August 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 mike
    August 23, 2013

    Hey rhwombat–you doofus, loutish, oafish, repellent, can’t-make-it-in-private-practice, quack-bloodsucker, Lysenkoist-little-shit, wombat-humping lefty-puke!

    @The whole of your commentary on this blog, but especially comments no. 2 and 74 on page 26

    As we all knew, rhwombat, sooner or later the fateful day would arrive and today’s the day!–the spirochetes have, at last, breached the last of your defenses and now infect each and every one of the mutant boogers in your eco-flunky, hive-bozo brain!

    Jeez…what a mess you’ve made of things, big time, rhwombat! I mean, like, I can only imagine the panic-attack, freak-out scene that’s gonna erupt in the wombat “community” when the “partner notifications” really get
    rollin’! I mean, like, you’re a walkin’-talkin’ , level-4 bio-hazard, guy!

    P. S. Hey chek! Everything I said about rhwombat goes double for you, asshole! (except you hump bandicoots!)–you little-runt, insufferable-prick hive-weasel!

  2. #2 chek
    August 23, 2013

    You really need to investigate which phrases need hyphenated and which don’t, li’ll mike.

    Still, who am I to interrupt yet another of your sad little pointless interludes. Deniers need all the help they can get keepin’ those dead old peckers up.

  3. #3 Turboblocke
    August 23, 2013

    #46 more on the Aussie electricity prices; Typically, an average Australian household electricity bill in 2012-13 consists of:
    5
    • Network charges – the largest cost component, accounting for about 51 per cent of
    the bill, this represents the cost of building and maintaining electricity networks, i.e.
    the poles and wires that deliver electricity to your home or business.
    • Wholesale costs – the costs associated with generating electricity and trading it in a
    wholesale market – around 20 per cent of the total bill.
    • Carbon price – cost passed on by fossil-fuel generators for their carbon emissions –
    around 9 per cent of the household bill.
    • Retail and energy scheme costs – the ‘shop front’ for a consumer’s electricity supply
    and costs from schemes for energy efficiency and renewables – together about 20 per
    cent of the bill.

    So once again renewables are only a small proportion of the bill.
    http://www.ret.gov.au/Department/Documents/clean-energy-future/ELECTRICITY-PRICES-FACTSHEET.pdf

  4. #4 Turboblocke
    August 23, 2013

    Mike fits into my zoo scenario too. I imagine him as the projectile.

  5. #5 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    Mike

    Out of curiosity, do you read my comments? Especially the evidence-based discussions of climate sensitivity estimates derived from paleoclimate behaviour and the back-and-forth with commenters unable to understand physical climatology?

    If you don’t, well fine, nothing further to say. If you do, what specifics do you object to? What about the basics makes you think that AGW isn’t real?

  6. #6 el gordo
    August 23, 2013

    ‘It’s probably a lot less due to run off and evaporation, but clearly some effect is possible.’

    That’s what I initially thought and I mentioned to Craig that the idea was plausible. If we had a maths expert on hand we might get to the truth.

  7. #7 chek
    August 23, 2013

    For some reason BBD, you seem to think li’ll mike’s putting on a front, but his past history as yet another ooh-rah merkin muhrine fantasist suggests otherwise.

    Li’ll mike (there was another ‘Mike’ – big ‘M’ when he first showed up) is just another ersatz libertard who classes public infrastructure/health/education as commie excrescences that offend his backward, backwood sensibilities.

    Funnily if predictably enough, the fascist, top-down hierarchy of the corporate world that spawned his received ideas doesn’t phase him one bit.

  8. #8 el gordo
    August 23, 2013

    Leaning on Wiki the planet’s ocean area is 361 km2 and if you multiply that by 7mm you get 2,527km3 of water.

    Australia’s land area is 7.7 million km2 so over the 2010-11
    Oz would have had to receive 3.28m of additional rainfall to ‘suck up’ that 2,527 cubic kilometres of water to drop sea level by 7mm.

    Its a big call.

  9. #9 Rednose
    August 23, 2013

    TB#99
    Except they are not independent as they have to export excess wind (energy) to norway for pump storage to stabilise their grid and import when the wind dont blow.

    TB#98
    And where are the new grid connections and switching necessary for those new windfarms factored into your costings?

  10. #10 chek
    August 23, 2013

    If we had a maths expert on hand we might get to the truth.

    You’ve deliberately chosen not to believe the people most likely to answer that question, so you’ve condemned yourself to your crank world forever.

  11. #11 chek
    August 23, 2013

    Where are the destructive effects of off-loading CO2 from fossil fuels into the atmosphere factored into your “costings”, Redarse?

  12. #12 Luke
    August 23, 2013

    Lionel – there has been no information provided by any of you to my questions. Except abuse, appeals to authority, attempts to deflect by saying sceptics are cranks, crooks, misguided (and well some may be), questions about qualifications, diversions to other topics – really this is appalling.

    Like Jo Nova I never said that AGW is not real.

    Unlike Jo Nova (El Gordo, Karen and Cohenite) I do think AGW (and IMPORTANTLY current climate variability) represents a significant risk to our society, economy, and ecosystems.

    That’s risk. Risk is not immediate hazard. It’s not done and dusted. Much is unknown and I find the current case inadequate. My masters who will vote “nyet” to any form of mitigation find the case inadequate. Other big risks are all forms of environmental pollution, world population, AIDS, malaria, TB, poverty, food security, terrorism and militarism. And in the west lifestyle. AGW in a new era of restrained budgets need to be framed in proportion. Make the arguments of be voted down and out. You have not made the arguments here.

    Jeff”s insect ecology is a very interesting field and I’m glad he’s had a wonderful career – but frankly in this complex field it adds very little to say his judgement is any better – the fact he raised shows his insecurity about being able to answer meaningfully and therefore a need to attempt intimidation. I don’t need to know about his degrees – I need to know about the trop hotspot.

    The trop hotspot is now a classic object lesson in the mentality of Doltoids. Firstly there was no debate said BBD. Then he was dacked as I presented a debate with major players in July. Then he clips a piece that sums it up. The data doesn’t support the hypothesis. Then from that does a flip with inverse pike to INSIST that the theory is right. This is a disgrace. And you wonder why Nova is all over you on this. Not one of you could frame any personal comments on the science – all you could do is clip, divert, appeal to authority – tediously quote the lack lustre rebuttals on SkepticalScience and RC. And the net result is that the data don’t support the hypothesis. Yes I know it should be there for all forms of warming – Tim Lambert has also been over it too. Yes we all know that – do you think we’ve come down in the last shower.

    Nova has missile lock on you guys here. You’d be well placed to doing some homework.

    Von Storch -(who has serious credentials) and I presented his paper and Lucia’s independent analysis – I could have also put up Roy Spencers but you’d have a fit. They show the models falling outside the confidence bands. Surely not surprising if we discussing a pause. It was not expected. You can attempt to explain it away but it was not expected. What else is not expected. What else have we got wrong on major points.

    You have no explanation for massively expanding Antarctic sea ice. And then you tried to deflect on “Accelerating” glaciers for which there are now many papers suggesting the rates are most variable. You then pathetically in that context tried to bluff with trends over just a few years, typically without error bars. GRACE satellites plus or minus a bazzilion gigatons.

    You have no explanation for the inverse trend that has now been found globally on pan evaporation. It’s trending down. Brought to you by ANU, School of Botany who really look at met data. Every talk I go to on AGW tells me how evaporation is increasing.

    You blustered on tropical cyclones and hurricanes knowing the decadal variation and knowing that the WMO have called the state of science inconclusive. You tried to bluster with damage and Sandy when Sandy was not exceptional and the damage estimate trends are conflated with increased infrastructure being built in harms way.

    You are unaware of the centennial natural internal variability in recent GCM studies. Ref provided.

    You are unaware of the problems in GCMs in mathematical precision and machine architecture giving massive differences in outputs. Ref provided.

    You seem happy to average multi-model means that contain rainfall estimates from plus 20% to minus 20% – good lord ! See some Australian projections as a case study.

    Hadn’t even got into representation of multi-decadal variability in GCMs. Field day awaits.

    On a practical test to see if you had any thought on the massive Millennium MDB and SEQ droughts – that have been so controversial nothing. Your probably don’t even know about SEACI.

    On another practical test about skill testing on seasonal forecasts – zip – and I know why – it’s off your hymn chart trendline. But that technology is major adaptation route.

    Downscaling as a practical way of using GCM output – clueless.

    I have cut a massive swathe through you lot here. You could have engaged intelligently. You could engaged in discussion. However straightb in border protection mode. Either through religious blindness, lack of ability, lack of any real research – all you can do is bluster, divert and abuse.

    You guys are flakes. And nasty little shits who have been camped out here in isolation here for too long.

  13. #13 el gordo
    August 23, 2013

    ‘You’ve deliberately chosen not to believe the people most likely to answer that question’

    Thats not true, I’m looking at both sides of the argument.

  14. #14 chek
    August 23, 2013

    Let’s correct your little reality defying Gish-gallop shall we Mr. “Scientist”?

    “all I can do is bluster, divert and abuse. I am a flake. And a nasty little shit who has been camped out over there at Codlings in isolation for too long”.

    Projection, meet Dr. Luke de Kook. As experienced at Deltoid August 2013.

  15. #15 el gordo
    August 23, 2013

    ‘What else is not expected. What else have we got wrong on major points.’

    Since the great climate shift of 1976 nobody has given a second thought to the possibility of global cooling, because the ‘precautionary principle’ was all one way traffic.

  16. #16 chek
    August 23, 2013

    Thats not true, I’m looking at both sides of the argument.

    No you do not, you senile fuckwit!
    One ‘side’ (according to you) is corrupt conspiring against poor l’ll you, and that happens to be the scientists dealing with your ‘question’..

  17. #17 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    And again, you lie.

    The trop hotspot is now a classic object lesson in the mentality of Doltoids. Firstly there was no debate said BBD.

    No. I said this:

    There are *no* reputable atmospheric scientists arguing that the “hot-spot” is missing. Not one.

    And like it or not, Luke, it is the truth.

    Nobody serious argued that this undermined the standard position on AGW. And your link proved me correct. Instead, we get Christy, Spencer, Singer, Douglass, Klotzbach, McIntyre, McKitrick et al. – all authors of multiply-debunked studies, all contrarian and fringe.

  18. #18 el gordo
    August 23, 2013

    chek we are discussing the drop in sea level because the big Oz rains sucked it up. Its an interesting theory.

  19. #19 Turboblocke
    August 23, 2013

    #8 Leaning on Wiki the planet’s ocean area is 361 km2 and if you multiply that by 7mm you get 2,527km3 of water.

    Australia’s land area is 7.7 million km2 so over the 2010-11
    Oz would have had to receive 3.28m of additional rainfall to ‘suck up’ that 2,527 cubic kilometres of water to drop sea level by 7mm.

    WTF? World ocean area is about 350 million km2
    Surface area of Australia is about 7.7 million km2 so about 1/50. So 50 mm landing on Oz equals 1mm drop in sea level rise. An average of 350mm all over Oz would equate to 7mm over the oceans. You’ve slipped a decimal somewhere. Best to apply scepticism to your own reasoning too.

  20. #20 Turboblocke
    August 23, 2013

    #6 If we had a maths expert on hand we might get to the truth.

    Well EG stepped up to the plate in #8 to prove that he’s not the one that you want.

  21. #21 Turboblocke
    August 23, 2013

    #9 so you’re trying to emulate Luke are you? What is the point of your question about Denmark? It has nothing to do with the tax on energy which is responsible for most of Denmark’s high energy prices.

    The Germans are upgrading their grid. It’s impossible to separate the changes required for renewables from the changes required anyway.

    Good news is that they will save money by doing all this.

    The GBG specializes in internalizing external costs, which Altmaier does not account for in his trillion-euro estimate. The authors point out that the Leitstudie itself estimates that the avoided cost of environmental impacts up to 2040 will amount to 239 billion euros, which is already more than the additional cost of 203 billion above. This alone produces a positive outcome for investments in the energy transition up to 2040.

    Then there is the merit order effect, which Altmaier does not take into account. The cumulative merit order effect comes in at more than 20 billion euros from 2006-2011, equivalent to more than three billion euros per year.

    Yet, the merit order effect does not go far enough because new power plants would also need to be built over the next few decades if less solar, wind, and biomass goes up. In other words, Minister Altmaier acts as though no new power plants would need to be built at all for decades if we simply didn’t invest in renewables.

    The study does not attempt to estimate the cost of grid upgrades because it is unclear what will actually be needed, and some of grid upgrades will be necessary in any case.

    http://www.renewablesinternational.net/criticism-of-altmaiers-trillion-euro-price-tag/150/537/61170/

  22. #22 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    chek #7

    It’s not that I think it’s a front, it’s that I think mike isn’t stupid and does play games. So I want to play a game with him. It’s called “fuck the greenies, what about physics!

  23. #23 Turboblocke
    August 23, 2013

    #18 More than an interesting theory… there’s evidence too.

    http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/10090/global-sea-level-rise-dampened-australia-floods

  24. #24 chek
    August 23, 2013

    BBD @ #22 Well, good luck and the best of British, but I don’t believe li’ll mike’s paygrade can cope with what you’re asking of him.

  25. #25 Turboblocke
    August 23, 2013

    #12 Sorry Luke but you’re just repeating your flinging. How about taking a deep breath and thinking before you post the point that you want to make? But if it’s just “the models are wrong” I wouldn’t bother. We know that they’re “wrong” but they are also useful.

    But as you keep ignoring the HvS 1998 cherry pick and you keep banging on about the trop hot spot as if it is significant, I fear that your point will not be worth the wait.

  26. #26 Jeff Harvey
    August 23, 2013

    I’ve asked you before Luke and In will ask again: when are you gonna publish your remarkable findings on tropical hotspots in a major peer-reviewed journal? Or are you all bluff, bluster and no substance?

  27. #27 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    Gordy

    Standard pretty picture of SL change.

    One has to wonder where the water went. Did it just dematerialise for a couple of years and then re-emerge into this universe, tanned and smiling?

    Where did it go? Please provide a physical mechanism for the dip/resumption in SLR centred on 2011 that includes a non-oceanic reservoir for the “missing water”.

  28. #28 Turboblocke
    August 23, 2013

    #12 Luke You say Not one of you could frame any personal comments on the science – all you could do is clip, divert,…

    That’s what you’re doing: where are your personal comments and insights… all you’ve is post some links and say “Squirrel, explain that.”

  29. #29 Turboblocke
    August 23, 2013

    BBD have some GRACE with your pretty picture… http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-255

  30. #30 Turboblocke
    August 23, 2013

    #15 Since the great climate shift of 1976 nobody has given a second thought to the possibility of global cooling, because the ‘precautionary principle’ was all one way traffic.

    That’s because we’re too short sighted to plan for something which won’t occur for a few thousand years and we’ve got pressing issues with AGW.

  31. #31 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    Remember, when pushed hard to provide something substantive, we did get this:

    Now cunt answer the the scientific papers that prove the models FALSIFIED.

    Instead of a reference to the scientific papers that prove :-) the models FALSIFIED (OMG!)™.

    Prove! This from a “working scientist”…

    He is going to enjoy his time here.

  32. #32 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    #29 don’t bother me with your fake sketches. I know the real science.

    ;-)

  33. #33 Jeff Harvey
    August 23, 2013

    Joint position of major National Academies on Climate Change:

    http://www.science.org.au/policy/climatechange-g8+5.pdf

    It is Luke, the arrogant idiot, who is out to sea. I’ve also repeatedly asked him for his qualifications in climate science and the response has been a big, fat ZERO. No qualifications, no publications, just more bullshit. And more on top of that.

    Then he belittles my research – a rather stupid thing to do, given that without insects humans wouldn’t last more than a decade or two. Pollination services provided by insects alone largely sustain civilization – and that is ignoring a wealth of other vital ecosystem services to which they contribute like pest control and nutrient cycling. Its too bad dolts like Luke who probably can’t tell a field cricket from an elephant are forced to parade their ignorance when cornered.

    Its actually amusing watching the deniers here squirm when inconvenient questions are asked – such as about their qualifications, publications, etc. as well as when confronted with the reality of the opinions of the vast majority of experts. All that is left for them is to lash out with the usual smears, combined with feeble attempts to rehabilitate their own standing. Luke, like Karen and El Gordo, has none, except in his own mind, where he is something of a legend.

    As I said, science is done in universities and in research institutes, and published in rigid journals, not on blogs. Luke has just replaced Jonas as our new self-professed expert. BBD has demolished his arguments time and again, yet the clot keeps coming back for more, whilst claiming to exert intellectual authority in a field in which he has no formal qualifications in. If he did, we’d sure know about it by now. Oh yeah.

    The deniers are great at inflating the qualifications of people who have little or no pedigree in the field. Heck, several of these people are trying to elevate their own standing on Deltoid, then getting all uppity when asked what their educational background are. Essentially, those supporting the broad consensus are expected to swallow the lies and obfuscations of the deniers. They forever tell us that they are experts and that is supposed to be the end of the story.

    It isn’t.

  34. #34 Turboblocke
    August 23, 2013

    Australia: These interior basins are key to the fact that the continent’s runoff ratio is just 6% in the climatological mean (as compared to 30%-40% for other continents).

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/fasullo-2013-sea-level-variability-levelheadedness.html

  35. #35 mike
    August 23, 2013

    Turboblocke

    Yr no. 4

    I see, Turboblocke, you’re mighty proud of that little monkey-throwing-shit-in-the-zoo metaphor of yours, aren’t you, ol’ buddy. And if I were your mummy, Turboblocke, I’d probably even pat you on your little beaming, cocksure, spoiled-brat, cutie-pie, attention-seeking head and call you “Mummy’s little clever snookums!”

    But I’m not your mummy, Turboblocke! And so I won’t spare your little sweetums feeliings. And so for your little copy-cat, laugh-at-your-own-jokes information, guy, that monkey-throwing-shit knee-slapper of yours is a standard-issue, painfully trite bit of hackneyed, hive agit-prop and that “zinger”-booger gets rolled out on this blog, by eco-creeps, like you, Turboblocke, on a regular basis.

    In other words, Turboblocke, your precious little story of your childhood experience at a London zoo may “cut it” with an overly-protective, smothering hive-mom who just can’t get enough of her little Turboblocke-pet, but it doesn’t pass the smell test with anyone else–you little, phony-baloney plagiarist!

    You know, Turboblocke, you’re not the first little zit-afflicted, under-supervised, mummy-addicted, snot-nosed eco-loser that’s shown up here! You’re just one of the dumb-shit, clueless worst. And if I burst your little bubble–tough shit!

    BBD,

    Yr. no. 5

    I kinda thought we went over this before, BBD. I don’t read anyone’s comments on this blog to the extent they involve, in the least bit, boring, science-geek technical stuff and all. I only read comments for the quality of their snark and for their lefty, propaganda, hive-agenda content.

    I mean, like, BBD, the science of “Climate Science” is beyond my ability to personally judge in terms of its scientific merit. Rather my judgement of the CAGW hustle derives from the following observations:

    -The CAGW hustle has attracted the hive’s whole grab-bag of make-a-greenwashed-buck opportunists; youth-master chaperones with their brainwashed-ditzy-obnoxious- “Young Pioneer” kid-contingents in tow (see Turboblocke); and the usual bit-part grifters of the brave-new-gulag eugenicist, flatulent vegan, professional-parasite, social-reject, thrill-cull sociopath, NGO-hot-babe-working-girl, and sell-out trough-sucker persuasion that always put in an appearance when the hive rolls out one of its cons.

    -The hive’s solutions for “solving” the “global warming problem”, as usual, involves ripping-off me and other “little guys” like me while forever-expanding the quality and capacity of the hive’s troughs and quality and quantity of the hive’s carbon-piggie swill-rations allotted to the greenshirt, lumpen-hacks doing the hive’s flim-flam scut-work. I mean like, you can’t even get the the hive’s most wound-up, chicken-little worry-warts to even video conference their party-time, blow-out eco-confabs, no matter how much you explain to the little, hypocrite phonies that video-conferencing eco-fabs would save tons and tons carbon “pollution”

    -Finally, I note, in my crude, primitive, wary-peon way, that the most prominent of my betters, urging a reduced-carbon, Agenda-21 compliant, rabbit-hutch-hell life-style on me are all serial philanderers, big-time, with ol’ demon-carbon as they spew CO2 “pollution” copiously from their private-airplanes; rambling, beach-front, batchelor-pad mansions; bullet-proof limousine convoys; and in the course of their bunga-bunga, jet-set life styles.

    And after I’ve taken all the above in, BBD, I ask myself: Are those who are seemingly most convinced of the carbon peril and most anxious to slip their grubby little mitts into my taxpayer pocket providing LEADERSHIP?!!–LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE?!! Are they PRACTICING WHAT THEY PREACH?!!!

    And, then, BBD, after I observe my eco-betters, lecturers, exhorters, false-flaggers, bait-and-switchers, factoid-floggers, hired-gun scientists, and general purpose bullshitters and creep-outs, in on the deal, like Tuboblocke and rhwombat, I conclude that they do not provide LEADERSHIP!!–LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE!!!. They do not PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH!!!

    And so I do what the savvy hoi-polloi have done for generations to protect themselves from powerful money-grubbers and their smarty-pants enablers–that is, I note a discrepancy between the words and deeds of those making me a pitch and then I call it a SCAM!!!!!!

    Works for me. And, yes, BBD, I know you’re going to say that even if Al Gore gave up all his high-carbon ways it would not matter in the larger scheme of things. That may be true in terms of simple carbon-reduction, but not in terms of inspiring others to sacrifice for the common good. Indeed, unless the BRICS all de-carbonize it hardly matters what Great Britain and Australia do on the carbon-reduction front. Except the advocates of carbon-reduction in these countries insist that British and Aussie carbon-reduction efforts “set the example” for other nations. “Set the example”–catch that, BBD? Hey!, BBD, it works intra-nationally just like it works internationally.

    Wake me up for the hive’s next soft-soap sales-pitch when my betters are all in a personal, Agenda-21-to-the-max mode themselves. Then I’ll be glad to emulate my trend-setter betters.

  36. #36 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    I’ll take that as a “no” then, mike. Depending on your age, you may or may not meet Mr Physics. If you do, say hi from me.

  37. #37 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    BTW, I’d be the first to agree that policy is a mess and science-based arguments are not carrying the day.

    So we will probably get to meet Mr Physics in the end.

  38. #38 Turboblocke
    August 23, 2013

    that monkey-throwing-shit knee-slapper of yours is a standard-issue, painfully trite bit of hackneyed, hive agit-prop

    Really? Link please… I won’t hold my breath.

    But I see I misjudged you… you’re not just the projectile… you’re the excited too.

    And “hive agit-prop”? Bless that’s a cute one. I got all nostalgic for the Berlin Wall when I read that.

  39. #39 mike
    August 23, 2013

    BBD,

    Yr. no. 36

    Just out of curiosity, BBD, can you really personally and authoritatively vouch for every “jot and title” of the physics of Climate Science–the whole interplay of physical processes involved in the planet’s climate system?

    If so, my kudos, BBD–though I’ll have to take your word for it–because you’re not going to be able to prove it by me.

    On the other hand, BBD, if a retired business-man, like you, in his latter forties, with just an amateur interest in the subject can so readily master all of the “science” of Climate Science–then what the heck are we doing propping up, at my taxpayer expense, a whole trough-seeking horde of public-tit-sucking, full-time, academic parasites pursuing the subject when we have you, BBD? I mean, like, one guy who knows-it-all is all we need, right?

    And, oh by the way, BBD, I just bumped into Mr. Physics (small world!). He says Turboblocke is a brain-damaged, retarded-retard cretin who eats his boogers and, oh by the way, he also thinks Gaia sucks! I mean, like, I really get the impression Mr. Physics and Gaia don’t get along even a little bit. But he didn’t volunteer to say why and so I didn’t think it my place to ask him why.

  40. #40 chek
    August 23, 2013

    Well, there you have it BBD.
    An allegedly bona-fide, early 21st. century moron who doesn’t understand the concept of ‘industrial scale’.

    Or likely anything else beyond the dimensions of his parent’s basement.

  41. #41 Luke
    August 23, 2013

    Chek- “camped out over there at Codlings in isolation for too long” OR NOT ! Mate I’ve been booted and banned. Thanks heavens for VPNS

    Jeff – belittling the role of insects and your research – stop verballing me Jeff – your entomological expertise is irrelevant. In this field you’re just a dumb fuck who hasn’t kept up. I’d probably support your research domain in another discussion. Stop projecting and get on topic.

    You fuckers can’t string a rebuttal together. You’re a bunch of flakes.

    We now own all your bases. They belong to us.

  42. #42 Luke
    August 23, 2013

    Jeff – I’ve given you a truck load of your beloved peer reviewed top flight references – step up or get off the fucking blog !

  43. #43 Luke
    August 23, 2013

    Turboblocke – umm how are the models useful?

  44. #44 chek
    August 23, 2013

    They belong to us

    Shouldf be “(They) ARE belong to us”.

    At least get your idioms correct, you pitiful cretin.

  45. #45 BBD
    August 23, 2013

    We now own all your bases. They belong to us.

    But your references are missing!

    On noes!

  46. #46 chek
    August 24, 2013

    Turboblocke – umm how are the models useful?

    In ways beyond your meagre comprehension, Dr. Kook.

  47. #47 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    BBD – listen cunt – you have references above – get to work. Oh but I forgot you’re a fuckwit. Sorry.

  48. #48 cohenite
    August 24, 2013

    Nice rant luke; I like it when you get sincere.

    BBD; can I call you BB; I was going to call you 12-gauge on account you’re obviously a big-shot but I thought you might think I was being disrespectful.

    So, BB, we’ve moved to the THS and you’ve listed the usual cranks:

    “Christy, Spencer, Singer, Douglass, Klotzbach, McIntyre, McKitrick et al. – all authors of multiply-debunked studies, all contrarian and fringe.”

    What about Fu and Thorne; definitely mainstream. Let’s talk about Thorne. In email 1939 Peter Thorne, a prominent AGW scientist says:

    Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others.

    Despite Thorne’s reservations the IPCC published a major diagram, Figure 9.1, in its 2007 AR4 report purporting to show a THS caused by greenhouse gases. As is plainly visible the pattern of a THS from greenhouse gases is very different from Tropical heating caused by other factors.

    Thorne has contributed to two other major studies on the THS done after AR4. In the first study in 2008 Thorne et al concluded that the model predictions and observations about a THS were in good agreement and that pre 1979 radiosonde temperature data, which is from weather balloons, had been responsible for any disagreement.

    In his second 2011 study Thorne et al concluded that the observations since 1979 disagreed with the model predictions but when the observations from the radiosondes from 1958 were added the models and observations were in reasonable agreement.

    Everyone is allowed to change their mind I guess but what is it that makes your mind so certain? What have you got big guy, toss it at us like the boss gorilla does at the zoo. Fling it BB!

  49. #49 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Mike

    Just out of curiosity, BBD, can you really personally and authoritatively vouch for every “jot and title” of the physics of Climate Science–the whole interplay of physical processes involved in the planet’s climate system?

    No. As a retired businessman in his late forties who has taken an interest in this, all I can say is that my opinion counts as nothing compared to expert knowledge.

    This holds true for particle physics, dentistry, colorectal surgery, origami, managing a commercial kitchen and horse-training. And lots of other things too.

    I also treat my accountant and solicitor (lawyer) with equal respect.

  50. #50 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Prince Charming

    BBD – listen cunt – you have references above – get to work. Oh but I forgot you’re a fuckwit. Sorry.

    You don’t. You are lying still. There are no references on this thread that substantiate the claim that the models are OMG!!

    You continue to yap! Yap! Yap!

    Grrrrrr!

  51. #51 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Which reminds me. Where’s that Kellow quote?

  52. #52 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Come to that, you never did tell me where the >5m MSL highstand during the Eemian came from.

    Are you in the Gordy camp? Does water just vanish and then re-appear later when the Fairy Queen waves her pink and sparkly wand?

    ?

  53. #53 mike
    August 24, 2013

    @ no. 38

    Hey, Turboblocke! Didn’t your mummy ever tell you not to ask a question unless you already know the answer?

    “Links please” you ask. Well, Turboblocke, I can’t give you “links” ‘cuz I’m an ol’ dog and I don’t know how to do those link-thingies. But, I’ll do next best and provide you some references you can google yourself.

    Deltoid Posts:

    “Ooh, I’m in a Webcomic”, dtd 13 March 2010, Comment 11 (pg 1)

    “Open Thread 33″, dtd 24 Sept, 2009, Comment 46 (page 1)

    “February 2013 Open Thread”, Comments no. 12 and 14 (pg 3).

    “Monckton and the APS”, dtd 25 July 2008, Comments no. 2 ( pg 1) This last comment does not explicitly attach a simian character to its “poo-flinging” language–but is a recognizable variant on the “shit-flinging-monkey” theme.

    The above will get you started, Turboblocke. And just so you know that the hive takes monkey stool-tossing seriously a couple of articles for your delectation:

    “Researches Find Poop-Throwing by Chimps Is a Sign of Intelligence”, dtd 30 Nov 2011

    “A Second Use for Monkey Poop”, dtd 9 July 2028

    You know, Turboblocke, you have a typical, stuffed-greenshirt, arrogant, here-to-straighten-out-the-rabble, pompous-ass, puffed-up self-regard that is so delicious to puncture. And I know you’re in pure agony, now that I called your bluff and provided you the relevant references, above. And, in that regard, I think it best for me not to kick you while you’re down, but, rather, just sit back and enjoy the spectacle of your further efforts to wriggle out of that little plagiarism-gotcha bind, I’ve put you in.

  54. #54 chek
    August 24, 2013

    From the IPCC AR4:
    “Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Although these are generally greater at smaller scales, important large-scale problems also remain. For example, deficiencies remain in the simulation of tropical precipitation, the El Niño- Southern Oscillation and the Madden-Julian Oscillation (an observed variation in tropical winds and rainfall with a time scale of 30 to 90 days). The ultimate source of most such errors is that many important small-scale processes cannot be represented explicitly in models, and so must be included in approximate form as they interact with larger-scale features. This is partly due to limitations in computing power, but also results from limitations in scientific understanding or in the availability of detailed observations of some physical processes. Significant uncertainties, in particular, are associated with the representation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses to climate change. Consequently, models continue to display a substantial range of global temperature change in response to specified greenhouse gas forcing (see Chapter 10). Despite such uncertainties, however, models are unanimous in their prediction of substantial climate warming under greenhouse gas increases, and this warming is of a magnitude consistent with independent estimates derived from other sources, such as from observed climate changes and past climate reconstructions”.

    However, despite the limitations outlined, temperatures were still tracking model data closely.

    Did you have a point Cox?

  55. #55 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    So now the squat to piss BBD is saying he doesn’t like the references. He’s like some other ones. Poor diddums.

    What Kellow quote?

    And you never did acknowledge the recent work that shows the Eemian is not a useful analogy to the current period. Who cares.

  56. #56 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    “However, despite the limitations outlined, temperatures were still tracking model data closely.” OR NOT – Von Storch

  57. #57 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    cohenite

    How old was that email? Perhaps the retraction of Christy & Spencer’s borked UAH TLT reconstruction in 2005 came later?

    After that mess was cleared up, things changed.

  58. #58 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    What Kellow quote?

    The one everybody reading this thread knows you could not provide because you had not read the reference you linked.

    That Kellow quote.

    You are scum, Luke.

  59. #59 el gordo
    August 24, 2013

    ‘Does water just vanish and then re-appear later when the Fairy Queen waves her pink and sparkly wand?’

    It may have become temporarily locked up in ice, that is usually how sea level is organised.

  60. #60 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    Oh I see – you have picked a page out of the book as a test. Good move. But you first – what’s the point of the book cover. The paper cover.

  61. #61 chek
    August 24, 2013

    Y’see BBD, li’ll mike understands all too well that your words are merely blandishments to reduce the double digit paypacket in his lard-arsed back pocket on behalf of the UN Agenda 21 playboys whose sole ambition is to live it up on his dollars.Hence his fighting back, keyboard finger warrior style (of course), against the ‘hive-mind’

    The fact that he spouts the same old dreary, heard-it-all-before same old drivel as every other “independently minded” loon on the internet is entirely lost on him.

  62. #62 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    And you never did acknowledge the recent work that shows the Eemian is not a useful analogy to the current period. Who cares.

    Sure. Summer TSI was higher in the NH than during the Holocene. Yet the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapsed. It’s a warm water thing.

    These days a global forcing is being applied to the global ocean. It is warming up. So why will the WAIS ignore the warming subsurface waters this time around?

    Different kind of ice?

  63. #63 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    ” It is warming up” OR NOT! hahahahahaha

  64. #64 chek
    August 24, 2013

    OR NOT – Von Storch

    von Storch will have to make a far better case than his current one that can be destroyed by humble climate blog readers, let alone his peers. Which of course is why he blogged it rather than submitting it for publication.

  65. #65 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Inside the mind of Prince Charming:

    Oh fuckitty fuckitty fuck!

    What to do?

    I know! I’ll pretend that I’ve only just noticed what BBD has been laughing about for the last five pages of comments.

    That’ll stop the pain.

    * * *

    [Meanwhile, in reality:]

    You lied. You posted a link to a reference that you haven’t read. The pseudo-point Kellow was making with his choice of cover art is rather moot given the collapse of Arctic sea ice extent during 2007, the year of publication, and since.

    In fact, the cover is an embarrassment that I suspect even Kellow feels these days.

  66. #66 Stu
    August 24, 2013

    Oh Luke, you pathetic douche. Did it really take you a day and a half to look up the book on Amazon? And you only now found out page 146 is not in the preview?

    I THOUGHT YOU READ IT?

  67. #67 chek
    August 24, 2013

    Come now Stu, nobody ever thought for a moment that he’d read it.

  68. #68 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Prince Charming

    One last thing.

    I’m going to stop commenting now.

    I’ve not gone for a dump or a shower. Nor do I “never sleep”. But it is dark on this side of the planet and sunny where you are. Can you get this basic bit of geophysics past your comprehensional filter?

    Have a lovely day!

    :-)

  69. #69 chameleon
    August 24, 2013

    Ha ha!
    Silly deltoids!
    Luke of the changing avatars has been trying to help you. You are all so deeply entrenched in this place that you can’t see it.
    It has been enlightening to watch you all miss his cryptic clues. I am tempted to feel sorry for you as he has indeed blown you apart for not accepting his help.

  70. #70 chameleon
    August 24, 2013

    And of course the moderators are still being spiteful and cowardly.
    I must have poked an open wound all those months ago?

  71. #71 cohenite
    August 24, 2013

    Hang on a minute BB; date for the Thorne email?

    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1939.txt&search=tropical+troposphere

    I gave you the time-line for the rest of Thorne’s conclusions. What else do you want me to do, present Thorne in person.

    The definitive analysis of the THS is by Fu:

    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/grl.fu.2011.pdf

    But first can any one tell us what causes the THS? Or alternatively what the THS is? Let’s get our facts right first boys before any more mud is flung around.

  72. #72 rhwombat
    King Coal's Sphincter, NSW
    August 24, 2013

    Interesting how Luke gets so guttural after trying so desperately to seem reasonable in #12. It’s almost as if he knows why he can no longer post on Codling’s dung heap, so he come over here to kick sand and Curry favour. It’s unlikely to work – Australia’s answer to Sarah Palin (or, as Charlie Pierce calls her “Princess Dumbass of the North Woods”) has to keep grifting the gold-bugs and Birchers, cause they pay her bills, unlike pathetic & smitten wannabes like Luke.
    Like lil’ mike , Fatso & Redarse, Luke is a lost and lonely loser, so desperate to be noticed that he would rather indulge in pseudonymous provocation and toddler tantrums than engage with the civil commentariat. Cox is another kettle of mendacious muck entirely – he’s so irrevocably tied to Climate Skepticism as a meme that his name evokes laughter in all that hear it. To complete Luke’s fellow travellers, we have the Faecal Freddy (enough said – please), and Spam, whom my 14 year old daughter considers to puerile to be true, and suggests that “she” is a pathetic old creep.
    Using the word “cunt” says more about Luke than he would like.

  73. #73 rhwombat
    August 24, 2013

    Bugger. …too puerile to be true.

  74. #74 el gordo
    August 24, 2013

    That’s terrific wombat, so you really are a warmista cadre fighting the good fight. I’ll see you at the barricades.

  75. #75 el gordo
    August 24, 2013

    The climate change models “have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis … [these] analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading.”

    Robert S Pindyck (physicist, engineer and professor of economics and finance at MIT)

  76. #76 Karen
    August 24, 2013

    rh… :)

    lol……hiding behind a little girl wombat fucker :)

  77. #77 cohenite
    August 24, 2013

    We are here merely to entertain you wombat old fruit.

    Do you take private patients?

  78. #78 Karen
    August 24, 2013

    In agreement with rh tho……………..

    When attempting to insult BBD the preferred technique is to refer to his renowned and habitual masturbatory practice’s,

    eg.
    He is…. a shank shaker, perpetual puller, a hand cranker, a jerking jester ect….

    If you really want to use the “SEE” word, Luke, why not try to categorize the type of “SEE”, such as BBD you vaginal pustule, or BBD shut your labia lip’s or BBD you are busted like a hymen :)

    rh…tell your little girl, not so much of the OLD thank you. :)

  79. #79 Lotharsson
    August 24, 2013

    That’s risk. Risk is not immediate hazard. It’s not done and dusted. Much is unknown and I find the current case inadequate.

    So we’ll add risk management to the list of things where you over-estimate your own competence.

    Hint: “much is unknown” does not support the case for inaction.

    The trop hotspot is now a classic object lesson in the mentality of Doltoids.

    Yes. First you claimed – in definitive terms – that it was “missing”. You did not claim “the data doesn’t support or refute it”, but “it’s missing”.

    Then you claimed that there CAN BE no peer reviewed paper demonstrating this “fact” using classic conspiratorial ideation.

    Then you denied using conspiratorial ideation, when everyone can see your words which plainly demonstrate that you did.

    Then you attempted to substantiate your “missing” claim with a link to a discussion amongst scientists where they refute your claim. Unlike you, and unlike any competent scientist, they don’t conflate “the data don’t clearly support it” with “the data clearly refutes it”.

    And you claim Nova has a better understanding of the hotspot than people here do, when she outright claims that it is missing (using the same egregious misinterpretation that cohenite used), an error that you failed to spot or correct or factor into your claims about his or her competency – and an error that echoes your own assertion that it is definitively missing.

    Then you roll out this gem as a criticism:

    Not one of you could frame any personal comments on the science…

    Well, doh! Given that I haven’t demonstrated my ability to do quality climate science by publishing a peer reviewed paper in the field, my personal comments are worthless unless they are consistent with the weight of evidence, and that is best judged by those who are demonstrably competent. And you haven’t demonstrated that ability either, hence the short shrift given to your personal contrarian opinions.

    So far you’re little better than el gordo at this basic “logic and evidence” stuff. You are either confused about how science works or haven’t been taking care to express it in English very well (but my money’s on the former, given your call for “personal comments”). You engage in binary thinking for issues where it is inappropriate because the right measure is “how confident”, not “true” or “false”. And you haven’t owned up to your clear errors.

    And in response to all of this you conclude that Deltoids have a problem, and throw in an insult about their intellectual capacity.

    (All together now: it’s always projection.)

  80. #80 Lotharsson
    August 24, 2013

    Perhaps if Luke explains how this is wrong, cohenite will listen this time around?

    As is plainly visible the pattern of a THS from greenhouse gases is very different from Tropical heating caused by other factors.

    Or maybe he’s just not smart enough to understand his basic error, despite having a couple of explanations handed to him on a plate up thread?

  81. #81 el gordo
    August 24, 2013
  82. #82 cohenite
    August 24, 2013

    “As is plainly visible the pattern of a THS from greenhouse gases is very different from Tropical heating caused by other factors.”

    Well I am interested in that; but I didn’t say the THS = 2% ^ TSI did I?

    Anyway good of you to step up to the mark Lottho; and also credit for having no false modesty; if you can’t beat your own drum who else is going to do it?

    Now, will you be good enough to define the THS?

  83. #83 Lotharsson
    August 24, 2013

    …but I didn’t say the THS = 2% ^ TSI did I?

    You’ll have to translate that out of lawyer weasel speak into English, I’m afraid. I suspect you’re trying to wriggle out of the unqualified statement you made in reference to the diagram you previously posted and misinterpreted, a misinterpretation that you never corrected, by pointing out that you didn’t constrain your statement.

    Does that gambit work in the legal world?

  84. #84 rhwombat
    August 24, 2013

    Loth:
    Legal Ethics = staying bought, so of course Cox thinks he’s both ethical and “working”.

  85. #86 el gordo
    August 24, 2013

    “The scientists are getting very concerned privately – they are conservative in public and have yet to write it up – that blocking processes are sticking in the system. The jet stream is behaving very strangely.

    “One very senior atmospheric scientist said to me recently off the record that we are liable to wake up one day and find ourselves on the latitude – which we are in the UK – of Montreal. It’s a liveable place, but not like London. They have underground tunnels because of their winters. The Gulf Stream is having a few wobbles, too, and the theory there is the melting in Greenland and the Arctic is creating a lot of cold, fresh water, which is a possible source for loss of power in the conductor, so it moves less warm water up from the Caribbean.”

    Jeremy Grantham / the Guardian

  86. #87 Vince Whirlwind
    August 24, 2013

    Check out this example of externalised costs left behind by industry:

    http://www.weather.com/news/louisiana-sinkhole-collapses-20130822

    (The video is really very good).

  87. #88 Marco
    August 24, 2013

    cohenite, still haven’t noticed that both an increase in TSI and an increase in GHGs produces a tropospherical hotspot?

    Oh, and regarding that 2% TSI vs 2*CO2, see for a recent paper:
    http://depts.washington.edu/amath/research/articles/Tung/journals/Cai_and_Tung_2012.pdf

    You’d expect someone who is so critical to have read up on at least the most basic of literature. Oh wait, I forgot, you know it to be wrong, because it has to be wrong, because ABC. I actually briefly mistook you for someone who actually behaves like a true skeptic.

  88. #89 cohenite
    August 24, 2013

    That’s a good paper Marco; I don’t see how it helps your cause though; C&T explain that both 2XCO2 and 2%TSI have similar processes, particularly in the Tropics to Pole energy gradient but completely different temperature responses. Both will decrease the lapse rate in the Tropics which is why a THS would be caused but solar will do it more.

    Thanks for playing though; that’s why I’m here; and the insults which have now become moribund; insults about lawyers, really? Pathetic.

  89. #90 Jeff Harvey
    August 24, 2013

    Its kinda’ funny watching Luke’s posts get more and more shrill… crazy…. outlandish. The guy is seriously losing it.

    And he still hasn’t told us what brilliant, esteemed qualifications he possesses in any scientific field. Oh, of course, unless one considers blogging into Nova’s asylum for years as some kind of information to add to his resume.

    I notice that he briefly alluded to the effects of warming on biodiversity a a few days ago, of course in an attempt to downplay it. I am certainly willing to counter the nonsense in that post in due course. AGW represents a profoundly serious threat to biodiversity, especially when combined with a suite of other human-mediated stresses. The empirical literature is replete with studies showing negative effects on many ecophysiological processes. Its too bad that Lukie probably doesn’t read any of it and that which he does read is over his head.

  90. #91 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    Fucking crap Jeff – how the mother-fucka does biodiversity survive mega-droughts and floods. For fucks sake. What fucks up your biodiversity is the perfect storm or cats, toads and too intense fires. And spreading acacia type trees. Or woodland thickening across our savannas. And what the fuck are you doing about mammal extinctions on our north that’s on your watch. Stop bedwetting

    Negative effects on ecophysiological processes – what crap. Put crap GCM input plus or minus a fuck-tillion into bullshit semi-empircal growth model and derive more bullshit. Poikilotherms needs a bit more temperature anyway.

    Golly I just had a horrid thought – maybe I’m talking to sepo yanks and Poms – faarrk. Or even worse New Zealanders. or the fucking pits – Victorians. Gawd !

    Jeff I won’t be telling you about my quals coz they’re a bit embarrassing. You know – arts grad – just got through. You know how it is.

  91. #92 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    Now Karen – I’m sorry I said cunt. But BBD is a bit of a shit cunt. But the cunt is living in a different time zone – what poor taste in itself – maybe he needs some translation – maybe he doesn’t speak strine. And that doctor from some NSW coal hole if definitely a hard cunt. Just listen to the tone of the smarmy bastard. Don’t you just want to clock him. Certainly Mike does. This educational video will explain it for them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMvtzpigvo4

  92. #93 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    Lotharsson #77 – well mate it’s missing, not there, no observable in the obs. It is not fucking there is it? So a shitload of theory is wrong and yes we all know about warming from any source should produce it – but how the fuck does that help if TSI is flat.

    As for the weight of evidence. Well let;s not worry about that or we’d still be treating ulcers as a stress ailment. Answer my questions pls.(Dr smarmy north shore ponce Dickhead will be along to correct me about Helicobacter pylori soon – shouldn’t have used a medical example)

  93. #94 Lotharsson
    August 24, 2013

    …if you can’t beat your own drum who else is going to do it?

    How odd.

    In what strange inversion of reality does a post pointing out my lack of qualifications and skills to buck the scientific consensus consist of “beating my own drum”?

    Or is that the best distraction you can muster from your own unqualified drum beating?

    Or were you simply referring to something else in your head, but simply incapable of sharing the reference with the rest of us?

  94. #95 Lotharsson
    August 24, 2013

    Both will decrease the lapse rate in the Tropics which is why a THS would be caused but solar will do it more.

    So what you’re saying is that a tropical tropospheric hotspot can be generated by at least two different causes, one of which is not anthropogenic…

    …hence the absence of clear evidence of such a hotspot in the data does not in an of itself imply “AGW is wrong” or more precisely “recent warming isn’t anthropogenic”, but rather strongly suggests that the data isn’t good enough to answer the question.

    Perhaps you would be kind enough to inform Luke. He has pooh-poohed this more than once on this thread already – and skirted it again in his recent comment. See here where he again conflates absence of sufficient quality evidence with confident evidence of absence:

    …it’s missing, not there, no observable in the obs…

  95. #96 Lotharsson
    August 24, 2013

    As for the weight of evidence. Well let;s not worry about that…

    That says it all.

    Better trolls, please.

  96. #97 St. Cyr
    Australia
    August 24, 2013

    Hmmm – as I suspected, still nothing of any substance being posted here by those who deny AGW and CC. Just the usual repetitive mendacity, idiocy or (being generous) over-credulity.

    Really, I’m beginning to think your hearts just aren’t in it. Surely after 30 or 40 years, your team could do better than “it isn’t warming”, “ok, if it is warming, its not CO2″, “ok, if it is CO2, then we’re going to be better off”, “ok, if we aren’t going to be better off, then its too late to do anything about it”.

    Sorry, that last one is the expected response once the impacts of AGW and CC are undeniable even by the clinically insane – got a bit ahead of myself there with regards to your good selves.

    Still, not long to go before you’ll be trotting that one out. Knowing human nature, however, I’m sure you’ll all be adamantly insisting at that stage that you were always supportive of the scientific consensus and never were deniers, oh no…

    Wankers.

  97. #98 cohenite
    August 24, 2013

    You get the trolls you deserve lotho.

    “So what you’re saying is that a tropical tropospheric hotspot can be generated by at least two different causes, one of which is not anthropogenic…

    …hence the absence of clear evidence of such a hotspot in the data does not in an of itself imply “AGW is wrong” or more precisely “recent warming isn’t anthropogenic”, but rather strongly suggests that the data isn’t good enough to answer the question.”

    Key word ‘can'; and I didn’t say any of this but I was referring to Cai and Tung’s paper which they concede is speculative, leaves out several crucial factors and is only modelling.

    Let’s be plain; AGW depends on a THS; it’s not there because AGW is wrong and there hasn’t been a 2% increase in TSI.

    Anyway Marco’s paper was a bright spot; it made the visit to smarm hell worth-while.

    You can have them luke; they are the biggest pack of wankers this side of a fashion parade; useless too I suspect.

  98. #99 el gordo
    August 24, 2013

    ‘Scientists are struggling to explain why global warming seems to have slowed down in the last decade in a leaked draft of the UN’s next big report on climate change.

    ‘The intergovernmental study claims scientists are 95 per cent sure that humans are to blame for climate change, but presently they have not come up with a unified reason for why global surface temperatures have not risen as predicted in the past 15 years.

    ‘According to the unpublished draft document, scientists believe volcanic ash, less heat from the sun and more heat being absorbed by oceans could explain the mystery.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2398753/Why-HAS-global-warming-slowed-Scientists-admit-dont-know-why.html#ixzz2csEIV1xl
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  99. #100 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    “Sorry, that last one is the expected response once the impacts of AGW and CC are undeniable even by the clinically insane” probably explains the pause !? Better bedwetters pls.

Current ye@r *