July 2013 Open thread

More thread


  1. #1 mike
    July 17, 2013


    Yr. No. 98: “Freddy, vous etes fou.” [Sorry, I don’t have the French doo-dads on my keyboard, bill]

    So, bill, I mean, like, what in heaven’s name prompted you to peck out a dumb-merde, one-line-weirdo “bon-mot”-wannabe comment, in French, no less? I mean, like, what’s wrong with you, anyway, bill? I mean, like, this silly-assed, little foray into Francais of yours, bill, is even more of a nitwit, dork-ball, insufferable-weenie affectation than even BJ’s past, improbable dalliance with those high-brow-geek, umlaut-booger specials of his. Jeez, bill…

    You know, bill, I kinda suspect, that since your earliest, obnoxious, attention-seeking, spoiled-brat youth, you’ve been putting on your phony, little, precocious, cutie-pie, I’m-a-little-smarty-pants-aren’t-I?, star-of-the-show act, right? And in your youth, bill, your little, creepy-kid stunts were, no doubt, a reliable generator of effusive acclaim from certain “doting” adults (mostly female?) who really did you no favors. And now you can’t get out of that rut, can you, bill?–I mean, like, even as you’ve outgrown the “privilege” of your junior-boy “charms”, such as they were, and even though you can now plainly see, for yourself, that your little, show-off tricks just aren’t working any more?

    Sad case, bill. But, your unfortunate, life-history did provide you with just exactly the sort of needy-nerd, unearned-praise-addict, psychological profile the hive’s youth-masters are always on the look-out for. And so, here you are, right, bill, (with a pit-stop for the obligatory, greenshirt brain-washing along the way, of course)?

    And, oh by the way, bill, if you want to sling some French–here’s how it’s done:

    bill, vous etes un mangeur de crotte de nez!–ruche-bozo!

    And while we’re at it, bill, let me also correct your French–freddy is not “fou”, rather he’s a hive-bot “provocateur”.

    Uh-oh! Now the ultimate Mr. Pretentious-Phony–Craig Thomas, of course–shows up (no 99 previous page) spouting Deutsch! (even snuck an umlaut in (did you clear that with BJ, Craig?)–oh brother! To which, bill responds with an antennae feel-up and a pheromone spew in kind. You know, it’s the sicko, unsavory, freak-show quality of you Deltoids that makes this blog worth a peek or two now and then. Keep up the good work, guys.

  2. #2 Craig Thomas
    July 17, 2013

    Oh, look – more mike-vomit.

    Could somebody clean that up, please? Failing that, I’ll have to resort to more umlauts.

  3. #3 bill
    July 17, 2013

    Er ist ein Mann-Schwein mit ein unflätigen Mund.

  4. #4 Jeff Harvey
    July 17, 2013


    Get lost, creep. The fact that you, Betula, Mike et al. support a complete maniac in Freddy shows exactly what kind of people you are. The man is clearly unhinged. You all belong together.

    Craig: This is what happens to us when we waive our anonymity. Dipsticks like Freddy scour the internet in order to find out about us. As I said, this seems to be his preoccupation, along with his wretched histrionics and appalling language. But Freddy, who claims to have a PhD, will certainly not blow his own cover, because if he did it would prove that he is a high school dropout. Note to Freddy: we already gathered that from the content of your posts.

    Its only a matter of time before Tim bans him. Mike deserves the same. He’s never made a single scientific contribution here.

  5. #5 Jeff Harvey
    July 17, 2013


    Get lost, creep. The fact that you, Betula, Mike et al. support a complete maniac in Freddy shows exactly what kind of people you are. The man is clearly unhinged. You all belong together.

    Craig: This is what happens to us when we waive our anonymity. Dipsticks like Freddy scour the internet in order to find out about us. As I said, this seems to be his preoccupation, along with his wretched histrionics and appalling language. But Freddy, who claims to have a PhD, will certainly not blow his own cover, because if he did it would prove that he is a high school dropout. Note to Freddy: we already gathered that from the content of your posts.

    Its only a matter of time before Tim bans him. Mike deserves the same. He’s never made a single scientific contribution here.

  6. #6 FrankD
    July 17, 2013

    Du mienst ein Mann-Bär-Schwein, nicht war?

    The umlaut comes for free, Mike…

  7. #7 Margot T.
    July 17, 2013

    I’ve just been enjoying the comedy-channel over at Jo Nova’s, specifically the thread where they are all throwing tantrums over Bob Carter’s separation from the University he was embarrassing with his Abbott-friendly fact-free drivel.

    In the expectation that my post’s use of facts falls foul of Nova’s fact-fearing and reality-denying “Anti-Facts” policy, I’d like to record it here for future reference:

    Bob Carter has previously suggested that global warming is not occurring using the argument something along the lines of, “1958 was the same temperature as 2009”.

    I mean, come on!

    You can check a few of his more obvious mistakes here:
    No warming:

    Sea level rise decelerating:

    Australian rainfall static:

    Ocean temperature cooling:

    His statements about the Murray-Darling Basin are completely non-sensical: in 3 of 4 areas of the M-DB, vegetation is decidedly on a downward trend, while animals inarguably rely on *flow* and that flow has greatly dwindled. Salinity at the lower end is also massively increased.
    Anybody willing to invest 60 minutes in informing themselves about the Murray-Darling by reading this,
    ,will thereby easily exceed Carter’s apparent knowledge of the Murray-Darling’s ecology and how it is affected by human activity and climate change.

    Personally, I think his book is aimed at people with a very low level of knowledge of any of these issues, because even the slightest bit of knowledge would cause the reader’s sceptical alarm bells to go off.
    I’m not in the slightest bit surprised a University would be happy to become dis-associated with him. It’s embarrassing.

  8. #8 Craig Thomas
    July 17, 2013

    Jeff, I am a big fan of your learned and generous contributions to our shared understanding here.

    I am not, however, the individual identified by Freddy – although similar in age, *I* still have all my hair, and I gave up sporting a goatee over 15 years ago.

    Were “freddy” slightly more familiar with our language, he might have cottoned-on to the fact that I employ Australian-English.

  9. #9 Jeff Harvey
    July 17, 2013

    Hey Craig, that’s even more ironic. Freddy is a cyber stalker and he’s not even good at that!

    I also enjoy reading your posts. Keep them coming!

  10. #10 freddy
    July 17, 2013

    bill the arselick

    if my japanese would be as bad as what you have tried i would shoot in my knee.



    No answer required, as its is obvious that agw bollocks mongers are among the most stupid apes


  11. #11 freddy
    July 17, 2013

    hey cagw arselicks

    who of you dares to bet 100’000 US$ that this year will show a record minimum arctic sea ice extent??

    who of you cowards dares to stick to your conviction of alarmistic arctic sea ice loss. which is a fake, btw


  12. #12 chek
    July 17, 2013

    Hey Freddy-fred, I’ll bet you $100 that you’ll die, making a record minimum impact on the world.

  13. #13 Jeff Harvey
    July 17, 2013

    Chek, that’s a bet I wound’t mind taking.

    Freddy is so brazenly stupid that he thinks the Arctic ice loss must, be more every year than the previous year. I would certainly bet that the extent of Arctic ice will reach a record low in the next 3-4 years.

  14. #14 Jeff Harvey
    July 17, 2013


    OMG, Freddy is a sick joke. And he even makes a spelling mistake in this short phrase.

    What a moron.

  15. #15 bill
    July 17, 2013

    Frank – ja, das stimmt!

    Freddie, you’re a culus. Just how good do you imagine your English is, incidentally? Talk about Dunning-Kruger…

    Anyway, what you really are is a walking advertisement of the fate that awaits those who don’t take their meds.

  16. #16 freddy
    July 17, 2013

    bill, you certainly know that you are an unbearable asshole and also a totally untalented cagw pissfuckwit. you at age 80 now will most probably not see how “global temperature”, defined by self-appointed “climatologist” craig thomas, decrease in the next 10 years: THATS WHAT MY CLIMATE MODELS PROJECT.

    you are not even able to program your own climate model, ASSHOLE





  17. #17 bill
    July 17, 2013

    Ah, Freddy, téigh ag fuck tú féin.

  18. #18 freddy
    July 17, 2013


  19. #19 Turboblocke
    July 17, 2013

    My word: Climategate 1 and racist… what a picture boy for the deniers.

  20. #20 Turboblocke
    July 17, 2013

    Freddy: seg me eats in daiser tarl. It’s written “phoenetically” so you can’t easily google a translation

  21. #21 freddy
    July 17, 2013

    turbloke asswit



  22. #22 Turboblocke
    July 17, 2013

    Gotcha!!! LOL.

  23. #23 Jeff Harvey
    July 17, 2013

    Freddy is a: grote stomme idioot. Hij heeft geen hersennen….

    I am sure he is typing away from some padded cell somewhere…

  24. #24 freddy
    July 17, 2013

    turbobloke asshole



  25. #25 freddy
    July 17, 2013

    lunatic harvey, after 10+ years in holland you managed to remember 10 dutch words! bravo, more than i expected from an illiterate like you

  26. #26 Turboblocke
    July 17, 2013

    igentlick ic spracher feelern tarlen. yer wait nicks fan mai

  27. #27 Jeff Harvey
    July 17, 2013

    Ik spreeken veel meer Nederlands dan jou, Freddy-fruitcake.

    Judging by your posts, Freddy, you can barely manage with English. Most of your posts are nothing more than insults, smears, expletives etc. Hardly proof of your immense wisdom and grasp of anything other than sheer, utter stupidity.

    By the way, Freddy: we are all waiting here with baited breath for proof of your PhD, your lengthy publication list, all of the academic awards you claim to have won and other relevant information. Lacking this, we only have your infantile posts about assholes and communists/socialists to go on.

    So until you come up with bonafide proof, you will be laughed at again and again by most of us here except that tiny minority who seem to think you make some kind of sense. So come on Freddy the fruitcake, download your CV here, cut-and-paste if you like, as you seem adept at doing that.

  28. #28 bill
    July 17, 2013

    Freddy, your sister swims out to passing ships.

  29. #29 Lotharsson
    July 17, 2013

    …all which leads a few diehard delusional Deltoidians to accept only the worst case scenarios as “possible” fact…

    I know that distributions of potential outcomes boggle your mind and expose the shallowness of your comprehension, but do try to get it through your head that no-one here, but no-one (except the fictional personae in your head) are “accepting only the worst case scenarios as fact”.

    Just about everyone here would be delighted if we avoided the worst case potential outcomes which are staggeringly bad indeed, and most people here advocate that we take appropriate action to help improve the chances of doing so. It would be great if we only end up realising the middle of the road potential outcomes – but even those are pretty bad.

    It would be a stupid stupid man who tried to claim that people in a bushfire zone only buy insurance because they “only accept the worst case scenarios as fact” – especially after they’ve patiently spent hours and hours explaining that no, they actually do understand probability distributions and conditional outcomes and the like and it still makes sense to buy the insurance against the worst case, but you’re determinedly and repeatedly trying to give an impression of being that eminently stupid.

  30. #30 Betula
    July 17, 2013

    Hardley @ 5…

    “The fact that you, Betula, Mike et al. support a complete maniac in Freddy shows exactly what kind of people you are”

    That’s quite the scientific mind you have there Hardley, sort of defines what type of person you are wouldn’t you say?

    Maybe Craig Thomas @ # 8 can learn something from this thought process since he is “a big fan of your learned and generous contributions to our shared understanding here”.

    Let’s see what he could have learned:

    As far as I know, you have never condemned BBD wanting the Public to beat people while he “doesn’t lift a fucking finger to help.”

    According to the Hardley learning process, not commenting obviously means you support the beating of people while you watch, which shows “exactly what kind of” person “you are.”

    And what kind of person is that?

    Well, someone who would support a beating while watching obviously has some sadistic qualities to them…so , according to the Hardley scientific school of thought, we can only conclude that this is “exactly what kind of” person “you are”.

    So Hardley, let me be the second one in line to say…thank you for “your learned and generous contributions to our shared understanding here”…you sadistic egotistical mindless putz.

  31. #31 Stu
    July 17, 2013

    So the guy who said this:


    Also said



    as its [sic] is obvious


    100’000 [sic] US$


    ASSHOLES WITH STNKING SHIT [just quoted for the disturbing anal and fecal fixation]


    Leugenaar. Bewijs of geef toe dat je geen idee hebt waarover we het hier hebben. Je Engels is belachelijk, je hebt nul idee van een enkele andere taal… je lult uit je nek en iedereen weet het, schattebout.


    Ahem. This kind of pedantry only works if your own syntax and grammar is much, much better than yours is.


    A what now?


    Wat een klein, zielig ventje ben je.

  32. #32 Stu
    July 17, 2013


    all which leads a few diehard delusional Deltoidians to accept only the worst case scenarios as “possible” fact

    I called you on this obvious and stupid lie one or two pages ago. You’re trying it again? Not even waiting a week or two this time?

    Pathetic. You need to keep better track of your lies.

  33. #33 BBD
    July 17, 2013

    Oh shut up, Betty. Or at least learn a new tune. Your grotesque and failed attempts to delegitimise me have become parodic. They make *you* look like a nasty and vindictive little whiner.

    You might also pause to reflect that nobody here really disagrees with the sentiment I actually expressed – as opposed to your distorted, dishonest spinning of it.

    Let’s remind ourselves what I actually said again, shall we?

    * * *

    June open thread Page 9 #20

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

    – You lack the expertise to make them

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

    – This makes you an enemy of mankind.

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


    June open thread Page 9 #53

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

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

    Deniers should be asked the same basic questions:

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

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

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

  34. #34 BBD
    July 17, 2013

    God help you Betty if you are too stupid to see what the science-denying right is storing up for itself. I used the phrase “digging its own grave with its bare hands” last time, and there’s no reason to change the words.

    You are all so utterly fucked by what you’ve tried to do over climate change and I think some of the smarter ones have an inkling that this will never be forgiven, never be forgotten.

  35. #35 chek
    July 17, 2013

    There is very little more unedifying than witnessing Betty ‘child deniers’ Betula trying to pull on the poor victim suit to pursue his agenda. Needless to say, coming from a contemptible worm with a form like Betty, it doesn’t work.

    But our lying marine impersonator surpasses his previous efforts @ #30 today. A live example of the mal-constructed, fucked-in-the-head (it’s an academic term) logic the motivated Right will employ to attack those they cannot dispute legitimately, the scientists.

    Which is what we see in action here.

  36. #36 Jeff Harvey
    July 17, 2013

    “…you sadistic egotistical mindless putz”

    And yet, in spite of this, I still know a great deal more than you about environmental science (not hard, I will admit), as evidenced by (a) some of the pathetically vacuous crap you write up here, and (b) your constant evasion of facts when they are shoved in front of your face.

    Also, your sheer hypocrisy: our resident loon Freddy spews forth a lather of invective in which he attacks my scientific background as well as the educations of others on Deltoid whilst telling us here how much knowledge and wisdom he possesses: e.g. he is multilingual, has better education than everyone else, and so on and so forth.

    Your response? Deafening silence.

    Then, when I respond, I am accused by you of being ‘self-loving’ etc. Truth is brch-head, you are a an arrogant worthless moron who also carries around a massive superiority complex – just reading some of your nauseous comments about US marines was enough to make anybody spew. And you also told us all about your BS degree in forestry, as if this somehow provides you with deep wisdom about ecology and the environment. You just don’t like the fact that I and a number f others here have pulled the huge rug you have constructed for yourself out from under your feet. If you had an ounce of brain, which I sincerely doubt, you’d at least try and counter that piles of examples and studies that have been posted here that undermine your silly arguments, often which you have haplessly gleaned from right wing blogs or generally anti-environmental sites (like the GWPF, for instance). But you don’t even try. Instead, you write a bunch of witless remarks and think that smears along with refusing to address substantive comments substitutes for real ‘debate’.

    Get lost dopey. I have much, much bigger fish to fry in science than a tree pruner who thinks he is Gold Almighty but who is, in reality, a star pupil of the Dunning-Kruger school of over-estimated self-knowledge.

  37. #37 Jeff Harvey
    July 17, 2013

    Now there’s a Freudian slip… Gold Almighty… but it might as well be true.

    With Betula its a case of Pot-Kettle-Black.

  38. #38 Vince Whirlwind
    July 17, 2013

    Freddy’s assertion is patently false.

    Here is a comparison of the scientific predictions and the physical reality in regard to Arctic melt:

    As you can see, the melt has occurred even faster than their worst prediction.

  39. #39 BBD
    July 17, 2013

    Old fred-fred hasn’t had much to say about staunch sceptic *Dr*Roy Spencer *PhD* 🙂 peddling warmist lies about global average temperature and UAH MSU measurements of same.

    This is just a wild guess, but perhaps it has something to do with the way the satellite reconstructions of TLT confirm the supposedly-faked surface temperature reconstructions eg GISTEMP and HadCRUT.

    It must be hard to have the facts whip round and bite you in the arse like that. But even so, fred-fred is handling it badly.

  40. #40 chek
    July 17, 2013

    But even so, fred-fred is handling it badly.

    Not just him, all the denier tag-team here are descending into vicious stupidity, where previously there was only stupidity.

    There are no longer any denier interpretations of the facts that hold water, and they’re too stupid to either change their minds or just go home.

  41. #41 BBD
    July 17, 2013

    They know, in their heart of hearts.

  42. #42 BBD
    July 17, 2013

    Hence the growing rage.

  43. #43 Jp
    July 18, 2013

    As for Betula, not only would I not lift a finger to help him, but to put it in more colorful terms, I wouldn’t piss on him if he was on fire.

    But…but…what if it was a child denier? And what about a denier in a wheelchair, wouldn’t you piss on him?

    Well, it would depend on my mood at the time, but probably not. I make an exception for professor Freddy; he’s so stupid and so extreme that he makes me laugh _ so I probably would piss on him. Hahaha….Hi, Freddy! Still trolling, I see.

  44. #44 Betula
    July 18, 2013

    Sloth @ 29

    “but do try to get it through your head that no-one here, but no-one (except the fictional personae in your head) are “accepting only the worst case scenarios as fact”.

    Is a hyperthermal considered a worst case scenario?

  45. #45 Betula
    July 18, 2013

    Deadeye @33..

    ” If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it.”

    Jp @ 43…

    “As for Betula, not only would I not lift a finger to help him, but to put it in more colorful terms, I wouldn’t piss on him if he was on fire”

    Wow, the truth really hurts….”Hence the growing rage.”

    The truth:
    You speculate that CO2 will double, if it does, you guess at when it will double, if it doubles, you predict a GAT within a range, if the GAT falls within a range you predict multiple scenarios, one being a hyperthermal,…. and within all this, each layer of predictions contains elements of uncertainties, unknowns, assumptions, lack of data and insufficient timescales along with the potential for human error, biases, agendas and ideologies….all which leads a few diehard delusional Deltoidians to accept only the worst case scenarios as “possible” fact, while they encourage the public to beat those who have a brain so they can watch while shouting “physics deniers!”

  46. #46 Stu
    July 18, 2013

    Betula, you are just boring now.

  47. #47 chek
    July 18, 2013

    Careful now, JP.
    Betty will take offence and start complaining that delusional Deltoidians have now sunk to refusing to piss on him.

  48. #48 Craig Thomas
    July 18, 2013

    I see “freddy” hasn’t commented yet on the evidence showing that his claim of an Arctic sea ice “recovery” was a mistake on his part:

    Will “freddy” apologise for being wrong?

    If “freddy” was wrong about *that*, what else is he wrong about?

  49. #49 bill
    July 18, 2013


  50. #50 Jp
    July 18, 2013

    ”Hence the growing rage.”

    I wouldn’t call it rage. If it was rage I’d light the match.
    It’s just contempt for a dumb, delusional fuckwit.

  51. #51 bill
    July 18, 2013

    I think BBD was referring to Betty and the Delusionals as the Ragers, not the Ragees…

  52. #52 Karen
    July 18, 2013
  53. #53 Jp
    July 18, 2013

    I was addressing Betula. He redirected what BBD said towards me.

  54. #54 Olaus Petri
    July 18, 2013

    Fellas, the bad deltoid language aside, let us hope for the best.


  55. #55 adelady
    July 18, 2013

    Come on, betty. Get a grip.

    when it will double, if it doubles, you predict a GAT within a range, if the GAT falls within a range you predict multiple scenarios, one being a hyperthermal

    You can’t possibly put “double CO2” and “hyperthermal” in the same sentence – unless you put a lot of other words in between. Those words will say something like “burn it all” and “outside the scenarios normally projected by the IPCC” and “…lots of things you didn’t write”.

  56. #56 Jeff Harvey
    July 18, 2013

    Thanks for the slide, Olaus, showing unambiguously that Actic sea ice extent is very low, and lower at present than at the same time in most of the years since 2005. So the Arctic death spiral continues….

    Glad to see you are finally on board with the vast majority of statured scientists. Whatever were you thinking fawning and drooling over nobodies like Jonas?

  57. #57 FrankD
    July 18, 2013

    Any bets that this is Freddy taking a little down time from posting here?

  58. #58 bill
    July 18, 2013

    Jp – ah, me losing track there! I confess I don’t generally bother to read anything Batty says – it’s a safe bet that there’ll be little enough to be detected in the way of content on offer.

    Speaking of which, did you notice SpamKan is actually saying Freddy is the fool – and, for once we agree on something – because SpamKan runs a mile from that bet herself.

    How does it feel to be seen as a useful idiot by your own fellow-travellers, Freddy?

    And don’t think anyone’s forgotten your Antarctic humiliation Spammy.

  59. #59 bill
    July 18, 2013

    And, yes, kai with his impressive best grasp of most excellent English speaking is also Freddy the very same. All that remainder fools and puny are.

  60. #60 Vince Whirlwind
    July 18, 2013

    Is Olaus finally coming to his senses?

  61. #61 chek
    July 18, 2013

    Vince, I’d bet that Olap is channelling some Goddard-type ‘recovery’, which being slightly less worse than last year (so far and maybe) represents some sort of magical rubber ball style ‘rebound’.

    That’s his usual depth of comprehension, plus he doesn’t have any sense, singular or plural.

  62. #62 Lionel A
    July 18, 2013

    No Birch, I did not skip over the question you refer to in your p9 #11″, I ignored it because of its irrelevance.

    If you wish to know why it is irrelevant the consider the response by Marcott at Real Climate. taking note of the comment by raypierre in response to a question by John Mashey at No. 5 and pointers to Tamino.

    WRT India monsoons I fail to see what you were attempting to point at at Jeff Master’s place at your p9 #81it not leading where you thought.

    And yes monsoons are a part of the climate in India/Bangladesh but you seem to have missed the phrase
    even when highlighted:

    The monsoon started in South India near the normal June 1 arrival date, but then advanced across India in unusually rapid fashion, arriving in Pakistan along the western border of India on June 16, a full month earlier than normal. This was the fastest progression of the monsoon on record.

    Now I don’t have any further time or energy to argue the toss with a goal-post moving, strawman tosser, slippery word mangling, time waister like you. The sheer fact that you mentioned paleo data in this context is indicative of your deep ignorance. I have a number of situations unfolding here.

  63. #63 Lionel A
    July 18, 2013

    Who the likes of Betula & Co rely upon for their information sources Greedy Lying Bastards.

  64. #64 BBD
    July 18, 2013

    Time-wasting physics denier # 45

    The truth:

    You wouldn’t know the truth if it IDd itself to you in good light.

    I’ve dealt with the misrepresentation you repeat at #45 already and am now utterly fed up with dealing with your stupidity, politicised bias and bottomless dishonesty.


  65. #65 Olaus Petri
    July 18, 2013

    My senses are still intact, thank you Vince. 😉

    The sea ice extent looks quite alright at the moment. No death spiral so far. The polar bears are also doing fine at the moment. 😉

  66. #66 chek
    July 18, 2013

    Y’see Vince? That’s the level of fuckwittery that’s to be expected from Olap.

    I wouldn’t expect him to know when the period of maximum melt is without looking it up, or a disappearing habitat either, dumb, spoonfed delivery boy that he is.

  67. #67 FrankD
    July 18, 2013

    Of course Arctic Sea Ice looks about average when you only compare it to the eight lowest years on record. How about we compare it to the last 34 years? When you don’t cherry pick, it looks shitful.

    I think Olaus has a scale problem…;)

  68. #68 Olaus Petri
    July 18, 2013

    Ah, the scale problem! 🙂 It might be that Dr. Pachauri has a real scale problem:


  69. #69 Lionel A
    July 18, 2013

    I think Olaus has a scale problem…

    Yes, they fail to drop from his eyes.

  70. #70 FrankD
    July 18, 2013

    I’ll take your sudden change of topic as a concession you were wrong about arctic sea ice, shall I, Olaus?

  71. #71 Jeff Harvey
    July 18, 2013

    “The polar bears are also doing fine at the moment”

    Yeh, I am sure the American settlers were saying that about Passenger Pigeons in the 19th century, even as they were being blasted out of the sky in huge numbers and their forest habitats were being cleared. It was unthinkable that in 1800, an estimated 10-20% of all birds in North America were Passenger Pigeons, and a century and 14 years later they were wiped out.

    Polar Bears are anything but ‘doing fine at the moment’. If one looks at recruitment (natality), which is down, and the population age structure, which shows an increasing skew towards older bears, then the prognosis is anything but ‘fine’.

    But of course, given that Olaus doens’t even possess a grade-school-level education in ecology, big words like ‘recruitment’, ‘natality’ and ‘demographics’ are going to sail way, way over his simple little head.

  72. #72 Lionel A
    July 18, 2013

    Olaus probably thinks that ‘recruitment’ is something like Birch would have, according to his US Marine tale if true, gone through.

  73. #73 mike
    July 18, 2013

    Hey Deltoids!

    Hey guys! Do yourselves a favor–just step back from your engagement on this blog: First, imagine yourself a “normal” person (I know it’s hard), then strive mightily to drudge up a modicum of “self-awareness”, and then just scan the comments appearing on this page. Pretty obvious isn’t it, Deltoids, that the “denier” comments are all far superior, in a “normal person”, rational discourse, sense-of-a-real-human-being-behind-the-words sort of way, right? And, in contrast, the eco-puke, hive-retard comments, in support of the orthodoxy, are all fatally infected with Pavlovian-reflex, spastic-dork, weenie-boy, mummy’s-pride, whiny-pest, booger-brain, eco-hysteric mental-illness and just plain, old-fashioned silliness, like big-time. Right?

    Not a good public impression, don’t you think, Deltoids, for a bunch of hive-bozo, Philosopher King wannabees, like you guys, lookin’ to lock in that do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do-you-despised-peasant-nobodies!, taxpayer-rip-off gravy-train of yours with that Gaia-hustle deal of yours, huh, Deltoids? I mean, like, especially since you Deltoids have gotta actually get the “little guys”, you’re doing your best to screw over, to “buy-in” to your flim-flam puffery and scare-mongering chicanery if you’re ever to realize that brave-new-greenshirt-world of yours you’ve got cookin’. You know what I mean, Deltoids?

    Let me take Jeff’s comment no. 4, above, to illustrate what I mean. Jeff says: “…Mike et al. support a complete maniac in freddy…”. Oh! Is that so, Jeff! Well, then, Jeff, let me just contrast your scurrilous libel with what I actually said about freddy in my comment no. 1 “…he’s [freddy] a hive-bot ‘provocateur'”. So, I’ll let you be the judges, Deltoids, does me calling freddy a “hive-bot provocateur” sound like I “support” freddy? Crickets. O. K., let me make this easy on you dim-wit Deltoids–me saying that freddy is a “hive-bot provocateur” does not–repeat, does not!–sound like I “support” freddy. Got it, now, Deltoids? FINALLY!? See what I mean, guys?

    So did you Deltoids notice, then, how Jeff got so pre-maturely eager-beaver and over-exited to score a point that he lost all his impulse control and FALSELY accused me of showing “support” for freddy, without taking the time to read my previous comment on the matter?! Does it get any worse than this, Deltoids? And let’s be honest, Deltoids, Jeff isn’t the only one in Deltoidland with that “little” problem.

    And, as far as freddy goes, Deltoids, I think it’s fun to see that your little hive-bot creation appears to have gotten just a bit out of your control, though not so much as to loose freddy’s usefulness to the greenshirt propaganda organs and their stooges, like Jeff, as a “point-to”, false-flag “stereotype” of your typical, right-wing nutter.

    Jeff’s comment no. 4 also contains a denunciation of the whole of my contribution to Deltoidland that, frankly, struck a nerve and really hurt me! To quote Jeff, mike “has never made a single scientific contribution here.” So this is the sort of thing you catty, little gossips here in Deltoidland have been saying about me behind my back? I feel so betrayed!

    I mean, like, jeez, guys, I know don’t like go around spouting smarty-pants things, like, e=mc2 and using umlauts in my comments and quoting the collected works of Dr. Gergis to prove my points, and, otherwise, playing like I’m some sorta hot-dog, atomic-brain, master-mind expert and all like that absurdly pretentious, Craig Thomas, phoney-baloney guy and others here in Deltoidland. No! I know that!

    But, fair’s fair, give me some credit for what it is that I do do, Deltoids. I investigate the “scene”, get behind the superficial hive-B. S. and comment on the colorful personalities involved in the CAGW hustle and their real motivations. You know, I’m a sort of the white-boy version of that San Diego Prof named Naomi Something-or-Other, and all. Same schtick, exactly! So give me a break, guys!–you too, Jeff!

    But since Jeff is trying to get me banned using a trumped-up claim that my comments lack “scientific” content, I taking some precautions and I’m now working away at a really, really scientific study inspired by the work of Prof. Lewandowsky–you know, the guy who found “correlations” between “deniers” and conspiracy-theory “ideations” and all (hive-friendly conspiracies like “Merchants of Doubt” excluded from consideration, of course).

    Well, I don’t want to give too much away about my study, and all, because when I release the finished product here on the Deltoid blog, I want it to hit the world-stage like a super-surprise “bomb-shell” and go all viral amidst a circus-like extravaganza of media hype and everything.

    But I will say this much as a teaser. You know, how, up above we discussed how you Deltoid dolts tend to get all over-excited and eager-beaver about things and, then, prematurely shoot your mouths off and make complete fools of yourselves when you’re shown to be wrong (made all the more delicious by your mulish inability to ever admit a mistake). Well, my research will show a correlation between the lack of impulse-control shown in the commentary of party-line hive-hacks, like you Deltoids and your lack of impulse-control in another area. Sorry, but that’s all you get for now. Stay tuned for the release of my report, if you want to know the rest.

    And, oh by the way, Jeff, I want to make you a part of the study. Could you please answer the question, “Do you have serious issues with premature ejaculation?”

  74. #74 chek
    July 18, 2013

    Neither will Olap have seen this graph to know what ‘death spiral’ means.

    Simple, self-explanatory graphics and sharp objects are kept well away from the dimwits.

  75. #75 chek
    July 18, 2013

    Wtf are you wittering on about, l’ll mike?

    Presumably it made some kind of sense in your head, at some point…

  76. #76 BBD
    July 18, 2013


    Pretty obvious isn’t it, Deltoids, that the “denier” comments are all far superior, in a “normal person”, rational discourse, sense-of-a-real-human-being-behind-the-words sort of way, right?

    Nope. Unadulterated bollocks for the most part. Physics denial at heart mixed with ham-fisted misrepresentations of actual science. Contrarian comments referencing paleoclimate are invariably – as in without one single exception, ever – a hopeless mess.

    When you start off being this badly wrong, it’s hard to see how you can ever get anywhere near right.

  77. #77 BBD
    July 18, 2013

    # 69 Lionel A.

    Arf, arf.

  78. #78 BBD
    July 18, 2013

    Oops, sorry, forgot the hive-bozo smileys to irritate Mike!

    🙂 😉 🙂

  79. #79 Stu
    July 18, 2013

    Pretty obvious isn’t it, Deltoids, that the “denier” comments are all far superior

    Oh Mike, you’re such a card.

  80. #80 Betula
    July 18, 2013


    I understand why you would ignore this question from #11, pg 9…

    “Second, do you know if the drought in New Mexico is unprecedented? What does the paleo data that you here at Deltoid rely on so heavily have to show?”

    It’s because the answer doesn’t fit the narrative, so it’s “irrelevant”.

    From your link…
    .”In any case, using tree rings and other records, scientists have documented droughts much worse than the current one”

    Those pesky scientists and their documents, cling to them when you need them, always in the way when you don’t need them…

    ” the major 20th century droughts appear to be relatively mild in comparison with other droughts that occurred within this time frame.”


    “The 1950s drought was the most severe 20th century drought in this region, but when viewed in the context of the past three centuries, it appears to be a fairly typical drought. However, when the 1950s drought is compared to droughts for the entire reconstruction, back to 136 BC (bottom graph), it is clear that the 1950s drought is minor relative to many past droughts”


  81. #81 Betula
    July 18, 2013

    Bill @58…

    “I don’t generally bother to read anything Batty says ”

    That would explain why your responses don’t make any sense…

  82. #82 BBD
    July 18, 2013

    2ka of so-fucking-what. You are denying physics again.

    You make a false equivalence between past droughts and their natural causes and present-future climate change (including drought) caused by increasing GHG forcing.

    False equivalence is a logical fallacy. Once again, you fall flat on your cap and bells.

  83. #83 Betula
    July 18, 2013

    adelady @ 55…

    “You can’t possibly put “double CO2″ and “hyperthermal” in the same sentence – unless you put a lot of other words in between.”

    Really? Let’s see..

    BBD @ 47 pg 8 stated… “We aren’t currently experiencing a hyperthermal, but are potentially headed for one. Arguments to the contrary are physics denial”

    At # 53 I asked him….”What do you mean by “potential”?”

    BBD @ 55 responds… “the potential is determined by when *we* stop – or do not stop – increasing CO2 ppm.”

    So adelady….What BBD is saying is that “We aren’t currently experiencing a hyperthermal, but are headed for one”… “if we do not stop – increasing CO2 ppm.”….”Arguments to the contrary are physics denial”

    That’s the only scenario if CO2 continues to rise. That’s it. Any other scenario, according to BBD, is physics denial.

    So tell me adelady, how is this, as you said… “outside the scenarios normally projected by the IPCC”

  84. #84 BBD
    July 18, 2013

    And demonstrate just how astonishingly wrong Mike was.

  85. #85 Betula
    July 18, 2013


    “You make a false equivalence between past droughts and their natural causes and present-future climate change (including drought) caused by increasing GHG forcing”

    Let me correct that sentence for you:

    “The scientists make a false equivalence between past droughts and their natural causes and present-future climate change (including drought) caused by increasing GHG forcing”

    That’s better.

    For a second there, I thought you were denying the scientist’s words again.

  86. #86 BBD
    July 18, 2013

    Check your definition of hyperthermal. ~3C in a couple of centuries qualifies effortlessly.

    Anything to try and avoid the skewer of physics denial.

    Let’s twist again…


  87. #87 BBD
    July 18, 2013


    “The scientists make a false equivalence between past droughts and their natural causes and present-future climate change (including drought) caused by increasing GHG forcing”

    No they don’t. Scientists don’t do physics denial.

    You can’t get out of this, Betty. You are trying to force a false equivalence to conceal your physics denial.

  88. #88 Betula
    July 18, 2013


    “Check your definition of hyperthermal. ~3C in a couple of centuries qualifies effortlessly”

    Whew! So we have some time then. Do you have an approximate year?

    Oh, and what are we going to do with adelady, it appears she may be one of those physics deniers. She thinks CO2 and hyperthmals can’t be in the same sentence, unless the words “outside the scenarios normally projected by the IPCC” are included. She may even be implicating the IPCC!

    I mean really, the nerve. Makes one want watch a good UFC match if you know what I mean…

  89. #89 Craig Thomas
    July 18, 2013

    Olaus is obviously confused about Arctic sea ice – it is much-reduced, just as in all recent years.
    Clearly he doesn’t have a head for data – I notice him linking to a crank-blog in relation to some information about the man George Bush had appointed to head the IPCC.
    How that is relevant to the fast-vanishing Arctic sea ice is anybody’s guess.
    Here’s a graph like Olaus’ without the cherry-picking:

  90. #90 chek
    July 18, 2013

    If you’re looking for some clueless idiot to go banging around like a blind bull in a china shop ‘interpreting’ never seen before data with no context, then Betsy’s your go-to guy.

    But it all falls apart for Betsy once context is added.

    The bigger question of course is what inspires les fuckwitterati (pardon my French) to imagine even for a nano-second that their five minute, Google-imparted ‘education’ gives them special ‘understanding’, even by Koch Industries standards.

  91. #91 BBD
    July 18, 2013

    I predict that Betty continues to demonstrate politically-motivated physics denial with false equivalence as a favoured tool.

    Betty needs to put the last century into its full Holocene context. (source).

    Betty needs to ponder what constitutes a hyperthermal.

    Betty must ask what happens when it gets too hot for the cod, in the end.

    Betty needs to apply these insights globally: ~3C in a couple of centuries.

    * * *

    I’m off on holiday tomorrow, so no more for a week.

    Bye for now.

    * * *

  92. #92 chek
    July 19, 2013

    I’m putting the Dr. Pachauri nonsense down to poor copywriting and nothing more. Let the deniers make the same long-lasting (which is to say not very) hay with it that made CG1, 2 &3 the runaway failures that they were.

    If the best they can conceive ahead of AR5 is that the IPCC employs a lowly copywriter who doesn’t comprehend what a joint PhD is, then they’re even more fucked than was apparent up to now.

    Still, I expect it’s another £100 bill from Dave’n’Charlie in her Xmas card for Donna the Raspberry towards her life’s work

  93. #93 chek
    July 19, 2013

    Have a good time BBD, hope the weather for yours is as good as it was for me.

  94. #94 Karen
    July 19, 2013

    Multi-decadal variation of the East Greenland Sea-Ice
    Extent: AD 1500-2000

    “The extent of ice in the North Atlantic varies in time with time scales stretching to centennial, and
    the cause of these variations is discussed. We consider the Koch ice index which describes the
    amount of ice sighted from Iceland, in the period 1150 to 1983 AD. This measure of ice extent is a
    non-linear and curtailed measure of the amount of ice in the Greenland Sea, but gives an overall
    view of the amounts of ice there through more than 800 years. The length of the series allows insight
    into the natural variability of ice extent and this understanding can be used to evaluate modern-day
    variations. Thus we find that the recently reported retreat of the ice in the Greenland Sea may be
    related to the termination of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early twentieth century. We also look
    at the approximately 80 year variability of the Koch index and compare it to the similar periodicity
    found in the solar cycle length, which is a measure of solar activity. A close correlation (R=0.67) of
    high significance (0.5 % probability of a chance occurrence) is found between the two patterns,
    suggesting a link from solar activity to the Arctic Ocean climate”

    Do read on here…………http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/sr05-02.pdf

  95. #95 chek
    July 19, 2013

    Dated 2005 SpamKan?
    Do you seriously think we’re all as fuckwitted as you?

    Are you so completely batshit that you’re unaware of what’s been happening and the minima reached for the past nine years?

  96. #96 Karen
    July 19, 2013

    “A rapid increase in the solar activity in the first decades of the 20th century coincided with the
    ongoing retreat of the ice in connection with the termination of the Little Ice Age. It is our
    suggestion that this has contributed to the particularly rapid decrease in the extent of the ice”

  97. #97 chek
    July 19, 2013

    Not corroborated by the data, Spamkan

    You really need to learn to examine bollocks before you unconditionally swallow them, SpamKan. But then it’s old data, which you were already told.

  98. #98 Karen
    July 19, 2013

    ” Nevertheless, the similarity of the variation of the ice export through the Fram Strait and
    the smoothed variation of the solar cycle length shown in Figure 1.7 speaks in favour of the
    assumption that the solar cycle variation may include both natural modes. This conclusion is in
    accordance with the finding by Bond et al., 2001 (their Figure 2) that a persistent series of solar
    influenced millennial-scale variations, which include the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice
    Age, reflect a baseline of the centennial-scale cycles.
    The ’low frequency oscillation’ that dominated the ice export through the Fram Strait as well as the
    extension of the sea-ice in the Greenland Sea and Davis Strait in the twentieth century may therefore
    be regarded as part of a pattern that has existed through at least four centuries. The pattern is a
    natural feature, related to varying solar activity. The considerations of the impact of natural sources
    of variability on arctic ice extent are of relevance for concerns that the current withdrawal of ice may
    entirely be due to human activity. Apparently, a considerable fraction of the current withdrawal
    could be a natural occurrence”

  99. #99 Karen
    July 19, 2013

    #97 chek
    “Not corroborated by the data, Spamkan”

    Your grafffffffffff only goes back to the LIA ?


  100. #100 chek
    July 19, 2013

    You’re talking about the situation up to 2005 – or didn’t you realise that, you typical dim-witted, dumbass repeater?

1 8 9 10 11 12 18

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.