August 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Lotharsson
    August 27, 2013

    Zhen-Shan and Xian…

    I’m pretty sure we discussed this a couple of weeks ago, and much laughter ensued.

    El gordo trots it out again in the hope that everyone will have forgotten that debacle and that this time it won’t seem so shoddy. Or maybe this is simply more evidence of his inability to absorb information contrary to his pre-existing beliefs?

  2. #2 Luke
    August 27, 2013

    So really the blog isn’t useful for explaining or debating anything?

    It’s an intellectual leper colony of nihilism

  3. #3 Lotharsson
    August 27, 2013

    So really the blog isn’t useful for explaining or debating anything?

    Luke, you’ve completely dismissed discussion of some of your points and related issues to the point of denying it has happened. You show no signs at all of being willing or able to discuss in good faith, or even to recognise “explanation or debate” when it happens.

    You entered with great fanfare and made a loosely connected set of statements with leaps of logic and argument by implication that you have almost entirely refused to make more rigourous, despite people generously giving you at least some benefit of the doubt in the beginning. You’ve indulged in conspiracy theorising, repeating widely debunked denialist memes, childish – and I do mean primary school level – taunting in a transparent attempt to manipulate people (who by and large here aren’t that easily fooled), shilling for traffic at “skeptic” sites and fluffing our little collection of trolls. And you’ve pretended that it wasn’t your duty to make your contrarian case but rather other people’s duty to jump to it to debunk your Gish Gallop.

    If you want to discuss science – and are actually capable of making a coherent scientific argument without the bullshit and childish behaviour despite your apparent inability to do so here – then there are no doubt far more appropriate forums and it’s revealing that you prefer to stay here and complain that people won’t jump when you lift a finger instead.

    Then again, as the joke says, you didn’t come here for the hunting, did you?

  4. #4 el gordo
    August 27, 2013

    Loth I believe in the 60 year cycle, its real and cannot be denied.

  5. #5 Karen
    August 27, 2013

    Hi guyzzzzzzzzz :)

    I have been to a few farmers meetings over the past few days and they are referring to your scary meme as the…….

    New Millennium “Greenhouse Defect”…….. lol

  6. #6 Karen
    August 27, 2013

    They truly are experts in the field :)

  7. #7 Craig Thomas
    August 27, 2013

    Zhen-Shan and Xian…

    Just checking which method we think would give the best results:
    – check all the literature and devise a theory that matches the maximum of known facts
    – devise a “theory”, discard any facts that contradict it, and then pick through the fringe literature to find one or two facts that fit it
    ??

    El Gordo?

  8. #8 Luke
    August 27, 2013

    Lotharsson – the indelible impression however is a complete inability step up. A complete total inability to step up. So much time spent on sledging and no science discussion. If I look back at the other open threads they are the same.

    What is achieved here? Seriously? What?

    The compelling value proposition for the continuation of this blog and it having any significant influence on the issue and debate is what?

  9. #9 Marco
    August 27, 2013

    Anyone who finds a 60-year cycle in a dataset of 120 years needs to check his methodology. Easy to do: just cut off 20 years on either end and do the same analysis. If you get a 50-year cycle, your method is not doing what you think it was doing.

  10. #10 el gordo
    August 27, 2013

    Hi Karen, these boofheads have been insinuating that you’re a sock puppet. Is this true?

  11. #11 el gordo
    August 27, 2013

    Good point Marco.

  12. #12 Karen
    August 27, 2013

    hi el :)

    I must be……..lol

    Dopey detective barnturd once observed that I leave a space between the end of a sentence and an exclamation mark, apparently Mack and another lady did the same,…….lol

  13. #13 adelady
    August 27, 2013

    the significance in relation to the extended Antarctic ice sheet.

    No, no, and no again. The only extended ice in that region is the seasonal sea ice – not the continental ice sheet. (Though some people suspect that part of the increased sea ice extent is in fact increased outflow from the land ice.)

  14. #14 Karen
    August 27, 2013

    no no no !!!!!
    the Antarctic ice sheet has got thicker !!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21692423

  15. #15 Lotharsson
    August 27, 2013

    …the indelible impression however is a complete inability step up. A complete total inability to step up.

    Yes, I know. Even after you’ve been asked to stop, think and reformulate whatever it is you’re trying to claim as a well-formed and coherent evidence-based argument, and stop denying valid points made in response.

    Indelible it certainly is.

  16. #16 Lotharsson
    August 27, 2013

    The compelling value proposition for the continuation of this blog and it having any significant influence on the issue and debate is what?

    I think that’s a reasonable question, although a little disingenuous coming from someone who has commented in as bad faith as you have. But first we need to reframe your question without the fallacious presumptions that the value proposition needs to be compelling or that influence needs to be significant in order to be worth continuing. You seem to have spent much of your time here attacking a strawman blog of your own creation. It is what it is, not what you project on to it.

    Secondly, the blog was set up to post about about media (mis-)portrayal of science, but without regular posts on the matter it’s not doing that anywhere near as much. In that case, one might legitimately ask whether it should continue in its present form.
    Nowadays most of the (limited) value is provided by commenters posting material of interest to what remains of the former community, and (generally idly) slapping down the ongoing repetitions of debunked claims provided by the regular trolls. Whether that’s sufficient to keep it going, noting that the marginal costs of continuation are small, really depends on the blog owner.

  17. #17 Lotharsson
    August 27, 2013

    the Antarctic ice sheet has got thicker !!

    As is par for Karen, that’s not what the article she linked to says.

  18. #18 Jeff Harvey
    August 27, 2013

    “It’s an intellectual leper colony of nihilism”

    And Nova’s blog isn’t? I went there last evening and looked through the comments in response to a few of her posts. And what do I think? That “It’s an intellectual leper colony of nihilism”. The vast majority of posters there make up the intellectual equivalent of a Tea Party shindig. its the usual smears and innuendo, and little substance. But what would one expect from a blog run by a mediocre right wing science writer?

  19. #19 Karen
    August 27, 2013

    “Bedmap2’s new figure for the volume of ice is 4.5% more than previously thought.”

    lol

  20. #20 Karen
    August 27, 2013
  21. #21 el gordo
    August 27, 2013

    Thanx adelady, I meant the increase in sea ice might be prividing a springboard for CAOs to reach the South American tropics.

  22. #22 el gordo
    August 27, 2013

    **providing**

  23. #23 Vince Whirlwind
    August 27, 2013

    Karen, do you actually have a brain?

    But from the new data available to Bedmap2, it is now clear the mean elevation of the rock bed is substantially lower than was understood previously – down from 155m to 95m above sea level. This is the explanation for why most of that extra ice volume (much of it in East Antarctica) is known to lie under water. The whole ice sheet is sitting lower than we thought.
    Continue reading the main story
    “Start Quote

    If the models don’t have the basic parameters for what the ice looks like, we’re not going to get the right answers out”

    Prof Helen A Fricker Scripps Institution of Oceanography

    However, the fact that more ice rests below sea level means that on millennial timescales, increased amounts of ice are potentially vulnerable to ocean melting. It is now recognised that most of the ice being lost from Antarctica is going as a result of warm water eating the fringes of the continent. It is not a consequence of higher air temperatures, but from changes in ocean circulation caused by atmospheric forcing. This is evident, for example, in the rapid thinning seen of late in the mighty Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica.

    Antarctic ice hasn’t become thicker, you mega-doofus, it has got thinner, but it happens to be thicker than previously thought, which means it will melt faster.

  24. #24 el gordo
    August 27, 2013

    On closer inspection it doesn’t amount to much, so I’m imagining the CAO are turning up because of atmospheric blocking.

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_bm_extent_hires.png

  25. #25 Karen
    August 27, 2013

    “Antarctic ice hasn’t become thicker, you mega-doofus, it has got thinner, but it happens to be thicker than previously thought,”

    hahahahaha, you guyz really don’t know, lol

  26. #26 Bernard J.
    August 27, 2013

    hi el :)

    I must be……..lol

    Dopey detective barnturd once observed that I leave a space between the end of a sentence and an exclamation mark, apparently Mack and another lady did the same,…….lol

    I notice that you did not actually deny your sock-puppetry.

    For Fatso’s information, KarenMackSunspot also shared idiosyncratic ellipsis incapacity with socks Sunspot and Mack, and also a peculiar overlap of posting session times when the socks first emerged. They all post(ed) links to abstracts that don’t mean what they think they mean. They all use the same language style, and the same way of referencing me. They all hate my guts with the same spiteful venom because I have pointed out innumerable errors on the puppeteer’s part. Sunspot especially was eviscerated on countless occasions and couldn’t handle the fact and forgot to turn off his peculiar brand of spite when he put on subsequent socks…

    Further, one sock always appeared when another had been soundly whipped, and in the case of “Mack” when Sunspot was first confined to a dump thread. For a while whenever one sock needed some moral support another would chip in with astonishingly vapid praise, completely divorced from any grounding in logic, science or basic mathematical understanding.

    I documented other tells but I’ll be stuffed if I can be bothered to find the original post. It’s sufficient to say that Karen is Mack and Sunspot, and he has never once put forward a counter to the professionally-produced science of climate change that has withstood more than 30 seconds scrutiny.

  27. #27 Karen
    August 27, 2013

    barnturd, Timmy L knew that I wasn’t a sock, and you were the only nuffie that thought that.

    Admit it barnturd, you are just embarrassed because you keep getting beaten up by a sweet little girl :)

  28. #28 el gordo
    August 27, 2013

    Jeff, to be fair, neither side of this debate are nihilists. Its become a highly charged academic debate which has spilled over into the political arena.

  29. #29 Luke
    August 27, 2013

    ” and stop denying valid points made in response.” gee I must have missed them all !

    “But what would one expect from a blog run by a mediocre right wing science writer?” the opposite of a blog run by a left wing science writer especially given she’s fallen out of love with the greens – the old rebound harshness

    So the plot so far

    (a) no answers to Luke1’s questions
    (b) inmates afraid to chance their arm at Novas – never leave the island
    (c) value proposition for the blog found wanting – pointless

  30. #30 Lotharsson
    August 27, 2013

    Luke continues to lie and deny in his latest comment.

    And makes the case for his own non-participation here, but can’t seem to accept it.

    News at 11.

  31. #31 FrankD
    August 27, 2013

    Stunningly Gordo’s reinterpretation of his interpretation of the interpretation is still wrong,

    Ta, my bad, that paper didn’t say cyclone activity is the lowest its been in 5000 years. What they said was….

    ‘Longer records show tropical cyclone activity was higher from 5000 to 3800 and 2900 to 500 yrs BP.’

    There is a subtle difference.

    Gordo’s context free original comment was “cyclone activity hasn’t been this quiet in 5000 years.” By implication referring to some wider region (South Pacific at a minimum, possibly hemispheric). Having at least read the abstract, Gordo will surely be able to tell us over what area the study is based.

    Gordo?

  32. #32 Luke
    August 27, 2013

    El Gordo – their response is Pavlovian isn’t it. Nary a meaningful comment. Just an ongoing flak barrage of quips and appeals to authority. Is there a value add? Hard to see? Plus they’re creeps.

  33. #33 Vince Whirlwind
    August 27, 2013

    Nary a meaningful comment. Just an ongoing flak barrage of quips and appeals to authority. Is there a value add? Hard to see? Plus they’re creeps.

    Heh.

    How does El Gordo go for “meaningful”?

    Its become a highly charged academic debate

    Where is there anything of the sort?
    Hint: Curry’s crank-blog isn’t “academic”.

  34. #34 Jeff Harvey
    August 27, 2013

    “the opposite of a blog run by a left wing science writer especially given she’s fallen out of love with the greens – the old rebound harshness”

    Here we go again. The old greens canard. The anti-environmental lobby and climate change denier lobby never tire of using it. Fact is, Codling/Nova has probably always been on the political right. More importantly, she lacks the scientific acumen to be able to establish which science is ‘sound’ and which isn’t. She’s a hack – nothing less. And a pretty lousy one at that.,

    If Luke thinks her blog is full of rigorous analyses, then let him stay there. My brief sojourn there yesterday showed me a site full of bitter hardened climate change deniers with very little science on display. Her latest post had been a feeble attempt to denigrate Clive Hamilton – par for the course.

    If you are so smitten with Nova, Luke, then leave us alone here and cozy up to your heroine there.

  35. #35 Bernard J.
    August 27, 2013

    Say what you like KarenMackSunspot – you might even learn to believe it, but I know the truth.

    And as for the pretense to be a female: every time you take a squirt you‘ll know that you’re a liar – the evidence will be right there in front of you…

  36. #36 Karen
    August 27, 2013

    Defective barnturd……..lol

  37. #37 Lotharsson
    August 27, 2013

    Nary a meaningful comment. Just an ongoing flak barrage of quips and appeals to authority. Is there a value add? Hard to see? Plus they’re creeps.

    All together now: it’s always…

  38. #38 Luke
    August 27, 2013

    Jeff – sorry and you are someone who uncritically stuffs GCM runs up your eco-models with their plus of minus multi-model mush.

    All I know is Nova has made some good points and posts. And some crap usually when she ventures into the biology – e.g. recently buying into a CSIRO/ANU MODELLING paper (yep same stable that brought you declining evap) that reckons CO2 fertilisation was greening the savannas – if you knew anything you’d know it’s a change in fire regime on sub-climax tree/grass associations.

    As does Realclimate have excellent posts. Skeptical science is a bit variable. Tamino and Rabbet are great. James Annan good when he’s no taking piccies. Science of Doom – information on steriods. Wattsup is mostly trash but alas a bad news source of what the next skanky attack will be. Bravenewclimate has blown past renewables to nuclear.

    At least on Nova you can debate a real power engineer not some Zero Carbon Australia flake.

    I’ve fully immersed myself in the debate and am looking for the truth. I’m not going to find any here.

    I sit in climate change seminars. I have immediate colleagues running GCMs on HPC infrastructure. And I drill them too.

    Many of the questions I asked originally here simply cannot be well answered. The system glosses them over. And government is a machine that carefully edits its message. And the more you look the more you find the domain has only a few players who really really know.

    And don’t think I’m standing up for Bob Carters, Archibalds and most of the climate sceptic movement either. Cohenite bless his socks is probably one of the more informed sceptics you’ll come across but has gotten himself politically so immersed I’m not sure he’s going to find what he needs.

    And I was teasing before – most people can’t explain the greenhouse effect at all – yet they talk about it non-stop.

  39. #39 Karen
    August 27, 2013

    the greenhouse deffect :)

  40. #40 el gordo
    August 27, 2013

    Well said Luke, but its a little early to write off Archibald and Carter.

  41. #41 FrankD
    August 27, 2013

    It’s an intellectual leper colony of nihilism…

    – pointless…

    …and am looking for the truth. I’m not going to find any here.

    And yet he keeps coming back. Inquiring minds wonder why.

  42. #42 el gordo
    August 27, 2013

    Luke I think Abbott should sack two of these and replace them with Carter and Salby. Do you have any objection?

    http://climatecommission.gov.au/about/science-advisory-panel/

  43. #43 Lotharsson
    August 27, 2013

    So what Luke’s now saying is that he knows where there are a bunch of other good science discussions, but he currently spends time here complaining about his perception of the quality of discussion (whilst simultaneously engaging in a bunch of tactics that can only decrease that quality).

    I think he’s quite confused, if only as to why he’s here.

  44. #44 Luke
    August 27, 2013

    Hasn’t been a week yet Frank. “Inquiring minds wonder why.” But none here!

  45. #45 Jeff Harvey
    August 27, 2013

    Cater and Salby????

    Its too early here for that..my sides are hurting…. the pain, the pain….

  46. #46 Luke
    August 27, 2013

    Lotharsson – its an experiment

  47. #47 Luke
    August 27, 2013

    How about Wenju Cai and Barry Brook?

  48. #48 Jeff Harvey
    August 27, 2013

    Luke, The problem with debates is that Tim has taken a hiatus. There are no new posts up here and instead we have endless open threads. This leads the discussion all over the place.

    Nova uses her platform to attack people like Clive Hamilton. That recent post on her site wasn’t about climate science – it was a character attack. She won’t be taken seriously when she resorts to this kind of puerile descent.

    As for debates, you’d think that climate science was being done on blogs and not at universities and research institutes. Blogs are interesting places to discuss issues, but thankfully they have no influence on public policy – or shouldn’t have. Certainly, the far end of the political right and their corporate funders love blog science, and hate the real kind. That’s because the real kind does not fit in with their pre-determined world views.

    Paul Ehrlich once told me that he loathed writing his book, “Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future” because as a senior research scientist it meant tackling issues that should not at all be controversial, like the effects of habitat loss on extinction rates, climate change and other contemporary issues. However, powerful vested interests have catapulted these issues into the public mainstream by making them appear to be controversial when to the vast majority of scientists only the potential consequences of these processes is uncertain – the mechanisms themselves are not. And it also means that scientists are deviated form their research when confronted with a veritable army of well funded agenda-driven think tanks, blogs and astroturf groups.

    As a working scientist, of course I think a lot of the blogs are shite. I read some of the denier weblogs and its clear that no amount of empirical evidence will ever sway them. Fifteen years ago, AGW was a doomsday myth. It wasn’t happening according to the deniers. Then ,as the data continued to accumulate, many shifted their positions to OK, OK, its warming but its due to natural variation. This became the mantra until a couple of years ago when the “It’s stopped warming!!!”, cries began to echo across the denialosphere. I still see a mix of all three positions on some denier blogs. One day they put up a commentary about solar forcing, then the next day there is no warming anyway, followed by it was warmer in the MWP, then its on to we are into a cooling phase, and so on and so forth. There is no continuity in causation or extent, but there is continuity in one area: we humans are innocent. We have little or no influence. Or else we are involved but the changes are minor.In every instance the prognosis: DON’T ALTER COURSE.

    The deniers are thus expert shape-shifters. Anything goes as long as we don’t do anything about climate change. In this regard I view them as anti-science liars; dishonest brokers who do not deserve to be heard.

    To get back to an earlier point, you can harp on all day about debates so my advice is get of your ass and get to a conference where these debates really matter. Write up your stunning ideas for a peer-reviewed journal where scientists will read it. Most climate scientists have probably never heard of Joanne Nova (and I don’t blame them) and most don’t give hacks like her, Watts, Milloy, and other blog deniers that time of day.

  49. #49 FrankD
    August 27, 2013

    The more Luke wanks on, the more he sounds like a boganised Bradthing*.

    Hasn’t been a week yet Frank.

    Actually its been 12 days. 12 days of some of the most relentlessly uninteresting posturing, blokey-ness and evasion ever endured on this blog.

    Perhaps this answers my question as to why he keeps coming back – it’s like the one where Rimmer is doing his slide show of his rambling holiday on the diesel decks isn’t it? Luke’s trying to make us want JoNova’s liquid nitrogen volcanoes and baking soda rockets, just to relieve the tedium of him…

    *people who have been here longer than a week are more like to be familiar with this reference.

  50. #50 Chris W
    August 27, 2013

    Gawd all freakin’ mighty. Some of us lurkers are losing the will to live waiting for el gordo to explain the physical basis for his ‘lag’ theory from way back up-thread. Where the hell is it gordo!! Please, just post the page and comment number where you lay it all out so it can be read it in all it’s glory …

  51. #51 el gordo
    August 27, 2013

    ‘How about Wenju Cai and Barry Brook?’

    Wenju Cai is fine but not Brook, because of his nuclear ambitions.

  52. #52 el gordo
    August 27, 2013

    Karoly, Pitman and England are a disgrace and should be replaced.

  53. #53 Lotharsson
    August 27, 2013

    …the more he sounds like a boganised Bradthing*

    That was my early impression and it hasn’t diminished in the slightest.

  54. #54 Luke
    August 27, 2013

    Not 12 days of Luke2 yet Frank.

    Jeff “To get back to an earlier point, you can harp on all day about debates so my advice is get of your ass and get to a conference where these debates really matter. Write up your stunning ideas for a peer-reviewed journal where scientists will read it.” Jeff I’ve been quoting literature to you. You don’t listen. You’re thick. Conferences are stage managed. Surely you know that. Vetted – cossetted – reviewed. Come on.

    You’re so much into the suck game you’ve can’t see daylight.
    And you’ve made on answers except tiresome political lectures. No science from Jeff. NONE ! So why are you here Jeff – filler – bored – cheer squad – wife left you?

    “Most climate scientists have probably never heard of Joanne Nova” well I can tell you they HAVE. And they’re pissed about it.

    It will see the demise of the Australian carbon tax and termination of much of Australia’s climate change program.

    So if you REALLY cared Jeff baby – you’d be off your arse and into the fray – but you’re sitting there pre-retirement waiting for the pension to kick in. Having a little sook here on the island.. You’re not going to rock the boat. It’s easy just to say tut tut tut.

  55. #55 Luke
    August 27, 2013

    “the more he sounds like a boganised Bradthing” well that was the aim !

  56. #56 el gordo
    August 27, 2013

    ‘Where the hell is it gordo!!’

    The sun was very active late last century and it was coupled with a warm PDO and some serious El Nino.

    This century we have a quiet sun, a cool PDO and more La Nina. The warmth has gone out of the atmosphere and the remnant can be found in the ocean, its the damper.

    The OHC is a hot topic of conversation, with scientists like Trenberth suggesting the missing heat will soon rebirth and put the planet on a Venusian trajectory. Which is bollocks.

    So the AGW lag is in the oceans, where it will mix with colder water and disappear.

    Correct me if I’m wrong.

  57. #57 Lionel A
    August 27, 2013

    Luke

    … a great pity that a blog so strong on themes has become day care facility for 6 or so highly eccentric and likely deeply psychotic individuals who seem unable to discuss any contemporary science without some slavish appeal to authority.

    You are really confused for it is yourself who has shown psychotic tendencies.

    Well at least we rely upon qualified, capable and honest scientists who have peer reviewed papers checked by other competent scientists in their own and related fields. And, by contrast you rely upon she with no qualifications of relevance (another interpreter of interpretations) who has a proven track record of association with the fossil fuel industry. You are a bloody joke man, if you are a man at all, at all.

    Which reminds me of this dropping (V or N take your pick) from you:

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

    Hard core ref’s, really! That’s strange I never noticed any.

    Whatever, what a hand waving ducking and diving evasive, and abrasive, person you are. The book I had in mind is a broad based introductory text, but with some challenging concepts, which I was trying to help you out with. After all you have demonstrated how narrowly ignorant you are about many of the processes, also the implications and attributions of same.

    The book ‘Earth’s Climate Past and Future’ by William Ruddiman is far from a coffee table being a thorough examination of the many aspect with REFERENCES TO ACCREDITED MATERIALS produced under the peer review process.

    A process incidentally which some playing the denier/delayer game have tried to pervert by setting up their own houses of journals when the established and recognised ones refuse publication on the grounds of poor research. This as various sleights of hand to get published in established journals has resulted in fallout.

    Your lines of argument, in general, reveal yourself as having a very shallow knowledge base not only WRT the science but also the back-story of THE HISTORY OF DENIAL.

    This and the aggressive and abrasive tone of your responses, not to mention the foul terms that you litter your posts with (perhaps you need a litter tray – like another thread of your own) make it unpleasant to track through your posts. Thus if any questions you ask are not answered then you have only yourself to blame.

    As for this blog being, ‘an intellectual leper colony of nihilism‘, then that is what you have tried to turn it into. This is probably your game, and that of Cox, to wreck this resource that so easily shines light on the ‘roaches of the story and is thus a danger to the FF industry and their lackeys, like yourself.

    You have been sent here to destroy, not to have intellectual discussion, for your droppings are intellect free as is your favourite source.

  58. #58 Luke
    August 27, 2013

    What’s wrong with nukes?

  59. #59 Neville
    August 27, 2013

    Here’s a post that will make some of you numbskulls smack your chops with anticipation.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/26/breaking-bad-weather-cooking/#more-92429

    Just proves that things haven’t changed much over the centuries.
    We still have the same religious fanatics that believe the same totalitarian groupthink nonsense.
    Not an individual thought between the lot of you.

  60. #60 el gordo
    August 27, 2013

    ‘What’s wrong with nukes?’

    With so much coal underfoot, state of the art coal fired power stations will be cheaper than going nuclear.

    Brook is blatantly selling nuclear power to stop global warming, he’s a fuckwit.

  61. #61 Luke
    August 27, 2013

    Ruddiman – pffft soft indulgent Anthropocene paff.

    “to wreck this resource that so easily shines light on the ‘roaches of the story and is thus a danger to the FF industry and their lackeys, like yourself.”

    don’t tug it too hard – REALLY? Nobody has noticed.

    Lionel get help – You sound like a raving madman -. You’re in Walter Mitty mode on a dead blog. Get a grip.There’s nobody here except a handful of deluded rusted-on Kool Drinkers.You think you’re saving the world – in reality you’re clogging it up. But in sheltered workshop like this it probably doesn’t matter.

  62. #62 Luke
    August 27, 2013

    El Gordo – which is why we need to advance Thorium reactor technology ASAP. You see no risk. I do.

  63. #63 el gordo
    August 27, 2013

    ‘You see no risk. I do.’

    On the evidence (after 17 years of no warming) the scraping of coal fired power stations and replacing them with renewables or nuclear is not warranted.

    Thorium is OK, they are testing one in Norway, also Fusion is looking promising now that Bill Gates has thrown money at a test plant in California.

    I see these breakthroughs in energy in the same light as mass transport, its better to go with the Hyperloop and bypass the VFT.

  64. #64 Lotharsson
    August 27, 2013

    You’re in Walter Mitty mode on a dead blog.

    Sigh. Altogether now: …

  65. #65 Berendaneke
    August 27, 2013

    Lionell greenpisser

    Well at least we rely upon qualified, capable and honest scientists who have peer reviewed papers checked by other competent scientists in their own and related fields. And, by contrast you rely upon she with no qualifications of relevance (another interpreter of interpretations) who has a proven track record of association with the fossil fuel industry. You are a bloody joke man, if you are a man at all, at all.

    it’s irrelevant on what you psychotics rely. the only thing which counts is that the evidence for CO2 waming is weak and not convincingly shown. end of debate

    you all insane detoids are silly greenpissers without ethical background and you hate decent, conservative, politically correct people. you are infested by ill gaia ideology, which is utter crap and decadent until hell.

  66. #66 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    I see that Luke is still pretending that he’s not himself in order to evade my questions.

    I have never seen a commenter do this before, and it is gratifying.

    Luke, you are a liar and a childish liar at that.

    Now, drop the silly pretence and step up!

    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/ ?

    Come on, coward!

    Step up!

  67. #67 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    Fuck off Freddy!

    it’s irrelevant on what you psychotics rely. the only thing which counts is that the evidence for CO2 waming is weak and not convincingly shown. end of debate

    you all insane detoids are silly greenpissers without ethical background and you hate decent, conservative, politically correct people. you are infested by ill gaia ideology, which is utter crap and decadent until hell.

  68. #68 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    (after 17 years of no warming)

    Oh will you stop repeating this silly lie, Gordy?

    Silly lie debunked:

    GAT 1996 – present

    And OHC. Can’t even be bothered to link again.

  69. #69 Berendaneke
    August 27, 2013

    @All Deltoid AGW greenpissers:

    You greenpiss idology idiots 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 and other 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.

  70. #70 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    Oops!

    Sorry!

    Forgot to include the RSS top of lower troposphere (TLT) product!

    You know – the one that Monckey pretended was surface temperature (!) and used because, well, it’s the outlier. He *hid* all the other data from you because he’s a liar! And you didn’t spot this because you are credulous nit-wits who couldn’t be bothered to check!

    Actually, I suspect most of you are incapable of checking because even a simple data viewing tool like WfT is way too complex for you.

    Sharp-eyed peeps will notice that without the very careful cherry-pick that Monckey did with the start date, the trend is actually positive even for RSS TLT.

    He’s a cheeky Monckey!

    :-)

  71. #71 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    Link failure:

    RSS TLT 1996 – present

  72. #72 chek
    August 27, 2013

    You greenpissers on deltoid are poor ideologists, far away from science.

    The flaw in your … ahem … argument is that none, as in not a single one of you deniers has been able to devise a theory that fits the data as consistently as AGW.

    You bitch and piss and moan as you’ve done for years, but you haven’t got anything that is remotely capable of superceding AGW.

    You just can’t do it and your post-normal, past-stupid blogscience never will.

  73. #73 Luke
    August 27, 2013

    Oh boring BBD has woken up. Another Walter Mitty fool. BBD wakes up. Get on blog. Says same stuff. Goes to sleep. Wakes up. Get’s on blog. Says same stuff. Goes to to sleep. Wakes up ……….

    BBD the Cainozoic creepy

  74. #74 BBD
    August 27, 2013

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

    Absolute and utter bollocks!

    Stop repeating this crap. It makes you look insane!

    Oh…

    :-)

  75. #75 Luke
    August 27, 2013

    chek – and it was going well until the 2000s ….. then ???

    “your post-normal, past-stupid blogscience never will.” so why are you here on the Isle of the Dead?

    That Groundhog Day of blogs where every day is the same.

  76. #76 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    Hello Lukes!

    Who do you want to be today!

    What’s that? Okay, Luke wants to be a liar and a coward who has been ripped up so badly here that he has to pretend to be several different people in a desperate, final attempt to evade inconvenient questions!

    Big hand for Luke, folks!

    He’s so crap it hurts!

  77. #77 Lotharsson
    August 27, 2013

    I have never seen a commenter do this before…

    It is truly remarkable. Is it the Bart Simpson Defence or the I’m Schizophrenic Defence?

  78. #78 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    #56 Gordy

    Correct me if I’m wrong.

    You are wrong and you have been corrected many times already Gordy, so why are you repeating the same old shite?

    You have yet to explain why OHC is still increasing.

    If what you argue is correct – and it isn’t! – then OHC should be decreasing!

    Underneath all this is some very profound physics denial. You are denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Whatever you claim to the contrary. The underpinning of your argument requires this.

    Think it through and try again!

  79. #79 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    #77

    It’s the I’m so desperately screwed I’ll try anything and anyway I’m a blog nutter so I don’t care defence.

  80. #80 chek
    August 27, 2013

    so why are you here

    To witness preening morons like you make utter arses of themselves in the name of furthering their political goals, but achieving the polar opposite.

  81. #81 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    Hey Lukes!

    Why don’t you rip Gordy a new one about this “no warming for 17 years” horse shit?

    You are supposed to be the science whizz, so get fucking whizzing, eh?

    Walk him through the ABC of physical climatology in your own inimitable rat-fucking style!

    Show him the error of his foolish ways!

    Explain that only c**thooks confuse the troposphere with the climate system. Grab him by the throat and ram his head into the OHC data!

    Step up!

    Come on!

    :-)

  82. #83 Karen
    August 27, 2013

    :-*

  83. #85 Lotharsson
    August 27, 2013

    Karen can’t even count to 17. Classic clown trolling.

  84. #86 Karen
    August 27, 2013

    :)
    :)
    :)
    :)
    :)
    :)
    :)
    :)
    :)
    :)
    :)
    :)
    :)
    :)
    :)
    :)
    :)

  85. #87 Karen
    August 27, 2013

    :) :):):):):):):):):):):):):)
    :) :)
    :) :)
    :) :)
    :) :)
    :) :)
    :) :)
    :) :)

  86. #88 Karen
    August 27, 2013

    muffed it……… lol

  87. #89 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    That is the most egregious piece of cherry-picking I’ve seen all week Karen! Look at all those month-specific start points! My oh my :-)

    LOL!

    See #68 for a clear representation of the data!

    If you would like an informal tutorial in preparing honest, clear graphs, just let me know!

    :-)

    Or simply copy what I do!

  88. #90 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    As a general note, few things underline the raw intellectual dishonesty of the denialist mindset better than deliberately misleading data representations such as the one from WUWT KarenMackSunspotSockpuppeteer links at #84.

    One other little fact-ette overlooked by the brains-in-their-bums brigade is that the response to CO2 forcing is *lagged*. Hence the existence of two separately-defined terms:

    Transient climate response (TCR)

    Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)

    What Monckey and others are doing is pretending that there is no lag – effectively they are misrepresenting TCR as ECS. Now they know they are doing this, so it is simply another detail in the way they are lying to Teh Stupid, of which KarenMackSunspotSock and Gordy are such definitive examples.

    You poor, lost souls. Children playing in the middle of the motorway.

  89. #91 Jeff Harvey
    August 27, 2013

    Berendaneke is into “idedology”.

    Whatever the hell that is. This guy isn’t only stupid – he’s totally illiterate.

  90. #92 Wow
    August 27, 2013

    As for this blog being, ‘an intellectual leper colony of nihilism‘, then that is what you have tried to turn it into

    And Tim is letting them.

    No, not letting.

    ENCOURAGING them.

  91. #93 Jeff Harvey
    August 27, 2013

    “Jeff I’ve been quoting literature to you. You don’t listen. You’re thick. Conferences are stage managed. Surely you know that. Vetted – cossetted – reviewed”

    Oh come on now, Luke. How much into the anoxic benthos can you dig yourself? Conferences are stage-managed? Really? I’ve been to dozens – been keynote speaker at a few and Plenary speaker at one – and I didn’t see men in black suits hanging around the venue and cue cards on display.

    To be honest, I’ve hardly read such utter shit in my life as this statement from you. Clearly conferences – unless run by the Heartland Institute – aren’t your thing. Have you ever been to one where climate change and environmental science are major themes? NO, I thought not. You are one big paranoid conspiracy freak.

  92. #94 Jeff Harvey
    August 27, 2013

    ““Most climate scientists have probably never heard of Joanne Nova” well I can tell you they HAVE. And they’re pissed about it.”

    In your dreams, pal. Besides, where is your evidence? Of course, you have none. The only reason they would have heard of a hack like Nova is because her shit has been rammed down their throats. Otherwise they wouldn’t give a third-rate science writer the time of day.

    You have been comprehensively shellacked here Luke., Get over it and go back to your shills.

  93. #95 Lionel A
    August 27, 2013

    Now where has ‘meteor dust‘ gone when you want him?

    So,

    Of all the professions lawyers most support the AGW meme; what does that tell you Lionel?

    Well lookee here, here is another exception similar to you , any difference is only by degrees.

  94. #96 Lionel A
    August 27, 2013

    One for the Lukes who dismissed the importance of ecology research is the latest at the Rabett’s
    Dano on Bees – Lack of Same
    .

    Now note the links in my comment, but first remove your blinkers.

  95. #97 Berendaneke
    August 27, 2013

    @BBD:

    My statement based on current best scientific evidence:

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

    Your “Comment”:

    Absolute and utter bollocks!

    Stop repeating this crap. It makes you look insane!

    Fuck off from this blog you dishonest idiot full off greenpiss ideology. You are a shame for mankind.

  96. #98 Berendaneke
    August 27, 2013

    @BBD:

    My statement based on current best scientific evidence:

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

    Your “Comment”:

    Absolute and utter bollocks!

    Stop repeating this crap. It makes you look insane!

    Fuck off from this blog you dishonest idiot full off greenpiss ideology. You are a shame for mankind.

    Fuck off you liar and greenpisser!!!

  97. #99 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    Freddy

    My statement based on current best scientific evidence

    Balls.

    Present it.

    Meanwhile.

    You are a nutter Freddie!

    :-)

  98. #100 Luke
    August 27, 2013

    It’s starting to dawn on me that Jeff isn’t a top flight researcher but in another sort of institution. One wonders what a top flight guy like Prof Jeff is doing here on the Isle of the Dead in the Twilight Zone. Instead of having Walter Mitty moments shouldn’t he be writing his next Nature or Ecologia paper and getting ready for the next conference?

    The fun thing to do with wankers is see how long you can keep them arguing. How much sheer stupidity you can get them to swing at. How long can you tow them around the pond.

    Why? As it goes to the heart of their objectivity. Never argue with a fool as the audience won’t know the difference.

    Fancy being towed around the pond and STILL arguing the point.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Current ye@r *