July 2013 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #1 Betula
    July 5, 2013

    Chek…

    “some supporters of whom would happily sit by while your denier children were savaged by crazed mobs of angry citizens?”

    Chek, I’m glad to see you read Deadeye Dickies comment about beating deniers, though he didn’t say he would “sit by”, he said he wouldn’t “lift a fucking finger to stop it”. “Sit by” just doesn’t sound angry enough…it’s not representative of the true “Deadeye” that we have come to know.

    By the way, I never did get the denier criteria memo in terms of profiling. I believe some further clarification is needed…

    When an angry crowd deservedly beats a denier, do they discriminate based on race, age, gender or physical ability?

    Chek, could you please link to the memo….this is very confusing and I want to make sure Deltoidians are able to watch Deniers get beaten in a proper manner.

    Thanks.

  2. #2 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    Betty, you do a heck of a lot more whining and playing the victim that is proper and decent in an ex-Marine.

    Stop moaning, get your K-Bar out and gut that metaphor like the trained killer you supposedly are.

  3. #3 Betula
    July 5, 2013

    Hardley @ 64…

    “Exactly what most of us have been saying, Birch bark-head. It’s you deniers who try and downplay longer term trends and go for a few years.”

    Finally we agree Hardley! This may be as close as an admission you can give, that it is impossible to experience climate change” first hand” over a 23 day period, but I’ll take it!

    I’m also glad to see you agree with the WMO report that more time is needed to be able to relate any extreme weather events to climate change…

    For a while there I thought you were a denier, but you are really coming along.

  4. #4 Betula
    July 5, 2013

    Deadeye Dickie…

    “Stop moaning, get your K-Bar out and gut that metaphor like the trained killer you supposedly are”

    You said you wanted to watch a beating…now you want me to bring a knife? Where do your sadistic tendencies end?

  5. #5 Betula
    July 5, 2013

    Lionel @ 59…

    “Maybe you need a refresher course in how to be a US Marine”

    But Lionel, @ 48, on pg 5 of the June thread you stated:

    “should shout a warning to even the most die hard (like the US Marines and Bruce Willis) ACC denier.”

    So you want me to take a refresher course on how to be a denier?

    And then Chek @ 51 on pg 5 of the June thread stated:

    “And let’s also avoid mentioning that the USMC – as characterised by Smedley Butler are but one arm of US corporate gangsterism”

    So Lionel, you want me to take a refresher course on being a gangster?

    And here’s what Wow stated @ 41 on pg 5 of the June thread:

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

    So Lionel, you want me to take a refresher course on being killed for lack of inventiveness?

    Oh, I get it! You want me to take a Marine refresher course on being a Marine denier, then, as a Marine gangster, along with my fellow Marines we can beat each other to death in the streets while you watch! Now why didn’t I think of that?

    You truly have a brilliant mind Lionel…kudos.

  6. #6 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    Betty, in case you hadn’t noticed, you are a laughing-stock here.

    I’m just hinting in a jocular, bluff, man-to-man fashion (presumably familiar from your days in the Corps) that you should find another can to bang.

    Because, well, the mockery…

  7. #7 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    Seriously though, Betty. You do whine and play the victim and it’s not at all the conduct I would expect from a former Corpsman.

    Really.

    Time to get a grip, Betty.

  8. #8 Lionel A
    July 5, 2013

    What a tedious post at #4 Birch tree. I have to ask would the Marine Corps welcome you back? I doubt it. I’ll bet you were a laugh a minute whilst in it and not in the way you would have liked.

    And yes it is possible to experience the effects of climate change in a few days and I have just done that. An area of Scotland I have visited this year has many fewer LBJs (little brown jobs – small migratory birds) this year than in 2008 at a similar time of year. The change of wind, weather, temperature, humidity and precipitation patterns can be clearly implicated which in tern is the result of climate change altering the albedo and much else of the northern hemisphere in particular.

    As I remarked above, you are on a hiding to nothing by being a tosser about this when the evidence mounts daily now.

  9. #9 Rednose
    UK
    July 5, 2013

    BBD#99

    You are not making yourself clear here .
    I thought we were discussining the UK Met Office ARGO data the latest version of this is EN3v2a.
    Tisdales graph to show OHC goes from Jan 2003 to March 12 so presumably is using this latest version
    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/30-ukmo-ohc-0-2000m-v-models-to-750m.png

    The changes made to the Met Office database can be seen here
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/en3/en3_history.html

    As far as I can tell most of the changes are for pre ARGO data and there do not appear to be any of note post 2007.

    So WFAYOA

  10. #10 Bernard J.
    July 5, 2013

    Rednose at #79.

    You’re a few months late to the trashing of the denialist misinterpretation of Donohue et al. A fellow by the handle of Dead Agrostologists Society did some more pruning of the twisted tangle of misunderstanding that sprouted from the paper, although I’m certain that his points would not even register across your synapse.

    You and your Denialati mates are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

    Of course if you disagree you will respond with a cogent and focussed defence of your waffly pseudoscience that explains why the import of Donohue et al is not inconsistent with the mainstream understanding of the dangers of human-caused climate change.

    The United States of KarenMackSunspot blathers at #80:

    JefFeRy, don’t you realize that the biota (and Homo sapiens) move around when the climate changes, lol, they have been doing it for eons you nuffie.

    Odin on a stick. You denialists are hard of learning – I noogied freddy on this point last month.

    You and your Denialati mates are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

    KarenMackSunspot also simpers at #80:

    Dear Dr Tim Curtin,
    On behalf of all the alarmist on this Deltiod blog I wish to convey their most humble apologies for being so DUMB and abusive to you, yes sir, you were dead right…

    Erm, KMS, this is the same guy who thinks that dropping the pH of seawater below 7.0 renders it drinkable. “Curtin” and “right” make sense in the same sentence only when one is referring to his political bent.

    You and your Denialati mates are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

    Freddy, your parody of stupid people is actually sad, and deep into pathological psychology territory. Do yourself a favour and go out into the sun. See your GP for a referral to a specialist. And don’t stick paperclip into power points.

    The rest of you Denialati – your silence in response to freddy’s constant suppurating invective is telling. That you can’t challenge his wrongness, simply because his proclamations on the human cause of climate change agree with your own, is a disgusting indictment on your own lack of moral integrity. Not only will history judge you harshly for the criminal disregard you exhibit for the planet’s future, it will be extremely unimpressed with the foolish delight you take in denying that which is evident to any sane and intelligent person.

    Grow some brains.

  11. #11 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    I don’t think KNMI put up 3v2a.

    That’s why it got taken down.

    Can you show me a single instance where BT actually provides a VERSION NUMBER for the version he used for SPECIFIC GRAPHS?

    Can you?

  12. #12 Rednose
    UK
    July 5, 2013

    BBD#9
    It looks as if they converted to v2a in 2006/7. As they only put monthly updates on the latest version, and Tisdale’s graph goes up to March 2012, I deduce he must be using version v2a

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/en3/EN3c_changes

  13. #13 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    And none of this distracts from the key fact: all you are doing is waving about a routinely-debunked denialist blog scientist.

    I’m referencing real science.

    So, you lose the argument automatically because you aren’t mounting a supported counter-argument.

    Tough, but that’s how it goes. Blog science loses, ever time.

  14. #14 chek
    July 5, 2013

    Redarse @ #8

    Jan 2003 to March 12

    Without any further ado we can be sure that whatever the fuck Redarse and Tisdale are on about, the shortness of the period by definition has bugger all to do with climate, and so can only be more denier chum.
    Quelle surprise.
    You’re a fatuous moron Redarse.
    Yes, yet another one.
    I’m surprised there’s a role for you, given you all perform the same fucking one, i.e. being yet another fatuous moron.

  15. #15 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    Too weak

    Read carefully:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/en3/en3_history.html

    What KNMI posted was probably the final version of EN3v1c

  16. #16 Betula
    July 5, 2013

    Deadeye Dickie..

    ” it’s not at all the conduct I would expect from a former Corpsman.”

    Dickie, let me help you out here with your faux knowledge. Corpsman are Navy enlisted personnel in the medical corps, that serve with Navy or Marine units…

    “the mockery…”

  17. #17 Rednose
    UK
    July 5, 2013

    Chek#12

    Well as we were disicussing where the missing heat went to cause the surprising, on going and acknowledged by practically everyone except dingbats like you temperature hiatus, perhaps the period in question is relevent.

  18. #18 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    Betty

    You still whinge and play the victim in a manner unbecoming. So my advice – nit-pickery notwithstanding – is to cease and desist before bringing further discredit on the Corps.

  19. #19 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    Clown

    Using PMEL and NODC, there’s no problem.

    Real oceanographers acknowledge no problem finding the not-actually-missing heat.

    I strongly suspect KNMI fucked up and BT took advantage of it.

    Whatever the case, the *reference data set* is NODC. It’s the standard by which others are judged, not vice-versa.

    If you have a problem with that, take it up with NODC.

    Either way, my point stands – you have no scientifically-supported argument, just denialist blog bullshit and hand-waving. So, you lose.

    Again.

  20. #20 Lionel A
    July 5, 2013

    And herev is one John Mashey may find interesting, giving part of the answer why Birch & Co. are so intellectually and ideological confused:

    Koch millions spread influence through nonprofits, colleges, note the ‘payola’ to GMU and AFP that latter the domain of the awful Tim Phillips.

  21. #21 Betula
    July 5, 2013

    Lionel…

    “What a tedious post at #4 Birch tree”

    Tedious? Is that the what you call it when I use your own words to bring to light the Jackass that you are? Well, desperate times call for desperate measures..

  22. #22 freddy
    July 5, 2013

    ********* BREAKING NEWS *********** BREAKING NEWS **********

    Lopardo et al., Int.J.Climatology, June 2013: PEER REVIEWED (not AGW science junk computer games shit dirt and mud):

    £$£££$£££$££££$
    Comparative analysis of the influence of solar radiation screen ageing on temperature measurements by means of weather stations

    Abstract
    Solar radiation screens play a key role in automatic weather stations (AWS) performances. In this work, screen ageing effects on temperature measurements are examined. Paired temperature observations, traceable to national standards and with a well-defined uncertainty budget, were performed employing two naturally ventilated weather stations equipped with identical sensors and different only for their working time. Three different tests were carried out employing different aged AWSs: a 5-year-old AWS (AWS5) was compared with a new device (AWS0), a 1 year old (AWS1) was compared with both a 3 years old (AWS3) and a new one devices (AWS00). Due to solar and weather conditions exposure a degradation of the screen reflective coating is evident for the older AWSs (5 and 3 years old) and so a qualitative estimation of how different conditions of ageing affect the temperature drift was done. During the comparison 0 to 5 and 1 to 3-year-old screens, significant temperature differences were recorded at different times of the day. The differences, wider than the uncertainty amplitude, demonstrate a systematic effect. The temperature measured with the older screen is larger, and the maximum instantaneous difference was 1.63 °C (for 0–5 years comparison) in daytime hours. During night-time the two AWS’s measure the same temperature (within the uncertainty amplitude). This behaviour, increasing with increasing solar radiation intensity and decreasing with increasing wind speed, is attributed to a radiative heating effect. The screen ageing has compromised the shield effectiveness introducing a significant change in the temperature evaluation. The experimental results of a further comparison, between 0- and 1-year-old screens, confirm the same conclusion showing a negligible ageing effect, within the uncertainty amplitude.
    £$£¥£$££¥£$££¥£$£££

    the study convincingly showed THAT “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” calculations based on ridiculously rotten thermometers ARE A GREAT JOKE: VALUE: NIL, ZERO, NOTHING

    and comments from science truth deniers: jeff, poor bbd, bernard, billiebody?

    please no rant and abusive language, just substance relevant to the content of the peer-reviewed publication

  23. #23 Betula
    July 5, 2013

    Deadeye Dickie..

    “cease and desist before bringing further discredit on the Corps”

    The Corps or Corpsman?

    And let me guess, you pronounce Corpsman like this…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlKIfzoC8D0

    Yes Deadeye, “you are a laughing-stock”…

  24. #24 Rednose
    UK
    July 5, 2013

    BBD#13

    I have no idea what KNMI posted, you did not supply a link.

    I am flagging up an apparent difference bertween the two data sets which is as yet unanswered.

    I am also flagging up the difficulties the two papers you referenced had in dealing with an adequate explanation of how the heat got to the 700-2000m layer in sufficient quantity and speed , without apparently been detected or having any effect on the way down to the sea surface and 0-700m layer.
    I also questioned the accuracy of particularly the early temperature measurements on which the OHC was calculated when claims of an accuracy to 1/1000th degree were made for a measurement made by a chance passing ship with a thermometer and a bucket on a rope.J
    ust because a paper has passed palpeer review does not guarantee it is correct.

  25. #25 chek
    July 5, 2013

    acknowledged by practically everyone except dingbats like you temperature hiatus perhaps the period in question is relevent.(sic)

    Yep, devised for fatuous morons and believed and propagated by fatuous morons in denierland everywhere. That – when it’s narrowed down – is what you mean by “everybody”. Every fatuous moron.

    That is, every fatuous moron who believes the years of record Arctic ice melt (2007 & 2012) and the ten warmest years in the past 112 years (in descending anomaly order: 2010, 2005, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007, 2004, 2012) comprised a “hiatus”.

    Congratulations, you confirmed your fatuous moron status.

  26. #26 chek
    July 5, 2013

    Tut tut – if yer gonna quote someone get yer words right and don’t screw up yer blockquotes as my old gran used to say. Once again:

    acknowledged by practically everyone except dingbats like you temperature hiatus perhaps the period in question is relevent.(sic)

    Yep, devised for fatuous morons and believed and propagated by fatuous morons in denierland everywhere. That – when it’s narrowed down – is what you mean by “everyone”. Every fatuous moron.

    That is, every fatuous moron who believes the years of record Arctic ice melt (2007 & 2012) and the ten warmest years in the past 112 years (in descending anomaly order: 2010, 2005, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007, 2004, 2012) comprised a “hiatus”.

    Congratulations, you just confirmed your fatuous moron status.

  27. #27 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    I am also flagging up the difficulties the two papers [blah blah blah]

    No you aren’t. You haven’t even read them, so you can forget this posturing tripe. Let’s be crystal clear: it means nothing at all. Nothing.

    You need to understand that your wittering is scientifically weightless. Your opinions and suspicions and paranoid fantasies of data fiddling are of zero consequence in the adult world.

    Get this through your head.

    NODC is the reference data set. If you think you have a problem with it, take it up with NODC. Good luck with that.

    Notice that Tisdale never actually publishes any of his crap. Why do you think that is?

    Seriously, think for a moment. If BT has all these killer arguments that hole NODC OHC below the water line (intended) then why doesn’t he publish them?

    Hmm?

  28. #28 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    You still sound exactly nothing like any serving or ex-soldier I have ever met, Betty. They have a certain ring to them, and it is missing from you. I live in an Army town (Winchester, UK) so I know a fair few service personnel quite well.

  29. #29 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    I have no idea what KNMI posted, you did not supply a link.

    No, Clown. Tisdale didn’t label his graphs with a version number.

    Don’t get fucking tricksy with me.

  30. #30 chek
    July 5, 2013

    Redarse again:

    has passed palpeer review

    I can now amend that to “fatuous conspiracy moron”.
    Your cliche card is filling up nicely, Redarse.

  31. #31 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    Clown

    I also questioned the accuracy of particularly the early temperature measurements on which the OHC was calculated

    Not that your “questioning” amounts to the air used to articulate it, but I did address this yesterday.

    Block out everything pre-1980 with your hand.

    Now explain the far more reliable observations 1980 – present.

    Here’s the thing. Simultaneous increase in OHC in all major basins cannot be explained except by invoking an increased forcing. It’s not the sun, but the increasing forcing from CO2 forcing does account for the observed accumulation of energy in the world ocean.

    You cannot get around this no matter how desperately you try to deny the data. And desperate data denial is all you’ve got left, as we can see all too clearly here.

  32. #32 Lionel A
    July 5, 2013

    Tedious? Is that the what you call it when I use your own words to bring to light the Jackass that you are? Well, desperate times call for desperate measures..

    Birch wood, it is tedious because you keep grinding out the same old tunes. But then yes, they are desperate times for the climate ostriches. Perhaps you should take your head out before it cooks. Oops! Too late, it already shows signs of melt down. As Poirot might say, ‘your little gray cells are sizzling nicely’.

  33. #33 Betula
    July 5, 2013

    “You still sound exactly nothing like any serving or ex-soldier I have ever met, Betty. They have a certain ring to them, and it is missing from you”

    With all your military knowledge, does it sound like Corpsman or Marine Corps?

  34. #34 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    I’ve got major doubts about you, Betty. Just letting you know.

  35. #35 freddy
    July 5, 2013

    ********* BREAKING NEWS *********** BREAKING NEWS **********
    Lopardo et al., Int.J.Climatology, June 2013: PEER REVIEWED (not AGW science junk computer games shit dirt and mud):
    £$£££$£££$££££$
    Comparative analysis of the influence of solar radiation screen ageing on temperature measurements by means of weather stations
    Abstract
    Solar radiation screens play a key role in automatic weather stations (AWS) performances. In this work, screen ageing effects on temperature measurements are examined. Paired temperature observations, traceable to national standards and with a well-defined uncertainty budget, were performed employing two naturally ventilated weather stations equipped with identical sensors and different only for their working time. Three different tests were carried out employing different aged AWSs: a 5-year-old AWS (AWS5) was compared with a new device (AWS0), a 1 year old (AWS1) was compared with both a 3 years old (AWS3) and a new one devices (AWS00). Due to solar and weather conditions exposure a degradation of the screen reflective coating is evident for the older AWSs (5 and 3 years old) and so a qualitative estimation of how different conditions of ageing affect the temperature drift was done. During the comparison 0 to 5 and 1 to 3-year-old screens, significant temperature differences were recorded at different times of the day. The differences, wider than the uncertainty amplitude, demonstrate a systematic effect. The temperature measured with the older screen is larger, and the maximum instantaneous difference was 1.63 °C (for 0–5 years comparison) in daytime hours. During night-time the two AWS’s measure the same temperature (within the uncertainty amplitude). This behaviour, increasing with increasing solar radiation intensity and decreasing with increasing wind speed, is attributed to a radiative heating effect. The screen ageing has compromised the shield effectiveness introducing a significant change in the temperature evaluation. The experimental results of a further comparison, between 0- and 1-year-old screens, confirm the same conclusion showing a negligible ageing effect, within the uncertainty amplitude.
    £$£¥£$££¥£$££¥£$£££
    the study convincingly showed THAT “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” calculations based on ridiculously rotten thermometers ARE A GREAT JOKE: VALUE: NIL, ZERO, NOTHING
    and comments from science truth deniers: jeff, poor bbd, bernard, billiebody?
    please no rant and abusive language, just substance relevant to the content of the peer-reviewed publication

    COMNENTS FROM AGW ASSHOLES NOT WELCOME

  36. #36 Betula
    July 5, 2013

    By the way Deadeye,

    Does this sentence have a “ring” to it?…

    “climate scientists believe that it is not
    yet possible to attribute individual extremes
    to climate change”

  37. #37 Betula
    July 5, 2013

    “I’ve got major doubts about you, Betty. Just letting you know”

    Are you putting me on notice that I may face the wrath of “Deadeye Dickie”?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9HDSQJdudM

  38. #38 Betula
    July 5, 2013

    Lionel…

    “Birch wood, it is tedious because you keep grinding out the same old tunes”

    Well, if you weren’t constantly contradicting yourself, maybe I wouldn’t have to keep playing “Memories”.

  39. #39 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    # 35

    No, I just think you are full of shit. Selective quotation being diagnostic. I have read the report, you know. Not the WTFUWT edit.

  40. #40 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    What a tub of excrement you are, Betty.

    While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures.

  41. #41 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    Would an ex-Marine lower themselves to such blatant dishonesty?

    As I’ve said, if you really once were a Marine, you are bringing the Corps into disrepute. However you pronounce it.

    And on that note, while it’s something of a truism, in my experience, real soldiers do not nit-pick.

  42. #42 chek
    July 5, 2013

    Betty, if you posted a verified photo of yourself and were the spitting image of one of the flag raisers on the Iwo Jima Memorial, I still wouldn’t believe you had any connection to the USMC.

    You’re a blog denier blowhard from a country full of redneck blowhards who claim imaginary military prowess, and are perceived as such. Get over it.

    Oh, and don’t forget to post a copy of that reply from either Major Newell, or Colonel Charette either one, doesn’t matter which that we both know is to a letter that will never be written (about their waste-of-time-renewable-greenie-con-‘cos-Watts-says-so program).

    You conduct yourself like a pathetic blowhard victim arsehole.
    Oooh Ra?
    More like ooooh, Betty.

  43. #43 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    The descent into the nth circle of farce continues, eh, chek?

  44. #44 Lionel A
    July 5, 2013

    COMNENTS FROM AGW ASSHOLES NOT WELCOME

    Speaking of and to yourself freddy, for ’tis the climate ostriches like you who are the AGW a’holes.

    Tell me, why is there ice loss at the poles, on Greenland and glaciers around the world?

    Even if thermometer measurements are that far out, and they are not, they only inform about sensible heat. Now again why is the ice melting?

  45. #45 Lionel A
    July 5, 2013

    Well, if you weren’t constantly contradicting yourself, maybe I wouldn’t have to keep playing “Memories”.

    Contradicting myself?

    Only in your fevered mind which takes things out of context and hashes them together in a dishonest attempt at put downs.

  46. #46 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    Lionel A

    Best not prod the idiot. Let’s face it, he’s been shown that the satellite TLT reconstruction knocked out by known sceptics is in all-but-exact agreement with land surface reconstructions times beyond number on two threads… and still he’s blethering about problems with the thermometers.

    UAH TLT, GISTEMP, HadCRUT4 1979 – present; monthly means; common 1981 – 2010 baseline

    This chap is in a dark, malodorous and hot little little place and he is best left alone in there.

  47. #47 chek
    July 5, 2013

    The other point of course Lionel, which seems to evade Professor Freddy, is that even with a bias, the bias works one way only and doesn’t affect the anomaly, which is the measurement climate scientists are interested in. Performing tests on two sites and altering the prevailing conditions there by altering the normal screen quality only informs about the performance of the screening material.

    It doesn’t affect the end product anomaly one whit (unless they replace the screening with a foreign type not there before and forget to inform of the adjustment required to make the local record homogenous again).

  48. #48 Betula
    July 5, 2013

    Deadeye Dickie..

    “I have read the report, you know.”

    Then you must have read this part…

    “climate scientists believe that it is not
    yet possible to attribute individual extremes
    to climate change”

  49. #49 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures.

  50. #50 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    Is your browser working properly? Or is it just stunningly infantile dishonesty?

  51. #51 Betula
    July 5, 2013

    Deadeye @ 38…

    “While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures”

    Let me break down the sentence for you so it’s easier to understand…by the way, I already broke in down @55 of the previous page…so calling it “selective quoting” is another of your lies.

    1. “climate scientists believe that it is not
    yet possible to attribute individual extremes
    to climate change”

    Denying climate scientists that is…

    2. “they increasingly conclude
    that many recent events would have occurred
    in a different way”

    The same denying climate scientists…

    A. “Increasingly conclude”…how much is increasingly?

    B. “that many recent events”….how many? Which ones?

    C. “would have occurred in a different way”….how different? What way?

    3. “or would not have occurred
    at all – in the absence of climate change”…
    yet, they believe that it is “not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change”

    4. the likelihood of the 2003 European occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures”

    What you seem to miss Deadeye, is that “likelihood” and “probably” are not definitive conclusions….that’s why climate scientists say “it’s not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change”

    Do you think the WMO is lying when it states this? Is this a selective quote by the WMO? Why would the WMO write such a statement? Are you saying the WMO is a group of deniers?

    The same report states more time is needed to reach a conclusion..

    “Assessing trends in extreme weather and
    climate events requires an even longer
    timeframe because, by definition, these
    events do not occur frequently”

    Please explain why the WMO is lying about this…

  52. #52 chek
    July 5, 2013

    Fuck me, Betty’s learning to parse English like a twelve year old and spotted it’s possible to drain all meaning from a structured sentence by focussing on short individual phrases and demanding the definitive and so ignoring the information imparted.

    Pretty much standard denier procedure which is applied to everything including data.

  53. #53 Betula
    July 5, 2013

    Lionel @ 43…

    “Contradicting myself?”

    Well what would you call it when you label Marines deniers and then suggest I need a refresher course in how to be a US Marine.

    You’re saying you want me to take a refresher course on how to be a denier, yet you never condemned that fact that deniers should be beaten in the streets while Deadeye watches….

    Is this correct?

    Because now I am to assume you want me to take a refresher course on how to get beaten in the street while Deadeye watches, and personally, I don’t know where to go to take that course…

  54. #54 Betula
    July 5, 2013

    “Betty, if you posted a verified photo of yourself and were the spitting image of one of the flag raisers on the Iwo Jima Memorial, I still wouldn’t believe you had any connection to the USMC.”

    I hope not, they’re all dead. Including my father, who went in on the first wave at Iwo with the 5th Amphibious Tractor Battalion.

  55. #55 Betula
    July 5, 2013

    Chek…
    By the way, I never did get the denier beating criteria memo in terms of profiling. I believe some further clarification is needed…

    When an angry crowd deservedly beats a denier, do they discriminate based on race, age, gender or physical ability?

    Chek, could you please link to the memo….this is very confusing and I want to make sure Deltoidians are able to watch Deniers get beaten in a proper manner.

    Thanks.

  56. #56 Betula
    July 5, 2013

    Chek..

    “ignoring the information imparted”

    Let’s put this to bed. I’ll make it real simple for you. Is the following statement true or false…and why?

    “climate scientists believe that it is not
    yet possible to attribute individual extremes
    to climate change”

  57. #57 freddy
    July 5, 2013

    lionB fuckwit

    your text trial is of course full of errors

    “Tell me, why is there ice loss at the poles, on Greenland and glaciers around the world?”

    there is no ice loss at the south pole as the same altitude of the amundsen-scott basis (extra info for you outsiders in natural sciences: that’s the US weather station at the south pole) since decades, i.e. the ice shield does not melt, fuckwit

    same with greenland summit, ignorant fuckwit

    forget all the glaciers outside antarctica and greenland: irrelevant re total ice masses on the earth: if all your holy beloved glaciers, the ones in the swiss alps wo which you have a personal relationship as fucking brits, but all the others on earth, which you don’t know, also, would melt: YOU WILL NOT DIE FROM DROWNING IN LONDON OR ELSEWHERE ON THE PLANET,

    MORON!!!!!! FUCKWIT!!!!!!!!! LEARN A LITTLE BIT OF REALITY!!!!!!!

  58. #58 chek
    July 5, 2013

    Is the following statement true or false…and why?

    It’s false Betty …and because it’s a partial quote omitting content vital to the meaning of the piece. Next.

  59. #59 chek
    July 5, 2013

    Get a clue ‘Professor’ Fuckwit and stop embarrassing yourself ever further.

    Monthly changes in Antarctic ice mass, in gigatonnes, as measured by NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites from 2003 to 2011. The data illustrate the continuing loss of ice from the continent. The plots here depict results from five different IMBIE team members using different methods. The data have been adjusted to reflect new models of post-glacial rebound.

  60. #60 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    Oh Betty. What are we going to do with you?

    I’m not going to paste in the WMO quote again because there is no point.

    I’m not going to concede that there is an iota of substance to your parsomatic at # 49.

    You have degraded yourself with this and I suspect that somewhere inside you know it.

  61. #61 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    When an angry crowd deservedly beats a denier, do they discriminate based on race, age, gender or physical ability?

    You know what I meant. The science-denying right is digging its own grave with its bare hands. If you live for another couple of decades you will see the proof.

    Physics will see to that.

    Who’s going to be in the frame when the climate shit hit the economic fan? You didn’t say last time I asked.

    You are fighting against physics. Not even the USMC (ret) can prevail against that.

  62. #62 Betula
    July 5, 2013

    Deadeye Dickie…

    “You know what I meant”

    Actually I don’t. When you say the public will be beating climate deniers and you won’t lift a finger to help, it’s vey vague…
    How do you determine who is a denier? Is it not believing in AGW, or believing in AGW but not the consequences, or someone who points out the admitted flaws in the prediction process by quoting scientists? Is it the words that are spoken or the actions that are taken?

    How about William Grey? He’s 84 yeas old, should he be beaten while you fucking watch Dickie?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

    “Who’s going to be in the frame when the climate shit hit the economic fan?”

    Do you mean the predicted climate shit? Can you be more specific in terms of actual time line and actual shit location…

  63. #63 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    It’s a losing battle, Betty. An ex-Marine should have some sense of this.

  64. #64 chek
    July 5, 2013

    Betty gets off on the speculation, BBD. If he stays true to form, he’ll work himself up into a full flying five-tissue frenzy over this imaginary situation.
    It’s his displacement activity, because he’s so shit at analysis and comprehension.

  65. #65 Betula
    July 5, 2013

    Chek..

    Regarding this statement by The WMO:

    “climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change”

    You say: “It’s false Betty …and because it’s a partial quote omitting content vital to the meaning of the piece.”

    So the quote is a lie by the WMO? Even though they state it as fact, where as everything after it is a “likelihood” or a “probability”, you know, not a fact. They also state they need a larger time frame to determine if these events are trending more frequently…this is why they use the term “not yet possible”.

    I know this is difficult for you to accept, really I do, because I know you are stuck on stupid. Also, when It comes to these things, I think it would be helpful if you learned a little about the difference between noise, signals, assessing trends, time frame considerations etc….

    Here’s a good place to start, it’s from The WMO report…

    “Assessing trends in extreme weather and climate events requires an even longer timeframe because, by definition, these events do not occur frequently”

    Note where it says “by definition” cheky? Do you understand what that means? I’ll help you…

    They are talking about the word “extreme”….”farthest removed from the ordinary or average”. Do you get it? It’s not ordinary so it’s less frequent. Because it’s less frequent, you need longer time frames to assess a trend….

    Now because scientists need a longer time fame, they say “that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change”

    I know, you still don’t get it, like I said, stuck on stupid. But hang in there cheky, maybe you’ll get bumped on the head or something and come around.

  66. #66 Betula
    July 5, 2013

    Deadeye Dickie..

    “It’s a losing battle, Betty. An ex-Marine should have some sense of this”

    Marines are all too familiar with your type Dickie…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXl1GkWWGmA

  67. #67 chek
    July 5, 2013

    So the quote is a lie

    Now it’s apparent that your IQ us in the double digit range Betty, let me make this as plain as possible.
    Your partial quote is the lie and is a denier-driven distortion of the actual WMO quote.

    Any reasonable person will understand the difference.
    You however will not. Ever.

  68. #68 chek
    July 5, 2013

    From Betty ‘child deniers’ Betula, @ #63

    you need longer time frames to assess a trend….

    Oh, the fucking irony….

  69. #69 MikeH
    July 5, 2013

    It had to come to this – the climate cranks are now represented by a female impersonator and a turkey with Tourettes.

  70. #70 rhwombat
    King Cole's sphincter, NSW
    July 5, 2013

    MikeH: Kochsuckers Inc.

  71. #71 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    What’s the difference between the Holocene and the LGM?

    – about 4.5C GAT

    – about 6W/m^2 forcing

    You can work out the sensitivity to a 1W/m^2 change in forcing yourself.

  72. #72 mike
    July 6, 2013

    Hey MikeH!

    Yr no. 67–“…turkey with Tourettes.”

    You know, MikeH, you’re not foolin’ anyone. I mean, like, it is painfully obvious that the only reason you hang your loser, geek-ball rump out here in Deltoidland, instead of at some quality, respected, highly influential blog like Climate etc, Jo Nova, or WUWT, is that you have admitted to yourself, in the depths of your miserable, greenshirt heart-of-hearts, that you can’t find your flabby eco-butt with even the full resources of your both hands, a proctologist as your personal trainer, a GPS-unit in “suppository form”, and your abundantly demonstrated gift for runnin’ your mouth out your ass fully up and operating at peak capacity.

    That, and, of course, MikeH, you find in this blog’s creep-out, group-think, heavy-petting, goo-goo eyed, obscenely-needy chit-chat a sad, pathetic “thrill” which is the closest you and your hive-bozo, retard pals will ever get to the “normal person” pleasures of a real-life date. Right guy?

    And, oh by the way, MikeH–you “me-too”, copy-cat, little shit–the “Tourettes” deal is BJ’s goof-ball, pompous-ass, sorry excuse for a “zinger”, not yours. I mean, like, MikeH, why don’t you try coming up with something of your own for once? Huh, guy? Or would a demonstration of “originality of thought” be a career-ending move for a party-line, hive-hack gofer-parasite like you?

  73. #73 bill
    July 6, 2013

    Tosspot. Next.

  74. #74 Lionel A
    July 6, 2013

    It doesn’t affect the end product anomaly one whit (unless they replace the screening with a foreign type not there before and forget to inform of the adjustment required to make the local record homogenous again).

    Just so.

    Sorry for the brevity of my answers, having only recently returned from Scotland (fascinating geology BTW) I have been exhausted (reduced heart function following a massive attack about 12 years ago) and trying to catch up on administrative matters whilst fighting with the license renewal of a well known Internet Security suite (clue begins with a ‘K’) across three computers.

    This and prepping dozens of photo images taken during my travels.

    Retirement – WTF is that?

    More involved engagement soon I hope. Watching Mr Punchinello (aka freddy) losing it has brought some humorous relief of late.

  75. #75 Lionel A
    July 6, 2013

    Something for the ostriches here to watch and learn from:

    The Battle to Communicate Climate Change: Lessons from The Front Lines,

    N.B.

    The science isn’t controversial…

    .

    More tirades of keyboard abuse in
    ONE
    TWO
    THREE

  76. #76 bill
    July 6, 2013

    Leaving aside the ongoing Festival of The Stupid for a moment, ABC’s Catalyst did indeed do a good job on extreme weather – and I’ve given the link to the non iView version, so it should be available to all.

    WARNING: hazard to Fake Skeptics; danger of learning something. This does not apply to SpamKan, obviously, since she ain’t learned nuthin’ at all since Bible Camp – except Ctrl+C, Ctrl +V – and is proud of it!

    Also, and I reckon only the locals will be able to see this one.

    Photographer Murray Fredericks, of Salt fame, shifted his attention from Lake Eyre to Greenland (as you do). Not only is the result spectacular, on his last documented excursion, he happened to be there in May 2012, on the ice cap, just when it all started to go pear-shaped. Worth seeing for the Inuit guides’ – and huskies! – reaction to the freak conditions alone. Be quick – expires shortly.

  77. #77 Lionel A
    July 6, 2013

    Rednoise,

    Well as we were disicussing where the missing heat went to cause the surprising, on going and acknowledged by practically everyone except dingbats like you temperature hiatus,

    You may like to look up the meaning of hiatus for there has been no hiatus in annual global temperature rise as noted here (as well as in many other places using other sources):

    4 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second and note this,

    I showed the following graph of the Earth’s total heat content, demonstrating that even over the last decade when surface temperature warming has slowed somewhat, the planet continues to build up heat at a rate of 4 Hiroshima bomb detonations worth of heat every second.

    Now I suggest once again you look up the meaning of hiatus. You are wrong. All you have been doing is guessing on the musings of a blogger with a record of distorting the facts of climate change by guessing about the meanings of material output by scientific organizations working in the field.

    In other words you are just another ‘interpreter of interpretations’ for when challenged you have failed to provide real substance to back your assertions.

    Now is that honest behaviour?

  78. #78 Betula
    July 6, 2013

    Deadeye Dickie and Chek…

    Isn’t it about time the public start beating Peter Stott of the U.K Met Office so you two have something to watch? He completely ruined the headline…

    Hansen Study: Extreme Weather Tied to Climate Change:

    “Peter Stott of the U.K. Met Office is one of the leaders of an international effort to improve researchers’ abilities to assess the causes of extreme weather and climate events. He co-authored a landmark study on the 2003 European heat wave, which found that global warming dramatically increased the odds that such an event would occur, but that natural variability also played a key role”.

    “He said Hansen’s study is “broadly in line” with previous work showing that extremely hot summers are becoming more common, but his view is that it is not yet possible to attribute extreme events directly to manmade global warming”

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hansen-study-extreme-weather-tied-to-climate-change-14760/

    He must be in cahoots with those deniers at The WMO:

    “climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change”

    Beatings for everyone! Deadeye…you bring the popcorn.

  79. #79 Rednose
    UK
    July 6, 2013

    Lionel
    I am glad you had a pleasant trip to Scotland. Its a pity you were not there this week to take advantage of the fine weather. Myself, I am shortly off to my first BBQ for several years.

    if you google “Global Warming you get this from wikepedea.

    Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation.

    Then googling “hiatus” we get:

    a pause or break in continuity in a sequence or activity

    There are a number of quotes about the hiatus here
    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/candid-comments-from-global-warming-climate-scientists/

    And more recently

    Prof Myles Allen from the University of Oxford, interviewed by the BBC this week about global temperatures, has finally admitted that:-

    “no-one predicted the shorter-timescale lack-of-trend we have seen since 2000”

    It would seem there is a break in the projected continuation of increasing temperatures or a hiatus

  80. #80 BBD
    July 6, 2013

    Why can’t you understand the words, Betty?

    There is a difference between attribution of individual events to CC and stating – with considerable supporting evidence – that the likelihood and intensity of extreme events (eg hot outliers, floods, drought) is increased because of CC.

    It’s about the degree of fractional attribution.

    You force me to repaste the quote that you mined because the way you mined it perfectly exemplifies your deliberate misreading of the whole:

    While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European heatwave occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures.

    Read the words, Betty. Especially the ones in bold.

  81. #81 BBD
    July 6, 2013

    Rednoise

    Despite your entertaining attempts at data denial, there is clear, observational evidence that energy is accumulating in the top 2000m of the global ocean.

    All this crapping on about “hiatus” etc is climate illiteracy. Looked at at the climate system level, there has been no pause at all. Energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as expected.

    Remember climate basic # 1:

    The troposphere ≠ the climate system

    Make a note for future reference.

    * * *

    I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you – because I wonder.

    I wonder because your argument appears to require that the laws of physics have been suspended.

    Is that fundamentally what you believe? If not, how can you argue that AGW has just stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place)?

    Are you a physic denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.

    Thanks.

  82. #82 chek
    July 6, 2013

    Yes Betty, it’s become clear that to someone as fundamentally stupid and/or dishonest as you have shown yourself to be, that you dearly wish conditional sentences weren’t.
    But they are.

  83. #83 chek
    July 6, 2013

    Redarse, you’re a classic case of denial.

    So far has the hiatus meme been inserted up your arse by repetitions in the deniosphere that you are now unable to accept the data that were presented to you previously (viz. record melt years and warmest recorded years) and actually prefer to endure the anal discomfort rather than engage your brain. and think.

    As BBD points out, the sun hasn’t stopped shining or weakened, and CO2 recently passed the 400ppm mark ergo energy will continue accumulating until equilibrium is reached. Simple, yes?

    It may come as a shock to you, but putting it simply, deniers are liars, the ‘hiatus; one being no exception for being echoed and repeated again and again around denierland.

  84. #84 BBD
    July 6, 2013

    Some minor matters arising:

    Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation.

    As for Myles Allen’s bizarre remarks to the BBC, he even contradicts the IPCC. This from the AR4 SYR:

    Difficulties remain in simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller scales. On these scales, natural climate variability is relatively larger, making it harder to distinguish changes expected due to external forcings.

    Climate basic # 2:

    Nobody ever said that natural variability has stopped, therefore tropospheric warming will not be monotonic.

  85. #85 Lionel A
    July 6, 2013

    Rednoise,

    Prof Myles Allen from the University of Oxford, interviewed by the BBC this week about global temperatures, has finally admitted that:-

    “no-one predicted the shorter-timescale lack-of-trend we have seen since 2000”

    Pulling such shite from one of the world’s arseholes is an exercise in avoiding the truth by selective quoting from the full article where we saw this:

    “There were plenty of solar enthusiasts back in the 1990s who were attributing the observed warming since the 1970s to a brightening sun – which didn’t really work out when we moved into an extreme solar minimum and still saw the warmest decade on record.

    in which Harrabin managed to drop a closing quote.

    Besides, Harrabin has form for trying to minimize the Beebs risk of a license caning from the current Downing Street occupants by slipping in the odd sop to the FF lobby.

    Also, Myles Allen is not the most trustworthy source given his arguments on CCS.

    Oh what a tangled web you weave Rednoise.

  86. #86 BBD
    July 6, 2013

    Thanks to Lionel A for finding the link unfortunately absent from Rednoise’s misrepresentation by selective quotation at # 77. Here is Rednoise’s quote again:

    Prof Myles Allen from the University of Oxford, interviewed by the BBC this week about global temperatures, has finally admitted that:-

    “no-one predicted the shorter-timescale lack-of-trend we have seen since 2000”

    Now let’s put it back into context:

    Although overall temperature rise has slowed down since the 1990s, the WMO says temperatures are still rising because of greenhouse gases from human society.

    The WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said: “Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans means that some years are cooler than others. On an annual basis, the global temperature curve is not a smooth one. On a long-term basis the underlying trend is clearly in an upward direction, more so in recent times.”

    But climate change doubters emphasise the lack of movement in temperatures throughout the decade.

    Judah Cohen, director of seasonal forecasting at Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER), told BBC News that the issue hinged on the time frame.

    “For longer periods (two decades or longer) we found a robust and a statistically significant warming trend,” he said. For shorter periods – a decade or less – there is no longer a significant temperature trend of either sign, consistent with the reports of a recent ‘plateauing’ of global temperatures.”

    Even so, many climate scientists are alarmed by the consistently high temperatures during the decade. Every year of the decade except 2008 was among the 10 warmest on record.

    The warmest year ever recorded was 2010, with a temperature estimated at 0.54C above the 14.0C long-term average of 1961-1990 base period, followed closely by 2005.

    [...]

    Prof Myles Allen from the University of Oxford told BBC News: “We predicted the temperature of this decade using a conventional detection and attribution analysis and data to 1996 (when lots of people were arguing there wasn’t even a discernible human influence on global climate), and nailed it to within a couple of hundredths of a degree.

    “There were plenty of solar enthusiasts back in the 1990s who were attributing the observed warming since the 1970s to a brightening sun – which didn’t really work out when we moved into an extreme solar minimum and still saw the warmest decade on record.

    He added: “It’s only a single data point (and no-one predicted the shorter-timescale lack-of-trend we have seen since 2000) but it’s still worth noting. Let’s see what the next decade will bring.”

    Now we have Rednoise and Betty both indulging in blatant quote-mining misrepresentation on the same page of comments.

    How must it feel to be forced to resort to data denial and egregiously obvious selective quotation all the time?

    Not comfortable, I would hope. But who knows? I have trouble understanding the mindset that would routinely resort to childish dishonesty, apparently without qualm.

  87. #87 Lionel A
    July 6, 2013

    And following on from the words of Mike Mann (@ #73) we have the erudite words of Richard Alley explaining why ‘The Science is not controversial…’.

    But come on Rednoise, Birch Top and the ever entertaining freddy all you can manage is more pissing into wind.

  88. #88 Betula
    July 6, 2013

    Deadeye Dickie at 84…

    “Now we have Rednoise and Betty both indulging in blatant quote-mining misrepresentation on the same page of comments”

    Nice try Dickie, but the quote I posted was in full (see 55 on previous page) and gone over, something I already told you at #49 of this page In addition, unlike you, I linked to the actual WMO report instead of a quote mined slant.

    The WMO…

    1 .”No clear trend has been found in tropical cyclones and extra-tropical storms at the global level. More complete datasets will be needed in order to perform robust analyses
    of trends in the frequency and intensity of these hazards.”

    2. “Distinguishing between natural climate variability and human-induced climate change will also require datasets that are more complete and long-term”

    3. “Assessing trends in extreme weather and climate events requires an even longer timeframe because, by definition, these events do not occur frequently”

    4. “WMO’s Commission for Climatology is currently
    addressing new approaches for the improved characterization, assessment and monitoring of these events. In addition, promising new research into the attribution of individual extreme events based on observational and model data is starting to emerge”

    Do you get it deadeye? No, you don’t.

    They are telling you they need more time. They are saying they don’t know yet. They actually say it….The WMO actually put the words on paper for you to ignore:

    “climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3SK-yB1c9Y

    Sorry, wrong link…

    http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1119_en.pdf

    Peter Stott of the U.K. Met office told you the same thing:

    “his view is that it is not yet possible to attribute extreme events directly to manmade global warming” (link at 76)

    Why do you deny the scientists Deadeye? Soon you will be watching yourself be beaten by the public and you won’t lift a finger to stop it…

  89. #89 BBD
    July 6, 2013

    Betty, if that is how you have decided to interpret the WMO report, then fine.

    It’s your parsomatic and you’ll lie if you want to…

    With apologies to Lesley Gore.

  90. #90 chek
    July 6, 2013

    Being awfully pleased at his grasp of high school parsing, ol’ Betty ‘child deniers’ Betula spectacularly misjudges the absence of the certainty he childishly craves by re-imagining statements with the caveats completely discarded according to his taste, once crushed by his home-grown, on-board logic machine which is of course informed and powered by his vast scientific knowledge and understanding.

    But although being spectacularly stupid, Betty ‘child deniers’ Betula is somehow labouring under the impression that he’s being clever, very clever indeed. And if your yardstick is Williwattsworld who’s to disagree within that sealed-off cesspit of cretinism?

    What Betty ‘child deniers’ Betula isn’t so aware of – being an inveterate cesspit swimmer by choice and never deigning to understand or even so much as skim any links to real science posted on this board – is that people have and are crunching the numbers to investigate the uncertainties that Betty ‘child deniers’ Betula freely discards.

    Latrinesman but acting General Betty:”Have you seen any Redcoats/Japs/Viet-cong/Ragheads/Libruls/Whatever in the area, marine corpsman?

    Marine soon-to-be Corpse Man: No General Betty sir. Not a one. Although intel reports a vast amount of logistics are entering the area.

    Latrinesman but acting General Betty:”But you haven’t actually seen any Redcoats/Japs/Viet-cong/Ragheads/Libruls/Whatever in the area, marine corpsman?

    Marine soon-to-be Corpse Man: No General Betty sir, Not a one. But intel reports two enemy air wings moved two days ago to bases that are within range of this area.

    Latrinesman but acting General Betty:”But you haven’t actually seen any Redcoats/Japs/Viet-cong/Ragheads/Libruls/Whatever in the area, Corpseman, a real muhrine only acts on certainties. Wake me up when Isle of Lucy’s on the TV.

    This Tamino article examines recent heat wave trends and could be applied to other types of extreme events readily.

  91. #91 BBD
    July 6, 2013

    Following on from # 79

    Assuming that we stick with the laws of physics, and don’t deny the known radiative properties of CO2, we have a problem.

    According to our understanding of physics, the radiative forcing from 2xCO2 (280ppm – 560ppm) is 3.7W/m^2.

    What’s the difference between the Holocene and the LGM? The coldest part of the last ice age and the present.

    – about 4.5C GAT

    – about 6W/m^2 forcing

    You can work out the sensitivity to a 1W/m^2 change in forcing yourself.

  92. #92 freddy
    July 7, 2013

    beware of faked scientists here:

    agw asshole bbd IS NO scientist, only a cheap teacher of young children

    agw asshole chek IS NO scientist, also only a tiny irrelevant teacher of young children

    agw asshole lionert IS NO scientist, also only an unknown anonymous teacher of tiny children

    agw asshole billiestupid IS NO scientist, also only an unknown anonymous teacher of tiny children

    ALL THESE AGW MORONS DO ONLY COPY PASTE OF THE AGW SCIENTOLOGY CHURCH SLOGANS OF THEIR AGW PRIESTS

    AGW “climatology” is no scientific discipline, it is the ideology of green-lefties who want to rob the money of decent but naive citizens

  93. #93 BBD
    July 7, 2013

    Yes of course, freddy. Whatever you say.

    But according to our understanding of physics, the radiative forcing from 2xCO2 (280ppm – 560ppm) is 3.7W/m^2.

    The difference between the coldest part of the last ice age and the present is approximately:

    – 4.5C GAT

    – 6W/m^2 forcing

    So what’s back of the envelope estimate for dT to dF?

    4.5 / 6 = ?

  94. #94 Bernard J.
    July 7, 2013

    Betula.

    On the matter of your comments about Peter Stott at #77 and at #87*, what excactly are you claiming is Stott’s position.

    No waffle, no, avoidance, no hedging – what do you think Stott means, and what do you think is Stott’s understanding of the science?

    [*My numbers will differ to others as I have comments in moderation.]

  95. #95 Dave McRae
    July 7, 2013

    I had a tanty in a lecture and lost my cool. I was so unprepared for the slimy slag off of climate science, climatologists, Hansen and Mann from a bloke advertising himself as a scientist and promoter of science, given on CSIRO premises. Was I too precious or is this the new underhand casting of doubt on published science.

    The situation: ACT Skeptics run a lecture http://www.canberraskeptics.org.au/event/july-lecture-pseudo-science-climate-change-debate

    I do hope I have Nick Ware wrong – I bailed 1/2 hour into it. And I hope you don’t mind having my rant here. This is what set me off:

    It starts: we have these groups:
    1.Alarmists
    2.Activists
    3.Scientists (real scientists [like real Scotsmen I guess] skeptics with a k)
    4.Sceptics
    5.Deniers

    3 being the ideal of course – he spoke to groups 1 and 3 for a bit

    He talks about science for a tad – he brings up Babbage, decline of science and then the 3 causes of bad science:
    1. Trimming – trim your data to clean up the presentation a little – he says “we’ve all done it”
    2. Cooking – cook ones data
    3. Fraud – make data up

    Then he starts with a history of Climate Science – Fourier, fair enough. He said “Fourier correctly guessed at mostly water trapping heat” – [he moved on, no mention of feedbacks/forcings after the water bit, I'm hearing a whistle]

    skipping Tyndall, next stop Arrhenius, “predicting a 6C rise per doubling – he corrected himself to 3C a bit later” [not my recollection]

    Calendar just briefly, then Keeling, a bit of time here, “Charles and now his son”. On this he says .. he then spends 5 minutes on CO2 ppm and how there was a big brouhaha in the press over 400ppm. But we’re are not really there yet, the curve will bounce up and down for a while and there was only one tiny data point that only just got near 400ppm. Not 400ppm yet. I say again, not 400ppm yet. [Yeah, righto, but we'll be there soon enough I wanted to yell]

    After #NotYet400ppm, we come to Hansen 1988, congress, with a slide, Hansen “Naughty boy” for he “really didn’t have enough data to make the assertion”.
    Slide is this image: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/James_Hansen.jpg “see how surprised his offsider is – this is unusual as the assistants in Congress never show emotion – but see how this bloke is showing surprise – he knows that Hansen is overreaching” [YES - This image was presented at a skeptics lecture as proof of Hansen's dodginess, the look on an assistant's face - SKEPTICS, Yeah - I was dumbed into silence. I hope the lecture hall was, and it was near full]

    He then puts up Hansen’s projections overlaid with the model run with no CO2 forcing – the 2007IPCC picture – Ware then claims the error bars of the projections overlap, he draws his own error bands over the bands already shown that “fixes” the diagram. [I'm twitching here]
    (The diagram was this one https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRMMTA9TBODmghP3ScerDGES5-bnWcY_uRBrgTUloj2_b33unvi less the black actual line and less the axes markings — and yes, then he added his own error range

    Mann’s Hockey Stick next – slide is up on overhead projector – there are 4 references at bottom – I can’t quite make out – first may be Mann’s paper itself, next 3 was same bloke, a McSomeone, like mine only longer. Ware then asserts ” .. but Stephen McIntyre” [I'm pretty sure it was McIntyre upon reflection, I'm doubting myself, could this bastard be so dishonest - but at this point, I slip off my trolley, stand up and, regrettably lost my cool, dropping the f-word and stomping out]

    I have no idea what happened after that – I’m assured by 3 members of the skeptics that “he is not a denier” – anyone who uses McIntyre to crit Mann’s paper is I reckon – but he comes across as pro-science, science loving, “the data is trimmed a bit, we all do it”, putting himself on the same level as the climatologists, riffing off their good work to do the doubt the science routine. Apparently, the talk “got better” – how, I have no idea – and it was “well received” by the people there.

    I can do open warfare, but this type of treachery from within I’m unarmed. And it bloody well worked too. Hansen and Mann are data-trimming alarmists, then there are deniers and then there are the good pro-science pure-science skeptics.

    How does one fight this type of doubt peddling?

    (I took off to mum’s place, closeby and she put me onto last Catalyst – Bill#73 is right, it was refreshing a show that speaks to actual people who do the science)

  96. #96 freddy
    July 7, 2013

    @ david

    “How does one fight this type of doubt peddling”

    you need not to fight this as it is true.

    now yourself: do you think you belong to the group of agw church assholes whose only goal is to weaken the economies of first world countries, hein???

  97. #97 freddy
    July 7, 2013

    the whole and only basis of the rotten AGW ideology is the so called “global temperature”, without “global temperature” nothing can be argued by the climate hysterics, especially not by the second hand “climatologists” from the shit eco “sciences” (ecology, ecophysiology, ecochemistry, ecoagticulture, ecomusic, ecopolitology, eco-shit-x ……) of the poor indivuduals here (bbd, chek, bill, bernard, and other joke brothers) about “global warming”. these eco blows talk about vegetation shifts on the slopes of their home hills bur have no clue of data from other parts of the world beyond their horizon, local pseudo-science junk only by weak local green activists, nothing more, like phil jones from the cru of east anglia university, who is one of the three local green activists who calculates a “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE”

    why does phil jones in any of his many publications in global temperature not disclose which temperature stations he had used per year to calculate a mean global temperature for a specific year. why does he hide this information?

    any decent and honest scientist who deserves this designation would have published a matrix like the following (example):

    ———————–1850–1851–1852——-…2012
    thermometerA——-Y——Y——-Y———……N
    thermometerB——-N——N——-U———……N
    thermometerC——-N——Y——-Y———……Y
    …….
    thermometerLAST——-Y——Y——-U———……N

    N = no, Y = yes, U = unavailable

    WHY DO THE AGW HYSTERICS HIDE DATA????

  98. #98 bill
    July 7, 2013

    Yar-de-flarge blart-fart tring… whoopeeee… nurse, my rubber nappy is oozing again… everywhere my purity is soiled, soiled! Now the Pagans have shrunk my generative organ!… medicate me to my Happy Place, Matron…

    Freddy, you’re ridiculous.

    Dave: may I suggest you don’t attend any more things put on the by the Canberra Skeptics? Booking a room at a CSIRO venue does not a climate scientist make.

    Have a look at the man’s qualifications:

    Nick Ware worked for 40 years as an electron microscopist and microanalyst dealing mainly with research in the earth sciences. As curator of the meteorite collection at the ANU and listed as such in the periodicals, he had to deal with a steady correspondence of earnest pseudo-science. He became interested in climate change when the topic came up in the weekly current affairs class at his school in 1960.

    Life’s too short…

  99. #99 Dave McRae
    July 7, 2013

    Freddy – you so should get in front of a CO2 laser. (the alternate reality may protect you – it would be interesting to see)

    Bill – I know – but it was mean to to be a talk on pseudo-science of deniers – you’re totally right though, life’s too short – I bailed after 30minutes of that crap

    http://www.meetup.com/SocialSkepticsCanberra/events/118069152/ I still cannot now believe that an image of Hansen’s 1988 congressional and the assistant looks surprise=conspiracy to lie about climate science passed muster at a “skeptics” lecture – it must’ve been a test – yet it was all about air temps, not say, the absorption bands that satellites have measured or any of the many other lines of evidence

    … ahh – skeptics – skeptics my arse

    I must tell of a lecture .. oh 3 years ago now – UNSW Prof Matthew England, I think it was a Sunday of a science week in Sydney, public lecture at the Powerhouse. Meant to go only for an hour – packed – everyone riveted, not a sound for 2 hours solid as a bloke who knew his stuff told us what he did. It had to stop at the 2 hours as the room was booked for something else – all of us could done easy another hour.

    But yeah, I’ll stick with the qualified men and women.

    Yet, the treachery, the snake, the Uriah Heep – claiming to know more than Hansen or Mann because he and McIntyre think them so — grrrr, gives me the creeps :(

  100. #100 freddy
    July 7, 2013

    bill, dave

    ridiculous that’s what YOU are

    and at the same time silly enough not to detect this

    poor fuckwit morons

    ps: thermometer temperature readings and fraudulous calculations of a ridiculous “global temperature” by green activists is far out of your comprehension, idiots

Current ye@r *