July 2013 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #1 chek
    July 20, 2013

    neither could the Met Office demonstrate a statistically significant trend in global temperature for the last 130 years.

    Is that from some comedy script?

  2. #2 el gordo
    July 20, 2013

    ‘Is that from some comedy script?’

    Huffington Post is a left wing bible.

    The CET shows no statistically significant trend.

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Screen-Shot-2013-07-17-at-9.07.15-PM.png

  3. #3 adelady
    July 20, 2013

    Huffington Post is a left wing bible. ????

    So that makes the man who wrote (yet another) skeptics’ bible The Age of Global Warming a left wing prophet?

    Don’t know that his fans would be too thrilled about that.

  4. #4 adelady
    July 20, 2013

    “The CET shows no statistically significant trend.”

    And the relevance to global warming is ….. ?

    Unless you can use the CET set against the global dataset to show whether it’s the same, a higher or a lower trend can’t tell you anything about the CET’s place in the larger scheme of things.

  5. #5 bill
    July 20, 2013

    Yeah, mike, you’re a real charmer. Of the wing-collar bodyshirt, chestwig, and gold medallion school…

  6. #6 el gordo
    July 20, 2013

    ‘And the relevance to global warming is ….. ?’

    Admittedly the CET is regional and lacks a hockey stick, but its a fair indication of what is happening in that part of the world.

  7. #7 el gordo
    July 20, 2013

    ‘Don’t know that his fans would be too thrilled about that.’

    The point I was trying to make, it surprised me that Huffpo ran the story.

  8. #8 bill
    July 20, 2013

    Hey, where’s Duffer? After all, he’s the man we always look to when it comes time to point out that weather equals climate

    I mean, maaaate, you wouldn’t want to be seen as a blatant hypocrite, now would you? ;-)

  9. #9 bill
    July 20, 2013

    eh? linky

  10. #10 Jeff Harvey
    July 20, 2013

    “how do you explain that the record melt in the Arctic in 2007, was exceeded in 2012 (and ain’t looking good this year either) during this period of ‘flat’ temperatures?”

    Its called a LAG effect, Gordo. If you knew the first thing about cause-and-effect relationships in large scale systems, you’d realize that there is often a long temporal delay between process X and its effects on parameter Y. The extinction debt is a good example. All you demonstrate with dumb-arse comments like this is that you do not understand the basic tenets of scale.

  11. #11 Karen
    July 20, 2013

    Jeff, you answered cheks question :)

    Thermal inertia ring a bell

  12. #12 Jeff Harvey
    July 20, 2013

    Mike, I assume that you are what you define as one of the ‘kittle guys’, but you sure have a BIG mouth….. full of smears, insults, non-sequiters etc. And you certainly also have an extremely high opinion of yourself, much like other AGW deniers/downplayers here like Jonas, Karen, Betula etc. Their problem is that their boasts don not include any kind of qualifications in any scientific fields, so in the end, like you, you poor old sot, you are left with nothing but the usual semantics.

    What is you day job, Mike? Care to elaborate? You seem singularly obsessed with my salary, where I travel, etc. etc. etc. I am sure that you must be hounding corporate CEOs and the politicians they effectively own over the their huge expense lists, or am I incorrect? And my guess is that you are irate over the huge amount of money wasted on the non-existant ‘war on terror’ and on expansionist wars being fought around the world. My salary is an insignificant drop in the bucket by comparison, and even when you combine the salaries of every scientist on Earth working in a similar field as mine you’ll find that it doesn’t add up to much compared with the funds sloshing around the military-industrial state.

    My point yesterday, and I reiterate it, is that the vast bulk of empirical evidence, from proxies through to contemporary biological data, reveals that the planet is warming and warming at a rate beyond the scale of natural forcing. You have, as far as I can tell, never once discussed any of this, but have instead launched into repeated attacks on those who tend to agree with my statement above, suggesting strongly that you are motivated not by empirical facts but by some wacky far right political ideology in which you connect the dots in your own distorted way and come up with environmental science=left wing communist/socialist conspiracy. To tell you the truth, I am quite sure most of your fellow luminary deniers here have the same general opinion, but most are at least clever enough not to wear their hearts on their sleeves (Freddy and PentaxZ notwithstanding).

    My arguments are shared by the vast majority of scientists, a point loathed by the deniers here but simply a fact. Sure, there are a few outliers, most of whom are on the academic fringe (e.g. have few publications in the literature, but their celebrity in denier circles is a sure sign that their numbers are thin). Its interesting here how deniers constantly shift the goalposts whilst being unaware that this is what they are doing. Take Karen. She has been vehemently arguing for as long as I remember that all of the sings show that it isn’t warming at all, or that it was warmer in the very, very recent past, then suddenly finds a paper that is doing the rounds through the denialosphere (where she clearly gleans her ‘science’) – the new paper by some Cypriot scientists – which claim that it is most certainly warming but that the sun is either the primary driver or else we still don’t understand its role. So Karen goes from ‘it isn’t warming!’ to ‘it is warming but its the sun’! to ‘it is warming but it was warmer in the Holocene’ back to the beginning. What this clearly shows is that deniers constantly shift the ground of the arguments t quire different positions provided, of course, that the human factor is absent in all of them. This isn’t scientific discourse; its a joke. As I have pointed out many times, often with a lot of empirical evidence, it is certainly warming rapidly as demonstrated by many studies looking at range shifts, seasonal phenology patterns and other trait-dependent aspects in plants and animals. Betula, one of the more brazen deneirs here, refuses to address a single one of these studies and is instead singularly obsessed with a trek I made across a Park in Ontario, Canada in 2012. This is because he does not read the primary literature and when this is pointed out, embarrassingly scurries back to his little corner. He can’t discuss science, as was shown by his flippant comment on C02 fertilization and his examples on the health of eastern NA ecosystems. When he said the latter in a post a few weeks ago, it clearly told me exactly what level of knowledge I was dealing with. Not much.

    And you make a number of arguments that are so utterly banal that they do not deserve a dignified response. The old, “you are arguing that C02 is a major driver of AGW, so do you calculate your carbon budget etc.” is a direct corollary of the ‘environmentalists want us living in caves’ argument that I have heard a million times from guys like you. Again, not worthy of a response based on its sheer inane stupidity.

    Get a life, Mike. You clearly are suffering from cabin syndrome.

    What dolts like you clearly loathe are scientists. That is abundantly clear. I have been warned of this little tenet by a number of colleagues and the more I write here the more that the knives come out in an attempt to denigrate and smear me. Go ahead. Keep on trying. I know exactly what I am up against – as it turns out, intellectually speaking on Deltoid, you the deniers here are a bunch of lightweights. I have faced far more intense scrutiny in the broader scientific arena, so dealing with you and your acolytes is a piece of cake.

  13. #13 Jeff Harvey
    July 20, 2013

    Another Freudian slip: but I think Mike is one of the kittle guys – little guys make a lot more sense!

  14. #14 mike
    July 20, 2013

    bill!

    Yr. no. 5

    Took me a few moments to figure out what your latest was all about–but finally figured it out.

    So I’m a “real charmer”, huh? Well, bill, ol’ sport, whatever I am, you, most certainly have never been accused of being a “real charmer”–right, guy?

    As for the body-shirt/chestwig/medallion business, I’m thinking along the lines, bill, that you’re dipping into your tyke-hood memory bank and dredging up an image of some one or another of the gentlemen friends mummy would occasionally bring home to meet her little “billy-boy.”

    And I imagine those occasions all conformed to some variation on this pattern:

    -Gentleman friend is introduced to bratty-bill. Little billy, sensing a threat to his exclusive, “little snookums” place in mummy’s affections, then proceeds to put on his center-of-attention, smart-lip, little-snot, obnoxious pest, creepy-kid act.

    -Mummy meanwhile is taking all this in and with occasional, nervous, embarrassed side-glances at her gentleman guest, directs most of her attention to her darling billy in the form of pleading looks of the “please-don’t-spoil-this-for-me-I-really-like-this-guy” type.

    -The gentleman friend, early in the evening, realizes that mummy is a “package deal” and while mom is a lovely lady, the “package” is a non-starter. An obvious B. S. excuse is offered and the gentleman guest quickly departs with body language that clearly says he won’t be back.

    -Mummy is left sobbing while the evil, little billy is all triumphant smiles as he relishes his victory over yet another rival.

    Get that about right, bill, ol’ buddy?–you little shit!

  15. #15 mike
    July 20, 2013

    Jeff,

    Yr. no. 14

    Basically my response, Jeff, to your last is a an unimpressed “Whatever”. Though it is a bit “rich” you accusing me or anyone else of having (and I quote) a “BIG mouth”.

    And let me also separately note that I never asked you about your salary (and you never thought I did either, right Jeff?–just one of your little slicko tricks there to jerk my words around for your own rhetorical advantage–again, right, Jeff?) and could care less about salary–rather, I asked you to post your travel claims, not salary, for all to see. Just want to see what sort of an obscene CO2-spew you throw off as you flit about the globe, in high-carbon style, preaching the peril of demon-carbon. That’s all, Jeff.

    Sorry, I have a bit of a old-fashioned, “bug” about “do-as-say-not-as-I-do”, “in-your-face” hypocrites. But maybe you’re not one of those two-faced types, Jeff. In that case, posting your travel claims for public viewing will prove it!–and make me look bad, to boot. Can’t beat that, Jeff, ol’ sport, can yah?

    One last thought, Jeff, I’m basically a counterpuncher. I respond in kind–not to the science, of course, but to all rest of your and others puffed-up, lefty bullshit. So, Jeff, if you just stick to your science, you’ll never hear a peep from me. Likewise, if you conduct your advocacy with language that is courteous, temperate, and free of duplicities, scare-mongering, and agit-prop cant, and that is matched by deeds such as LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE, then, again, you’ll not hear from me–except for some admiring comments.

    But all that would require you to toss your spiffy new “professor-grade” trough and get off the greenshirt “gravy-train”, and, somehow, Jeff, I just don’t see you as the kinda guy to do something like that.

  16. #16 bill
    July 20, 2013

    Tosser.

  17. #17 bill
    July 20, 2013

    Mann’s lawsuit against the CEI and National Review to proceed after DC Superior Court tosses their motion to dismiss.

  18. #18 bill
    July 20, 2013

    SENATOR WHITEHOUSE: Let me turn to Dr. Spencer, let me first ask a kinda unrelated question Doctor; do you believe that the Theory of Creation actually has a much better scientific basis than the Theory of Evolution?

    ROY SPENCER: Ha Ha! And why are we going in this direction?

    SENATOR WHITEHOUSE: Because it’s something you’ve said and I just want to see if you still believe it.

    ROY SPENCER: Uhh, I believe that Evolutionary Theory is mostly religion, it is naturalistic, but my faith is not strong enough to believe that everything happened by accident. I mean there’s a lot of work out there that’s shown that you can not statistically combine all of the elements that are contained in the DNA molecule by chance over however many billions of years you want to invoke or how many, how much known universe there is with all of the matter in it. So what I’m saying is some areas of science deal a lot more with faith than with known science and so I’m open to alternative explanations.

    SENATORE WHITEHOUSE: And do you still believe that the Theory of Creation actually has a much better scientific basis than the Theory of Evolution, to be specific?

    ROY SPENCER: I think, I think I could be put into a debate with someone on the other side and I think I could give more science supporting that life is created than they could support, with evidence, that life evolved through natural random processes, so yes.

    From 3:23:00

    Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, July 18th 2013.

    That’s your Guy!

    h/t Sou

  19. #19 el gordo
    July 20, 2013

    Spencer gets caught every time, he should learn to duck.

  20. #20 Lotharsson
    July 20, 2013

    I see el gordo is back, and is essentially rehashing his previous comedy stylings.

    They’re a lot less entertaining the second time around, and they weren’t particularly riveting the first time.

  21. #21 el gordo
    July 20, 2013

    ‘previous comedy stylings.’

    Now that’s funny.

  22. #22 el gordo
    July 20, 2013

    ‘Jeff, you answered cheks question’

    The old fella might be losing it.

  23. #23 Betula
    July 20, 2013

    Hardley @ 12…

    ” And you certainly also have an extremely high opinion of yourself, much like other AGW deniers/downplayers here like Jonas, Karen, Betula etc.”

    This is a joke right? I can honestly say, I think I just witnessed shifting zones “in real”…

  24. #24 Betula
    July 20, 2013

    Hardley @ 12…

    “Betula, one of the more brazen deneirs here, refuses to address a single one of these studies and is instead singularly obsessed with a trek I made across a Park in Ontario, Canada in 2012.”

    Because the studies have nothing to do with you experiencing climate change “first hand” and witnessing shifting zones “for real” on a 23 day trek where your friend got frostbite…..and then me getting you to admit “of course I couldn’t describe things first hand” and then you later stating “I most certainly did”…

    It’s called lying.

    Unless of course, you were reading the studies during your trek and you meant to say “I read the studies first hand” and witnessed shifting studies “for real” while my friend got paper cuts…

  25. #25 Betula
    July 20, 2013

    Hardley @ 12…

    “He can’t discuss science, as was shown by his flippant comment on C02 fertilization”

    Actually we did have a discussion about it, which reminds me, did you ever admit you have no idea what effect CO2 fertilization may or may not have in the scheme of things? I think you called it “unpredictable” with “negative consequences”….

    Here it is, from June, # 51, pg 7….

    “I never said that increased C02 was a bad thing, but that it would have unpredictable and perhaps negative consequences”

    Ladies and Gentleman, Professor Hardley will now sum up his latest findings…

    “It’s not bad, it’s just unpredictable and probably negative, which is predictably bad”….thank you.

  26. #26 chek
    July 20, 2013

    You just can’t help misrepresenting others and lying, can you Betsy?

    Professor Hardley will now sum up his latest findings

    No actually, Betsy the fake lying marine will choose and edit the ‘summary and attribute it to him. Even more pathetic than your child deniers invention, which scraped the barrel then.

  27. #27 Betula
    July 20, 2013

    Hardley @ 12…

    “The old, “you are arguing that C02 is a major driver of AGW, so do you calculate your carbon budget etc.” is a direct corollary of the ‘environmentalists want us living in caves’ argument that I have heard a million times from guys like you. Again, not worthy of a response based on its sheer inane stupidity.”

    Wait a minute!

    I thought people like me were the problem just for putting thought on the internet!
    I’ve been told by BBD that people like me should be beaten by the public while he watches, because he doesn’t like my words…
    Someone here wanted to piss on me because I post the words of scientists stating there may be a lack of data, along with uncertainties and assumptions….words of scientists!

    And what did our newest Professor have to say about this?

    Crickets.

    Now, here we have Professor Hardley galavanting about the countryside recklessly emitting CO2, not putting words into the atmosphere mind you….but actual deadly CO2, as mother Polar Bears search for their drowning cubs.

    And what does the newest Professor of egotism have to say about this?

    “not worthy of a response based on its sheer inane stupidity.”

    So let’s welcome Professor Hardley , who’s “Professorship deals with the science-society interface, as well as countering distortions in environmental science. Countering some of the nonsense that appears on Deltoid is therefore an important part of the process”

  28. #28 chek
    July 20, 2013

    Someone here wanted to piss on me

    Actually they were refusing to piss on you even if you were on fire, you lying toe-rag.

    But I suppose when you’re as consumed with envy and bitterness as you are Betsy, even comic metaphors go way over your pointy little head.

  29. #29 Betula
    July 20, 2013

    chek..

    “Even more pathetic than your child deniers invention, which scraped the barrel then.”

    Got it.

    It scrapes the barrel to ask the question what the criteria for Denier beating is, but suggesting someone beat deniers is perfectly acceptable….

    Hardley, is it too late to put this in your dissertation?

  30. #30 Betula
    July 20, 2013

    chek..

    “Actually they were refusing to piss on you even if you were on fire, you lying toe-rag”

    I stand corrected.

    They were refusing to piss on me even if I were on fire, because I post the words of scientists stating there may be a lack of data, along with uncertainties and assumptions…

    Now it makes sense. Good catch cheky!

  31. #31 chek
    July 20, 2013

    because I post the words of scientists

    Tricksy Betsy in action. You selectively post some of the words that serve your purpose, a technique long used by dissemblers and sophists.

    Unfortunately for you, your MO has long been obvious, yet you continue to repeatedly prance around in your self-perceived cleverness, thinking nobody else can see what you do. But of course everybody can, and because you’re so shit at it, it’s tedious in it’s various repetitive iterations.

  32. #32 chek
    July 20, 2013

    Anyways, enough of this Bettycentric tedium.

    Looks like a bad week for deniers several leagues above Betty’s pay grade.

    The UK Guardian has the story here, although we already had the Salby lowdown direct from John Mashey here earlier this month.

    Pat Michaels outright incompetence with predictions are skewered here

    And Matt Ridley’s well known scientific incompetence was further exposed againhere.

  33. #33 Betula
    July 20, 2013

    ” You selectively post some of the words that serve your purpose”

    The purpose being to post the words that you ignore or that you are kept from seeing by your blinding ideology.

  34. #34 chek
    July 20, 2013

    The purpose being to post the words that you ignore or that you are kept from seeing by your blinding ideology.

    You’re projecting again, Betsy.
    Lack of context is your particularly well-known method.

  35. #35 Jeff Harvey
    July 20, 2013

    …..”because I post the words of scientists stating there may be a lack of data”…..

    whilst ignoring the many times greater numbers of scientists who state that there there is more than enough data. Oh, and let’s not forget Betty’s habit of refusing to read dozens of studies shoved under his nose showing definite biological effects of warming.

  36. #36 Jeff Harvey
    July 20, 2013

    “And what did our newest Professor have to say about this?”

    Funny this coming from a guy who is a “non-Professor or non-anything of even bigger egotism”.

    But then again, the deniers on this blog all share the same puffed up egotism minus anything in the way of scientific expertise. What a bunch of clowns.

  37. #37 Jeff Harvey
    July 20, 2013

    ““I never said that increased C02 was a bad thing, but that it would have unpredictable and perhaps negative consequences”

    You are dishonest little weasel (with no disrespect to the4 Mustelidae intended). You brought up the C02w fertilization nonsense long before this on the basis of some web advertisement or the like stating how well plants grow in greenhouses under elevated C02 concentrations. You are even more predictable than the climate models. You and many other deniers constantly downplay the human link between increased atmospheric C02 – which most of you do acknowledge as anthropogenic – and climate warming. But then you go on to try and put a positive spin on the effects of jacking up atmospheric concentrations of this greenhouse gas on primary production and on natural systems.

    This isn’t a scientific discussion; instead its all about politics and economics masquerading as science. Its time you guys came out and admitted it.

  38. #38 Jeff Harvey
    July 20, 2013

    Predictable Mike response:

    “One last thought, Jeff, I’m basically a counterpuncher. I respond in kind–not to the science, of course, but to all rest of your and others puffed-up, lefty bullshit”

    See my last comment. Exactly what I was saying. The climate change deniers on here share the same, deluded right wing corporate philosophy that repugnant groups like “Wise Use”, many libertarian think tanks and the Koch brothers espouse.

    And of course Mike doesn’t respond to the science, because its all way, way over his head. But he does see a link between any form of government involvement in the economy and some rabid, left wing conspiracy aimed at subverting his freedoms. It doesn’t matter what the empirical evidence says showing that humans are driving natural systems to hell in a hand basket – any mention of this with respect to limitations of so-called personal freedoms and those pesky government regulations are a left wing/communist/pinko et al ad nauseum conspiracy.

    *Yawn*. Why do I waste my time?

  39. #39 Stu
    July 20, 2013

    Because, Jeff, someone has to think of the lurkers. I’d even check in on the Jonas thread more if I hadn’t just been over at Orac’s place and trawled through some pretty loopy stuff for that.

  40. #40 Betula
    July 20, 2013

    Hi Stu!

    Haven’t heard back from you yet with that link, I’m sure it was just an oversight on your part, that’s ok, take your time.

  41. #41 Betula
    July 20, 2013

    Hardley…

    ““I never said that increased C02 was a bad thing, but that it would have unpredictable and perhaps negative consequences”

    “You are dishonest little weasel ”

    So you’re saying you didn’t say that?

  42. #42 Betula
    July 20, 2013

    Hardley…

    “of even bigger egotism”.

    That’s impossible.

  43. #43 chek
    July 20, 2013

    Betsy fucks with context yet again.
    Film at 11

  44. #44 Stu
    July 20, 2013

    Betula, if you’re going to do the “har har you are all wrong” snide routine, it really helps to be right. Or informed. Or truthful. Any combination of those things.

    Clown.

  45. #45 bill
    July 20, 2013

    Frankly, the batty Batty show is dull, dull, dull.

    But since we’re taking a bit of a look at his heroes – see Spencer above – here’s a nice little fact-checking run-down of soothsayer Pat Michaels.

    As the Guardian piece Chek gave us – the source of this link – points out, the Denial Team really, really isn’t having a great run!

    And neither is the Little League in action here.

    You’re hopeless, guys! If you weren’t too stupid to appreciate this you’d be seriously depressed. But even you must have some edgy awareness of the increasingly ramshackle incompetence of your enterprise…

    And still no Duffer, despite the UK weather being so exceptional and all…

  46. #46 el gordo
    July 20, 2013

    ‘And still no Duffer, despite the UK weather being so exceptional and all…’

    During the LIA it was not uncommon to have heat waves in the UK. I don’t mind discussing the CAO in southern Brazil … it appears to be natural.

  47. #47 Lotharsson
    July 21, 2013

    The purpose being to post the words that you ignore or that you are kept from seeing by your blinding ideology.

    Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuull-shit!

    The primary purpose is to cherry-pick in order to falsely claim that the cherry-pick represents the full picture – the very same full picture that most people here already see, including the kinds of quotes you cherry-pick. More specifically, the purpose of the cherry-pick is to try to claim a different picture than emerges when one competently considers all the evidence which leads to the secondary purpose – to deny the conclusions drawn from the full picture, and to claim that they are “ideology” instead of evidence-based conclusions.

    One can quibble about whether your purpose in doing so is to fool yourself, fool others, or both – but either way it’s a standard denialist tactic across all forms of denialism. And you routinely play the same game with doctored quotes from commenters here, which would give the game away if the commenters here weren’t already wise to your cherry-picking modus operandi.

    When one zooms out from the cherry-picked quotes and evidence to look at all of it – which, sadly, I must point out includes taking into account the cherry-picked pieces – a different conclusion emerges. That conclusion, as all scientific conclusions do, carries with it uncertainties and a distribution of potential outcomes, but despite your fervent attempts to pretend otherwise, the range of most likely outcomes under the most likely future policy scenarios provides a strong cause for major concern – and for significant changes away from “business as usual” policies.

  48. #48 el gordo
    July 21, 2013

    ‘the range of most likely outcomes’

    If they took the CO2 component out of the models, we would have a better picture of what to expect on planet earth.

  49. #49 Lotharsson
    July 21, 2013

    That’s some A-grade stupid right there, given all the evidence to the contrary. I can’t even plausibly interpret it as (attempted) comedy.

  50. #50 Karen
    July 21, 2013

    Greenhouse gas forcing ?

    What does it force, more tax, lol

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/fig_tab/ngeo1797_F4.html

    CO2 is obviously not contributing to temperature rise, and it didn’t cause the temperature to fall before the temperature came back up to where it was, hmmmm.

    ……the ideological CO2 science meme seems to have stalled along with the global temperature gauge :)

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/2000-yr-temperature-variations.png

  51. #51 Karen
    July 21, 2013

    Greenhouse gas forcing ?

    What does it force, more tax, lol

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/fig_tab/ngeo1797_F4.html

    CO2 is obviously not contributing to temperature rise, and it didn’t cause the temperature to fall before the temperature came back up to where it was, hmmmm.

    ………the ideological CO2 science meme seems to have stalled along with the global temperature gauge :)

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/2000-yr-temperature-variations.png

  52. #52 el gordo
    July 21, 2013

    ‘…given all the evidence to the contrary.’

    Its heretical, but real world observations don’t match up with models forced CO2.

    So for the sake of humanity perhaps its time to consider Bob Carter’s Plan B.

  53. #53 Vince Whirlwind
    July 21, 2013

    This is the Bob Carter who draws a line between the temperature in 1958 and the temperature in 2009 and claims that line between two data points tells you global warming is a myth?
    The Bob Carter who says sea level rise hasn’t accelerated?
    The Bob Carter who is predicting global cooling, despite being unable to explain any physical mechanism that would drive it?

    No thanks.

    *I*’m in the business of informing myself.

    Bob Carter is for the numbskulls who are in the business of kidding themselves.

  54. #54 Stu
    July 21, 2013

    Its heretical, but real world observations don’t match up with models forced CO2.

    Umm, yes they do.

  55. #55 el gordo
    July 21, 2013

    ‘Umm, yes they do.’

    I was under the impression that temperatures have been flat for 17 years.

    ‘The Bob Carter who is predicting global cooling’

    Thanks for that info, this would make him a member of the Denialati.

    Carter for Climate Commissioner!

  56. #56 el gordo
    July 21, 2013

    ‘…despite being unable to explain any physical mechanism that would drive it?’

    Have you given any thought to our star on the blink?

  57. #57 el gordo
    July 21, 2013

    ‘The science journal Nature said only last week that the global temperature standstill “is one of the biggest mysteries in climate science.”

    ‘So many climate modelers have been waiting, with apparently increasing frustration, for the upward trend to recur. It’s in their models you see. The very ones they find very hard to tweek to reproduce a 15-year hiatus. The exercise is an important one, for it demonstrates, or undermines, faith in climate models. Can they reproduce the standstill, and predict its end?’

    David Whitehouse

  58. #58 Jeff Harvey
    July 21, 2013

    There’s old Karen again, distorting the findings of another study, in contrast with the views of the authors. I am sure the Idso brothers would love Karen to work for them over at WFA supported “C02 Science”. They are masters of taking peer-reviewed literature and distorting it to support their 2 positions (first, that climate change is not happening, and second, that taking stored carbon and putting it into the atmosphere is a boon for nature and the environment).

    To be honest, the anti-environmental lobby as a whole is great at mangling the empirical data to support their own pre-determiend world view. If Karen were to ask most of the authors of the studies she mangles/mis-interprets if they are downplaying AGW, they would respond with a resounding NO. But since Karen has not got to answer to them or to peer-review on this or any other blog, she can write whatever piffle she likes and package this as ‘sound science’.

    As I have said before, thank heaven that science is carried out at universities and research institutions and through the peer reviewed literature and not via the internet. This is where the arguments of the Karen’s of this world are flushed down the metaphoric toilet.

  59. #59 Jeff Harvey
    July 21, 2013

    Its funny now how deniers like fatso are all crowding into the ’15 year hiatus’ corner when previously they were piled into the ‘it isn’t warming’ corner. These clots are so utterly dishonest that it turns my stomach to read their bile. Its not warming, then it is warming but its due to the sun, then there is a hiatus, then it will be the sun again, then it won’t be warming and so on and so on and so on.

    This lot is so intellectually dishonest that it staggers the imaginations. Its interesting that while there is a so-called ‘hiatus’ the Arctic death spiral continue unabated and species continue to move polewards or to higher elevations. It is pretty hard to explain a hiatus to natural systems which simply respond to short and longer term ambient conditions.

    Its also notable that I have asked Karen, Mike, Jonas, Rednose, and other deniers (Gordo) what their day jobs are and what therefore gives them a unique ability to be able to filter facts out of the empirical literature that have escaped the scientific community by-and-large. With the exception of Betula, who is a forester, not a single one responds.

    What this should tell everyone is that not a single one of them has any qualifications in anything close to science. Yet their views contrast with the vast majority of my peers.

  60. #60 Jeff Harvey
    July 21, 2013

    Betula, as usual twisting my words.

    He raised the point about the benefits of increased C02 on the basis of a corporate advertisement based on greenhouses.

    And ~I responded that these human constructs are lousy proxies for complex adaptive systems, and that the effects of enhanced atmospheric C02 are highly unpredictable and will certainly have potentially negative consequences on the assembly and functioning of natural systems, given that they evolved under relatively low ambient C02 regimes and that the current increase is well beyond any natural ‘background’ norm. In other words, its just an another anthropogenic experiment on systems that sustain us in a number of ways.

    Of curse, given that Betula has never studied spatial ecology and ecophysiology, its hardly surprising that this all sailed over his head. So instead he focused laster-like on m word ‘unpredictable’ as if this justifies the current atmospheric experiment. There are a lot of unpredictable effects of a suite of other anthropogenic processes: habitat destruction, over-harvesting, over-grazing, the introduction of exotic species into non-native ecosystems, other forms of pollution as well as climate change and increasing atmospheric concentrations of C02. This does not mean that we should continue along the current trajectory until there is 100% concrete proof of negative consequences of these processes. There is enough known about the way these systems function to suggest that there will be serious repercussions on their health and stability and that these effects will rebound on us. On that basis we ought to be taking measures to reduce these impacts on our ecological life support systems.

    End of story

  61. #61 Lotharsson
    July 21, 2013

    …real world observations don’t match up with models forced CO2.

    Bulldust.

    I was under the impression that temperatures have been flat for 17 years.

    Flat like this, you mean? As in “flat, with the trend rising by 0.1 degrees”?

    What explains your error – gullibility, lack of skepticism, incompetence or mendacity?

    Worse still for your claim, models project periods of low surface temperature growth (in part because during those periods most of the heat energy accumulation goes into the ocean – exactly as we’re seeing at the moment).

    Even worse for your position, there is plenty of non-model evidence that has never been explained without invoking CO2 forcing. You’re cherry-picking – without the cherry-pick your “argument” fails miserably.

  62. #62 Lotharsson
    July 21, 2013

    The Bob Carter who is predicting global cooling, despite being unable to explain any physical mechanism that would drive it?

    The Bob Carter who has one (count them!) peer-reviewed climate science paper to his name? That Bob Carter?

    The Bob Carter who is paid by various “think tanks” to make claims to the public (such as the one you repeated, IIRC) that he can’t even get published in the literature? That Bob Carter?

    The Bob Carter whose entire climate science repertoire consists of that one paper, which is widely acknowledged by competent climate scientists to be a strong candidate for the worst climate science paper ever? That Bob Carter?

    If you’ve got to scrape that far down the barrel, you’re demonstrating that your argument is unsupported by evidence.

  63. #63 Lotharsson
    July 21, 2013

    Have you given any thought to our star on the blink?

    Yes, as have a whole bunch of scientists. No-one has come up with a credible hypothesis that fits the available evidence and survives a bit of peer review. If you reckon you (or Bob Carter) are the first to do so, then please publish.

    But you’ll need to acknowledge that “on the blink” isn’t an explanation. So you’ll need to be more specific. How do you (or Bob Carter) think it might be on the blink, and by what mechanism might that cause global cooling?

    You (or Bob Carter) might also note that if the sun were to provide a negative forcing in future, this STILL doesn’t remove the role of CO2 in the climate system. So, if you are going to predict global cooling, you’ll need to demonstrate that the net forcing is negative – in other words, that whatever solar forcing you are claiming is negative enough to counter the positive forcing we’re experiencing from extra atmospheric CO2 and other anthropogenic forcings.

    Bet you (and Bob Carter) don’t.

  64. #64 el gordo
    July 21, 2013

    ‘Flat like this, you mean? As in “flat, with the trend rising by 0.1 degrees”?’

    I prefer a longer view, it looks flat to me.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201101-201112.png

  65. #65 el gordo
    July 21, 2013

    ‘most of the heat energy accumulation goes into the ocean’

    Trenberth’s missing heat could not be found, the amount of heat energy going into the oceans is negligible or close to zero.

  66. #66 Jeff Harvey
    July 21, 2013

    Fifteen years to deniers like Gordo is a long time. For natural systems operating over huge spatial scales, it is the blink of a geological and evolutionary eye.

    These clowns just do not understand the importance of scale and the time required to detect fingerprints based on it.

    And before Betula comes riding in with his latest Algonquin remark, let me say that one can detect changes in systems on the basis of biological phenomena. or instance, a number of species are now found in northern Europe that are native to southern and central Europe but which have expanded their ranges northwards since the 1980s. So if I go out and see some of these plants and animals in The Netherlands over, say, the coming 23 days, then I can say with assurance that historical data shows that they were not present here until quite recently.

    It is also being shown that some thermophilic species have only recently begun to successfully overwinter in regions further north. Some of these are serious crop pests – such as the Diamondback Moth (Plutella xylostella) which is native to the Mediterranean and Africa but which is now a worldwide pest of collard and mustard crops. In the early 1990s it died during north European winters and only re-colonzed later in the summer; now it survives winters in Holland and parts of the UK and as a result it builds up huge populations earlier in the growing season, with serious consequences for farmers growing these crops. It is interesting to note that caterpillars of this moth are attacked by tow species of parasitic wasps: one is more adapted to colder climates and the other to warmer conditions. Only in the past 2 years have we begun to see the warm-weather parasitoid replacing (or displacing) the cold weather tolerant species.

    Winter is a major biological control agent. As these and other examples show, it is certainly still warming and species are moving up from the south to compete with and potentially displace species less adapted to warm conditions. And of course many serious insect pests die out in colder regions but, thanks to recent warming, are surviving in areas where they once were unable to.

  67. #67 el gordo
    July 21, 2013

    Loth I was suggesting Carter should be Climate Commissioner instead of Flummery because he is not a climate scientist either, but knows the mantra back to front.

  68. #68 Jeff Harvey
    July 21, 2013

    “Trenberth’s missing heat could not be found, the amount of heat energy going into the oceans is negligible or close to zero”

    …so says Fatso, in his own uneducated opinion. Not based on any peer-reviewed research he has done, but because he, a non-scientist, says so.

    This is the modus operandi of AGW deniers. No education necessary; just simply state their opinions as fact. As it turns out, I trust the science behind Trenberth a lot more than I trust the opinions of some layman sitting behind a computer.

  69. #69 Jeff Harvey
    July 21, 2013

    I suppose we are talking about this Bob Carter:

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter

    …who is affiliated with a lengthy list of corporate funded right wing think tanks and other anti-environmental groups.

    More damaged goods. The AGW denial lobby has relied on the same sordid cast of characters as ‘scientists’ for the past 30 years. Lindzen, Soon, Baliunas, the Idsos, Carter, Michaels, Balling, Spencer, Singer, Christy and a few others, most of whom are on the academic fringe and don’t publish much in the scientific literature.

  70. #70 Lotharsson
    July 21, 2013

    I prefer a longer view, …

    What utter bollocks! You prefer no such thing!

    Firstly, the longer view you provided clearly refutes your claim! You have to be particularly stupid to link to evidence that refutes your own argument. (And in your case that hypothesis is difficult to refute.)

    Secondly, what you prefer is a cherry-picked view somewhere in the middle of those two time extents.

    Thirdly, even then you only “prefer it” when you deliberately avoid analysis of the cherry-picked period. I provided analysis of the period you referred to above which refuted your claim, and you’ve ignored it. What you prefer is unreliable non-analysis such as:

    …it looks flat to me.

    Then there’s this:

    Trenberth’s missing heat could not be found, the amount of heat energy going into the oceans is negligible or close to zero.

    Er, no (see Figure 1 here). I’d say “do try to keep up” but you have no interest in the picture that emerges from the totality of the evidence in the first place.

    Repeating previously debunked bullshit – like you just did – simply confirms that you’re a bullshit artist. (And that hasn’t changed since you were here last. Return to your jail thread please.)

  71. #71 Lotharsson
    July 21, 2013

    Loth I was suggesting Carter should be Climate Commissioner instead of Flummery because he is not a climate scientist either, but knows the mantra back to front.

    The crucial difference is Carter egregiously misrepresents what the totality of scientific evidence indicates – just as you do – and Flannery has a reasonable go at accurately representing it (although he’s not always as successful as one would like in that regard).

    Worse still, Carter is clearly misrepresenting it deliberately, as he has been taken to task repeatedly for his misrepresentations and yet continues to make them to audiences that (he hopes) won’t know any better.

    It’s rather telling that you want a deliberate misrepresenter to represent science to the non-scientific public. It suggests that your position isn’t supported by the science.

  72. #72 el gordo
    July 21, 2013

    ‘although he’s not always as successful as one would like in that regard’

    I won’t be illustrating his many failed predictions.

    ‘It suggests that your position isn’t supported by the science.’

    The science is flawed, because the models are faulty, I have no problem standing outside the collective thinking on global warming.

    ‘the longer view you provided clearly refutes your claim!’

    I think the flat bit on top is pretty impressive and if you use your imagination its possible to visualise a tipping point. On the other hand temperatures might bounce up, but with the sun in a funk its more likely they will be will be heading south in a couple of years.

  73. #73 el gordo
    July 21, 2013

    ‘I trust the science behind Trenberth a lot more than I trust the opinions of some layman sitting behind a computer.’

    The world has moved on, climate change is post normal science.

  74. #74 Lotharsson
    July 21, 2013

    The science is flawed, because the models are faulty, …

    Fallacy.

    The case for serious concern survives the complete removal of “the models”, as has been pointed out any number of times.

    (Never mind that the models are much better than you’d like to make out. Most of that class of claims are based on not understanding what the models claim and do not claim.)

    The world has moved on, climate change is post normal science.

    Clap harder. Otherwise your bulldust might become obvious even to you. You’ve already mastered the “ignoring refuting evidence” part, so you’re at least half way there.

  75. #75 Lionel A
    July 21, 2013

    Birchbrain bleated:

    adelady @ 87.

    Lionel @ 6 on page 9 insinuated the drought in Mexico is a consequence of climate change with this:

    “July 15 News: Ongoing Drought In New Mexico Turns Rio Grande Into ‘Rio Sand’.”
    “Human caused climate change is having consequences”

    Now if you had been paying attention during this thread you would have noticed citations of talks explaining why the jet stream is being disrupted and what this can cause.

    Clues, go looking up thread for an ABC talk including an explanation from Jennifer Francis and how this is linked to extreme weather events floods and droughts.

    An excellent explanation of the jet stream can be found here , and another piece of the puzzle can be found here.

    Now with all that in your mind can you now understand where I was coming from WRT the Rio Grande dry out?

    If not then go do some more homework for it is you that needs a ‘pass’ and not I. IOW don’t be a bozo all of your life.

    Of course I quite understand that many words and concepts discussed in any of the above may be alien to you and cause cognitive issues. These can be addressed by consulting some of that alternative literature which I have pointed you at.

    Of course you could be just suffering from cognitive dissonance and thus no amount of assistance is going to change embedded ideological constructs and you will remain a bozo. It is up to you to overcome this impasse in your cognitive development and not any of us.

  76. #76 adelady
    July 21, 2013

    “… looks flat to me.”

    I got my husband to look at this one for me. He agrees that it is a revelation. A new geometry!

  77. #77 Jeff Harvey
    July 21, 2013

    “The world has moved on, climate change is post normal science”

    According to a layman sitting behind a computer.

  78. #78 Betula
    July 21, 2013

    Sloth @ 75…

    Thanks for the info, It’s exactly what I have been saying all along. Glad you are finally coming around..

    “Jon Gottschalck acting chief of the Operational Prediction Branch at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, told Climate Central in an email that it’s not yet clear exactly how unusual the recent weather pattern has been, or what has been driving it. “Yes, the evolution you describe of the upper-level low and high pressure ridge moving east to west is definitely unusual. But it is not easy to quantify really how unusual,” he said.”

    “It would take considerable time to crunch through the data and utilize a methodology to accurately pick events like this that have occurred in the historical record and quantify [them]. From a climate-forcing perspective, there is no clear climate pattern right now that we can point to as a contributing factor and so we can really only attribute this evolution to natural internal variability, at least at this stage.”

  79. #79 Stu
    July 21, 2013

    Betula, you really just see two sentences you like and think the article supports your point, don’t you? You’re as bad as Karen.

  80. #80 chek
    July 21, 2013

    Fatso @ #65 claimed Trenberth’s missing heat could not be found, the amount of heat energy going into the oceans is negligible or close to zero.

    This despite the deniers having their clocks cleaned on this very point at the beginning of this thread.

    “[1] We provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World Ocean for 1955–2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases. We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 10^22 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth’s surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 10^22 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2(per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C. The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. The 700–2000 m ocean layer accounted for approximately one-third of the warming of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. The thermosteric component of sea level trend was 0.54 ± .05 mm yr−1 for the 0–2000 m layer and 0.41 ± .04 mm yr−1 for the 0–700 m layer of the World Ocean for 1955–2010.”

  81. #81 chek
    July 21, 2013

    Betula, you really just see two sentences you like and think the article supports your point

    Attention Deficit Disorder, And Why A Career In Science May Not Be For You.

  82. #82 Betula
    July 21, 2013

    Stu..

    “Betula, you really just see two sentences you like and think the article supports your point”

    Unlike you, who can’t link any sentences to support your point (see #40).

    Stu, tell me, what do you think was the purpose of putting those two “paragraphs” in the article?

  83. #83 chek
    July 21, 2013

    but with the sun in a funk its more likely they will be will be heading south in a couple of years.

    It’s absolutely amazing that these fuckwit deniers can not only miss the press coverage of the record Arctic melt last summer and still buy their ‘hiatus’ lie, but also miss recent news coverage of some of the largest solar flares seen this year.

    It truly is like they’re on another planet.

  84. #84 chek
    July 21, 2013

    Fatso @ #72 claimed

    The science is flawed, because the models are faulty, I have no problem standing outside the collective thinking on global warming.

    Going for the full set of pig-ignorant denier memes in a single day, eh Fatty? The reality is of course completely different
    Why are climate models reproducing the observed global surface warming so well?

  85. #85 Lionel A
    July 21, 2013

    adelady

    I got my husband to look at this one for me. He agrees that it is a revelation. A new geometry!

    indeed, flat in the sense that one may find some flat ground at the top of Ben Nevis. And this ignoring the fact that the underlying country rock is still rising due in part to isostatic rebound.

    What theses idiots will not appreciate is the devastating impact just a one degree Celsius rise in water temperature (one place all that heat is going – those four Hiroshima bombs a second worth) is having on the vital coral reefs. Vital as nurseries for many oceanic species. Huge areas of coral have died in the Maldives alone over the last couple of years and it has been estimated that about eighty percent of reefs are under stress. US war planes (probably Marine a Marine unit at that) dropping bombs on them recently does not help.

    It is ironic that the extravagant life styles that support tourism in the Maldives could in part be responsible for their future destruction.

  86. #86 chek
    July 21, 2013

    US war planes (probably Marine a Marine unit at that) dropping bombs on them recently does not help

    They were Marine Harriers, but at least the bombs were inert.
    Still, I expect the sudden arrival of multiple 500lb-ers travelling at 300Kts apiece would not be a welcome addition to the days events for your average Aussie crustacean.

  87. #87 Lionel A
    July 21, 2013

    I had heard that they were Harriers and thus guessed that they belonged to the US Marine Corps.

    I once had some small help from a US Marine Skyhawk squadron at NAS Roosevelt Roads in the 1970s, I was flown in by Sea King helo from Ark, when I managed to find a suitable adapter to connect US a nitrogen rig to the fuel system of a new gas turbine starter that I had fitted to one of our F4Ks which had diverted ashore with rocket hang ups. The starter fuel system needed purging of the inhibiting oil used to prevent corrosion during storage and transit.

  88. #88 Stu
    July 21, 2013

    So Betula now admits to not knowing what the word “link” means.

    Can we just put this clown in the Jonas thread? It’s getting way too boring now.

  89. #89 Craig Thomas
    July 21, 2013

    El Gordo demonstrates he can’t think straight:

    The science is flawed, because the models are faulty,

    Um….seriously?
    Maybe get somebody to read that out to you and think about what you’re hearing.

    Basically it’s an abject bit of stupidity.
    Par for the course, I suppose.
    Universities these days – churning out non-thinkers who do not understand rational analysis.

    Now, look at this again:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif

    The “model” that is wrong, is that model used by dimwits such as yourself, consisting as it does in ignoring the totality of the facts in favour of a carefully-cherrypicked subset of data that can be twisted to your self-deluding purpose.

    Have a think about the “new normal” in Arctic sea ice:
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

  90. #90 el gordo
    July 21, 2013

    ‘It truly is like they’re on another planet.’

    That’s funny…. in reality our star is very quiet, considering we are at solar max.

    http://www.solarham.net/regions/map.htm

  91. #91 el gordo
    July 21, 2013

    Craig I have seen the SS graphic before and I’m not disputing that it was warm at the end of last century, but this century temperatures appear to have gone flat.

  92. #92 el gordo
    July 21, 2013

    ‘The reality is of course completely different’

    The Knutti paper is old hat (2008) do try and keep up.

  93. #93 el gordo
    July 21, 2013

    Huston …. we have a problem.

    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif

    The lack of sunspot activity or the length of the solar cycle may be irrelevant in your minds, but over the fullness of time it will prove to be the main driver of CC.

  94. #94 Craig Thomas
    July 21, 2013

    a/ Temperatures aren’t “flat”. If it was “warm at the end lf last century”, and that warming has not reversed, but has continued to occur, then your “flat” is utter nonsense.

    b/ The energy imbalance caused by CO2 in the atmosphere is something you appear to be ignoring. Heat continues to accumulate.

    c/ The solar cycle isn’t relevant to the AGW trend.

  95. #95 Betula
    July 21, 2013

    Stu..
    You’re having a difficult time now, aren’t you?

    Tell me, what do you think was the purpose of putting those two “paragraphs” in the article?

    And still waiting for that peer reviewed paper….

    Feeling Stu-pid yet?

  96. #96 Craig Thomas
    July 21, 2013

    GMO harming agriculture:

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408

    The US yields are falling behind economically and technologically equivalent agroecosystems matched for latitude, season and crop type; pesticide use is higher in the United States than in comparator W. European countries; the industries of all types that are supplying inputs to the farmer are becoming more concentrated and monopolistic and these tendencies correlate with stagnation or declines in germplasm diversity. Farm number is decreasing and scale is increasing, concentrating and narrowing the farming skills. Annual variations in yield, which not only indicate low resilience of the agroecosytem but also can fuel dramatic price changes in agricultural markets, are more severe in the United States than in W. Europe.

    Resilience can be increased using a diverse germplasm.

    we found no yield benefit when the United States was compared to W. Europe, other economically developed countries of the same latitude which do not grow GM crops.
    We found no benefit from the traits either.
    GM crops have maintained or increased US pesticide use relative to equally advanced competitors.
    The pattern and quantities unique to the use of GM-glyphosate-tolerant crops has been responsible for the selection of glyphosate-tolerant weeds,
    The use of Bt crops is associated with the emergence of Bt resistance and by
    novel mechanisms in insect pests.
    The diversity of the germplasm is not increasing under the commercial sector in the United States and under prevailing government innovation incentives created through IP instruments or public subsidies.
    Critically, it appears that the essential diversity being used by the major seed houses was introduced by now defunct public sector breeding programmes the substitution of commercial innovation incentives has not replaced the genetic innovations built by a former applied public sector service under a different, less restrictive, innovation regime.
    This is linked to globally declining rates in yield growth. ‘The growth rate in world-average crop yields has been slowing for nearly two decades, to some extent as a result of reduced research and development funding’.
    Innovation through reclaimed IP revenue streams has not compensated for the decrease in public good research funding.

  97. #97 chek
    July 21, 2013

    Actually checking the TSI, it can be found that for the period within the solar cycle, activity is holding up very well (as suggested by those massive solar flares mentioned earlier).
    Graphic Graphic here and data here (not sure if it’ll work like a WFT plot for anyone else).

    But as Craig points out, the warming does not match the sunspot cycle and is irrelevant, as NASA confirms

    “A prolonged solar minimum left the sun’s surface nearly free of sunspots and accompanying bright areas called faculae between 2005 and 2010. Total solar irradiance declined slightly as a result, but the Earth continued to absorb more energy than it emitted throughout the minimum”.

  98. #98 Craig Thomas
    July 21, 2013

    Check, are you saying that El Gordo could have checked his beliefs against information easily found on the internet and thus saved himself the embarrassment of having posted incorrect assertions on this page?

  99. #99 chek
    July 21, 2013

    I’d go further Craig.
    Sometimes it does appear they’re trying to construct some alternate reality based on a kind of Chinese Whisper model in which boneheaded, anything-but-CO2 ideas are agreed to be correct by blogscience echo chamber repetition until …. wait …no, that’s just too ridiculous.

  100. #100 el gordo
    July 22, 2013

    ‘warming has not reversed, but has continued to occur, then your “flat” is utter nonsense.’

    It looks flat.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:2000.17/trend

Current ye@r *