Oh and Nova only provided one of my points. But you’re all too fucking stupid to know that.
Sad Luke lost it.
All assertion and projection and no evidence – except that he’s shilling for Nova’s site, and Nova shills for Heartland, so it looks like that’s what Luke the Stupid does too. If only he knew.
“Failure to understand that, given the above, if the hotspot isn’t unambiguously present in the data then the data itself is highly suspect?”
At this point – put your Mum on Lotharsson.
yes renewables are shit. Expensive toys not fit for baseload. Just driving up your power bill be rent seeking do-gooders. There is no renewable baseload demonstration.
Bless Luke, so you got the memo after all.
One word response: Germany.
Multi word response: do you know how many countries get more than 60% of their electricity from renewables? Answer: 45
chek – so you can’t answer my questions can you (if we can remember what thye were now after all this nonsense) – creating a diversion and a weak one is the best you can do.
If she was shilling for Heartland I think she needs to up her rate and move into better digs. She’s simply a disaffected maverick and hubby obviously disillusioned by the Greenhouse Office stint. Having been endured some of their processes – I think for good reason.
BTW I’ve only been banned at Novas about 3 times. My street creds are impeccable.
Courtesy of Brer Eli
Aside from The Rabetts selections, I chose this:
“We face many daunting challenges as a society, and they won’t all be solved with more science and math education. But what has been lost is an understanding that science’s open-ended, evidence-based processes — rather than just its results — are essential to meeting those challenges.
There always have been, and likely always will be cranks. The same applies to mavericks, although the two should never be confused as Luke is wont to do, because the latter generally respect science, while the former generally see it as an impediment to their agenda which must always be the primary concern. And meeting Frank’s challenges of the future isn’t going to come from confused, bandwagon cranks who don’t even know whose or what agenda is enabling their crank ideas
You’ve just been ratfucked !
They’re all over you on this – TonyOz for one will rip your ideas to shreds – he’s over at Nova’s or BraveNewClimate – go chance your arm – real power engineers versus Deltoid wankers – come on …..
What a fucking twat you are, Luke.
And you didn’t answer the question.
BBD – I’m asking the questions not you – get back in line punk. You’ve had your turn.
My street creds are impeccable.
Your ‘creds’ are dependent on what you say, currently here, not your putative antics on some other crank blog.
Which you then reference in support of your ‘arguments’.
Can you see what’s wrong with that picture?
What you are is a third-rate Mosher impersonator. We – or at least I – have heard your schtick before, but done much better. SM at least knows what he’s talking about even though, like you, he is a crypto-denier.
Psst! The science is broken! Psst!
You are shilling for the energy industry but are simply too much of a plonker to see what you are doing. With hideous irony, you think you are being really clever. At least SM actually is clever.
You never answered my questions, so away and fuck yourself!
Anyway, since you are being a knob-head, I will answer the question for you:
There are *no* reputable atmospheric scientists arguing that the “hot-spot” is missing. Not one. The only place this meme is aired is on crank denier blogs.
And you are parroting it. From this we can deduce that:
- You are clueless
- You are a denialist crank
Squawk! Pieces of eight!
Of course if there is no controversy and all you “experts” on here are so sure – you’ll note that Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Carl Mears of Remote Sensing Systems and John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville seem to be having a debate here
http://www.climatedialogue.org/the-missing-tropical-hot-spot/ as to why we can’t find the sucker !
And if you’re confident after that – well adjust your tin foil hat. The science is settled – pigs bum it is.
BTW – that’s what a science discussion looks like boy and girls. But I’m sure serious people would rather read here than over there. HAHAHAHAHAHA
Sucked in BBD. You’ve been played like the rube you are. What a fucking flake.
Realclimate was shrill about the trop hotspot [this is a lie]. Ya gotta know it’s hurting [this is a lie]. Nobody is going to publish a study showing the hotspot is missing – it’s core mantra – moreover Sherwood’s paper desperately try to run the uncertainty ruse to prove it exists. John Cook turned himself inside out on the hotspot [this is a lie]. Frankly you have never looked into it [this is a lie].
Apart from the remarkable number of lies packed into that paragraph, there is a very serious problem with this. Your central claim (bold) is a conspiracy theory. Only denialist cranks peddle the lie that scientists are deliberately colluding to present a fake picture of AGW to the world, so you must be a crank.
The mask has slipped even further. And we see a nutter grimacing and gurning at us.
“There are *no* reputable atmospheric scientists arguing that the “hot-spot” is missing. Not one. The only place this meme is aired is on crank denier blogs.”
I’m laughing so much I can hardly stand. Come in spinner.
John Christy. The man who, with Roy Spencer, fucked up the 2LT product so badly that UAH MSU atmospheric temperature reconstruction had to be completely withdrawn. For years it had been used to claim that there was no tropospheric warming. All that ended rather messily in 2005. Mears, oddly enough was co-author of the paper that brought UAH crashing down to Earth.
Why are you laughing, Luke?
You look like a total prat now. A denialist crank prat.
In one of those curious instances of serendipity that happen occasionally, while I was typing this @ #6: “There always have been, and likely always will be cranks. The same applies to mavericks, although the two should never be confused as Luke is wont to do, because the latter generally respect science, while the former generally see it as an impediment to their agenda which must always be the primary concern.”
Luke was referring us in #7 to his go-to authority on renewables, blogger TonyOz, who tags his … erm … pieces thus:
Tagged: Base Load power, Climate Change Religion, Global Warming Alarmism, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Blundering Bureaucrats, Climate Alarmists, Conniving-Lying-Sneaky Politicians, Environment, Environmental activists, Fear-mongering, Fraud/Waste, Global Warming, Infrastructure Problems, Leftists (In the USA aka as Liberals-Progressives), Political Prostitutes, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda,
With those tags, actually reading the piece is pretty much superfluous.
@Turnoblock, no understood
yes renewables are shit. Expensive toys not fit for baseload. Just driving up your power bill be rent seeking do-gooders. There is no renewable baseload demonstration.
Bless Luke, so you got the memo after all. One word response: Germany. Multi word response: do you know how many countries get more than 60% of their electricity from renewables? Answer: 45
by the fuck: Germany kaput coz of renewsbles
you, blok, also idiot.
“Only denialist cranks peddle the lie that scientists are deliberately colluding to present a fake picture of AGW to the world, so you must be a crank.”
You lying little turd BBD. You’re so good at verballing you could get a job on many of our state police forces.
Licence bedwetting warmists not guns.
It’s the “The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science”
Sherwood is there you tool. Show us your buttocks BBD – know when you’re done mate. You’ve been ratfucked.
From Luke’s link at #15:
[Steve Sherwood:]I agree with pretty much everything Carl says, and he’s gone into more detail than I did on the latest results. We agree that the data we have are basically not stable enough over time to distinguish whether a “hot spot” exists or not, or is as prominent as we would expect. We also agree that warming over the past couple of decades is running lower than nearly all CMIP5 models predict it should be, which is perhaps a more worthy “debate” topic and one that I think will get a lot of attention when the IPCC report comes out. The reasons for this are likely due to cooling influences that have not been applied to the models, such as the unprecedented recent solar minimum, the continuing rise in atmospheric aerosol concentrations and the decline in stratospheric water vapour. To some extent it may also be a chance fluctuation that will go the other way in a few years. Finally, it may signal a somewhat low climate sensitivity–but a sensitivity low enough to make global warming cease to be a problem is basically ruled out by other evidence, particularly palaeoclimate evidence.
@czek: why you crank
why u are crank. czek?
You have been ratfucked. Again.
You are a denialist crank. I didn’t “verbal” you. I quoted you. And for calling me a liar and implying that I misquoted you, I am going to do it again:
Let’s see it again for BBD
Sherwood, Mears, Christy
a debate – July 2013
BBD mate – you’re gone. You’re done. Lie down or be fucked up some more.
Oh I enjoyed that.
BBD can’t minimally defend the AGW position. He’s failed in his duty of care to this blog. Now off with thee BBD. Get off the blog. You’ve misled your merry men here for too long. You are banished to the bit bucket.
I’ve read Kellow. I wonder if you have.
Top of Page 146:
“BGH in milk, and thus [...]”
Carry on for a few words, please, Luke.
Is your browser working correctly. Mears doesn’t support your crank shite from Nova. Read the words.
And you can’t unwrite this, so you are a denialist crank:
Climate dialogue? Yup, another denier site run by the usual (in this case Dutch) suspects. Living in Holland, I am all too aware of these people and their methods.
Luke, methinks you need to seek some form of medical help for your Stockholm Syndrome affliction as described by Bernard. Like other crank deniers on this weblog, you also suffer from the Dunning-Kruger syndrome big time.
Christy has zero credibility (see #19 and all his other public lies and misrepresentations over the years). Mears and Sherwood don’t agree with Christy.
WTF you linked to that article evades me. Another case of not having read or understood the reference.
And now you are blustering desperately because it has whipped round and bitten you on the arse.
Kellow quote please Luke. We are waiting.
The unmistakable sound of Teh Stupid braying to itself.
But you’ve assured me there is no debate. Why is there a debate. Why is Sherwood and Mears debating Christy. Why are the discussing that the obs doesn’t match the models and what is wrong with the theory. WHY WHY WHY !
You’re done BBD – lie down and stay down you utter fraud. You’re a witless fraud and you know it. I spit on your whole thesis – your whole intellectual approach is non-science – morally and intellectually bankrupt.
It’s post-modernist virtual science for those who think “they’re saving the world”.
We can all imagine Luke desperately emailing his crank chums asking someone to help out with the Kellow quote…
Time’s up, Luke old chap!
Caught you bluffing again, you little lying fucker!
No, you lying, bluffing, clueless arsehole.
You have just been destroyed again. And you carry on as if nothing happened.
I spit on your whole thesis
You can do what you like, but you remain lying denialist scum and absolutely everybody can see that.
You have nothing left to offer here. You are the one who needs to fold up your chair and leave.
Luke: You really misrepresented Real Climate didn’t you?
PS “Mispresent” is British for “telling porkies”.
You haven’t actually read it, have you? Or you really didn’t understand what Mears and Sherwood were saying.
Bluffing or stupid, possibly both.
Jeff – well thank heavens for fortress Deltoid – thank heavens as everywhere else is a denier site. Stay home and put your hands over your ears.
My point Jeff is that IMHO you guys are simple now out of touch with the debate. We need good answers to my questions to hold the line with our new conservative masters in political control.
Your flakey appeals to authority are no longer going to cut it.
I’m your wakeup call.
Someone get BBD a Serepax
Has someone got back to you with that Kellow quote yet, bluffer?
I told you I could see right through your posturing days ago. You should have listened. Now look at you.
#22 Renewables contribute to lower wholesale electricity prices in Germany.
And Germany is not kaput through renewables: Germany is probably the least kaput of the EU member states.
No, you are an ignorant wanker.
“Berendaneke – vested interest paying the bills – hahahahaha – AGW side on squadillion bucks (fucking massive eye watering amounts) versus evil energy industry/tobacco shills opposition – a few million. Really? Mavericks are doing it for free coz they hate your guts as pink commies in disguise and for pure sport”
OMG, what utter gibberish. Pure insanity. I’d like to see some evidence for these ‘eye-watering amounts’ of money. None is ever provided. Its stated as if it is fact by deniers – with no evidence. None. Zilch. On the other hand, the huge number of right wing think tanks, public relations forms, astroturf groups and other third parties funded by the corporate lobby does indeed total many, many millions of dollars. And every year there are more and more of them. Corporate lobbyists play a massive role in determining public policy in the US alone. For example in the US in 1998, ALL advocacy groups covering a wide range of subjects – were able to muster up 4.3 million dollars lobbying the US Congress. Environmental groups were just one of hundreds of these, and their total was a fraction of it. The same year, energy companies alone invested 58.3 million dollars lobbying members of the US Congress, and Agro-Biotech companies 129.3 million dollars (Rampton and Stauber, 2001). And this excludes of course money spent on campaign donations, and other forms of lobbying, which are often far, far greater. Since that time, this amount has of course greatly increased. Corporate lobbyists rule Washington. They have a bottomless pit of money for their cause – deregulation.
Truth is, Luke, you can’t debate your way out of a wet paper bag. You haven’t got any data to back you up – nothing but innuendo and smears.
Watch this brazen, lying toe-rag just brazen out being exposed as conspiracist crank, liar and bluffer all in the space of a dozen comments.
But on he goes! Mendacity-powered!
BBD catching up – he can’t read it quick enough. Eyes frantically scanning the screen test for a toehold. Quickly checks the comments – uh oh – Chris Colose is there. Heat on the neck increases. Stomach tightens.
So no debate screamed BBD but alas there does seem to be one among the big boys. Oh diddums.
Better move the goal posts, lay smoke and tack to port, or sledge like crazy. Or all three !
“thank heavens as everywhere else is a denier site”
Oh come on now, Luke. You must really be deluded to think this. Besides, universities and research institutes are most certainly NOT denier sites. You schmucks are stuck in your own little myopic world on the internet. Some advice: get out more. Attend a scientific conference or workshop. See where the prevailing view is there. Hint: as a working scientist I can tell you that it ain’t the same as yours.
Makes you wonder just which of Lukes “references” he actually has read, doesn’t it?
Not the same debate *you* are proposing, though, is it?
You are arguing that it’s all crap. This lot are debating the details, not the reality of AGW or the necessity for policy response.
Luke: Look how your climate dialogue ends:
August 22, 2013 at 7:48 pm Log in to Reply
Based on emails from both Steven Sherwood and John Christy, and based on Carl Mears’ blogpost, I can report that all three agree that
1) Yes, amplified warming in the tropical troposphere is expected.
2) No, the hot spot in the tropics is not specific to a greenhouse mechanism.
Thanks for posting a “shoot yourself in the foot” link.
Luke, for how many years were Christy and Spencer’s incompetence with their own product undetected until RSS set them straight?
d)Christy’s a lying sack of Texan-payroll Republican shit whose false results served a bigger purpose?
Nice choice of authority figure. Possibly the best you’ve got.
[Chris Colose:]I was very happy to see an extensive discussion by Steve Sherwood and Carl Mears on the very large uncertainties in the observational datasets, which right now do not provide a robust direct comparison when evaluating whether the tropical troposphere has stayed close to a moist adiabat. Other “proxy” measurements such as those developed from the thermal wind equation (e.g., Allen and Sherwood, 2008) or those looking the structure of deep convection changes in the tropics (e.g., Johnson and Xie, 2010) are also a good supplement to the topic, because they are independent from the satellite or radiosonde temperature data, and do not suggest a fundamental data-theory-model mismatch. I was also happy to see a discussion by Steve Sherwood on various implications of a real data-model mismatch should it exist. In the next paragraph, I will outline some points where I disagree with Dr. Sherwood on this. Unfortunately, John Christy’s post read like a defense lawyer’s argument on why models stink and why everything is too complex, with only fairly limited substance on the actual issue of the tropical hotspot (and with only limited reference to a large body of literature on observational uncertainty).
Still nobody got back to you to bail you out of that hole with the Kellow reference?
Why Luke is a denialist crank (in his own words):
Apart from the remarkable number of lies packed into that paragraph, there is a very serious problem with this. Your central claim (bold) is a conspiracy theory. Only denialist cranks peddle the lie that scientists are deliberatly colluding to present a fake picture of AGW to the world, so you must be a crank.
I think Luke needs his own thread.
#22 would you also like to address those 45 countries that get more than 60% of their electricity from renewables?
BTW it’s 46 if you count Portugal which got over 70% earlier this year for a brief period.
many millions of dollars Jeff – oooooo really – millions and many. Wow
The big attacks are coming from mavericks not think tanks. I’m not quoting Heartland and that dubious lot.
The establishment funding is zillions – the sceptic budget is piddly. Big science has a vested interest in keeping big science rolling. One is captive of group process and heavy management oversight.
Really who cares what funds what – the science stacks up or it doesn’t.
Turbo – would like to cite that and the subsidies involved pls. What 70% for a brief period till the wind died? 37% hydro – with all that methane bubbling up. I guess we can wallpaper the place with dams. Always popular.
Luke needs his own thread.
People who get their faces ripped off and just keep churning out the cess as though nothing has happened aren’t worth listening to.
chek – did I say I was a devotee of Spencer or Christy – more verballing by you
You got a link for that source TB
Now we will all pretend that the farcical business with the hot spot crapola just never happened.
Luke is an unsinkable rubber duck. Like every other denialist crank infesting the internet.
“Attend a scientific conference or workshop. See where the prevailing view is there. Hint: as a working scientist I can tell you that it ain’t the same as yours.”
Well I do. And as a working scientist I can tell you the answers aren’t forthcoming and the group think is massive. The unhappiness festers in the ranks.
I love this though.
Every single time I really flatten a denier, their final “tactic” is to pretend it didn’t happen.
The it’s hard to express the utter, buttock-clenching stupidity of this final desperate resort in a public forum.
The big attacks are coming from mavericks not think tanks.
Uh-huh. Mavericks who no doubt confected all the very same pseudo-science talking points with remarkably similar agenda independently. Which do you think is the more likely, Luke?
That you’re a complete spoonfed moron, or everybody else is?
First there came Boris the Freddy and Genius. Now this fucking clown is pretending to be a working scientist.
Not to forget cohenite/Cox. Which didn’t work out too well for him either.
You stupid, stupid fucker, Luke. You have screwed yourself utterly now.
“Well I do. And as a hardworking scientist lying wanker”
Corrected that for you, Dr. Luke de Kook..
BBD – you were done mate. Now there were about another 6-7 other issues I was after help with.
Would you like to be played for a rube with those as well.
You guys are portraying me as a denier / shill/ crank. Well I’ll give you crank – we’re all cranks or we wouldn’t be here. WOULD WE?
Where I have go to is that the debate is no longer straight forward. But being very interested in the massive impact that a Hadley cell shift would have on global drought I need to get this AGW stuff worked through much more rigorously.
We can’t do that religiously defending aspects of the science that clearly aren’t working.
As you can see with this link to the Guardian, Portugal managed to get to 24.4% renewable in 2010 with a target of 31% in 2020.
The only European country hitting anywhere near 60% is Norway, which is blessed with an ideal geography for hydroelectric power.
Zhou et al. (2011) Recent trends of the tropical hydrological cycle inferred from Global Precipitation Climatology Project and International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project data (supports J&F09 on widening Hadley cells – see below)
Johanson & Fu (2009) Hadley Cell Widening: Model Simulations versus Observations
chek – you’re calling me a liar coz you’ve been ratfucked. Totally and utterly ratfucked.
The subsidies are peanuts compared to fossil fuel subsidies. In any case they are irrelevant, because the net effect of renewables is lower wholesale prices of electricity. Check out the merit order effect…
25#100: Actually, Luke, rabies cannot be cured – but it can take up to a decade to kill. Interesting analogy – lyssaviridae like rabies are introduced by bite from an infected animal, then travel (slowly) to the central nervous system via the nerves to cause almost certain death (2 recorded cases of survival without secondary vaccination). Bit like the denialist memes you keep excreting.
BTW no one makes you post here. Your insecurity and desperate need to engage may be behind you changing your avatar every 3 posts – or it may just be because you are a useful idiot, keen to promote Jo Coddling-Moth’s pathetic propaganda mill. You, Fatso & cohenite are peas in a (rotten, festering) pod.
I wasn’t “done” you posturing impostor. You are the one reciting denialist rubbish, not me. Got me that Kellow quote yet, you pillock?
I really do think Luke needs his own thread.
#63 Yep OK I see now I exaggerated it was only 68% Blame the aging neurones http://www.ren.pt/media/comunicados/detalhe/renewable_energy_sources_accounted_for_68__of_the_electricity_consumed_in_the_1st_half_of_the_year/
BBD – you say “bye” but your’re back. you’ll have all your phones on full there phoning a friend, Google Scholar going to meltdown. Mate that’s the spirit – don’t get mad – get even. Want a hand with Scopus – much better? Want to get my librarians to help you? Feels good to be alive and have your blood up doesn’t it.
I gave you a Hadley cite a bazzillion miles ago – you said it was a gish. Try to keep up. This will help
Now pay attention boy !
#72 Er what’s your point Rednose? I said “electricity”.
No, I said byee to you as in fuck off now, Luke. But granted, it was ambiguous.
I need to get this AGW stuff worked through much more rigorously.
Then give up your job in the dogfood tasting department, get qualified and get to work.
Codling – sorry – cobbling together contradictory shite from crank blogs then testing your half-baked misconceptions and pretending to be a scientist at Scienceblogs™ is no way to go about it, or live a life.
I don’t do video links. Paper and authors please.
rhwombat – are you making love to a rock?
#59 Luke, you said What 70% for a brief period till the wind died?
Actually it was the first 6 months of the year, but thanks for the predictable knee jerk reaction.
chek – don ‘t be a lying turd – you’ve had plenty of cites.
Boys you mommies are calling you ….. off you go now.
No. You are the one who has just been caught out bluffing your references. Kellow quote, fuckwit, Kellow quote.
you’ll have all your phones on full there phoning a friend, Google Scholar going to meltdown. Mate that’s the spirit – don’t get mad – get even. Want a hand with Scopus – much better? Want to get my librarians to help you? Feels good to be alive and have your blood up doesn’t it.
Oh well the other 6 months won’t matter.
Luke needs his own thread to posture emptily in.
The total net generation for Portugal in 2009 was 46.53 million Mwh. Power supply from conventional thermal sources accounted for 61.90% of the total. In comparison, renewable sources including hydroelectricity contributed 38.53% of the total
My point is, putting it politely, that the figures you quoted are an exaggeration, probably gained from the crap warmist blogs you frequent.
Working scientist my arse.
Poor BBD – now listen numb nuts you’ve been shown to be a lying fraud on the hotpsot – lie down or I’ll have to bitchslap you some more.
Hadley cell expansion reference: paper and authors please.
You are living in a parallel reality Luke.
But I bet you want to get this page of comments finished fast! Don’t worry Luke, I’ll remind you of your fuck-ups tomorrow!
And the day after that!
The “hot spot is *missing* therefore AGW is falsified” is a crank meme.
The “models are falsified therefore AGW is broken” is a crank meme.
All you are doing is regurgitating debunked crankery and refusing to admit it when you get your arse handed to you. Over and over again. Which is absolutely diagnostic of the denialist crank.
BBD – I only need one – how you were done over totally on the trop hotty. I’m still laughing.
Ref I cited earlier is your 2nd above. One of a number on the topic.
I reckon I’m probably the best SOB you’ve had here is a while. I’m pretty good. I know it. I think you ought be grateful for livening your little incest pit up. So good luck with the denial. Keep the appeals to authority going and have a good sook when Abbott rapes and burns your research.
Don’t go over to Jo’s you’ll be ratfucked. And give the poor lady at http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/ a hand
But you are right on one thing – Cohenite is a wanker. And be nice to El Gordo – he hasn’t got long left.
you’ve been shown to be a lying fraud on the hotpsot
Which alternative reality did this happen in, Luke de Kook? The same one in which you’re a ‘working scientist’? Or our collective one here where you’re a crank/liar:?
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.