July 2013 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #1 el gordo
    July 22, 2013

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

    The AGW trend is not existent, having been swamped by the solar signal.

  2. #2 chek
    July 22, 2013

    Fatso, Your definition of ‘flat’ isn’t the same one as used by people not fucked in the head

    And who’s been telling you that surface temperatures are the only way heat is accumulating and being detected in the climate system? Some self-appointed blogscientist, by any chance?

  3. #3 Craig Thomas
    July 22, 2013

    It doesn’t look flat at all:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2008/plot/rss/from:2008/trend

    Looks like a steep increase to me.

  4. #4 Craig Thomas
    July 22, 2013

    The AGW trend is not existent, having been swamped by the solar signal.

    Yes, as we all know, variability in solar irradiance accounts for the long-term increasing trend in atmospheric temperature:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_vs_temp_1024.jpg

    Ooops. El Gordo just did it again.
    Does he specialise in being a know-nothing twit?

  5. #5 el gordo
    July 22, 2013

    Nice graph… assuming the sun theory is correct there appears to be a 30 year lag.

  6. #6 Craig Thomas
    July 22, 2013

    a. There is no “Sun theory”. You may be confusing the concept of “theory” (being a detailed explanation for an observed set of facts) with the concept of “arrant nonsense”, the latter being nonsensical tall stories propagated by crank blogs and repeated by twits.

    b. What “lag? Temperature is obviously trending independently of the effects of the variability in solar irradiance.
    Unless you can point us to any science to the contrary…?

  7. #7 chek
    July 22, 2013

    Fatso, you can’t just make things up out of thin air by eyeballing a graph, on the assumption of anything-but-CO2.
    Unless you’re a denier and then of course, that’s all you can do.

  8. #8 ianam
    July 22, 2013

    “Because, Jeff, someone has to think of the lurkers.”

    Stu, you’re nuts if you actually think that, not only are there lurkers who are watching this unending repetitive “debate” between people who know stuff and the ignorant, stupid, and oh so intellectually dishonest deniers, but that it is actually important to convince them that the deniers are wrong.

    There are things you can do that actually matter, like http://climaterealityproject.org/leadership-corps/

    Continuing to debate denier trolls here is itself a form of denial … denial that all the time you have spent doing so was wasted. It’s hard on the ego to admit such things, but not doing so and continuing in behaviors that don’t serve you is textbook neurotic behavior.

  9. #9 Jeff Harvey
    July 22, 2013

    “Continuing to debate denier trolls here is itself a form of denial”

    I agree Ianam. There are certainly way better ways to invest time in a constructive manner than to ‘debate’ some of the denier numbskulls who write into Deltoid. I will check out the link you supplied.

  10. #10 el gordo
    July 22, 2013

    Ha ha … gorebull worming.

    ‘Unless you’re a denier and then of course, that’s all you can do.’

    CO2 does not cause warming.

  11. #11 Lionel A
    July 22, 2013

    CO2 does not cause warming

    And your evidence to support that is ……?

  12. #12 adelady
    July 22, 2013

    Evidence? I think it’s based on a model.

    If CO2 increases each and every year, and it increases warming, then the temperature should rise steadily each and every year – by the same amount – every single year. Obviously, there’s no need to rethink or rework or reword this model. It fails.

    Surprisingly enough, deniers are the only ones who think this is a model worth considering, then dismissing. They also think that this is much the same as the models that scientists use – after all scientists say that increased ghgs cause warming – and they can confidently dismiss scientists as well.

    Done! And dusted! Game over!

  13. #13 el gordo
    July 22, 2013

    ‘And your evidence to support that is ……?’

    I assumed on the evidence, after 17 years of non warming as CO2 continues to climb, that CO2 isn’t the main driver.

  14. #14 adelady
    July 22, 2013

    Try this ….. http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/04/about-the-lack-of-warming/ Check the last graph, the one with three parallel trend lines.

    I realise that this means we have to think about more than one thing at a time – but you’ll get used to it.

  15. #15 Lionel A
    July 22, 2013

    And something else The Gordian Knot needs to think about concurrently with your source adelady is the heat capacity of water.

    I wonder if The Gordian Knot has ever pondered why water is used in ICE cooling systems, power station cooling towers, and why ice is added to drinks. That latter of course introducing something else, the concept of latent heat in relation to melting ice. Maybe it is too much of a leap for this denier to wonder why the temperature (sensible heat) of a drink does not change whilst there is still ice to melt.

    Here is more to refute The Gordian Knot’s red herring.

    And here is another uncomfortable factoid for The Gordian Knot Record Heat in June Extends Globe’s Streak to 340 Months.

    The Gordian Knot begins to smell something like His Moncktonship of the purple gates (and florid language).

  16. #16 Wow
    July 22, 2013

    So, Tubby Twat, you claim the temperatures have been stationary for 15 years?

    WRONG, asshole. They’ve gone up and down lots. Every night’s temperature is different from every day’s temperature.

  17. #17 Jeff Harvey
    July 22, 2013

    “CO2 does not cause warming”

    Sigh. So says a layman sitting behind his computer. No empirical evidence countering conventional wisdom needs to be produced. Instead, an army of scientific illiterates knows more about this complex field than the experts who have been trained in it.

    To reiterate, Ianam is correct. Engaging this army of bozos is a waste of time.

  18. #18 Jeff Harvey
    July 22, 2013

    “I assumed on the evidence, after 17 years of non warming as CO2 continues to climb, that CO2 isn’t the main driver”

    Again, this clown expects an instantantous increase in process X in response to an increase in parameter Y. There are no such things as LAGS in Gordo’s lexicon. The time scales this guy works on are essentially today and tomorrow in geological terms. I will repeat: processes generated locally but which have global effects can take decades to be manifested. At shorter time intervals there is a lot of noise. This is well known in the study of the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning as well as between habitat loss and extinction rates. The loss of habitat over time does not result in an instantaneous loss of species or genetcially distinct populations; instead, the effects can take decades or even generations to be manifested. Its likely that habitat destruction in North America as long ago as a century or even more is still rippling through many of the ecological communities there (knows as the extinction debt).

    Its the same with respect to climate. Gordo, because he probably has a grade-school science education, thinks that cause and effect relationships between C02 concentrations and temperature are linear and virtually immediate. He does not understand the concept of temporal lags nor of short-term or local noise that can mask underlying trends.For a large scale system such as climate control, this lag can be a long, long time in the concept of a human life span. But the trouble is our species has not evolved to respond to threats which we perceive as gradual but which are, in geological and evolutionary scales, extremely rapid. Its the boiling frog syndrome writ large.

    Consequently, for deniers like Gordo 15 years (or is it 17? He likes to play with numbers) is a long, long, time whereas for large scale natural systems its the blink of an eye. This in effect is one of the worst examples of the human malaise: to expect almost instantaneous consequences generated at huge scales. It does not work that way, but many non-scientists just cannot grasp the importance of scale.

  19. #19 Lionel A
    July 22, 2013

    I have just revisited Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice blog and found myself nodding in agreement with R. Gates | July 22, 2013 at 01:44 suggestion to name Arctic cyclone storms that break up melt weakened ice after deniers. R. Gates specifically mentions Watts, Monckton and Soon bit I guess we could work up our own list here, for extreme weather events maybe.

  20. #20 Lionel A
    July 22, 2013

    Another illustration, by cello, of why The Gordian Knot is wrong about warming A Song of Our Warming Planet. We are now unlikely to hear the like of the deep sonorous notes from the viola da gamba (Jonathon Manson) heard in this recording Rameau – Cinquième Concert in D Minor – Mov. 1/3 .

  21. #21 Lionel A
    July 22, 2013

    Just been browsing over at Rabett Run and in particular the latest ‘Deja Vu All Over Again‘ thread where Hank Roberts provided a link to this excellent CO2Sciene inoculation piece More for the annals of climate misinformation.

    I have noticed a propensity for some of our trolls to drink at that poisoned pond. So be warned trolls, your intellectual health is at risk every time you visit such places as CO2Science.

  22. #22 Lotharsson
    July 22, 2013

    …but you’ll get used to it.

    Your great optimism is touching, adelady ;-)

  23. #23 Rednose
    UK
    July 22, 2013

    Andrew Neil has an interesting put down of that annoying little prick Nuttyjelly.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23405202

    This was neatly summed up in a Guardian blog by Dana Nuccitelli, who works for a multi-billion dollar US environmental business (Tetra Tech) and writes prodigiously about global warming and related matters from a very distinct perspective.

    Well apparently Dana works for Big Oil.
    What do you know?

  24. #24 Betula
    July 22, 2013

    Just for the record.

    Once I smoothed out the noise, I think I picked up on a signal. Sure, 3 months is a short time scale, but it is much larger than the 23 days that has been used by the Professor.

    Next time Hardley accuses someone of having a big ego, this is the mirror:

    MAY THREAD

    #76, pg 2…. “I’ve met”, “in my career”, “in my career” (again) , “I have” , “I presented” , “I met” (again), “I’ve attended”

    #75, pg 2….”Well Mack, in terms of ‘pedigree’ I am certainly miles ahead of you”

    #96, pg 3….”you don’t even reach up to my shins in terms of your scientific ‘expertise’

    #31, pg 4….”your understanding of environmental science doesn’t even reach up to my ankles.”

    #36, pg4…. “I’ve published 128 papers in my career, and have bee cited almost 2984 times”

    #37, pg 4….”I am an expert based on 20 plus years of research, many publications, conference and university lectures etc”

    #70, Pg 4….”My intellectual superiority in environmental science”

    #1, pg 6….”you and your equally dumb buddies don’t reach up to my shoelaces,”

    #2, pg 6….”In the last 14 years of my career as a senior researchers”

    JUNE THREAD

    #26, pg 4….”Turns out I am in pretty good shape for a guy of my age as I work out twice a week at the gym”

    #16, pg 5….”for a 55 year old guy, I keep myself in pretty good shape”

    #6, pg 8….”I also have a doctorate in Population Ecology, with 130 peer-reviewed publications and over 3000 citations. My h-factor is 32″

    #65, pg 10….”Of course scientists (like me) know better”

    #72, pg10….”eminent shcolars as Michael Mann, James Hansen, Paul Ehrlich, Jared Diamond”…”They and others (including myself)”

    #81, pg 11….”I am a senior scientist”

    JULY THREAD

    #90, pg 7…. “I, as a working, publishing scientist

    #65, pg 8….I got my PhD”, “my career”, “looked me up and are extremely envious”, “I was top in my undergraduate classes and received many awards”, “yesterday I was offered a Professorship”.

    #80, pg 8….”And if you bother to look at the years since I got my PhD you’ll also see that my career has been pretty successful”

    #92, pg 8…. “my 130 plus publications”

    #99, pg 8….”As you well know by now, I do have a PhD and a lot of publications”

    #31, pg 11….”having just been appointed Endowed Professor at a University in the Netherlands”

    #51, pg 11…. “I have 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, 3068 citations on the WoS as of this week and an h-index of 32.”

  25. #25 chek
    July 22, 2013

    What do you know?

    1)That you’ve got nothing substantive
    2)That a course in remedial reading might help your comprehension.
    3)Deniers are still under the impression surface temperatures account for all the heat introduced into the climate system
    4)And if you really want to do guilt by association, that an ex-Murdoch lackey currently employed by Britain’s own version of the Koch Bros – the Barclay Bros – has any inkling of impartiality as evidenced by calling on entirely unscientific GWPF stooges like Tol.

  26. #26 chek
    July 22, 2013
  27. #27 Lionel A
    July 22, 2013

    Rednose

    WRT Andrew Neil, what else would one expect from a Murdoch puppet,

    For the other, and factually correct version see Debunking New Myths about the 97% Expert Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming

    Here are his [Niel's] erroneous comments about our study:

    “That [97% consensus] survey has of course been substantially discredited … 35 percent of the abstracts were misclassified, and they were classified to the pro-global warming side. Professor Richard Tol … has disassociated himself from that and said it’s not reliable.”

    and

    Regarding Neil’s claim that Tol has disassociated himself from our study: Tol has never been associated with the analysis of our study. He was one of 29,083 authors of articles that we examined, and one of 1,200 authors who participated in the self-rating phase. So the statement that he has disassociated himself is meaningless. His opinions about how his own papers should be categorized are included in the 97 percent consensus in self-rated papers.

    So Neil is telling porkies like the good little Murdoch trainee that he is.

    As the melting Arctic and glacier ice tells us, as does the weird weather being experienced around the world and the indisputable continued heat build up in Earth’s systems, nature does not give a flying fuck about politics or jumped up pundits.

    Dana must be doing something right to drawing such venom (‘annoying little prick’) from an ideologue such as you.

  28. #28 luminous beauty
    July 22, 2013

    Betula mistakenly conflates egoism, which is the mental state of exaggerating one’s sense of self worth despite a lack of real world accomplishment, with an individual defending himself against personal attack by pointing to an actual record of real world accomplishment.

    This is symptomatic of psychological projection, which is a primary excuse making strategy commonly employed by persons suffering from psychological denial.

  29. #29 luminous beauty
    July 22, 2013

    What is worse is that betula’s denial is DARVO. Denial And Reversal of Victim and Offender, commonly used by domestic abusers to bully those they abuse, implying that the abuse was justified.

    Despicable behavior by any measure.

  30. #30 Rednose
    UK
    July 22, 2013

    Shrek#25

    calling on entirely unscientific GWPF stooges like Tol.

    Is that the same Dr Tol whose CV reads:

    M.Sc. Econometrics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1992); Ph.D. Economics (Thesis: “A decision-analytic treatise of the enhanced greenhouse effect”), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1997); Researcher, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1992-2008); Visiting Researcher, Canadian Centre for Climate Research, University of Victoria, Canada (1994); Visiting researcher, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University College London, United Kingdom (1995); Acting Programme Manager Quantitative Environmental Economics, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1998-1999); Visiting Associate Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (1998-2000); Board Member, Centre for Marine and Climate Research, Hamburg University (2000-2006); Lead Author, IPCC (2001); Contributing Author and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001, 2007); Associate Editor, Environmental and Resource Economics Journal (2001-2006); Adjunct Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (2000-2008); Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change, Department of Geosciences and Department of Economics, Hamburg University, Germany (2000-2006); Editor, Energy Economics Journal (2003-Present); Visiting Research Scholar, Princeton Environmental Institute and Visiting Professor, Department of Economics, Princeton University (2005-2006); Research Professor, Economic and Social Research Institute, Ireland (2006-2011); Research Fellow, Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University (2007-2010); Associate Editor, Economics E-Journal (2007-Present); Adjunct Professor, Department of Economics, Trinity College, Ireland (2010-2011); Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (2008-Present); Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, University of Sussex, Falmer, United Kingdom (2012-Present)

  31. #31 Rednose
    UK
    July 22, 2013

    It must be just a slightly more impressive than our resident prof here.

    Still more news about Dana’s financiers:
    Tetratech awarded 400 million contract for clean energy in the third world
    http://www.tetratech.com/investor-relations/press-releases.html

    Tetratech acquires Canadian oilfield and pipeline company
    http://www.tetratech.com/investor-relations/press-releases.html

  32. #32 Rednose
    UK
    July 22, 2013

    Lionel

    Well if they are so confident in their results why doesn’t Cooke publish his data.
    Apparently he has been asked for this three times by the Editor of Environmental Research Letters and 5 times by Tol

    Perhaps its crap.

  33. #33 chek
    July 22, 2013

    Redarse, he’s an economist, not a scientist.
    At best he could aspire to be a contributor to AR6 WGII, if his ideological baggage allowed it. Read the fucking bio you offered moron, then try comprehending what it tells you. Of course most here already knew that

    And still thrashing hoping to dig up something … anything … vaguely …something … on Dana Nuccitelli. Unsuccessfully.

    You deniers really are a desperate bunch of know-nothing no-hopers

  34. #34 Rednose
    UK
    July 22, 2013

    Forgot to mention that Dana also writes for the “loss making” Guardian which is owned by the same company as Autotrader which is profitable.

    These big oil tentacles get everywhere.

  35. #35 chek
    July 22, 2013

    Forgot to mention

    Of course you did, because you’re a denier with a brain the size of a pea.
    Who thinks that a car recycling rag is damning evidence and therefore no AGW.
    Can you see why your stupidity is so despised yet?

  36. #36 Rednose
    UK
    July 22, 2013

    Shrek

    Ph.D. Economics (Thesis: “A decision-analytic treatise of the enhanced greenhouse effect”),

    That’s at least one more piece of original peer reviewed research than Dana.

    MSc in Econometrics- that’s a hell of a lot more background in Statistics than little Dana has shown with his crayons.

  37. #37 chek
    July 22, 2013

    Economics

    I’ll repost that so you can go look it up then come back and tell me which physical science that is.

    I expect you’ll try. And of course fail, once again.

  38. #38 Rednose
    UK
    July 22, 2013

    Shrek

    And who employs Dana, again, anointed spokesperson of the great God Gia

  39. #39 Lionel A
    July 22, 2013

    Well if they are so confident in their results why doesn’t Cooke publish his data.
    There is no such Cooke to publish data,

    whatever

    Apparently he has been asked for this three times by the Editor of Environmental Research Letters and 5 times by Tol

    And your source for this is?

    What is the data in question?

    As for Tetra Tech – not exactly big oil and besides WTF is this supposed to lead:

    Tetratech acquires Canadian oilfield and pipeline company
    http://www.tetratech.com/investor-relations/press-releases.html

    All I see is a list of stuff. So, which is it to be?

    MSc in Econometrics, Curtin magic – don’t make me laugh, one can get more useful qualifications from Hogwarts.

    Methinks you need another away trip.

  40. #40 Lionel A
    July 22, 2013

    BirchBark at #24. Now you are becoming real creepy. That is what jealousy does to people, makes stalkers out of them.

  41. #41 Lionel A
    July 22, 2013

    Redshonk,

    WTF is Gia?

  42. #42 Rednose
    UK
    July 22, 2013

    Lionel

    And your source for this is?

    You will probably read it in Retraction Watch fairly soon.

    Methinks you need another away trip.

    Try Gaia and Cook. The effects of the red wine are taking their time wearing off

  43. #43 chek
    July 22, 2013

    You will probably read it in Retraction Watch fairly soon.

    Translation: Don’t ask me! Some blog gobshite said so and I’ll believe anything.

  44. #44 Lionel A
    July 22, 2013

    The effects of the red wine are taking their time wearing off

    Well I guess when YOU only have a few functioning brain cells that would be the case.

    check aye, Redshonk’s source was sure to be some prat like Watts, Tol or one of the other pond poisoners, a web search did bring up the usual suspects, that is why I asked Redshonk.

  45. #45 Jeff Harvey
    July 22, 2013

    Betla,

    You’re one creepy dude. You certainly seem obsessed by me – at least you seem to have searched out just about everything you can find out about me. Even if I knew your real identity, I wouldn’t bother with you.

    And I most certainly am not going to waste my time going through your loony posts with fine-toothed comb. Clearly my academic qualifications drive you batty or else you are envious as hell.

    Glad to oblige and show up your knowledge of environmental science and ecology for what it is: crap. Seems like running a tree pruning company does not suffice for a good old post graduate education and years or research. At least I say this judging by the garbage you write.

    As for arrogance, you have it in buckets. Just not with any formal qualifications to go with it.

  46. #46 Betula
    July 22, 2013

    “That is what jealousy does to people, makes stalkers out of them”

    Lets put it this way…the next time the egotistical, lying embellisher pretends to turn the mirror away from himself, maybe he can attempt to back it up with a few copy and pastes of his own…..until then, he can shut his pie hole.

  47. #47 Betula
    July 22, 2013

    Hardley…

    “at least you seem to have searched out just about everything you can find out about me”

    Some comments on a dying blog and an obscure article about Algonquin….sounds about right.

  48. #48 chek
    July 22, 2013

    Lets put it this way Betsy …you’re an exposed envious stalker creep who LB precisely nailed @ #28:
    “.Betula mistakenly conflates egoism, which is the mental state of exaggerating one’s sense of self worth despite a lack of real world accomplishment, with an individual defending himself against personal attack by pointing to an actual record of real world accomplishment. This is symptomatic of psychological projection, which is a primary excuse making strategy commonly employed by persons suffering from psychological denial.”

    and again @ #29

    “What is worse is that betula’s denial is DARVO. Denial And Reversal of Victim and Offender, commonly used by domestic abusers to bully those they abuse, implying that the abuse was justified. Despicable behavior by any measure.

    It’s eating you up inside and it’ll spit you out, Betty.
    The seams are already giving way as seen in your performance today. All those wasted edit hours to make yourself look an even bigger schmuck than was already generally thought.

  49. #49 Betula
    July 22, 2013

    LUMY!

    It’s been a while…

    No Lumy, I wasn’t talking about egoism…nice try though:

    “Egotism is intimately about adoring oneself. Egotism is a disguise we wear to secrete the blunders or faintness we deem we have. The basis of egotism is the misconception that we’re special and the misbelief that some of us are better than others.”

    Now, see #24.

  50. #50 Jeff Harvey
    July 22, 2013

    “Lets put it this way…the next time the egotistical, lying embellisher pretends to turn the mirror away from himself, maybe he can attempt to back it up with a few copy and pastes of his own…..until then, he can shut his pie hole”

    Talkin’ about yourself again Betty? You are still suffering from the ‘I think I know a lot but in reality I am a dipstick’ syndrome. And you really hate it when posters here – including, but certainly not only me – pull the rug out from just about every stupid argument you make.

    Many of the posts you cut-and-pasted were in response to several idiots like Freddy who claimed to have PhDs or else questioned my academic background with smears etc. This happens time and time again when I strongly disagree with their comments on topics dealing with the environment. A number of similarly ill-mannered folk as you would bait me with comments like, ‘what the f*** do you know Harvey? What do you know about ecology or the environment’? When I respond by telling them my academic background, the smear tactic switches invariably and inevitably to ‘oh yeh, Harvey’s in love with himself, full of self-idolatry’ et al ad nauseum. Its the same b* tactic every time. Claim to know more than I do about ecology, demand to know my background, then when that is produced to come out with the ‘self-loving’ crap.

    To reiterate, I have merely obliged with facts – none of it made up or remotely untrue. And like it or not, my knowledge in environmental science shits all over yours. I’ve worked in the field for more than 20 years. Get used to it.

    Besides, I’ve been called a lot worse stuff by a range of wingnuts on the political right or in think tanks and anti-environmental groups. It shows that I am hitting a nerve. And I will continue to do so. Its clear what happens to scientists who step,outside of the laboratory into the public arena. The hyenas like you are out there waiting for us.

    See the invective that has been hurled at the likes of Michael Mann, James Hansen. Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, Ben Santer, Jared Diamond, Paul Ehrlich, Tom Lovejoy, Peter Raven and even the mild-mannered Edward O. Wilson. Scientists are loathed by climate change deniers and anti-environmentalists on the basis of the fact that most of us are qualified to speak out on various issues relevant to our academic backgrounds but that most of us also agree that a range of human activities – climate change being prominent among them – are threatening the future of humanity.

    Those with vested interests in the status quo don’t like it one bit.

    Finally, where were you when Freddy was telling everybody here that he was a leaned scholar and was ‘top of his class’ during his PhD (something that, as has been pointed out, does not happen during a PhD). Where were you Betty? Huh? Where were your putdowns etc? Or was it that a nut-job like Freddy can say anything he likes if you agree with the AGW that underpins his rants?

  51. #51 Betula
    July 22, 2013

    Lumy @ 29…

    “Denial And Reversal of Victim and Offender, commonly used by domestic abusers to bully those they abuse, implying that the abuse was justified.”

    Finally, someone agrees with me about BBD…thank you Lumy for being honest.

    BBD…June, #21, pg 9

    ” 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”.

  52. #52 Betula
    July 22, 2013

    Hardley…

    “A number of similarly ill-mannered folk as you would bait me with comments like, ‘what the f*** do you know Harvey? What do you know about ecology or the environment’?”

    If you are talking about me, it’s never happened. Not once.

    I’ve questioned your claims about your Algonquin trip and I’ve pointed out your arrogance. I can back up both.

  53. #53 Jeff Harvey
    July 22, 2013

    “I’ve questioned your claims about your Algonquin trip and I’ve pointed out your arrogance. I can back up both”

    We goodie for you. Want a medal? You aren’t exactly Mr. Humble Pie yourself, Betty. Think about it.

    And I will admit that you have never baited me with comments. But others have. And you’ve merely used my replies to them against me.

    If it keeps you happy, go with it. I don’t really care.

  54. #54 chek
    July 22, 2013

    I can back up both.

    Like your long, long lists of ‘citations’ that invariably turn out to not support whatever your current denier spiel us? The ones you’re renowned here for?
    You’re a joke Betty, and one that everybody’s already heard.

  55. #55 luminous beauty
    July 22, 2013

    Betula’s inability to perceive his projection is really something, isn’t it?

    Denial of denial. It’s denial all the way down.

    I wouldn’t piss on him if he were on fire, either.

  56. #56 luminous beauty
    July 22, 2013

    As per Betty’s questionable claims vis~a~vis Jeff’s Algonquin trip he is assuming a literal interpretation of ‘observing climate change first hand’ with the implied observing the ‘effects’ of climate change, which is the most reasonable interpretation of what is ultimately merely an off hand, informal and indirect quote on a blog and nothing remotely like a statement of scientific import.

    In other words, he is drawing a very long bow to shoot a very short arrow.

  57. #57 Betula
    July 22, 2013

    “I wouldn’t piss on him if he were on fire, either”

    I think I’m supposed to be insulted because you don’t want to piss on me. Let me get back to you on that one…

  58. #58 Craig Thomas
    July 22, 2013

    el gordo
    July 22, 2013

    ‘And your evidence to support that is ……?’

    I assumed on the evidence, after 17 years of non warming as CO2 continues to climb, that CO2 isn’t the main driver.

    We haven’t had 17 years of non-warming.

    Look:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2008/plot/rss/from:2008/trend

    5 years of definite warming.

    You seem to be allowing a bit of variabillty to confuse you.

    Perhaps you should spend less time at crank blogs absorbing non-information and instead get some real information from places such as:
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/
    http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate.aspx

  59. #59 Betula
    July 22, 2013

    “As per Betty’s questionable claims vis~a~vis Jeff’s Algonquin trip he is assuming a literal interpretation of ‘observing climate change first hand’”
    Actually, he said…. “we experienced climate change at first hand”.
    He also said ….”In my work as an ecologist I work on shifting zones, and here I could see it in real.”

    Of course, when I read the article, I noticed he didn’t list any of the climate change of shifting zones he experienced, so I asked him about it…

    His reply..
    “I haven’t answered your question because I think you may be too stupid to understand it.”

    Of course, I forgave him for this because, as we all know, he has a superiority complex.

    I asked again..

    ”Jeff, I don’t doubt that plant zones are constantly shifting to some degree, but could you share some, if any, of the ecological consequences you experienced first hand?”

    The reply….(after more ramblings about himself):

    “As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand”

    But never let the facts get in the way of a good story, right Lumy?

    http://www.nioo.knaw.nl/en/node/2137

  60. #60 Betula
    July 22, 2013

    That should read…”climate change or shifting zones he experienced”

  61. #61 rhwombat
    The Hill, NSW
    July 23, 2013

    Betty Birch the bot fly doesn’t give up, does he? Having confirmed Jeff’s status, seniority and qualifications, he (Bot Fly) still choses to side with the petulant toddlers like FREDDY THE CRAZED COPROPHILE!11!l!!1! and lil’mike, Murdorc minions like Redarse , and Koch-sucking, Randroid spambots like Karen McSpotty – not to mention the fatuous rural contrarianism of the Fat one. Since Tim has relaxed the moderation (I suspect under pressure from the his full-time job as well as the UNSW’s Chancellor’s cronies), a once useful and influential clearing house of info about the push back against the planet rapers’ groupies has become the site of choice for a particularly pathetic collection of denier trolls to posture and throw shit at the few stoic souls who struggle to open the intellectual shutters and sweep the stable. The return of Fathead is just the brown, smelly stuff leaking from the ring. Perhaps we need to shout down the trolls with more persistence, rather than watching the few struggle with the stupid. I suspect that a vote would favour Jeff over Betty Birch by several orders of magnitude. Aye!

  62. #62 el gordo
    July 23, 2013

    Thanx for those links Craig.

    There has been much debate on the blogosphere about the veracity of the data in Australia, but I’ll have to leave that ’til later.

  63. #63 chek
    July 23, 2013

    “we experienced climate change at first hand”.

    And indeed Jeff does say: “It was 12 degrees warmer than average, with around -2 oC during the day and -10 at night.”

    Betty wants this to be just ‘weather’ and while it is, it’s also the manifestation of arctic amplification in which AGW predicts and we see elevated temperatures affecting the arctic permanently (in human terms). There’s a link coming shortly.
    So what might the consequences of that ongoing temperature rise be? JH again: “When they (the wildlife typical for these boreal forests) move north, what’s going to replace them? Just south of the park lies the life zone of the eastern deciduous forest, with soils that have a much higher pH and their own communities of plants and animals. These species can’t simply move north into Algonquin. And most animals are closely linked with the plants, so what will happen to them? In a way climate change is a live ecological experiment.”

    Nothing difficult or controversial there, unless of course you’re a dedicated denier for whom the very acknowledgement that AGW is actually happening is an anathema to be stamped out at once.

    So then Betty pipes up: ” I noticed he didn’t list any of the climate change of shifting zones he experienced, so I asked him about it… Which is odd, because noboby mentioned that shifting zones would be experienced, and Betsy’s question is worded in quite a tricksy manner.

    To which Jeff replies “I haven’t answered your question because I think you may be too stupid to understand it.”

    Which I guess is polite if blunt Jeffspeak for ‘read the fucking text’. Missing the point (of course) Betsy interprets his own inability to understand as JH’s fault viz. “Of course, I forgave him for this because, as we all know, he has a superiority complex. Yes, because it couldn’t be anything like not suffering sly fools with tricksy questions and a history gladly. It becomes readily apparent why Betsy’s regarded as he is.

    Wanting instant results as proof Betty tries again: “Jeff, I don’t doubt that plant zones are constantly shifting to some degree, but could you share some, if any, of the ecological consequences you experienced first hand?” The reply….(after more ramblings about himself):

    And JH replies ““As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand”

    So it seems that no soil samples were taken from frozen ground to test the Ph, but observations of wildlife were made,
    and the elevated temperatures were experienced It may be noted that over the past 70 years highs struggled between highs of -8C in the early ’50s and -5C in the early ’90’s, so +3C in twenty years is quite an increase. Which to recap, was the point of the expedition.

  64. #64 Betula
    July 23, 2013

    chek @63….

    “And indeed Jeff does say: “It was 12 degrees warmer than average, with around -2 oC during the day and -10 at night.”
    “Betty wants this to be just ‘weather’ and while it is, it’s also the manifestation of arctic amplification in which AGW predicts”

    Thanks for clearing that up chek….. I want it to be just weather and it is……brilliant, you really got me there.
    So Jeff not only experienced weather, but he also experienced a prediction.

    And this…

    “So what might the consequences of that ongoing temperature rise be? JH again: “When they (the wildlife typical for these boreal forests) move north, what’s going to replace them?”

    So, not only did he experience weather and a prediction, he also experienced what the consequences of the prediction “might” be….got me again there cheky.

    And this…

    “So it seems that no soil samples were taken from frozen ground to test the Ph, but observations of wildlife were made”

    Cheky, when someone states they experienced something first hand, and then state ““As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil”, that would mean they didn’t experience anything “As far as first hand goes”….which is why he stated “of course I can’t describe things first hand”

    Chek, I expect nothing less of you, you’I give you credit for dancing up a storm though..

  65. #65 Betula
    July 23, 2013

    chek @63….

    “And indeed Jeff does say: “It was 12 degrees warmer than average, with around -2 oC during the day and -10 at night.”
    “Betty wants this to be just ‘weather’ and while it is, it’s also the manifestation of arctic amplification in which AGW predicts”

    Thanks for clearing that up chek….. I want it to be just weather and it is……brilliant, you really got me there.
    So Jeff not only experienced weather, but he also experienced a prediction.

    And this…

    “So what might the consequences of that ongoing temperature rise be? JH again: “When they (the wildlife typical for these boreal forests) move north, what’s going to replace them?”

    So, not only did he experience weather and a prediction, he also experienced what the consequences of the prediction “might” be….got me again there cheky.

    And this…

    “So it seems that no soil samples were taken from frozen ground to test the Ph, but observations of wildlife were made”

    Cheky, when someone states they experienced something first hand, and then state ““As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil”, that would mean they didn’t experience anything “As far as first hand goes”….which is why he stated “of course I can’t describe things first hand”

    Chek, I expect nothing less of you, you’I give you credit for dancing up a storm though..

  66. #66 Betula
    July 23, 2013

    cheky…

    “Which to recap, was the point of the expedition”

    Nice try again cheky…

    Hardley…June, #12, pg 5:

    “Finally, to put this sucker to bed, the Algonquin trip wasn’t for research – I was on vacation”

  67. #67 Craig Thomas
    July 23, 2013

    El Gordo makes an admission about where he gets his misinformation from:

    There has been much debate on the blogosphere …

    In other words, he hasn’t bothered to read the facts about climate change, as presented by the professional, reputable government science organisations whose websites I provided a link to.

    But he *has* had time to read the nonsense at the crank-blogs like WUWT and Jo Nova.

    What’s more, he is so devoid of scepticism that he has fallen for the crank-nonsense purveryed by the likes of the uni-dropout ex-weatherman Anthony Watts.

    Hmmm…..CSIRO? ….uni-dropout ex-weatherman?…..Who to believe?

  68. #68 el gordo
    July 23, 2013

    I see Watts as the editor of a very popular science blog, with mostly guest posts.

    The general slant is sceptical and as climate change is post normal science… its an interesting source.

    I look at your woodfortrees and wonder …. one of us is wrong.

  69. #69 Jeff Harvey
    July 23, 2013

    Betty is sticking to his last refuge, as I said before. A 23 day trip i made across a provincial park in winter. Why? Because every last one of his arguments on AGW and on the general state of the environment under the human assault has been shredded. Some of it by me, of course, but much of it by other posters on Deltoid.

    He keeps calling Deltoid a ‘dying blog’ but if one notices Betty is posting more than just about anyone else here. If this blog is on the way out, then why does Mr. Birch Pruner expend so much effort here? He can’t debate worth a sack of s***, simply because he doesn’t know very much about the topics he discusses. To reiterate: climate change was one theme of our mini-expedition, given that Algonquin Park lies on the northern boundary of the transition forest and boreal forest zones. Zones bordering distinct biomes are particularly under threat from rapid AGW because plants characteristic of one biomes cannot just uproot and move to another zone. Colleagues at the University of Toronto are examining this area and I have listened to several lectures outlining possible scenarios under climate change.

    I also posted up here a Master’s thesis written by a Queen’s University (Kingston, Ontario) student who also discussed the effects of climate change on Algonquin Park and other biomes bordering one another. Betty, true to form, ignored it, as he has all of the articles in the peer-reviewed literature examining the effects of waring on biodiversity I put up here.

    So what is Betty’s point for remaining here? To go on and on and on and on and on and on forever about a web page written by our press officer about my trip in January and February of 2013? Clearly, the majority of posters on Deltoid are sensible and support my arguments and those of other scientists arguing that humans are the main culprit behind the recent warming. Betty isn’t winning over any converts here, that is for sure, and in his corner only has a people like Karen and Rednose who made up their minds years ago and who have no scientific pedigree. Oh, he also had Freddy, who appears to have been a recent escapee from some psycho ward, and Mike, a self-professed far right gunslinger, but that is it.

    If you can counter any of my scientific arguments, Betty, give it a try. But you won’t because you know that, once we start debating environmental science, you’re toast.

  70. #70 el gordo
    July 23, 2013

    Craig, apologies for Watts, but it looks flat.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0364.jpg

    Do you have any other graphs to prove temperatures are still rising?

  71. #71 chek
    July 23, 2013

    #2 & #3 . And crank blogs aren’t accessible through my academic network. But whatever williwatts post, you can count on it being wrong.

  72. #72 chek
    July 23, 2013

    You’re a bitter, twisted moron Betsy, with a fixation and almost zero comprehension. And that’s all I can add by way of observation without becoming even more bored with your attention seeking drivel.

  73. #73 el gordo
    July 23, 2013

    Okay chek here’s a warmist organ talking about the hiatus.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404

    Very easy to read, no confusion.

  74. #74 Lionel A
    July 23, 2013

    I see Watts as the editor of a very popular science blog, with mostly guest posts.

    I see Watts as the editor of a very popular nonsense blog, with mostly guest posts from scientific illiterates.

    There fixed that for you Gordian Knot who is a post-normal Renaissance bod.

    What gibberish you write but the that is what happens when you read the likes of WeUseWishfulThinking.

  75. #75 Lionel A
    July 23, 2013

    Your record is stuck BirchBark, stuck on stupidity and crass, Keyes style, evasion and duplicitous use of language. If you were a bit more intelligent you could have been a lawyer, or maybe a lawyer’s assistant.

  76. #76 chek
    July 23, 2013

    The problem Fatso is that you’re getting your information from crank blogs and journalists and have half-baked misconceptions about what AGW even is. Your cranks are pushing the notion that the 2% of warming of the atmosphere is all there is to be measured. However, you’ve already been disabused of that mistaken notion and referred to the Levitus paper to boot. Which you are obviously ignoring as it exposes your preferred crank blogs for the providers of shoddy and false information they are.

    But climate science is concerned with the amount of heat entering the Earth system as compared to the amount re-radiated back into space.

    As you seem to prefer press reports, here’s one by a scientist

    In the 1980s and 1990s when air temperatures were warming in step with the overall warming of the planet, that was fine. However, over the past decade, the warming of surface air temperatures has slowed. At the same time, the overall warming of the planet has continued, and if anything it has accelerated. The ocean measurements quite clearly show that global warming continues at a rapid rate, equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second.

    You won’t understand any of this, but it will hopefully expose the stupidity deniers prefer to any others following.

  77. #77 Lionel A
    July 23, 2013

    Right you who try to make out that warming has stopped take a comfortable seat and listen very carefully HT once gain Climate Crock of the Week :

    ‘…by burning fossil fuels at a very fast rate we have emitted the most carbon dioxide into the atmosphere we have ever seen before. This has lead to carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere being the highest they have been in at least 800,000 years, probably more like two and a half million years. And we know that the last time carbon dioxide levels were this high in the atmosphere the global temperatures were several degrees warmer and sea levels were tens of feet higher. So why hasn’t this started to happen already? Well we know why, it’s because it takes a long time for that heat to be conveyed into the ocean. Ocean has a very high heat capacity, it takes a long time to warm it up. The ocean is the flywheel in the climate system…

    Now if you had been paying attention up-thread you would have noticed this fact about water heat capacity before, recall mention of ICE cooling systems. Those with mechanical experience will note that a flywheel is attached to the crankshaft to provide the energy to smooth over the pauses between cylinder power strokes. Flywheels have also been used in engine starting systems, an inertia starter being used e.g. on the Fairy Swordfish. Anybody who has had to crank one of these up will appreciate the significance only to well.

    So, Gordian Knot you can take your charts from WoodForTrees created using cherry picked data points etc and sling them.

  78. #78 el gordo
    July 23, 2013

    Warming has stopped, Lionel, there is a consensus on that. Before we move onto the OHC to see if Trenberth’s heat is in the oceans, here is the reality of atmospheric temperatures.

    http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/ice-HS/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_adj.gif

  79. #79 Lotharsson
    July 23, 2013

    Finally, someone agrees with me about BBD…thank you Lumy for being honest.

    It’s amazing the lengths Betula will go to to pretend to himself that a comment wasn’t about him – rather than demonstrate that it does not apply. Why, it almost looks like a standard denial mechanism in action…one favoured by five year olds (“No I’m not, but you are too!”)

  80. #80 Lotharsson
    July 23, 2013

    The general slant is sceptical and as climate change is post normal science… its an interesting source.

    No, the general slant is to dress up bullshit as gold, and the presumption you rely upon there is not in evidence.

    True, it is an interesting source – if you want to study the ways people deceive themselves and others, including via the construction of epistemic closures that are totally impervious to evidence that refutes their positions – and the projection of that construction onto others who aren’t doing that.

  81. #81 Lotharsson
    July 23, 2013

    Warming has stopped, Lionel, there is a consensus on that.

    Liar – as evidence by this thread. You state what you wish to be true without evidence because you can’t demonstrate it. The only one you’re fooling is yourself…

    …same as the last time you were active here.

    Do you have any other graphs to prove temperatures are still rising?

    You mean, other than the one I posted earlier that you ignored? The one that refuted the claim over your very own cherry-picked time period?

    There’s no point providing refuting data to you. You ignore data that doesn’t fit your preconceptions. Go back to your thread instead of violating the terms under which you are allowed to post here.

  82. #82 Lotharsson
    July 23, 2013

    …here is the reality of atmospheric temperatures.

    Bollocks!

    That’s the same distortion that has been debunked over and over again (a favourite distortion of Bob Carter, IIRC). It fallaciously compares historical temperatures from one ice core at one location with global average temperatures. Worse still, the ice core comes from a region known to be subject to polar amplification, so it’s a cherry-pick on top of a cherry-pick.

    Even worse for your position: the case for concern about AGW is not predicated on absolute temperatures being unprecedented in earth’s entire history, even if you are gullible enough to be fooled into thinking it is. And neither is the case predicated only on what has happened in the past century or two – it’s based on our understanding of how the climate system responds.

    So the entire animation is fallacious – and is apparently designed to fool people. That shows that you’re clearly not skeptical and wouldn’t know how to avoid being fooled by bogus pseudoscience if your life depended on it.

  83. #83 Betula
    July 23, 2013

    Hardley…

    “Clearly, the majority of posters on Deltoid are sensible and support my arguments and those of other scientists arguing that humans are the main culprit behind the recent warming.”

    I never argued this with you, so I’m not sure who you are talking about. In fact, all I have done is post evidence of you embellishing about what claim you experienced on your trip.

    “I also posted up here a Master’s thesis written by a Queen’s University (Kingston, Ontario) student “….. “Betty, true to form, ignored it”

    What do your claims have to do with a thesis written by a Queens University student? Was he with you on your trip? Did he include what you said you experienced, and then didn’t experience, and then did experienced in his thesis? Please explain the correlation….

    If you are willing to embellish (or lie) about such things on your trip….what else are you capable of? Are you going to embellish just a little in every paper? Are you going to embellish just a tad in every class? Are you going to downplay or ignore everything that doesn’t fit your view and exaggerate those things that do?

    It’s obvious, why those here are stretching their imaginations in every way to try and help you explain away the “first hand” / “for real” comments…they are your “peers” and they are “peer reviewing”.

    So the question is, when you talk about “peer reviews”, do these reviews involve as much bias and protection as we see here on this site? I wonder…

  84. #84 Lotharsson
    July 23, 2013

    It’s obvious, why those here are stretching their imaginations in every way to try and help you explain away the “first hand” / “for real” comments…they are your “peers” and they are “peer reviewing”.

    I note that equivocation over two different definitions of a term is a favourite Betula tactic for generating a fallacy.

  85. #85 chek
    July 23, 2013

    It’s obvious, why those here are stretching their imaginations in every way…

    Projecting yet again Betsy.
    What is actually obvious is that you stretched your imagination reading into something that wasn’t there and that only you see, and have no exit other than to accuse others of what you’re actually doing.
    The salient point is that Jeff witnessed temperatures north of the arctic circle rising due to polar amplification as expected by AGW, increases sustained over at least a 70 year period.

    That’s experiencing climate change first hand, so choke on that, moron.

  86. #86 Lionel A
    July 23, 2013

    On Green World Trust

    From Fact Sheet: Roger Cohen :

    “I have been involved in climate change for nearly 30 years. In 1980, a few of us in the research organization of a large multinational energy corporation realized that the climate issue was likely to affect our future business environment. We subsequently started the only industrial research activity in the basic science of climate change.”
    Source: Green World Trust blog

    So what do we find, yet another organisation bent on distorting the message because otherwise their business model would be damaged. Note also the inclusion of dodgy diagrams ala Monckton from WUWT etc.

    It should be noted that Cohen has written for SPPI thus providing another link to the Discount Viscount.

    Gordian Knot, you must be a paid up fossil fuel minion, or an idiot.

  87. #87 Lionel A
    July 23, 2013

    Another place where that heat is going:

    July 23 News: Melting Glaciers Across The Globe Experiencing ‘Jokulhlaup,’ Icelandic For ‘Glacier Leap’.

    More context:

    Mendenhall Glacier, Now and Then by Gary Braasch.

    For those who have never heard of Gary Braasch he is a conservation photography who has contributed to works on climate change such as this one: Climate Change: Picturing the Science, which would be a good base level starter for the ignoratti around here.

  88. #88 Lionel A
    July 23, 2013

    Now in case Rednoise reappears with his Andrew Neil disinformation trailer then I am pleased to note that a response to this latest misdirection from Neil has appeared The climate change policy discussion I wish Andrew Neil would have on BBC.
    , note this section:

    The “Pause”

    Neil explained that he focused on the surface warming ‘pause’ because he was trying to challenge Davey to defend the government’s climate policy in the face of this seemingly contradictory global warming evidence. The problem is that when Davey correctly pointed out that surface temperatures are only one small piece of overall global warming (about 2 percent), and melting ice and warming oceans must also be considered (over 90 percent of the overall heating of the planet), Neil remained focused exclusively on surface temperatures.

    In science, and in informed policy making, you can’t just ignore 98 percent of the evidence and focus on the 2 percent that seems to support the argument you’re trying to make. Perhaps Neil was just doing his job “challenging” Davey, but in terms of a science and policy debate, Davey won the day by considering the full body of evidence.

    There we have it, the factors I have been pointing out in recent posts, and many others in the past. The denilati/ignrati here should learn to to as Davey did.

  89. #89 Turboblocke
    July 23, 2013

    E.G at 78: why is the data shown in that link only until 2000?

  90. #90 Betula
    July 23, 2013

    chek

    I think I’ve got it this time…

    “Betty wants this to be just ‘weather’ and while it is”
    “The salient point is that Jeff witnessed temperatures north of the arctic circle rising due to polar amplification as expected by AGW, increases sustained over at least a 70 year period”

    So we’ve confirmed that it’s just weather, but we’ve also confirmed that it’s not just weather.

    So if I stick my finger in the air for 23 days, and get frostbite while doing it, that would be a long enough time scale for me to distinguish between weather and climate change “first hand”, or in this case chek, with The Finger.

  91. #91 Jeff Harvey
    July 23, 2013

    “Warming has stopped, Lionel, there is a consensus on that”

    In your dreams, kiddo. No, the warming has not stopped at all, and certainly not regionally.

  92. #92 Jeff Harvey
    July 23, 2013

    Since Betula’s obsession with my Algonquin Park trip continues unabated, my best advice for others here is to just ignore it. He’s won no converts over here with it, and thus he’s only preaching to the converted. The reason he sticks to it like glue is because he has nothing else to debate. Everything he proclaims is consigned to the bin, so its back to Algonquin. And he’s gonna be doing this in 10 years time at this rate.

    He’s a bore.

  93. #93 Lionel A
    July 23, 2013

    Gordian Knot spewed @ 73:

    Okay chek here’s a warmist organ talking about the hiatus.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404

    Very easy to read, no confusion.

    The BBC can hardly be called a warmist organ and the title of this misdirection by Shukman, who has a record with such shite, is typical. The Beeb is currently worried about its license and will seed articles with enough wibble to keep the fracking maniac Osborne off their backs.

    This piece, with its mixed messages, is utter bollocks:

    What if the climate models – which are the very basis for all discussions of what to do about global warming – exaggerate the sensitivity of the climate to rising carbon dioxide?

    No. It is not ONLY climate models that form the basis of knowledge that warming continues – physics and observation tell that this is so as indicated in many recent posts above.

    But then a preceding paragraph does contain elements of truth:

    But the key factor – according to all the speakers at the briefing – is that whatever solar energy is making it through to the surface, much is being absorbed by the hidden depths of the oceans.

    The Argo network of automated monitors has been deployed since 2005 to measure the waters as deep as 1,800m. This isn’t a very long period but the data are apparently showing some warming – even in this short time frame.

    And readings from satellites since 2000 show how much energy is arriving at the planet, and how much is leaving, so if the energy left behind is not manifesting itself in rising surface temperatures, then it must be going somewhere – and the deep ocean is the most plausible explanation.

    However, the way the article has been arranged with a prominent misdirection headline (IOW BS) and a wibble towards the end it is clearly designed to fool the ignorati, that’s you BTW, and draw the government watchdogs off.

    As I remarked, we have seen much of this from Shukman over recent years. IIRC Shukman has been to the Arctic and/or Greenland to report so should know better than to write a piece like this.

  94. #94 Betula
    July 23, 2013

    Hardley…

    A more precise Jeff:

    Betula keeps bringing up evidence how I lied about what I experienced, along with evidence where I then admitted that I didn’t experience what I said , followed by my continuing to lie about what I experienced……so my best advice is to help me make it go away by ignoring it.
    Thank you for your understanding and cooperation, my loyal fellow ideological Deltoidians.
    By the way, I’m a scientist.

  95. #95 chek
    July 23, 2013

    Betsy, your feelings of personal inadequacy, bitterness and your compulsive need to project them onto others are your own business, and do not belong here.

    Nobody is buying your version, just you. That would be reason enough for pause for most people, but not a denier operative like you whose stupidity – as JH already observed – will only cause you to double down, if only to wallow in your own intellectual envy like a pig in shit.

  96. #96 Rednose
    UK
    July 23, 2013

    Lionel#88

    Dana’s latest crap has already been trashed

    So it looks like Dana has lost the second round as well.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/7/23/keep-digging.html

    So you can see what Nuccitelli has done – he has first pretended that the results are about TCR instead of ECS and has then pretended that a series of scientists has offered an opinion on the policy results.

    And on the 97% consensus:

    Neil had quoted Roy Spencer’s observation that the consensus is so shallow as to be meaningless – Spencer agrees with the two propositions of the consensus statements: (a) that mankind affects the climate and (b) that the climate changes. I do too. Nuccitelli then performs a magnificent sleight of hand by diverting the discussion onto the precise way in which Spencer’s papers were classified in the Cook et al paper. This is of course quite irrelevant to the question of whether he agrees with the two propositions.

    And Tol still maintains Cook has only released 15% of the data requested.(see comments)

    What is the betting it ends up in Retraction Watch like that other supposedly peer reviewed paper Cook co-authored

  97. #97 chek
    July 23, 2013

    Redarse, once again you only hear what you want, and that’s articles by unqualified opinion piece writers like Ben Pile given space on conspiracy crank blogs like Pope Montford’s

    Pile (and you) could have checked out Dana Nuccitelli’s article and links properly but you didn’t, preferring instead to declare your premature ‘victory’.

    Once you understand that the recent lower sensitivity estimates are based on the lack of warming fallacy (dealt with ast length and ad nauseam but still way over your pointy little head) it all falls into place and exposes the cranks and fossil fuel operatives game. Take no action, business as usual.

    I expect Dana will have a fuller response to Pile’s bollocks once he stops laughing

  98. #98 chek
    July 23, 2013

    Tol still maintains Cook has only released 15% of the data requested

    Tol is pissed at being lumped in with the cranks and pseudo-scientists. But then again, nobody forced him to associate with the GWPF.

  99. #99 Rednose
    UK
    July 23, 2013

    Tol is pissed at being lumped in with the cranks and pseudo-scientists

    With Richard Betts all part of the 97% consensus apparently.

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/discussion/post/2125495#post2165275

  100. #100 Rednose
    UK
    July 23, 2013

    I had always assumed proper scientists would ensure all their data was available for inspection at the time of submitting their work for publication unless they had something to hide of course.

Current ye@r *