September 2013 Open Thread

The thread, there is more.

Comments

  1. #1 Joe
    October 4, 2013

    BBD, what an utterly arrogant behavior you show. You cannot “know”: false assertion and symptom of paranoia. Deal with arguments instead of names. Is this all what you can?

  2. #2 BBD
    October 4, 2013

    I know, Kai. I can spot your style a mile off. I know. You are nailed and you know it as well as I do.

  3. #3 BBD
    October 4, 2013

    Just a reminder of where we are here:

    Kai – Freddy – Boris – Berendanke has been banned by the blog owner for abusive trolling and serial sock puppetry.

    Yet here he is again, now running a sock labelled “Joe”.

    Banned means banned, Joe – Kai – Freddy – Boris – Berendanke. As in not permitted to comment further. So fuck off and die!

  4. #4 BBD
    October 4, 2013

    What do we all feel about *strike-through* and no response to all further comments by this banned troll? Until Tim gets around to blocking the latest sock?

  5. #5 Nick
    October 4, 2013

    #98, one of the most depressing moments in a depressing era for the media in the UK. Absolutely astonishing hypocrisy and audacious failed rationalising from the professional shit Dacre and his lickspittles. You wouldn’t line your kitty litter tray with that paper.

  6. #6 Wow
    October 4, 2013

    This is also computer trespass.

    A criminal offence that has even led to extradition to face charges.

  7. #7 Wow
    October 4, 2013

    “From where do you know what the “will of the people” is?”

    Reps campaigned on a leader saying they’ll remove ACA, Dems campaigned on a leader saying they’ll implement ACA.

    1.7m more votes for the Dems than the Reps.
    The president is the Dem.

    What is not making any connection to your fevered ego, kai?

  8. #8 Lionel A
    October 4, 2013

    So, for those who don’t believe that the oceans are becoming more acidic:

    Researchers Find Historic Ocean Acidification Levels: ‘The Next Mass Extinction May Have Already Begun’.

    And what was that cheer-leading for McIntyre (& Curry) up-thread all about Why Curry, McIntyre, and Co. are Still Wrong about IPCC Climate Model Accuracy, so note my appraisal of McIntyre being a petroleum geologist with a smattering of stat’s knowledge and little climate science knowledge was about right. Also, Curry continues to dig here hole through her reputation.

    Meanwhile I find this neat summary of ‘the way things are, and could become if we don’t change course and fast, Forget Climate Change.

    Do I think the climate is changing?
    Yup.

    Do I think humans are responsible?
    Pretty much. The physics is pretty simple.

    And could the climate change rather quickly?
    Very possibly. It’s done so before.

    Would this be so bad?
    Sure would!! If climatic zones change and with them the wheat, rice and corn growing zones, we will have epic scale starvation*. Even more fun, when the Arctic ocean becomes ice free, it becomes a massive solar collector. Just watch Greenland melt in the year that the Arctic becomes ice free. Watch the subways of New York and London flood.

    .

    There is a hidden scenario behind rising sea levels partly revealed if one thinks carefully about the ramifications of that subway flooding.

    As sea levels rise rivers and other sea-bound water courses will find it harder to reach that ocean and thus many estuaries will have massive changes in course and even further up stream there will be a knock on effect – miles inland.

  9. #9 Bernard J.
    October 4, 2013

    I concede – ‘Joe’ is Kai.

    It’s the unadulterated stupidity that gives it away.

  10. #10 BBD
    October 4, 2013

    You had me worried for a while there, Bernard.

    :-)

  11. #12 Jeff Harvey
    October 4, 2013

    Joe’s fibs:

    First: “I did not behave incivil” [sic]

    Sure you did. Your snide remark about population ecologists not being real scientists was both arrogant and stupid.

    Second: “…like you or BBD, who constantly appeal to authority”

    Says the same clown who kept pasting up the CV of Stevenson in order to try and legitimize the contents of an appalling article he wrote in a nutty rag shortly before he died.

    You’re a hypocrite, Joe. Accept you lumps and leave here. Puh-lease.

  12. #13 BBD
    October 4, 2013

    Jeff, this foaming nutter has spewed vile abuse – really vile – over you, me and everybody else (bar the other socks) over the last few weeks. I just had to laugh at that protestation. Some people – really…

  13. #14 Jeff Harvey
    October 4, 2013

    It will be interesting to see how the anti-environmentalists and climate change deniers try and put a positive spin on this latest report or else how they attempt to downplay it:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24369244

    But rest assured. They will.

  14. #15 BBD
    October 4, 2013

    Oh yes. And at times like this, I wish I could seek refuge in denial too. Although it’s there – Callum Roberts’ Ocean of Life is waiting on the shelf for me to summon up the courage to start reading it.

  15. #16 Bernard J.
    October 5, 2013

    Oh yes. And at times like this, I wish I could seek refuge in denial too. Although it’s there – Callum Roberts’ Ocean of Life is waiting on the shelf for me to summon up the courage to start reading it.

    BBD, coinicdentally I have a brand-new copy on my knee as I type, and acopy of The Unnatural History of the Sea for dessert.

    It’s the photos in OoL that bring home in a few moments the plight of our seas…

    :-(

  16. #17 Joe
    October 5, 2013

    Oregon, Washington and Alaskan trees consume more carbon, annually, then is produced by the entire US economy. It’s in our interest to do more. Or we will die point our fingers at others.

  17. #18 Joe
    October 5, 2013

    Two questions to the IPCC…

    1. Why don’t your models predict the ‘pause’?
    2. What else have you gotten wrong?

  18. #19 Joe
    October 5, 2013

    Fact control:

    The *real* science of *deniers* is being outspent by at least 1000 to 1 by the pseudo-science of the climate alarmist establishment. The oil industry pays incredible amounts of money to climate alarmism.

  19. #20 Joe
    October 5, 2013

    Fact control:

    The *real* science of *deniers* is being outspent by at least 1000 to 1 by the pseudo-science of the climate alarmist establishment. The oil industry pays incredible amounts of money to climate alarmism.

  20. #21 Joe
    October 5, 2013

    Fact control:

    The *real* science of *deniers* is being outspent by at least 1000 to 1 by the pseudo-science of the climate alarmist establishment. The oil industry pays incredible amounts of money to climate alarmism.

  21. #22 Joe
    October 5, 2013

    See a comparison of the final draft version of the SPM, as finalised by the IPCC just before the Stockholm Meeting in the last days of September 2013, with the SPM after modification by politicians in Stockholm in order to create more alarmism and reduce or hide scientific uncertainties as expressed by the IPCC scientists.

    In Chapter B. Observed Changes in the Climate System

    IPCC scientists say:

    Since 1950, changes have been observed throughout the climate system: the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the extent and volume of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen (see Figures SPM.1 and SPM.2). Many of these observed changes are unusual or unprecedented on time scales of decades to millennia.

    Politics wants to read:

    Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

    Please note that the small but important word “unusual” has been removed.

  22. #23 Jeff Harvey
    October 5, 2013

    I see Joe is rambling on incoherently again. Some real nonsensical nuggets in there:

    1. The *real* science of *deniers*
    That doesn’t exist. Note how Joe refers to the gibberish produced mostly on denier weblogs as ‘real’ without a shred of empirical evidence to support it. And there’s no evidence presented that the ratio of money invested in what Joe flippantly refers to as ‘climate alarmism’ is 1,000 times greater than that paid to shills and their ‘science’. I’d like to see some bonafide data supporting this. Joe has none. He;s made it up. And he has the audacity to refer to this as ‘fact control’. What a dork.

    He laso latches onto the illusory pause to denigrate the IPCC models. This is the latest desperate act of the sinking denial industry. We’ve been over this on Deltoid a million times before but to reiterate: 1998 was an exceptional year by any standards. The El Nino that year was the strongest every recorded, which on its own probably knocked up the global mean temperature by 2 tenths of a degree C. Take that year out of the equation, and the warming is unequivocal. 2010 was the warmest year on record anyway. Arctic ice extent reached an all-time low in 2012 and thickness – a more worrying trend – is lower now than ever. Importantly, there are a huge number of biotic proxies showing that warming continues unabated. Species are moving polewards and to higher elevations. Seasonal phenological shifts in plants and animals are being observed; many of these shifts are quite dramatic in scale.

    Of course, let’s bear in mind that Joe thins a scientist studying the population dynamics of several invertebrate and vertebrate species in an interlocking food web or the effects of plant secondary metabolites on the nutritional ecology of insect herbivores and their natural enemies is not a real scientist but just somebody working on behalf of the green lobby.

    Tim, its time to boot this sock puppet out.

  23. #24 rhwombat
    October 5, 2013

    Jeff et alia. The Socktroll’s narcissistic personality disorder makes it completely immune to reality or logic. All it craves is the attention it lacks in real life. Tim can’t stamp every cockroach in the draughty but occasionally interesting old pile that Deltoid has become, so vermin control becomes a personal responsibility. In the Socktroll’s case, ignore rants is bliss. Let it dribble, unregarded – save to point and mock when it changes socks. I notice that Stu2 is the only other contrarian wibbler to peek over the parapet of late, if only to complain that a new thread hasn’t erased his drubbing by both Lotharsson & Nick. Now that summer’s here in Oz, we can expect a few more blowflies hatching from the rotten carcass of semi-professional denial.

  24. #25 Marco
    October 5, 2013

    Hilarious, the Joetroll refers to the removal of the word “unusual” and claims this indicates increased alarmism. Up is down and down is up in the world of the Joetrolls!

  25. #26 bill
    October 5, 2013

    It’s also just regurgitating from Watts. Yawn.

  26. #27 Nick
    October 5, 2013

    #15. Reference for this claim please,’Joe’, and what exactly is being quantified?…oh, and are you talking about ‘ecosystem services’ here [chuckle]?

    As far as sinking carbon is quantified, in 2011 US land-use management and forestry activity sequestered about 14% of total US emissions, according to the US EPA.

  27. #28 Lionel A
    October 5, 2013

    Well, what do you know!

    I have just been appraised that the goon or dicombobulating obfuscater that the UK has as Secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs is Matt Riddley’s brother in law.

    My hunch that these people, who could be confused with socio-paths, ae a part of the GWPF’s pre and post push against the IPCC’s latest report in the media, BBC etc., was about right. In itself not a difficult conclusion to reach if one know the recent history of UK denial/delayer activity.

    I don’t think the Mail were fooled, they are very much a part of the campaign.

    Global warming sceptics using media campaign to discredit IPCC.

    Lord Lawson’s son, Dominic, also incorporated the GWPF “lines to take” into his column for the Sunday Times, and Peter Lilley, a regular contributor to the work of the GWPF who supplements his pay as an MP through his post as vice-chairman of Tethys Petroleum, completed the media blitz on the following day with an article in City AM, the London freesheet aimed at the financial sector.

    The past seven days have shown clearly how Lord Lawson and a small clique of other climate change sceptics are able to use their political and media networks, as well as family ties, to distort so effectively the UK public debate.

    So RedNoise, Peter Lilley is squeaky clean eh! Only to the deluded. If you have spent money on such rags you should ask for a refund and claim damages. Now there is an idea.

    I see that the Mail today is giving away a £1M prize. Loose change to the owner Lord Rothermere.

  28. #29 Lionel A
    October 5, 2013

    Argh! Blockquoite fail.

    Lord Lawson’s son, Dominic, also incorporated the GWPF “lines to take” into his column for the Sunday Times, and Peter Lilley, a regular contributor to the work of the GWPF who supplements his pay as an MP through his post as vice-chairman of Tethys Petroleum, completed the media blitz on the following day with an article in City AM, the London freesheet aimed at the financial sector.

    The past seven days have shown clearly how Lord Lawson and a small clique of other climate change sceptics are able to use their political and media networks, as well as family ties, to distort so effectively the UK public debate.

  29. #30 Nick
    October 5, 2013

    #26,27 Lionel, the Daily Mail’s Dacre and the GWPF have an agreement for the GWPF to provide ‘science journalism’ on AGW…it’s a conspiracy in plain sight that is years old.
    This arrangement is actually the story, but it is one utterly ignored by the wretched syndicators at News Ltd and anywhere else that cites the Daily Mail.

    The Daily Mail is a model example of a failed newspaper. It is effectively an in-house policy sheet for the British fossil fuel industry association.

  30. #31 BBD
    October 5, 2013

    #28 It’s a national and international disgrace. The injection of lies into the public consciousness – and thence the political sphere – by the GWPF via the DM/MoS is a blatant subversion of democracy. Lie to the electorate *first* then buy your politicians cheaply and easily because what you want to them to do will play well with the softened-up electorate.

    Since David Rose’s lies are now reprinted in the Australian and elsewhere, the lies really are getting around the world before the truth has put its trousers on.

    There’s lots more excellent DM/GWPF analysis at the Carbon Brief, which has become my go-to source for these two topics these days.

  31. #32 BBD
    October 5, 2013

    #16

    Kai – Freddy – Boris – Berendwanker – “Joe”

    See # 1

    You are banned from commenting here, so why are you still doing so using yet another sock?

    See a comparison of the final draft version of the SPM, as finalised by the IPCC just before the Stockholm Meeting in the last days of September 2013, with the SPM after modification by politicians in Stockholm in order to create more alarmism and reduce or hide scientific uncertainties as expressed by the IPCC scientists.

    In Chapter B. Observed Changes in the Climate System

    IPCC scientists say:

    Since 1950, changes have been observed throughout the climate system: the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the extent and volume of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen (see Figures SPM.1 and SPM.2). Many of these observed changes are unusual or unprecedented on time scales of decades to millennia.

    Politics wants to read:

    Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

    Please note that the small but important word “unusual” has been removed.

  32. #33 Lionel A
    October 5, 2013

    I had seen that article from the Carbon Brief before, probably via CP or something, but well done for reminding everybody.

    For an interesting exercise enter this in Google:

    The Mail gives 5 times more space to the Global Warming Policy Foundation than to any other source on climate

    and see what turns up.

  33. #34 Lionel A
    October 5, 2013

    Indeed BBD @ #29

    Visiting one of the links in my search above I found this interesting exchange between Sir John Beddington and Nigel Lawson in the wake of Lawson asking Beddington to review his book An Appeal to Reason, A Cool Look at Global Warming:

    Government scientist’s warning on Lord Lawson’s climate claims.

    How the worms do wriggle. Make note RedNoise, see how reliable your sources are.

  34. #35 Lionel A
    October 5, 2013

    And lest any accuse me of being left wing, if that has any relevance in today’s political climate let alone the social sphere here is a hit at Ed Miliband and his aim to freeze energy prices, which I took issue with as he spoke:

    Climate change is happening, so don’t shoot the messenger.

    But that does not mean that fossil fuel companies, or any others, should be free to profiteer (earn to invest in alternatives yes) as they have been and market speculators are other flies in the ointment.

    Maybe some in the denier-delayer camp are, mindful of the fate of Emperor Hu Hai, are now looking over their shoulders as they peddle like mad to discredit the IPCC and climate science in general. Cornered rats are dangerous and likely to encourage the setting of the security services on us. Dirty tricks such as identity theft and fraud in our names being likely tactics. Conspiracy ideation or rational concerns? That depends upon which side of the fence you are, perhaps.

  35. #36 Lionel A
    October 5, 2013

    We don’t need climate models to tell us which way the Earth’s climate is going.

    Somewhere above I mention that some Repuglicans were rejoicing at the shackling of the EPA as the result of the US gubmint shutdown well one such was Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee as revealed here: What The Government Shutdown Means For The Environment.

    Are their actions not treasonable?

  36. #38 Lionel A
    October 5, 2013

    Aha! Something very odd went on at my #32 (probably a clipboard screw up) so here is, I hope this time, the intended link:

    Government scientist’s warning on Lord Lawson’s climate claims .

  37. #39 Lionel A
    October 5, 2013

    Did you catch this one at Spinwatch:

    Bill protects lobbyists while targeting civil society

    The fact that this bill was introduced, quietly, the day before the Summer recess should have sounded warning bells as should the fact that there was a debate on Day two of the current parliament with the news full of events in Syria.

  38. #40 BBD
    October 5, 2013

    Oh yes. The war on democracy continues apace. And the plutocracy is winning. Which should have the lackeys around here rubbing their dirty hands together with glee. But I suspect the long game will play out rather badly for them in the end. When things start to get hairy the public will remember who lied (the science-denying right) and the public will be angry and frightened and looking for blood. Bye bye science-denying right. Forever.

  39. #41 BBD
    October 5, 2013

    ignore rants is bliss

    :-)

    Another deft turn of phrase from RHW! And of course correct.

  40. #42 Joe
    October 5, 2013

    See again a comparison of the final draft version of the SPM, as finalised by the IPCC just before the Stockholm Meeting in the last days of September 2013, with the SPM after modification by politicians in Stockholm in order to create more alarmism and reduce or hide scientific uncertainties as expressed by the IPCC scientists.

    In Chapter B. Observed Changes in the Climate System

    IPCC scientists say:

    Since 1950, changes have been observed throughout the climate system: the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the extent and volume of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen (see Figures SPM.1 and SPM.2). Many of these observed changes are unusual or unprecedented on time scales of decades to millennia.

    Politics wants to read:

    Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

    Please note that the small but important word “unusual” has been removed.

    In Chapter B.1 Atmosphere

    IPCC scientists say:

    Each of the last three decades has been warmer than all preceding decades since 1850 and the first decade of the 21st century has been the warmest (see Figure SPM.1). Analyses of paleoclimate archives indicate that in the Northern Hemisphere, the period 1983–2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years (high confidence) and likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).

    Politics wants to read:

    Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).

    The mentioning of the MWP in the SPM was therefore deleted by politicians because they do not want too much disturbance of the intended alarmism.

    IPCC scientists say:

    Global mean surface temperature trends exhibit substantial decadal variability, despite the robust multi-decadal warming since 1901 (Figure SPM 1). The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998−2012; 0.05 [−0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (1951−2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

    Politics wants to read:

    In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

    Politicians are hence very eager to prevent people from thinking that the last 15 years of temperature stagnation have any significance.

  41. #43 BBD
    October 5, 2013

    See again a comparison of the final draft version of the SPM, as finalised by the IPCC just before the Stockholm Meeting in the last days of September 2013, with the SPM after modification by politicians in Stockholm in order to create more alarmism and reduce or hide scientific uncertainties as expressed by the IPCC scientists.

  42. #44 Lionel A
    October 5, 2013

    Guiseppe is wibbling again.

  43. #45 Joe
    October 5, 2013

    strike-trough boy, no other arguments in your childish head?

  44. #46 chek
    October 5, 2013

    That FOI’d conversation between Lawson and Beddington needs to be more widely disseminated to reveal the absolute fuckwitted incompetence of deniers.

    I presume Peiser supplied Lawson with the *ahem* “technical expertise” for his responses, in which case anything over a tenner all-in, ever, is overpaying the grifting cun*.

  45. #47 chek
    October 5, 2013

    strike-trough (sic) boy, no other arguments in your childish head?

    Copy’n’paste boy, likewise.
    Oh listen.. isn’t that yummy, tasty .38 calling out for you Fr…Joe?

  46. #48 Nick
    October 6, 2013

    #44 Lawson, in that transcript, did not even know what time period was covered by MBH 98 & 99!! So much for competence. Beddington missed the opportunity to point that out

  47. #49 rhwombat
    King Coal's Sphincter, NSW
    October 6, 2013

    Point and mock the smelly new sock time. Sucktroll@#43: that ringing in your (sows) ears would be BBD striking the denialist garbage trough from which you are fed the tidbits of bullshit that you regurgitate here. Now back to our scheduled programme of cruelly ignoring you.

  48. #50 FrankD
    October 6, 2013

    Politicians are hence very eager to prevent people from thinking that the last 15 years of temperature stagnation have any significance.

    Berendaneke made it abundantly clear some time ago that he no idea of the meaning of the term “statistical signficance”. Stunningly, it turns out that putting a new sock on the same hand does not improve ones understanding of such concepts.

    News at 11:00…

  49. #51 FrankD
    October 6, 2013

    Oops, try that again.

    Politicians are hence very eager to prevent people from thinking that the last 15 years of temperature stagnation have any significance.

    Berendaneke made it abundantly clear some time ago that he no idea of the meaning of the term “statistical signficance”. Stunningly, it turns out that putting a new sock on the same hand does not improve ones understanding of such concepts.

    News at 11:00…

  50. #52 Joe
    October 6, 2013

    FrankD

    you appear to have problems to differentitate between the use of the term “significance” in a general way and the scientific terrm “statistical significance”. Not always when somebody uses the word “significance” is automatically “statistical significance” being meant. Please learn this.

  51. #53 Joe
    October 6, 2013

    oops, correction

    FrankD

    you appear to have problems to differentitate between the use of the term “significance” in a general way and the scientific term “statistical significance”. Not always when somebody uses the word “significance” is automatically “statistical significance” being meant. Please learn this.

  52. #54 Joe
    October 6, 2013

    BBD, rhwombat

    what exactly did elicit your disproportionate reaction to my sentences:

    “See again a comparison of the final draft version of the SPM, as finalised by the IPCC just before the Stockholm Meeting in the last days of September 2013, with the SPM after modification by politicians in Stockholm in order to create more alarmism and reduce or hide scientific uncertainties as expressed by the IPCC scientists.”

    What I said is only the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So WHERE is your problem?

  53. #55 Joe
    October 6, 2013

    sorry, correction:

    BBD, rhwombat

    what exactly did elicit your disproportionate reaction to my sentence:

    “See again a comparison of the final draft version of the SPM, as finalised by the IPCC just before the Stockholm Meeting in the last days of September 2013, with the SPM after modification by politicians in Stockholm in order to create more alarmism and reduce or hide scientific uncertainties as expressed by the IPCC scientists.”

    What I said is only the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So WHERE is your problem?

  54. #56 Joe
    October 6, 2013

    sorry, correction again:

    BBD, rhwombat

    what exactly did elicit your disproportionate reaction to my sentence:

    “See again a comparison of the final draft version of the SPM, as finalised by the IPCC just before the Stockholm Meeting in the last days of September 2013, with the SPM after modification by politicians in Stockholm in order to create more alarmism and reduce or hide scientific uncertainties as expressed by the IPCC scientists.”

    What I said is only the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So WHERE is your problem?

  55. #57 Jeff Harvey
    October 6, 2013

    Note how sock puppet Joe is now posting multiple copies of his nauseatingly simple messages up here now. And at the same time he’s trying to lecture others about statistical significance, something clearly way over his head.

    He also tries to package his arrogance in apparently civilized tones – sure fire indication that he is some sort of clone of Kai/Boris etc.

    The latest IPCC draft leaves no doubts as to the human fingerprint on the current warming or of the potentially serious consequences for natural and managed ecosystems if global temperatures rise more than 2 C in the coming century. Deceivers like Joe and his puppets can confabulate all they like, but the message is clear.

    Tim, can you boot this guy out? He’s even worse than many of his predecessors. And that is saying a lot…

  56. #58 bill
    October 6, 2013

    Oh, sod off Kai, you tedious freak. Your relentless sociopathy is offensive. You’ve been banned and you know you’ve been banned, so stop being a creep and disappear.

  57. #59 Lionel A
    October 6, 2013

    Some times persistent idiots are useful so that onlookers can see how twisted they are. But when one starts posting in triplicate maybe it is time to say good-bye, they are no longer a useful idiot.

    I guess the fact that this one keeps appearing in disguise here is because his village does not want him back.

  58. #60 Joe
    October 6, 2013

    rhwombat, bill, BBD, Lionel, Harvey

    strangely enough, you behave as if you would be moderators here. To my knowledge only Tim Lambert is the moderator. Please leave it up to him who is allowed to post here or not. I will do my best to comply with the rules of participation as imposed by Tim, and not by you, who are also only guests. Therefore I ask you to behave according to your role and not the one nobody of you has. In addition more politeness on your side would be welcome.

    Thank you!

  59. #61 BBD
    October 6, 2013

    “Joe” – Kai – Freddy – Boris – Berendwanker

    You have been banned from commenting here by the blog owner.

    Fuck off.

    rhwombat, bill, BBD, Lionel, Harvey

    strangely enough, you behave as if you would be moderators here. To my knowledge only Tim Lambert is the moderator. Please leave it up to him who is allowed to post here or not. I will do my best to comply with the rules of participation as imposed by Tim, and not by you, who are also only guests. Therefore I ask you to behave according to your role and not the one nobody of you has. In addition more politeness on your side would be welcome.

    Thank you!

  60. #62 bill
    October 6, 2013

    Bugger you. Sod off, creep.

  61. #63 Jeff Harvey
    October 6, 2013

    Joe and his various sock puppets are bonkers.

    Remember this is the same guy who in his latest ‘guise’ stated the population ecology is not ‘real science’ and that instead it was some facet of the green movement. A kindergarten level comment if ever there was one.

    And then he complains when others denounce him.

    Hypocrite. And yes Joe/Kai/Berendaneke et al., your time is almost up. How is it that your other sock puppets got banned, along with Karen and Luke? Think about it.

  62. #64 FrankD
    October 6, 2013

    Berendaneke was so busy showing his classic DK chops that he forgot to deny he is a sock of Freddie, Kai and Boris.

    As Spotty Karen would have said lolololol :) :) :)

  63. #65 Lionel A
    October 6, 2013

    Whilst reading down the comments at Tamino’s latest Bob Tisdale pisses on leg, claims it’s raining I noticed a cartoon link, so

    I kept clicking and arrived at this, one of many referencing Australia.

  64. #66 Stu
    October 6, 2013

    And yes, again: fuck off and take your meds, Freddy.

  65. #67 BBD
    October 7, 2013

    Can it really be? Dare one hope?

    If it’s true, thanks, Tim.

  66. #68 Stu
    October 7, 2013

    October thread is up, and blessedly quiet.

  67. #69 Lionel A
    October 20, 2013

    Well it was quiet Stu but then the fruitcake called back in the guise of Ersatz Jeff Harvey.

    So and not to be beaten, I’ll post the following in this thread too.

    Meanwhile, in the world of sane mortals a number are taking down the efforts of science dis-informers (others would put a more serious note on this behaviour) to counter the IPCC VAR with their NIPCC concoction of fabrications.

    Tamino has had a go, see link above, as has Sou at Hot Whopper.

    I suspect that wee can expect the usual round of piffle and waffle from the usual suspects around here.

    And on that so called ‘Pause’ that some keep bringing up then the antidote is here..

    Consider, if you ease off the accelerator has the car stopped?