August 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Keep the (bad!) faith.

    :-)

  2. #2 Vince Whirlwind
    August 25, 2013

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

    She isn’t even wrong. She conducts a freakshow. A couple of you have escaped, I see.

    Could it be that Cox now sees the comedy in his previous “missing hot spot” nonsense?
    He’s obviously not completely stupid, so he may now realise that the retarded nonsense he had swallowed and was in the habit of regurgitating wasn’t doing much for his credibility?

    Here’s a clue, Cox: stay away from the crank blogs. You obviously have neither the training nor the natural intellect to distinguish between fact and fiction. Stick with simple, mainstream websites that explain the situation and you can avoid looking like an idiot.

  3. #3 Vince Whirlwind
    August 25, 2013

    Meanwhile, Luke is running so scared of having been called out so many times for posting nothing of substance that he has descended to petty abuse in the hope he will be banned and can use that as a claim for “victory” on his return to whichever cesspit of crankery he sprang from.

    Transparent and dishonest. But I believe I was beaten to that assessment of Luke by more than one other here.

  4. #4 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    I suppose you communists would like to stifle all dissent.

    Which communists?

    All the rest of us want are links.

  5. #5 Vince Whirlwind
    August 25, 2013

    I wouldn’t mind trying to stifle stupidity, though, does that make me a communist?

    Wouldn’t want to be a communist, they are very, very scary, especially when they’re hiding under Luke’s bed.

  6. #6 FrankD
    August 25, 2013

    Luke:

    I suppose you communists would like to stifle all dissent.

    Funny how the guy who thinks others are trying to stifle dissent is the one telling people like BBD to

    get off our[sic] blog.

    What’s Lotharsson’s refrain again? Oh yeah: Remember, with deniers, its always something-something…

  7. #7 Lotharsson
    August 25, 2013

    Does anyone detect a hint of projection here?

    Sigh…

    …which is why Luke’s conspicuously progressing meltdown over the last couple of pages has been so revealing.

    (Especially since he’s attempting to enlist el gordo, of all people, in a discussion allegedly based on the evidence. For someone who loudly and obsessively blows his own trumpet proclaiming that he is intellectually reaming other commenters here, that’s an impressively large petard to park oneself on top of just after pulling the pin.)

    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.

    Ewwwww, this is more than a touch creepy.

    I don’t think Luke is entirely right in the head. Either way, it’s well past time for him to get his own special thread. Or join el gordo back on his special thread where they can reminisce fondly about

  8. #8 cohenite
    August 25, 2013

    Brilliant riposte chek; you are obviously the pace-setter here! Well done again, I’m learning so much from you!

  9. #9 Lotharsson
    August 25, 2013

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

    You’re just obsessively repeating bollocks to try and reassure yourself, aren’t you?

    a) If we get much past a couple of degrees warming, we’re unlikely to be able to stop it there.

    b) Warming loads the dice for undesireable outcomes. It doesn’t take a huge amount for 1 in a 1000 year occurrences to start occurring at 1 in 100 or 1 in 50 or 1 in 20 rates. You ought to be able to understand this concept by thinking about sports analogies. Imagine a batsmen’s chance of getting out because he received a completely unplayable ball. If that chance was 1 in 100 a few years ago, but now due to some small change it is now 1 in 10…what do you think will happen to crop yields batting scores?

    c) There are threshold effects, so for some undesirable outcomes when you slightly exceed a threshold the problem SUDDENLY gets way way worse. Investigate minimum nighttime temperature thresholds for rice during pollination season, for example. We’ve already seen crop failures in the Subcontinent due to heat waves, and if we load the dice with another degree or two of warming these will become MUCH more frequent. Or imagine the batsmen who faces fast bowlers and only JUST has enough time to tactically react to the delivery. A fast bowler who is just a few km/h faster can completely remove that ability from the batsman.

    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.

    This will potentially reduce food security. Monoculture is already a problem because it means reduced genetic diversity, which means reduced natural resilience in the entire agricultural system to various threats. We are attempting to compensate with genetic engineering and the liberal application of pesticides and fertilisers and so on – but there are now signs that yield improvements due to genetic engineering are slowing down, that resilience improvements due to genetic engineering aren’t as dramatic as hoped for – and that pests are evolving rapidly to deal with both genetic engineering and pesticides, with farmers in some places finding some in the last few years remarkably difficult to control – and very expensive to even try. All of this suggests your claims about increased food security are dubious, perhaps even foolish.

  10. #10 Lotharsson
    August 25, 2013

    The Klimatariat turned their back on the null hypothesis, ie global warming and cooling is a natural phenomenon,…

    More ignorant bullshit. The null hypothesis that you cite was used and it failed. The entire set of evidence simply cannot be explained without invoking the greenhouse effect, and even the imperfect models, which “skeptics” like to allege can be tuned to produce any outcome one likes, cannot be tuned to explain the observations without invoking AGW. (If they could, it would cost a fossil fuel company less than a million dollars to do it and publish it – way cheaper for them than their lobbying and PR efforts. They may be willing to deny science, but they ain’t stupid about where to invest their cash.)

  11. #11 Lotharsson
    August 25, 2013

    …Curry, who I recall you guys are skanky about.

    And yet again you misinterpret the issue.

    The problem with Curry is not Curry per se, it’s specific behaviour. She is capable of doing good work as some of her published work demonstrates, but she has set those critical faculties aside far too often on her blog and when doing presentations outside of the peer reviewed literature.

    The same applies to Lindzen.

    That’s why peer reviewed journal papers that survive post publication peer review are the gold standard, and blog posts and presentations to amateurs who don’t have the skills to spot when they’ve been bullshitted are not.

  12. #12 cohenite
    August 25, 2013

    Thanks Lotho, for setting me straight; much appreciated.

  13. #13 el gordo
    August 25, 2013

    ‘The entire set of evidence simply cannot be explained without invoking the greenhouse effect’

    Massive Fail

  14. #14 Lotharsson
    August 25, 2013

    Massive Fail

    Indeed. And yet that level of Fail is what you have been relying upon. Good to see some self-awareness finally creeping in ;-)

  15. #15 el gordo
    August 25, 2013

    Just found this NASA link and the real SLR.

    ‘The “Geodetic Reference Antenna in Space” (GRASP):
    “A Mission to Enhance GNSS and the Terrestrial Reference Frame”
    [ http://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/meetings/2011-06/bar-sever.pdf ]
    From frame 3 of the above GRASP pdf.
    >>>> “Impact of TRF [ Terrestrial Reference Frame ] on GMSL Record from Tide Gauges:
    Competing approaches for TRF realization yield estimates for sea-level rise ranging from 1.2 to 1.6 mm / yr.
    Desired accuracy for measuring global mean sea level (GMSL) rise is 0.1 mm/yr

  16. #16 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Ah Vince and Lotharsson – I’ve had a most pleasant afternoon off blog – and no meltdown – it’s called taking the piss. I’m just fucking with ya’s. I’m sure you’re all very serious – but hey don’t be too serious – life is too short.

    Sorry you guys aren’t very good. I’m really disappointed actually. I thought you’d be up to speed. El Gordo told me the place had gone to crap and I didn’t believe him.

    I thought you’d be all cut and thrust with the latest science – I didn’t think I’d get the hymn book and appeal to authority line. How boring. How passe.

    Anyway I guess I’d better get back in character hey?

    And yea lotsa 505s earlier.

  17. #17 Berendaneke
    August 25, 2013

    @Lostson

    More ignorant bullshit. The null hypothesis that you cite was used and it failed. The entire set of evidence simply cannot be explained without invoking the greenhouse effect, and even the imperfect models, which “skeptics” like to allege can be tuned to produce any outcome one likes, cannot be tuned to explain the observations without invoking AGW. (If they could, it would cost a fossil fuel company less than a million dollars to do it and publish it – way cheaper for them than their lobbying and PR efforts. They may be willing to deny science, but they ain’t stupid about where to invest their cash.)

    what n incredible piece of shit, lotarson. agw null hypothesis has not been falsified, you layman without intellect and knoledge. you are an ideology greenpisser, just a cheap ignorant in science but full of crap green ideology. piss off from here you idiot and sham for mankind, fuck

  18. #18 el gordo
    August 25, 2013

    ‘Anyway I guess I’d better get back in character hey?’

    Many years ago we were having a discussion on SWWA and the supposed AGW drought.

    What is your perspective now?

  19. #19 rhwombat
    August 25, 2013

    Just saw Chasing Ice, the Balog & Orlowski doc on filming glacier change in response to AGW ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasing_Ice ). Despite the studied bullshit of the “academic” Biz Droid at Deakin ( http://theconversation.com/chasing-ice-bewitches-eyes-but-wont-change-minds-13326 ) – who thought it needed more denial to make it palatable to her masters, It should make Luke, Cox, Fatso scurry back under the fridge. Not that it will.

  20. #20 el gordo
    August 25, 2013

    Stuff you wombat, Luke, cohers and me might just make our own doco and become rich and fatuous.

  21. #21 Jeff Harvey
    August 25, 2013

    Fatty, the three of you combined have not got enough gray matter to achieve anything noteworthy…. as illustrated time and time again by your gumbified posts on Deltoid.

  22. #22 Jeff Harvey
    August 25, 2013

    Luke’s latest mini-rant: “Sorry you guys aren’t very good.”

    Look in the mirror, pal. You aren’t good at all. If you’d dare venture into an academic environment – such as a conference in which climate change and its ecological effects is a main theme – spewing the crap you do here you’d be chewed up and spat out in a second.

    You think you are an alpha male on a blog. I think you ought to meet old Jonas – that is if you and him can squeeze your bloated egos into the same room.

  23. #23 Jeff Harvey
    August 25, 2013

    Then this little nugget: “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.”

    I deconstructed this crap earlier, and yet Luke comes back with it. OF COURSE it matters who pays the bills because this tends to act as a camouflage for the truth. Deniers on the corporate payroll cannot say that their views are effectively bought and paid for (which they probably are), because this would shoot down their street cred. So they package their views as a search fro scientific truth – as elusive as that is – when the real truth is that their views have been bought. Heck, the tobacco lobby did this for years, using well-honed PR techniques, in order to downplay the clear negative effects of smoking on human health. In doing so, they’d often invest big bucks in paying off medical experts etc. to publicly downplay the risks of smoking, even though said experts knew they were lying.

    If old Luke doesn’t think that money influences opinion, then he is even dumber than I thought.

    Then he totally undermines what little solid ground he has left with his final quip about communists. Yup, every loony on the far right has been using the watermelon analogy to smear scientists and those arguing the humans are the main drivers behind GW and that inaction to deal with it will have potentially serious consequences. I am used to it as well – after critically reviewing Bjorn Lomborg’s TSE for Nature (2001) the knives came out and several right wing think tanks were calling me and Stuart Pimm green fanatics and the like. Along with a climate scientist I debated a right wing politician and a mediocre science writer on AGW a few years ago here in Holland, the the politician actually opened his argument by claiming that I and other scientists like the guy on my side were ‘ watermelons’ green on the outside but red inside.

    Of course, no evidence is ever procured, except for the supine bullshit that Karen pasted up last week (which was a Green Party rally in which they advocated some kind of global regulation of environmentally damaging activities – hardly ‘communist’ – but nothing ever about how this relates to the bulk of scientists doing the research that the deniers frequently denigrate or distort.

    By contrast, there is a huge volume of evidence that many of the most prominent deniers are on the corporate payroll, either directly or mediated through their affiliation with libertarian corporate funded think tanks, PR companies or astroturf groups. I debated a Dutch ‘ scientist’ a decade ago inn which the subject was extinction rates and biodiversity loss. I checked the guy up beforehand and found that he was associated with two organizations that routinely spewed out anti-environmental rhetoric. One, based in the USA, is a prominent site and was set up by what appeared to be two corporate lobbyists. Its web site spewed out right wing kindergarten level science. The guy I debated wasn’t the only ‘adviser’ to that site; the list was a veritable who’s who of anti-environmental pseudo-scientists on the academic fringe. During our debate, in front of a large audience (about 300 people) I asked my opponent if and how much the organizations were paying him. He refused to answer (an admission in itself) and claimed that this was irrelevant to our debate. I countered by arguing that of course it was relevant: this guy has a piss-poor publication record and if they are paying him I don’t think they would expect him to espouse views that are opposed to their own. One doesn’t hire a lawyer if the lawyer testifies against his/her own client, even if they know their client is guilty. In our debate, I also suggested that anybody with half a brain would consider the current threats to biodiversity to be serious – hence how they managed to scrape this guy up at all. Lomborg had been invited to debate me earlier, but he had declined several other offers since I had skewered him in a debate earlier in the year. Not to boast, but that wasn’t difficult. Lomborg’s understanding of environmental science was abominable.

    But every time the commie/green/watermelon canard is brought out of the chest (Bring out the gimp! Bring out the gimp!) it makes me realize how intellectually bankrupt the deniers are.

  24. #24 Vince Whirlwind
    August 25, 2013

    Luke took the trouble to post nine lines but failed to think of any actual content for those nine lines.

    Pointless Luke.
    At least Cox manages to entertain by laying out his entirely faulty analyses and lines of reasoning for everybody to giggle at.

  25. #25 cohenite
    August 25, 2013

    Thanks VW, I aim to amuse; thankfully you guys are easy to please.

  26. #26 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Yes but Vince given I have VIP status here now so I think I can be indulged. Given your suggestion i think I shall now give a long winded account of my daily activities here.

    JEff – Of course money influences opinion Jeff. So we have govt and NGOs at a bazzilion dollars versus a few million of oil money and sometimes NO oil money. I think it’s pretty certain that personalities like Nova are not in for the money. They simply despise your entire thesis!

    Nova has made ongoing studies of your money http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-climate-industry-wall-of-money/

    Piss weak Jeff. Simply piss weak. So all your ECOLOGICAL science has a bit of a problem – if the forecast is wrong – my point here – well all your modelling on that is wrong.

    Which leads to the problem that you can only parrot and not answer any of my questions.

    So Jeff you’re just another censor of dissent. Stop frothing and answer the fucking questions.

  27. #27 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    The blog alpha male – gee Jeff that’s brilliant. I’m adopting that. But what if I’m a chick (with a dick). So many assumptions.

  28. #28 cohenite
    August 25, 2013

    This thread is stuffed; I told everyone about Ouroboros but since everyone here is illiterate they didn’t get it even though I threw in a clue about sphincters.

  29. #29 Lotharsson
    August 25, 2013

    So we have govt and NGOs at a bazzilion dollars versus a few million of oil money and sometimes NO oil money.

    The last thing any government wants is to be told that there’s a fucking great problem with fossil fuels, because the measures to deal with that are quite often rather unpopular and may be quite disruptive for a time. (See: government, Gillard.) And the potential disruption is especially strong to industries with proven fuel reserves currently valued at about $20 trillion – with a T – that will have to remain unburnt if the scientists are anywhere near right about the danger level. And you don’t have to look very far to see how influential those industries are on governments…

    So if government money influences positions – and more so those outside of peer reviewed journals, which just happens to be where almost all of the contrarian claims lie – then the scientists would be reporting “no problem” back to those governments, right? Especially since that’s exactly the message the big fossil fuel companies want to hear, and they have significant influence over politicians in most advanced countries so both government and big business are aligned in their desires.

    You really haven’t thought this through. But then that’s par for your course.

  30. #30 Lotharsson
    August 25, 2013

    … given I have VIP status here now…

    Sorry, Luke, but the niche on this site for a commenter with a delusion of special status is already taken. Freel free to head on over to the BK thread and duke it out with him for alleged supreme status if you want.

    In fact, you might enjoy the conversation. The number of similar delusions that you and BK hold is quite fascinating, but I’m sure you’ll be able to find a point of difference which will lead to endlessly entertaining “dialogue”.

  31. #31 cohenite
    August 25, 2013

    Lotho, I’m beginning to suspect you don’t like fossil fuels.

  32. #32 el gordo
    August 25, 2013

    Idso is associated with fossil fuels, apparently.

  33. #33 cohenite
    August 25, 2013

    We’re all associated with fossils except those greenies who are true to their vows and living under rocks.

  34. #34 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Gordy

    The Idso clan is paid by the fossil fuel industry. Fact.

    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.

    (Yes, that is a gotcha. But then, you have been got, Gordy. I’m just trying to get you to understand what you are doing).

  35. #35 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    #31

    No, it’s anti-democratic practices by corporate interests, paid liars and their tools – such as your good self – that aren’t popular here.

  36. #36 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    since everyone here is illiterate

    Be careful with that unwarranted assumption! It might bite you in the omphalos!

  37. #37 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Where’s the link to that blog debate with Kellow, Luke?

    If it is evidence that you aren’t a liar who pretends to have read references that he has not read, the post it up!

    Defend yourself man. We all think you are a lying sack of shit! Prove us wrong. Come on.

    What possible reason could there be for holding this information back?

    :-)

    You.. you didn’t call Professor Kellow a cunt, did you Luke?

    :-)

  38. #38 Lotharsson
    August 25, 2013

    Luke’s latest conspiracy theory is quite fascinating, seeing as he doesn’t seem to see any contradictions embedded within it.

    Let’s hypothesise that:

    a) The climate science consensus is horribly mistaken and fossil fuel combustion products aren’t significantly contributing to warming the planet or acidifying the ocean, and the consensus only arises because practically every single scientist involved has been “bought”, and consequently they are all conspiring to produce wrongness, but wrongness that is reasonably consistent with everyone else’s wrongness. (And clearly the Central Wrongness Planning Bureau must remain a well kept and plausibly deniable secret. And every year practically every new scientist that starts a research career gets “bought” as well.)

    Let’s further hypothesise that:

    b) You’re a fossil fuel company CEO faced by a dishonest propaganda campaign unfairly vilifying your product using a message derived in large part from scientists who aren’t paid by your industry, and putting at risk your substantial share of the $20 trillion pot.

    Given (a) and (b) what’s your smart move – and your duty to the shareholders? Do you:

    a) Pay PR people to put out a message that doesn’t stand up to basic scientific scrutiny, and is often so poor that even non-scientists can poke valid holes in it?

    b) Pay some scientists – who, Luke alleges, can be easily bought, so they can clearly be paid to be honest – to demonstrate that the scientific consensus is the product of liars and scoundrels utterly misrepresenting reality? After all, you know the consensus is bullshit, so demonstrating how you know it by unrebuttable reference to reality should be quite feasible. (And those government scientists don’t earn much, so if you really wanted to go for the kill you could probably buy up a large number of them and change the consensus by brute force…)

    c) Do (b) and then pay PR people to get your – now unimpeachable – message out?

    (Cue more ducking and weaving and charges of “philosophy” from Luke…)

  39. #39 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Jeff Harvey

    But every time the commie/green/watermelon canard is brought out of the chest (Bring out the gimp! Bring out the gimp!) it makes me realize how intellectually bankrupt the deniers are.

    Indeed. Something that is oddly overlooked is the strong racist association with the term “watermelon”. Our denier friends, always so quick to shriek about imaginary associations with the Shoah seem perfectly blind to the racist stink billowing up from “watermelon”.

  40. #40 Lotharsson
    August 25, 2013

    Didn’t know cohenite was a Red Dwarf fan, but that’s hardly the criteria for being literate.

    ;-)

  41. #41 chek
    August 25, 2013

    Cox @ #8

    Brilliant riposte chek; you are obviously the pace-setter here! Well done again, I’m learning so much from you!

    You’re welcome. You’ll find it’s a common hazard of not reading/not understanding what you’re quoting.

    I’m still gobsmacked that you even attempted to pass off a guidance note as if it were a criticism. (Page 93 of the IAC pdf)

  42. #42 chek
    August 25, 2013

    the racist stink billowing up from “watermelon”.

    It may be just a Brit thing. I recall mentioning several years ago that I’d pay to see Monckton give his then current watermelon speech in Brixton, but the racist usage seemed to elude most here.

  43. #43 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    It’s from the American South, originally.

  44. #44 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    It’s odd how the Lukes, Jonarses, and BKs of this world all share the same fundamental mental illness: delusions of grandeur. They are all essentially narcissists. They strut, and preen, and fabulate about their own imaginary potency and brilliance. Something about the Internet blinds them to how utterly ridiculous they actually are.

  45. #45 Lotharsson
    August 25, 2013

    Something about the Internet blinds them to how utterly ridiculous they actually are.

    I’m not sure about that. I think they are already blind, but the Internet gives them new forums to inflict their obsessive iterated pronouncements (which seems to me to be more about desperate faith maintenance than anything) on a wider audience. And it’s a forum that, unlike the pub or the workplace, limits the modes of response of those so inflicted, eliminating many that the horn blowers might find undesirable.

  46. #46 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Yes. A palm-strike to the nose does shut most people up, at least temporarily.

  47. #47 Lionel A
    August 25, 2013

    This thread is stuffed; I told everyone about Ouroboros but since everyone here is illiterate they didn’t get it even though I threw in a clue about sphincters.

    I didn’t think that remark required a riposte, after all you are so evidentially up yourself with myths, about climate science, that one more myth in your cognitive sphere was unremarkable.

    That you still carry on spouting the same old memes in the face of hardening evidence, both from scientific research and real world events is a clear sign that you suffer from cognitive dissonance.

    And you may like to do more research on Antarctic warming before crowing any-more on that score.

  48. #48 Jeff Harvey
    August 25, 2013

    “It’s odd how the Lukes, Jonarses, and BKs of this world all share the same fundamental mental illness: delusions of grandeur. They are all essentially narcissists.”

    EXACTLY BBD. Well put. I couldn’t have said it better. It wouldn’t be so bad if they actually were professional scientists with some kind of standing in a related field, but the truth is that NONE of them have any relevant qualifications (except in their own minds where they are intellectual heavyweights). If they did, we’d sure be the first to know about it. I have asked all of them many, many times to tell us what their scientific backgrounds are, and every time the request is greeted with derisive snarky responses or else silence. This is proof positive that they have no scientific pedigree. Yet we are more or less permanently told in no uncertain terms that we MUST accept their own admissions of brilliance. To question it is t be called a commie stooge and much, much worse.

    The main point is that it is these narcissists whose views run counter to conventional wisdom and the prevailing views of most scientists. Their arrogance would be at least a smidgeon more tolerable were they to defer to the expertise of trained climate scientists who mostly agree that humans are the main drivers behind GW, and that inaction to deal with it could have huge societal and environmental costs. But this group of self-righteous Dunning-Krugerites dismiss the views of most scientists, repeatedly smear some of them and act as if they have accrued the wisdom which has miraculously bypassed the people doing the research. Its like Hansen, Trenberth, Mahlmann, Mann, Santer et al. do not understand atmospheric science as well as they do, and we are supposed to believe that a few other keyboard experts on Nova’s blog somehow know more about climate science that those scientists (and many more) listed above.

    As I have said, my interest in AGW is on the possible ecological consequences, many of which are well described in the empirical literature. The debate about causation should have moved on a decade or more ago. Now we should be focusing on effects and consequences, as well as mitigation and, because of inaction, adaptation.

  49. #49 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    To question it is t be called a commie stooge and much, much worse.

    :-)

    Sticks and stones!

    They never learn how to dance, these people.

  50. #50 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Loathsome #38

    OR NOT

    Let’s hypothesise that you’re personally involved in a multi-national massively funded global research program that’s “saving the planet” and you just want to ask a few questions.

    Strangely nobody wants to listen but is very keen to write their next funding application. Asking a question immediately labels you a disloyal oil industry shill and denier. You ponder such a vicious reaction and are taken aback.

    Jeff like a dog returning to its vomit offers no answers except his slavish devotion to authority. POSSIBLE ecological consequences – fuck off Jeff and get a real job.

    o tell us Jeff’ey boy – CSIRO’s multi-model mean projections give rainfall scenarios from plus some more to less some more – which do I pick? Models don’t represent ENSO or interacting decadal influences yet that’s my biggest problem.

    In the climate change adaptation workshops rolled out to farmers the response comes back that’s it’s all so plus or minus and in the future nobody knows what they could do as an individual operator. You’re a fucking lazy academic lay-about who wouldn’t fucking know. Full all serious experience trying to implement policy or you wouldn’t be carrying on like a toss-pot.

    You’re basing your whole ecological response on models that probably FUCKED ! What a fool.

    Remember Jeff – first person to offer Dunning-Kruger, Galileo or Feynman loses. It’s the dead set wanker warming giveaway.

    Trenberth clearly doesn’t understand – or he wouldn’t be saying – where the travesty fuck is the heat!? And Mann would not have had McIntryre DESTROY the Hockey Stick if he knew what he’s doing – it won’t be in AR5 – go figure. It’s smashed. And Hansen’s models would be shaping up. Don’t make me laugh in your face.

  51. #51 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    BBD – you got ratfucked yesterday – you lying little prick who said I was quoting from a book I did not have. And you were done !

    Then you had a second ask and got answered.

    On the third go I asked you to back up you putrid assertion with a bet – and you just ran away. Gutless – now you don’t get any mores goes – you’re done. Fuck off the blog.

    It’s plain for your mates to see that you were done. Now on your bike sport and fuck off the blog.

  52. #52 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    “They are all essentially narcissists.” Well only for humorousless creeps like BBD who don’t know when they’re being mocked or played like a rube. Mate we just become whatever persona makes you happy. You see that is the test of your objectivity. How much you read into what you don’t know. Remember there are many Lukes. A whole club of them. Or did I just tell you that? Do you know?

    OK I confess I work for a big think tank paid for with WA petro-dollars and international Tea Party funds just to sink creeps like you. So we can protect our freedoms, liberty and way of life from the pink green insurgence.

  53. #53 Vince Whirlwind
    August 25, 2013

    Luke’s suggestion is to throw away the imperfect models and adopt the instructions given by the fossil-fuel lobby, yes?

    I notice he seems to have missed the dozen-or-so independent studies that have replicated the “hocley stick”. It’s a sure sign of his being a kook that he still has to rail and rant about the “hockey stick” which is now entirely uncontroversial.

  54. #54 el gordo
    August 25, 2013

    ‘The climate science consensus is horribly mistaken and fossil fuel combustion products aren’t significantly contributing to warming the planet or acidifying the ocean’

    tru dat

  55. #55 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Independent my arse – don’t make me laugh. Defending the Stick is the last refuge of scoundrels.

  56. #56 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    #24 Luke

    Cunts – you have the references

    The funny thing is, old bean, we don’t. Earlier, you said this:

    Now cunt [BBD] answer the the scientific papers that prove the models FALSIFIED.

    I responded by asking you to link to these papers. You… demurred.

    And that’s where we stand on this issue. Link to a study that “proves” that the models are “FALSIFIED” (OMG!!) and we can have a substantive discussion.

    Keep calling us all c**ts and failing to deliver the links just makes you look desperate and a teeny bit insane.

    * * *

    Meanwhile, as per, I am forced to repeat *another* request for evidence:

    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!

    :-)

    Time to make that call, Luke!

    Hardball!

    :-)

  57. #57 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Independent my arse – don’t make me laugh. Defending the Stick is the last refuge of scoundrels.

    So the PAGES 2k Consortium is composed of scoundrels?!

    Who knew?

    You have a very odd mode of thought for a working scientist, Luke!

    Perhaps you lied?

  58. #58 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    About both claims.

  59. #59 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Mate we just become whatever persona makes you happy. You see that is the test of your objectivity. How much you read into what you don’t know. Remember there are many Lukes. A whole club of them. Or did I just tell you that? Do you know?

    This is downright disturbing, Luke. Are there… voices in your head too?

  60. #60 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    That would be reducing the alkalinity of the ocean imputed from modelling with no real observations. To levels dwarfed by natural variability. Skanky mesocosm tests using HCl. And its chemothermodynamically impossible to get to shell dissolution with future levels of atmospheric CO2.

    Enjoy the coral basking in a volcanic CO2 vent (seep) off New Guinea.

  61. #61 el gordo
    August 25, 2013

    ‘The main point is that it is these narcissists whose views run counter to conventional wisdom and the prevailing views of most scientists.’

    Heretics, the lot of them, but if we could just return to the null hypothesis you will see that the scientists got carried away with delusions of grandeur. In many ways it was like being the heros in a sf movie.

    The watermelon slur is political and not racist (for us in Oz) where Communist sympathisers have taken over the Greens.

  62. #62 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Pages-2 is irrelevant to the Stick affair. Bad science and bad stats is still bad science and bad stats.

  63. #63 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    How is watermelon racist – what wankery

    “This is downright disturbing, Luke.” no really – only for you if you’re gullible. Goes to the heart of your objectivity. You’re not listening are you.

  64. #64 chek
    August 25, 2013

    tru dat

    No, it’s patently untrue by any metric you choose.
    That you want it to be true and pretend that it’s true is the reason you’re perceived as cranks out of touch with reality.

    Of course, you should realise that the next stop on that line is plain old insanity. Line of least resistance and all that. Look at Luke – barking mad.

  65. #65 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    But PAGES-2k *validates* the Mannean hockey stick.

    [Figure caption]
    Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman.

    Which strongly suggests the claims of “bad science and bad stats” were false. Does it not?

  66. #66 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    How is watermelon racist – what wankery

    Some etymology for you.

    Not wankery.

    ;-)

  67. #67 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    You’re not listening are you.

    Sane people don’t find it necessary to adopt a shifting array of personas to “prosecute their argument”. What is your motive for behaving like a net nutter?

    Objectively, it is unlikely to bolster your credibility with onlookers, never mind those directly subjected to your metamorphism.

    That said, I don’t actually believe this claim. I think the real you has been on show a fair bit over the last few days, and it is not a pretty sight.

  68. #68 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    NOT AT ALL

    BBD – nope getting the right answers for wrong reasons isn’t science. The Stick is gone and won’t be in AR5 – go figure.

    BTW have we audited them? Who paid for their funding? Was it a big govt grant designed to get the right answer? Were they cleared of noble cause corruption? Did they get a soft review.

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/21/pages2k-reconstructions/

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/20/pages2k-south-america/

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/05/09/pages2k-online-journal-club/

    This stuff is now a swamp. A poxy swamp.

    And let’s not forget our retracted Aussie Gergis paper debacle – sunk by the stern – and goooonnneeeee !

  69. #69 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Well BBD – I think you fucking idiots camped out here for all time on the leper colony are the definition of net nuttery.

    Hey – you fucked up and were ratfucked – why are you still here. Now fuck off the bog.

  70. #70 el gordo
    August 25, 2013

    ‘you’re perceived as cranks out of touch with reality.’

    Yes, yes… but the science suggests strongly that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming. Should I hang out with the brainwashed simpletons like chek, Harvey and BB and pretend the world is going to hell because of fossil fuel?

    Grow up and get a life, the ‘precautionary principle’ is no longer relevant.

  71. #71 chek
    August 25, 2013

    Your “auditor” is a fake, rolled out for know-nothing, believe-anythings just like you.

    Note that Wegman used McIntyre’s “work” to fool a Congressional committee. The chickens for that stunt have still not come home to roost.

  72. #72 Lionel A
    August 25, 2013

    Trenberth clearly doesn’t understand – or he wouldn’t be saying – where the travesty fuck is the heat!?

    That is a gross distortion of what Trenberth said and of his message which was about it being a travesty because there was not enough incrementation deployed to detect temperature change across the breadth and through the depths of the oceans.

    Go check it out elsewhere than those well know denier blogs.

    As for McIntyre destroying the hockey stick well that is absurd. McIntyre found one small discrepancy that made no practical difference to the the foundations of one hockey stick. Besides which many other graphs, using different data sources, have produced similar curves. Then McIntyre made a series of DOS attacks on scientific establishments and continued to make a fool of himself whilst being a bloody nuisance and it ended up he had the data he was supposedly shrieking about all along after all. If you don’t belive this then in that little Search field for THIS blog enter McIntyre and see what turns up.

    And then there is the Wegman brouhaha, go figure!

    It appears that you have just fallen out of a tree somewhere, perhaps the koalas chucked you out for anti-social behaviour.

    And to use an expression of yours, it is you who has been ‘ratfucked’!

  73. #73 chek
    August 25, 2013

    but the science suggests strongly that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming

    What you mean by science is actually “blogscience”, which is a fantasy game for retirees, unconnected to the real world.

  74. #74 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Sidebar: This is where I differ from my friend El Gordo – I think CO2 does impact the Earth’s radiation balance – but how much and with what interactions is now a mess. Policy grows increasingly impatient with our inability to advise and withstand scrutiny. Upper levels of govt with the lights on, not having swallowed the Kool Aid, well aware of the consensus juggernaut they have created are looking for serious answers from people of integrity.

    The clock is ticking.

    So fucktards answering my questions in a competent workman like fashion would be of great assistance.

  75. #75 el gordo
    August 25, 2013

    ‘And let’s not forget our retracted Aussie Gergis paper debacle’

    The southern hemisphere hockey stick that wasn’t. I always had respect for Gergis and the work she was doing down under…. until that paper.

  76. #76 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    “What you mean by science is actually “blogscience”, which is a fantasy game for retirees, unconnected to the real world.”

    well dickhead – remember you’re here the rest us

  77. #77 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Did I mention crappy Wegman? McIntyre’s work has shown what an incestuous pile of crap the whole field is. Dream on if you’re still on the party line.

  78. #78 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    But Luke, the latest and most comprehensive science validates MBH99.

    You are making a noise without addressing the latest science!

    Something you have repeatedly accused others of doing here.

    The smell of confusion (with an atomised hint of desperation) is getting stronger.

    Where’s the Kellow blog debate link and that paper “proving” that the models are OMG!!

    And you apology for your ignorance about the racist stink roiling up from “watermelons”?

  79. #79 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    BBD – fuck off the blog. You’re through.

  80. #80 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    “the latest and most comprehensive science validates MBH99.”

    nope got a soft review and is full of holes

  81. #81 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Hey – you fucked up and were ratfucked

    No, you were caught out bluffing and lying and eventually cobbled together a childish story that only you think is plausible.

    The beautiful thing about this is we both know the truth.

    The fun part is how you deal with that link to the blog debate with Kellow that you, unwisely, tried to turn into a weapon against me.

    Now we play hardball. You have to show your hand or you are obviously caught in a lie. I do hope the link doesn’t demonstrate that you hadn’t read the book.

    Over to you!

    :-)

  82. #82 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    BBD – fuck off the blog. You’re through.

    Apparently not.

    Over to you!

  83. #83 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Well I asked you for a bet and you ran away. CHICKEN !

  84. #84 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Come on Luke.

    Just take baby steps. You were shown up to be ignorant and abusively wrong about the watermelon thing.

    Just admit it!

    It won’t kill you. And it will make the next step that tiny bit easier!

  85. #85 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Chooky chooky chicken.

  86. #86 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Well I asked you for a bet and you ran away. CHICKEN !

    You asked me to bet whether an exchange existed, which is not the point at issue.

    What I need to see is whether that exchange demonstrates that you had read the book.

    So let’s see the link, Luke!

    Why are you wriggling like a speared fish?

    Why? Uncharitable speculation is impossible at this point, Luke!

    :-)

  87. #87 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    You were right on watermelon – I apologise – we’ll now substitute lying cunt commies.

  88. #88 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Chooky chooky chooy

  89. #89 el gordo
    August 25, 2013

    BB what is this ‘racist stink’ to which you refer?

  90. #90 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Gutless wonder

  91. #91 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Twattish taunts aren’t really what what you need now, Luke.

    You need to defend your claims.

    But first, admit your mistake over watermelons. Come on. FFS!

    Demonstrate a scintilla of good faith for a change.

  92. #92 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Gordy

    Do you *ever* read the links?

    Click here!

  93. #93 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Oh dear.

  94. #94 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    No cunt – you’re a goal post shifting turd. Having been exposed to being an OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIAR – you’ve just proceeding oblivious – get straight fucked !

  95. #95 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    That’s right El Gordo – just think on all those TV shows, newspaper articles, and blogs how many times people have called dark skinned people watermelons.

    So many times…. I count about once myself – here.

    They’re fucking idiots aren’t they.

  96. #96 chek
    August 25, 2013

    well dickhead – remember you’re here the rest us

    Ther crucial difference is I – like the rest of the regulars here – don’t believe that science is done on blogs, it’s discussed on them. Whereas you believe that trashblogs like climateaudit and Codling’s sewer should be taken seriously when their distortion and misrepresentation is so much a feature that it seems to be the whole point of them.

    Which of course it is.

  97. #97 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Having been exposed to being an OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIAR

    Really? When? I seem to have missed that.

    Please link to the quote where I am exposed as an OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIAR.

  98. #98 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Or chek – you’re unable to take the fight to them. From your responses to myself and El Gordo here – you’re a flake that can only survive here on the leper colony reinforcing the insular myopic views of its deformed inhabitants.

  99. #99 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Love the collegiate tone, btw, “working scientist”.

    :-)

  100. #100 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    And the days roll by.

    Page 30(!) #39:

    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?

    :-)

Current ye@r *