July 2013 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    Furthermore, none of this absurd McGuffin has anything whatsoever to do with AGW. It’s just more denialist blether and time-wasting by a clueless prat who understands absolutely nothing about absolutely everything, starting with paleoclimate and working up (see most recent evisceration above at #1 and # 72).

    Karen is hammering on one stupid lie to distract from the mauling she’s just had over the other stupid lies.

    Karen has tripped over the pig’s bladder on a stick and gone down in the usual flailing tangle of dishonesty and stupidity. Cap askew and bells a-jingling. The crowd roars with laughter.

  2. #2 Jeff Harvey
    July 13, 2013

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    Karen loses again. Turn out the lights, the party’s over…

  3. #3 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    And now we get to denialist lies about Arctic melt during the early C20th.

    Debunked in full, here.</a

    Next.

  4. #4 bill
    July 13, 2013

    BBD …and then there was that reference to the 3 metre trench exposing… seaweed!

    Note the subsequent abrupt change of topic.

    And you really have to have an intellect – and I’m being more than generous using the word – like, well, like Karen’s to get ‘SO MUCH FOR GLOBAL WARMING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!’ out of the episode. ‘Simplistic’ is the right word, but not in the way she supposes…

  5. #5 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    The sheer tenacious dishonesty is what drops my jaw, Jeff. The hammering away at stupid, obvious lies, day in, day out. Karen now, but the whole troupe of climate clowns exhibit this moronic refusal to accept that they have no arguments and they lose whenever they pick a fight with an informed correspondent.

    And lose badly, messily, painfully at that. Yet they keep on coming. It’s incomprehensible to any sane and rational being operating in good faith.

  6. #6 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    bill – yes. The Prime McGuffin of Denial in full, glorious effect.

    Cap, bells, action!

  7. #7 Betula
    July 13, 2013

    Deadeye…

    Could someone please call the scientists involved with this and ask them to stop spreading this denialist dribble….Thanks.

    Oh, and then call out the public to beat them while Deadeye watches….Thanks again.

    “The correlation between warming ocean waters and more fish has also been investigated in a comparative study carried out by the NESSAS researchers in collaboration with US researchers. They have compared developments in three ocean areas: off the coast of Norway, in the waters of the Gulf of Maine (off the northeast coast of the US), and off Alaska and in the Bering Sea (between Alaska and Russia)”.

    “This comparative study has been interesting,” says Dr Drinkwater, “in that the causal factors are completely different for the warming of these three northern seas. Yet in each area, warmer waters have led to longer growing seasons, more plankton and more fish.”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100505092525.htm

  8. #8 Karen
    July 13, 2013

    #94 BBD said:
    “Oh you muppet. From your original link:”
    “The TIDE was low, fuckwit. The TIDE. The TIDE. Read the fucking words. The exceptionally low TIDE exposed the plane, which was on the seabead, fuckwit.”

    BBD also said: “Your unbelievably stupid lies really have screwed you this time. Take my advice and shut up and sod off. Not for damage limitation, because we are far beyond that now, but out of a proper sense of embarrassment.”

    BBD also said: “The sheer tenacious dishonesty is what drops my jaw, Jeff. The hammering away at stupid, obvious lies, day in, day out.
    Low tides expose things on the seabed. ”

    Now here is the unadulterated text, yes that’s right viewers, the actual paragraph that BBD has got his knickers in a knot over.

    “On 1 January 2010, a day of unusually low tide, 4 small capping pieces from the end section of the tail were found by the edge of the harbour. The tail and a section of fuselage had been removed from the rest of the air-tractor before it was abandoned in 1913, therefore this discovery did not shed much light on the location of the rest of the frame, but it suggests that “the frame, or parts of it,can survive for nearly 100 years in this environment”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-tractor_sledge

    BBD, you changed the text in a pathetic attempt to distort the truth, then you accused me of lying and being stupid!

    Anybody can see that YOU BBD are a deceitful lying lowlife, your deception, misrepresentation of the text confirms that you BBD are indeed a liar!

    Along with your shoddy lies and the accompanying childish outburst you should be sin binned to your own BBD thread where we would not have to put up with your distorted and unhinged opinions.

    As stated previously, there is now 3 metre thick ice at this location, I do hope that upsets you BBD.

    BBD the Ananias

  9. #9 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    Your original comment #97 page 6.

    “Mr Jensen said the aircraft was still sitting on the ice in 1931 and was spotted again when ice melted in 1975.”

    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/ice-melt-reveals-mawsons-plane-20100103-ln5o.html

    so this plane disappeared then reappeared and then disappeared then reappeared again.

    GOLLY !!! That will really do bbD’s head in, lol

    From the link in your original comment #97, page 6:

    An Australian heritage carpenter stumbled on the remains of the craft on New Year’s Day at Camp Denison, its cast iron framework revealed by an unusually low tide and reduced ice cover.

    […]

    Nearly a century after it was abandoned by Mawson, the old Vickers was spotted sitting among rocks in a few centimetres of water during one of the lowest tides recorded at Commonwealth Bay.

    “They would not have been found had the tide not been so low and the ice cover at Cape Denison at its lowest for several years – it was a fluke find,” Mr Jensen said in a statement.

    I changed no text you lying shit. You changed reference when you got exposed a prat the first time around.

    * * *

    The purpose behind this blatant trolling is to divert attention away from you getting skelped again and again on the previous page when you ventured into paleoclimate misrepresentation.

    It is a diversion, pure and simple.

  10. #10 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    This is what you are avoiding.

    And this.

    And this.

    The last one bears repeating in full here:

    Furthermore, none of this absurd McGuffin has anything whatsoever to do with AGW. It’s just more denialist blether and time-wasting by a clueless prat who understands absolutely nothing about absolutely everything, starting with paleoclimate and working up (see most recent evisceration above at #1 and # 72).

    Karen is hammering on one stupid lie to distract from the mauling she’s just had over the other stupid lies.

    Karen has tripped over the pig’s bladder on a stick and gone down in the usual flailing tangle of dishonesty and stupidity. Cap askew and bells a-jingling. The crowd roars with laughter.

  11. #11 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    More quote-mining misrepresentation from the increasingly tedious Betty.

    Up-to-date research destroys your pollyannish crypto-denialism.

  12. #12 Karen
    July 13, 2013

    Now that I have shown you up for the liar that you are BBD I would like to point to the falling sea temperature anomaly’s

    2007 http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-070708.gif

    2010 http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-100606.gif

    2012 http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-120603.gif

  13. #13 Karen
    July 13, 2013

    2013 http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

    The heat is being slowly released from the ocean.

    Anybody that thinks that the heat is somehow defying physics and miraculously heading to the bottom of the ocean is in la la land :)

  14. #14 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    Karen, you are simply insane. You have inverted reality despite the actual quotes sitting there on the page, in black and white.

    You are possibly one of the most dishonest posters I have ever encountered. See above.

    You are also engaged in an utterly transparent and increasingly desperate attempts to divert attention from your horrible failures on the previous page.

    So, what to do?

    First, no more rubbish about Mawson’s plane. We’ve done that.

    Second, no more rushing off with more denialist misrepresentations.

    We are going back to all the things that you fucked up on the previous page and my long, detailed responses that you utterly ignored.

    Starting here.

  15. #15 Jeff Harvey
    July 13, 2013

    Just as BBD said: Karen is data mining. She’s pretty good at it, but then again deniers are masters of the art. She’s been doing this ever since she arrived here. What she does is do exhaustive google searches, go through data sets and graphs, most of which run counter to her pre-determined views, and then finds a few that she can past up here as if they represent the ‘bottom line’.

    Karen is not a scientist. She/he/it/whatever does not do research in any way, shape or form, yet she/he/it/whatever appears to think that she/he/it/whatever has a complete grasp of climate science. Moreover, Karen’s views are in complete contrast with most experts in the field. This also goes for Freddy, Betula et al …. non-scientists whose views are completely at odds with those doing the research.

    That’s why these people end up in blogs. They don’t write their brilliant ideas up for scientific journals, which would reject them in a fraction of a second. No, instead they frequent a few blogs, where in contrast with academia there is no peer-review to jettison their posts. This is their niche, their only niche, and its all they have.

    To reiterate what i said on the Jonas thread the other day, thank heaven for small mercies. Karen and other like ‘her’ are virtually invisible in scientific arenas. They can pound their chests on blogs all day long and puff up their bloated egos because some people actually respond to their nonsense, but amongst scientific peers their views are non-existant. If they had any guts they’d try and publish their piffle but of courser they won’t even try.

  16. #16 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    Anybody that thinks that the heat is somehow defying physics and miraculously heading to the bottom of the ocean is in la la land

    Ekman pumping does not “defy the laws of physics”. It is an expression of them.

    Everything you are trying to do here is dishonest and wrong, including the carefully cherry-picked SSTs for an individual *month* plucked from carefully selected individual years. Here is the context – a continuous time series of annual anomalies:

    HadSST3 1900 – present

    * * *

    That’s enough of that. Back we go to your evasions from the previous page.

  17. #17 Betula
    July 13, 2013

    “More quote-mining misrepresentation from the increasingly tedious Betty”

    I’m sure you meant to say… misrepresentation from the scientists at NESSAS.
    You did read the article didn’t you? They are scientists aren’t they?

    Anyhow, when do you expect the beatings to begin? Flights to Norway fill up fast, you need to book early…

  18. #18 Betula
    July 13, 2013

    Hardley at #14…

    You forgot to use the word “Kindergarten”. You’re slipping.

    “non-scientists whose views are completely at odds with those doing the research”

    What exactly were the findings from your Algonquin research again? Oh yes, I remember..
    http://www.akileine.co.uk/wintercreme.html

  19. #19 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    I didn’t say they were wrong, I said that YOU were quote-mining. Now shut up, go away and read the fucking link provided at #10.

    Your dishonesty sickens me more than I can easily express.

  20. #20 chek
    July 13, 2013

    Karen is data mining. She’s pretty good at it

    Actually, the lot of them are just clueless water carriers, Jeff. Now the agents supplying the chum sites they collect their ignorant, partially unformed dross from well, they’re very different.

    Let’s take Betty ‘child deniers’ Betula’s latest foray as an example. The story he linked (dating from 2010) told of recovering cod stocks.
    “Ken Drinkwater is a senior research scientist at both the Institute of Marine Research and the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, located in Bergen”

    “In explaining how warmer seas could lead to so much more fish in the North Atlantic, all the way to the Arctic, scientists point to the bottom-up effect: Warmer seas result in more phytoplankton, which feeds more zooplankton, providing more nourishment for the herring and capelin that serve as a food supply for cod and other larger fish.Scientific literature confirms that cod reproduction is typically higher in warm-water years and lower when waters are cold. Recently, cod catches in the Barents Sea have been on the rise. Within the last few years, catch levels have reached those of the 1920s and 1930s warm period. Off Iceland and Greenland, however, no corresponding increase has been recorded”.

    This fits the narrative Betty is not just advocating or promoting, but positively evangelising. Warming will be unconditionally good.

    But there’s not a shred of evidence Betty has read the article he’s promoting because there on the very same page we can find this which informs us that those recovering cod stocks can be reduced to cannibalism because the food chain and ecological support for their increased numbers doesn’t exist, and human understanding of the complexity and logistics in re-engineering those support webs is nowhere near adequate enough.

  21. #21 chek
    July 13, 2013

    But there’s not a shred of evidence Betty has read the article he’s promoting because there on the very same page we can find this which informs us that those recovering cod stocks can be reduced to cannibalism because the food chain and ecological support for their increased numbers doesn’t exist, and human understanding of the complexity and logistics in re-engineering those support webs is nowhere near adequate enough.

    To fix the buggered link in last paragraph of #19

  22. #22 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    Notice that the pathetic Karen-thing has run off again rather than face up to its fecal mess from the previous page.

    God thee people are vile.

  23. #23 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    More dishonest quote-mining from Betty-John Pollyanna exposed. Thanks chek.

  24. #24 Betula
    July 13, 2013

    Deadeye @ 18..

    I link this quote from the findings of scientists…

    “Yet in each area, warmer waters have led to longer growing seasons, more plankton and more fish.”

    You reply: “I didn’t say they were wrong”

    Yet you linked an article with this title:
    “Why Warming Oceans Could Mean Dwindling Fish”

    You aren’t sure what you believe anymore are you Deadeye? Sort of like the scientists themselves (note the word “could” in the above title).

    So the question becomes, how do you pick and choose which scientists are deniers? What is the beating criteria? Who do you watch get beaten? This is very complex…

  25. #25 chek
    July 13, 2013

    Whenever Betty hawks something around, it’s guaranteed to be some combination of simplified and misleading partial truths and quote-mined falsities.

  26. #26 chek
    July 13, 2013

    Case in point @ #23

    Like some cross between Neville Chamberlain and Daffy Duck in spite mode, Betty ‘child deniers’ Betula waves his piece of paper around.
    “I have here in my hand a piece of paper with one sentence on it. ‘Yet in each area, warmer waters have led to longer growing seasons, more plankton and more fish.’
    I think Herr AGW is someone we can do business as usual with.

    Betty likes to ignore that there are far more factors at play than his simpleton layman understanding can conceive of.
    Stuff like – oh, maybe the teams of professional scientists producing the marine reports for the IPCC might know a thing or two about.

    None of which will ever deter Betty and so the stupid will continue.

  27. #27 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    Standard denialist dishonesty. Focus on a region, or a short time-series, then extrapolate incorrectly and misleadingly to the global level.

    Read the fucking link instead of posting more crypto-denialist shite up here Betty.

  28. #28 chek
    July 13, 2013

    Ho-hum, and once again to correct my shit html.

    Case in point @ #23

    Like some cross between Neville Chamberlain and Daffy Duck in spite mode, Betty ‘child deniers’ Betula waves his piece of paper around.
    “I have here in my hand a piece of paper with one sentence on it. ‘Yet in each area, warmer waters have led to longer growing seasons, more plankton and more fish.’
    I think Herr AGW is someone we can do business as usual with.

    Betty likes to ignore that there are far more factors at play than his simpleton layman understanding can conceive of.
    Stuff like – oh, maybe the teams of professional scientists producing the marine reports for the IPCC might know a thing or two about.

    None of which will ever deter Betty and so the stupid will continue.

  29. #29 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    And meanwhile, Betty’s transparent evasions continue.

    Betty still won’t answer the key questions about his physics denial. Probably because even Betty knows that physics denial = crank bin. But the grown-ups here who understand the physics and the paleoclimate data underpinning the ~2.5C – 3C estimate for ECS/2 x CO2 know that you *have* to be a physics-denying crank to hold Betty’s asinine views on AGW.

    So come on Betty. Show a little intellectual integrity for the first time ever in our acquaintance and own up to the depths of your denial. Indeed, just *own* the depths of your denial. Have some fucking courage in your convictions, man.

    How can you argue that AGW will have little or no effect unless you deny the laws of physics?

  30. #30 Betula
    July 13, 2013

    Deadeye and Cmdr Cheky….

    Missing the point as usual.

    The fact is, not all reactions to warming are bad and not all are good. The real fact is, you don’t know. You assume, and you only assume the worst.

    You pick and choose the potential, possible, predicted bad news…and treat it as fact. Yet, somehow, there always seems to be something unforeseen lurking around the corner…

    I link scientific research stating “warmer waters have led to longer growing seasons, more plankton and more fish”

    Deadeye says it not wrong, yet links an article that states “Why Warming Oceans Could Mean Dwindling Fish”, which proves he doesn’t know what he thinks.

    Cmdr Cheky links an article that states the Cod are so abundant, they lack food and have to resort to cannibalism. These “unexpected density dependent effects” mean what? That the Cod will eat each other until there are 2 left, and then Deadeye will watch them beat each other?
    And how can the effects be unexpected? Which is the real point here……the unexpected, the unexplained, the assumed, the uncertain, the conflicting reports, the lack of data, the questionable timescales, the unforeseen, the if’s, the could’s and the maybe’s that all add up to a future that is treated as fact in the ideological Deltoid mind….

  31. #31 Betula
    July 13, 2013

    “How can you argue that AGW will have little or no effect unless you deny the laws of physics?”

    How can you claim I’ve argued with you about something I’ve never argued with you about unless your delusional?

  32. #32 Stu
    July 13, 2013

    The fact is, not all reactions to warming are bad and not all are good. The real fact is, you don’t know. You assume, and you only assume the worst.

    Not this again. This was pathetic the first ten times you tried it, and it still is. AGW threatens the food chain and even land of millions of people, and you counter with “so what, more cod off Norway”.

    You’re sad, you’re transparent, and you keep on embarrassing yourself.

  33. #33 chek
    July 13, 2013

    Betty ‘child deniers’ Betula whined:

    Which is the real point here……the unexpected, the unexplained, the assumed, the uncertain, the conflicting reports, the lack of data, the questionable timescales, the unforeseen, the if’s, the could’s and the maybe’s that all add up to a future that is treated as fact in the ideological Deltoid mind….

    Yes Betty, we know it’s too complicated for you.
    It’s complicated even for the scientists who study the subject full time. Of course every detail isn’t yet known: we know that. But the trends present trajectories that are worrying to – dare I say – catastrophic in range. That’s what you uneducated, politically motivated know-nothing morons cannot and will not recognise.

  34. #34 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    Betty you are an absolutely classic crypto-denier. You reject the scientific consensus, denying physics in the process and then deny your denial when confronted over your behaviour.

    Then you start lying, quote-mining and misrepresenting for all you are worth. It’s what you do. Crypto-denial.

    Oh, and with you, it’s all about politics, not science. You let that slip with that anti-IPCC anti-UN rant you farted out a couple of weeks ago.

    You are just another lying, right-wing, know-nothing science denier pretending that this isn’t what you are doing because you think – wrongly – that this camouflages what you are really doing.

    It’s a particularly loathsome form of intellectual dishonesty, which is why you are scum, as I have pointed out before.

  35. #35 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    Betty, being a lying shit:

    I link scientific research stating “warmer waters have led to longer growing seasons, more plankton and more fish”

    Deadeye says it not wrong, yet links an article that states “Why Warming Oceans Could Mean Dwindling Fish”, which proves he doesn’t know what he thinks.

    Absolutely blatant misrepresentation. And repeating it is utterly, unforgivably dishonest because I have already written this (#27):

    Standard denialist dishonesty. Focus on a region, or a short time-series, then extrapolate incorrectly and misleadingly to the global level.

    Read the fucking link instead of posting more crypto-denialist shite up here Betty.

    So you focus on a region over a short time period, and extrapolate globally *into the future* in an absolutely dishonest and misleading manner, then you repeat a lie about what I said “which proves he doesn’t know what he thinks.”

    What I think is what I wrote: you are a lying, quote-mining, misrepresenting crypto-denialist shit.

  36. #36 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    Tell us something Betty. Tell us when there has ever been a hyperthermal which WASN’T associated with widespread extinctions of marine biota?

    Tell us now. Before this “conversation” goes a inch further. Give us some paleoclimate context for your Pollyanna-ish crypto-denial about the likely impacts on fisheries of a rapid ocean warming over the next 50 – 100 years (although it will not stop then).

    Tell us. Go on.

  37. #37 Betula
    July 13, 2013

    Deadeye….

    “Focus on a region, or a short time-series, then extrapolate incorrectly and misleadingly to the global level.”

    First of all, we are not talking about Hardley’s 23 day trek where he experienced Climate change first hand, so let’s not go there…

    Secondly, as you well know, 3 separate oceans is a big “region”. Did you read my post at #7:

    “They have compared developments in three ocean areas: off the coast of Norway, in the waters of the Gulf of Maine (off the northeast coast of the US), and off Alaska and in the Bering Sea (between Alaska and Russia)”.

    “This comparative study has been interesting,” says Dr Drinkwater, “in that the causal factors are completely different for the warming of these three northern seas. Yet in each area, warmer waters have led to longer growing seasons, more plankton and more fish.”

    Do you have ADD? This is becoming a habit with you. Back in June I made a parody/ comment about the Deltoid noise/ signal and you responded by saying it was a “deliberate misrepresentation aka the “cooling over the last decade” meme.”
    In other words, you didn’t pay attention to the words.

    More recently, you started cursing at me because of something Karen said, simply because you weren’t paying attention to who you were responding to..

    And now this.

    C’mon man, you’re falling apart at the seams.

  38. #38 Betula
    July 13, 2013

    Deadeye…

    “then you repeat a lie about what I said “which proves he doesn’t know what he thinks.”

    Do you know what you think Deadeye?

    Door #1, a fact which you said isn’t wrong:

    “in that the causal factors are completely different for the warming of these three northern seas. Yet in each area, warmer waters have led to longer growing seasons, more plankton and more fish.”

    Or door #2, a possibility which you seem to think is right:

    “Why Warming Oceans Could Mean Dwindling Fish”

    Take your time, or you medicine…

  39. #39 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    Tell us something Betty. Tell us when there has ever been a hyperthermal which WASN’T associated with widespread extinctions of marine biota?

    Tell us now. Before this “conversation” goes a inch further. Give us some paleoclimate context for your Pollyanna-ish crypto-denial about the likely impacts on fisheries of a rapid ocean warming over the next 50 – 100 years (although it will not stop then).

    Tell us. Go on.

    Don’t be so bloody obviously evasive.

  40. #40 Jeff Harvey
    July 13, 2013

    Typical Betula: as with C02, he thinks that abiotic changes in marine temperatures which normally take millennia but that are now occurring in a blink of an evolutionary eye will lead to conditions that benefit marine biodiversity.

    Its the scale Betty – geddit? I’m sure you also believe that tropical forest birds and mammals will also rapidly adapt to the grasslands or deserts that replace these forests in a century when they are slashed or burned – am I correct?

    The bottom line is that there is not a marine biologist on Earth who thinks that a sudden warming of the coastal green seas is a good thing for the diversity of organisms that inhabits these habitats. Not one. Only tree pruners who think that their job inculcates them with immense wisdom about the environment, and even there you are ‘out on a limb’ (geddit? I like that one).

    The projected warming of coastal marine ecosystems will be utterly disastrous for the species that inhabit them, (1) because it means that species adapted to cooler waters will have to rapidly move polewards or die out, and (2) that species adapted to warmer waters will out-compete species less adapted to warmer conditions. Either way it means these systems will become less species-rich, simpler, and thus more prone to collapse (see McCann, 1998). This is already happening, in concert with other forms of pollution and huge reductions in species at the terminal end of the food chain that have been decimated as a result of over-harvesting.

    Sigh. Its so easy countering the b* spewed out here by Betula. But why shouldn’t it be? He has no expertise whatsoever in ecology or environmental science and I do. What a pity for him.

  41. #41 Jeff Harvey
    July 13, 2013
  42. #42 Jeff Harvey
    July 13, 2013
  43. #43 Lionel A
    July 13, 2013

    Jeff Harvey wrote,

    (1) because it means that species adapted to cooler waters will have to rapidly move polewards or die out, and…

    Absolutely correct, and we are already noticing a rapid decline in sea bird colonies around UK coasts, including Puffins who’s preferred food, other fish species can choke the chicks, is the sand eel.

    And this is not the only sign of change in the biota of our lands and seas.

  44. #44 Betula
    July 13, 2013

    “Tell us something Betty. Tell us when there has ever been a hyperthermal which WASN’T associated with widespread extinctions of marine biota?”

    When the scientists at NESSAS came up with their conclusions, I don’t think they realized we were currently experiencing a hyperthermal . Oh, wait I get it, you were speculating again, I was about to apologize for the scientists…

  45. #45 freddy
    July 13, 2013

    jeff asshole: “ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE” hahahaha, a science, hahahaha, A KIND OF SCIENCE???? hahahaa, WHICH KIND OF SCIENCE, ASSHOLE

    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE IS JUST A PARASITE AND YOU ARE A PARASITE, ARSELICK. ENVIRONMENTALSM IS A SOCIALIST GREEN MOVEMENT, A SUBSIDIARY OF GREENWAR AND WORLD WAR FUND, FULL OF MISLED ACTIVISTS LIKE YOU. YOU WASTE TAXPAYERS MONEY WITH JUNK, NONSENSE, AND DO HARM TO SOCIETY AND ECONOMY.

    FUCKWIT, SATAN WILL PUNISH YOU INSANE UNETHICAK IMMORALIST

    FUCKING ASSHOLE, FUCKING, FUCKING

  46. #46 freddy
    July 13, 2013

    lionel asshole, for gods sake, please start to try to be a more intelligent person than you are now, then you maybe will grasp that living organisms are ALWAYS in a change. CHANGE IS A BASIC PRINCIPLE. you eco idiots have no sense for nature at all, no wisdom about how life works, you are full of anxiety that anything might change. YOU ARE COWARDS AND WANT TO PRESERVE FAUNA AND FLORA AS YOU HAVE SEEN THIS IN YOUR LIFE.

  47. #47 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    When the scientists at NESSAS came up with their conclusions, I don’t think they realized we were currently experiencing a hyperthermal . Oh, wait I get it, you were speculating again, I was about to apologize for the scientists

    And Betty does it again. We aren’t currently experiencing a hyperthermal, but are potentially headed for one. Arguments to the contrary are physics denial.

    They have compared developments in three ocean areas: off the coast of Norway, in the waters of the Gulf of Maine (off the northeast coast of the US), and off Alaska and in the Bering Sea (between Alaska and Russia).

    Next misrepresentation: three ocean areas become three whole ocean basins:

    Secondly, as you well know, 3 separate oceans is a big “region”. Did you read my post at #7

    Three strikes:

    – Dishonest.

    – Misleading.

    – Misrepresentation.

    Next misrepresentation: transient effects in *three small regions* of the NH ocean is misrepresented by Betty as “evidence” that a global increase in OHC at an unprecedented rate will be neutral/beneficial to marine biota and fisheries we exploit world-wide.

    But that’s not what happens during hyperthermals. What happens is widespread extinction of marine biota.

    Unless of course you have found previously unknown evidence in the fossil record that counters this. Have you such paradigm-destroying evidence? If so, you must publish at once. The field of marine paleontology will never be the same again. Babes in lab coats, grants and conference junkets in exotic locations will be yours, for the rest of your natural. Might even be a Nobel in it.

    But back to reality. Per the link I gave you and which you have so far *only* used to misrepresent me, ask yourself what happens when it gets too warm for the cod in those little areas you are so keen on? Because it will – unless of course you deny the laws of physics.

    Which effectively, you do, every time you indulge in crypto-denial like this.

    If you cannot see what you are doing, you are thick and ill-informed. If you can see it, you are dishonest.

  48. #48 freddy
    July 13, 2013

    @all agw arseholes

    bankruptcy of AGW scientoloy church:

    €&@&€&@&&&€&&

    From: Kevin Trenberth
    To: Michael Mann
    Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
    Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
    Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

    Hi all

    Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

    Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

    That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007.see[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c urrent.ppt

    Kevin

    &9€&&988&&8&€&@&€

  49. #49 Betula
    July 13, 2013

    Deadeye…

    “misrepresented by Betty as “evidence” that a global increase in OHC at an unprecedented rate will be neutral/beneficial to marine biota and fisheries we exploit world-wide”

    Once again, you mean you believe the scientists at NESSAS misrepresented their findings over “a big region”, since they are the ones who came up with the conclusions. I’m sure that’s what you meant.

  50. #50 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    FUCKWIT, SATAN WILL PUNISH YOU INSANE UNETHICAK IMMORALIST

    FUCKING ASSHOLE, FUCKING, FUCKING

    Come on, Freddy. Don’t just stop, open-mouthed, with the spittle abseiling down your chin. Don’t leave us in suspense.

    Can you top “barbecue sausage fuck”?

    Go for it!

  51. #51 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    Tell us something Betty. Tell us when there has ever been a hyperthermal which WASN’T associated with widespread extinctions of marine biota?

    Tell us now. Before this “conversation” goes a inch further. Give us some paleoclimate context for your Pollyanna-ish crypto-denial about the likely impacts on fisheries of a rapid ocean warming over the next 50 – 100 years (although it will not stop then).

    Tell us. Go on.

    Don’t be so bloody obviously evasive.

  52. #52 chek
    July 13, 2013

    Freddy-fred, I don’t think anyone here sees what you think you see in that email. Neither do I think they care in the slightest what one more denier dweeb thinks he sees.

    But then I suspect that’s always been true of everything in your whole life Freddy-fred..

  53. #53 Betula
    July 13, 2013

    Deadeye…

    “We aren’t currently experiencing a hyperthermal, but are potentially headed for one. Arguments to the contrary are physics denial”

    What do you mean by “potential”? ….. “Arguments to the contrary are physics denial”

    Jeez Deadeye, you are denying physics in an argument with yourself!

    Notify the public! It’s time for a beating! Quick Deadeye, get a good spot to watch the….oh boy.

  54. #54 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    Jeez Deadeye, you are denying physics in an argument with yourself!

    How?

    Answer the question:

    Tell us something Betty. Tell us when there has ever been a hyperthermal which WASN’T associated with widespread extinctions of marine biota?

    Tell us now. Before this “conversation” goes a inch further. Give us some paleoclimate context for your Pollyanna-ish crypto-denial about the likely impacts on fisheries of a rapid ocean warming over the next 50 – 100 years (although it will not stop then).

    Tell us. Go on.

    Don’t be so bloody obviously evasive.

  55. #55 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    Dear god, for the sake of stopping this stupid shit from Betty, the potential is determined by when *we* stop – or do not stop – increasing CO2 ppm.

  56. #56 Betula
    July 13, 2013

    Deadeye,

    “Tell us something Betty. Tell us when there has ever been a hyperthermal which WASN’T associated with widespread extinctions of marine biota?”

    Irrelevant. Besides, I wouldn’t know which species became extinct as a direct result of the hyperthermal , the timescale of the hyperthermal you are referring to, how many species adapted to the hyperthermal over the timescale you didn’t provide or how many species evolved over the timescale you didn’t provide .
    The question is still irrelevant to the scientists conclusions at NESSAS.

    Why do you keep avoiding the fact that it was a quote by scientists?

  57. #57 Betula
    July 13, 2013

    Deadeye…

    You just stated: “We aren’t currently experiencing a hyperthermal, but are potentially headed for one”

    What do you mean by “potentially”?

    You then stated: “Arguments to the contrary are physics denial”

    How can the laws of physics have “potential” results?

    Explain.

    You contradict yourself Deadeye…. you are a physics denier and should be beaten while you watch.

  58. #58 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    Irrelevant

    No it isn’t.

    Physics denial.

  59. #59 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    What do you mean by “potentially”?

    The charitable explanation for this is that we crossed.

  60. #60 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    Tell us something Betty. Tell us when there has ever been a hyperthermal which WASN’T associated with widespread extinctions of marine biota?

    Tell us now. Before this “conversation” goes a inch further. Give us some paleoclimate context for your Pollyanna-ish crypto-denial about the likely impacts on fisheries of a rapid ocean warming over the next 50 – 100 years (although it will not stop then).

    Tell us. Go on.

    It’s not irrelevant.

  61. #61 freddy
    July 14, 2013

    @fuvking eco jeff harvey

    what went wrong in your life that you have got your phd at age 38???

    did you have to repeat every single school class due to learning problems, have you been unemployed for 10 years due to inability, were you a drug addict for some years, a truck driver, a toilet cleaner, did you suffer from head injury

    why such a retard of 10 to 15 years???? i got my doctorate at age 24 as the best in class

    my hypothesis is that ALL environmentalists, journalists and climatologists were extremely untalented and poor pupils with learning problems. YOU JEFF FUQWIT ONE OF THEM AS A GOOD EXAMPLE.

  62. #62 freddy
    July 14, 2013

    bbd arsehole

    YOUR ONLY “ARGUMENT” IS

    “PHYSICS DENIAL”

    but it’s even worse:

    I FORMALLY, SOLEMNLY, HONESTLY AND THOROUGHLY DENY YOUR EXISTENCE AND DECLARE YOU OFFICIALLY

    SMALL FUCKWIT MORON

  63. #63 freddy
    July 14, 2013

    chek arselick

    what is it you don’t understand in trenberth’s words:

    @&€&@&€&&€€

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

    That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO.

    @&€€&&@&&&@&&&@

    EXPLAIN YOUR COMPREHENSION PROBLEM WITH WHAT YOUR GURU ADMITTED AND COMPLAINED

    EXPLANATION REQUIRED, FUCKWIT ASSHOLE

  64. #64 Bernard J.
    July 14, 2013

    Freddy.

    Just quietly, you don’t have a doctorate. You likely didn’t even finish (or have not yet finished) high school. Your language usage as typified by your vocabulary and grammar indicate someone with little more than primary grade capacities.

    For what it’s worth your unfamiliarity with doctoral education is blatantly demonstrated by your own words. No one “g[ets a] doctorate at age 24 as the best in class”, because doctoral degrees are not conducted in classes.

    Further, many PhDs are obtained by highly competent and intelligent mature-age students. I myself worked in medical research for 15 years before changing disciplines and going back to uni to do a masters and a PhD in ecology.

    And guess what? In my undergrad classes I was “best in class”.

  65. #65 Jeff Harvey
    July 14, 2013

    Freddy, you are some comedian! I have to admit, your posts are so utterly appalling that they are funny… and, as Bernard says, it is patently obvious that you don’t have a PhD or a degree of any kind. If you did, you’d provide proof of it and that would mean you’d have to blow your cover. And anyone who writes such childish, banal gibberish as you as well as using such despicable language is in no way any kind of academic.

    With respect to me, my old adage is better late than never. I was 37 actually, but why quibble? 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. You have obviously looked me up and are extremely envious.

    As with respect to awards, like Bernard I was top in my undergraduate classes and received many awards (Ellis Prizes) for achieving top grades in course subjects. I also was awarded the top grade amongst the 37 students in my final year as an undergraduate before going on to do my PhD. So I have nothing to be ashamed of. And just yesterday I was offered a Professorship.

    But I digress. The bottom line here is that your posts clearly suggest a deranged individual with delusions of expertise in fields beyond their competence. Bernard has summed you up well.

  66. #66 Lotharsson
    July 14, 2013

    I’d normally peg a poster as a Poe based on this:

    …earth’s climate is principally affected by two factors, …

    …after which he goes on to list four factors, which he counts as three. If he’s a Poe he’s mastered the art of projecting a dedicated animus centred just somewhere past this side of sanity, but I suspect the animus is genuine.

    If freddy is not a Poe, well, it takes a very special kind of mind to contradict oneself on the facts of basic counting not once, but twice in a small comment – whilst simultaneously claiming to have a Ph.D.

    It is also interesting that both freddy and Jonas appear to share the same pathology – that of characterising their own unsupported assertions as “educating” the reader.

  67. #67 Lotharsson
    July 14, 2013

    In my undergrad classes I was “best in class”.

    Yep, me too.

    And like the others, when I got my Ph.D. I wasn’t “best in my class” because there is no class to be best in when doing a Ph.D.

    I predict Freddy will not apologise for being caught out but simply throw more coprolalia at the wall and hope it distracts from his falsehoods.

  68. #68 Lotharsson
    July 14, 2013

    BTW, congrats to Jeff Harvey :-)

  69. #69 Jeff Harvey
    July 14, 2013

    Thanks Lotharsson…. I appreciate it!

    I also like what you said about Freddy and Jonas: “It is also interesting that both freddy and Jonas appear to share the same pathology – that of characterising their own unsupported assertions as ‘educating’ the reader”.

    So true. Jonas is on his own thread claiming that his critics have failed spectacularly to counter his arguments. Note the pathology there – Jonas’ own opinion paraded as ‘fact’. He does this all the time. GSW does it too, as it turns out. In truth, its up to others to determine whether their arguments have any sound empirical or theoretical basis or not – and not themselves. And on that count they both have only a few shallow sycophants like PentaxZ and Olaus as ‘support’. Hardly a solid foundation to build on.

    As for Freddy, he is a real hoot. Yesterday he was claiming that advances in molecular genetics somehow undermines Darwinian evolution, which no scientist in their right mind would say. I had to smile at that one. And then he comes flailing out saying that environmental science is not in fact a science at all. More comedy relief. But let’s face it: the AGW deniers and downplayers on this site aren’t exactly the smartest bunch around. What I learn from reading their comments on Deltoid and elsewhere is how utterly shallow many, if not most, of them are. What also becomes clear is that, without exception, there are no trained scientists (and few academics of any kind) amongst their ranks. They lie and very often bloat and exaggerate their academic qualifications to try and give the impression that they have the relevant expertise. I’ll give Jonas some credit in this regard: he won’t tell us what his professional background is because its obvious he has no scientific pedigree. At least he is being painfully honest in his silence.

  70. #70 Betula
    July 14, 2013

    Hardley @ 65

    It’s the Hadley “I”, “me” show….

    “I was 37 actually, but why quibble?”

    “I got my PhD”

    “my career”

    “looked me up and are extremely envious”.

    “I was top”

    “I also was awarded”

    “So I have”

    “I was offered ”

    “But I digress”

    An you end with…..”Bernard has summed you up well.”

    No Hardley, YOU have summed YOU up well.

    The self-loving Hardley with his daily affirmations, vying for attention from a few people on a dying blog….how pathetic.

    Maybe you could do a movie…”What Ever Happened To Baby Hardley?”

  71. #71 Jeff Harvey
    July 14, 2013

    Paper birchhead,

    My response was to an attack – however comical – by Freddy. You appear to like him – that’s hardly surprising, given what your posts have told us about you. It isn’t flattering, let me say that.

    There’s nothing more self-loving than having no qualifications and yet telling everybody what a bloody expert you are. Freddy does it, Jonas does it, GSW does it, and you, you poor sod, also do it. My qualifications speak for themselves. I don’t have to prove anything to anybody, and especially not you, with your appalling knowledge of environmental science.

    You’ve intimated on Deltoid more than once how your day job somehow enables you to have a better understanding of nature and global change scenarios than scientists who are trained in the field – including me and Bernard. As I have pointed out here many times, your examples are not only usually piss-poor, but when challenged you don’t even attempt to defend them, but slither your way onto some other topic or resort to the usual smears. I’ve linked piles of studies up here that contradict your profoundly simple arguments, and predictably you don’t respond to a single one of them.

    Get lost, barkey. I’d say before you make too much more of an idiot of yourself but I am afraid its too late for that.

  72. #72 chek
    July 14, 2013

    Well done Jeff on the offer, and well done for occupying such a vast space in Betty ‘child deniers’ Betula’s head! Space that would likely otherwise be filled with the usual permutations of drivel otherwise.

    That the envy, bitterness and jealousy are palpable and eating him up pretty much sums up the impotence of denial where making the foolish error of trying to make reality bend to ideology can never end well.

    Maybe Bettybloops will step back and reflect on his ridiculousness, but then again intelligence isn’t his strong point. ,

  73. #73 GSW
    July 14, 2013

    @Betula

    “”What Ever Happened To Baby Hardley?”

    I had a laugh, thanks!
    ;)

  74. #74 Stu
    July 14, 2013

    What a shocker, Freddy’s yet another right-wing douchecanoe. Who thinks he knows nature better than actual scientists.

  75. #75 Betula
    July 14, 2013

    Hardley…

    “I don’t have to prove anything to anybody”

    You mean like when you experienced climate change “first hand” and shifting zones “for real” over a 23 day time scale where the average temperature was “around -2 oC during the day and -10 at night” and your friend got frostbite?

    “and especially not you, with your appalling knowledge of environmental science”

    Yet, somehow, I’m still smart enough to know you are an egocentric who is full of shit. Ouch.

  76. #76 Betula
    July 14, 2013

    And now for something completely different…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n6Ra-K7us8

  77. #77 chek
    July 14, 2013

    I’m still smart enough to know you are an egocentric who is full of shit.

    Projection much, Betty.

  78. #78 mike
    July 14, 2013

    Hey Lotharsson and Pukka Sahib, Sudda, Bwana Jeff of Algonquin, Tireless Defender of the Greenshirt Gravy Train, Dextrous Flasher of Smarty-Pants Credentials, Prodigious Frequent-Flyer Spewer of CO2, Mighty Privileged-White-Dork Bringer-of-Light to Sri Lanka, etc. etc. etc.!

    Lotharsson–Yr kiss-butt mash mote No. 68: “BTW Congrats to Jeff Harvey [with get this!–a “smiley face” that has “school-girl crush” written all over it]”

    The”Jeff entity”–Yr little air-kiss (mwah!) response to Lotharsson’s No. 69: “Thanks Lotharsson…I appreciate it!”

    Oh Brother! I mean, like, you Deltoids can be such creep-outs, especially when you’re, like, so totally immersed in yet another one of those incessant, happy-place, eco-retard, geek-ball, ritual, hive-bonding sessions of yours with all their obligatory gushing, Platonic (as befits a couple of Philosopher King wannabes, like you two weirdos), golden-soulful sighs and longing-looks and needy, little outpourings of goo-goo, bubber-bubber, buddy-wuddy sweet-talk on full-flower, public display!

    How so fracking precious!–BAAAAARF!

  79. #79 chek
    July 14, 2013

    Would any psychologist in da house care to review this afternoon’s (GMT) collection of denier bloopings?

    Surely they can’t all just be the open books they present, can they?

  80. #80 Jeff Harvey
    July 14, 2013

    Here’s Betula’s histrionic strategy, acting as third person:

    Freddy: “what went wrong in your life that you have got your phd at age 38??? did you have to repeat every single school class due to learning problems, have you been unemployed for 10 years due to inability, were you a drug addict for some years, a truck driver, a toilet cleaner, did you suffer from head injury why such a retard of 10 to 15 years???? i got my doctorate at age 24 as the best in class”

    My response: “With respect to me, my old adage is better late than never. I was 37 actually, but why quibble? 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. You have obviously looked me up and are extremely envious. As with respect to awards, like Bernard I was top in my undergraduate classes and received many awards (Ellis Prizes) for achieving top grades in course subjects. I also was awarded the top grade amongst the 37 students in my final year as an undergraduate before going on to do my PhD. So I have nothing to be ashamed of. And just yesterday I was offered a Professorship”.

    Betty’s (non)objective hypocritical response:
    “The self-loving Hardley with his daily affirmations, vying for attention from a few people on a dying blog….how pathetic”

    So Birch brain, its perfectly OK for Freddy to smear me in every conceivable way, to ridicule my age, my qualifications, to call me a retard, and then to lie by saying he was ‘top of his class’ in getting a PhD (since deconstructed by Bernard and Lotharsson). No, Freddy isn’t nuts, arrogant, a liar, or in love with himself. But in responding to his vile I am.

    Birch-brain, you are also one vile waste of human space. You and Freddy belong together (along with GSW, who also suffers from a weird inferiority/superiority complex at the same time). And you are a complete hypocrite to boot.

  81. #81 Jeff Harvey
    July 14, 2013

    Speaking of clones, Mike and Freddy are also alarmingly similar. Both are completely arrogant vile creatures as well, and both think they are supremely witty (yet I am sure Betula won’t think either of them are ‘self-loving’).

    Truth is, as Chek says, the entire coterie of deniers on Deltoid suffer from the same pathology. Oh yes, they love themselves BIG time, so it must hurt when their arguments are burned down time and time again.

    Betula also plays the Jonas game. That is to have implied that their opponents have no credible qualifications to demand proof when their opponents say they do. When this is provided, their opponents are smeared by saying that they adore themselves. ‘Self-valorization’ as Olaus or Jonas or both called it; ‘ self-loving’ in Betula’s. This is their last refuge.

    That is because none of them have a clue about anything remotely related to science. Sure, birch bark man can tell us all about the odd aphid outbreak, and that coyotes are doing well in his neck of the woods, but when it comes down to hard empirical facts this lot is hung out to dry.

  82. #82 stewart
    July 14, 2013

    Chek, life is too short. Denialist is usually tribalism, attempt to avoid challenging one’s own ideology, or trying to avoid admitting an error. Reference to facts is a fig-leaf, rather than trying to understand a phenomenon. Tribalism is marked by abuse, ideology is marked by speaking of the awful consequences of choosing an alternative and reliance on magical benefits of doing the same thing, and refusing to admit error tends to be the merry go round/Gish gallop we see. I think we have all three, and maybe even some new hybrids.

  83. #83 BBD
    July 14, 2013

    Prof. Harvey – congratulations.

    :-)

    Lotharsson–Yr kiss-butt mash mote No. 68: “BTW Congrats to Jeff Harvey [with get this!–a “smiley face” that has “school-girl crush” written all over it]”

    You old sourpuss, you.

  84. #84 BBD
    July 14, 2013

    Fred-fred

    I FORMALLY, SOLEMNLY, HONESTLY AND THOROUGHLY DENY YOUR EXISTENCE AND DECLARE YOU OFFICIALLY

    SMALL FUCKWIT MORON

    There is a logical flaw in this. Can you spot it?

    You can’t have it both ways!

  85. #85 Lionel A
    July 14, 2013

    freddy
    July 13, 2013

    lionel asshole, for gods sake, please start to try to be a more intelligent person than you are now,…

    .

    Playing true to form I see freddy. Like all of your type you cannot handle reality. This does not bode well for your survival.

    It is just up to us to ensure that you don’t take others down with you.

    freddy
    July 13, 2013

    @all agw arseholes

    bankruptcy of AGW scientoloy [sic] church:

    You really need to take more care with your utterings, besides, each and every one betrays who is priming your pump with such talk of scientology church. Which BTW is not so much a church as a secret society for misfits and those with screws loose, which means that it is you who would fir right in there.

  86. #86 BBD
    July 14, 2013

    Freddy #48 and #63

    There’s no big cover-up here. Trenberth is complaining about the lack of adequate monitoring systems. That’s the “travesty” he’s referring to.

    Not enough satellite data for TOA energy flux and not (in 2009) a sufficiently clear picture of OHC below ~700m.

    Why not read the article he refers to in his email?

    Here’s Trenberth’s own comment on the stolen email you quote:

    In my case, one cherry-picked email quote has gone viral and at last check it was featured in over 107,000 items (in Google). Here is the quote: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.

    The paper on this is available here:

    An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf

    This paper tracks the effects of the changing Sun, how much heat went into the land, ocean, melting Arctic sea ice, melting Greenland and Antarctica, and changes in clouds, along with changes in greenhouse gases. We can track this well for 1993 to 2003, but not for 2004 to 2008. It does NOT mean that global warming is not happening, on the contrary, it suggests that we simply can’t fully explain why 2008 was as cool as it was, but with an implication that warming will come back, as it has. A major La Niña was underway in 2008, since June 2009 we have gone into an El Niño and the highest sea surface temperatures on record have been recorded in July 2009.

    The properly sceptical thing to do would be to read the paper.

  87. #87 John Mashey
    July 15, 2013

    re: Salby I think there was a question
    Both mine and Graham Readfearn’s posts reference the NSF 2009 closeout report.
    On page 1, it says Subject 1 (fn1)
    (fn1) Murry Salby.

    But Salby’s identify was absolutely clear even without that, given the combination of the NSF summaries I posted, plus Salby’s foolish court case against CU in Federal court, which made much information not only public, but easy to get.
    Read:
    1) My detailed post.
    2) Then, follow link to Salby’s allegations against CU.
    3) CU’s defense.
    4) Salby folds, moves to state court, tried again, gets nowhere.
    5) And then review the NSF summary.

    By comparison with past cases, Salby was smart to run to Oz, because there is at least some chance NSF OIG might have sought a felony charge. Although people usually don’t go to jail, sometimes they do. There also might have been issues with the IRS, both on personal taxes, and maybe with 501(c)(3) issues.

    Some of the clueless have claimed that if there were a real problem, he’d have gone to jail.
    But NSF and IRS have plenty to do and have to prioritize. It is expensive to do court cases, takes a while, and getting someone back from Oz is a hassle. While a 3-year debarment may not seem much,. in the US, a thing like this is probably The End for any senior person who does grant-funded research.

    But for amusement, go follow the links to some of the blogs that picked up Salby as Truth. Breathless attack on Macquarie, following every detail … and then rather quickly, silence.

  88. #88 Craig Thomas
    July 15, 2013

    Thanks John. As always, great research and I think I’m a bit clearer on the sequence of events now.

  89. #89 bill
    July 15, 2013

    Any response from the man himself, John?

  90. #90 John Mashey
    July 15, 2013

    Bill
    Not that I know of. In some sense, it might have been nice to have let the blogopshere bozo brigade babble breathlessly away about Copernicus and Galielo and co …a bit longer, but there is already an adequate supply of info for the next round.
    The threads have gone strangely silent, although I haven’t noticed many “Oops!” comments. Maybe some Aussies here might wander over to JoNova and ask.

  91. #91 freddy
    July 15, 2013

    jeff harvey illiterate!

    from your web self-description: WHAT A POOR LANGUAGE FOR A “SCIENTIST”

    what you wrote:

    €&@&€&@&€&

    (1) Intra-interspecific variation in plant quality and its effects on herbivores, parasitoids and hyperparasitoids; linking above- and below ground multitrophic interactions via plant defense.

    Related plant species with different spatial and/or temporal life-history characteristics often possess differences in secondary chemistry and thus direct defensive capability…..

    €&@&€&@&€&

    a: “Intra-interspecific”: NONSENSE: you probably meant intra- and/or interspecific

    b: “linking above- and below ground”: should be written “linking above and below ground” or “linking above- and below-ground”

    c: “Related plant species with different spatial ….”: different to what???? you should have used the word “differing”

    d: “often possess differences”: very poor!! you better have said: “often show differences”

    i could continue with corrections of your terrible english

    AS I SAID: ECOS, CLIMATE ASSHOLES, JOURNALISTS ARE UNTALENTED LOW-EDUCATED PEOPLE

    FUCKWITS

  92. #92 Jeff Harvey
    July 15, 2013

    As you can see, Freddy seems singularly obsessed with me. He has gone through my research career with a fine-toothed comb and he must be searching for me all over the internet. Next thing he will pour through my 130 plus publications (if he is a scientist – which of course he is not, he will have access through his university) and start reviewing them as well. Obviously he is very, very impressed with my CV and wants to emulate my career. Thanks Freddy. I especially love your focus on pedantics.

    So, Freddy, please tell us who you are and where I can look up your illustrious achievements in academia. Given you keep telling us that you were the top of your ‘class’ as a PhD student, a process which in fact as has been pointed out does not exist, it would be nice to see your lengthy list of peer-reviewed publications.

    The truth is that you are a psychotic half-witted nutcase.

    End of story.

  93. #93 Jeff Harvey
    July 15, 2013

    By the way, Freddy, you ought to be cautious in throwing around the term ‘illiterate’, given that the intellectual content of your posts would not impress a five year old.

    But then again, given that you are a raving, mad lunatic, I suppose anything goes.

  94. #94 Jeff Harvey
    July 15, 2013

    To prove my last point, here’s our resident wacko yesterday:

    “ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE IS JUST A PARASITE AND YOU ARE A PARASITE, ARSELICK. ENVIRONMENTALSM IS A SOCIALIST GREEN MOVEMENT, A SUBSIDIARY OF GREENWAR AND WORLD WAR FUND, FULL OF MISLED ACTIVISTS LIKE YOU. YOU WASTE TAXPAYERS MONEY WITH JUNK, NONSENSE, AND DO HARM TO SOCIETY AND ECONOMY*”

    *Note also simple grammatical mistake here (whose economy?), but I won’t elaborate. The bottom line is that this is a rant from a truly deranged individual.

  95. #95 bill
    July 15, 2013

    Yeah yeah, Freddy; you big super-smart genius clever, clever man. Smash enemies with big (poo-stained) rock! Warmies run or Freddy smash smash with slippy squishy rock! Ughhhh!….

    John, some of the responses at Jo Nova’s and WUWT were indeed priceless – and, when referring to the Uni and it’s management, equal parts outrageous and unintentionally comic – and, with few exceptions, perhaps not what one might call (ahem) ‘skeptical’.

    The current mode at la Casa Codling appears to be ‘hands in pockets, whistling nonchalantly’. Nothing to see here, move along… Last comment references your article – and Graham’s – directly.

    And meanwhile none other than Jonas N has entered the fray at Willard Watts’!

  96. #96 Lotharsson
    July 15, 2013

    It sure is amusing to see freddy trying to lecture other people about English grammar – whilst butchering even more basic English punctuation in the very same post. He’d be a decent Poe if he wasn’t so sincere ;-)

  97. #97 freddy
    July 15, 2013

    @jeff harvey “scientologist”

    you maintain that the following are your main interests:

    @&€&@&€&&€€&&&€

    Main research interests

    (1) Intra-interspecific variation in plant quality and its effects on herbivores, parasitoids and hyperparasitoids; linking above- and below ground multitrophic interactions via plant defense.

    Related plant species with different spatial and/or temporal life-history characteristics often possess differences in secondary chemistry and thus direct defensive capability. These differences are often attributed to a range of divergent selection pressures from herbivores and pathogens. Most studies of insect-plant interactions have examined the effects of plant defence on herbivore performance, with less attention being paid to higher trophic levels, such as parasitoid wasps. Ultimately, the net effect of secondary plant compounds on plant fitness depends on how each trophic level separately responds to them. Many parasitoids (in the third trophic level) are attacked by one or more species of obligate hyperparasitoids (in the fourth trophic level) which may in turn be attacked by facultative (or tertiary) hyperparasitoids. Most importantly, the dynamics of tri-trophic interactions involving plants, herbivores and parasitoids may be profoundly affected by hyperparasitoids. They may exert a significant negative effect on plant-fitness by removing parasitoids or predators of the herbivores, (top-down regulation) or else plant allelochemicals may be transferred vertically through herbivores feeding on plants to the third trophic level and perhaps higher (bottom-up regulation). At present this research explores interactions between (a) wild cruciferous plants (Brassicaceae), insect herbivores, parasitoids and hyperparasitoids. Crucifers produce inducible glycoside toxins known as glucosinolates. Although glucosinolates are known to be synthesized by plants in several plant families, they are best studied in the family Brassicaceae. Glucosinolates and their breakdown products play a role in mediating plant-phytophage interactions. For example, they have been shown to act as feeding deterrents or to exhibit detrimental effects on the growth and development of herbivores, pathogens and nematodes. Alternatively, they are known to act as oviposition and feeding stimulants for specialist herbivores. Current research (with R. Gols, Wageningen University, Nicole van am, NIOO, J. Bullock, UK) is examining development and plant selection in several generalist and specialist herbivores and their endoparasitoids on wild and cultivated populations of Brassica nigra and Brassica oleracea. Moreover, PhD student (R. Soler), is also investigating indirect interactions between above- and below ground herbivores as mediated by differential effects of herbivory on primary and secondary chemistry in the two Brassica species.

    Collaborations: Nicole van Dam (NIOO), Martijn Bezemer (NIOO and Wageningen University), Arjen Biere (NIOO), Rieta Gols (Wageningen Uniersity), James Bullock (Institute of Ecology and Hydrology, Dorset, UK), Karen Kester (Virginia Commonwealth University, USA) Pedro Barbosa (University of Maryland, USA), Anne-Marie Cortesero (University of Rennes, France).

    (2) Life-history, foraging and developmental strategies in hyperparasitoids.
    Hyperparasitoids are a fascinating group of insects that attack primary parasitoid hosts. Hyperparasitoids may be primary (e.g. they attack their hosts as larvae within a secondary host, usually a herbivore) or secondary (e.g they attack the primary parasitoid host after it has emerged from the secondary host). With the exception of hyperparasitoids of aphidiine braconds, very little is known about the biology and ecology of most hyperparasitoids. Virtually nothing is known (beyond some basic taxonomic information) of the hyperparasitoid complex of even well-studied tritrophic systems, such as the crucifer-Pieris-Cotesia interaction. At present I am examining lifetime reproductive success and development of Lysibia nana and Gelis agilis, secondary ichneumonid hyperparasitoids that attack cocooned pre-pupae and pupae of several microgastrines in the genus Cotesia. Recent work has shown that differing plant quality, as mediated through the herbivore (secondary host) and parasitoid (primary host) affects developmentof both species, even though there were no effects on the host. Furthermore, Lysibia has a much higher reproductive success than many other hyperparasitoids, reflecting an adaptation to gregarious parasitoid hosts. Offspring sex ratio is highly female-biased, also reflecting selection pressures on its host (via local mate competition). By contrast, reproductive success and daily patterns of progeny allocation in Gelis are much lower.

    Collaborations: Jacques Brodeur (Laval University, Canada), Mark Jervis (University of Cardiff, UK).

    (3) Spatial and temporal effects on multitrophic interactions.
    It is well established that higher trophic levels occupy only a subset of habitats occupied by lower trophic levels. Much recent attention has focussed on evaluating the effects of habitat fragmentation on multitrophic interactions, and parasitoid wasps and their hosts have been increasingly employed as model systems in this research. However, hyperparasitoids have been virtually ignored in this research, even though (as stipulated above) they may play an important role in mediating the strength of community modules. Furthermore, the ‘enemies hypothesis’ predicts that more complex habitats will harbour a greater number of natural enemies than simple habitats. Most tests of this hypothesis have been based on agricultrual systems, which usually exhibit considerable homogeneity compared with semi-natural self-organized environments. Using extreme ends of a continuum, I am comparing (1) levels of predation, (2) parasitism, and (3) secondary hyperparasitism in a simple habitat (mown field margin) and a complex habitat (dense stands of Brassica nigra along the River Rhein) in order to test both the ‘enemies hypothesis’ and to establish how parasitoids and hyperparsitoids respond to such extreme variation in the spatial structure and plant diversity of the two locations.

    @&€&&&€&&&&€€

    AS EVERYBODY CAN SEE YOU SPEND YOUR LIFE WITH LOOKING AT SMALL ANIMALS, NOT WITH WEATHER AND CLIMATE EVERYTHING YOU EXCREMENT ON WEATHER AND CLIMATE IS TOTALLY UNINFORMED COPY PASTE FROM SOURCES OF YOUR CLIMATE SCIENTOLOGY CHURCH. same with other climate troll chuckwit bbd, bernard, chek, shitbillie, craigjoke etc etc: NOBODY OF YOU ASSHOLES HAS ANY BACKGROUND IN WEATHER AND CLIMATE, THEREFORE YOU ARE 100% INCOMPETENT TO TALK ABOUT CAGW

    ASSHOLES, STINKERS

  98. #98 bill
    July 15, 2013

    What a tedious, illiterate plonker.

    Next.

    The seas, they are a risin’… and a little faster every day…

  99. #99 Jeff Harvey
    July 15, 2013

    Freddy, since when are you qualified to talk about climate? Uh… since… never? And you don’t seem to like many of thsoe whoa re qualified to talk about climate; Mann, Hansen, Schmidt, Trenberth, Santer, et al.

    The fact is that my views are in support of the vast majority of climate scientists. Yours aren’t.

    I have asked you this also before: you claim to have a PhD. PROVE IT.

    Of course you won’t and can’t anyway. First, if you did, you’d blow your cover and be thrown out of academia. Second, and more importantly, you probably don’t even have a basic high school diploma.

    As you well know by now, I do have a PhD and a lot of publications. Heck, given what a maniac you are, next thing you’ll be asking to download all of my published work to pour over it for mistakes and typos. Certainly not for the science, as it will be way, way over your little head.

  100. #100 Lionel A
    July 15, 2013

    Those in the UK may like to do something about this Envirinment Agency permit application for Cuadrilla Balcombe Limited response form.

    Worth pointing out this recent article at CP: Shale Shocked: Sharp Rise In U.S. Earthquakes Directly Linked To Fracking Wastewater Reinjection as well as the many other articles found there and elsewhere.

Current ye@r *