August 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 el gordo
    September 7, 2013

    I’m going to recant Scafetta because of this ridiculous comment.

    ‘The climate will likely stay steady until 2030/2040 and may warm by about 0.3-1.2 °C by 2100.’

  2. #2 Karen
    September 7, 2013
  3. #3 BBD
    September 7, 2013

    More flat-out physics denial from Gordy, who has yet to take up the Freddy Challenge!

    Wonder why?

    Could it be because it would cause problems for people indulging in physics denial?

    Could that be it?

    :-)

  4. #4 BBD
    September 7, 2013

    Karen #97

    Yet again you are using the apostrophe incorrectly! Get a grip, you illiterate clown!

  5. #5 Karen
    September 7, 2013

    Did someone mention Marcott ?

    “Marcott et al. make this startling admission:

    Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

    A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

    Got that?

    In case you missed it, I repeat:

    . . . the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes . . .”

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/fixing-marcott-mess-in-climate-science.html

  6. #6 Karen
    September 7, 2013

    “Yet again you are using the apostrophe incorrectly! Get a grip, you illiterate clown!”

    lol’s

  7. #7 Karen
    September 7, 2013

    THREE CHEERS

    FOR THE DEATH

    OF THE

    HARMLESS GAS TAX :)

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

  8. #8 Lotharsson
    September 7, 2013

    Karen repeats the clarification Marcott put out specifically to correct the mistaken interpretation of denialists so favoured of Karen, in the mistaken impression it supports her position.

    It’s difficult to learn to clown troll like this, you have to be either very determined to be stupid, or be born to it.

  9. #9 BBD
    September 7, 2013

    Karen

    Your ignorance and stupidity are boundless!

    Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

    Got that?

    Shall we check?

    and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

    They don’t base any of their conclusions on the “uptick”. They do not use it.

    You fucking clown!

    Pielke had his thick head up his arse over this too.

    Idiots!

  10. #10 BBD
    September 7, 2013

    Lotharsson – we crossed, sorry.

    On a general note, it’s good to see the blog working again properly.

  11. #11 BBD
    September 7, 2013

    This, dear Lurker, is how the denial machine works. Large amounts of faux-controversy are generated by prominent “sceptics” whenever something they really don’t like emerges, such as Marcott et al. (2013).

    The not-very-bright-but-always-on spammers and trolls then infest every blog from which they are not actively barred with repetitions of the half-baked nonsense they have been fed by their ringmasters.

    Despite endless correction, they then repeat the balderdash for ever, and ever, amen.

    This is anti-science propaganda being used to create confusion and doubt.

  12. #12 Lotharsson
    September 7, 2013

    On a general note, it’s good to see the blog working again properly.

    If that’s accurate, then it’s interesting timing.

  13. #13 Lotharsson
    September 7, 2013

    This, dear Lurker, is how the denial machine works.

    The extension of the observation to certain aspects of Australian politics is left as an exercise for the reader.

  14. #14 BBD
    September 7, 2013

    #7

    I actually wondered out loud here a couple of pages back if the DOS would stop after the election. And as if by magic!

    With a bit of luck the more egregious trolling will die down somewhat too.

    Speaking of egregious, I wonder what happened to Betty? He’s really gone, hasn’t he?

  15. #15 chek
    September 7, 2013

    Can’t believe SpanKan tried to misrepresent that Marcott et al comment here, complete with the underlining “Got that?” interrogative. Do they really think everybody is as stupid as … oh wait, I guess that’s one of the measures of clowns.

  16. #16 chek
    September 7, 2013

    I read a story that Romney pulled the plug on his election office funding as soon as the 2012 US results became apparent. Credit cards stopped and accounts closed forthwith, so much so that some of his hapless staffers who’d stayed behind to tidy up their offices found their taxis home were not paid for and had to stump up the cash themselves.

    We can but hope.

  17. #17 Lionel A
    September 7, 2013

    McIntyre has so shredded all this crap…

    So please explain, with references, how that works.

  18. #18 chek
    September 7, 2013

    Can’t be done, Lionel. But should the surface be scratched it’ll be their ‘hockey stick is broken’ myth that sustains the alternate reality they live in.

  19. #19 Olaus Petri
    September 7, 2013
  20. #20 chek
    September 7, 2013

    We can infer that yours hasn’t, Olap.

  21. #21 Olaus Petri
    September 7, 2013

    Chin up cheek! ;-)

    The end here!

  22. #22 Olaus Petri
    September 7, 2013

    is

  23. #23 Jeff Harvey
    September 7, 2013

    Well, form the WUWT post, its clear exactly wear Watts and his cronies wear their political colors – and Olaus and the other ass**** who contaminate the blogosphere. Far-right libertarian free market absolutists. Writing, “Open for Business” is merely a metaphor for “Open for deregulation and environmental plunder”. And its not just a reference to climate change denial. Oh no. It goes way beyond that. It includes any area dealing with environmental protection: pollution laws, protecting natural forests and wetlands and other critical habitats. All of this will be wiped away. The environment is private property to be used and abused as necessary to maximize profits. And, as Olaus ignorantly points out,. this is what the new Oz government will pursue.

    Well done Ollie. You just demonstrated what a right wing twit you, WUWT and the other climate change denial blogs really are.

  24. #24 chek
    September 7, 2013

    No it isn’t, you’re just as stupid and inept as ever Olap.

  25. #25 Jeff Harvey
    September 7, 2013

    Karen: “bye bye Flannery, bye bye Steffen, bye bye carbon tax”

    Bye bye wetlands, bye bye forests, bye bye biodiversity, bye bye vital ecosystem services…

    hello inflation as goods increase in price as a result…

  26. #26 Lionel A
    September 7, 2013

    As for the election result in Australia, Sou has some mollifying words here, worth a read for those, like me, who know little about the Australian political structure.

  27. #27 BBD
    September 7, 2013

    Well. Astonishingly, we have not one single taker for the Freddy Challenge, which (as gentle lurkers and fellow combatants may by now need reminding) was to answer this question:

    If GHGs are an inefficacious forcing, what physical mechanism explains the PETM?

    Indeed, Freddy simply vanished and hasn’t been seen since. Luke’s big mouth abruptly closed and hasn’t been heard since. Gordy and Karen remain uncharacteristically silent. And so on.

  28. #28 BBD
    September 7, 2013

    #21 Lionel A.

    Read earlier, with interest. A really good, balanced bit of reportage by Sou. Better than much of the guff in the papers. Recommended.

  29. #29 Luke
    September 7, 2013

    This would have to be the most stupid fuckwitted comment from the blog devotee who professes to be very smart

    “Bye bye wetlands, bye bye forests, bye bye biodiversity, bye bye vital ecosystem services…
    hello inflation as goods increase in price as a result…”

    What an amazing amount of utter dogshit. What rot. What tripe. How does a small insignificant action by Australia affect anything except the level of dementia in Jeff’s brain. What utter drivel.

    BBD – you putrid little creep – unlike yourself we have a life and don’t need to be here 24×7 – so if we’re not here 24×7 with you to answer your every thought fart – “we’ve disappeared”. BTW I quote PETM to El Gordo all the time – so fuck off. I don’t read half the crap you write and at this point I am totally amused and your ongoing conspiracy theories.

  30. #30 BBD
    September 7, 2013

    So why not answer the question, Luke?

  31. #31 Berendaneke
    September 7, 2013

    BBD political propagandist and climate layman

    Well. Astonishingly, we have not one single taker for the Freddy Challenge, which (as gentle lurkers and fellow combatants may by now need reminding) was to answer this question:

    If GHGs are an inefficacious forcing, what physical mechanism explains the PETM?

    Indeed, Freddy simply vanished and hasn’t been seen since. Luke’s big mouth abruptly closed and hasn’t been heard since. Gordy and Karen remain uncharacteristically silent. And so on.

    As far as I know there is no Freddy as commenter here active, so you talk to a wall, typical for you.

    Your stubborn fixation on paleoclimatology is ridiculous since this happened long time ago and nobody was there to watch. Forget this crap. It’s boring, irrelevant and wrong.

    You shoud provide some evidenc that CO2 heats the air by x degrees Celsius. Try it, greenpisser

  32. #32 Stu
    September 7, 2013

    @Jeff: it’s hard to bet against a denialist being libertarian, bigoted and a MRA.

    Oh, and I forgot publicly educated and almost certainly depending on some sort of government assistance. Not that there’s anything wrong with these last two, but it’s hard to ignore he hypocrisy, lack of self-awareness, general dickholishness as well as the stupendous irony of it all.

  33. #33 Luke
    September 7, 2013

    Jeez you’re so tedious – I am in agreement that GHG forcing is the best explanation for the the PETM.

  34. #34 Stu
    September 7, 2013

    Freddy, you’re not fooling anyone sweetheart.

    Your stubborn fixation on paleoclimatology is ridiculous

    So anyone saying “the climate was warmer before”, “Eemian herpa-derpa” is ridiculous? Have you told your fellow denialists, cupcake? They seem determined to bring it up over and over.

  35. #35 BBD
    September 7, 2013

    #28 Thank you Luke!

    Now what puzzles me is why you are sceptical about the scientific consensus that a very rapid increase in GHGs will cause significant warming on a centennial scale. Why is that?

    It’s also odd that you allow the constant stream of physics denial by certain commenters here to pass uncorrected. Why is that?

    And one other thing. When did you last comment at Jo Nova’s? I don’t recall you answering that question, which is peculiar given that you constantly exhort commenters here to go to JN’s.

  36. #36 BBD
    September 7, 2013

    Berendaneke

    Forget this crap. It’s boring, irrelevant and wrong.

    So you have asserted before. Please explain your reasoning. Please answer the question:

    If GHGs are an inefficacious forcing, what physical mechanism explains the PETM?

  37. #37 chek
    September 7, 2013

    Your stubborn fixation on paleoclimatology is ridiculous since this happened long time ago and nobody was there to watch.

    Ah, the Ken Ham defence.
    First time I’ve seen that used here.

  38. #38 Luke
    September 7, 2013

    BBD – The consensus position is far from perfect.

    “constant stream of physics denial by certain commenters here to pass uncorrected” well who cares really – fucks will be fucks – getting the consensus shortcomings sorted is more important. You guys swing at every wide ball and allow yourselves to get towed around the pond and you also love to chase rabbits. You can show some leadership you know.

    When did I last comment at Nova’s – truthfully not sure. If you go too hard you get snipped. My Dead Agro’s drive-by was recent but maybe not the last. Dunno – is it important?

    “Why exhort commenters to go over there” – well don’t care that much really – but on some issues – like power generation you’ll get a decent debate. And you need to immerse yourself in the opposition milieu – but you don’t need to get too upset over it. Half the time I’m just fucking with ya.

  39. #39 Vince Whirlwind
    September 7, 2013

    So, unser Swiss freund is a creationist as well? Who knew?

    Freddy, there have been numerous sensitivity studies. Look them up. They say its 3 degrees for a doubling of CO2.
    *That* is the best answer currently available to us – an answer provided by science.

  40. #40 Lionel A
    September 7, 2013

    How does a small insignificant action by Australia affect anything except the level of dementia in Jeff’s brain. What utter drivel.

    Because, oh brain of small disconnected parts, Australia happens to be sitting on enough ‘black diamonds’ (Jules Verne) the burning of which would cause a greater than doubling of CO2, tons of toxic sludge and great distress to one of the worlds natural wonder ‘The Great Barrier Reef’ through plans to transship the stuff through it. Then there is the development along the Indian Ocean coast of Western Australia which will now probably be pursued with even greater vigour.

    One really has to have their head deep in the sands of the outback to not appreciate all this.

    You are the one that writes ill-informed drivel luke.

  41. #41 BBD
    September 7, 2013

    Luke

    The consensus position is far from perfect.

    Scientific knowledge is always imperfect. That is not an argument for dismissing the scientific consensus that a rapid increase in RF will cause a significant warming on a centennial scale. Which is what is at issue here. Rather, it is nit-picking. Nit-picking is not a robust scientific counter-argument to the scientific consensus. That is notably lacking.

    But there’s a hell of a lot of nit-picking.

    Half the time I’m just fucking with ya.

    Perhaps a better use of your time would be correcting the arrant shite spewed out by others?

  42. #42 el gordo
    September 7, 2013

    ‘Bye bye wetlands, bye bye forests, bye bye biodiversity, bye bye vital ecosystem services…’

    Abbott’s Green Army will supposedly attend to those things.

  43. #43 el gordo
    September 7, 2013

    ‘That would mean he would have to call another election.’

    I want a double D election because it would be over a single issue…. climate change. The MSM would be full of it and how the people will laff when they realise CO2 is a harmless trace gas.

  44. #44 Stu
    September 7, 2013

    Wait, is Abbott proposing to buy boats from human smugglers? Just full of bright ideas, isn’t he?

  45. #45 Stu
    September 7, 2013

    When did I last comment at Nova’s – truthfully not sure. If you go too hard you get snipped. My Dead Agro’s drive-by was recent but maybe not the last. Dunno – is it important?

    Open admission of drive-by trolling on another blog. Luke, most trolls are smart enough to keep this to themselves.

  46. #46 Stu
    September 7, 2013

    I just realized Gordo is so fucking stupid he’s just cribbing. Behold.

    http://debatewise.org/debates/455-co2-does-not-cause-global-warming/

  47. #47 BBD
    September 7, 2013

    Abbott’s Green Army will supposedly attend to those things.

    Your foolishness and denial does its bit, Gordy!

    What you did in the climate wars!

    Bravo, Clown!

    Be sure to tell your grandchildren.

    ;-)

  48. #48 el gordo
    September 7, 2013

    The significance of a Coalition win is that it will allow heretics to speak openly about climate change, without being abused by friends and family.

    Being a pariah has not been fun.

  49. #49 chek
    September 7, 2013

    when they realise CO2 is a harmless trace gas.

    I’m sure you’ll be at pains to point out that your “harmless trace gas” supports the entire vegetable kingdom (I’m putting this in terms Gordon can understand, unlike the Plasticene Easyplan Thermador Maxipop that he and The Lukes are forever rabbiting on about down the pub) as well as acting as a thermal storage equaliser that helps stop the night side of the Earth from freezing.

    Yes, I’m sure you will. It’s at the top of the cretins’ list of what ‘harmless trace gases’ do.

  50. #50 BBD
    September 7, 2013

    Being a pariah has not been fun.

    Oh Gordy, you ain’t seen nothing yet. And perhaps you won’t. It depends on how old you are and how long you live.

    The science-denying right, however, will pay the price for what it has done, in the end. Physics will make sure of that.

  51. #51 Turboblocke
    September 7, 2013

    Being a pariah has not been fun. I don’t think you’re going to enjoy your future then.

  52. #52 el gordo
    September 7, 2013

    ‘Physics will make sure of that.’

    I agree, Svensmark’s theory has legs.

  53. #53 el gordo
    September 7, 2013

    With so many people brainwashed into thinking CO2 is a ‘pollutant’, I’m sure you can appreciate we still have a lot of work to do.

  54. #54 BBD
    September 7, 2013

    Ah, takes me back. To when the future was so bright…

    I had to wear shades!

  55. #55 chek
    September 7, 2013

    No Gordon, Svensmark hasn’t gained any traction for over ten years and only cranks like you keep hanging on like grim death to his minor-league hypothesis. Lockwood showed no solar correlation and Sloan showed the same for GCRs.

    If fossil fuel corporations didn’t fund the anything-but-CO2 circus, you’d never have heard of him, let alone pretend to have any understanding of what he’s talking about.

  56. #56 BBD
    September 7, 2013

    I agree, Svensmark’s theory has legs.

    Actually, no, it doesn’t. Do look up the Laschamp excursion sometime. If you want a solid piece of evidence that the GCR/cloud effect does not produce a significant change in climate, that is it.

    Failing that, there’s a pile of recent studies that say the same thing.

    Here are a few:

    Evan et al. (2007)

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL028083/abstract

    Klein & Hartmann (1993)

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/93GL00211/abstract

    Marchand (2013)

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50207/abstract

  57. #57 el gordo
    September 7, 2013

    The theory that a quiet sun allows more cosmic rays to bombard earth, makes sense. This in turn sees the increase in microscopic cloud nuclei, forming clouds, which reflect solar radiation back into space.

  58. #58 chek
    September 7, 2013

    I had to wear shades!

    Awww, man – I recall rocking my two month old son around the room to that (he’s a 26 year old microbiology PhD student now). And it became a cynical catchphrase (yes! even back then!) in response to grandiose post-privatisation pronouncements the BT office where I worked at the time.

    All post the BBC’s Threads film, and Schell’s Fate of the Earth book and Chernobyl of course.

  59. #59 BBD
    September 7, 2013

    À la recherche du temps perdu.

  60. #60 chek
    September 7, 2013

    Let me correct that sentence for you Gordon:

    “The theory that a quiet sun allows more cosmic rays to bombard earth, makes sense” to my pig-ignorant, anti-scientific, poorly informed, wishful-thinking, no science knowledge whatsoever, politically charged alcohol damaged brain that is incapable of admitting that what’s been sold to me as a harmless trace gas is responsible for more than I could ever imagine.

    Isn’t that closer to the actual truth Gordon?

  61. #61 BBD
    September 7, 2013

    The theory that a quiet sun allows more cosmic rays to bombard earth, makes sense.

    This is not how it works, Gordy.

    Hypotheses are tested against evidence.

    For example:

    Laken et al. (2012) A cosmic ray-climate link and cloud observations

    Despite over 35 years of constant satellite-based measurements of cloud, reliable evidence of a long-hypothesized link between changes in solar activity and Earth’s cloud cover remains elusive. This work examines evidence of a cosmic ray cloud link from a range of sources, including satellite-based cloud measurements and long-term ground-based climatological measurements. The satellite-based studies can be divided into two categories: (1) monthly to decadal timescale analysis and (2) daily timescale epoch-superpositional (composite) analysis. The latter analyses frequently focus on sudden high-magnitude reductions in the cosmic ray flux known as Forbush decrease events. At present, two long-term independent global satellite cloud datasets are available (ISCCP and MODIS). Although the differences between them are considerable, neither shows evidence of a solar-cloud link at either long or short timescales. Furthermore, reports of observed correlations between solar activity and cloud over the 1983–1995 period are attributed to the chance agreement between solar changes and artificially induced cloud trends. It is possible that the satellite cloud datasets and analysis methods may simply be too insensitive to detect a small solar signal. Evidence from ground-based studies suggests that some weak but statistically significant cosmic ray-cloud relationships may exist at regional scales, involving mechanisms related to the global electric circuit. However, a poor understanding of these mechanisms and their effects on cloud makes the net impacts of such links uncertain. Regardless of this, it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds.

    Sloan & Wolfendale (2011) The contribution of cosmic rays to global warming

    A search has been made for a contribution of the changing cosmic ray intensity to the global warming observed in the last century. The cosmic ray intensity shows a strong 11 year cycle due to solar modulation and the overall rate has decreased since 1900. These changes in cosmic ray intensity are compared to those of the mean global surface temperature to attempt to quantify any link between the two. It is shown that, if such a link exists, the changing cosmic ray intensity contributes less than 8% to the increase in the mean global surface temperature observed since 1900.

  62. #62 BBD
    September 7, 2013

    #53

    I dread to think how my little lad will turn out, what with all the neglect and all!

    :-)

  63. #63 chek
    September 7, 2013

    @58 You’ll be OK I think, from what I’ve gleaned so far.
    Although I’d counsel with the utmost gravity to avoid divorce whatever it takes and no matter how unlikely it seems now
    .
    Certainly my sole regret in a somewhat colourful life, in that it affects others in ways beyond imagining,

  64. #64 el gordo
    September 7, 2013

    ‘Evidence from ground-based studies suggests that some weak but statistically significant cosmic ray-cloud relationships may exist at regional scales, involving mechanisms related to the global electric circuit. ‘

    That might be worth following up.

  65. #65 Luke
    September 7, 2013

    Trolling = anyone who disagrees with you according to Deltoids. Sock puppet – using any tag. Nova comments were appropriate and on-topic. Get straight fucked Stu! and and and – how perfect – now disagreeing with Nova is “trolling”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH you stupid fucking clowns

  66. #66 Luke
    September 7, 2013

    “Perhaps a better use of your time would be correcting the arrant shite spewed out by others?”

    why bother here – you utterly obsessed 24×7 circle jerkers can do that quite well all be yourself. Who could get a word in? Taken Johnny to the park lately BBD – tried not blogging for a few weeks?

  67. #67 BBD
    September 7, 2013

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    But you haven’t answered the question.

    Given the paleoclimate evidence, why are you sceptical about the scientific consensus that a very rapid increase in GHGs will cause significant warming on a centennial scale. Why is that?

  68. #68 chek
    September 7, 2013

    …. says the utterly bankrupt hypocrite known as The Lukes,

  69. #69 Luke
    September 7, 2013

    “Scientific knowledge is always imperfect. That is not an argument for dismissing the scientific consensus that a rapid increase in RF will cause a significant warming on a centennial scale. Which is what is at issue here. Rather, it is nit-picking. Nit-picking is not a robust scientific counter-argument to the scientific consensus. That is notably lacking.”

    I DON’T THINK SO !

    oh do play with your dick – a consensus of 2.4 to 6.4 broad as a barn. Without as I have well demonstrated a bunch of key points under questions. And an emerging debate that sensitivity might be even lower.

    Your task is to realise how government science works – I hope you are not some cossetted idealistic university fuck like Jeff? – how the whole meme is crafted and learn not to believe absolutely everything served up to you.

    The poor behaviour of the models should be enough to have you massively concerned. (Storch etc)

    It’s a blog. It’s not the IPCC Working group meetings. It’s for discussion.

    And if you are to convince people – well I’d just disagree with you coz you behave like a cunt. Try exploring other people’s issues and convince them without the tiresome appeal to authority.

  70. #70 Stu
    September 7, 2013

    Just to pile on, Gordo: what makes sense to you doesn’t make a lick of difference. Rational scientific behavior is to examine the evidence and accept where it leads you, whether you like it or not.

    You don’t like climate change. You ignore evidence for it even when we slap you around with it. You pretend nothing was said and go right back to your default “well, this is what I want to believe so this makes sense to me” position.

    It’s worse than religious apologetics, because at least most religions are smart enough to be untestable (by design) — so in any semi-honest conversation the apologist bows out with some form of “well, you can’t prove a negative, it’s all about faith anyway, goodnight”.

    This is a little different. Denialists range from the clinically insane (Monckton), to the I CAN PLAY WITH EXCEL! crowd (Scafetta, Tol), to the monumentally stupid (Watts, Montford), to the just-pay-me-Exxon (the Idso clan), to the should-know-better-but-probably-looking-for-that-paycheck (Curry)… but there’s no “agree to disagree” here. Nobody LIKES AGW, but the evidence is simply overwhelming.

    Accept it.

    Maybe then we can have the far more interesting conversation on what to do about it. And no, carbon taxes are not necessarily the perfect answer.

    Anyone want to have a serious conversation?

  71. #71 BBD
    September 7, 2013

    @chek #58

    Thank you! Whilst dear Luke will frott into a fury about circle-jerks, he cannot actually stop civilised discourse!

    no matter how unlikely it seems now

    The long game. I am only a humble student. We’ll see if I fuck it up or not in due course.

  72. #72 Luke
    September 8, 2013

    I’m far from convinced by the palaeo evidence.You love it as it suits your misery guts cataclysmic personality. I simply see it as a foggy window into a foggy past.

    The consensus isn’t certain ! The consensus has a range. The models are fucking not working. Santa has stolen the trop hotspot. Antarctica is gaining ice. Antarctic sea ice is growing. Extreme events droughts and floods are not getting worse. Evap is going the wrong way. The hockey stick is utter crap. The models are full of parameterisations and drift corrections. Multi-models averages plus or minus a barn are shit. Regional nesting is crap and masturbation.

    Take Johnny to the park and give up worrying about the world for a few weeks.

  73. #73 BBD
    September 8, 2013

    @ Luke

    You haven’t answered the question. Again.

    Given the paleoclimate evidence, why are you sceptical about the scientific consensus that a very rapid increase in GHGs will cause significant warming on a centennial scale. Why is that?

  74. #74 el gordo
    September 8, 2013

    ‘You don’t like climate change.’

    Shit happens, I’m against the theory of AGW.

  75. #75 BBD
    September 8, 2013

    I simply see it as a foggy window into a foggy past.

    Argument from incredulity and from ignorance.

    Two logical fallacies. You aren’t saying anything.

  76. #76 Luke
    September 8, 2013

    “Nobody LIKES AGW, but the evidence is simply overwhelming.”

    No you cunts LOVE it. It makes your entire day. Go on admit it.

  77. #77 el gordo
    September 8, 2013

    ‘It’s worse than religious apologetics’

    You are a little confused, I’m the heretic.

  78. #78 BBD
    September 8, 2013

    Given the paleoclimate evidence, why are you sceptical about the scientific consensus that a very rapid increase in GHGs will cause significant warming on a centennial scale? Why is that?

  79. #79 BBD
    September 8, 2013

    Come on Luke!

    Answer the question!

  80. #80 el gordo
    September 8, 2013

    ‘Anyone want to have a serious conversation?’

    Ask me a question?

  81. #81 Luke
    September 8, 2013

    I think El Gordo is wrong but strangely I don’t feel the need to engage him. In fact later I’m going to leave the house and go outside where I may touch plants and animals. I may even engage in social conversation with friends and ask about their ordinary lives.

  82. #82 Luke
    September 8, 2013

    All your palaeo crap is built on proxies and models. The more you look the more we don’t don’t know. It’s all just an assembled apocalyptic meme.

  83. #83 chek
    September 8, 2013

    All your palaeo crap is built on proxies and models.

    The same could be said for dinosaurs, but it isn’t. Just climate change, from those anxious to void AGW.

  84. #84 BBD
    September 8, 2013

    All your palaeo crap is built on proxies and models. The more you look the more we don’t don’t know. It’s all just an assembled apocalyptic meme.

    Argument from incredulity and argument from ignorance. Argument from false assertion.

    Given the paleoclimate evidence, why are you sceptical about the scientific consensus that a very rapid increase in GHGs will cause significant warming on a centennial scale? Why is that?

  85. #85 Karen
    September 8, 2013

    Who thinks that the commonsense, demonstrated by the Australian electorate, will SNOWBALL across the globe ?

  86. #86 BBD
    September 8, 2013

    Answer the question.

    Why are you rejecting the scientific consensus? You are not qualified to do so, nor do you have a coherent scientific counter-argument. So what the fuck do you think you are doing?

  87. #87 el gordo
    September 8, 2013

    ‘CLIMATE change is a hotly contested issue in Australia. An overwhelming majority of Australians, 84 per cent, wants to do something about it, yet a clear majority is against the present carbon tax.

    ‘While Australia has brandished its good intentions in wanting to tackle this real problem, Labor and Coalition governments of the past 20 years have done little to tackle it.’

    Bjorn Lomborg in the Oz

  88. #88 Stu
    September 8, 2013

    @Luke:

    I DON’T THINK SO !

    Nobody gives a shit about what you think, Luke. Or what I think, for that matter. That’s not how science works. You pretending to be a scientist was truly one of the more pathetic overreaches seen here yet.

    Evidence, Luke.

    oh do play with your dick

    You really, really don’t get out much, do you.

    – a consensus of 2.4 to 6.4 broad as a barn.

    Nirvana fallacy. You really suck at this, Luke.

    Without as I have well demonstrated a bunch of key points under questions.

    Obvious ans stupid lie. You’ve posted a ridiculous talking point manifesto that you obviously worked very hard on and are very proud of.

    It has been addressed, in full, repeatedly. Just because you didn’t like the answers does not mean they were not valid. Stop blaming others for pointing out your points are made of red herring in false dichotomy sauce with a sprinkling of outright lying. Stop pretending it wasn’t addressed.

    Again, Luke, you suck at this.

    And an emerging debate that sensitivity might be even lower.

    Emerging debate? You’re a clown. All of it has been vigorously debated for decades, and continues to be vigorously debated every single day by actual scientists.

    You don’t like what they’re saying. Hey, you have a right to do that. You even have the precious right to lie your pathetic basement-dwelling ass off about it. Just as we have the right to call you on your pathetic bullshit.

    Your task is to realise how government science works

    Oh, I know. I spent quite some time around it. You obviously did not.

    I hope you are not some cossetted idealistic university fuck like Jeff?

    Yes! Screw all those damned scientists at their damned universities and shit! So which one is it, Luke… were your grades too low to go? Did your parents not let you? Did you flunk out hard? Your education envy is palpable, Jonas Jr.

    how the whole meme is crafted and learn not to believe absolutely everything served up to you.

    Dumbest. Conspiracy. Theory. Ever.

    If an actual university scientist found proof climate change is a hoax, they’d be flying to Oslo within the year. You know it, I know it, but it just doesn’t fit your conspiracy theory.

    The poor behaviour of the models should be enough to have you massively concerned.

    As has been pointed out to you multiple times now, every single climate model in the world could be wrong by a factor of 543728 (they’re not, of course, they’re doing very well, thank you). That’s not the whole of climate science. There are these things called “measurements” that still point to unprecedented warming. And again, pretending that you’re the only one who figured this out in between mawing down Doritos is sad and delusional. This is an active discussion between actual scientists.

    If you like, please go back to computational inaccuracy. I could use another guffaw on my own turf.

    It’s a blog. It’s not the IPCC Working group meetings. It’s for discussion.

    So why are you trolling? You’ve admitted to doing it here, you’ve admitted to doing it on Nova’s rag…

    Wait, you’re not here for the hunting, are you?

    And if you are to convince people – well I’d just disagree with you coz you behave like a cunt.

    Bravo. That’s the most incoherent and least self-aware attempt at tone trolling I’ve seen. Ever.

    Try exploring other people’s issues

    Even if I were a shrink, I wouldn’t work for free. Besides, you have so much cognitive dissonance, misanthropy, delusions of grandeur and pathological lying going on that I don’t think it would help.

    and convince them without the tiresome appeal to authority.

    *kapow*

    Yeah, that broke even the industrial-strength irony meter. I’ll have to see if the military makes a stronger one.

    Remember, Luke? Remember when you said that you talked to your “bloke” and that he said OHC was crap?

    Remember that? I do.

    For the record, you have a “bloke” to fix your car. Or to mow your lawn. Or to get you weed. You don’t have a “bloke” to tell you about climate science, you utter pillock.

  89. #89 Stu
    September 8, 2013

    @Gordo: maybe if I put it in bold, you’ll actually read it. Stop being intellectually dishonest. Your family might read this.

    You don’t like climate change. You ignore evidence for it even when we slap you around with it. You pretend nothing was said and go right back to your default “well, this is what I want to believe so this makes sense to me” position.

    And what did you do, Gordo?

  90. #90 chek
    September 8, 2013

    “Bjorn Lomborg ”

    Why do you take notice of a failed nobody with zero competence in the field?

  91. #91 el gordo
    September 8, 2013

    Stu the science is never settled, even more now that the models have failed.

    Chek I agree with you about Lomborg, only put up the link because of Stu’s comment…

    ‘Maybe then we can have the far more interesting conversation on what to do about it. And no, carbon taxes are not necessarily the perfect answer.’

    My feeling is that state of the art coal fired power stations have a bright future in Oz.

  92. #92 BBD
    September 8, 2013

    Stu the science is never settled, even more now that the models have failed.

    The models haven’t “failed” and what about paleoclimate? You don’t seem to understand that irrespective of the models paleoclimate behaviour is solid evidence that S/2xCO2 is *at least* ~2C and more probably around 3C.

    Evidence denial. Physics denial.

    Remember to tell you grandchildren what you did in the climate wars.

  93. #93 Luke
    September 8, 2013

    Whatever Stu – must have stoked your engine though to spew out all that vitriole. Anyway for fucktard Stu – troll = anyone he disagrees with.

    But anyway don’t you just hate http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/07/australia-liberated-from-their-long-national-green-nightmare/ and pretty well all the right wing freaks that post there. Just a wafer thing scratch and the right wing shit just bubbles. Fuck off WUWT ! Mind your own political business. The triumphalism is sickening.

  94. #94 Luke
    September 8, 2013

    “paleoclimate behaviour is solid evidence” what crap – palaeo is simply whatever science meme gets through into selective chunked up reports. More models and proxies (more models again) which get overwritten with every issue of GRL and Geochimica.

    “Remember to tell you grandchildren what you did in the climate wars.” gee Dad what did you do? I pulled my dick on a climate blog son. And how did that help Dad. More Walter Mitty stupidity from an idiot.

  95. #95 Luke
    September 8, 2013

    “If an actual university scientist found proof climate change is a hoax,”

    Let’s create an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

    But here we go again ….

    “The models are fucking not working. Santa has stolen the trop hotspot. Antarctica is gaining ice. Antarctic sea ice is growing. Extreme events droughts and floods are not getting worse. Evap is going the wrong way. The hockey stick is utter crap. The models are full of parameterisations and drift corrections. Multi-models averages plus or minus a barn are shit. Regional nesting is crap and masturbation.”

    Stu – try to sound convincing and stop being such a shit cunt.

  96. #96 BBD
    September 8, 2013

    And Luke continues to argue from ignorance and incredulity while refusing to answer the question:

    Given the paleoclimate evidence, why are you sceptical about the scientific consensus that a very rapid increase in GHGs will cause significant warming on a centennial scale? Why is that?

    Blow.

    Harder!

    :-)

  97. #97 adelady
    September 8, 2013

    No you cunts LOVE it. It makes your entire day. Go on admit it.

    You really don’t get it do you. For a very long time, I just took the science for granted.

    I started reading about it back in the days when the ozone hole was becoming a big issue – late 70s early 80s. The Montreal Protocol was eventually signed and implemented in 1989. I honestly thought that climate change was just another one of these issues and that the process would be much the same and take a similar time.

    If you can remember, or have read about, all the scientific / technical issues of the late 20th century that were solved by international agreements or coordinated international action, acid rain, clean air, asbestos, phasing out CFCs, Y2K, you might understand how someone might think that climate change was “just another technical problem”. That’s how I thought about it. I really didn’t take much interest in the nitty gritty details of the science itself until the last 10 years or so once the opposition to the idea stepped up.

    If we could have arrived at sensible transition away from fossil dependence beginning in the 80s, climate change could have turned out as just another bullet we dodged with a bit of hard work by people who knew what they were doing. We dodged the Y2K issue – got to work on it in plenty of time and the result was no major problems at all and a few minor problems that only people involved in the industry ever got to hear about.

    That opportunity has long passed us by for climate change.

  98. #98 el gordo
    September 8, 2013

    Only the US has managed to reduce their CO2 emissions back to early 1990s levels and temperatures have thankfully stalled.

  99. #99 Stu
    September 8, 2013

    Luke, sweetheart, please stop lying.

    The models are fucking not working.

    Lie. This has been refuted before, in this thread, with evidence. Do you have anything new?

    Santa has stolen the trop hotspot.

    This is not even coherent, you douche.

    Antarctica is gaining ice.

    Lie,

    Antarctic sea ice is growing.

    Erp? Typo or hedging your bets?

    Extreme events droughts and floods are not getting worse.

    Lie.

    Evap is going the wrong way.

    [Citation needed]

    The hockey stick is utter crap.

    Lie.

    The models are full of parameterisations and drift corrections.

    Aww, that’s cute. You have no fucking clue how modelling works, do you.

    Multi-models averages plus or minus a barn are shit.

    Still a Nirvana fallacy, moron. You do know what that is, don’t you?

    Regional nesting is crap and masturbation.

    I’m glad you’ve done the research to properly refute it.

    [snirk]

    You suck at this, Luke. Get out of your mom’s basement.

  100. #100 Berendaneke
    September 8, 2013

    It’s nice that the US has reduced its CO2 emission to 1990 levels but it is also irrelevant since all human CO2 has no measurable effect on air temperatures or on the ocean in any respect. Crap scientology with faked values from nature (eg temperature homogenisation frauds like intentional decreasing of old temperature readings etc etc) with crap “models” which prove nothing but show what computer programmers were told to produce as results, and everything hailed as consensus by wannabe world saviors who engage in fanatic political eco fundamentalism to worship god gaia: YOUR DIRTY DELUSION IS CRAP. Your constant appeal to authority shows nothing but all your weaknesses:

    1. Lack of any evidence of what you maintain

    2. Lack of decent behavior when your scientific stance is so weak

    3. Lack of own logical thinking of accepting the obvious: it’s the sun, stupid, we don’t know much about clouds, water is infinitely more important than CO2 and you idiots don’t like to speak about the water, you idiots.

    YOU GREENPISSERS ARE TRUE IDIOTS WHICH MISUSE SCIENCE FOR YOUR NASTY CRAP IDEOLOGY AND RELATED ROTTEN POLITICAL GAMES.

    Shut up and get away from this blog, you drunken idiots.

Current ye@r *