August 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    Given that you are insistently repeating complete and utter bollocks I’m going to ram this home a little harder.

    This graph compares gridded surface temperature GAT with satellite-based reconstructions of tropospheric temperature at ~14,000ft.

    Different instruments. Different methodologies.

    Same results.

    GISSTEMP, HadCRUT4, UAH TLT linear fits

    As I said, you are spouting egregious nonsense.

    Get a grip, Freddy!

    :-)

  2. #2 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    Lukes!

    The fun thing to do with wankers is see how long you can keep them arguing.

    Well, you got shredded when you tried to argue so now you have descended into pure trolling. Makes sense. You are the chap who is pretending to be someone else because of the utter mess you made upthread!

    And Lukes – that braying thing again!

    It’s a bit of a tell Lukes!

    Stupid lies Lukes!

    :-)

  3. #3 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    #1 Oops – that should of course be GISTEMP.

  4. #4 Lionel A
    August 27, 2013

    Did somebody just fart in the corner again? Do I detect an odour of Luke. Question is which one done it.

  5. #5 Lionel A
    August 27, 2013

    A few pages back I mentioned that there humans were pushing ecosystems by ‘a hundred and one ways’, that being a figure of speech, well here is one culprit in one method this being the use of insecticides River Kennet pesticide pollution prompts call for ban the pesticide in question being Chlorpyrifos. This to add to the trouble being caused by Imidacloprid implicated by an earlier post citing articles WRT bees.

  6. #6 Berendaneke
    August 27, 2013

    BBD greenpisser: your monger bollocks is annihilated:

    Given that you are insistently repeating complete and utter bollocks I’m going to ram this home a little harder.

    This graph compares gridded surface temperature GAT with satellite-based reconstructions of tropospheric temperature at ~14,000ft.

    Different instruments. Different methodologies.

    Same results.

    GISSTEMP, HadCRUT4, UAH TLT linear fits

    As I said, you are spouting egregious nonsense

    You insane greenpiss troll are unwilling to learn, how global temperature is calculated. Fuck off from here you ignorant ideology greenpisser

  7. #7 Berendaneke
    August 27, 2013

    @Lionell

    A few pages back I mentioned that there humans were pushing ecosystems by ‘a hundred and one ways’, that being a figure of speech, well here is one culprit in one method this being the use of insecticides River Kennet pesticide pollution prompts call for ban the pesticide in question being Chlorpyrifos. This to add to the trouble being caused by Imidacloprid implicated by an earlier post citing articles WRT bees.

    Your bollocks has nothing to do with the unproven CO2 warming speculative propaganda. Piss off from here, you primitive and unethical greenpisser.

  8. #8 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    BBD greenpisser: your monger bollocks is annihilated

    By what, Freddy? You neglect to provide any evidence supporting your claim.

    Using the html strike tag doesn’t have any effect on either radiative physics or temperature reconstructions. It just makes you feel better ;-)

    Surface vs. satellite. Two different methodologies. Different instruments.

    Same result.

    GISTEMP, HadCRUT4, UAH TLT 1979 – present; linear fits

    Look at the data. Go on. Click the link and look.

    You insane greenpiss troll are unwilling to learn, how global temperature is calculated.

    Based on what you have said before, Freddy, I *know* you haven’t got the first clue how GAT is calculated!

    But on exactly this point, the killer here is:

    Surface vs. satellite. Two different methodologies. Different measurement instruments.

    Same result.

    If you were even remotely conversant with the way science works, this would tell you something important.

    * * *

    Funny how *all* contrarians resort to repeating debunked bollocks in the end.

    I wonder why?

    :-)

  9. #9 Luke
    August 27, 2013

    “Funny how *all* contrarians resort to repeating debunked bollocks in the end.”

    But even funnier how they couldn’t answer my questions.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

  10. #10 el gordo
    August 27, 2013

    ‘You have yet to explain why OHC is still increasing.’

    I read Nic Lewis and Judith Curry on the ‘sensitivity’ issue, the increase in OHC from AGW appears to be insignificant.

    What does the AR5 say? More importantly, what does Luke think?

  11. #11 Jeff Harvey
    August 27, 2013

    Funny thing, hypocrisy. Luke earlier said that he agrees that the recent warming is largely down to human activities, and that his guru Nova, the science hack, also does not deny this. Then he demands that we all debate – get this – factors driving GW (if indeed there is any GW).

    He also states that his (and Nova’s) main beef is that the predictions exaggerate the seriousness of the predicted warming. Now this is where I come in, with a background that would skewer Luke and Nova on a stick – the ecological consequences. But Luke does not go down there, or hasn’t yet (I wait with baited breath). And Nova hasn’t got the first clue about the field. She hasn’t published anything in any field in a peer reviewed journal, as far as I know.

    But of course, to Luke, any old excuse will suffice. Conferences – which he has never apparently attended – are ‘stage-managed’. I’m sure he also believes that peer-reviewed journals are similarly ‘rigged’. He makes Mel Gibson in “Conspiracy Theory” seem downright lucid.

    But of course, I assume that he thinks that blogs run by right wing hacks are, in his eyes, ‘objective forums’. I’m sure Luke thinks that Watts and his team are all fair-minded in their approach to climate science, that Morano and Milloy are decent enough, and that even the Idso’s are only ‘seeking the truth’. Forget the old adage to follow the corporate money – that’s merely a coincidence.

  12. #12 chek
    August 27, 2013

    More importantly, what does Luke think?

    The Nutty Luke Collective will obligingly think whatever some crank blog told him to think.

  13. #13 Berendaneke
    August 27, 2013

    BBD greenpisser: again you show your mean character in refusing to learn

    BBD greenpisser: your monger bollocks is annihilated

    Using the html strike tag doesn’t have any effect on either radiative physics or temperature reconstructions. It just makes you feel better

    Surface vs. satellite. Two different methodologies. Different instruments.

    Same result.

    GISTEMP, HadCRUT4, UAH TLT 1979 – present; linear fits

    Look at the data. Go on. Click the link and look.

    You insane greenpiss troll are unwilling to learn, how global temperature is calculated.

    Based on what you have said before, Freddy, I *know* you haven’t got the first clue how GAT is calculated!

    But on exactly this point, the killer here is:

    Surface vs. satellite. Two different methodologies. Different measurement instruments.

    Same result.

    If you were even remotely conversant with the way science works, this would tell you something important.

    Funny how *all* contrarians resort to repeating debunked bollocks in the end.

    Your task is now to show why the global temperature construction is so fraudulent. Small hint for such an disabled greenpss idiot like you: your beloved satellite data is no surface temperature measurement with a thermometer. YOUR PREFERRED BUSINESS IS METHOD MIXTURES TO BETRAY the public with your damned devil greenpiss ideology. Fuck off from here you betrayer and evil greenpisser.

  14. #14 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    But we did Lukes!

    But you never managed these:

    1/ Link to a study that “proves” that the models are “FALSIFIED” per your repeated claim

    2/ Link to the blog discussion with Kellow. This I want to see!

    3/ Link to the quote where I am exposed as an “OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIAR”. Want to see this, too!

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

    Instead of answering, you choose to pretend to be somebody else instead! Which is somewhere between childish dishonesty and barking mad!

    Not encouraging, Lukes!

    :-)

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

    That’s right, have another bray and keep on running!

  15. #15 Berendaneke
    August 27, 2013

    @BBD SMELLER

    Instead of answering, you choose to pretend to be somebody else instead! Which is somewhere between childish dishonesty and barking mad!

    Inappropriate argument. Piss off from here.

  16. #16 Jeff Harvey
    August 27, 2013

    Here’s a list of the blogroll on Nova’s blog. Every single site is a deniers. site. No excerptions. Many are libertarian and aimed at eviscerating public constraints in the pursuit of private profit. My word, Nova can’t help but wear her ideological heart on her sleeve. I also notice that in several posts she refers to Morano’s comedy sire – Climate Depot. Denial doesn’t stopp much lower than Morano. I deconstructed an article he wrote on the Amazon Forests a decade ago. Before he switched his far-right allegiances to climate change, Morano was in Rush Limbaugh’s camp. The he started writing articles downplaying any environmental threats. His Amazon piece was a real hatchet job of non-science. In it he claimed that only 12% of forests in the Amazon basin had been cleared. Of course, he failed to say how much primary forest was left, as well as how much secondary forest had been damaged by high grade logging and ground level fires which totally alter low-level forest microclimate and make the forests highly susceptible to future fires.

    As it turns out, add in these affects, and 35-40% of primary Amazon forests have been lost of severely altered and simplified (as of 2000). Morano’s piece went on to ignore the fact that most Brazilians want the forests preserved, not felled, and that people living in areas if intact primary forest are economically better off than people living where the forests have been cleared. He also cited 2 people as ‘leading scientists who challenge the conventional wisdom’, without saying that neither of the two had any expertise in tropical forest ecology.

    This is one of Nova’s recommended people and sites. Others on the roll are equally comical. Two of them are based in Holland. One, Realclimategate, is so utterly puerile that I don’t know where to begin debunking it. But, considering Luke claims that Nova is an independent writer, this blogroll alone says something completely different. As I said, she’s a right wing hack.

    ABCnewswatch
    Americans for Limited Government
    Andrew Bolt
    Australian Climate Madness
    Australian Climate Science Coalition
    Australian Politicians Email list
    Bishop Hill
    Black’s WhiteWash
    Carbon Sense Coalition
    Cheifio
    Climate Audit
    Climate Conversation Group
    Climate Depot
    Climate Sceptics Party Australia
    ClimateChangeDispatch
    CO2 Science
    David Archibald
    Delingpole
    Donna La Framboise
    EU referendum
    Freemarket America
    Galileo Movement
    Global Warming Skeptics Forum
    Hide the Decline
    IceCap
    Jennifer Marohasy
    Kens Kingdom
    Lavoisier Group
    Listen To Us (Petition)
    McLean on AGW
    Menzies House
    My Links & Sources
    Niche Modeling
    Nick Cater – Lucky Culture
    Nigel Calder
    NIPCC
    Nir Shaviv (ScienceBits)
    No Consensus
    NZ Climate Science Coalition
    Quadrant
    RealClimateGate
    Roger Pielke Snr
    Roy Spencer
    Science and Public Policy Institute
    Storm data – Policlimate
    The Skeptics Handbook
    The Thompsons
    Tom Nelson
    Vostok Ice Core Graphs
    WA politicians email list
    Warwick Hughes
    Watts Up With That

  17. #17 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    #10 Gordy

    I read Nic Lewis and Judith Curry on the ‘sensitivity’ issue, the increase in OHC from AGW appears to be insignificant.

    Wrong-o! Try expert researchers in this field instead of a retired banker and JC, who isn’t qualified to discuss OHC either!

    And Gordy, paleoclimate constrains S_ff/2xCO2 to a minimum of~2C and strongly suggests S_ff is ~3C. As I have pointed out here – with references and explanations for you already.

    What does the AR5 say?

    We shall have to wait and see!

    More importantly, what does Luke think?

    Yup. A blog nutter who lies like a six year old outweighs the IPCC. Of course!

  18. #18 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    @ Freddy

    barbecue sausage fuck!

    And by jeepers you are stupid!

    Small hint for such an disabled greenpss idiot like you: your beloved satellite data is no surface temperature measurement with a thermometer.

    Can’t you read? I compared surface data with satellite data. They are in close agreement for annual means and decadal trend. Can’t you *see* that?

    Hang on. You can’t understand the graphs, can you?

    Can you?

    That explains a lot :-)

    Gather round, folks, and marvel! We’ve got another one.

  19. #19 Luke
    August 27, 2013

    More verballing by Jeff. Just can’t help himself.

    Jo is kindly directing you to the full sceptic tour ! Handy eh? Don’t get corrupted now.

    “paleoclimate constraints ” replete with its assumptions and modelled bunk

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  20. #20 el gordo
    August 27, 2013

    Jeff and chek…. Luke believes CO2 causes GW, its the sensitivity question.

    Even though I’m a staunch member of the Denialati I am prepared to be swayed by his argument.

  21. #22 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    And Luke, if I may speak personally for a moment, you need to do something about those moobs. Diet and pectoral exercise. My best advice!

  22. #23 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    And get a fucking hair cut!

  23. #24 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    “paleoclimate constraints ” replete with its assumptions and modelled bunk

    Braying at decades of study doesn’t exactly advance your argument, Luke!

    You need to produce some scientific evidence that demonstrates, well anything really!

    Off you go, Luke!

  24. #25 el gordo
    August 27, 2013

    Thanx Jerry, I’ll take that away.

  25. #26 jerryg
    August 27, 2013

    Jeff Harvey – re your list.

    I checked out Climate Audit (quite a while ago) and one of the things I could never figure out – why doesn’t he ever audit any of the papers that are against AGW ( like say Gerlich and Tscheuschner 2009).

  26. #27 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    Gordy

    You *still* haven’t explained why OHC is increasing!

    Come on!

  27. #28 el gordo
    August 27, 2013

    No idea BB. I’ll wait for the definitive AR5.

    This from Jerry’s link…

    ‘When faced with a finding that contradicts a cherished belief (e.g. a new study suggesting that humans have, or have not, contributed to global warming), we are more likely to question the integrity of the practitioner. If science is fundamentally moral, then how could it have arrived at such an offensive conclusion? Blame the messenger.’

  28. #29 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    #21 jerryg

    Could this be a reason for denying science ?

    New to me and still skimming Ma-Kellams & Blascovich, but apparently, yes. Which is both unsurprising and yet still dispiriting.

  29. #30 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    Er, Gordy, I don’t think you have understood the material you are quoting.

  30. #31 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    Gordy, were your *really* ever a journalist? For the life of me, I cannot imagine how you survived.

  31. #32 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    #26 jerryg

    G&T? Rabbet-holed, so he was spared the trouble. But I sense a rhetorical question! And yes, why indeed does SM’s “scepticism” only work one way?

    A great mystery of our time!

    :-)

  32. #33 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    Oh dear. “Rabett” of course!

    Must be the warm weather ;-)

  33. #34 Berendaneke
    August 27, 2013

    @Harvey greenpisser

    STOP WHINING

    Here’s a list of the blogroll on Nova’s blog. Every single site is a deniers. site. No excerptions. Many are libertarian and aimed at eviscerating public constraints in the pursuit of private profit. My word, Nova can’t help but wear her ideological heart on her sleeve. I also notice that in several posts she refers to Morano’s comedy sire – Climate Depot. Denial doesn’t stopp much lower than Morano. I deconstructed an article he wrote on the Amazon Forests a decade ago. Before he switched his far-right allegiances to climate change, Morano was in Rush Limbaugh’s camp. The he started writing articles downplaying any environmental threats. His Amazon piece was a real hatchet job of non-science. In it he claimed that only 12% of forests in the Amazon basin had been cleared. Of course, he failed to say how much primary forest was left, as well as how much secondary forest had been damaged by high grade logging and ground level fires which totally alter low-level forest microclimate and make the forests highly susceptible to future fires.

    As it turns out, add in these affects, and 35-40% of primary Amazon forests have been lost of severely altered and simplified (as of 2000). Morano’s piece went on to ignore the fact that most Brazilians want the forests preserved, not felled, and that people living in areas if intact primary forest are economically better off than people living where the forests have been cleared. He also cited 2 people as ‘leading scientists who challenge the conventional wisdom’, without saying that neither of the two had any expertise in tropical forest ecology.

    This is one of Nova’s recommended people and sites. Others on the roll are equally comical. Two of them are based in Holland. One, Realclimategate, is so utterly puerile that I don’t know where to begin debunking it. But, considering Luke claims that Nova is an independent writer, this blogroll alone says something completely different. As I said, she’s a right wing hack.

    ABCnewswatch
    Americans for Limited Government
    Andrew Bolt
    Australian Climate Madness
    Australian Climate Science Coalition
    Australian Politicians Email list
    Bishop Hill
    Black’s WhiteWash
    Carbon Sense Coalition
    Cheifio
    Climate Audit
    Climate Conversation Group
    Climate Depot
    Climate Sceptics Party Australia
    ClimateChangeDispatch
    CO2 Science
    David Archibald
    Delingpole
    Donna La Framboise
    EU referendum
    Freemarket America
    Galileo Movement
    Global Warming Skeptics Forum
    Hide the Decline
    IceCap
    Jennifer Marohasy
    Kens Kingdom
    Lavoisier Group
    Listen To Us (Petition)
    McLean on AGW
    Menzies House
    My Links & Sources
    Niche Modeling
    Nick Cater – Lucky Culture
    Nigel Calder
    NIPCC
    Nir Shaviv (ScienceBits)
    No Consensus
    NZ Climate Science Coalition
    Quadrant
    RealClimateGate
    Roger Pielke Snr
    Roy Spencer
    Science and Public Policy Institute
    Storm data – Policlimate
    The Skeptics Handbook
    The Thompsons
    Tom Nelson
    Vostok Ice Core Graphs
    WA politicians email list
    Warwick Hughes
    Watts Up With That

    Your moron monger bollocks shows distintly that you are a green lefty worshopping of pagan god gaia. You primitive nutters are disabled from own “thinking”. Fuck off from here you cheap copy troll.

  34. #35 Berendaneke
    August 27, 2013

    BBD Smeller

    default for unappropriate sexual harassment

    G&T? Rabbet-holed, so he was spared the trouble. But I sense a rhetorical question! And yes, why indeed does SM’s “scepticism” only work one way?

    A great mystery of our time!

    What is the unethical purpose of your nasty allusion to sado-masochism. Stop throwing dirt, greenpisser and fuck off, you smeller

  35. #36 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    I get the feeling that you didn’t look at the data!

    Or if you did, you just saw squiggly lines!

    Oh Freddy. What it must be like to be you.

  36. #37 Luke
    August 27, 2013

    “I swallowed the whole story” coz I’m a sucker. BBD pers. comm (unist)

  37. #38 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    Freddy, we crossed at your #35. What are you on about?

    Rabett = Halpern!

    As any fule kno.

    Google is your friend, old Troll!

    Use it!

  38. #39 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    The Lukes :-)

    But, but… we were talking about your moobs! This is most unfair! I protest!

  39. #40 Berendaneke
    August 27, 2013

    My name is Berendaneke, ape BBD Smeller. Your method of debunked nihilistic pigfuck speculation is discarded

    I get the feeling that you didn’t look at the data!

    Or if you did, you just saw squiggly lines!

    Oh Freddy. What it must be like to be you.

    Is your real name Ho Chu Min or Kim Il Sung, you nutter?

  40. #41 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    @Luke @ Lotharsson

    What is the unethical purpose of your nasty allusion to sado-masochism.

    Would you say there was a bat-squeak of projection in there?

  41. #42 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    @The Lukes ;-)

    I am ever-more curious about the things you *don’t* say. Love the stuff about c**thooks etc, but what about the deafening silence?

    Page 34 #81:

    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!

    :-)

  42. #43 Berendaneke
    August 27, 2013

    Ho Chi Min fucker

    you missed grandiously again your CAGW propaganda mission is deterring greenpisser acolyte

    Freddy, we crossed at your #35. What are you on about?

    Rabett = Halpern!

    As any fule kno.

    Google is your friend, old Troll!

    Use it!

    You fucking anti-science and anti-society troll, FUCK OFF from here, you senile bedwetter

  43. #44 chek
    August 27, 2013

    I swallowed the whole story” coz I’m a sucker

    No, you’re a post hoc rationalising idiot who’s only half as clever as you think you are (and about a tenth as clever as Gordon thinks you are).

  44. #45 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    My name is Berendaneke, ape BBD Smeller.

    Perhaps it is. But you have also posted here as Freddy and Boris!

    And you know it!

    :-)

  45. #46 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    #44 chek

    Well, The Lukes has another chance to demonstrate that he has a basic grasp of physical climatology. He can critique Gordy’s tripe’n’onions.

    Or not.

  46. #47 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    @ The Lukes

    What do you think about Freddy’s weirdness – #41?

  47. #48 Berendaneke
    August 27, 2013

    Climatology Lesson 1 for CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters:

    Science shows you CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters that the hypothesized warming effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.

  48. #49 chek
    August 27, 2013

    Deniers never correct a fellow traveller, BBD!

  49. #50 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    @ The Lukes

    Whatever diet you are on, *stop*!

    Those moobs are out of control!

    Could be a hormonal thing, I suppose. Obviously I cannot ask you about your doctor’s opinion, but I am concerned.

  50. #51 Berendaneke
    August 27, 2013

    Ho Chi Min

    @ The Lukes

    What do you think about Freddy’s weirdness – #41?

    Unbased speculation without relation to fraudulent CO2 betrayal,

  51. #52 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    #49 chek

    :-)

    What will The Lukes do?!

  52. #53 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    barbecue sausage fuck!

    Oops! Sorry fellow Deltoids. It just slipped out!

  53. #54 Luke
    August 27, 2013

    El Gordo – I know it’s only a datum point but given the sceptic rhetoric of late http://www.farmweekly.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/farewell-to-warm-winter/2669340.aspx

    and in a neutral year too. Doltoids of course wouldn’t be up with the STRi work from SEACI.

  54. #55 Berendaneke
    August 27, 2013

    @Vzek nutter

    Deniers never correct a fellow traveller, BBD!

    Also insane speculation without relation to fraudulent CO2 betrayal! Piss off from this blog, you are a shame for everybody, not just for your parents.

  55. #56 Luke
    August 27, 2013

    BBD your gravatar-less spotty image says a lot about you and your mates – what a dour sour humourless lot.

  56. #57 Luke
    August 27, 2013

    Berendaneke – excellent slam – telling them to GET OFF their own blog really winds them up. Coz they know they’ve been norty little evil boys.

  57. #58 Berendaneke
    August 27, 2013

    Repetition 1 of Lesson 1 for teh stupid greenpiss Dumbtoids (as no learning effect could be detected until now):

    Climatology Lesson 1 for CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters:

    Science shows you CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters that the hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.

  58. #59 Berendaneke
    August 27, 2013

    Ho Chi Min

    LIAR, LIAR, LIAR

    barbecue sausage fuck!

    Oops! Sorry fellow Deltoids. It just slipped out!

    YOU DID THIS ON PURPOSE, YOU LIAR, BECAUSE YOU APOLOGIZED TO FELLOW GREENPISS DUMBTOIDS BEFORE YOU SUBMITTED YOUR UNSPEAKABLE MESSAGE OF VIOLATION OF CIVILIZED HUMANS.

    This unspeakable rudeness of yours is unacceptable! You violate the sexual feelings of many innocent readers. Apologize for this now and then fuck off, you greenpiss idiot.

  59. #60 Craig Thomas
    August 27, 2013

    Nice links, Jerry.

    Denigrators of science are immoral.

  60. #61 chek
    August 27, 2013

    hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.

    I’m wondering if this crank was educated by the OISM program which features 100 year old, out of copyright textbooks.

  61. #62 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    Ah!

    The Lukes won’t critique Gordy’s horse-shit after all!

    Thanks for nailing that one down Luke!

  62. #63 Berendaneke
    August 27, 2013

    What is the explanation of the CAGW religion addicted Dumbtoid retards on the fact that

    1: there are least 59 times more CAGW condemning climate realism internet blogs than insane CAGW worshipping blogs with only a few annoyed readers

    2: that CAGW contrarians and climate realists are on overage considerably more intelligent and better educated than the monomanic CO2 greenpissers with their gaia religion of back to stoneage

  63. #64 Berendaneke
    August 27, 2013

    @czek greenpisser:

    hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.

    I’m wondering if this crank was educated by the OISM program which features 100 year old, out of copyright textbooks.

    Inappropate response to a scientific statement.

    TRY AGAIN, YOU NUTTER

  64. #65 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    And we’re off. Freddy’s back in CAPS!

    He’s COMING BACK folks, so brace!

    :-)

    barbecue sausage [...]

    What will Freddy do next?!

    :-) :-) :-)

  65. #66 chek
    August 27, 2013

    Science is decided by blogs?
    Who knew?

  66. #67 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    BBD your gravatar-less spotty image says a lot about you and your mates

    Who needs moobs?

  67. #68 Berendaneke
    August 27, 2013

    @Czek the greenpisser

    Science is decided by blogs?
    Who knew?

    Sit down, teh stuoud pupil, you missed the argument!

    It’s always abjection, you nutter.

    Why can’t you understand that there is such fierce objection to your insane CO2 religion? Work thru the statement again and give a better answer next time, nutter.

  68. #69 jerryg
    August 27, 2013

    The next paragraph at that link puts a little more context to the global warming quote:

    ” It’s significantly harder to deny the import of challenging findings when you have the tools necessary to evaluate the process by which scientists arrived at their results. That new study on global warming is tougher to dismiss when you know (and care enough to check) that the methods used are sound, regardless of what you think the authors’ motivations might be. In the absence of such knowledge, the virtue assigned to “science” might also be a motivational force for ideological distortion, the precise opposite of impartial truth-seeking.”

  69. #70 chek
    August 27, 2013

    ” there is such fierce orchestrated and funded objection to your insane CO2 religion including framing science as a “religion” for cranks who couldn’t understand the difference if their sanity depended on it

    Corrected that for you Freddyfred.

  70. #71 BBD
    August 27, 2013

    Oh noes Gordy!

    You goofed again!

    If only you actually read the links, you could learn a lot!

  71. #72 el gordo
    August 28, 2013

    ‘Looking at the trend of the past 11 months and bearing in mind that climate drivers like the El Nino-Southern Oscillation are most likely to remain neutral, temperatures will be on the warmer side of the long term norm.’

    Is that because of the warm waters around Australia?

    The BoM is saying Spring should be cooler than average, so the journalist is making shit up.

  72. #73 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    Why

    Oh

    Why

    Is

    OHC

    Increasing

    ??!!

    Whatever can it be?

    :-)

  73. #74 el gordo
    August 28, 2013

    No idea … waiting for AR5.

    ————-

    Luke… Going on what we know, a cool IPO, neutral ENSO, cool IOD, sun in a slumber and surface temps stalled, can’t see a hot summer.

    We had a warm winter because of the strong highs, what strengthened that band?

  74. #75 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    No idea … waiting for AR5.

    Glad to hear that your views are influenced by the scientific consensus!

    But I have an intimation that AR5 might not be quite what “sceptics” anticipate!

    :-)

  75. #76 adelady
    August 28, 2013

    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.

    No need. AGL calculates we already have too many fossil generators anyway. http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/agl-says-9gw-of-baseload-fossil-fuels-no-longer-needed-35369

    Apparently they need about a third of Australian. coal power stations to be closed down so they can make any profit from selling into the wholesale market.

  76. #77 el gordo
    August 28, 2013

    Once the document is out there the contrarian blogs will look at it closely and we can debate it here.

    —————-

    Luke you may remember that I predicted the end of the great drought at Deltoid months in advance. This is the benefit of the place, especially on an open thread.

    Its like the old days at Jens place.

  77. #78 el gordo
    August 28, 2013

    Surplus to requirement, fair enough.

  78. #79 Luke
    August 28, 2013
  79. #80 Luke
    August 28, 2013

    El Gordo of course Jeff would have just uncritically applied CMIP5 to some dubious ecological model for SE Australia and he would have been wrong. (Assuming he’s not on the Amsterdam hooch)

    Not from Nova’s

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50208/abstract

  80. #81 el gordo
    August 28, 2013

    Thanks, some good stuff to talk about.

  81. #82 Lotharsson
    August 28, 2013

    The Lukes has another chance to demonstrate that he has a basic grasp of physical climatology.

    He’s not here for the hunting. What he doesn’t tackle, and what he doesn’t critique, is one of his “tells”.

  82. #83 Berendaneke
    August 28, 2013

    Repetition 2 of Lesson 1 for teh stupid greenpiss Dumbtoids (as no learning effect could be detected until now):

    Climatology Lesson 1 for CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters:

    Science shows you CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters that the hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.

  83. #84 Luke
    August 28, 2013

    Lotharsson – and more than ditto for you guys. And man it really shows.

  84. #85 Craig Thomas
    August 28, 2013

    Luke
    August 28, 2013

    El Gordo (over their heads of course)

    http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/Timbal_UNSW2009.pdf time series page 5

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3492/abstract

    Lol! You’re aiming over our heads and you think you’ll hit El Gordo?

    Hohoho. Luke’s still a comedian.

  85. #86 Bernard J.
    August 28, 2013

    My name is Berendaneke, ape BBD Smeller.

    BBD was addressing a poster named ‘Freddy’. So if BBD addressed Freddy, why would you even respond to the comment with a complaint about your own name? Unless of course you are Freddy – which everyone knew anyway…

    Sheesh, the deniers here are stupid. And diseased. I am actually growing more and more pleased that they piling on here, because they are a wonderful documentation of the intellectual depauperacy of the denialist cause. It’s a sad indictment on the inferior abilities of too much of the human population, but at least it’s being catalogued.

  86. #88 Craig Thomas
    August 28, 2013

    Yes, I liked that one, it was the one Karen/Sunspot-freak linked to on the misunderstanding it implied Antarctica was growing, although it turns out it says the opposite.

    They’re not very good, are they?

  87. #90 Marco
    August 28, 2013

    Luke, hilariously Judith Curry manages to refer to her “Italian flag” when talking about overconfidence.

    Several people with considerably more statistical knowledge have already pointed out that her Italian flag is complete nonsense:
    http://initforthegold.blogspot.dk/2010/10/judith-curry-born-beyond-shark.html
    http://julesandjames.blogspot.dk/2010/11/wheres-beef-curry.html

    Note that the latter also gives some reasons why she is “thrown off the island” as she states on the second link you gave. Not that she will mention those…

  88. #91 el gordo
    August 28, 2013

    Craig the Sub Tropical Ridge is important, at least in Timbal’s mind, so if you nothing further to add….

  89. #92 el gordo
    August 28, 2013

    The important point is that the strengthening of the STR comes about through warmer temperatures produced by AGW.

    This is debatable.

  90. #93 Jeff Harvey
    August 28, 2013

    “Jeff and chek…. Luke believes CO2 causes GW, its the sensitivity question”

    So, Fatty, you can be swayed by Luke, a guy with no publications, no pedigree in climate or environmental science etc., but not by really qualified trained scientists with hundreds of publications. Says everything I need to know.

    Oh how I defer to Luke’s infinite wisdom. Please come back Jonas! All is forgiven! Even your ego doesn’t match Luke’s! Good Lord, the deniers on here have bloated self-opionions. And Luke is pushing for the top spot in this regard. The blogroll I provided yesterday is proof positive that Nova doesn’t give a damn for objective science, but that she is agenda driven. She’s a cherry picker. All deniers are. Watts. McIntyre. Morano. The Idso’s. Every one of them.

    All Luke could say in responding to my challenge about the ecological effects of warming was to make a snide remark about some models for Australia. Forget the huge and growing pile of studies showing effects on demographics, distribution, and mechanisms. Admittedly they are probably way over Luke’s head, but his reticence to go down this road is understandable.

    I agree with Bernard that, for the most part, the deniers on Deltoid are stupid and diseased. A sordid lot if ever there was one. Some of their arguments are so utterly devoid of logic that they are almost impossible to counter. Like Luke claiming, with not a scintilla of evidence, that scientific conferences are ‘stage-managed’. The same with Karen’s constant referral to a left wing global conspiracy driving climate and environmental science. And the constant referral of almost all of the deniers to communism/greens.

    What a bunch of losers.

  91. #94 Luke
    August 28, 2013

    Tripe Jeff – I observe in-house government and university modelling of natural systems, hydrology, ecology, GCMs, climate change downscaling every week. Don’t be so utterly pretentious and deceitful that’ it’s all neat and tidy. It isn’t.

    Don’t worry about Jo. Just answer the question(s). You can’t. So your defence is that you don’t need to answer the question or people who are smarter than you know so the question doesn’t need answering.

    Frankly Jeff – that’s weak as water. Your defence is the system and that your back is covered.

    You should in a workman like fashion be able to simply rebut my points. You have had ample opportunity. The reason you can’t is that we don’t know it all.

    And conferences are stage managed (depending on the type) – but take here locally Greenhouse 2011 and 2013 – you tell me ! Conferences set up by the system for the system paid for by the system and giving answers palatable to the system.

    You’re so far down the rabbit hole now that you’re never going to come up. And the point is that unwittingly your utter devotion to the system makes me sure you’ve exceeded your objective science mandate and have signed onto virtuous noble cause corruption – unwittingly – I’m sure you’re genuine in your beliefs – I’m not saying fraudulent.

    However with increasingly conservative administrations anti-AGW we will be asked to more robustly defend climate science positions. Just hand waving about deniers won’t get you off the hook – answering the questions will ! If you do then the denialti will be left irrelevant. If you don’t the sceptic fraternity will simply have a field day.

    In Australia at the moment they have comprehensively and easily won. Failure of mainstream science to engage is partially the point. However the establishment really isn’t allowed to engage – governments and CSIRO are all now comprehensively politically managed and all communications vetted. If you’re in some ivory tower close to retirement in some uni – you’re in la-lah academic land. Come and stand a post on the front line of policy implementation/science evaluation reality.

    If you’re serious Jeff you would have joined on my numerous entrees about downscaling. Frankly I don’t think you do any serious work in the field or you’d have been all over me. It’s amateur hour isn’t it?

  92. #95 Luke
    August 28, 2013

    Downscaling being how your would couple to GCM/RCM output……

  93. #96 Luke
    August 28, 2013

    “deniers to communism/greens.” – it’s just tit for tat – get over it and make better arguments !

  94. #97 el gordo
    August 28, 2013

    Yep… that’s pretty well covered it, Luke.

  95. #98 Berendaneke
    August 28, 2013

    Bernard greenpiss ideologist

    BBD was addressing a poster named ‘Freddy’. So if BBD addressed Freddy, why would you even respond to the comment with a complaint about your own name? Unless of course you are Freddy – which everyone knew anyway…

    Sheesh, the deniers here are stupid. And diseased. I am actually growing more and more pleased that they piling on here, because they are a wonderful documentation of the intellectual depauperacy of the denialist cause. It’s a sad indictment on the inferior abilities of too much of the human population, but at least it’s being catalogued.

    It is incredible to which deep levels of character, intellect and logic fails the greenpiss Deltoids are guilty. Apart from primitive ad hominem rants and deceiving climate fraud argueing there is nothing from this deserted leper island of nihilism where the doltoid greenpissers live. Fuck off AGW greenpissers from this blog!

  96. #99 adelady
    August 28, 2013

    Oh well, winter’s nearly over.

    I suppose some people think it’s watermelon season already. Unfortunately they’re the stale, half-rotted ones someone left at the back of the shed from last season. This little meme is well past its use by date.

  97. #100 Berendaneke
    August 28, 2013

    BBD greenpiss addict, do I interpret you right that you swine would like to nuggle on one of tits of luke’s pretty image?

    Admit the truth you swine!