June 2013 Open thread

More thread for you.

Comments

  1. #1 bill
    June 19, 2013

    Hey Sou, that ‘fame and riches’ post and comment thread is extraordinary.

    ‘Irony’, though? In many cases I think not! Ever since I was revolted by the dismal Delingpole’s crowing over being made a ‘rock star’ by Heartland I’ve been struck by the extraordinary opportunity Denial provides to the second-rate, hack, or otherwise-undistinguished.

    Here’s a quiz question; what do you reckon the chances of gaining global attention for the likes of Delingpole, Monckton etc. – hell, even the ludicrous Josh – would have been had they not thrown in their lot with a minority reactionary cause that just happened to be sponsored by some of the world’s largest and most powerful economically vested interests?

    What ‘claim to fame’ might any of them have made had they supported the scientific consensus, and what would have been the likely result of their competing for attention in the much-wider field of ‘mainstream’ – and hard-won – expertise?

    We even see it here on a smaller scale, with no-marks who would otherwise languish in an obscurity as complete as their merits (or absence thereof) getting lashings of attention – and playing at having intellects – by regurgitating the oily scraps those they’ve elevated to tawdry fame repay the compliment by disgorging for them.

    A quicker and more cheaply-earned path to narcissistic gratification could scarcely be imagined! If you don’t much give a damn about the consequences, of course…

  2. #2 BBD
    June 19, 2013

    And there it is. Proof. When certain commenters are firmly required to demonstrate intellectual integrity and *honesty*, they are stymied. They cannot defend their positions. They cannot answer specific questions. They cannot justify their behaviour.

    You know who you are, and you know what this proves about your “scepticism”. So how about rejecting it?

  3. #3 Sou
    June 19, 2013

    Bill, I am fascinated by the seediness of Richard Tol and his ineptitude. How he manages to hang onto a position in a university I don’t know. How he managed to get appointed as a lead author to the IPCC I don’t know either. It will be interesting to read his chapter when it comes out.

    The man has dropped all pretence at ethics but looking at his past behaviour maybe he never pretended ethical behaviour.

    I nearly shut down the thread when it got sidetracked into stats and he started being treated as if his number crunching meant something. But I ended up leaving it open. In the meantime I checked and discovered he’s not one for truth and honest dealings. A man to be avoided in real life.

  4. #4 Sou
    June 20, 2013

    @BBD – sorry about that. Friends and allies are important – including you :)

    You might be interested in this.

  5. #5 Bernard J.
    June 20, 2013

    World Bank warns of severe hardship as climate warms

    TANYA NOLAN: The World Bank has issued a dire warning about the impact of climate change on the world’s poorest people.

    In its revised Turn Down the Heat report, the World Bank says severe hardships will be felt within a generation and it says there’s a growing chance that warming will reach or exceed four degrees Celsius in this century.

    Emily Bourke reports.

    EMILY BOURKE: The president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, is alarmed by what lies ahead.

    JIM YONG KIM: The conclusions in this report should make all of us lose sleep over what our world will look like in our lifetimes. The conclusions are clear – a world that warms by two degrees Celsius perhaps in just 20 or 30 years will cause vast parts of African croplands to wither, submerge large swathes of cities in South Asia and kill off much of the fisheries in some parts of South-East Asia

    EMILY BOURKE: The updated Turn Down the Heat climate report, was commissioned by the World Bank.

    It says evidence over the past seven months indicates that projections for greenhouse gas emissions have been too low and that now there’s a growing chance that warming will reach or exceed four degrees Celsius in this century unless emissions are cut quickly and deeply.

    The World Bank’s Jim Yong Kim says the severe effects on water will disproportionately affect the world’s poorest.

    JIM YONG KIM: Consider these forecasts in the report – in South Asia, shifting rain patterns will leave some areas underwater and others without enough water for power generation, agriculture or drinking.

    Sea level rise coupled with more intense tropical cyclones could mean extensive flooding in coastal areas of Bangladesh as well as in cities such as Kolkata and Mumbai.

    In South-East Asia at two degree Celsius, maximum fish catch will decline by 50 per cent in the Southern Philippines, loss of the coral reefs will diminish tourism, reduce fish stocks and leave coastal communities more vulnerable to less frequent but increasingly violent storms.

    Across all regions the growing movement of impacted communities into urban areas could lead to ever higher numbers of people in slums and other informal settlements being exposed to heat waves, flooding, mud slides and epidemics of disease.

    KELLY DENT: I think it’s a real wake-up call that there needs to be a massive injection of political will including by the Australian Government.

    EMILY BOURKE: Kelly Dent is from Oxfam.

    KELLY DENT: Australia has to be able to pay its way in terms of supporting developing countries. Now this needs to go through a global climate fund, it also needs to go by way of bilateral support to climate projects, to projects that affect the communities but it needs to be above the existing and committed aid budget because the aid budgets for lifting people out of poverty and for meeting the Millennium Development Goals.

    Now climate change has thrown us back even further.

    EMILY BOURKE: Jim Yong Kim says the World Bank is boosting its funding for risk mitigation programs.

    JIM YONG KIM: We are developing tools that help countries better assess and adapt to climate change including transforming the way we farm to maximise productivity and resilience and doubling global renewal energy and efficiency and we can’t ignore the financing challenge.

    The world needs to find innovative ways to set an appropriate price on carbon. If we can get prices right, we can redirect finance to low carbon growth, lessen the changes of two degree warming and avoid a four degree world.

    EMILY BOURKE: And he’s issued a blunt warning to those who are still unsure about climate change.

    JIM YONG KIM: If you disagree with the science of human caused climate change, what you are disagreeing with is science itself and as far as I know it’s the best we got. You know, the modern science is the best we have and so I think it’s really stop, a time to stop arguing about whether it’s real or not.

    I’ve lost count of the number of once in a life-time events that happened in the last two or three years. You know, duh, there is something going on here folks, once in a life-time events all the time, right?

    This is real and I can just see it. You know, my kids already, I can see the way they’re going to talk to me. They’re going to say, oh thanks dad, right, you were president of the World Bank, what did you do when you knew that this was going to happen to us?

    TANYA NOLAN: That’s president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, Emily Bourke with that report.

  6. #6 Bernard J.
    June 20, 2013

    But of course this wouldn’t matter to Betula, GSW, Olaus Petri, KarenMackSunspot, Jonas N, David Duff, Freddy (the multi-socked creationist visiting from A Few Things Ill-considered), pentaxz, and the other white male Westerners here.

    After all, climate change doesn’t happen to them, so it’s irrelevant if a few Third World people of coloured persuasion are lost to unusual weather event… even when those weather events stop being unusual, and even when it’s a few more than a few…

    Stuffing their ignorant, mindless heads up their arses is heaven for denialist trolls such as the aforementioned. I really wish that there was a wrathful God, because it would be just retribution for the Denialati to be cast in to lakes of fire for all eternity as penalty for their sins against humanity.

    Just retribution, and justly ironic.

  7. #7 Sou
    June 20, 2013

    @Jeff and @Bernard J, you’ll be interested in this one. I reckon this one beats the best that Duff and Betula and the other idiots here have to offer.

    Anthony Watts has put up a third article by Ronald D “it’s insects” Voisin. This time he’s advocating killing off six per cent of insects and microbes to stop CO2 from rising.

    If that fails, next on his hit list are “mammalia”. I’m not sure if he knows that humans are mammals because he lists humans separately.

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/anthony-watts-promotes-more-nuttery-has.html

  8. #8 Olaus Petri
    June 20, 2013

    Let us hope for the best, shall we?

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

    ;-)

  9. #9 BBD
    June 20, 2013

    @ Sou # 4

    All my fault – in a foul mood and wires crossed. Blog bleh. It happens. Just my luck (or lack of it) to confuse MV with the enemy ;-)

    Let’s hope he can see the funny side.

  10. #10 BBD
    June 20, 2013

    # 6

    Questions to answer before we continue:

    (BBD:)

    Please list the errors found in Marcott et al. that have resulted in changes to the paper.

    * * *

    (Bernard J:)

    1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

    2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

    3) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

    4) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

    5) In the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

    * * *

    Let us hope for the best, shall we?

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

  11. #11 BBD
    June 20, 2013

    Jaysus, not my day. The above is to Olaus @ # 7

  12. #12 Sou
    June 20, 2013

    @BBD – no problem. It happens. I don’t blame you for being furious with Christy. The mere mention of his name can be enough to make any reasonable person see red.

  13. #13 Craig Thomas
    June 20, 2013

    Olaus, I notice your graph doesn’t include a lot of relevant data.

    Here is a version of it that includes the inconvenient context you are trying to ignore:
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    And here is a graph that shows volume:
    http://haveland.com/share/arctic-death-spiral-1979-201301.png

  14. #14 bill
    June 21, 2013

    @ Sou #11: ah, yes, but Jesus loves him!…

    Voisin is astonishing. What sort of an ASD would you have to have to suggest it would be ‘trivial’ – let alone desirable – to exterminate 6% of the insect population?!

    And ‘low’ consequences?! Ye Gods!

    Let alone ‘microbes’… Jeebus, has anybody ever told this buffoon what the majority of cells in his body are? This has to be a Poe, surely?

    Similarly, what would have to be wrong with you to publish such nonsense?

    (And isn’t it blackly funny that the anti-environmentalist Right is now embracing Trotskyite – and in this case ultra-Maoist – Direct Action?)

  15. #15 bill
    June 21, 2013

    Citizens of Adelaide: how do you reckon you’d cope with Port Augusta’s climate? Just sit tight to find out

  16. #16 FrankD
    June 22, 2013

    Craig, this one is also more informative:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

    Currently seventh lowest in the 35 year detailed record. The six lower years are all in the last seven. My bet is that come September, it will be second lowest. Recovery!

  17. #17 Sou
    June 22, 2013

    @bill #14 Watts has been publishing some very weird stuff lately. I don’t think he is capable of distinguishing off-the-planet weird from normal denialist weird. He relies on his readers to tell him. And most of them don’t know the difference either.

    On the subject of weird/funny, denialsists are all DuKE-ing it out, with WM Briggs entering the fray and getting it as embarrassingly wrong as rgbatduke did, but for other reasons.

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/a-battle-of-dukes-climate-science.html

  18. #18 Lotharsson
    June 22, 2013

    I don’t think he is capable of distinguishing off-the-planet weird from normal denialist weird.

    Crank magnetism at your service.

  19. #19 Betula
    June 22, 2013

    Bernard @ whatever…

    “because it would be just retribution for the Denialati to be cast in to lakes of fire for all eternity”

    Sounds like Global Warming.

  20. #20 Gator
    June 22, 2013

    Time for another John Lott Jr. post!

    See
    http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/2/565.short
    and
    http://econjwatch.org/file_download/619/AnejaDonohueZhangJan2013.pdf

    Aneja, Donohue and Zhang not only put the last nail in the coffin about more guns => less crime, they glue the lid and then screw it down.

  21. #21 Bernard J.
    June 23, 2013

    Betula at #19:

    “because it would be just retribution for the Denialati to be cast in to lakes of fire for all eternity”

    Sounds like Global Warming.

    Sounds as though you have finally mastered the nuances of irony.

    On other matters, your avoidance of those basic questions is glaringly obvious. When are you going to show us that you understand basic science and provide a defensible response?

    And once you’ve greased the wheels with those basics, perhaps you could tell thread what the mean long-term minimum rate of warming would need to be in order to detect a signal from noise over a period of 17 years? How long to detect such in 15 years? And how long to detect it in 10 years?

    My guess is that you don’t know, and also that you don’t understand the import of these values in the context of either the science of the underlying warming, or the biological responses to the resulting climate change.

  22. #22 Betula
    June 23, 2013

    Bernard…

    “because it would be just retribution for the Denialati to be cast in to lakes of fire for all eternity”

    So your religion is Global Warming with Deltoid being your Church, scientists the Disciples and the IPCC your Bible. Those of us who say you can’t prove the existence of the outcome, whether it be Heaven or Hell, are sinners, and therefore destined to eternal Global Warming.

    Too late

    Deltoid is your church and the IPCC wrote your Bible

  23. #23 Betula
    June 23, 2013

    “perhaps you could tell thread what the mean long-term minimum rate of warming would need to be in order to detect a signal from noise over a period of 17 years? How long to detect such in 15 years? And how long to detect it in 10 years?”

    It would all depend on which paper you are reading at the time. For example, you forgot to mention a 23 day time scale..

  24. #24 Lotharsson
    June 23, 2013

    Sheesh, tired and trite attempts to analogise reliance on the processes of science with religious belief – used as a mechanism to avoid answering basic scientific questions.

    Seen it all a thousand times.

    And it just goes to show that Betula can’t demonstrate a basic understanding of climate science.

  25. #25 bill
    June 23, 2013

    Trite indeed. Yer borin’ us, Batty.

    You might just as well be like the buffoon I encountered the other day who turned up at SkS claiming they had never put forward any evidence CO2 was changing the climate! I mean, are you actually a complete dill, or do you just play one on the internet?

  26. #26 Bernard J.
    June 23, 2013

    Betula, you said:

    So your religion is Global Warming with Deltoid being your Church, scientists the Disciples and the IPCC your Bible.

    No.

    Lotharsson and Bill have already whacked you with the get-a-brain stick, but I might as well join the fray and point out that you are confusing metaphor with something literal.

    If you can’t get such a basic language instrument right, it’s no wonder that you struggle with science – even the basic science to which you’ve been led by the nose, but at which which you refuse to look.

    Which is fine by me. I’m not the one embarrassed by your persistent display of ignorance. And if you aren’t in your own turn so embarrassed, then that’s simply an indication of just how pig-ignorant you really are.

    Now, do you need me to repeat the questions yet again, or do you think that you might actually be able to manage to locate and read them all by yourself, and to reply?

  27. #27 Betula
    June 23, 2013

    Bernard…
    ” I really wish that there was a wrathful God, because it would be just retribution for the Denialati to be cast in to lakes of fire for all eternity as penalty for their sins against humanity.”

    Sloth…
    “tired and trite attempts to analogise reliance on the processes of science with religious belief ”

    Amen.

  28. #28 Betula
    June 23, 2013

    The noise….BBD, Wow, Bernard, Hardley, Sloth, Bill et al

    The signal….The success of Deltoid Church.

    After separating out all the noise, we can see there was an upward linear trend that plateaued and is now on a steep decline….

    Predicted future scenario…..catastrophe.

  29. #29 chek
    June 23, 2013

    Oh dear, Betty’s stretching that meagre braincell again. It won’t end well.

    Betty, explain the connection between “the processes of science ” and ” I really wish”, because I can’t see what your denier brain seems to illuminate for you. Not without a whole heap of wishful thinking and projection.

  30. #30 Betula
    June 23, 2013

    OOPS…

    The noise….and chek.

  31. #31 BBD
    June 23, 2013

    After separating out all the noise, we can see there was an upward linear trend that plateaued and is now on a steep decline….

    Only if you are engaged in deliberate misrepresentation aka the “cooling over the last decade” meme.

    Fact – you are reading *far* too much into an uninformatively short period.

    Here’s the unvarnished truth: there are two strong La Niña events in the second half of the period (2008 and the “double-dip” LN of 2011 – 2012). This inevitably depresses the trend. Nobody serious would attempt to go any further than that. It would be a blatant, deceitful cherry pick, as is instantly obvious from any clear presentation of the data.

    Read the words and look at the graph. If you are half-way to being a decent human being, you will feel some shame. You don’t have to admit that here of course – but just stop repeating the lie.

  32. #32 Jeff Harvey
    June 23, 2013

    …”even the basic science to which you’ve been led by the nose, but at which which you refuse to look”

    Exactly. Betty’s had the literature pasted in front of his face many times and his response to that? To close his eyes very tightly and to whimper, “it ain’t so! It ain’t so!”. Instead, he relies on his own gut instincts which we all know here mean diddly squat. And every so often he comes up with hilarious examples he has conjured up from some place of another.

    Yet he persists. Go figure.

  33. #33 bill
    June 24, 2013

    [*snort*] Talk about ‘when you’re on a crap metaphor, stick to it’. How do you manage to live in that cramped little intellect, Batty?

  34. #34 Jp
    Australia
    June 24, 2013

    Sigh…I wish there was a stricter troll policy here. I like this blog and I’d like to visit more often but unfortunately the presence of persistent, stupid, moronic denier trolls who have nothing intelligent to contribute is a put-off. Even for me, it makes my brain hurt to read their inane shit; I can’t imagine what it must feel like for others here who are more educated and more intelligent.

    Anyway, this aside, I’d like to read a rebuttal of the latest denier nonsense that I first heard about on talk-back radio yesterday, namely that recent measurement by NASA show that CO2 cools the planet by reflecting 95% of the sun’s energy, or something to that effect. I did a quick google and this meme is all over the web, spreading like a virus.

    My take on it, assuming that the story is genuine and the figures correct, is that it doesn’t mean anything. It changes nothing in regards to the planet’s accumulation of energy. A bit like someone stuck in a drain during a flash-flood and in danger of drowning and a denier saying there’s nothing to worry about because 95% of the water is actually falling outside the drain. If 5% of the sun’s energy (don’t know if that’s correct, but just using it for the purpose of the argument) is what’s keeping the planet warm, then it’s irrelevant how much is being reflected. That’s my uninformed opinion. Any comments?

  35. #35 Betula
    June 24, 2013

    BBD…

    My comment @ 28 went right over your head….an indication of how thick you are. I was talking about Deltoid you dumb ass…

    “If you are half-way to being a decent human being, you will feel some shame”.

    Hilarious.

  36. #36 bill
    June 24, 2013

    …because obviously you’re not a half-way decent human being – you’re an internet troll!

    You ‘religion’ *cough* ‘metaphor’ is still hopelessly lame, Batty.

    Are you one of those Doofuses who insists ‘Atheism is a Religion’, incidentally? Like non-smoking is a form of smoking…

  37. #37 Bernard J.
    June 24, 2013

    The question:

    1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

    Betula’s answer:

    The success of Deltoid Church.

    The question:

    2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

    Betula’s answer:

    BBD, Wow, Bernard, Hardley, Sloth, Bill et al… OOPS… and chek.

    Ruprecht. Don’t take the cork off the fork.

  38. #38 bill
    June 24, 2013

    …and he’s already relieving himself at the table! ;-)

  39. #40 Lotharsson
    June 24, 2013

    Amen.

    The projection is strong in this one.

  40. #41 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    an indication of how thick you are.

    Every time you use a denialist lie – even in simile – you are *spreading* the excrement in the public domain.

    What disturbs me is that you don’t understand that this is a crime against humanity.

    How this makes me thick and you a fucking savant is beyond me.

  41. #42 Betula
    June 24, 2013

    BBD..

    “How this makes me thick and you a fucking savant is beyond me”

    It’s beyond you because you’re thick.

    Let’s review:

    Not being able to tell the difference between the predicted demise of Deltoid and the predicted outcome of climate change you attempt to hide your dumber than dirt mistake with this logic @ 41…

    “Every time you use a denialist lie – even in simile – you are *spreading* the excrement in the public domain. What disturbs me is that you don’t understand that this is a crime against humanity.”

    So, predicting the future demise of Deltoid is a crime against humanity, because calling predicted future climate scenarios what they are….predictions, is a crime against humanity.

    Now that’s THICK.

    Let’s review some of the other Deltoid Disciple’s musings:

    1.Bernard, conflating climate and religion, claims that calling a prediction a prediction is reason enough to be sent to the lakes of Global Warming for eternity.
    I hear a promotion to Bishop may be in the works…

    2. Hardley, who blatantly lied about experiencing climate change “first hand” and seeing shifting zones “for real” over a 23 day time scale while obtaining frost bite, is promoted to High Priest of Deltoid for his efforts.

    3. Lionel A, who was exposed for embellishing articles at #2 on page 5 and again at #’s 94 and 95 on pg 5 (all for the sake of promoting the cause) is considered a top Deltoid Deacon.

    That leaves you as an altar boy BBD, occasionally singing with the Choir, with little chance of advancement due to the fact that you are dumber than dirt.

    Now, turn off the lights and go light a candle…

  42. #43 Jeff Harvey
    June 24, 2013

    Betula loves to talk about ‘lies and embellishment’. How about his ‘ignorance and embellishment’. For sheer unadulturated stupidity, birch man ranks near the top.

    Note how he’s tried to stay away from some of his howlers – C02 fertilization as a good thing, the wonderful state of eastern NA ecosystems and glacial retreat – and focus on pedantics. He also has clearly never read a peer-reviwed paper in his life; when they are stuck in front of him, in keeping with his usual demenor, he doesn’t respond to them but goes off in another direction.

    To top all of this off, the guy thinks he is both smart and witty. That is probably the biggest irony of all – to wallow in a pit of ignorance and to try and ridicule those who conistently shoot down your garbage. Betula appears to think that saying something off the top of his head and then ignoring a veritable flood of responses with scientific support makes him a good debater.

    Sorry Betula, it doesn’t. That’s why your support on Deltoid is down to a few hacks and cronies. Nor can you boast of huge support in the scientific community; you are left with a lot of politically motivated but scientifically illiterate people like yourself who glean their views from AGW denier weblogs. You’ve proven that you are an ignoramus. Why add to this legacy?

  43. #44 Bernard J.
    June 24, 2013

    Betula, spin it all you like.

    The world can still see that you are unable to address those questions.

    Nor are you able to come within a bull’s roar of the follow-up questions.

    The evidence for both is recorded above, for all time… well, at least for as long as there is an internet. Which is still a long time to be recognised as a denialist who is criminally ignorant of basic science.

    And what’s with you bonnet-bee about my metaphorical allusion to the sins of those who stand in the way of preventing further damage to the planet? You yourself have been peppering the thread with many more direct science-religion confabulations, and from a time before my own reference. Hypocrisy, much?

    That is all.

  44. #45 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    Betula

    You calling me thick is just funny.

    Your denialism is a lie. Spreading lies about CC is a crime against humanity. You are scum.

    Simple enough, isn’t it?

  45. #46 Betula
    June 24, 2013

    Hardley…

    “Note how he’s tried to stay away from some of his howlers – C02 fertilization as a good thing”

    Is it a bad thing? Or don’t you know…

    And if you don’t know, why don’t you?

  46. #47 Betula
    June 24, 2013

    “Spreading lies about CC is a crime against humanity”

    Identify the lie…I can’t seem to find it in any of the verses. Is it in the Book of Predictions?

  47. #48 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    Denying your denial now Betty? Lying about lying?

    How low will you go?

  48. #49 Betula
    June 24, 2013

    BBD..
    “Spreading lies about CC is a crime against humanity”

    Identify the lie…I can’t seem to find it in any of the verses. Is it in the Book of Predictions?

    Tough one for you BBD?

  49. #50 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    Don’t be a tit, Betty.

    This doesn’t actually merit another reply, so in the shitcan it goes:

    BBD..
    “Spreading lies about CC is a crime against humanity”

    Identify the lie…I can’t seem to find it in any of the verses. Is it in the Book of Predictions?

    Tough one for you BBD?

    There are limits.

  50. #51 Jeff Harvey
    June 24, 2013

    Its strange how Betula tries to spin one link in the AGW chain – increased atmospheric concentrations of C02 – into something positive, but when it comes to the warming part of it, “we don’t know if it is happening”.

    Tis stuff comes straight from a comic book. Betula, the more you write the worse you look. I never said that increased C02 was a bad thing, but that it would have unpredictable and perhaps negative consequences on ecological systems as a result of a complex interplay of physiological changes in plant properties, responses up the food chain, and effects on processes like competition, community assembly and plant-consumer interactions. You intimated that it was a good thing on the basis of your profoundly ignorant understanding of the field. But you seem to think its OK for humans to simplify and alter the planet’s surface so long as we do not understand the outcome of this ‘experiment’. With people like you around, who needs regulatory bodies in government? Heck, allow every product corporations produce to be marketed and sold until harmful effects are found. Let the Pharmaceutical companies sell all of their drugs without preliminary checks. Let the pesticide manufacturers patent everything they produce, and use it without a second thought until empirical evidence proves it harms human health or the environment. And so on and s forth. Why stop at 400 ppm with atmospheric C02 concentrations? Lets see if we can crack the 500, 600 or 700 ppm barrier, until concrete proof comes in that it has serious effects on nature. Of course, given the time lags involved, by this time it will be far too late to do anything. But you get the idea with mindsets like old Betula’s. Calling it gumbified is a compliment.

    This is like putting the cart before the horse. Open Pandora’s Box and wait until the shit hits the fan, then do something about it. And make sure that the shit has indeed hit the fan – even if there are signs it will, keep spewing it out until there is 100% proof.

    In spite of what Betula might think of himself, he’s a full blown bonafide idiot. He can’t debate at all, but thinks he is clever and witty. Everything he says drags him deeper and deeper into the mire. Its actually fun watching this happen.

  51. #53 Betula
    June 24, 2013

    Ouch ̶B̶B̶D̶ …

    “This doesn’t actually merit another reply, so in the shitcan it goes:”

    I see you can’t answer your own accusations. This must be awfully awkward for someone with a mouth as big as yours.

  52. #54 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    Does it bother you, being identified as a serial liar, Betty?

  53. #55 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    I wonder if (being woefully stupid, as you are) you don’t quite get what I am driving at here.

    You are routinely wrong about climate change science and routinely corrected. Yet you routinely return with the same, discredited bollocks or variations on the denialist theme. This is intellectual dishonesty. Or put simply, lying.

    It is your default mode of communication here. It is a crime against humanity, and you are scum.

  54. #56 Betula
    June 24, 2013

    Hardley…

    1. You ramble….”I never said that increased C02 was a bad thing”

    And I never said it was a good thing. I said your predictions are predictions based on unknowns…CO2 fertilization being one of them.

    2. You continue…”but that it would have unpredictable and perhaps negative consequences on ecological systems as a result of a complex interplay of physiological changes in plant properties”

    So you are saying it is a bad thing….or “perhaps” a bad thing? Or are you saying you don’t know?

    The fact is, you don’t know, do you Hardley?

    Eye opening isn’t it?

    Are you beginning to see how retarded you are?

  55. #57 Betula
    June 24, 2013

    “Does it bother you, being identified as a serial liar, Betty?”

    Not by you, because you can’t seem to identify the lie. Does it bother you, being unable to back up a claim? C’mon, you must have examples big mouth….take your time.

  56. #58 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    Stupid Denialist Meme # 302:

    CO2 is plant food therefore CO2 is good:

    And I never said it was a good thing. I said your predictions are predictions based on unknowns…CO2 fertilization being one of them.|

    A thinly disguised lie. Is this a feeble attempt at plausible deniability of denial? If so, it doesn’t work.

    There’s a great pile of evidence that says rapid warming will fuck up agricultural productivity and the ecosystem with equal thoroughness. Only liars pretend otherwise.

    Misrepresentation of the potential seriousness of rapid future warming is a crime against humanity. Only the vilest scum engage in such poisoned rhetoric. They are regarded with loathing and contempt by the rest of the species. Why would anyone sane want to be lumped in with the vermin?

  57. #59 Betula
    June 24, 2013

    Until you back it up, you are in the shit can… we can’t tolerate the likes of you at such a fine blog as this.

    ̶D̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶b̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶,̶ ̶b̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶i̶d̶e̶n̶t̶i̶f̶i̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶e̶r̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶l̶i̶a̶r̶,̶ ̶B̶e̶t̶t̶y̶?̶

  58. #60 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    All your rhetoric about uncertainty and good outcomes is a lie, Betty. If you are so abysmally stupid that you don’t even realise what you are doing then this conversation isn’t going to progress to a satisfactory outcome.

    Which would be that you accept that you know nothing, accept that you have been lying about CC, renounce your denialism, accept the scientific evidence and consensus of evidence, and fuck off from this place, never to be heard from again.

    You know it makes sense. You’d feel so much better about yourself. In your heart of hearts you must have an inkling that all you are is an unpaid shill for vested corporate interests and swivel-eyed right wing nutters. Who wants to be a capitalist lackey and a water carrier for the self-serving right?

    Where’s your pride, Betty? Your sense of self?

  59. #61 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    # 59

    Are you blind as well as a fuckwit, Betty? Do try reading the words.

  60. #62 Betula
    June 24, 2013

    ̶A̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶d̶i̶s̶g̶u̶i̶s̶e̶d̶ ̶l̶i̶e̶.̶

    Back it up.

  61. #63 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    Just. How. Stupid. Can. Someone. Be?

    Read the fucking words, you tool.

    Dear God in heaven.

  62. #64 Betula
    June 24, 2013

    “Which would be that you accept that you know nothing, accept that you have been lying about CC, renounce your denialism, accept the scientific evidence and consensus of evidence, and fuck off from this place, never to be heard from again”

    Accept ̶J̶e̶s̶u̶s̶ the IPCC or leave ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶C̶h̶u̶r̶c̶h̶ Deltoid?

  63. #65 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    Since you have not one iota of expertise, on what basis do you reject the scientific consensus on AGW?

    This is the root of your intellectual dishonesty. When I’ve raised this with you before (eg May thread), you became extremely evasive then started lying:

    Here was my response to your lies:

    ********************************

    # 95 BBD:

    This is a fucking flat-out lie:

    The problem here is that all possible positive reactions are taken out of the prediction equation….they carry no weight in the projection of predictions that potentially may happen to a system that is too complex to possibly know how all the interactions will react. Why is that?

    Why are deniers so fucking dishonest?

    Why is that?

    Well we know, don’t we? It’s because they are arguing against a robust scientific consensus without benefit of a scientific counter-argument.

    So they need to tell lies all the time.

    ****************************************************

  64. #66 Rednose
    UK
    June 24, 2013

    JP#34

    That’s my uninformed opinion. Any comments?
    …….I can’t imagine what it must feel like for others here who are more educated and more intelligent.

    Sigh. Its a heavy burden but one does ones best.

  65. #67 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    The socks gather…

  66. #68 Betula
    June 24, 2013

    “All your rhetoric about uncertainty and good outcomes is a lie”

    This is your proof of a lie? Be more specific, show me the words. Prove to me there aren’t any uncertainties or unknowns in predicting future scenarios, prove to me the effect of CO2 fertilization on climate, if any, are certain …. until then, you are in the shit can:

    ̶”̶A̶l̶l̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶r̶h̶e̶t̶o̶r̶i̶c̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶u̶n̶c̶e̶r̶t̶a̶i̶n̶t̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶g̶o̶o̶d̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶c̶o̶m̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶l̶i̶e̶”̶

  67. #69 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    I don’t have to prove a damned thing to you, Betty. Try to get this into your buttock-thick head.

    You have no choice but to accept the scientific consensus – which is that warming is potentially very dangerous indeed unless moderated.

    You have no choice because:

    – You are not an expert

    – You have no robust scientific counter-argument

    If you *still* cannot understand the profundity of your intellectual dishonesty in *rejecting* the scientific consensus and foghorning your stupid misconceptions in comments here then I don’t know what else to do.

    Are you incapable of even the most basic reasoning?

  68. #70 Betula
    June 24, 2013

    BBD…

    You have no choice but to admit the future scenarios are predictions…. NO CHOICE….because they are.
    In the process of predicting, there are admittedly many uncertainties and unknowns that come into play…ADMITTEDLY.

    Now, since you are a genius of sorts, please explain to me, with CERTAINTY, the role something such as CO2 fertilization may play in the overall scheme of things.

    Until then, try to keep it together in the shit can:

    ̶I̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶v̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶d̶a̶m̶n̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶,̶ ̶B̶e̶t̶t̶y̶.̶ ̶T̶r̶y̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶g̶e̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶t̶o̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶t̶o̶c̶k̶-̶t̶h̶i̶c̶k̶ ̶h̶e̶a̶d̶.̶

  69. #71 Betula
    June 24, 2013

    “I can’t imagine what it must feel like for others here who are more educated and more intelligent.”….yet can’t answer their own accusations.

  70. #72 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    But Betty, I’ve already shown you that the climate system is sensitive to radiative perturbation and that empirical estimates from paleoclimate give us an ECS/2xCO2 of about 3C.

    I didn’t have to do that either, but that was back when I could still be bothered with your lying denialist rhetoric. You imploded, remember? No countering scientific argument, just weak, dishonest blather about uncertainty.

    As several people have explained here, CO2 fertilisation is a fucking irrelevance compared to the effects of abrupt climate change on plant physiology and global agricultural productivity.

    Relentlessly going on and on and on about it is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty. This too, has been explained to you.

    But on you go.

    I repeat: misrepresentation of the potential seriousness of rapid future warming is a crime against humanity. Only the vilest scum engage in such poisoned rhetoric. They are regarded with loathing and contempt by the rest of the species. Why would anyone sane want to be lumped in with the vermin?

  71. #73 chek
    June 24, 2013

    please explain to me, with CERTAINTY

    Betty, after all these years you still haven’t understood that science prediction deals with probabilities, not certainties.

    If it’s certainty you crave, go find an ol’ time religion website to troll because you’re a waste of space and time here.

  72. #74 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    I further repeat: the entire multidisciplinary field of Earth System science is *against* you. The scientific consensus on AGW and its escalating potential for harm is rock solid. Ubiquitous.

    All the scientists, all the real experts, disagree with you.

    Since you have no expertise and no robust scientific counter-argument, you are engaging in the utmost intellectual dishonesty by rejecting the scientific consensus.

    Why can’t you see this? What, literally what the fuck is wrong with your mind?

  73. #75 Rednose
    UK
    June 24, 2013

    On a lighter note.
    In the Telegraph there was an interesting take on the recent UK Met Office meeting to discuss the unusual UK weather.
    (Still getting frost and its almost July)

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100222487/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-we-have-to-trust-our-scientists-because-they-know-lots-of-big-scary-words/

  74. #76 Jeff Harvey
    June 24, 2013

    Betula: if you don’t think the so-called C02 fertilization effect is a good thing, why did you bring it up in the first place? It has no relevance in the context of this discussion except for you to dispute AGW but suggest benefits of the other parameter, C02.

    By George you twist and spin and dodge and wriggle in order to cover your tracks. You just aren’t very good at it. And you still never refer to the primary literature. Only appalling web sites like GWPF. Clearly your reading skills are either limited or else you are bone-idle lazy when it comes to ‘sourcing’ your information.

    Rednose: What brings your brand of stupidity back here? An article in a right wing corporate rag? One that conflates weather with climate? And why aren’t they writing anything about conditions in Alaska and the Canadian Arctic right now where it is hot?

  75. #77 Jeff Harvey
    June 24, 2013

    Just for Rednose: I checked the Environment Canada weather and temperatures across the North West Territories and Yukon are 5-10 C above normal and this will remain for an extended period. Can’t be too good for the Arctic can it? Temperatures on the Arctic coast are 15-20 C, and 30-35 C inland. Alaska is also basking.

    If you are going to play the weather is climate game, Reddy, prepare to get burned. And seek out some other source than a right wing newspaper.

  76. #78 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    RedNoise the Clown

    Third warmest May in the instrumental record…

    You are once again confusing regional with global. And that got old a long time ago. Can’t you come up with something a bit more amusing and challenging? Or are you just a crappy little troll without what it takes to make it to the big time?

  77. #79 Rednose
    UK
    June 24, 2013

    And why aren’t they writing anything about conditions in Alaska and the Canadian Arctic right now where it is hot?

    Because the article, dear JH ,was reporting the Met Office meeting which was discussing the UK weather for the last several years which seems to have dumbfounded the Met Office as it has been actually much colder than the stuck record forecasts of BBQ Summers and mild winters emmanating from the Met office.
    If its that warm in Alaska ( It is midsummer after all) then maybee I should holiday there, as it seems most of Spain and France are having a shite summer as well.

  78. #80 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    Mind you, the very extreme weather this year is interesting.

    Most expensive flood in Canadian history last week…

    Major damage and loss of life from flooding in India…

    Another 500-year mega-flood in Germany (the second in 11 years)…

  79. #81 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    Pay attention, Clown. Globally, we’ve just had the third warmest May in the instrumental record and it’s not even an El Nino year.

    As usual, your regional weather hyper-focus is blinding you to the facts. I can’t quite believe I’m being forced to quote this to you *again* because once should have ended your shite forever on this topic. But here you are, maundering on about the fucking UK weather again…

    How cold has it really been in the NH?

    While some places were cold, the northern hemisphere was warmer than average in March, and indeed across the winter, consistent with long-term warming trends. The US National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC) has recently described such conditions as “pockets of cold in a warming world”.

    The last time the northern hemisphere recorded a month — any month — that was cooler than the 1961-1990 long-term average was in February 1994. The last time a whole northern hemisphere winter was colder than average was 1984.

    Read the words.

  80. #82 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    Very active trolls tonight. Must be the weather.

  81. #83 Rednose
    UK
    June 24, 2013

    #78
    ,blockquote>Third warmest May in the instrumental record

    Using the CET, over the last 30 years, only in 1996, 1984 and 1975 has May been colder

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/index.html

    Or are you just a crappy little troll without what it takes to make it to the big time?

    So polite. . When did you make it to the big time?
    BBD. Master of Deltoid
    What a dick.

  82. #84 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    Clown, why are you wittering about the CET? It is irrelevant to discussion of global average temperature.

    How stupid and limited are you exactly? How dishonest? How troll-ish? How pointless?

    Fuckwit.

  83. #85 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    The last time the northern hemisphere recorded a month — any month — that was cooler than the 1961-1990 long-term average was in February 1994. The last time a whole northern hemisphere winter was colder than average was 1984.

    Choke on the facts.

  84. #86 Rednose
    Uk
    June 24, 2013

    why are you wittering about the CET? It is irrelevant to discussion of global average temperature

    You discuss what you want to discuss. I was discussing the Met Office meeeting called to consider the UK weather for the last few years.
    Fuckwit

  85. #87 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    Who gives a stuff about the tiny little postage stamp of surface that is the CET? You actually think that blethering on like this is some sort of argument against AGW, which is hideously stupid and morbidly dishonest.

    Meanwhile, back in reality:

    The last time the northern hemisphere recorded a month — any month — that was cooler than the 1961-1990 long-term average was in February 1994. The last time a whole northern hemisphere winter was colder than average was 1984.

  86. #88 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    The anomalous UK weather will without a shadow of a doubt turn out to be at least partly caused by AGW, so why you are going on about it is a mystery.

    Might as well stand there and shout “look – anthropogenically-forced climate change!”

    Yeah. We know.

  87. #89 Rednose
    UK
    June 24, 2013

    ,blockquote>Might as well stand there and shout “look – anthropogenically-forced climate change!”

    Well the met Office seems to think its tied up with the AMO.

    The key point revolves around discussion of Atlantic ocean cycles, specifically one known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which can have an influence on UK summer weather.

    Professor Stephen Belcher, Head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, and Dr James Screen, a NERC Research Fellow at the University of Exeter, were careful in their messaging about the AMO.

    They talked about initial research which suggests this cycle, which can last for 10-20 years, can ‘load the dice’ to mean we may see a higher frequency of wetter than average summers before switching to its opposite phase, where we may see the opposite effect.

    Currently, they said, it appears we are well into the ‘wet’ phase of this cycle, so it may continue to have an influence for a few more years to come.

    http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/media-coverage-on-wet-summers-for-a-decade/

    Still I expect BBD knows better than most.

  88. #90 bill
    June 25, 2013

    You can’t even read your own excerpt. Rednos!

    Try again without your Denier Goggles on… oh, that’s right, you can’t see anything at all except through the goggles, can you?

  89. #91 bill
    June 25, 2013

    And re your #52 – yep, you’re an honourary Boltard and no mistake!

    HINT: Don’t try to be clever about other peoples’ political processes you know bugger-all about. It’s like watching the Scanditrolls try to be smartarses in a second language…

  90. #92 Bernard J.
    June 25, 2013

    Betula.

    I see that ignoring those basic questions is a lifestyle choice for you now. Is “Choose Ignorance” your personal motto?

    At least you’re still here though. Olaus Petri, GSW and KarenMackSunspot ran away with their tails between their legs, too scared to even be present on the same thread as those simple questions.

    Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the “no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years” claptrap), can you explain

    1) in the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

    Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the “no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years” claptrap), can you explain

    2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

    Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the “no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years” claptrap), can you explain

    3) in the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

    Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the “no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years” claptrap), can you explain

    4) in the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

    Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the “no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years” claptrap), can you explain

    5) in the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

    Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the “no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years” claptrap), having addressed the questions above can you now explain

    6) what the mean long-term minimum rate of warming would need to be in order to detect a signal from noise over a period of 17 years, and

    7) what the mean long-term minimum rate of warming would need to be in order to detect a signal from noise over a period of 15 years, and

    8) what the mean long-term minimum rate of warming would need to be in order to detect a signal from noise over a period of 10 years?

    Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the “no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years” claptrap), with all of the above now under your belt can you now carefully explain

    9) what the temperature record to date is really indicating with respect to the progress of planetary warming?

    Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the “no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years” claptrap), can you explain

    10) can you assess the scientific wisdom of Curry’s comment about a decade or more of impending cooling?

  91. #93 Bernard J.
    June 25, 2013

    Betula.

    You have once again brought up the issue of increased growth in response to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    Tell us, in branch sawing school did your teachers

    1) explain to you anything about plant nutrition, and how the nature of growth is affected by the ratio of nutrients?

    For example, in branch sawing school did your teachers

    2) explain what happens if plants receive excess nitrogen?

    In branch sawing school did your teachers

    3) explain what happens if plants receive excess water?

    In branch sawing school did your teachers

    4) explain what happens if plants receive excess boron?

    In branch sawing school did your teachers

    5) explain what happens if plants receive excess chlorine?

    In branch sawing school did your teachers

    6) explain what happens if plants receive excess carbon dioxide?

    In branch sawing school did your teachers

    7) explain what happens to associated species and to ecosystems if plants receive an imbalance or an excess of nutrition?

    In branch sawing school did your teachers

    8) explain what happens to plants, to associated species and to ecosystems if plants receive an imbalance or an excess of nutrition in combination with atypical climatic variation?

    When it comes down to it, in whatever schools you attended did you

    9) ever learn basic physics and chemistry, especially as they pertain to climatology?

    and

    10) did you ever learn basic and perhaps even intermediate ecology, especially as it pertains to climatology?

  92. #94 freddy
    June 25, 2013

    bbd, your fucking global temperature is not defined in wikipedia!!

    hence shut up you warming fuckwit who hates reality but adores virtual computer games. idiot

  93. #95 freddy
    June 25, 2013

    bernard, are you a fuckn biology-ignorant who did never understand photosynthesis?

  94. #96 bill
    June 25, 2013

    freddy, is you a poe?

  95. #97 freddy
    June 25, 2013

    bill, bernard is a biology-ignorant fuckwit like you

  96. #98 Jeff Harvey
    June 25, 2013

    “bernard, are you a fuckn biology-ignorant who did never understand photosynthesis?”

    OMG, we have ourselves another AGW denier but this one has an even greater depth of profound stupidity than most of the others. It seems like every ‘new’ denier that enters Deltoid has the task of out-doing the others in terms of brazen ignorance. ‘Freddy’ is the new troll on the block. How long he will persist here with his kindergarten theatrics is anyone’s guess, but let us hope it is of short duration.

    On that note I don’t think its worth the effort to demolish his photosynthesis comment. Anything other than 1 + 1 = 2 will be well over the head of this clown.

  97. #99 bill
    June 25, 2013

    yes, freddy, yes we are. is that your nurses calling?

  98. #100 freddy
    June 25, 2013

    bill, no just from intelligent people outside your closed agw delusion world in your isolated insane fuckwit reality, you morons

1 5 6 7 8 9 12

Current ye@r *