August 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    Stu – I’ve just descended into vaudeville given your disingenuous rudeness.

    Let’s summarise shall we:

    Models outside the confidence limits.
    Trop hottie missing
    Antarctic sea ice expanding
    Pan evap trending down
    LAck of trends in extreme events
    Significant centennial variability shown in GCMs
    Multi-model mean problem
    Mathematical precision in HPC architecture

    Supplementary question to see if fuckheads are practitioners of blowhards

    Downscaling techniques
    Skill testing seasonal forecasts
    Explanations for MDB and SEQ muti-year droughts

    Nothing but yap yap yap.

    Therefore integrating under the curve – you’re fuckheads.

  2. #2 chek
    August 24, 2013

    You will of course be providing references for all your debunked memes, won’t you Luke?

  3. #3 Jeff Harvey
    August 24, 2013

    Chek, of course he will…

    …his own opinions and some posts from Nova’a blog. That’s his reference base. As one example of one of Luke’s egregiously wrong memes, expanding central Antarctic ice is meaningless. The continent is bitterly cold; if precipitation increases it will fall as snow. But increased ice as a result in no way indicates that it isn’t warming. The continent is so cold that it would have to warm up many many degrees before inland melt occurs.

    But Lukey is such a clown that even this basic logic appears to escape him. This is what happens when one is ensconced in contrarian blogs. Its his world. No wonder he’s so deluded.

  4. #4 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Luke

    Sorry to have to repeat myself, but you oblige me.

    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.

  5. #5 Jeff Harvey
    August 24, 2013

    Berendaneke is so completely bonkers that he makes even Luke look good. Note how the deniers here close ranks and even appear to defend the complete loonies like Berendaneke… who, as we know, is Freddy’s latest sock.

    Annoying little schmuck, though.

  6. #6 el gordo
    August 24, 2013

    Luke is totally accurate in everything he said, my only criticism is that he should use dot points to help the masses see the light of day. It would make a good 30 minute doco.

    * Models outside the confidence limits.
    * Trop hottie missing
    * Antarctic sea ice expanding
    * Pan evap trending down
    * Lack of trends in extreme events
    * Significant centennial variability shown in GCMs
    * Multi-model mean problem
    * Mathematical precision in HPC architecture

    Supplementary question to see if fuckheads are practitioners of blowhards

    * Downscaling techniques
    * Skill testing seasonal forecasts
    * Explanations for MDB and SEQ muti-year droughts

  7. #7 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    While we wait for you to link something that you should be falling over yourself to slap on the page, a brief run-through your Gish:

    - Models outside the confidence limits.

    False assertion.

    - Trop hottie missing

    False assertion.

    - Antarctic sea ice expanding

    Not evidence that “AGW is wrong”. There’s a *senisble* discussion at Stoat, with references.

    - Pan evap trending down

    Dunno. Anyone else?

    - LAck of trends in extreme events

    Are you sure about this?

    - Significant centennial variability shown in GCMs

    So what? See “paleoclimate behaviour” and Hansen and everyone else, including eg. Sherwood at your link; previous pages.

    - Multi-model mean problem

    Problem? Says who, and in which journal was the study published? Sounds like another false assertion. Again, see “paleoclimate behaviour”.

    - Mathematical precision in HPC architecture

    A non-issue. Already referenced for you, many days ago, but once again, Stoat. Read the comments. You are always urging people to get stuck in elsewhere. Have a go over there. I would like to watch.

  8. #8 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Gordy

    Any thoughts on this?

    Gordy captures the irredeemable hopelessness of deniers perfectly with this:

    [Page 26 #95:]

    Please yourself Jeff, but its a damn good read. Anyway, I’m now convinced that the MWP was warmer than the Modern Climate Optimum.

    He’s convinced by a bullshit blog post by a proven, documented energy-industry shill writing on a denier blog. Even though the proven shill bit has been demonstrated for him (although he has consistently refused to acknowledge this).

    Never mind the fact that the proven shill is contradicted by a mass of real science demonstrating the opposite of the shill’s claim.

    And you people claim you are’t effectively shills yourselves…

    Well Gordy is. And this proves it.

    Thanks Gordy.

    Links for the interested reader to review:

    http://www.desmogblog.com/craig-idso

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change

  9. #9 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Dear Gordy

    May I once again draw your attention to this:

    PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia

    Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

  10. #10 el gordo
    August 24, 2013

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

    It won’t happen over night, it won’t be like the mass migration period.

    If the UK winters continue on the cold side the wealthier residents will spend those few months in a warmer clime. Pity the poor buggers.

    The Irish are coming to Australia in large numbers for work and I’ve put up a couple of young families until they found digs of their own. They are not escaping from the weather, instead they are looking for a better life.

    As global cooling sets in over the coming decade I expect the migratory pace to increase, bringing out the older members of the family so that they can extend their lives on a big sandy island in the southern ocean.

  11. #11 el gordo
    August 24, 2013

    ‘He’s convinced by a bullshit blog post by a proven…’

    Idso was quoting reputable scientists.

  12. #12 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    EG

    You seem to have skipped a couple of comments. Or perhaps three. Is your browser working properly?

    Can you see #7 #8 and #9?

  13. #13 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    #11 Just out of curiosity, did he reference PAGES 2k?

  14. #14 el gordo
    August 24, 2013

    BB I have no time for your ramblings, I’m having a serious discussion with my colleague Loth on mass migration.
    ———–
    ‘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.’

    Whether its warming or cooling its unlikely to step outside a couple of degrees either way, which is entirely manageable.

    Food security is the other potential problem, but with China entering into mono culture in Australia and Africa I expect another LIA won’t have a detrimental effect on humanity.

    Efficient transport of food via the free enterprise system should see most would be migrants stay home after a crop failure.

  15. #15 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Gordy

    They are not ramblings. A very serious point is at issue here.

    You are rebroadcasting deliberately misleading information injected into the internet by paid shills for the energy industry.

    This has been unequivocally and repeatedly demonstrated above. But you continue.

    This makes you a tool of the shills. There is no alternative explanation.

    Please explain why you are doing this.

  16. #16 St. Cyr
    Australia
    August 24, 2013

    This statement is from the comments section of a New York Times article by the University of Rochester’s Professor of Physics & Astronomy, Adam Frank:

    “The push by religious institutions to have creationism and intelligent design taught alongside evolution in schools as legitimate competing theories, as well as the suppression of data linking man-made atmospheric discharges to climate change by industry are designed to preserve the status quo. Science, as a catalyst of change, has always upended institutions as it ushers in new ideas. We are on the verge of discoveries that may forever change the way we look at the universe and our place in it. It’s clear that those with a vested interest in the institutions of today fear what this means for their futures. Science can make oil and bishops largely irrelevant rather quickly if left unchecked. You bet they’re scared.”

    Rather neatly sums up one of the major factors informing “reality denial” that is so evident in many of the comments above – fear.

    A word of advice to those who are so afraid of the impacts of AGW and CC that they continue to deny the whole box and dice – either grow some (with apologies to adelady and any other female readers) and join in fronting up to our responsibilities to take action in managing this crisis – or get out of the way.

  17. #17 el gordo
    August 24, 2013

    All of Luke’s points are valid. His list offers a good skeleton to hang a doco on, all we need then is an interview with Salby and Carter.
    ———————

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

    I doubt that, creatures on this planet have survived glacial conditions and are not going extinct because of a little warming or cooling.

    Adapt or Perish …. Climate Change is Natural.

  18. #18 el gordo
    August 24, 2013

    Intelligent design has nought to do with god bothering and everything to do with alien life.

  19. #19 chek
    August 24, 2013

    – Pan evap trending down.
    Dunno. Anyone else?.

    There are a couple of things in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_evaporation"<wiki ref

    But as for “trending” ? (how much, where and over what period?) Luke de Kook would have to substantiate that assertion along with the rest of his Gish-gallop.

  20. #20 chek
    August 24, 2013

    To correct the borked link at #19

    – Pan evap trending down. Dunno. Anyone else?

    There are a couple of things in the wiki ref

    But as for “trending” ? (how much, where and over what period?) Luke de Kook would have to substantiate that assertion along with the rest of his Gish-gallop.

  21. #21 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Gordy

    You are being transparently evasive about a very serious issue.

    You are rebroadcasting deliberately misleading information injected into the internet by paid shills for the energy industry.

    This has been unequivocally and repeatedly demonstrated above. But you continue.

    This makes you a tool of the shills. There is no alternative explanation.

    Please explain why you are doing this.

  22. #22 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    All of Luke’s points are valid.

    No they aren’t. See above. Just click the link!

    :-)

  23. #23 chek
    August 24, 2013

    Gordon :#18

    Intelligent design has nought to do with god bothering and everything to do with alien life.

    So, nothing to do with that imaginary being, but eminently believable when it comes to those imaginary beings.

    How does your head manage to stay in one piece, Gordon?

  24. #24 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    Cunts – you have the references

    One issue from discussed on Nova’s blog – Jo’s a ranting rightist anyway – but that’s not the point

    You are fraudulent piss weak cunts. Address the issues.

    William doesn’t provide any answer on the arithmetic issue and should be spending more of his time in the row boat. Besides it’s not published in a peer reviewed journal – hahahahahaha

    Multi-model means is how CSIRO produce Australian climate scenarios you stupid Euro-fuck.

    All you cunts have is excuses is appeal to authority, blame big oil, verbal and obfuscate. Gutless DOLTOIDS

    You’re cunts – stop being cunthooks and answer the questions. You can’t as you don’t know. The fact that the multi-model mean question popped up from you shows you’re not even practitioners. How flakey.

  25. #25 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    El Gordo – these cunts would have been flat earthers or creationists in previous eras. It is just sickening to watch the sheer lack of ability.

  26. #26 chek
    August 24, 2013

    Luke @ #24:

    you have the references

    Just answer where Luke. No more, no less.

  27. #27 chek
    August 24, 2013

    *Tsk*
    Denier nutters, eh?
    Who do they think they’re fooling?

  28. #28 el gordo
    August 24, 2013

    ‘nothing to do with that imaginary being’

    In the Milky Way Galaxy there are a large number of civilisations.

  29. #29 chek
    August 24, 2013

    In the Milky Way Galaxy there are a large number of civilisations.

    I think you’ll find you’ve extrapolated a little beyond what can be known, and veered off into Wishfull Thinking Santa Claus land. Rather like your .. ahem .. “understanding” of climate science.

  30. #30 cohenite
    August 24, 2013

    Actually all luke’s assertions are correct and well supported with evidence.

    Let’s pick a couple;

    THS; I’ve referenced Fu; here it is again:

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

    Fu is establishment; he’s the one who corrected Spencer and Christy’s satellite temperature defect to get UAH back on track.

    Pan evaporation decreasing is well established:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169411007487

    Even the IPCC has bob each way:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-3-2.html

    But since the goons at the IPCC can’t even get DTR right we should ignore them.

    Luke has definitely got you guys marked.

  31. #31 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Cunts – you have the references

    No, we don’t.

    * * *

    You’re cunts – stop being cunthooks and answer the questions.

    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.

  32. #32 chek
    August 24, 2013

    Pan evaporation decreasing is well established:

    Nobody has disputed that.
    What’s disputed is what you denier nutters are inferring from that data.

  33. #33 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Fu is establishment; he’s the one who corrected Spencer and Christy’s satellite temperature defect to get UAH back on track.

    No, that was Mears and Wentz in 2005. Po-Chedley and Fu have since pointed out that UAH is still probably borked and running cool.

  34. #34 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Does anyone know what a cunthook is by they way?

  35. #35 chek
    August 24, 2013

    BBD @ #34>
    Some Freudian thing of Luke’s best not explored, I’d wager.

  36. #36 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Luke

    Why aren’t you linking to that blog debate you had with Kellow? Nobody (bar your denialist chums) believes your ridiculous attempts to conceal the fact that you haven’t read the book. So post up some evidence from back in the day.

    Make your case. You need to!

  37. #37 Vince Whirlwind
    August 24, 2013

    cohenite
    August 24, 2013

    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.

    Cox ironically believes that the results of modelling prove that the current warming trend is not happening.

    Hahahaha, what a doofus he is.

    I think Cox should leave the thinking to those who have proven their intellect by actually getting qualifications rather than having to pretend to having them.

    It is perfectly clear:
    Modelling shows that warming forcings should produce the hot spot.
    The hot spot has been observed.

    A normal rational sceptic would conclude that either,
    – the modelling is wrong
    – the observations are wrong

    Cox, on the other hand, isn’t a sceptic – he is a shill for a political lobby who have drawn a line in the sand between their camp and rational, scientific enquiry. Therefore Cox doesn’t behave like a sceptic, instead he performs whatever twist is necessary to fit some small portion of the facts to his ignorance-based and anti-science belief.

    How do you think history is going to treat liars and fools like you and your anti-science ilk, Anthony?

  38. #38 cohenite
    August 24, 2013

    “No, that was Mears and Wentz in 2005. Po-Chedley and Fu have since pointed out that UAH is still probably borked and running cool.”

    That’s very good big guy; you’re taking the piss; RSS is cooler than UAH; pull the other one; good one BB.

    Also good joke about pan evaporation not going down which you pretended not to know about so when I provided the info as any eager vassal would do chek could hit me with the old denier nutter tag; you guys are working tag-teams! Excellent!

  39. #39 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Interested readers please note:

    If Luke is debating in good faith, he should have said that he was away from his bookshelf straight away.

    If Luke is debating in good faith he wouldn’t delay linking to the blog debate he says he had with Kellow just to make me look wrong.

    If Luke is debating in good faith, he would post the link on request if it exists.

    What do we think Luke will do next?

    :-)

  40. #40 chek
    August 24, 2013

    They can’t argue with the data Vince, (do we really have to link to the ocean data yet again?) so now – irony of ironies – they’re arguing with the models.

    The transparency is laughable.

  41. #41 el gordo
    August 24, 2013

    ‘Wishfull Thinking Santa Claus land.’

    In a carbon based universe and counting the habitable zones … its the null hypothesis.

  42. #42 chek
    August 24, 2013

    What do we think Luke will do next?

    Devote a few hours of deep thought into changing his avatar and then pretend none of this ever happened, would be my guess.

  43. #43 chek
    August 24, 2013

    its the null hypothesis.

    You don’t even understand what that means,Gordon.

  44. #44 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    Chek#26 on references – I started at 64 on http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/08/01/august-2013-open-thread/comment-page-15/#comments

    Go through from there and collect my cites and dear Cohenites. This “where’s the refs” crap is wearing thin.

    “Pan evaporation decreasing is well established:
    Nobody has disputed that.” says Chek – well strangely CSIRO keeps saying it will going up? hmmmmm – well at the seminars I go to.

    Well Cheky poos http://www.csiro.au/en/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Marine–Atmospheric-Research/AustralianRainfallFuture.aspx

    Now if you knew anything you’d know that temperature in your Penman-Monteith equation is the least important of the variables – radiation, vapor pressure (~humidity), and wind are more important.

    So that’s why a warmer Darwin has less pan evaporation than a relatively cooler but low humidity arid Alice Springs.

    The wind story seems to be a global trend to stilling at 2m height

    You dumb fucks wouldn’t even think about such things.

  45. #45 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    cohenite

    That’s very good big guy; you’re taking the piss; RSS is cooler than UAH; pull the other one; good one BB.

    A sceptic would take the view that *neither* data set was reliable. A sceptic might look at the land surface reconstruction (the best we have for sampling density and measurement accuracy) and compare two different methodologies to see if they arrived at broadly the same result. This is exactly what BEST did.

    Look at the satellite data. Odd.

    * * *

    I don’t know anything about the pan evaporation data so I offered no opinion.

  46. #46 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Luke

    #39

  47. #47 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    BBD you got fucked up the arse on the Kellow business – we’ll just keep you hanging for a few days like last time. You see – you pre-suppose I think you’re important – I don’t – I think you’re a lying fuck.

    This isn’t a good faith debate – you guys are bad fuckers and showed your vile little nastiness straight away and so you need to be taken down! It’s a public service to get rid of ferals like yourselves.

  48. #48 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    BBD answer the fucking questions you gutless piece of shit ! You only get one try-on – you’ve had it and were ratfucked – now hunker down dough boy.

  49. #49 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    Chek#26 on references – I started at 64

    You have never provided references supporting any of your claims:

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

    Provide a published study that justifies your assertion.

    Go on.

    Do it now.

  50. #50 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    Cohenite not a shill – he’s just a bad ass sceptic mother fucker who wants to rip you a new arsehole. I can dig it myself. Even though he’s misguided. Anyway I like his hot girlfriend. I’m jealous.

  51. #51 BBD
    August 24, 2013

    BBD you got fucked up the arse on the Kellow business – we’ll just keep you hanging for a few days like last time. You see – you pre-suppose I think you’re important – I don’t – I think you’re a lying fuck.

    In response to this:

    If Luke is debating in good faith, he should have said that he was away from his bookshelf straight away.

    If Luke is debating in good faith he wouldn’t delay linking to the blog debate he says he had with Kellow just to make me look wrong.

    If Luke is debating in good faith, he would post the link on request if it exists.

    What do we think Luke will do next?

    :-)

    * * *

    Tricky, eh, Luke?

  52. #52 Luke
    August 24, 2013

    “You have never provided references supporting any of your claims:” Well BBD – that’s because you’re a fucking idiot.

  53. #53 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    The wind story seems to be a global trend to stilling at 2m height

    You dumb fucks wouldn’t even think about such things.

    When we do, we wonder what might be *causing* this effect?

    What we do not do is grab it and pretend that it somehow undermines the standard position.

    You are fond of yelling “activist” and “ignorant” but it’s you that goes beyond the data, every time.

  54. #54 chek
    August 25, 2013

    What do we think Luke will do next?

    Well, he spent some hours fruitfully substituting a blank for his avatar, and imagining references from some alternate universe we don’t have access to.
    So who knows?
    More bluster would be my best guess.

  55. #55 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Luke

    You are not answering the questions. Again.

    It’s not convincing anyone except you.

  56. #56 BBD
    August 25, 2013

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

    Provide a published study that justifies your assertion.

    Go on.

    Do it now.

  57. #57 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    And let’s have that link to the blog debate with Kellow. Amazon cannot fix that for you, so delay only means bad faith.

    Bad faith, Luke. Why would you *demonstrate* bad faith like this?

    What do you think you will gain by doing this?

  58. #58 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Well ya hafta take your chances on Kellow don’t you. Roll the dice and see where the numbers fall. You see would be pretty hard to retro fit an old blog debate wouldn’t it. I’ll make you a deal – you promise here and now that you’re cock sure – and if I’m right and a thread with moi and Aynsley exists well you fuck off forever from this blog and never return (as a sock puppet either). Come on write out the promise to your mates here and now. Deal? Double or nothing cunt !

  59. #59 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Bad faith. All I asked you for was the link.

    So provide it.

  60. #60 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Well take the bet – come on….

  61. #61 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Look it’s 50:50 – you’ve only been ratfucked once today already.

  62. #62 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Next, we have more bad faith.

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

    Provide a published study that justifies your assertion.

    Go on.

    Do it now.

  63. #63 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Links, Luke.

    You have nowhere else to go now.

    Except bad faith.

  64. #64 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    How are you going on Kellow – you have 5 minutes.

  65. #65 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Chek#26 on references – I started at 64 on http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/08/01/august-2013-open-thread/comment-page-15/#comments

    Do I have to repeat myself.

  66. #66 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Tick tick tick

  67. #67 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    and if I’m right and a thread with moi and Aynsley exists

    No, Luke.

    What I need to see is *evidence* that you have read the book. A bit of back-and-forth with AK in blog comments might bolster your case, or it might not.

    If it did, you would link to it straight away and have a dance and wave your willy.

    The fact that you won’t is strongly suggestive that it doesn’t.

    But that’s your call.

    Meanwhile, bad faith!

    :-)

  68. #68 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Tick, tick, tick!

  69. #69 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    One minute remaining!

  70. #70 cohenite
    August 25, 2013

    BB, you linked to BEST as evidence that the land-based records are better than the satellites; that’s a leap of faith I think; any way Muller co-authors BEST with Curry, who I recall you guys are skanky about.

    Even I can understand the issues with BEST’s latest effort where they ‘prove’ there is no UHIE.

    No UHIE?

    Anyway, luke won’t be pleased but here is my critique of BEST’s no UHIE ‘paper’,

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/new-ten-worst-agw-papers-by-cohenite.html

  71. #71 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    I know what this is all about, of course, because I am not a child.

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

    Provide a published study that justifies your assertion.

    Go on.

    Do it now.

    Tick, tick, tick!

    Bad faith!

    :-) :-) :-)

  72. #72 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    You’re making a claim against me – you’re saying bad faith defend your honour and back up your sleight or be a big fat lying prick.

  73. #73 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Liar liar – can’t back up your slur can …. pussy !

  74. #74 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    That’s not quite what I was asking you for, Luke!

    :-)

    Try again!

    TICK, TICK, TICK!

  75. #75 chek
    August 25, 2013

    There are links from you to von Storch’s latest non-peer reviewed 1998, cherry-picked bloviating. Are those your “references”? Really??

  76. #76 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    You are crap at this, Luke. Sorry to pop your bubble, but it needs saying.

  77. #77 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Let me break it down for you.

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

    1/. Provide a published study that justifies your assertion.

    Go on.

    Do it now.

    2/. Link to the blog debate with Kellow.

    Go on.

    Do it now.

    Hope that clarifies any confusion.

    TICK, TICK, TICK!

    ;-)

  78. #78 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Not cherry picked. Lucia supports independently. So does Spencer. You’re history fuck nuts.

    If there is no issue – why do have a discussion “the pause” ?

    And von Storch is ? and you are – some fucking loon.

    And times up on Kellow…. you gutless wonder. You squat to piss. I spit on your whole thesis – you’re a flake – now get off our blog.

  79. #79 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    You’re making a claim against me

    Indeed I am.

    So why the fuck don’t you defend yourself against it?

    TICK

    TICK

    TICK

    ?

  80. #80 el gordo
    August 25, 2013

    chek the null hypothesis is the baseline hypothesis.

    The Klimatariat turned their back on the null hypothesis, ie global warming and cooling is a natural phenomenon, instead they sought an alternative hypothesis that CO2 was increasing temperatures.

    It has proved very lucrative over the past few decades, but the party is drawing to a close because a harmless trace gas is innocent of the charges laid against it.

  81. #81 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    BBD – the gutless fucking wonder wasn’t cock sure after all. Now this begs the question – what else is he bluffing on and not cock sure about. EVERYTHING !

    This goes right to the heart of this creep.

  82. #82 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    And times up on Kellow…. you gutless wonder. You squat to piss. I spit on your whole thesis – you’re a flake – now get off our blog.

    ?

    1/. Provide a published study that justifies your assertion.

    Go on.

    Do it now.

    2/. Link to the blog debate with Kellow.

    Go on.

    Do it now.

  83. #83 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Luke

    These are your claims.

    Not mine.

    So defend them.

  84. #85 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    No mate – you’ve had your go. All your mates can see you’ve been done.

    You don’t get third and 4th goes.

    The models are FALSIFIED and you are ratfucked. Write the Von and tell him where he’s wrong. He’d rip your nuts off and feed them to the pigs.

  85. #86 chek
    August 25, 2013

    No UHIE?

    Do you have to misrepresent everything you lay your shit-caked hands upon, Cox?

    I think that the urban heat island has been addressed by the three major groups, and now it’s been addressed by us. The fact is urban heating is seen, but the fraction of the globe that’s urban is so small that it’s very hard to imagine that there would be a major urban heat island effect contribution.” ~ Richard Muller

  86. #87 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    The models are FALSIFIED

    Yawn.

  87. #88 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    #84 cohenite

    Can you point me to the bit where it demonstrates that the models are FALSIFIED (OMG!).

    Because I can’t find it.

  88. #89 chek
    August 25, 2013

    cohenite @# 84

    Models falsified:

    Perhaps you can specify which part of the 123 page IAC Report you linked supports your interpretation?

  89. #90 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Luke

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

    I know you can’t find a study that backs up your assertion, but at least link to the blog debate with Kellow.

    Come on, man! Defend your claims!

    This does not look good.

  90. #91 chek
    August 25, 2013

    Luke if vS can’t be arsed putting together a publishable case, then I can’t be arsed correcting him.

  91. #92 cohenite
    August 25, 2013

    Settle down chek, otherwise you’ll blow a poffle valve.

    I see Muller and Berkeley have taken down their paper which I linked to at The venerable Climate Sceptics blog to which I unreservedly invite all the wonderful folk here to go to and have their valuable comments published.

    In that paper Muller and his group prove that the UHIE, if it does exist, is inconsequential; we could quibble as to whether something which is so slight as to be immeasurable actually exists but it doesn’t change the fact that if it can’t be measured then for attribution purposes it doesn’t exist.

    I could be wrong and someone may produce some fractal basis for saying an immeasurable effect still has consequence in which case I will pay all due notice of it.

    So chek, fractal away and feel free to introduce the Ouroboros effect with or without sphincters.

  92. #93 chek
    August 25, 2013

    So these are Codling’s stormtroopers, eh BBD?
    No wonder she needs the Heartland money.
    The click-through revenue on these bozos must be minimal.

  93. #94 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    No we’re not Jo’s stormtroopers – just an independent maverick outfit prepared to ask some tough questions of ourselves.

    Frankly it doesn’t matter how Nova is funded or not funded. Is she right or wrong?

    I suppose you communists would like to stifle all dissent.

  94. #95 cohenite
    August 25, 2013

    You’re big boys; use that great intelligence; clue, Appendix D,9. Consider “Structural uncertainty”, “Inadequate models, incomplete or competing conceptual frameworks, lack of agreement on model structure, ambiguous system boundaries or definitions, significant processes or relationships wrongly specified or not considered.”

    Chek has always been a disappointment BB, but you are letting me down; question asked, question answered; man up buddy, admit your error, move on, move up and don’t forget Ouroboros.

  95. #96 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    No we’re not Jo’s stormtroopers – just an independent maverick outfit prepared to ask some tough questions of ourselves.

    But not to answer them.

    * * *

    BTW, is anyone else getting lots of 505s?

  96. #97 chek
    August 25, 2013

    would like to stifle all dissent.

    You class your manufactured, think-tank bred, intellectual effluent as genuine dissent? You really are delusional.

  97. #98 chek
    August 25, 2013

    “BTW, is anyone else getting lots of 505s?”

    Not here using IE10

  98. #99 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Thanks chek.

  99. #100 chek
    August 25, 2013

    cohenite @ # 95

    “Inadequate models, incomplete or competing conceptual frameworks, lack of agreement on model structure, ambiguous system boundaries or definitions, significant processes or relationships wrongly specified or not considered.”

    You haven’t the slightest clue what you’re reading, do you Cox? It’s all just black shapes on white background to you.