August 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    BBD – you were done. We all saw it. Lie down.

  2. #2 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    An updated list of things Luke urgently needs to do:

    1/ Link to a study that “proves” that the models are “FALSIFIED”

    2/ Link to the blog discussion with Kellow

    3/ Link to the quote where OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIAR.

    To recap, that is:

    1/ ?

    2/ ?

    3/ ?

  3. #3 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Sorry,

    “3/ Link to the quote where I am exposed as an OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIAR.”

  4. #4 el gordo
    August 25, 2013

    ‘They’re fucking idiots aren’t they.’

    Strongly agree bro.

    BB in the antipodes we see watermelons as green on the outside and communist reds on the inside.

    Just sayin’

  5. #5 Vince Whirlwind
    August 25, 2013

    Luke, posting links to McIntyre’s crank blog exposes you for what you are: an anti-science nutter.

    Additionally, your view of politics as a binary “you’re either in the anti-science camp, or you’re a communist” shows incredibly poor intellectual development.

    Every scientific institution in the world agrees on the science of climate change. I doubt any of them are run by The Greens, let alone by Communists. Even if they were, it is very clear that the only mob that is seeking to corrupt and undermine science is the right-wing fossil-fuel lobby and their useful idiots like Cox, Codling and yourself.

    Having said that, there is nothing wrong with using the term “Watermelons” to describe people like
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Rhiannon
    whose family were active Australian-based participants in the Cold War, on the wrong side.
    We shouldn’t let the Yanks’s appallingly limited version of our language corrupt the way we speak.

  6. #6 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    #4

    You should consider what it is that you are just sayin’.

    Language is a weapon, Gordy. In case you hadn’t noticed!

    :-)

  7. #7 Vince Whirlwind
    August 25, 2013

    Hang on, Codling isn’t a “useful idiot”, she actually takes money from Heartland to peddle her misinformation and paranoid rants.

  8. #8 chek
    August 25, 2013

    There is no “fight” to take to them, you fatuous child, although we are currently suffering invasion by delusional morons.

    Why would anybody sane seek out yet more flakery?
    Let them waffle away on their own about their imagined conspiracies and die in peace, I say.

  9. #9 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    * * *

    An updated list of things Luke urgently needs to do:

    1/ Link to a study that “proves” that the models are “FALSIFIED”

    2/ Link to the blog discussion with Kellow

    3/ Link to the quote where I am exposed as an OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIAR.

    4/ PAGES 2k validates MBH99. By doing so, it *invalidates* the claims that MBH99 was profoundly flawed. Yes or no?

    To recap, that is:

    1/ ?

    2/ ?

    3/ ?

    4/ ?

    * * *

  10. #10 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    chek – gutless eh? chickens ! chooky chooky chooky

  11. #11 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Deltoids can’t make in the real world. Have to live here on the atoll – and hahahahahahahaha – they can’t ADAPT to climate change.

  12. #12 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Can’t answer questions on science. What a bunch of losers.

  13. #13 chek
    August 25, 2013

    chooky chooky chooky

    As I said, fatuous child.

  14. #14 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Luke

    #9

  15. #15 Turboblocke
    August 25, 2013

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

    Do you know if it has it been adjusted and resubmitted?

  16. #16 Turboblocke
    August 25, 2013

    Another nail in the coffin for the MWP and LIA: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html

  17. #17 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Oh noes!

  18. #18 chek
    August 25, 2013

    Given the disappointment demographic, they could at least have warned readers to ensure their pacemakers are fully charged, TB.

  19. #19 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    hahahahahahahaha

    Oh dear!

  20. #20 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Ironically, Luke, it’s you that has two left feet!

    You can’t dance.

  21. #22 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/loadcurvecolourmaster.jpg

    You’re here having a circle jerk – he’s over there ! Eat a dick !

  22. #23 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Gordy

    It would be unfair of me not to hold you to the same standards of honesty that I am requiring of Luke. So we must continue with your little problem:

    The Idsos.

    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.

    * * *

    Tricky!

  23. #24 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Crank blog links!!!

    But Luke old bean, that’s not what you urgently need to provide!

    Whoopsie!

    * * *

    An updated list of things Luke urgently needs to do:

    1/ Link to a study that “proves” that the models are “FALSIFIED”

    2/ Link to the blog discussion with Kellow

    3/ Link to the quote where I am exposed as an OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIAR.

    4/ PAGES 2k validates MBH99. By doing so, it must *invalidate* the claims that MBH99 was profoundly flawed. No dog-logic now. Just an answer. Yes or no?

    To recap, that is:

    1/ ?

    2/ ?

    3/ ?

    4/ ?

  24. #25 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    #22 Luke

    We are having this discussion here.

    Whatever is happening elsewhere isn’t relevant.

    Try to focus on what is happening here.

    There are problems you need to address. Focus. My best advice!

  25. #26 Turboblocke
    August 25, 2013

    I see your pretty colours Luke and raise some hard facts:
    http://www.gizmag.com/renewable-energy-cheaper-australia/26193/

    According to the BNEF study, electricity can now be supplied from a new-build wind farm in Australia for AUD$80/MWh (US$83), while the cost of electricity supplied from a new coal plant is AUD$143/MHh (US$148) and AUD$116/MWh (US$120) for new baseload gas plants. While these figures include emission taxation under Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s carbon pricing scheme that was introduced last year, the report says that, even without a carbon price, wind energy is still 14 percent cheaper than new coal and 18 percent cheaper than new gas.

    The prices are the continuation of a downward trend for renewables in Australia. Since 2011, wind energy costs have fallen by 10 percent, while photovoltaic (PV) solar has decreased by 29 percent. Conversely, fossil fuel energy generation costs have trended upward, motivated by high financing costs linked to Australia’s “big four” banks charging substantial risk premiums for potential reputation damage associated with investments in technologies that emit high levels of greenhouse gases.

  26. #27 chek
    August 25, 2013

    So let’s sum up the past couple of weeks.

    We’ve been introduced to Luke, a denier ‘working scientist’ who passes off as just another meme spouting fuckwit.

    Anthony Cox, wannabees politico, just another denier fuckwit.

    And Gordon, ex-journo and delusional denier fuckwit.

    All believe in outlandish and not even remotely substantiated conspiracy theories
    All believe that their blogscientists have somehow trumped real science, though none can demonstrate how, other than resorting to their already discredited ten-times-over memes.
    All are absolutely incapable of reasoned argument.
    All are completely unable to pursue an argument because once one thread unravels, their whole sandcastle comes tumbling down in a crash louder than colliding mixed metaphors.

    And in the end we have working scientist Luke – Gordon’s Big Gun, lest we forget, yapping playground abuse. It’s absolutely pitiful.

    The joke is of course that should the fuckwits’ neolib favourite Abbott win, he’ll do whatever is necessary to comply with Australia’s obligations to it’s world-class technocracy including the environmental technocrats and the fuckwits will, as ever, be left standing on the sidelines wondering what the fuck just happened.

    For their information, when the day comes, just review the past two weeks here and wonder what other outcome was ever possible, and be glad your intellectual class can never win.

  27. #28 Turboblocke
    August 25, 2013

    And another nail for you:

    100% Of New Australian Power Plants Are Wind Or Solar
    http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/22/100-of-new-australian-power-plants-are-wind-or-solar/#32gMeifcZZvGQOGD.99

    Time to review your career choices Luke

  28. #29 el gordo
    August 25, 2013

    ‘Language is a weapon, Gordy. In case you hadn’t noticed!’

    Much amusement.

  29. #30 cohenite
    August 25, 2013

    It’s good to wake up and check the comments and see “the face of hardening evidence” as described by one of the regulars, Lionel A.

    chek has found fault with my reference to the IAC report as evidence that the models are wrong; in Lionel A’s parlance my evidence is limp, a soft cock.

    Well, may I suggest the stimulation here would drive Don Juan or even Casanova impotent. You guys need to tart up a bit, put on some lippie, pad the bras and strut a bit; I reckon BB would have a great arse for instance, he should wear something tight to emphasis his contours; present your wares a bit better boys and I guarantee you’ll get some hard evidence.

  30. #31 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    chek

    And in the end we have working scientist Luke – Gordon’s Big Gun, lest we forget, yapping playground abuse. It’s absolutely pitiful.

    No, it’s wonderful!

    The hard man can’t dance! Sounds like something Mailer should have written.

    ;-)

  31. #32 Luke
    August 25, 2013

    Answer the questions cunts – you can’t

    It’s the DOLTOID sheltered workshop

    Gizmag – hahahahahahahahaha Cleanfuckingbatchoppetechnica – wait till Abbott pulls your rent seeking subsidies.

  32. #33 chek
    August 25, 2013

    Lert me amend that from “Anthony Cox, wannabees politico, just another denier fuckwit.”
    to:
    Anthony Cox, wannabees politico, creepy ladyboy fan but despite the dubious predilictions just another denier fuckwit.

  33. #34 chek
    August 25, 2013

    Luke, you’re getting as incoherent as late-period Jonarse.
    Lay off the sterno and have a sleep.
    Your many and multiple self-inflicted embarrassments will still be waiting for you here later.

  34. #36 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Answer the questions cunts – you can’t

    What was it Lotharsson is always on about again?

    Oh dear.

    An updated list of things Luke urgently needs to do:

    1/ Link to a study that “proves” that the models are “FALSIFIED”

    2/ Link to the blog discussion with Kellow

    3/ Link to the quote where I am exposed as an OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIAR.

    4/ PAGES 2k validates MBH99. By doing so, it *invalidates* the claims that MBH99 was profoundly flawed. Yes or no?

    To recap, that is:

    1/ ?

    2/ ?

    3/ ?

    4/ ?

  35. #37 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    #34 chek

    The boy is getting tired. No doubt about that.

    But expect a few last, desperate cunts before he finally throws it the cunt, sorry, towel.

  36. #38 chek
    August 25, 2013

    Cox following on from ~33, let me me be more direct.

    Are you still a closet homosexual, or are you coming out here, on Tim’s blog?
    The voters deserve to know.

  37. #39 el gordo
    August 25, 2013

    Turbo this is from CA on Gergis …. Chiang is the editor on the second par.

    ‘After further lobbying form Gergis, Chiang reluctantly permitted Gergis to re-submit as a “revision” by the end of July, but insisted that they show the results of both methods, describing this as an “opportunity” to show the robustness of their work:

    ‘In the revision, I strongly recommend that the issue regarding the sensitivity of the climate reconstruction to the choice of proxy selection method (detrend or no detrend) be addressed. My understanding that this is what you plan to do, and this is a good opportunity to demonstrate the robustness of your conclusions.’

  38. #40 cohenite
    August 25, 2013

    How cheeky chek; I can only assume you have been liberated by BB’s reference to Mailer. Perhaps you would care to plow your earthy, gritty language into explaining where the IAC endorses the IPCC modelling as opposed to criticising it.

    And I love your oblique, even baroque reference to Lady Windermere’s fan; I direct you to Beardsley’s illustrations.

    Anyway, you’re obviously a very witty, intelligent chap who contributes greatly to the tone of this wonderful site.

  39. #41 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    Shape without form, shade without colour,
    Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

  40. #42 BBD
    August 25, 2013

    And let’s not forget The Hunting of the Snark:

    What I tell you three times is true.

    ;-)

  41. #43 cohenite
    August 25, 2013

    And a barrister, broker and banker could not resolve this mess. But they’re all making money as you do from people’s concerns; and the snark defends a pig!

  42. #44 BBD
    August 26, 2013

    Gordy

    It would be unfair of me not to hold you to the same standard of honesty that I am requiring of Luke. So we must continue with your little problem:

    The Idsos.

    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.

    * * *

    Tricky!

    So explain yourself!

    :-)

  43. #45 BBD
    August 26, 2013

    Barristers, brokers and bankers made the mess!

    Climate scientists do science.

    It’s a funny old world, cohenite!

    :-) :-)

  44. #46 BBD
    August 26, 2013

    Remember us – if at all – not as lost
    Violent souls, but only
    As the hollow men
    The stuffed men.

  45. #47 cohenite
    August 26, 2013

    Very good BB; he was a cynic though who did not see much good in humankind.

    The issue is, are humans custodians of this fair planet or exploiters whose apotheosis lies beyond; and if the latter doomed like Icarus?

    AGW is really just another testing ground for that choice. For instance should humanity invest in a space program and ultimately land and attempt to transform other planets?

  46. #48 BBD
    August 26, 2013

    Toilets a cynic? No, I don’t think we can go that far.

    :-)

    The issue is, are humans custodians of this fair planet or exploiters whose apotheosis lies beyond; and if the latter doomed like Icarus?

    Custodians? That’s a bit too Cornwall Alliance for me!

    We are clever monkeys who are just about to do something silly.

  47. #49 cohenite
    August 26, 2013

    Don’t squib the question BB and the “clever monkeys” is both a cliché and too pat; and leaves you open to the charge of beastiality, since chek is in an accusative mood regarding the alleged sexual proclivities of commentators!

    The question was not meant to be framed in a religious context; think of it as an engineering issue; that is why do you think us clever monkeys are going to do something stupid?

    Is the stupid thing messing with nature period, or messing with nature with a blowback obvious? Is messing with nature otherwise ok if the blowback is minimised or non-existent? Is the blowback only of consequence if it affects humans or is the blowback a wider prescription based on interfering with nature generally?

  48. #50 chek
    August 26, 2013

    You omitted the unintended consequences that now require attention, Cox. I’m sure it wasn’t deliberate.

  49. #51 BBD
    August 26, 2013

    #49

    What are you wittering on about?

    Clever monkeys meet the laws of physics with unintended consequences!

    Not very snappy, I grant you.

    How about:

    Oh fuck!

    ;-)

  50. #52 el gordo
    August 26, 2013

    ‘We are clever monkeys who are just about to do something silly.’

    Glorified apes.

  51. #53 BBD
    August 26, 2013

    Laws of physics!

    Say “hello!”

  52. #54 BBD
    August 26, 2013

    And so to bed.

    For cohenite:

    I looked in innocent surprise,
    My wonder showing in my eyes.
    “Then why, O Cumberbunce,” I cried,
    “Did you come walking at my side
    And ask me if you, please, might sing,
    When you could not warble anything?”

    “I did not ask permission, sir,
    I really did not, I aver.
    You, sir, misunderstood me, quite.
    I did not ask you if I might.
    Had you correctly understood,
    You’d know I asked you if I could
    So, as I cannot sing a song,
    Your answer, it is plain, was wrong.
    The fact I could not sing I knew,
    But wanted your opinion, too.”

    Night night!

    :-)

  53. #55 Craig Thomas
    August 26, 2013

    The Easter-Islanders, Cohenite: That’s you and Luke. BAU right up until the catastrophe your BAU necessarily entails.

  54. #56 BBD
    August 26, 2013
  55. #57 el gordo
    August 26, 2013

    ‘The Idsos.
    ‘You are being transparently evasive about a very serious issue.’

    Not interested where he gets his money from, his science gathering is sound.

  56. #58 el gordo
    August 26, 2013

    Boiling Oceans by Kevin Trenberth (A real scientist)

    “They probably can’t go on for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again.”

  57. #59 Luke
    August 26, 2013

    I’m in love with Cohenite. I confess.

  58. #60 chek
    August 26, 2013

    Could you clarify your definition of ‘boiling’ there Gordon, because I’m absolutely certain it’s not the same term as understood by anybody from school children and up.

    It appears to be yet another nutter definition inflated by frustrated hyperbole to be used by idiots.

  59. #61 mike
    August 26, 2013

    Hey Deltoids!

    You know, guys, it’s kinda interesting to drop in on the ol’ Deltoid, intellectual-to-the-max discussions on an occasional basis and get a full over-view of hive’s latest thinking on certain subjects–you know, Deltoids, like the hive’s latest thinking on the term “Watermelon” and all–especially for a parochial, ‘Murrican-exceptionalist “Yank” like me.

    And so, anyway, after reading over all the “Watermelon”-term related commentary, appearing on the last two pages of this blog, I was rather struck by Vince Whirlwind’s wise, cautionary hive-caveat: “There’s nothing wrong with the term “Watermelons”…We shouldn’t let the Yank’s appalling limited version of the language corrupt the way we speak.” Good stuff, Vince!

    So in the spirit of Vince W.’s totally-original, good-comrade, enlightened-internationalist, anti-American-unless-we-need-them-to-save-our-butts animus, here’s my proposal, Deltoids! Let’s agree that “Watermelon” should be considered “racist” in character if it invokes offensive, Jim-Crow-era, demeaning, “pickaninny” stereotype images of American blacks eating watermelons.

    Otherwise, let us agree, my dear, Deltoid friends, who are, of course, only interested in a scurrilous-agit-prop-free discourse in matters, climate scientific, that the term “Watermelon” should not be considered “racist”, despite what “Yank” language-imperialists might try to impose otherwise, if it is:

    -Used in reference to the cultivation of watermelons by salt-of-the-earth farmers and their sale by decent, hard-working green-grocers trying to make an honest buck.

    -If it is used in reference to privileged-white, limey, pervert pedophiles slumming it in Brixton, England and on the prowl for black children of that neighborhood.

    -If it is used in reference to the CAGW hustle (green on the outside, red on the inside) with that appalling scam’s transparent resonances with the eugenicist, mass-culls of the Camobidan-Killing-Fields, Mao’s Great-Leap-Forward, Stalin’s Holodomor, and the like.

    In conclusion and in the interest of building bridges (and making Vince W. happy) can’t we, Deltoids and those of us who are not brainwashed, trough-riding-on-the-con, useful-idiots and witting hive-tools agree, at least, with the above rules for the employment of the term “Watermelon”?

  60. #63 chek
    August 26, 2013

    *Sigh*
    You’re all projection, li’ll mike, and your tired old nuts don’t have much more rant left in’em. Hence the thankfully longer and longer gaps between your drivel ‘reports’..

  61. #64 el gordo
    August 26, 2013

    ‘I’m in love with Cohenite. I confess.’

    You are sounding more like a sceptic everyday and I admit to be wooed by his quiet, cultured tone.

    I make you a promise, that if my global cooling tipping point doesn’t show up within a couple of years, I’ll join the sceptics.

  62. #65 el gordo
    August 26, 2013

    ‘It appears to be yet another nutter definition inflated by frustrated hyperbole to be used by idiots.’

    It’s tabloid, like the Methane Bomb.

    Words have meaning.

  63. #66 chek
    August 26, 2013

    It’s tabloid

    No, it’s a plain old lie.

  64. #67 el gordo
    August 26, 2013

    Luke that first link is interesting, notice the huge anomaly spike around the time of the Great Climate Shift of 1976.

    Thinking of mechanisms at work, cause and effect.

  65. #68 el gordo
    August 26, 2013

    ‘No, it’s a plain old lie.’

    The Methane Bomb?

  66. #69 Luke
    August 26, 2013

    Cohenite – what a spunk

  67. #70 el gordo
    August 26, 2013

    Cohers is a typical golden haired bronzed Ozzy … Oi Oi Oi

  68. #71 Gaz
    August 26, 2013

    “Thinking of mechanisms at work, cause and effect”

    That’ll be the day.

  69. #72 el gordo
    August 26, 2013

    Its a chicken and egg thing, Gaz.

  70. #73 Craig Thomas
    August 26, 2013

    el gordo
    August 26, 2013

    ‘The Idsos.

    Not interested where he gets his money from, his science gathering is sound.

    No it isn’t.

  71. #74 Craig Thomas
    August 26, 2013

    Here’s an example of Idso’s work for Heartland:

    He references this study:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016703708007266
    and says:
    “there is no compelling reason to believe they were influenced in any way by the nearly 40% increase in the air’s CO2 concentration that has occurred to date over the course of the Industrial Revolution.”

    And yet the study itself (were Idso’s fans sceptical enough to check up on it) says the opposite:
    “The latter is likely caused by the large amount of anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution…Results of this study indicate that the impact of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 emissions may have reversed the natural pH trend in the SCS since the mid-Holocene.”

    You see what he did there? He did no science of his own, took somebody else’s study, and then pretended it said the opposite of what it does say.

    That is not “sound science gathering”. If you are feeling charitable, you might accuse him of incompetence.

  72. #75 Craig Thomas
    August 26, 2013

    Here’s another example of El Gordo’s source, Idso, somehow getting it completely wrong:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3516
    He references ” Pelejero et al. (2005),”, adds no science of his own, and concludes that “ocean acidification is a work of fiction”.

    He neglects, however, to quote what those who did the actual science gathering had to say about it:

    The oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorption of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere….
    Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere from È280 to more than 370 parts per million per volume (ppmv), a level unprecedented in the last 420,000 years. To date, a large part of anthropogenic CO2 emissions has been absorbed by the oceans, which have become more acidic, thus reducing their capacity to continue to absorb CO2. Estimates of global oceanic pH trends to the year 2000 indicate that the oceans have already acidified by 0.1 pH units relative to preindustrial times

    So – that’s the test for you, El Gordo – when Craig Idso –
    – who doesn’t do any science research as far as I can see
    – who is paid by Heartland
    writes something which supports Heartland’s political lobbying on the subject,
    are you,
    – sceptical;
    and
    do you,
    – do any fact-checking
    ???

    Because there are only two options here:
    – you fact-check Idso and discover he is an unreliable source who is most unsound as a “science gatherer”
    – you don’t fact-check him and gullibly take him on trust.

  73. #76 el gordo
    August 26, 2013

    IdsoIdsoIdso

  74. #77 Berendaneke
    August 26, 2013

    @ greenpisser Harvey

    ” 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”

    You greenpiss idology idiot misunderstand one fundamental thing: science is not that somebody – like your idols Hansen, Mann, Trenberth or other idedolgy-driven eco fundamentalists – knows more than anybody else and that your idols words have more weight than anybody elses (because those greenpiss ideology proagandists are your gods and you want all other decent people to believe in your decadent and immoral greenpiss faith). No, Harvey greenpiss ideologist, science works only on the basis of scientific evidence in the real world -regardless of what your idol Hansen tells you to believe.

    The scientific evidence for the validity of the AGW hypothesis is weak:

    1) A global surface temperature increase has not been convincingly shown so far due to methodological weaknesses

    2) Consequently a part of a hypothetical temperature increase – which could not be shown so far – due to anthropogenic CO2 is not demonstrated so far by climatology

    3) GCMS do not provide any evidence for CO2 warming in reality. It’s only virtual reality and clouds cannot be modeled so far. Therefore this is methodological crap.

    4) Harveys insect biology is irrelevant regarding the CO2 hypothesis. Life is always adapting to environment, but Harvey does not like this.

    You greenpissers on deltoid are poor ideologists, far away from science. You are a shame for mankind. Try to remove your ideological greenpiss dirt and work hard to become decent citizens instead of staying unethical idiots.

  75. #78 Bernard J.
    August 26, 2013
  76. #79 cohenite
    August 26, 2013

    Mr Mashey needs a life; perhaps he is like you BJ, this is your life.

    “his subsequent NSF debarment ”

    That is not correct; have you read the NSF document; no, they admit to having no evidence against Salby; the best description of the circumstances between Salby and the NSF is abeyance; but then I don’t want to get technical with you poor chaps.

    Many thanks to BB for the Cumberbunce; amidst the agnotological utterances elsewhere on this thread [except by my dear old friends EG and luke, and many new friends such as B, M and K] it stands out like an elephant turd amongst the dropping of pigeons.

  77. #80 el gordo
    August 26, 2013

    NH sea ice extent 48% higher than last year.

    http://s24.postimg.org/cespj6nwl/NSIDC_Sept_Min_Proj_Aug24_2013.png

  78. #81 Craig Thomas
    August 26, 2013

    Yes, El Gordo, this year at this time, Arctic sea ice extent is only the 5th-lowest on record.
    Therefore climate change is crap.
    That’s how it works, isn’t it?

  79. #82 Craig Thomas
    August 26, 2013

    That is not correct; have you read the NSF document; no, they admit to having no evidence against Salby; the best description of the circumstances between Salby and the NSF is abeyance; but then I don’t want to get technical with you poor chaps.

    When you say “technical”, what you really mean is, “I don’t want to regurgitate some crap I read on a crank blog”, right?

  80. #83 Craig Thomas
    August 26, 2013

    The NSF document appears to have these words:

    NSF debarred each of the following individuals for three years: …

    The NSF say he was debarred. Cohenite says “this is not correct”.
    Cohenite up to his usual standard of reliability.

  81. #84 Craig Thomas
    August 26, 2013

    Maybe Cohenite needs to read it?

    http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/I06090025.pdf

    Maybe Cohenite will be more sceptical before believing the nonsense he reads on crank blogs in the future?

  82. #85 Craig Thomas
    August 26, 2013

    The activities of one of the Denialists’ best and brightest make for interesting reading, huh?

    Isn’t there a blogger in Canada who likes to “audit” people involved in climate change?
    Too bad he missed this one, huh?

  83. #86 Bernard J.
    August 26, 2013

    I looked hard and deep cohenite and try as I might I could not see your post where you corrected John Mashey.

    As a devotee of the pure truth I am sure that you will provide the link where you informed John of his oversight – after all, you would surely not allow to pass the opportunity to offer your expertise to ensure that only the most correct version of events is detailed.

    If you have not already posted on John’s comments section I am sure that you will address this omission. Please post the link here once you have posted – I will follow with great interest your conversation with John Mashey.

  84. #87 Craig Thomas
    August 26, 2013

    Now, now, Bernard – just as you don’t tell your 5-year-old that there is no tooth fairy, you really shouldn’t be spoiling Cox’s comforting fantasies like that.

  85. #88 cohenite
    August 26, 2013

    Your link doesn’t work thommo.

    BJ, once thommo gets his link working we’ll both have a look at the report. Why bring Mashey into it, you’re a big boy with plenty to say.

  86. #89 Jeff Harvey
    August 26, 2013

    Berendaneke (Freddy) is off his meds again. He writes this gibberish:

    “You greenpiss idology idiot misunderstand one fundamental thing: science is not that somebody – like your idols Hansen, Mann, Trenberth or other idedolgy-driven eco fundamentalists – knows more than anybody else and that your idols words have more weight than anybody elses”

    Really. So tell that to the doctor the next time you go for a check-up. Tell your doctor that you are consulting with a shaman or a witch doctor or your local loony who has no formal training in medicine. Go onto say that their expertise in medicine is every bit as good as the doctor who went through medical school.

    This analogy applies to thousands and thousands of professions. Otherwise, why have universities? What is the point of pursuing a field of research and becoming an expert if formal training is not required?

    Of course qualifications matter, you brainless fart. And of course I trust the opinions of the said experts in climate science a million times more than dolts who write on blogs and whose opinions run counter to the mainstream view.

    Berendaneke, or Freddy, or whoever the hell you are, bugger off. Your posts are utterly appalling in terms of grammar alone; throw in your political bile and they get even worse.

  87. #90 Jeff Harvey
    August 26, 2013

    The Idos’s have a long, sordid history of links with the coal lobby through the Western Fuels Association. They have a web site which argues that putting more C02 into the atmosphere is (1) not affecting climate, but (2 is good for nature.

    Strange that Western Fuels in all likelihood shares this perspective. Moreover, the main strategy of their shitty web site is to take existing studies and to distort their findings to support 1 and 2 above. A colleague where I work had a paper published in Nature in 2003 that went through the Idso’s re-interpretation grinder. The paper had nothing to do with the alleged benefits of C02 on soil organisms, but that’s they way they spun it. My colleague and her co-authors were appalled, of course, that their paper had been abused in this way, because their views on C02 effects are very different from the Idso’s and Western Fuels.

    Yet Fatso loves the Idso’s. The more he writes, the more he cannot help but wear his idealogical blinkers on his sleeves.

  88. #91 el gordo
    August 26, 2013

    ‘Arctic sea ice extent is only the 5th-lowest on record.’

    At least we can rest assured the global warming tipping point has come and gone.

  89. #92 el gordo
    August 26, 2013

    ‘They have a web site which argues that putting more C02 into the atmosphere is (1) not affecting climate, but (2 is good for nature.’

    I agree with their sentiments.

  90. #93 Bernard J.
    August 26, 2013

    BJ, once thommo gets his link working we’ll both have a look at the report.

    What, you call yourself a lawyer and you can’t even figure out that it’s the NSF link itself that’s borked, and not Craig Thomas’s duplication of it?

    And you can’t even find the html version in G00gle cache?

    Are you sure that you’re a lawyer?

    By the way, as a lawyer you’ll understand that I should be billing you for my time doing work on your behalf. What’s your rate for tracking down a document for a client?

    Why bring Mashey into it, you’re a big boy with plenty to say.

    Why?!

    Perhaps it’s because my original post on the subject was simply an observation that Mashey had made Carne Deshebrada of Salby’s sorry arse. If you have a dispute with Mashey’s forensic deconstruction of the tale why wouldn’t you take it up with him?

    Unless you’re too scared to pit your wits, such as they are, with Mashey’s obviously meticulous and highly informed research of the case.

    I can see why you’re running on a two-bit ideologically-driven political ticket cohenite. Real professional work is much more difficult and requires much higher standards than those you exhibit in your current role.

  91. #94 cohenite
    August 26, 2013

    Right BJ, that’s 2 exotic beef dishes you’ve served up to me; what are you saying, is this a date; do you want to go out with me; how do I know your intentions are honourable; I’ve heard about you alarmists, hyping people about the end of the world and then taking advantage of them.

    Well let me tell you mister, you’re going to have to do better than some fancy, savoury meat dishes to get me to the table.

  92. #95 Vince Whirlwind
    August 26, 2013

    cohenite
    August 26, 2013

    Your link doesn’t work thommo.

    BJ, once thommo gets his link working we’ll both have a look at the report. Why bring Mashey into it, you’re a big boy with plenty to say.

    Works fine for me.

    I guess one excuse to avoid loooking at the facts is as good as any other….

    But, my, is *does* make interesting reading…

    Here are a few highlights:

    The Subject received compensation from federal awards made to Company1 in a total amount far in excess of approved budget amounts.

    the Subject’s time and effort reports submitted to us by Company2 are not in compliance with applicable cost accounting standards.

    The Subject provided deceptive and incomplete information to NSF about his affiliations with Company 1, and inaccurate information to NSF OIG about his affiliations with Company 1 and Company 2.

    The Subject provided deceptive or misleading statements to the University on his conflicts of interest forms and financial disclosure forms, and provided false and deceptive information to the University during the investigation about his additional external remuneration

    Oh well, I guess when you’re having to scrape the bottom of the barrel in search of somebody!, anybody!, please to back your idiotic ideas up with some kind of veneer if science, you are pretty much guaranteed to end up with egg on your face.

  93. #96 Vince Whirlwind
    August 26, 2013

    What, you call yourself a lawyer and you can’t even figure out that it’s the NSF link itself that’s borked, and not Craig Thomas’s duplication of it?

    How is it “borked”? I just clicked on it, and a pdf comes up just fine.

  94. #97 Luke
    August 26, 2013

    Hey Cohers and El Gordo – how about we attack each other. I’m bored with these guys. They really aren’t very good.

    http://poama.bom.gov.au/poama_workshop.shtml

    The first 6 topics are pretty interesting and down the bottom the “Downscaling for hydrological applications” as it doesn’t use an analogue year approach.

    Also of note http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/IMOP/publications/IOM-109_TECO-2012/Session3/P3_07_Philipona_Radiation_profiles.pdf

  95. #98 Vince Whirlwind
    August 26, 2013

    Yeah, Luke, let’s change the subject.

  96. #99 Vince Whirlwind
    August 26, 2013

    What happened to all cuntfucking tourettes shit, anyway, Luke?

    Given up trying to get yourself banned?

    No dishonourable exit for you, laddy, you’re just going to have to keep eating these shit sandwiches.

  97. #100 Vince Whirlwind
    August 26, 2013

    Carne Deshebrada

    Meat, with the hebrews taken out of it?

Current ye@r *