon being the very same pestering me non-stop with their carbon-austerity and carbon-taxes-now! message.

    And in that regard, BBD, I also see greenshirt apocalypse-mongers throwing off obscene quantities of carbon-spew as they incessantly flit from one eco-confab to another–conferences that could be easily video-conferenced with vast savings in carbon and taxpayer dollars.

    That sort of thing, BBD. And I mean, like, don’t you catch the scent of “rat”, too, BBD, when you see that sort of thing?

    I dunno, BBD, but my little bullshit-detector grades “Climate Science” and the whole baggage that goes with it as considerably more hinky than the magic-beans and Brooklyn bridge investment opportunities I’m thinking of putting the major portion of my life-savings into, and on par with the Nigerian e-mail scam that I’m thinking I’ll take a pass on.

    But my whole view of matters would change dramatically, BBD, if I were to see my betters, en masse, suddenly begin to PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH and offer to guide us “little guys” to the carbon-austere promised land through LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE! But my little, trusty bullshit-detector says that just ain’t gonna happen.

    P. S. And since you asked, BBD, my conspiracy-theory “ideation” with regards to the hive’s pecking-order has the hive’s ditzy, randy, obnoxious, snot-nosed, brain-washed kid-recruits at the bottom; the hive’s “useful idiots” like wow, check, and that repellant cockroach, rhwombat, one rung up from the zit-popper crowd; the hive’s “useful idiot savants” next atop the party-line, hive-hack group-thinkers, old enough to know better; the hive’s money-bags next; and at the very tippy-top of the hive-pyramid, the hive’s really nasty, master-mind string-pullers–think a small group of little-runt, insufferable-prick control-freaks like Mayor Bloomberg, but worse–much worse.

    Just kidding!

  72. #73 Lotharsson
    June 15, 2013

    And let’s also avoid mentioning that the USMC – as characterised by Smedley Butler are but one arm of US corporate gangsterism ensuring that 4.52% of ther global population consume 25 % of the coal, 26 % of the oil, and 27 % of the world’s natural gas, and 40% of other resources whilst an estimated 65 % of U.S. adults are overweight or obese.

    While we’re on that topic, there’s an interesting topic right next door. The US military and government agencies have spent some time planning to turn their powers against US citizens if they feel the need to, perhaps due to citizen responses to various potential disasters, and in part due to corporate pressure. That kind of thing tends to get the average American more worked up than applying military powers to foreigners who have desirable resources, but then half of the citizenry can be persuaded to cheer for it if the Americans on the receiving end are characterised as protesters, environmentalists, extremists and what not – despite the fact that (e.g.) the kinds of protesters targeted so far have been peaceful.

    The article also covers similar territory in the UK. It would be foolish not to speculate about the extent to which this applies to Australia.

    Go read the whole thing. And the links.

  73. #74 Lotharsson
    June 15, 2013

    You have an established estimate…not a fact.

    This appears to illustrate the root of many of Betula’s problems. When it suits him, Betula won’t acknowledge what scientific knowledge is – and that scientific facts are almost always expressed as ranges of values complete with confidence intervals or uncertainty measures. To counter such inconvenient findings he will inconsistently vacillate between:

    a) citing the very presence of those intervals/measures as reasons to reject the fact (“…[y]ou have an established estimate…”).

    b) pretending that the distribution of values was not provided, claiming instead that only the extreme value of the range was presented (“…[you] claim only future worst case scenarios as fact…”).

    I would bet good money he’s not even aware that his own (a) is arguing with his own (b), and that every time he adds another (a) or (b) he undermines his own argument.

  74. #75 Bernard J.
    June 15, 2013

    BBD said at #44 to Betula:

    If you disagree with the substance of a paper you need to point to the problem and produce a referenced counter-argument.

    to which Betula responded with his signature train-wreck-of-logical-fallacy.

    Let us dissect…

    I disagree that there is enough presentable information to be able to claim only future worst case scenarios as fact.

    Logical fallacy. False dichotomy.

    Where in the scientific literature discussing the future is only a worst-case scenario presented, especially in the context of being the only scenario? References desirable, especially with due consideration of probability distributions.

    I disagree there are no biases presented in predicting only future worst [sic] scenarios.

    Logical fallacy. Bulverism. Argumentum ad nauseam. Onus probandi.

    Again, where in the scientific literature are only worst-case scenarios predicted? And where is your evidence demonstrating that there is a particular bias in so presenting? And where such biases may occur, where is your evidence that they are not taken as a response to reasonable, statistically-justifiable risk-assessment?

    I disagree that the “substance” of your papers aren’t [sic] surrounded by assumptions.

    Logical fallacy. Straw man.

    Much of scientific work incorporates assumptions of one sort or another, but you present no evidence that these are incorrect, inappropriate or are of sufficient magnitude to substantially affect the conclusions arising.

    I disagree people like Jeff don’t lie and embellish.

    Logical fallacy. Ad hominem. Red herring – Ignoratio elenchi.

    I disagree that you can control all the interactions of the environment and obtain the results you desire.

    Logical fallacy. Red herring again. Thought-terminating cliché . Faulty generalization.

    The import of the science is independent of human response to understanding it. Also, there is a difference between “can” and “will”…

    I disagree that funding for research plays no role in guiding desired estimates and predictions.

    Logical fallacy. Argumentum ad odium. Argumentum ad lazarum. Misleading vividness.

    Where is your evidence to demonstrate that the science underpinning climate change has been affected in its conculsions by source-of-funding?

    I disagree you are sincere and open minded.

    Logical fallacy. Ad hominem. Red herring – Ignoratio elenchi.

    I disagree that the U.N. does not play a major role in influencing the redistribution of money’s from rich nations to poor nations.

    Ad hominem. Red herring – Ignoratio elenchi. Argumentum ad odium. Argumentum ad lazarum. Misleading vividness.

    I disagree that any Polar Bears have been directly affected by climate change.

    Logical fallacy. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

    I disagree that every extreme weather event can be linked to climate change.

    Logical fallacy. Straw man.

    I disagree that there isn’t a campaign to exaggerate claims to shape opinion.

    Logical fallacy. Red herring. Faulty generalization. Misleading vividness.

    I disagree that there are 2500 scientists on the IPCC.

    Logical fallacy. Straw man.

    No-one says that there are “2500 scientists on the IPCC”. In fact it is well-known that the IPCC is a body intended to summarise theresearch of thousands of scientists who work outside of the IPCC.

    Where in the scientific literature or even in the lay discussion is a case made based on the claim that there are “2500 scientists on the IPCC”?

    I disagree that Al Gore et al aren’t hypocrites

    Logical fallacy. Straw man. Ad hominem.

    I disagree you aren’t blinded by ideology.

    Logical fallacy. Straw man. Ad hominem. Argumentum e silentio.

    I disagree that I will be discussing this with you again.

    Logical fallacy. Or rather, self-contradiction.

    Agreed?

    With one such as you who is so prone to logical fallacy, it is difficult to agree on much at all.

  75. #76 rhwombat
    June 15, 2013

    BBD@#69: mike’s quite bright, but is terrified of adults.

    Since he lives in the ‘land of the free’, but is of modest means and achievement, his psychopathology has few outlets other than to manifest as on line adolescent tantrums when he sees his name or any of his fetish objects (which, oddly seem to include the USMC and private medicine) crop up on sites he recognises as being read by intelligent adults. Hence the constant projection of hive and hierarchy at others whom he knows full well live rich and responsible lives. I suspect he doesn’t get out much, and has few real relationships , but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he is a 200Kg basement-dweller, oiling his Bushmaster with bacon fat.

    Either way, engaging with him is as fruitful as head butting a banana tree, hoping for coconuts, but this goes for most of the Troll Collective – particularly John Birch, the Repiglican gardener. I apologise to all and sundry for summoning him at P4#86.

  76. #77 Lionel A
    June 15, 2013

    More indications of the effects of a warming world see Barrier closures and incidents here. More information on each ‘incident’ can be found from Page 19 in this PDF Thames Barrier Project Pack 2012.

  77. #78 BBD
    June 15, 2013

    Betula

    You have an established estimate…not a fact.

    And you have nothing, so you lose the argument. Read the words, Betty.

    Speaking of which, you should read # 74 and # 75 with close attention. They flense your lies and empty rhetoric with gusto and precision, sparing me the trouble.

    Thanks to Lotharsson and Bernard J. for their due diligence.

    Now, which argument would you like to lose next, or shall I pick one from the original list for you?

    Either way, you are going to get skinned alive.

  78. #79 BBD
    June 15, 2013

    Mike

    Well, what can I say? Except that physics doesn’t give a shit and perhaps it would help if you focussed on the implacable reality of a radiating atmosphere rather than the sociology and politics of climate change. Read up on paleoclimate behaviour for context and illustrations of how the climate system actually works. Forget the hive-bozos. Even if they existed, they would be an irrelevance.

    You are a smart enough chap – so *think*.

  79. #80 lord_sidcup
    June 15, 2013

    #57

    Even if Bob Ward’s complaint fails it is worthwhile keeping the spotlight on the GWPF’s lies. I’ve recently had an interesting email from a news programme editor regarding Lawson’s claim that there are many prominent climatologists on the GWPFs advisory panel. Complaining about Lawson’s misleading statements doesn’t always lead to a retraction or clarification, but it can prompt the media to re-think how they handle panel discussions, and who they invite to take part.

  80. #81 BBD
    June 15, 2013

    # 76 rhwombat

    that doesn’t necessarily mean that he is a 200Kg basement-dweller, oiling his Bushmaster with bacon fat.

    Without doubt, sentence of the week.

    as fruitful as head butting a banana tree, hoping for coconuts

    and you also win second place with this.

    Still sniggering.

  81. #82 BBD
    June 15, 2013

    # 80 They replied! Good. I recall you saying you were going to object to Lawson’s specific – and egregious – lie.

    I think you are correct. Nobody likes to be conned, and that realisation – that Lawson *lied on air on their program* – may discourage a further invitation to appear.

    Can you give the gist of the response? Did they accept that Lawson had lied or did they waffle and burble?

  82. #83 mike
    June 15, 2013

    Hey Deltoids!–back from my break!

    @ rhwombat no. 76

    So rhwombat you’re back with another attempt at a psychological profile of me. As I recall from your previous, utter failure in that department, you claim a professional expertise in matters psychological. So let’s “score” your latest “professional quality” work effort:

    -Basement? Nope, don’t have a basement.

    -Bushmaster? Nope, don’t own one.

    -Weight? Hmm–let me put matters, rhwombat, in terms of one of my “fetishes”, I’m within Marine Corps height and weight standards.

    -Life achievements? Well, I’m satisfied, rhwombat, with those accomplishments of mine, on balance, I’ve managed in my little journey through this “vale of tears”, as I view them from the perspective of my “Golden Years”. Even proud of a couple. Certainly, I have nothing left to “prove” to myself. But if you want to characterize my achievements as “modest”, please, be my guest. Indeed, I could care less and, if I did care, would probably agree.
    So I’ll be a pal and give you that one, rhwombat, since it seems to matter so much to you.

    -Adolescent tantrums? If you mean by that, rhwombat, I take a certain, “guilty” pleasure in pushing hive-bozo buttons, I must confess you have me there, guy.

    -Modest means? A curious attempt to disparage me there, rhwombat, that I think reveals more about the shallowness of your own miserable, money-grubbing, cockroach existence than anything else. But, yes, my means are modest, but so are my requirements. So both are well matched. And I like it that way. I’ve always liked traveling light and I neither need nor want much. Some sort of residual hippie-freak streak in me, I suppose.

    -Few real relationships? Again, a pot-shot that reveals more about you than me, rhwombat. Imagine this, if you can, rhwombat: I don’t need, like you, constant antennae feel-ups from and a non-stop release of pheromones by a mass of fellow hive-creeps in order to get myself oriented in the world. That’s your deal, rhwombat. And that’s why you are ensnared in that little, greenshirt, collectivist cult of yours, that relieves you of the burden of doing your own thinking and even provides you with a mommie-dearest, mummy-substitute Gaia-”fetish, you can call your own. I understand that, rhwombat.

    But, again, your way is not mine, rhwombat. You are right I have only a few “real relationships”. And I like it that way. Three pals of many years I can literally count on to have my back in a life-or-death situation, and the woman of my dreams at my side with whom I fell in love at first sight decades ago and with whom I am still madly in love (though I can’t help but notice her ardor has cooled just a little over the years (though, in compensation, her tolerance of my foibles has gotten better)). And believe it or not, rhwombat, that’s just the right number of “real relationships” for me, “few” though they be. But, then, outside of the hive–you really don’t get outside the hive much, do you, rhwombat?–there’s quite a few folks like me–we’re called “normal people”, rhwombat.

    So, rhwombat, while you’re still a doofus, fuck-up incompetent, when all is said and done, in your area of professional endeavor, this last defective attempt of yours at a psychological profile of me is, nevertheless, a vast improvement over your first. But, still, I thank the Good Lord that my own health care is not in the hands of some hive-hack like you who obviously can’t make it in private practice.

    @ BBD’s no. 79

    So BBD, if it’s all just physics, like you say, then why haven’t you been able to convince those hive-master Philosopher-Kings of yours, whose strutting rumps you make such a point to regularly smooch, to stop, already, with their extravagant, carbon-piggie lifestyles–that spew CO2 like a lefty vegan rips off methane–and get themselves right with Gaia?

    Please don’t tell me our senior-most-cadre betters are just self-indulgent, party-time, sociopathic, rip-off artists with a pervert’s need to have their butts dutifully kissed by toady, well-rewarded enablers–not you, of course, BBD–but don’t give a shit, really, about all this radiative physics and saving-the-planet crapola ‘cuz, for our uber-mensch betters it’s all about power and control and makin’ a buck and any ol’ cynical hustle will do.

    I mean, like, please don’t tell me that, BBD, because with my heart condition, I don’t think I could survive the traumatic experience, if you did.

    And, oh by the way, thank you BBD and rhwombat for assuring me how “bright” and “smart” I am. The interest you two hive-retards take in my G2 is so very, very important to me.

  83. #84 Bernard J.
    June 15, 2013

    Mike.

    It’s good that you appear to have a nice life.

    It’s not so good that you have a potty mouth and a propensity for the common denialist affliction of logically-fallacious thinking that so often accompanies an inability to understand the relatively basic science that underpins climate change.

  84. #85 chek
    June 15, 2013

    Li’llmike our milquetoast marine has lots of attempted macho framing that he desperately wants to share with us.

    Which a pity for him, because 1) nobody’s buying it and 2) it illustrates how disconnected from his own made-up ‘reality’ he is. The deadly force wing of the military-industrial complex certainly doesn’t share his uninformed view.

    “Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment. Although they produce distinct types of challenges, climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked. The actions that the Department takes now can prepare us to respond effectively to these challenges in the near term and in the
    future. Climate change will affect DoD in two broad ways. First, climate change will shape the operating
    environment, roles, and missions that we undertake. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, composed of 13 federal agencies, reported in 2009 that climate-related changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters. Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly
    retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows”.

  85. #86 BBD
    June 15, 2013

    Still confusing makes-no-difference (eg scientific conference travel) with the makes-all-the-difference (eg decarbonisation of electricity generation; electrification of personal transport etc).

    Maybe not so smart, after all. I say this because I distinctly recall going over this very distinction with you several months ago.

    Is your mind going, Mike?

  86. #87 BBD
    June 15, 2013

    So BBD, if it’s all just physics, like you say, then why haven’t you been able to convince those hive-master Philosopher-Kings of yours, whose strutting rumps you make such a point to regularly smooch

    I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm, publicly, my enormous respect and admiration for Dr Hansen and his colleagues at NASA GISS.

    :-)

  87. #88 BBD
    June 15, 2013

    Bushmaster? Nope, don’t own one.

    Mini-14?

  88. #89 Stu
    June 15, 2013

    The interest you two hive-retards take in my G2 is so very, very important to me.

    Obviously it is, or you’d stop whining. What an insecure little muppet you are, mike.

  89. #91 BBD
    June 15, 2013

    The fun thing, all my denialist chums, is that the signal is only just beginning to emerge from the noise. This is – forgive me – only the warm-up. The best is yet to come.

  90. #92 BBD
    June 15, 2013

    Betula

    Graphs can help. Really :-)

    Please, be curious and actually look at the two links. First you see the global average temperature response to an increase in net forcings – literally the bigger picture, and sadly, rarely shown. All we normally see are temperature time series on their own. The context is helpful. Note that the forcings are scaled coherently. Look at TSI vs well-mixed GHGs.

    Next you can see what climate models do when forced with and without anthropogenic GHGs.

    Meh, climate models, you might say, but it’s solidly backed up by paleoclimate behaviour, as you would have discovered if you had actually <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/06/01/june-2013-open-thread/comment-page-5/#comment-157784"read the first three links at the time. Or even on previous occasions. They are all full pdfs, not just abstracts.

  91. #93 BBD
    June 15, 2013

    Whoops.

    [...] but it’s solidly backed up by paleoclimate behaviour, as you would have discovered if you had actually read the first three links at the time. Or even on previous occasions. They are all full pdfs, not just abstracts.

  92. #94 Betula
    June 16, 2013

    Lionel @ 90..

    “More in your face climate change, seen enough yet birch-head?”

    Hard to imagine, but you are just as retarded as BBD. Read your links Ftard:

    1.” in a bid to determine if the they represent a fundamental shift as a result of climate change or simply come down to variable weather”

    2.

  93. #95 Betula
    June 16, 2013

    Lionel..

    More…

    2. “This may be nothing more than a run of natural variability, but there may be other factors impacting our weather”

    3. “For example, there is emerging research which suggests there is a link between declining Arctic sea ice and European climate – but exactly how this process might work, and how important it may be among a host of other factors, remains unclear”

    IT REMAINS UNCLEAR FTARD!.

  94. #96 Betula
    June 16, 2013

    Lionel…

    Additionally, you link to a leftist blogger who conflates a title to make it appear as though the reason the Met office is meeting is because “Human Climate Change Is Wrecking the Jet Stream”…

    Besides being unsubstantiated, they never mention this once!

    Really, just how retarded are you?

    And it would seem your leftist friend intentionally left out this comment in the Mail Online (I thought that was taboo) article he links to:
    “Dr Slingo is concerned that shrinking sea ice in the Arctic could be responsible”

    Could be? This from Britain’s “leading climate change expert”? Could be?

  95. #97 John Mashey
    June 16, 2013

    BBD:
    GWPF closed down?
    I have no clear insight into the Charities Commission, although a few years ago a UK friend pointed me at cases where they had indeed shut down charities. I know a lot more about specific IRS rules, but that doesn’t help.

    Hopefully, at some point, there might be one against IEA, and if enough fuss gets raised, perhaps there will be more stringent enforcement of the rules. Unlike GWPF, but lik many American thinktanks, IEA has the strong tobacco connection, and it is hard to explain how that is in the public interest.

  96. #98 GSW
    June 16, 2013

    Round up of some interesting media developments of late;

    Revkin and Roberts going all lukewarm on CO2 alarm.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM7oxrdoaRM

    and also from Judith Curry,

    ” Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 yr ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002 (note: I am receiving inquiries about this from journalists)”

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/14/week-in-review-3/#more-11910

  97. #99 Bernard J.
    June 16, 2013

    GSW immediately above.

    Why don’t you quote the whole paragraph:

    Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 yr ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002 (note: I am receiving inquiries about this from journalists). This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the ‘climate shift’ circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr ‘pause’.

    Judith Curry seems to be predicting cooling to 2023-25. If this is how she now conducts her analyses, her scientific colleagues are going to start asking her to not stand so close.

    Is this really Curry’s professional opinion?! If it is, I have a wager to put to her…

  98. #100 GSW
    June 16, 2013

    @BJ

    Entirely happy with whole paragraph Bernard. It’s longer for sure and I’d say it was wrong to attribute her comments as having the full “rigour” of an “analysis” as you seem to do. But then you’re an ecologist right?
    ;)

1 3 4 5 6 7 12