August 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Lotharsson
    August 24, 2013

    You get the trolls you deserve lotho.

    That’s a particularly stupid claim, but also not far off your average.

    Let’s be plain; AGW depends on a THS; …

    Er, no. That’s plainly misrepresentation which I can only assume is deliberate, given the discussion up thread. You are now joining Luke in conflating absence of solid evidence with solid evidence of absence.

    This is almost as sad as the Hockey Stick Tragics(tm) who think if they can demonstrate a flaw in MBH99 that the whole AGW conclusion will come crashing down in a heap because they imagine that’s the only evidence underpinning the conclusion. Or the Models Are Falsified Tragics(tm) who do the same thing with climate models. (Hmmm, bit of a pattern developing here…)

  2. #2 Marco
    August 24, 2013

    Cohenite, care to point out where I insulted lawyers? Gee, looks like I didn’t. And your misinterpretation of the paper is unsurprising, too.

  3. #3 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    Lots of philosophical twaddle Lotharsson – no information content,.

  4. #4 Lotharsson
    August 24, 2013

    Lots of philosophical twaddle Lotharsson – no information content,.

    Argument by assertion remains unconvincing.

  5. #5 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    “You are now joining Luke in conflating absence of solid evidence with solid evidence of absence.” same applies to Santa Claus. Dream on.

  6. #6 Bernard J.
    August 24, 2013

    Luke.

    Sorry to tell you, but you don’t have a clue.

    The different anthropogenic impacts on the biosphere are not mutually exclusive, and they will all affect ecosystem structure and function long into the future. Human-caused climate change itself will have a profound effect on biodiversity regardless of its interactions with other impacts, and the signature will be visible for millions of years into the future, to any intelligent species that might be present to see.

    And for your information Karen’s a bloke, who has used a number of other identities including ‘Sunspot’ and ‘Mack’.

  7. #7 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    A chick with a dick – cool.

    Climate variability already affected ecosystem structure and function. Pity the temperature has flatlined eh?

    Without economic prosperity there will be no preservation of natural systems.

  8. #8 cohenite
    August 24, 2013

    “And for your information Karen’s a bloke”

    It evens up BJ because the rest of you aren’t.

  9. #9 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    In fact with the current state of the models any adaptive action is 50:50 the wrong way. Which model should we pick BTW – surely you’re not going to recommend a multi-model mean?

  10. #10 el gordo
    August 24, 2013

    ‘Human-caused climate change itself will have a profound effect on biodiversity regardless of its interactions with other impacts, and the signature will be visible for millions of years into the future, to any intelligent species that might be present to see.’

    Unfounded model twaddle.

  11. #11 el gordo
    August 24, 2013

    ‘Without economic prosperity there will be no preservation of natural systems.’

    True, the best way to save the planet from humanity is to grow a greater middle class.

  12. #12 el gordo
    August 24, 2013

    ‘And for your information Karen’s a bloke’

    That’s reassuring.

  13. #13 el gordo
    August 24, 2013

    Warm winters extend life.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-23/undertakers-blame-mild-winter-for-slow-business/4907608

    This UK winter is bound to be atrocious, just sayin’

  14. #14 Lotharsson
    August 24, 2013

    …same applies to Santa Claus.

    Unfortunately that is incorrect. But you need to think about the nature of the evidence required to prove or disprove the claims made about Santa Claus in order to figure this out, and then ponder the zillions of relevant data points we have, where the weight of the evidence lies, and the confidence level this implies.

    I do not believe you will. You don’t show signs of a robust ability to weigh the evidence and to use confidence levels in your thinking, preferring in many cases to make it black or white. Speaking of which:

    In fact with the current state of the models any adaptive action is 50:50 the wrong way.

    No. We have masses of non-model evidence that outcomes of business per usual might turn out to be severe – really massively severe – and to give strong indications of several of the ways in which it is likely to be problematic. That evidence gives enough information, despite the information not being perfect, to give a far better than 50:50 chance of getting adaptive actions right. (It also indicates that mitigation is mandatory in any reasonable risk management strategy, but you deny that too.)

    There are certain metrics where the models give very little information, so in those areas “50:50″ is probably about right. But the blanket claim about “any adaptive action” is just wrong.

    It’s very hard to believe you are a competent scientist. You are very careless when drawing conclusions.

  15. #15 Lotharsson
    August 24, 2013

    Without economic prosperity there will be no preservation of natural systems.

    It’s not either/or – in two different ways.

    1. Mitigating anthropogenic climate change isn’t going to eliminate “economic prosperity”.

    2. Without preservation of most of today’s natural systems, there will not be anywhere near as much of humanity, and there won’t be economic prosperity.

    Kill off the bees, for example, and humanity at this population level is fucked. A handful of years of widespread crop failures in a row due to weather moving outside of the previously understood climatic envelope – or pests profiting far more strongly from changing conditions than we can compensate for – would also have a very severe impact. And there are many other aspect in which humanity absolutely relies on the functioning of natural systems.

    To frame it as either/or is exceedingly foolish.

  16. #16 Lionel A
    August 24, 2013

    Luke:

    Lionel – there has been no information provided by any of you to my questions..

    Well I have not seen an adequate answer from you WRT my question WRT your assessments of models, other than hand waving dismissal of same.

    If you have and I have missed it then that is probably because of the trouble I have you ‘emptying your chamber pot’ of filth into this street which I step around without another glance.

    Now a Gish Gallop of questions and the raising of other matters is your hallmark so stop blaming others for ‘diversions to other topics‘ and as for ‘appeals to authority’, accusing any around here of that is hypocritical in the extreme given you referencing Jo Codling (a small fish in a very different pond to climate scientists), she has a missile trained on us indeed – sure to be a dud, Storch (it seems you missed my rebuttal of your citation to him. Storch may have ‘credentials’ but then so does Lindzen and Spencer, it is just that they are now miss-using these to baffle gab lay audiences – it seems to have worked on you.

    To assume that because I have not answered any of your, ahem, questions, and thus am ignorant about that particular aspect is a nonsense. You have little idea of my wide reading across many relevant fields, hence by comment about Jeff’s work, many of those commenting here are aware of my wide reading but then you have dropped in here like an exploding grenade and expect everybody to Kowtow to your assumptions from YOUR authorities.

    The problem is, if we ignored all projecting GCM models and tropospheric hot spot we will still know that warming is happening because of the melting cryosphere (yes Arctic ice, Greenland, mountain glaciers, and Antarctica are all losing mass year on year no matter how you wish to waffle this away), migration of and loss of species, rising sea levels including oceanic expansion. We know also why this is happening and that is because we have opened the fawcett of extra CO2, built up over many millions of years through conversion of hydrocarbon energy using sunlight into structure which become buried and compressed, and released a large proportion of the CO2 thus stored in a couple of hundred years. This ignoring the about eleven thousand years of increased CO2 input to the system by the rise of agriculture and forest clearance before the industrial revolution kicked off. Now I can back these statements up.

    To assume I have no explanation for any of your ‘questions’ is an error of judgement. Another reason for my slower rate of posting of late is that I am dealing with some life threatening situations and don’t have as much time as I would like to put a brake on your Gish Galloping. But of copurse that is the strength of the Gish Gallop, you can throw out wild accusations in such vague terms that it takes many times more effort to reply ADEQUATLY than to Gallop in the first place.

    As for the tropospheric hot spot, I came across another blogger, who reminded me a bit of you Eric Raymond

    where I found this apposite reply from Juan Schwartz :

    Typical anomaly hunting (one line of evidence in one facet of climate modelling isn’t super robust? I’m shocked and appauled) and rehashed strawman argumentation (hotspots are neither a prediction of AGW nor the linchpin of AGW modelling nor demonstrably false; they’re ambiguous, this is not new territory) that can be answered with even the most cursory and lazy of google searches.

    http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Are-Climate-Models-Inconsistent/In-detail.aspx
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm

    I recommend the CSIRO link as you seem to not like the ‘roach frightening spotlight of SkS. When assessing a source of information it is a good idea of considering intended readership before condemning. But IMHO SkS does things well by providing different levels of explanation and more importantly back up links to sources. You seem shy of citing specific sources yourself resorting to little more than handwaving and bragging. As for Real Climate, well of course you don’t like that but then it is another ‘roach frightening spotlight but this time from real accredited climate scientists with a good track record STILL. Note the Ben Santer reference at the foot of the CSIRO page above. You may recall how Santer spiked Pat Michaels a couple of years back.

    You wrote:

    I do think AGW (and IMPORTANTLY current climate variability) represents a significant risk to our society, economy, and ecosystems.

    Well at least that is something but how does that square with a von Storch quote I cited up-thread?
    Besides, you may like to consider what happens to variability in a system when the system is perturbed by a new input? This book gets to the nub of this in an early chapter, ‘Climate Change: A Multidisciplinary Approach’ by William James Burroughs. This book also provides some insight into why Svensmark fails to satisfy.

    You also wrote:

    Risk is not immediate hazard. It’s not done and dusted. Much is unknown

    To be sure much is still unknown, that is the nature of science. However enough is known to see the true picture emerging and which palaeoclimatology warned of. So this increase in extreme weather events are not an immediate hazard? What planet are you on? And yes to co-opt an expression that you used ‘it does seem that you have just fallen out of your tree’.

    Burroughs uses a very apt descriptor in the title of his book ‘Multidisciplinary Approach’ and you would do well to consider that at length. Indeed I had intended to quote sections from William Ruddiman but this post has become rather lengthy as it is.

    Now you made one very telling admission in that post:

    My masters who will vote “nyet” to any form of mitigation find the case inadequate.

    So, you have masters. Do tell.

    Sadly, nature takes no notice of politico’s or commercial giants voting ‘nyet’

  17. #17 el gordo
    August 24, 2013

    ‘widespread crop failures in a row due to weather moving outside of the previously understood climatic envelope’

    Its happened over time due to natural variability and millions died, but these days its unlikely to happen with warmer or cooler climates because we are better organised.

    Except when war steps in and dislocations cause large pockets of deprivations.

  18. #18 Lionel A
    August 24, 2013

    Except when war steps in and dislocations cause large pockets of deprivations.

    Aha! So you have managed to avoid noticing what is going on many countries around the Mediterranean.

    And yes, my knowledge in history informs that past colonialism has been a factor and population demographics are another but there is more to it than that now.

    As I said up thread, how well organised will we be with flooded ports and airports for example?

  19. #19 Lotharsson
    August 24, 2013

    Its happened over time due to natural variability and millions died, but these days its unlikely to happen with warmer or cooler climates because we are better organised.

    That is a dubious conclusion.

    The rate of climate variability we see now is very fast for an ecosystem. That alone makes the claim dubious.

    But in addition, we might be better organised but we’re also vastly closer to the capacity of the system than we were back then, and we’ve significantly degraded the system since then as well.

    You are not comparing apples and oranges.

  20. #20 Lotharsson
    August 24, 2013

    Except when war steps in and dislocations cause large pockets of deprivations.

    BTW, if you look at some of the strategic thinking that certain powerful militaries, governments and their agencies have engaged in, they cite climate change (and related food and water supply issues) as a key risk factor likely to spark increased levels of conflict.

    Once food supply becomes a problem in once place they see a risk of conflict spreading, which may cause additional “large pockets of deprivations”. Double whammy :-(

  21. #21 Jeff Harvey
    August 24, 2013

    Lotharsson makes the vital point @ 19. Natural ecosystems are under a myriad of anthropogenic stresses. Climate change threatens to be the final nail in the coffin for many of those being pushed already towards critical tipping points or thresholds. Beyond these thresholds key functions break down and the system collapses. Humans are pushing many systems towards the precipice. The evidence for this is large and growing.

    El Gordo appears to think that humans are exempt from the laws of nature. No surprise there – its a common traits amongst the denialati. arm winters may help humans in the short term but they are certainly not a good thing for species adapted to cooler climates. Species have evolved within well defined thermal windows and temperatures falling above or below these windows increase the amount of metabolic expenditure invested to cope with these changes. Species living inn higher latitudes are there because they have evolved under relatively stable long term ambient conditions. And as I have said, warmth is not necessarily a pre-requsite for large scale adaptive radiation. We know that the planet has evolved its highest genetic and species richness under relatively moderate temperatures. Stability is therefore very important.

    Moreover, warm winters allow insect pests to survive much farther north than they normally do. The diamondback moth is one of the world’s most serious pests in cabbage and mustard crops. It is native to Africa and the Mediterranean but overwinters now in much of western Europe including southern Britain as a result of recent warming. Therefore populations to build up much earlier in the season – here, in Holland, we used to only see it in late summer when it spread north from southern Europe with the prevailing winds in summer, but now it is abundant from June onwards. The economic costs of controlling it are growing as a result. Indeed, winter is a major biological control agent in its own right. There are many similar examples in Europe and the United states, Expect fire ants to survive further and further to the north as well as other agricultural pests including the cabbage and soybean loopers. Until recently, they could only survive as far north as Tennessee.

    Ultimately, the thrust of my argument is that human survival critically depends on the resilience of natural systems to withstand the human assault. El Gordo, like other deniers, places far too much reliance on technology as a means of forever outrunning the damage we are doing across the biosphere. But our technology cannot replicate many key critical ecosystem services and if natural systems begin to break down systemically, then we are up shit creek without a paddle.

  22. #22 Turboblocke
    August 24, 2013

    EG #75 said 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)

    Pindyck actually said: A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis…

    Now I assume you were spoon fed your quote from elsewhere, so how do you feel about them misleading you?

  23. #23 Turboblocke
    August 24, 2013

    Mike the monkey quotes: well I’m mortified… I thought that I was being original, but I suppose that with a few hundred kids per day for years seeing the same spectacle it’s not surprising that such behaviour is recognised and occasionally commented upon.

  24. #24 Berendaneke
    August 24, 2013

    @Harvey

    Lotharsson makes the vital point @ 19. Natural ecosystems are under a myriad of anthropogenic stresses.

    coment: 1: idiocy, Losthsome no biologist = incompetent, 2: alarmistic cowardish antropogenic projection without scientific evidence, idiotism from harvey and other greenpiss socialist activists who betray the world with junk ideology

    Climate change threatens to be the final nail in the coffin for many of those being pushed already towards critical tipping points or thresholds. Beyond these thresholds key functions break down and the system collapses. Humans are pushing many systems towards the precipice. The evidence for this is large and growing.

    Coment: unsayable shit from eco terrorists and communists. piss off harvey with your propaganda of unethical dirt

    El Gordo appears to think that humans are exempt from the laws of nature. No surprise there – its a common traits amongst the denialati. Warm winters may help humans in the short term but they are certainly not a good thing for species adapted to cooler climates. Species have evolved within well defined thermal windows and temperatures falling above or below these windows increase the amount of metabolic expenditure invested to cope with these changes. Species living in higher latitudes are there because they have evolved under relatively stable long term ambient conditions. And as I have said, warmth is not necessarily a pre-requsite for large scale adaptive radiation. We know that the planet has evolved its highest genetic and species richness under relatively moderate temperatures. Stability is therefore very important.

    Coment: every single word of bullhit harvey is nasty dirt full of greenpiss propaganda, no relation to science, just ideology crap of an ugly and misantrop socialist

    Moreover, warm winters allow insect pests to survive much farther north than they normally do. The diamondback moth is one of the world’s most serious pests in cabbage and mustard crops. It is native to Africa and the Mediterranean but overwinters now in much of western Europe including southern Britain as a result of recent warming. Therefore populations to build up much earlier in the season – here, in Holland, we used to only see it in late summer when it spread north from southern Europe with the prevailing winds in summer, but now it is abundant from June onwards. The economic costs of controlling it are growing as a result. Indeed, winter is a major biological control agent in its own right. There are many similar examples in Europe and the United states, Expect fire ants to survive further and further to the north as well as other agricultural pests including the cabbage and soybean loopers. Until recently, they could only survive as far north as Tennessee.

    Coment: harvey does not understand nature, he is silly and stupid and idiotic at the same time, steels money from society for his crap mental deviations

    Ultimately, the thrust of my argument is that human survival critically depends on the resilience of natural systems to withstand the human assault. El Gordo, like other deniers, places far too much reliance on technology as a means of forever outrunning the damage we are doing across the biosphere. But our technology cannot replicate many key critical ecosystem services and if natural systems begin to break down systemically, then we are up shit creek without a paddle.

    coment: human survival depends on the power of life, not on you, you tiny idiot blown up with farts and shit. piss off and do something decent instead of excreting your dirty greenpiss junk.

  25. #25 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    Reams and reams of philosophy and no answers. Plenty of bedwetting …. just reams of post modernistic drivel about species might do this or that. And only loaded with catastrophists view and not opportunists view.

    After all sustainability is only really the period between glaciations.

    In Australia we have massive interannual and interdecadal variability – and you think some smaller underlying trend is an issue. pffft – how about tacking some REAL biodiversity issues which you don’t give a shit about and in the here and now

    Maybe be might be hit by an earth killer asteroid too.

  26. #26 chek
    August 24, 2013

    .or perhaps mankind will be visited by a plague of nihilistic idiocy, eh Luke? Oh wait…

  27. #27 Lionel A
    August 24, 2013

    Ah yes Luke, Australia. What a small world you inhabit.

    BTW Checked this out yet, from the CSIRO linked above:

    Santer BD, Thorne PW, Haimberger L, Taylor KE, Wigley TM, Lanzante JR, Solomon S, Free M, Gleckler PJ, Jones PD. 2008. Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. International Journal of Climatology. 28(13), 1703-1722.

    ?

    BTW2 It looks like it is time for you to clean your bed kit, then lash up and stow and prepare to swab the decks to rid them of all the filth that you have spread around.

  28. #28 Berendaneke
    August 24, 2013

    turboblocke is not intelligent

    BBD is not intelligent

    Lathasdon is not intelligent

    czek is not intelligent

    Harvey is not intelligent

    Liinnell is not intelligent

    All AGW greenpissers are cowards, liars, unethical crap

  29. #29 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Lotharsson #77 – well mate it’s missing, not there, no observable in the obs. It is not fucking there is it?

    No, you are still lying Luke. The data aren’t good enough for definitive statements. When you go beyond the data and make a definitive statement – which you then use as “proof” (oh dear) that there is a major flaw in AGW, you have moved from scientific objectivity to partisan misrepresentation.

    You are no more a working scientist than I am the King of Old Siam. You are a liar.

    You are also a bluffer who waves around references you have not read.

    You misrepresent other sources in ways that convince me that you haven’t read them either, only the clap-trap touted on denier blogs by shills and cranks.

    In the last few days you have been comprehensively, well, ratfucked on this blog. You are exposed as nothing more than a bullying thug, a poser, a liar and a dupe of the shills.

    Nice work!

  30. #30 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Oh do fuck off Freddy the Boris. You are a cretinous bore, not to mention clinically insane.

    Enough already.

  31. #31 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    And I am so sick of this endless blather about the models, the models, the models.

    Only deniers with poor topic knowledge do this.

    Here, once again, is well-known model sceptic James Hansen explaining the facts:

    TH: A lot of these metrics that we develop come from computer models. How should people treat the kind of info that comes from computer climate models?

    Hansen: I think you would have to treat it with a great deal of skepticism. Because if computer models were in fact the principal basis for our concern, then you have to admit that there are still substantial uncertainties as to whether we have all the physics in there, and how accurate we have it. But, in fact, that’s not the principal basis for our concern. It’s the Earth’s history-how the Earth responded in the past to changes in boundary conditions, such as atmospheric composition. Climate models are helpful in interpreting that data, but they’re not the primary source of our understanding.

    TH: Do you think that gets misinterpreted in the media?

    Hansen: Oh, yeah, that’s intentional. The contrarians, the deniers who prefer to continue business as usual, easily recognize that the computer models are our weak point. So they jump all over them and they try to make the people, the public, believe that that’s the source of our knowledge. But, in fact, it’s supplementary. It’s not the basic source of knowledge. We know, for example, from looking at the Earth’s history, that the last time the planet was two degrees Celsius warmer, sea level was 25 meters higher.

    And we have a lot of different examples in the Earth’s history of how climate has changed as the atmospheric composition has changed. So it’s misleading to claim that the climate models are the primary basis of understanding.

    I know this drives a truck through a favourite denialist meme, but that’s life. Suck it up!

  32. #32 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Paleoclimate behaviour doesn’t yield robust estimates of S_ff /2xCO2 much below 2C and the most likely value is closer to ~3C. All the denialists have got is fake controversy as a diversionary tactic. From where I’m standing, this is so abundantly obvious as not to need saying, but those caught inside the delusional bubble of denial have no notion of what they are really up against. And the chum-ladlers who feed them keep it that way. The people who pay the bills *want* it that way. It suits their ends.

  33. #33 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    BBD well you’re not keeping up cunt..

    Hansen – what a fucking laugh as the models have been now falsified. Oh where oh where has that hotspot gone? Maybe it’s on holiday.

    Why don’t models work anymore.

    Why is there a pause even though there is no pause – it’s just a bit flatish … hahahahaha

    and and BBD the alarmist cunt is now at 25 metres sea level – well suck my consensus – dat’s a bit bigger than the IPCC (bow down) consensus of experts. Well really only a couple in each domain but let’s not be picky.

    Anyway I still don’t understand your Kellow question – what are you meaning.

  34. #34 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    And you’re not even an Aussie – so get off our blog – another illegal immigrant.

  35. #35 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    ” When you go beyond the data and make a definitive statement” what a fabricating little turd our BBD is.

    ” When you go beyond the data and make a definitive statement”

    ” When you go beyond the data and make a definitive statement”

  36. #36 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    Lionel A – oh well we could just ecologically spread that to the whole southern hemisphere

  37. #37 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    You have gone beyond the data and made a definitive statement regarding the THS and the claim that the models are “falsified”.

    You, not I am a “fabricating little turd”. How stupid are you, actually?

    Anyway I still don’t understand your Kellow question – what are you meaning.

    Still pretending that you didn’t get shown up as a posturing liar waving at a book he’s never even read? You are pathetic, Luke. Like a little child caught stealing!

    Page 25 #23

    Luke
    August 22, 2013

    “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”

    http://www.e-elgar.com/bookentry_main.lasso?id=12839

    BBD response page 25 #30 and following:

    BBD
    August 22, 2013

    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.

    Never did get the rest of that quote, although I must have asked for it dozens of times.

    :-)

  38. #38 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Just for the interested reader who might have missed this demonstration of Luke’s bluffing and mendacity and his desperate attempts to avoid exposure, here are a few follow-on comments of mine, all from the same page:

    #34

    Kellow quote please Luke. We are waiting.

    #37

    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!

    #42

    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.

    #49

    Makes you wonder just which of Lukes “references” he actually has read, doesn’t it?

    :-)

    * * *

    Etc, etc, etc.

    But Luke *never* responded or even acknowledged any of this. You had to be there, really, but it was hilarious!

    The bluffer unmasked!

  39. #39 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    Yes but you haven’t responded to my questions so why should I respond to yours?

  40. #40 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    BTW, did I ever tell you about the time the lying little fuck pretended he was a “working scientist”?

    I will, children, I will.

    ;-)

  41. #41 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Another whopping great LIE from Luke!

    I have responded at length and in detail to you. How can you be so blatantly dishonest?!

    But *you*, Luke, you make a habit of not responding to anything I ask you which is… problematic for you!

    Just… look up, Luke!

    But there have been many refusals by you to answer my very pertinent questions. Many. I used to maintain – and post – a list, but it got too long.

  42. #42 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    Responded pffft – had a big diversionary wank your mean. You have made no relevant responses at all. Now why are you so interested in Kellow?

  43. #43 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    My God. You are actually going to try and brazen this out!

    Unbelievable.

    Read #37. Click the links. It’s really very obvious.

    More interesting would be why you refused to respond to me at the time!

    We both know why, don’t we Luke?

    :-)

  44. #44 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    The fact is, Luke, you have been stripped naked on this blog. You have been revealed for the liar, bluffer, ignoramus and denialist bully-boy that you are. Your dog-logic and misrepresentations have all been dealt with at length by several commenters, not just me.

    It’s over, Luke. It’s done. You are a laughing-stock now. Everybody knows. Everybody sees.

    Even you.

  45. #45 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    Dunno – would it have anything to do with Ben and Jerry’s ice cream?

    So BBD – you are worst lying fucking cunt I have ever come across.

    A fucking pig ignornat loon.

    Get off the blog cunt – you’ve just been played like a rube and ratfucked ! eat a dick cunt ! You preposterous pretentious fraud.

    Come in spinner.

    HEY EVERYONE BBD JUST GOT RATFUCKED !!!!!!

    don’t even bother responding – I’m off to take a dump

  46. #46 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Poor Luke. So fucked!

    Remember page 25 Luke? Remember this?

    #34

    Kellow quote please Luke. We are waiting.

    #37

    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!

    #42

    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.

    #49

    Makes you wonder just which of Lukes “references” he actually has read, doesn’t it?

    :-)

  47. #47 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Ah, the collegiate tone of the “working scientist”. Unmistakable whenever heard.

    :-) :-) :-)

  48. #48 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    So BBD – you are worst lying fucking cunt I have ever come across.

    A fucking pig ignornat loon.

    Get off the blog cunt – you’ve just been played like a rube and ratfucked ! eat a dick cunt ! You preposterous pretentious fraud.

    Does anyone detect a hint of projection here?

    :-)

  49. #49 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    You had the subtle clue back on my cover question and you kept coming.

    SUCKED IN CUNT !

    I’m on leave – book was on my shelf at home in Perth and I’ve just got back.

    BBD YOU HAVE FUCKED RIGHT UP THE ARSE AND YOU ARE NEVER EVER GOING TO LIVE THIS DOWN !!

    BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT ….. splutter gag

    Fuckedy fuckedy fuck …. shit I got owned. Pooned like a newb.

    Listen cunt we do climate for a living you don’t. You’re a moron. You are a disgrace to the warmist cause. A little dweeb who cam’t debate – is pissing in his pants about getting further ratfucked at Nova’s. Don’t go over they’ll pull your panties off.

  50. #50 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Listen cunt we do climate for a living you don’t.

    Are you a paid shill? Gosh, how exciting!

    Too late on the quote, Luke. Damage done. Bluff exposed. Lies exposed. Tough. For a moron etc I’m doing rather well here actually!

    ;-)

  51. #51 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Your #49 is, if anything, a new low BTW.

    I’m just going to repeat what I have always said:

    You are a liar, Luke.

  52. #52 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    How’s it feel to be totally and utterly owned – you fraudulent bully. You’ve been pissed on from a great height old son.
    Hoisted on your own petard. Done like a dinner.

    BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT ……………….

  53. #53 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    The fake controversy about that image is well-enough known for a professional denier like yourself to be aware of it. A picture of the book on the internet is all you needed for your “clue”. You really are a child, Luke.

    I’m on leave – book was on my shelf at home in Perth and I’ve just got back.

    Translated: “Amazon package finally arrived. Thank fuck for that!”

    You can smell the desperation from the other side of the planet.

    :-)

    PS – I know that book is expensive. Consider it the penalty you pay for lying.

  54. #54 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Still, come on, get your brand new copy out of the brown carton, crack it open at p.90 and complete the quote:

    socially constructed, politics gets […]

  55. #55 chek
    August 24, 2013

    we do climate for a living you don’t.

    “We” (note: not “I”). Does Luke push a broom around for some blog grifter fake like Codling?

  56. #56 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    Hey I’m just fucking with ya. I don’t care actually – wish you guys were more interesting though – could talk plant-insect coevolution with Jeff if he wasn’t such a cock-head – Anyways might cancel that dynamic downscaling project on Monday though. Even if the RCM resolution is 10km and microscale physics is simulated. What’s the point if the models are shit.

    Anyway life’s too short – here’s my latest video – seriously it’s my fav – it’s me to a T – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGcEmFSRcQ0

  57. #57 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Luke, I warned you about braying like this. It makes you sound like a cretin. Seriously. With all the other problems you have, I would tighten up the style if I were you.

  58. #58 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Hey I’m just fucking with ya.

    No you weren’t. You were lying again.

    Just like you did here:

    Page 25 #65:

    Luke
    August 22, 2013

    “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.

  59. #59 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Either that, or you are a paid shill. Out of curiosity, which is it?

    Liar, or shill?

  60. #60 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    And where’s my Kellow quote?

  61. #61 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Your latest video???

    You really are a fantasist, aren’t you Luke?

    Who do you want to be today? (Snorf!)

    That ever-changing picture of yours suddenly makes sense. It’s actually what’s going on in your somewhat disordered mind.

  62. #62 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    “socially constructed” hahahahahahahaha

    socially constructed, politics gets STRAIGHT FUCKED

    or would it be something about “upstream”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You should have seen the book cover bait – I can’t believe you kept coming.

    Yea mate Amazon are good getting it Oz in that time and on a weekend – HAHAHAHAHAHA – NOT ! Actually back in the day I paid a shitload for the book too – was well over $!00 from memory. Even blog debated Aynsley on it.

  63. #63 chek
    August 24, 2013

    Thanks for the reminder BBD.

    the group think is massive

    Indeed, the deniers, liars, shills and grifters all spout the same long discredited half-baked memes, long after they’ve been long discredited.

  64. #64 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    My latest gravatar is Excalibur – only use that for the big victories.

    As for being a shill – I guess anyone could be a shill if they’re paid for services. Like you being a part time hooker.

    Nah I’m just a bad cunt. Bad attitude and sick of all blogs. It’s just war. Might go and attack Cohenite now. He’s a lot better than you guys to debate – at least he’s up with it.

    Now tell me you must admit – you haven’t had that good a run for your money for a while have you. You’ve sort of enjoyed it. I’ve livened the place up. You’re a bit shitty but it will pass and you’ll have fond memories. And your debating skills will be improved. Goes for all of you.

    Try not be shit cunts eh?

  65. #65 chek
    August 24, 2013

    Luke’s symptoms of breakdown are occurring ever closer together today.

  66. #66 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    You did not complete the quote, Luke.

    Please complete the quote!

    :-)

  67. #67 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    “POLITICS GETS BUILT INTO SCIENCE” (you cunt- hahahhaahahahaha)

  68. #68 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    My latest gravatar is Excalibur – only use that for the big victories.

    Oh my sides.

  69. #69 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Thank you Luke!

    Sorry about the bucks that cost you, but there you go. When you (attempt) to play hardball, it can hurt!

    ;-)

  70. #70 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    Well actually to tell you the truth I didn’t personally pay for it. WA Inc did. But it was my cost code. That was when Anysley was on the outer too.

  71. #71 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Now, let’s return to a previous lie you told:

    Page 25 #65:

    Luke
    August 22, 2013

    “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.

    Tell me, Luke, is it the norm amongst your colleagues to assert without evidence, refuse to provide references and use the term “proof” incorrectly?

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

    And “cunt”? Is that standard terminology in your field?

    ;-)

  72. #72 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE

    shit I’m still laughing. Got the giggles.

  73. #73 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    Listen cunt – you’ve had your go now fuck off.

  74. #74 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    WA Inc

    I don’t understand this. That was back in the ’80s wasn’t it? But S and PP was published in 2007. Can you explain further?

  75. #75 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    #73

    But I haven’t finished with you yet, Luke.

  76. #76 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    That was when Anysley was on the outer too.

    Translation:

    “Found a second-hand copy online. Phew! Would’ve hated to fork out the full whack for that! But I’ll be a lot more careful what I say to that cunt BBD in future. The fucker’s sharp.”

  77. #77 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    Now BBD – you’re gonna be all sore – and you’ll be trawling back through my every words looking for something. BUTBUTBUTBUT Well you know that makes me feel important. So you have a good time doing that but we all know that you fucked up big time. That you squat to piss and are afraid of J Nova, who incidentally lives over the way.

    Gravatar is dead. Lights out.

  78. #78 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    WA Inc is code for guvmint you fuck head.

  79. #79 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    #65

    Yes. And I am helping him ever-onwards.

  80. #80 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WA_Inc

    I don’t speaka the lingo. So try and be clear in your blether, eh?

  81. #81 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    But jeez I’m in that picture. Fancy that

  82. #82 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    And I am the King of Old Siam!

    You just progress, no, you lurch from one absurdity to the next. It is mesmerising.

  83. #83 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Tell me about your latest video!!

    Who are you now, Luke?

    :-)

  84. #84 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    [I do hope the rest of you are enjoying this, btw!]

  85. #85 Lionel A
    August 24, 2013

    Luke

    Hoisted on your own petard. Done like a dinner.

    NO, you are the one so hoist, hoist by your ranting filthy language and refusal to respond sensibly to questions that you were asked BEFORE you kicked off accusing others of similar evasion.

    Besides the best answer to a Gish Gallop such as yours is to ignore it, usually, but that recent one I could not ignore.

    It is you ‘DONE LIKE A DINNER’, a rotting kipper at a guess judging by the trail of stink you have left through this thread.

    You are showing signs of becoming unhinged and being the one who cannot cope with the reality which smacks against your belief system.

    So, you are on leave. Not in the military I would think. At a guess playing security bobby for some industrial or mining complex and its owners. I can see why you are so mixed up now about climate change, your day job depends on your perceived ideology.

    So, you are one of these ‘climate change inactivists’, like Dominic Lawson who writes crap in the Independent, the Dominic Lawson who is pally with that clown Peiser of the GWPF and married to the sister of that other clown Monckton.

    David JC MacKay used the term ‘climate change inactivists’ in his book ‘Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air’ when introducing a Lawson obfuscatory (and that is being kind).

    This is Lawson, as quoted by MacKay:

    The burning of fossil fuels sends about seven gigatons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere, which sounds like a lot. Yet the biosphere and the oceans send about 1900 gigatons and 36000 gigatons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere – … one reason why some of us are sceptical about the emphasis put on the role of human fuel-burning in the greenhouse gas effect. Reducing man-made CO 2 emissions is megalomania, exaggerating man’s significance. Politicians can’t change the weather.

    and here is MacKay’s riposte:

    Now I have a lot of time for scepticism, and not everything that sceptics say
    is a crock of manure – but irresponsible journalism like Dominic Lawson’s
    deserves a good flushing.

    The first problem with Lawson’s offering is that all three numbers that
    he mentions (seven, 1900, and 36000) are wrong! The correct numbers are
    26, 440, and 330. Leaving these errors to one side, let’s address Lawson’s
    main point, the relative smallness of man-made emissions.

    Yes, natural flows of CO2 are larger than the additional flow we switched
    on 200 years ago when we started burning fossil fuels in earnest. But it
    is terribly misleading to quantify only the large natural flows into the at-
    mosphere, failing to mention the almost exactly equal flows out of the
    atmosphere back into the biosphere and the oceans. The point is that these
    natural flows in and out of the atmosphere have been almost exactly in
    balance for millenia. So it’s not relevant at all that these natural flows are
    larger than human emissions. The natural flows cancelled themselves out.
    So the natural flows, large though they were, left the concentration of CO2
    in the atmosphere and ocean constant, over the last few thousand years.
    Burning fossil fuels, in contrast, creates a new flow of carbon that, though
    small, is not cancelled.

    Seeing as you are on leave I have a list of other books which you should consult and educate yourself with….

    I’ll bet you will keep digging though, I’ll bet you are good at trenches.

  86. #86 chek
    August 24, 2013

    Yes, it’s fascinating watching Luke nail his feet to the floor then throw himself down a hole, when nobody asked him to. He just … does it.

  87. #87 Stu
    August 24, 2013

    Oh Luke, you petulant little child.

    could talk plant-insect coevolution with Jeff if he wasn’t such a cock-head

    Dude, you pretty much implied that climate change impacting eco systems will not be a problem because of opportunistic evolution. You’re dumber than a bag of rocks.

  88. #88 Stu
    August 24, 2013

    To wit:

    http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/collection/crop-climate

    Oh wait. We’ll all eat acacia trees instead, right?

  89. #89 chek
    August 24, 2013

    Trees and tomatoes, our new, CO2 enhanced diet.
    Grass varieties are so passé.

  90. #90 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    Lionel A – like who gives a fuck about your generalist coffee table book shit. I gave you hard core refs – don’t give me your hand waving rat dirt.

    “So, you are on leave. Not in the military I would think. At a guess playing security bobby for some industrial or mining complex and its owners.” Listen cunt – stop verballing me. Maybe you’re employed by the Green Death – who would know. You’re talking to establishment science gone feral and that is irrelevant. This is a rat nest of wanker fuckheads that needs a ream out.

    Well BBD won’t be getting a ream out as he’s very sore after being ratfucked.

    Stu – just generalist shite. Report back when you’ve actually run some FACE experiments.

    Chek and of course you would realise that we’re already eating CO2 turboed tomatoes from glasshouses – no pesticide either. But I supplement that with a monthly teaspoon of DDT as a tonic. Keeps your pecker rock hard.

    Unlike you bedwetting limp dicks.

  91. #91 chek
    August 24, 2013

    Gordon, what was the reason for importing the lamentable Luke as your “expert” witness? His trousers?

  92. #92 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Luke

    At page 29 #62 you said this:

    Actually back in the day I paid a shitload for the book too – was well over $!00 from memory. Even blog debated Aynsley on it.

    Please, link to that blog debate with Kellow. I am interested to see what you both had to say.

  93. #93 chek
    August 24, 2013

    you would realise that we’re already eating CO2 turboed tomatoes from glasshouses

    Given how far removed from reality you are Luke, you probably do actually think they’re a staple food.

  94. #94 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    Lionel A – you didn’t get a Gish Gallop – you think it’s a Gish coz you’re a stupid dick not used to hard core science. All serious issues and if you seriously looked you’d conclude there is an awful lot of wheels falling off the story. Unless you believe in Jacks Beanstalk.

  95. #95 Stu
    August 24, 2013

    Address the issue I raised or admit you are a moron, Luke. For a practicing scientist, it should be easy.

    Here, I’ll even pose it more plainly, since you do make sea cucumbers look smart.

    From the data I posted, it is obvious we will be unable to feed even the current world population in 40, let alone 70 years from now. Let alone the world population then. Why do you think this is not a big deal?

  96. #96 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Luke? Would you mind posting the link to that blog debate (presumably back in 2007?) that you had with Kellow?

    Thanks.

  97. #97 Stu
    August 24, 2013

    By the way, when I think “practicing hardcore scientist”, I think puerile jackwagon who cannot go two sentences without saying “cunt”, “coz”, “dick” and “Jacks Beanstalk”. I mean, who could doubt Luke’s credentials? He’s been nothing but adult, putting forth cogent arguments, and truthful throughout.

    [snirk]

    If I were a Greenpeace shill, I’d hire a homeless person to post like you Luke. You’re making all our points about denialists for us.

  98. #98 Turboblocke
    August 24, 2013

    I think that over the last few days it’s become obvious who the trolls are. Why not stop feeding them?

  99. #99 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    #97 Stu

    No, no. It was a different kind of ice during the Eemian. And water can just appear and disappear at will. Like fairies and ghosts. Luke did not criticise El Gordo’s claims, so must, presumably, endorse them. These are great scientific leaps forward!

  100. #100 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Turboblocke

    Because I enjoy fucking with their tiny little minds too much.

Current ye@r *