August 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Lotharsson
    September 4, 2013

    like getting ice blocks from your toaster and snow from your kettle

    Precisely NOT like that, because those aren’t expected outcomes of toaster and kettle systems.

    Thanks for demonstrating my point though.

  2. #2 chek
    September 4, 2013

    as I tow you around the swamp

    The Lukes came here as Gordon’s imported ‘expert’ and began by unsuccessfully shilling for traffic to Codling and Evan’s site for whackos (itself a front to sell gold to right wing loons in prep for whatever end times scenario they think gold will help them) and has proceeded to expose himself as a liar and fantasist with zero grasp of any science at all (cf OA, references previously submitted) and a panoply of denier talking points he’s been unable to defend..

    One hesitates to consider just how bad things may have become had The Lukes lost control of the situation they’ve put themselves in. With ‘victories’ like this car-crash of an exhibition here, you wouldn’t want many losses.

  3. #3 Lotharsson
    September 4, 2013

    …as I tow you around the swamp…

    …which invokes the image of a fish on a line, too ignorant to grok that the slow reeling in won’t cease no matter how frenetically it swims this way or that, tries this diversion or that tack and then another and back to the first…

  4. #4 BBD
    September 4, 2013

    #3

    :-)

    Luke is not, apparently, a humble student of the long game.

  5. #5 Lotharsson
    September 4, 2013

    :-)

    Give him credit – he sure can choose an appropriate metaphor.

  6. #6 Luke
    September 4, 2013

    chek – blah blah blah blah pontificate blah blah

    How about you stop talking shit. It just runs out of you doesn’t it. And like Lotharsson get a decent Aussie name for an Aussie blog and stop being disrespectful.

  7. #7 Stu
    September 4, 2013

    Stu, I’m interested, just who is Judy Curry “a lying shill” for?

    Let’s ask her, for starters:

    “I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.”

    That’s not quite the point though. Again, go look at the last graph here:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/el-nino-and-the-non-spherical-cow/

    There’s no way she did that by accident.

  8. #8 Stu
    September 4, 2013

    stop being disrespectful

    Seriously, you little lying shit?

  9. #9 BBD
    September 4, 2013

    First, a note.

    I have noticed that the DOS (if that is what it is) seems to intensify just after Luke comments, making it difficult to reply.

    Luke has also been lying about having comments in moderation and these faux complaints about the DOS attack are highly suspicious.

    Perhaps Luke knows more about what is going on here than he pretends.

    * * *

    Whatever the case, it is a mystery to me why he is back given that he has yet again been exposed as a blatant liar.

    But of course, given his goldfish memory and the fact that this was on the previous page, he probably thinks we’ve all forgotten too. We haven’t.

    @ #82 page 44 Lying Luke

    “They all greatly over-estimate their scientific qualifications and expertise”. DIDN’T SAY I HAD ANY

    Oho! They don’t call him Lying Luke for nothing! Because he did say he had scientific qualifications and expertise! Oh yes, he did!

    Let’s see now… Here we are! Page 25 #65:

    And as a working scientist I can tell you the answers aren’t forthcoming and the group think is massive. The unhappiness festers in the ranks.

    You shameless, lying bastard, you!!

    :-) :-) :-)

  10. #10 Jeff Harvey
    September 4, 2013

    First, Karen: “Environmental science may show evidence of climate change, but not the cause of it sweety..”

    Isn’t this the same Karen who has been trying – and failing miserably – for ages now to show that it isn’t warming? Wait a minute… so environmental science shows evidence of climate change but it isn’t warming… hmmmmmm…

    Seems a bit like Fatso vs Fatso has turned into Karen vs Karen.

    Luke: Wash your mouth out with soap, you brainless fart. Given that your views are scientifically bankrupt, all you’ve got left is invective-laden witless smears as ripostes. You are about as intelligent as an amoeba. Wait.. that’s an insult to all inverts.

  11. #11 Olaus Petri
    September 4, 2013

    The scientific Q regarding how sensitive the climate is to CO2 is still not answered, but the Q what made Deltoid an asylum for die hard religious climate scare nutters being spanked by less devoted intellectuals, is easy to explain: the Jonas thread.

    That became a real eye opener to Tim. He understood that his side had nothing but pure faith and absurd conspiracy theories to rely on, and a guy giving Napoleon wannabees a bad name: Jeffie Hardley. :-)

  12. #12 Stu
    September 4, 2013

    All together now: IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION.

  13. #13 chek
    September 4, 2013

    So Bjorn and his feral fanbois are still smarting after all this time from Jeff’s public humiliating of their big blonde inactivist hope. Buy yourselves new handbags and get over it lads. Jonarse wasn’t banished for heresy, but because he’s a dull denier with nothing to say and nothing to add, but takes a long time doing it .

  14. #14 chek
    September 4, 2013

    Oh and one more thing Olapdog.

    Jonarse’s ‘thing’ is ‘attribution’, not ‘sensitivity’.
    Not that you’d understand the difference, but best put your best clean pants on in case he comes round to spank you for not paying attention to the master’s words.

  15. #15 chek
    September 4, 2013

    For those not here long enough, Olap/GSW/PantieZ are the Gordon equivalent, aka the Scandinavian Troll Collective, and Jonarse is/was (even nutters get tired of their own nuttery) their ‘expert’ figure to Gordon’s The Lukes.

    You wouldn’t think there could be so much fuckwittedness in the world, but you’d be wrong.

  16. #16 Luke
    September 4, 2013

    BBD – true but you’re one of the worst shonks and spivs I’ve had the displeasure of coming across. I just tell you anything to wind you up. And you bite every time you sour bastard.

    You guys – always assumption, obsession and verballing.

    Goes to the heart of your objectivity.

    But hey you’re alright. But really no you’re not – so fuck off eh?

  17. #17 BBD
    September 4, 2013

    Pants on fire, Luke!!!

    :-)

  18. #18 chek
    September 4, 2013

    I just tell you anything to wind you up

    Believe it or not The Lukes, most people don’t feel the need to lie and deceive, especially not to strangers in a comments section of a blog. They see no need for it, and would wonder what the point was.
    Of course, a diseased and driven sociopathic minority with an agenda (and no, I’m not visiting Codling’s blog gold selling front. Ever!) behave quite differently from expected norms.

  19. #19 Stu
    September 4, 2013

    Open admittance of trolling. And you accuse others of needing a life? You’re a sad, sad little man, Luke.

  20. #20 BBD
    September 4, 2013

    Actually, credit where credit is due:

    Bravo! Clown!

    The flaming trousers routine was brilliant! I’m sorry I spoiled it by pissing on you, but I really thought you were on fire!

    Silly me! :-)

    I didn’t realise it was all just a circus act. But I do get it now! You are a Clown! You set your trousers on fire because you like to make other people laugh! You’ve got me there. Looks like I really am just a “sour bastard”!

    Will just laugh without urinating next time!

    Love light & peace

    BBD

  21. #21 Turboblocke
    September 4, 2013

    Karen #93 previous page:
    Meanwhile, a very rare snowfall accumulated in the high desert town of San Pedro de Atacama, Chile on August 25-26. Located at 2500 m (8,250’) it is not unusual for cold temperatures to be measured here, but precipitation is very rare (being in the Atacama Desert, driest region of the world) and snowfall even rarer.

    Snow fall requires cold temperatures and moist air. Global warming allows the air to carry more water, so that’s why there is more snowfall.

  22. #22 chek
    September 4, 2013

    h/t The Guardian re@ Aussie Elections.
    the Mining Party (trading as Palmer United);
    No Carbon Tax Climate Skeptics;
    Stop The Greens.

    Good to see the nutters’ vote being split three ways.
    From inconsequential to fucking inconsequential.
    Hopefully Gina will do a “where’d my money go?” Rovesque with menaces routine on your fat, sweaty arses.

  23. #23 Luke
    September 4, 2013

    Now you could have made some science points but alas always assumption, obsession and verballing.

    Goes to the heart of your objectivity.

    Now cunts after a good game of cockheads back to my list of 11 questions – where are the fucking answers. and please hurry or Jeff will be back with another long winded chew your arm off in boredom essay.

  24. #24 BBD
    September 4, 2013

    Been done, although it was ten last time, so not sure about (11)!

    But here it is, again:

    (1) models invalidated as far as replicating GMT

    Silly binary logic ignoring influence of transient variability in OHC on tropospheric warming in the single instance of climate running on the Real Earth model! Will look stoopid when tropospheric warming resumes!

    (2) no trop hotspot

    False claim – goes beyond the data into polemical assertion.

    (3) evap trend the wrong direction

    And what might cause a global change in surface wind speed? How does this invalidate the standard position on AGW? Clue: it doesn’t.

    (4) no consensus on any trends in tropical cyclones

    Give it time.

    (5) unexplained centennial internal GCM variability

    So what, see paleoclimate behaviour! See Hansen and just about everybody else. False framing – models are not the primary source of concern.

    (6) multi-model mean projection simply bogus

    False claim.

    (7) GCM models subject to major architectural precision errors.

    Gross exaggeration and red herring that was dealt with pages ago. Never did see you in comments at Stoat. Seems you are a hypocrite!

    (8) no evidence of ocean change in acidity

    False claim contradicted by observations.

    (9) obsession and bias in research that any AGW will be bad for all ecosystems

    False claim. Polemic.

    (10) Deltoidians hypocritical wealth redistributors yet living high on the hog in the full western lifestyle

    Oh FFS. Polemic. And stupid.

    * * *

    Yawn.

  25. #25 BBD
    September 4, 2013

    And Luke… you are still a blatant, serial liar!

    :-)

    As well as a Clown!

  26. #26 Jeff Harvey
    September 4, 2013

    Olaus isn’t even original: his name for me was copied from Jonas and Betula.

    What a loser.

  27. #27 Luke
    September 4, 2013

    Dogs returning to their vomit. Answer the fucking questions properly.

  28. #28 chek
    September 4, 2013

    And all the corporately sponsored horses
    And all the corporately sponsored men
    Couldn’t put The Lukes
    Corporately sponsored world together again.

  29. #29 Jeff Harvey
    September 4, 2013

    …”please hurry or Jeff will be back with another long winded chew your arm off in boredom essay”

    Certainly not as boring as your constant invective and drivel, Luke. BBD had shown you up for what you really are. Why you like being slapped around here is anyone’s guess. I just think that you’re a sucker for punishment.

  30. #30 Luke
    September 4, 2013

    My bloke’s back from the US and he tells me only fuckwits would be backing OHC – best inside on the pause is natural variability plus aerosols. But fucktards here can have a good wank anyway on OHC. And ponder the current panic on how the system has to spin the pause to the UN Bureaucrats. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    “Oh well yes we knew that all along” “Yes it’s all under control”

    “Hey do you think they bought it”?

  31. #31 Luke
    September 4, 2013

    Jeff being slapped around by a geriatric old commie is like being ticked by a feather.

  32. #32 Luke
    September 4, 2013

    chek – sounds like a commie name doesn’t it?

  33. #33 el gordo
    September 4, 2013

    ‘Perhaps Luke knows more about what is going on here than he pretends.’

    You’re paranoid, we want to keep the blog going. The most likely candidate for scuttling this small log in Kensington would be Lord Lambert.

  34. #34 BBD
    September 4, 2013

    Dogs returning to their vomit. Answer the fucking questions properly.

    If you don’t like the answers, then address them! Data denial is not a valid argument, btw! It’s just a loud farting sound!!

    :-)

  35. #35 BBD
    September 4, 2013

    Gordy

    You’re paranoid

    And you have missed the point! The Lukes says stuff. Argument and worse from assertion. He didn’t respond to what I wrote, so perhaps he is smarter than you – or culpable as asserted!

    Keep up, Gordy!

  36. #36 chek
    September 4, 2013

    chek – sounds like a commie name doesn’t it?

    Only to the desperate The Lukes. To everybody else it sounds like the universal symbol for payment by trust – the cornerstone of The Mercantile Project.

    “Your bloke” back from “the States” eh?.
    Bearing fresh nylons, unrationed cigarettes and new ideas no doubt. God but you’re stupid, The Lujkes. Never more so than when you’re being ‘clever’.

    Energy in. less energy out. There’s no way to spin that, kid.

  37. #37 el gordo
    September 4, 2013

    ‘That became a real eye opener to Tim. He understood that his side had nothing but pure faith….’

    This appears to be correct and I can’t blame the blogmasta for trying to dismantle the structure.

  38. #38 BBD
    September 4, 2013

    @ Lying Luke

    chek – sounds like a commie name doesn’t it?

    Chek can’t be a commie because he appreciates the unique talent of Alan Holdsworth.

    Commies hate Alan Holdsworth, so you are wrong!

    I assert this!

    :-)

  39. #39 chek
    September 4, 2013

    This appears to be correct

    In the same way as electricity seems like magic to you. Because you understand nothing apart from what you like to believe.

    All the climate science in the world will never sway you Gordon, because it’s like they’re talking in Swahili to you. Just like the particle physicists or even your local broadband tech. It’s all way over your gin-eroded head

    Such is the curse of the under-educated, to know nothing and be expected to have an opinion on what is the norm. So you turn to cranks who speak a language for losers that you understand all too well, about conspiracies to do you down. As if, almost as if, anybody gives a toss about the sticks and string you’ve collected together in a lifetime.

  40. #40 BBD
    September 4, 2013

    #37 Gordy

    TL isn’t responsible for the problems here. Luke might be, though! I assert the possibility!

    * * *

    Anyway, The Lukes wants some sciencey stuff (as does Sock 2!) so let’s press on.

    How do we account for the PETM if GHG forcing is inefficacious?

    Remember, this is all about physical mechanisms!

    :-)

  41. #41 chek
    September 4, 2013

    Chek can’t be a commie because he appreciates the unique talent of Alan Holdsworth.

    … and also the startlingly unique Guthrie Govan and his band The Aristocrats, who by virtue of their very name can hardly be communist. Now if they’d instead been The Kommisars… but they aren’t. Case closed.

  42. #42 Luke
    September 4, 2013

    Don’t quote PETA I’ve been using that on EL Gordo for years. Those animal activists.

  43. #43 Craig Thomas
    September 4, 2013

    Luke
    September 4, 2013

    My bloke’s back from the US and he tells me only fuckwits would be backing OHC – best inside on the pause is natural variability plus aerosols.

    So currently, natural variability and aerosols are temporarily counteracting the underlying warming trend caused by the increase in greenhouse gases?

    Sounds about right to me – not an “inside on the pause” at all.

  44. #44 BBD
    September 4, 2013

    #41

    Well, there you go!

    Pay attention The Lukes!

    * * *

    Don’t quote PETA I’ve been using that on EL Gordo for years. Those animal activists.

    That’s rubbish music hall act banter, not physical comedy!

    We want physical comedy! (Geddit?!)

    Bring on the Clowns with their pants on fire! We loved that!

    :-)

  45. #45 el gordo
    September 5, 2013

    Svensmark has a new paper out and this is from the press release.

    ‘The result boosts our theory that cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy are directly involved in the Earth’s weather and climate,” says Henrik Svensmark, lead author of the new report. “In experiments over many years, we have shown that ionizing rays help to form small molecular clusters.

    ‘Critics have argued that the clusters cannot grow large enough to affect cloud formation significantly. But our current research, of which the reported SKY2 experiment forms just one part, contradicts their conventional view. Now we want to close in on the details of the unexpected chemistry occurring in the air, at the end of the long journey that brought the cosmic rays here from exploded stars.’

  46. #46 Stu
    September 5, 2013

    Answer the fucking questions properly.

    Aww, Luke’s such a cute little troll. Jonas Jr.

    Claiming to know science better than scientists (without any scientific background), excellent. Penalty points for lying about it like a fucking moron though. How long until the “real science” crap starts?

    Oh, wait, never mind.

    My bloke’s back from the US and he tells me only fuckwits would be backing OHC

    I’ve never, ever seen an argument from authority started with “my bloke”. That is epically, monumentally, mind-bogglingly stupid. Holy shit, Luke.

    Yes, good work, Gordo. It’s “it’s the sun! no, cosmic rays! no, something else! what do you mean I lied about all my temperatures? correlation? what do you mean?” Svensmark. I’m sure Monckton has written something recently, too.

  47. #47 el gordo
    September 5, 2013

    The active star hypothesis seems plausible, in light of the fact that an inactive star has seen temperatures remain static here on earth

  48. #48 Stu 2
    September 5, 2013

    Lotharsson @#94 previous page. While I can see that YOU PERSONALLY have mostly attempted to keep a solid debate afloat, the general level of discourse at deltoid has overwhelmingly degraded into personal attacks and crude defensive posturing.
    Most here are more interested in creating ill informed psycho analysis based on nothing but a few comments at a blog.
    Jeff Harvey @#73 previous page. The Greens political party have mostly hijacked your: “the climate science” as their policies show.
    For some reason this site is not allowing me to link the relevant policies but if you go to their site and type in – global governance- in the search section you will see some of it there.
    It is not a conspiracy as the policies are there for everyone to see.
    It has nothing to do with tea parties.

  49. #49 Stu
    September 5, 2013

    @Stu2: stop your tone trolling. It’s fucking pointless, childish and annoying. All denialists have to do to return to civilized discourse is STOP LYING.

    Oh wait. Is this the link you were talking about?

    http://greens.org.au/policies/global-governance

    Pick. Are you a moron or a liar?

  50. #50 Stu 2
    September 5, 2013

    Yes it is.
    Thank you for linking it Stu. I don’t know why this site would not let me link there but I don’t think it has anything to do with your hostile and childish questions.

  51. #51 el gordo
    September 5, 2013

    I support Stu2.

  52. #52 Lotharsson
    September 5, 2013

    BBD @#20 FTW.

    Luke jumped the shark a long time ago. Obsessively compulsively jumping over new and smaller sharks just doesn’t have the same zing.

  53. #53 el gordo
    September 5, 2013

    Somebody remarked the other day that the physics is set in concrete and cannot change, but the new Svensmark paper contradicts that assumption.

  54. #54 Lotharsson
    September 5, 2013

    While I can see that YOU PERSONALLY have mostly attempted to keep a solid debate afloat, the general level of discourse at deltoid has overwhelmingly degraded into personal attacks and crude defensive posturing.

    Firstly, a determined troll can almost always produce this outcome in any forum. If you decry it, then at least consider trying to sheet home the blame to the root cause.

    Secondly, some “attacks” that one might consider “personal” are necessary because they are accurate, and that accuracy is the only way of countering bad faith. Luke, for example, is a self-admitted fabulist for effect, demonstrably lies when he characterises the responses to his claims, contradicts himself and then claims that he didn’t, makes claims that are clearly inaccurate and continues to make them after the inaccuracy is demonstrated, and so forth. It is not possible to have a good faith debate without calling out bad faith participants and tactics (unless you have a moderator who simply removes the bad faith comments – and then you simply substitute a different set of noisy complaints from the bad faith participants for the ones you’ve avoided).

    Thirdly, in response to being called on it, many bad faith participants try to paint this as “personal attacks” and “lowering the tone” or “avoiding debate” as a means of deflecting the accurate observations of their tactics. If you don’t see the whole picture, especially who is apparently trying to act in good faith and who is trying to disrupt any good faith discussion, and instead focus on these complaints you’re advancing their disruptive goals.

    Most here are more interested in creating ill informed psycho analysis based on nothing but a few comments at a blog.

    The thing is, given the nature of the blog and the kind of bad faith participant that it attracts, the length of time and range of bad faith tactics that most long-time readers have been exposed to here, and the breadth of bad arguments we’ve seen, “a few comments” is all it takes to be about 95% accurate in judging whether someone is being mendacious or not. Occasionally the initial judgement is wrong, but in most of those cases as more evidence comes in that gets corrected.

    (And there’s a long baseline of evidence that “it’s always projection” is about 95% accurate too. The reason why projection is deployed, apart from any personal psychological “benefits”, is that it is an effective trolling tactic. It tends to shift the topic from pointing out dodgy scientific claims to other participants and wastes their time and energy denying falsehoods asserted about them, and even shifts the topic to meta discussions like “this blog is full of personal attacks and not much science”.)

    So if you want to have a good faith discussion here, keep acting in good faith yourself and show that you don’t fit the bad faith profile, and have a conversation with those who respond in kind, regardless of all of the other simultaneous conversations going on.

    Ideally follow this kind of process. Be prepared to explain your evidence and argument, clarify where necessary, ask others for clarification where necessary, withdraw and/or modify your argument if it is shown to rely on unsubstantiated claims. And since this is about science, try to communicate and reason in ways that acknowledge that most scientific knowledge leads to a range of values (e.g. confidence intervals) and associated likelihoods.

    (And try to assess whether other participants here are doing the same. If there are a couple who aren’t, and removal of their contributions and the responses they generate would result in removal of most of what you object to…well, draw your own conclusions. And ideally ignore that part of the blog. Nobody says you have to read every comment or commenter.)

  55. #55 Lotharsson
    September 5, 2013

    …but the new Svensmark paper contradicts that assumption.

    You’ve got it arse-backwards again.

    If Svensmark’s new paper is right – which isn’t obvious yet despite your apparent assertion to that effect, and which would be a minor miracle given how many times he’s got it wrong (but maybe this time he’s cracked it!) – then physics won’t have changed.

    It would be our understanding of physics that would be extended. (None of which revokes our previous understanding, unless something very profound has been discovered.)

    If you’re a betting man, based on his past record alone, you would need long odds before plunking dollars down on Svensmark. There isn’t a huge amount of variation left to explain, so if his claimed effect is large then he needs to explain why it mimics effects from other causes effectively enough to fool us up until now.

    And if it’s a small effect then it doesn’t significantly change the case for concern, does it?

  56. #56 el gordo
    September 5, 2013

    It doesn’t explain the mechanisms on the ground, but that’s for others to draw the dots.

    If it could be shown that the LIA and MWP were influenced by the sun’s activity, to a great degree, it would have a profound effect on the AGW theory.

  57. #57 Stu 2
    September 5, 2013

    That was disappointing Lotharsson. It is disappointing because you have offered no reason why this once interesting site has degenerated into personal and political sledging.While I do believe some of your argument has merit, I see no evidence that there is much of what you would call – discussion in good faith- operating at this site. We could also take Stu or Chek or Bernard along with Luke as an example of what has gone wrong here but it really doesn’t prove anything anyway.
    From my reading of the recent antics on this site, the real issue is more likely that the politics surrounding any hope of any sensible action to mitigate AGW or Climate Change has miserably failed.

  58. #58 Karen
    September 5, 2013

    “That was disappointing Lotharsson. It is disappointing because you have offered no reason why this once interesting site has degenerated into personal and political sledging.”

    Stu 2, they lost the debate, it’s all they have.

  59. #59 Karen
    September 5, 2013

    “That was disappointing Lotharsson. It is disappointing because you have offered no reason why this once interesting site has degenerated into personal and political sledging.”

    Stu 2, they lost the debate, it’s all they have.

    All of the esoteric prophetic predictions failed alongside the temperature gauge.

    eg. no warming for 17 yrs, reduced hurricane/cyclone activity, it still snows, there is no persistent and/or perpetual drought, the mass balance of Antarctica has not changed and it’s sea ice extent is a bumper crop, this year the Arctic ice cap was supposed to be gone but as you can see there is as much ice there as was in 1995.

    ect ect ect ect :)

    personal and political sledging is all they have….. lol

  60. #60 Karen
    September 5, 2013

    oh !!!!

    I pushed the submit button once and got one and a half post’s ?

    lol………….. It must be the magical Luke doing it :)

  61. #61 Lotharsson
    September 5, 2013

    It is disappointing because you have offered no reason why this once interesting site has degenerated into personal and political sledging.

    That is disappointing because it’s a false frame, and it is a false representation of my comment.

    Read what I wrote again. (If nothing else, the bit about Tim not posting here much any more.)

    BTW, this site has ALWAYS had its quota of personal and political sledging. It comes with the territory, and especially with the trolls.

    While I do believe some of your argument has merit, I see no evidence that there is much of what you would call – discussion in good faith- operating at this site.

    a) Be the site you want to read.

    b) It’s definitely here. The people – some of whom you go on to criticise as “examples” – who skewer the ignorant and unscientific bullshit written here are acting in good faith. Good faith doesn’t mean refraining from calling a spade a spade, or even refraining from adding insults to the good faith discussion.

    Complaining about the level of good faith discussion vs the rest isn’t useful. Unless there’s solid moderation that level is at the mercy of anyone who wants to show up and change it. If you want to contribute to changing it for the better, please do – or go find Tim and strongly suggest that it’s time for some moderation, especially since trolls like el gordo are violating their conditions of participation here by commenting outside of their jail threads.

  62. #62 Jeff Harvey
    September 5, 2013

    “Stu 2, they lost the debate, it’s all they have”

    Really? The scientific community and every major scientific body on Earth sure doesn’t see it that way. You are living again in your deluded world, Karen.

    Ohm and y the way, which ‘Karen’ is going to contaminate this blog again today? The ‘the warming is evidenced in environmental science studies but we don’t yet know the cause’ Karen or the ‘it isn’t warming’ Karen? Are there any more ‘Karen’s’ who might pop up here?

    You’re such a joke – you and your acolytes.

  63. #63 Lotharsson
    September 5, 2013

    Stu 2, if you want to make a positive contribution feel free to take on Karen’s unsubstantiated claims at #59. And if you want to study bad faith participation in action, watch what happens when you do.

  64. #64 Olaus Petri
    September 5, 2013

    Jeffie dear, can’t be easy being you. :-) The spot on Napoleon reference really gets under your skin, doesn’t it. I don’t want to ruin your selfgrandeur-day even more, but if I remember this correctly (and I might not), you being identified as a emperor penguine, was my observation. ;-)

    Not that it was difficult or anything, but I soon noticed how effortless your right hand found its way into your shirt. ;-)

  65. #65 Karen
    September 5, 2013

    Mr el gordo to you Lothie.

    How could you call him a troll ?

    el is a thorough gentleman……………

  66. #66 Jeff Harvey
    September 5, 2013

    Stu 2:

    Some advice. Don’t take blog science too seriously. You appear to think that the field of climate science is largely restricted to the internet for some strange reason, conveniently forgetting that the scientific community by-and-large has moved on. AGW is pretty well accepted amongst every major scientific organization on Earth. Been there – done that. You’ll be hard pressed to find a university or research institute that questions the science any more. We are now onto examining the ecological and physiological responses of biota – plants and animals – to regional warming, and how these responses will shape the rules governing the assembly and functioning of ecosystems. Some of this research I am involved in – we have seen large scale shifts in the distributions of species over the past 30 years i.e. shifts polewards and to higher elevations. We have also seen changes in the seasonal phenology of species and an increase in the number of generations in some insects during the growing season.

    So is it warming? Yes, beyond any reasonable doubt. There are too many natural proxies to ignore. For their part, the political and ideological driven deniers or AGW down-players (keeps a dork like Luke happy) don’t do science and are confined for the most part to the blogosphere. That’s a good thing in that these people have precisely zero influence on the scientific discourse that ultimately drives public policy.

    The truth is that AGW is very real; what we don’t fully understand are the mid to longer term ecological and environmental consequences but we are working on it (by ‘we’ I mean working scientists like myself and many colleagues around the world). Luke has recently spewed nonsense about ecological effects being confined to models but of course that’s utter nonsense. The empirical literature is replete with studies showing actual biotic responses, and in some cases demographic shifts and local declines that are certainly attributable to the recent warming.

    So again, if the blog is your thing, then be prepared to be bombarded with a lot of garbage. Sadly, many of the deniers appear to glean everything they know about climate science from blogs. If one relies on the likes of WUWT, Nova, CA, ClimateDepot, Bishop’s Hill et al. for their information then they are simply contaminating their brains with bilge. One has to be able to read and understand the peer-reviewed literature, which these blogs habitually either ignore, cherry pick, or distort.

  67. #67 Lotharsson
    September 5, 2013

    If it could be shown that the LIA and MWP were influenced by the sun’s activity, to a great degree, it would have a profound effect on the AGW theory.

    Well, given that evidence indicates that there was no global synchronous MWP, you’d have demonstrated a non-existent effect of a mechanism. Profound indeed.

  68. #68 Jeff Harvey
    September 5, 2013

    Olaus, you are like a stand up comedian who isn’t funny. Your role as part of the the Scandinavian troll collective was forever to massage the ego of your hero. I don’t recall you ever discussing real science here – in fact, all indications are that you’ve never read a peer reviewed article in the primary literature in your life.

    Like the other dolts who deny the existence of AGW on Deltoid, you’ve repeatedly worn your right wing political affiliations on your sleeve. You clowns can’t help it – the ‘commie’, ‘greenpiss’, bilge that your types constantly spew out is proof positive of your affiliations. Poor old Karen even had to dredge up a video of a Green Party meeting in Oz as evidence of a left wing global conspiracy.

    For once in your miserable life, try and say something with content, Ollie. otherwise visit your guru and soothe his wounded ego.

  69. #69 chek
    September 5, 2013

    Stu2, as if on cue, there’s some outright trolling from Petri.
    I’ll defer to your handling of such, for now.

  70. #70 Lotharsson
    September 5, 2013

    el is a thorough gentleman

    Thorough gentlemen don’t repeat falsehoods after they have been demonstrated thus, unless they have cognitive issues. I admit neither possibility can be eliminated to date.

  71. #71 Stu 2
    September 5, 2013

    Lotharsson
    Do you want me to follow this sage advice from you @# 54:
    ——-
    “So if you want to have a good faith discussion here, keep acting in good faith yourself and show that you don’t fit the bad faith profile, and have a conversation with those who respond in kind, regardless of all of the other simultaneous conversations going on.”
    Or this one from you @# 63:
    ————
    “Stu 2, if you want to make a positive contribution feel free to take on Karen’s unsubstantiated claims at #59. And if you want to study bad faith participation in action, watch what happens when you do.” ?
    Because those two pieces of advice appear to be sort of contradictory don’t you think?
    And Jeff Harvey @#66 ?
    Thank you for your comment. I am not inclined to find my science from blogs. My question was what has happened to this blog. Perhaps Lotharsson is on the money and it’s because Tim lambert no longer contributes?

  72. #72 Karen
    September 5, 2013

    “Now, as the IPCC puts the finishing touches to the latest report, some of the climate scientists involved argue the mammoth effort of getting hundreds of scientists to review hundreds of journal articles – all on a volunteer basis – would be better put to studying regional impacts of climate change, or specific phenomena.

    “I think myself that the IPCC has outgrown its usefulness in the way in which it does things,” said Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.

    Andrew Weaver, a lead IPCC author and a Green party leader who earlier this year was elected to the British Columbia legislature, agreed it was time to shift away from the blockbuster style of reports.”
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/04/scientists-overhaul-un-climate-report-ipcc

    They need to restructure the scare story, the gravy train funding must be drying up as more and more people/politicians are waking up that CO2 has not caused the (natural) warming, they know that temperature’s have stabilized whilst CO2 emissions have risen substantially.

  73. #73 Karen
    September 5, 2013

    “Tim lambert no longer contributes?”

    Why ?

    Because he woke up to the scam.

  74. #74 el gordo
    September 5, 2013

    ‘…especially since trolls like el gordo are violating their conditions of participation here by commenting outside of their jail threads.’

    Christ all bloody mighty, you want me to go back to my Dickensian gaol cell.

    The world has moved on, this is an open thread and the warmists are living in the past. Its going to be hard giving up your belief system, so may I suggest my global cooling meme as a stop gap measure.

    We have catastrophes too.

  75. #75 rhwombat
    September 5, 2013

    Stu2: Watch & learn
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=047vmL6Q_4g
    I wonder why Spam missed it?

    I still think you are a tone troll from the denialist dimensions. This is an essentially unmoderated blog, where one can learn much by watching how denialista trolls all reveal their bias by cracking under pressure (sometimes remarkably little pressure eg the Freddiot or Luke) in the face of the sane and informed commentariat. No one forces you to participate in this forum (unless you are one of Rupert’s minions), so your unilateral attempts to protest are rather hollow. Like you.

  76. #76 Karen
    September 5, 2013

    “For the past 15 years global temparatures have stopped rising. Allegedly, it’s because the Pacific is cooling – but that reason doesn’t quite convince German climate researcher Hans von Storch. ”

    ” And this wasn’t the case with global warming?

    No. Also the story we’re dealing with now, about the cooler eastern Pacific, is only being explained in retrospect – trying to explain why we haven’t have any warming over the past 15 years. But these sorts of explanations always have a somewhat stale taste to them. A better one would be to say: “Okay, it could be like this – we can’t rule this out – but there also could be other reasons.”

    On the contrary; they jump with enthusiasm to the first best explanation that doesn’t shake up our worldview. But instead, we should be asking why our models don’t take certain factors into consideration. Our explanation could be correct, but it might also be that our instruments at this moment are just not as good as we want them to be.

    One possibility is that the natural variations in the system are being reflected too weakly. For instance, it could mean that the El Ninos and El Ninas aren’t factored in enough. This explanation that we’re reading in “Nature” right now is in the same category. It might also be that the models put the concentration of CO2 too high, or that there are other factors not being included – like the sun, for instance, which we haven’t considered at all so far.”

    http://www.dw.de/climate-scientists-too-easily-jump-to-conclusions/a-17060565

    The faulty CO2 hypothesis is heading to the dust bin :)

  77. #77 Karen
    September 5, 2013

    rhwombat, please change your avatar.

    Nobody here is interested in your amatory liaison with a wombat, I am sure that there are bestiality websites somewhere out there that would appreciate your deviant photo collection.

    Try google………

  78. #78 chek
    September 5, 2013

    The problem with being illiterate SpamKan is you don’t comprehend things, and your spoon-fed spin (and spam repeats from elsewhere) on the IPCC report periods shows that.

    What Trenberth and others are saying is that all-inclusive reports six years apart don’t address the accelerating nature of climate change and the reports can be out of date by the time they’re released.

    I think the fourth or fifth comment on the Guardian story wonders how long until deniers do just as you’re doing and you’re nothing if not predictable.

  79. #79 chameleon
    September 5, 2013

    Don’t believe them for a second Stu 2!
    This comment from me will very likely languish in moderation.
    What they REALLY can’t tolerate is anyone asking them questions about the failed political agenda.
    I got clipped and I was not ever rude or abusive.
    Lotharsson is pompous lecturer who doesn’t follow his own
    advice: to the extreme! as you seem to have noticed.
    :-) :-) chuckle.

    Ask him about RIH (Ritual Intellectual Humiliation)

  80. #80 chek
    September 5, 2013

    rhwombat, please change your avatar. Nobody here is interested in your amatory liaison with a wombat, I am sure that there are bestiality websites somewhere out there that would appreciate your deviant photo collection.

    You’re not familiar with Rorschach tests then, SpamKan.

  81. #81 Lotharsson
    September 5, 2013

    Because those two pieces of advice appear to be sort of contradictory don’t you think?

    No, I don’t think they contradictory in the slightest. In addition, they are complementary. One is contributing in good faith oneself, the other is finding out for yourself how the trolls lower the signal to noise ratio of the blog – which goes to your earlier argument that seems to be saying it’s not the trolls’ fault there’s so much “noise” accompanying the signal here. Experiencing it for yourself is far more valuable than me telling you how it goes.

    And one can definitely engage in good faith oneself even if the other party is note engaging in good faith, so the second piece of advice doesn’t contradict the first on that score.

  82. #82 Karen
    September 5, 2013

    “You’re not familiar with Rorschach tests then, SpamKan.”

    chek, so…..you are saying that rh is a blot.

    Noun, blot

    1/ A blemish, spot or stain made by a coloured substance.  

    2/ A stain on someone’s reputation or character; a disgrace.

    Yeah :) I’ll go with number 2

  83. #83 chek
    September 5, 2013

    No SpamKan, what I’m saying is that what you think you perceive illustrates your mental state. And it’s not a pretty sight.

  84. #84 Karen
    September 5, 2013

    chek, are you a dark skinned person ?

  85. #85 chek
    September 5, 2013

    The relevance being, SpamKan?

  86. #86 Karen
    September 5, 2013

    Just curiosity.

    y or n ?

  87. #87 BBD
    September 5, 2013

    #75 rhwombat

    Agreed wrt Sock 2 – denialist tone troll.

  88. #88 BBD
    September 5, 2013

    Karen WTF?

    Here’s you, a sock-puppeting blog weirdo who pretends to be a girl, hassling chek over his ethnicity?

    It just gets stranger and stranger in here…

  89. #89 Karen
    September 5, 2013

    lol…..wrong on all counts BB

  90. #90 BBD
    September 5, 2013

    Your problem – and make no mistake Karen, it is *your* problem – is that nobody else believes you. All the non-troll regulars are who have observed you over time are convinced that you are the multisock KarenMackSunspot and most seem fairly sure you aren’t even female.

    Now remember that this is virtual environment. What the majority of others think is what *is*. Which is why you have a problem. Because not only does everyone think you are a multisock female impersonator, they also know you are an ignorant, spamming fuckwit who doesn’t know when Greenland ends and the Eemian begins!

  91. #91 Olaus Petri
    September 5, 2013

    Jeffie, that was a long “sorry for being wrong again Olaus”. :-)

  92. #92 Karen
    September 5, 2013

    Well you are a confused bunch, if I was a sock Timmy would have banned me.
    The retarded idiot, barnturd, or should that be defective barnturd, was the only one that thought that, you BBD have been sucked into barnturds delusion.

  93. #93 chek
    September 5, 2013

    Delusional perception seems to be quite the common disorder with the trolls.

  94. #94 Karen
    September 5, 2013

    Chek, what colour are your eye’s ?

  95. #95 Luke
    September 5, 2013

    Yes Jeff one has to agree about the phenological response http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/abs/nature06937.html anyone who says otherwise can get straight fucked.

  96. #96 chameleon
    September 5, 2013

    Seeeeeeeee?
    Luke was always your friend.
    Silly deltoids!

  97. #97 chek
    September 5, 2013

    I’m not wearing any, SpamKan.

  98. #98 BBD
    September 5, 2013

    Karen

    TL hasn’t banned the small army of socks that pop up and down here. Your “defence” is bollocks!

    eye’s ?

    Oh FFS!

    ;-)

  99. #99 chameleon
    September 5, 2013

    That’s probably right BBD.
    Instead he or the moderator/s ban people who ask too many questions.
    The Freddy sock stays and others who are not socks get put in perpetual moderation.
    Go figure :-)

  100. #100 Karen
    September 5, 2013

    Sheep: A vulnerable person who would rather follow than make an independent decision