September 2013 Open Thread

The thread, there is more.

Comments

  1. #1 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    “Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.”

  2. #2 Lotharsson
    September 15, 2013

    For those who were around a few months ago, it’s starting to sound a bit chameleonic in here.

    I was criticising the actual PR/media releases…

    …so you have a link to one or more you think deserves criticism?

    But the bigger problem here is what appears to be an attempt to paint a false equivalence. That’s not going to succeed with anyone who takes an honest look at the evidence. As Nick suggests you might want to click on this blogs “[The Australian's] War On Science” link and start at the beginning.

    Once you’ve checked out all 110 articles, come back and let us know if you think the aggregate of the exaggerations and distortions you believe you’ve detected on “the other side” are even in the same order of magnitude. And if you still think there’s a valid equivalence to be drawn you can analyse Fox News’ coverage, and Sky, and the other Murdoch rags in Australia and add that to the ledger…

  3. #3 Jeff Harvey
    September 15, 2013

    Luke: “Fucking ecosystem services – the last refuge for leftie eco-scoundrels. Get a real job Jeff and stop bludging”

    Translation: the term is over Luke’s head. He’s never heard of it, doesn’t understand even the science behind it, so his only recourse is to ridicule it. A classic example of profound ignorance if ever there was one. Thankfully Luke’s views don’t come anywhere close to representing those of the scientific community. The importance of supporting ecosystem services is now universally recognized; its now a major field in economics and is the subject of many peer-reviewed articles in economics journals as well as in books.

    I’ve encountered so many dipsticks like Luke over the years that by now I can only pity them in their cesspits of ignorance. He’s a self-righteous, arrogant moron, and those are his GOOD points.

  4. #4 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    ‘This ‘almost everybody’ is presented again without substantiation’

    Montford is correct, Sceptics generally agree that CO2 is a GHG and produces some warming, but not the excess posted by the Klimatariat.

    Of course the members of the Denialati (a small shadowy group) are unconvinced by the argument that CO2 causes warming.

  5. #5 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    “a distinguished solar physicist, quoted the late scientist-author Michael Crichton, who had said: “If it’s science, it isn’t consensus; if it’s consensus, it isn’t science.” He added: “There has been no global warming for almost 17 years. None of the ‘consensus’ computer models predicted that.”

    lol

  6. #6 Lotharsson
    September 15, 2013

    Some brief commentary on one aspect of Lomborg’s recent claims in the Washington Post. I’d say there’s plenty more in that article that deserves critique.

  7. #7 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    Abstract
    “Possible reasons for a temporal instability of long-term effects of solar activity (SA) and galactic cosmic ray (GCR) variations on the lower atmosphere circulation were studied. It was shown that the detected earlier ∼60-year oscillations of the amplitude and sign of Solar Activity/Galactic Cosmic Ray effects on the troposphere pressure at high and middle latitudes (Veretenenko and Ogurtsov, Adv.Space Res., 2012) are closely related to the state of a cyclonic vortex forming in the polar stratosphere. The intensity of the vortex was found to reveal a roughly 60-year periodicity affecting the evolution of the large-scale atmospheric circulation and the character of Solar Activity/Galactic Cosmic Ray effects. An intensification of both Arctic anticyclones and mid-latitudinal cyclones associated with an increase of GCR fluxes at minima of the 11-year solar cycles is observed in the epochs of a strong polar vortex. In the epochs of a weak polar vortex SA/GCR effects on the development of baric systems at middle and high latitudes were found to change the sign. The results obtained provide evidence that the mechanism of solar activity and cosmic ray influences on the lower atmosphere circulation involves changes in the evolution of the stratospheric polar vortex.”

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117713005474

  8. #8 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #4, you’ve made my point again,Gordy. Your number is ‘generally’ for ‘sceptics’, and for Denialati the number is ‘small’….cut out the handwaving and come up with some real numbers! That’s what Cook did with a literature survey. Face it very little peer-reviewed matter disendorses or rejects AGW, no matter that Karen can’t read.

    I’ve got no idea of an exact or even general spread of what your fellow travellers will allow CO2. I suspect that fewer of you will allow your real convictions to be exposed, because you can tell that minimising CO2s warming effect looks a little saner than rejecting it out of hand. That’s why it’s more valid to check publications for views rather than rely on online polls.

    But of course ,you guys don’t have any science,so it’s hard to come up with more than a handful of crappy works. The irony of Montford attacking hard numbers with guesswork is lost on you.

  9. #9 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #3 gossip,gossip,cluck ,cluck..an anecdote without names from a dead deluded writer…useless.

  10. #10 Lotharsson
    September 15, 2013

    Last time Karen claimed something like “There has been no global warming for almost 17 years…” I posted something like this graph. Even UAH so favoured of denialists shows warming over this period (even more than the two land-based reconstructions!)

    Karen’s function here is to post lies.

  11. #11 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

    Abstract
    “We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.”

    lol

  12. #12 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #7 Crap,crap, crap…cart before the horse. We know they turn up and are mediated by solar activity, but do not have any evidence for GCRs influence on the lower atmospheric circulation. We only know that they might have some input in the nucleation chain which could never be exclusive. People have looked long and hard for GCR effects: zip. How do the authors know that the behavior they are seeing has any GCR influence: it may all be the solar activity factor.

  13. #13 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    “We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW”

    lol

  14. #14 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #11, why is that ‘lol’ ,Kaz ? Penny for your thoughts.

  15. #15 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    “Leaving aside the issue that none of the authors of these papers were in any way qualified to discuss the science behind global warming, and were effectively just passing on hearsay, the statements were unbelievably vague. “Rise to the top of the agenda”, “as a hedge”, “implicated in”!”

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/watch-the-pea/

  16. #16 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #13 so how many rejected AGW, dummy …’lol’… are you smart enough to penetrate the ‘veil’ that thwarted poor Montford?

  17. #17 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    “1) Buying Greenhouse Insurance (No, it’s not the sort you grow tomatoes in!)

    There have been numerous proposals for immediate cutbacks in CO2 emissions. Proponents argue that sizable reductions are necessary as a hedge against unacceptably rapid changes in climate. This paper provides a decision tree analysis of the problem. We examine how the optimal hedging strategy might var”

    “2) CO2 emissions reduction by price deregulation and fossil fuel taxation: A case study of Indonesia

    As environmental issues, and the issue of global warming in particular, rise to the top of the international agenda, developing nations are faced with a major question: how to confront these environme”

    “3) Effect of encapsulated calcium carbide on dinitrogen, nitrous oxide, methane, and carbon dioxide emissions from flooded rice

    The efficiency of N use in flooded rice is usually low, chiefly due to gaseous losses. Emission of CH4, a gas implicated in global warming, can also be substantial in flo”

    yes yes yes……….. very very powerful statements affirming their belief in the great co2 god…. lol

  18. #18 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #15…”…and were effectively just passing on hearsay…” Indeed, ‘watch the pea’, as your blog idiot offers [channelling Macintyre]. Referring to AGW or global warming as ‘hearsay’ is just a bit dense,don’t you think,given the thousand of publications that endorse it…

    Kaz, I’m sure there is no limit to the dumbfuck blogs you can delegate to do your ‘heavy’ lifting,but that one won’t help you.

  19. #19 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    No wonder no one believes you idiots, hehe

    Serving up rotten eggs and then trying to persuade that the stench will add to the flavour………… :)

  20. #20 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #17 , they were cat. 3 papers, dummy…and you have carefully excised the references to GW ,you sad person…. ROFLMAO

  21. #21 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #19, back at ya, idiot!

  22. #22 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #20,no ,my bad,you haven’t…but you’ve failed to understand the categorisation

  23. #23 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    If you guyz have to support the pathetic Cook et al paper you have not got much, it makes you all look extremely dishonest and clutching at straws….

    hahahahaha…….. Cook et al………. lol

  24. #24 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #19, Category 3, ‘implicit endorsement’…could you contrive a way for these three papers to ‘implicitly disendorse’ AGW… show us what you can do.

  25. #25 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    Nick….. I have said enough about the cookie lies, so why don’t you go and take a pill or go and have sex with your sock or sumpfin ?

  26. #26 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #23 I don’t have to support Cook : it argues clearly on its own. You have no material support, none of you cranks would try a literature survey because you know you have no support where it matters. You are not required to present work, or argue consistently, you don’t have numbers. Too bad,it really is a shame.

  27. #27 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #25, you’ve said nothing about ‘cookie lies’…are your biscuits plotting against you,again? Awww

  28. #28 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    ‘…cut out the handwaving and come up with some real numbers!’

    US and Australian farmers and graziers are sceptical.

  29. #29 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #28, sure…any numbers? What’s the breakdown?

  30. #30 Lotharsson
    September 15, 2013

    US and Australian farmers and graziers are sceptical.

    No, they’re not.

  31. #31 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    The bludgers can get their noses outta the trough now………

    “Professor Paul Kench, of Auckland University, who co-authored the study with Dr Arthur Webb, a Fiji-based expert on coastal processes, said the study challenged the view that the islands were sinking as a result of global warming.

    “Eighty per cent of the islands we’ve looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, got larger.

    “Some have got dramatically larger,” he said.

    “We’ve now got evidence the physical foundations of these islands will still be there in 100 years,” he told New Scientist magazine.

    He said the study suggested the islands had a natural ability to respond to rising seas by accumulating coral debris from the outlying reefs that surround them.

    “It has long been thought that as the sea level goes up, islands will sit there and drown. But they won’t,” Professor Kench said.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/tuvalu/7799503/Pacific-islands-growing-not-shrinking-due-to-climate-change.html

  32. #32 Lotharsson
    September 15, 2013

    (Just trying out el gordo’s unsubstantiated style of assertion. Do you think el gordo will find it persuasive?

    Assuming not, do you think he’ll reflect on the lack of persuasiveness of his own style of discourse? And for bonus points, do you think he’ll modify his style?)

  33. #33 Lotharsson
    September 15, 2013

    That’s interesting, but so is a key quote Karen left out. One guess why.

    But the two scientists warn that people living on the islands still face serious challenges from climate change, particularly if the pace of sea level rises were to overtake that of sediment build-up.

    The fresh groundwater that sustains villagers and their crops could be destroyed.

    “The land may be there but will they still be able to support human habitation?” he said.

    Saltwater incursion as sea levels rise is already considered to be a growing challenge in rich low-lying places like Florida, let alone poorer places that can’t afford to throw huge amounts of cash at the problem.

  34. #34 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    Over population is the biggest issue Lothie, maybe they need Bill & Belinda Gates to help them with that..

  35. #35 Luke
    September 15, 2013

    “US and Australian farmers and graziers are sceptical.
    No, they’re not.”

    Well who would know without a definitive survey but unlike city press comments, most of the rural newspapers and on-line counter-parts commentary is quite hostile.

    Why – fear that a production system with already declining terms of trade would be slugged with taxes or an ETS on animal emissions, land clearing, fertiliser use etc. Additionally the unrelenting high variability makes landholders think there is nothing new under the sun.

    The old poem Droughts and Flooding Rains – http://www.dorotheamackellar.com.au/archive/mycountry.htm is the thematic backdrop

    Jeff will find a way to charge them for ecosystems services I’m sure. Fuck off Jeff.

  36. #36 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    Do you think climate change has affected your farming experience?

    Yes – events are more extreme
    (24.1%)

    No – everything is cyclical
    (62%)

    Can’t say – evidence is inconclusive
    (14%)

    Total Votes: 615
    Poll Date: 11 February, 2013

    http://www.stockandland.com.au/polls/?page=4

  37. #37 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #34, [slightly] shorter Kaz: “OK, you got me, but… overpopulation!” Off to bed with you.

  38. #38 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    Do you think the Carbon Tax has been as bad as made out to be?

    Yes
    (72.5%)

    No
    (27.5%)

    Total Votes: 731
    Poll Date: 15 October, 2012

    http://www.stockandland.com.au/polls/?page=5

  39. #39 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    How has the Carbon Tax affected you?

    Much better off
    (5.6%)

    Slightly better off
    (3.4%)

    Completely neutral
    (14.4%)

    Slightly worse off
    (18%)

    Much worse off
    (58.7%)

    http://www.stockandland.com.au/polls/?page=6

  40. #40 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    #37 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    “#34, [slightly] shorter Kaz: “OK, you got me, but… overpopulation!” Off to bed with you.”

    How much are you worth Nickie?

  41. #41 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    Yeah and in the US the corn growers feel the same way about climate change.

  42. #42 Lionel A
    September 15, 2013

    Fucking ecosystem services – the last refuge for leftie eco-scoundrels. Get a real job Jeff and stop bludging.

    You gormless ignorant toe-rag luke. Have you any idea how much ecosystems services are worth and how the global economy will have to run faster to stay still if we continue to degrade the systems that supply these services?

    I could suggest a swathe of books on the topic so that you get up to speed on this topic, and heck I have barely scratched the surface myself even though I have studied R Dawkins, E O Wilson, W D Hamilton, and many others.

    Your attitude on this indicates that you would benefit from reading this book: What Has Nature Ever Done For Us?: How Money Really Does Grow On Trees.

    Now, no more of your execrable nonsense until you have educated yourself luke.

    PS you are the bed-wetter around here.

  43. #43 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    Do you identify as a climate change believer, sceptic or denier?

    Believer
    (27.7%)

    Sceptic
    (47.6%)

    Denier
    (18.4%)

    Don’t care
    (6.3%)

    Total Votes: 933
    Poll Date: 16 July, 2012

    http://www.stockandland.com.au/polls/?page=7

  44. #44 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    Yes Lionel, Luke looks like he would be into golden showers :)

    But I reckon you probably drink your piss ………. lol

  45. #45 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    ‘A survey of more than 18,800 farmers in the U.S. corn belt found that only 8 percent believe global warming is happening and is mainly due to human activity. While alarmists imagine this is evidence of a lack of knowledge, the truth is that America’s farmers are closer to the real science on the issue than are the liberal media. Living close to the land, they are also in a better position to distinguish short-term weather patterns from long-term climate change.

    ‘J. Gordon Arbuckle, Jr., a sociologist at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa, conducted the poll. The survey focused on corn producers grossing at least $100,000 annually in nine states. About 4,700 farmers out of 18,800 farmers who were sent the survey responded, a response rate of 26 percent.’

  46. #46 Lionel A
    September 15, 2013

    Karen at your page 9 #35

    I predict that climate scientists will now pretend that they always knew about the solar variation effects on planet earth…

    Which demonstrates what a loser a loller like you is for if you had bothered to study some of the books in my reading list posted earlier then you would not have written that for it proves what a sad bullshitting ignoramus you are.

    The ‘lolling’ is yet another sign of somebody not quite right in the head. Ask freddy for a loan of his med’s.

  47. #47 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #40,enough to buy you a good library,but you have to learn to read first.

    #45, so what’s that? 8% of 18,800,or 8% of the 4700 who responded? 8% of 18,800 =1500, 1500 of 4700 =32%…ambiguous much?

  48. #48 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    #46 Lionel A

    What The Science Says:
    In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.

    Climate Myth: It’s the sun
    “Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer.”

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=43

  49. #49 Lionel A
    September 15, 2013

    He said the study suggested the islands had a natural ability to respond to rising seas by accumulating coral debris from the outlying reefs that surround them.

    One important factor have been left out, or avoided with that assessment. The projected rate of sea level rise is going to outstrip the ability of producing growth. As Lotharsson correctly pointed out you the scientists mentioned that but you, you either lying or ignorant toe-rag failed to reproduce that too.

    Further more as oceans warm and become more acidic then the living systems are going to become even more stressed and unlikely to be able to respond at all.

    You really are a no-hoper Karen.

  50. #50 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    More from J.Gordon Arbuckle on farmers views A different picture emerges….

  51. #51 Lionel A
    September 15, 2013

    Karen at #48 above.

    Thank you. This has been very demonstrative of how poor your reasoning powers are, probably not helped by poor comprehension.

    Did you not appreciate the importance of that first paragraph:

    What The Science Says:
    In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.

    You don’t look and think before you leap do you. What a twerp you are.

    By repeating this in the context you are showing a complete and utter logic fail. A logic fail so easy to spot only an idiot would miss it. I suggest that you return to your village, they miss you.

  52. #52 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    “Further more as oceans warm and become more acidic then the living systems are going to become even more ”

    I hate to be the one to break it to you Lionel, but the world is cooling, sorry sweetie but you’ve been had.

  53. #53 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    “A number of studies have used a variety of statistical and physical approaches to determine the contribution of greenhouse gases and other effects to the observed global warming, like Lean & Rind and Foster & Rahmstorf. And like those studies, they find a relatively small solar contribution to global warming, particularly in recent decades”

    Lionel, they have singing the same song for years, the sun doesn’t change enough to make a difference, EXCEPT NOW when you numpties need to find an excuse for the cooling

  54. #54 Luke
    September 15, 2013

    Ecosystem services is bullshit non science for rent-seeking lefties. Fuck off Lionel. More watermelon politics.

  55. #55 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    I can beat you guyz up with my little finger :)

  56. #56 Lionel A
    September 15, 2013

    Luke – you are beyond help and parody being a sad ignorant little man with a small mind.

  57. #57 Lionel A
    September 15, 2013

    Lionel, they have singing the same song for years, the sun doesn’t change enough to make a difference, EXCEPT NOW when you numpties need to find an excuse for the cooling

    So, you are doubling down on the stupid.

    You too are beyond help and parody being a sad ignorant little man with a small mind.

  58. #58 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    Careful Lionel, don’t burst your pump on my account, try having a cup of dandelion tea or some other similar greenie juice

  59. #59 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    ‘…ambiguous much?’

    Good catch, I’ll pay that.

  60. #60 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    (CNSNews.com) – A 2007 prediction that summer in the North Pole could be “ice-free by 2013” that was cited by former Vice President Al Gore in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech has proven to be off… by 920,000 square miles.

    In his Dec. 10, 2007 “Earth has a fever” speech, Gore

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/wrong-al-gore-predicted-arctic-summer-ice-could-disappear-2013

    lol

  61. #61 Karen
    September 15, 2013

    See Lionel, fat Al lied to you, sweetie pie :)

  62. #62 adelady
    September 15, 2013

    need to find an excuse for the cooling

    You’ll need to say which organisation has reported cooling for which regions. I don’t know of any global cooling.

  63. #63 mike
    September 15, 2013

    A world at last
    Of con-jobs free
    Where worth lies in
    Integrity

    A world one with
    Honest labor
    And not sell-out
    Butt-kissing favor

    A world in which
    Our scholars’ brains
    Are bent on more
    Than gravy-trains

    A world in which
    Most prized are deeds
    Not parasites
    And blood-meal feeds

    Ah! Such a world
    We could revive
    If only we
    Would scrap the hive

  64. #64 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    Leaked AR5

    ‘Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations… There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.’

    Hmmm…. time to abandon the models and use our intuition.

    We need to talk about SAM, NINA and RIDGY.

  65. #65 Lionel A
    September 15, 2013

    And el gordolocks, your source for that AR5 leak would be…?

    Smells like a quote mine plus distortion to me.

    Ah! Yes. Now noted (warning finish your drink or moth-full of food before clicking link) its that serial obfuscater David Rose at it again!, a tool for the GWPF – their charity status should now be in serious doubt.

    Oh, and Judith scores again – another mark down her ladder of regress.

  66. #66 chek
    September 15, 2013

    Leaked AR5

    A liar who can break a confidentiality agreement is equally capable of misrepresenting an elided paragraph.

    Hmmm…. time to abandon the models and use our intuition.

    Why not go the whole hog and recommend chicken entrails.
    The modern world left you behind quite some time ago Gordon.

  67. #67 Lotharsson
    September 15, 2013

    Over population is the biggest issue Lothie…

    Epic Fail.

    If you don’t have fresh water, that’s a much bigger – and much more pressing – problem.

  68. #68 Lotharsson
    September 15, 2013

    I hate to be the one to break it to you Lionel, but the world is cooling, sorry sweetie but you’ve been had.

    Sigh: altogether now, it’s always projection.

    As I said, Karen’s purpose here is to lie.

  69. #69 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #63,Mike…
    behind the stage
    on which Tones stands:
    besuited, besmirked
    coal brigands

    pumped four mills
    into Lib/Lab war-chest
    they have their orders:
    fuck the rest

    “the nations interest!”
    they will lie,
    while hanging your kids
    out to dry

    so, sing their song,
    you sad old dope,
    of cruel illusion and
    poor man’s hope

    what choice the sane
    but heap derision
    and scorn upon
    such deluded vision?

  70. #70 Lotharsson
    September 15, 2013

    Here’s another lie:

    A 2007 prediction that summer in the North Pole could be “ice-free by 2013” that was cited by former Vice President Al Gore in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech has proven to be off… by 920,000 square miles.

    That prediction was for 2016 +/- 3 years and, which means it can’t be assessed until 2019. And it even used “could”, not “will”, if basic arithmetic is too difficult.

    Karen has already been told about this multiple times. Karen is a blatant liar.

    (And note how that “news report” focused on ice area because readers must not be alerted to the ice volume or thickness, which are both far stronger indicators of ice reduction. Also note that the site is shilling for donations – there are suckers born every minute!)

  71. #71 Lotharsson
    September 15, 2013

    …time to abandon the models and use our intuition.

    …because your intuition has proven to be remarkably robust…no, wait, I can’t say that with a straight face. Let me try again: because your intuition has proven to be worse than random chance.

    Epic Fail.

  72. #72 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    #65…ah David Rose, writing for children again. “Scientists blame their computers” is the insinuation. The words ‘admit’,’doom’ and ‘apocalypse’ feature heavily. He’s an emboldened twat, clearly being groomed as the next Chris Booker.

  73. #73 Lotharsson
    September 15, 2013

    Ecosystem services is bullshit non science for rent-seeking lefties. Fuck off Lionel. More watermelon politics.

    Stu 2, perhaps you would like to comment on people who dismiss a particular scientific area of research – not even specific researchers, but the topic itself – on the basis of politics?

    (While you’re at it, I’m still waiting for you to produce a quote where I dismiss a competent scientist’s scientific claims purely because of their politics. If you can’t find one, feel free to withdraw the false claim.)

  74. #74 Nick
    September 15, 2013

    Karen, please display all global cooling data…[any moment now]

  75. #75 Lionel A
    September 15, 2013

    Karen, please display all global cooling data…[any moment now]

    And while you are at it Karen, tell us how Christy cooked his chart and without more lies.

    And el gordolocks – it is way past time that you explained how feedbacks are assessed as positive or negative and provide examples.

    But I sense that you are both Slip Slidin’ Away.

  76. #76 Lionel A
    September 15, 2013

    I see that the latest David Rose article Global warming is just HALF what we said: World’s top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong, where Judith steps in the shit again, has been echoed in the Telegraph just like the last:

    Global warming? No, actually we’re cooling, claim scientists where Haley Dixon repeats crap and Judith no longer smells like a Rose, I am getting a distinct whiff of ‘Mushroom Farm’.

    So disgusted, and I have noted your heart felt message on Rose and Australian politics at SkS Bernard, that I have had to calm myself with Vivaldi Concerto in D major RV 93 Largo .

  77. #77 BBD
    September 15, 2013

    Christ, it’s getting worse in here, even with FreddyBerenwanker banned at last.

    WTF is a repeatedly exposed and ridiculed serial liar, fantasist and bullying thug Luke still doing here? Does he like being humiliated and mocked? Must do, I suppose, which is a bit weird.

    * * *

    One other thing. Luke constantly claims that there is no rationale for this blog etc but every time I look – here he is again. Clearly the “no rationale” stuff is yet another rather desperate lie aimed at shutting down people who repeatedly catch Luke out in his lies and expose his fantasies.

  78. #78 Jeff Harvey
    September 15, 2013

    “Ecosystem services is bullshit non science for rent-seeking lefties”

    BBD, I second that. When is Tim going to finally ban this brainless twerp? Luke has got to be the most pathetic idiot we’ve ever had on Deltoid – and that is saying a lot considering some of the luminaries on here past and present.

  79. #79 Jeff Harvey
    September 15, 2013

    Understanding the value of supporting, aesthetic and provisioning ecosystem services is one of the most important disciplines bridging environmental science and economics. Supporting services are those which underpin the material economy (Heal, 2000). These include: purification of air and water, breakdown of wastes, stabilization of coastlines and climate, flood control, generation and maintenance of soil and renewal of its fertility, pollination, seed dispersal, the cycling of nutrients, pest control and others.

    Costanza’s seminal 1997 paper argued that supporting ecological services alone were worth 33 trillion dollars to the global economy at the time – almost twice as much as the sum of all GDPs of all nations on Earth. A more recent study evaluates the value of supporting services:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041612000101

    The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) was one of the largest scientific endeavors undertaken in decades. Many of the world’s leading scientists contributed to it. The report concluded that human activities have seriously degrading critical services such as those described above by as much as 60%. The prognosis of further degradation is dire. Most of these services do not have technological substitutes, and even where there are, these are prohibitively expensive. For instance, the extinction of pollinators in parts of China has meant that certain crops have to be pollinated by hand. Humans cannot replicate the effectiveness of natural pollinators, such as insects, and crop yields are thus a fraction of what they would be if healthy population of insects were present.

    There are a number of examples where the value of ecosystem services has been demonstrated. One of the best and which I use in lectures is the pollination of oil palms. Oil palms are native to west Africa, and were introduced into Indonesia and elsewhere in SE Asia in 1918. However, no native pollinators were introduced, meaning that for 62 years the trees had to be hand-pollinated. In 1980, however, a small African weevil and mutualistic pollinator of oil palm trees was introduced intentionally into Asia. Within 5 years, 200 million dollars was saved in tedious hand-pollinating practices and at the same time oil palm yields increased by a factor of 5.

    Other examples abound. New York City has some of the cleanest drinking water of any major city on Earth. That is because the water comes from the Catskill Mountains watershed, some 150 km north of the city. Soil organisms filter the water and purify it. In the 1980s, however, the water supply to the city was threatened by developers who planned to clear many of the forests in the Catskill Mountains for golf courses and hotels. Moreover, the number of farms in the area increased, all of these factors leading to a reduction in the quality of groundwater and thus threatening New York’s longstanding supply. City planners had two options: build a water purification plant for 6 billion dollars with 300 million dollar annual maintenance costs, or to stop any further development of the Catskill region, buy out the developers and turn it into a large wilderness region – at a cost of 3 billion dollars. The planners took the latter decision.

    Two textbook examples of ecosystem services and their economic valuation. Yet Luke says that ecosystem services are ‘lefty bullshit’. Folks, this is the kind of brainless idiot that we are dealing with. A self-righteous know-nothing with delusions of grandeur. Bill is correct. He does not deserve an audience.

  80. #80 Lionel A
    September 15, 2013

    Two textbook examples of ecosystem services and their economic valuation.

    Thanks you for taking the time to spell it out to one who clearly does not understand as much as he wants to think. Or maybe he gets riled when a mental black hole of his is exposed.

    The examples you gave are just two mentioned in that book I mentioned at #42 above .

    Luke has no excuse for continuing in his eco-ignorance.

  81. #81 Turboblocke
    September 15, 2013

    Disclaimer from Karen’s surveys: DISCLAIMER: These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. Poll results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. Stock & Land is not responsible for the opinions expressed herein.

  82. #82 BBD
    September 15, 2013

    Stu

    Re Gordy’s bollocks on the previous page:

    Our star is organised by the large gas giants, which naturally influences climate on earth.

    This is “barycentrism”, a strain of crankery so extreme that it is explicitly banned at WTFUWT (I have just re-checked the comment policy).

  83. #83 Berendaneke
    September 15, 2013

    @Harvey (#79) eco fundamentalist and CO2 clown :evil:

    Your insane over-exaggeration of eco worshipping is totally unacceptable:

    Understanding the value of supporting, aesthetic and provisioning ecosystem services is one of the most important disciplines bridging environmental science and economics. Supporting services are those which underpin the material economy (Heal, 2000). These include: purification of air and water, breakdown of wastes, stabilization of coastlines and climate, flood control, generation and maintenance of soil and renewal of its fertility, pollination, seed dispersal, the cycling of nutrients, pest control and others.

    Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:

    Costanza’s seminal 1997 paper argued that supporting ecological services alone were worth 33 trillion dollars to the global economy at the time – almost twice as much as the sum of all GDPs of all nations on Earth. A more recent study evaluates the value of supporting services:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041612000101

    Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:

    The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) was one of the largest scientific endeavors undertaken in decades. Many of the world’s leading scientists contributed to it. The report concluded that human activities have seriously degrading critical services such as those described above by as much as 60%. The prognosis of further degradation is dire. Most of these services do not have technological substitutes, and even where there are, these are prohibitively expensive. For instance, the extinction of pollinators in parts of China has meant that certain crops have to be pollinated by hand. Humans cannot replicate the effectiveness of natural pollinators, such as insects, and crop yields are thus a fraction of what they would be if healthy population of insects were present.

    Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:

    There are a number of examples where the value of ecosystem services has been demonstrated. One of the best and which I use in lectures is the pollination of oil palms. Oil palms are native to west Africa, and were introduced into Indonesia and elsewhere in SE Asia in 1918. However, no native pollinators were introduced, meaning that for 62 years the trees had to be hand-pollinated. In 1980, however, a small African weevil and mutualistic pollinator of oil palm trees was introduced intentionally into Asia. Within 5 years, 200 million dollars was saved in tedious hand-pollinating practices and at the same time oil palm yields increased by a factor of 5.

    Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:

    Other examples abound. New York City has some of the cleanest drinking water of any major city on Earth. That is because the water comes from the Catskill Mountains watershed, some 150 km north of the city. Soil organisms filter the water and purify it. In the 1980s, however, the water supply to the city was threatened by developers who planned to clear many of the forests in the Catskill Mountains for golf courses and hotels. Moreover, the number of farms in the area increased, all of these factors leading to a reduction in the quality of groundwater and thus threatening New York’s longstanding supply. City planners had two options: build a water purification plant for 6 billion dollars with 300 million dollar annual maintenance costs, or to stop any further development of the Catskill region, buy out the developers and turn it into a large wilderness region – at a cost of 3 billion dollars. The planners took the latter decision.

    Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:

    Two textbook examples of ecosystem services and their economic valuation. Yet Luke says that ecosystem services are ‘lefty bullshit’. Folks, this is the kind of brainless idiot that we are dealing with. A self-righteous know-nothing with delusions of grandeur. Bill is correct. He does not deserve an audience.

    Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:

    Please stop your useless proaganda for a completely useless waste of time with your lunatic eco illness.

  84. #84 Lionel A
    September 15, 2013

    Where is the exorcist? We need another sweep out.

    It takes a certain intelligence to work out how to block-paste and strikeout, same as gets an amoeba to food.

  85. #85 BBD
    September 15, 2013

    Oh dear. I thought the nutter had finally been banned. Hope springs eternal!

    :-)

    Freddy, if you must comment here, please address others’ points rather than striking them out and ranting.

  86. #86 Jeff Harvey
    September 15, 2013

    Ya gotta love Berendaneke. The examples I put up about pollination and water purification are bonafide case studies. There are many more examples.. these are just two classic textbook ones.

    I also reiterate some conclusions form the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006). The report is available online. I also paste a link to a recent peer-reviewed study on valuation, as well as Costanza’s seminal 1997 Nature paper.

    So what does our resident psychopath do? Copy and paste my post and then put lines through all of it, as if this is some sort of demented proof that these examples aren’t true and that the studies and MEA don’t exist.

    Note that the nutter doesn’t offer up any proof of these being fabrications; no, instead Berendaneke can only mutter gibberish about this being ‘bullshit from an eco-clown’.

    When is Tim going to ban this guy, along with his puppet master, Luke and his alter ego Fatso? This blog has been dragged through the mud in recent months by the fruitcake brigade only because there has been no filter. You can see exactly what happens with blogs when deniers try and take over. Intellectual discourse is dragged down to the lowest common denominator. If these guys are a representative sample of the denial brain trust, then no wonder they are in such trouble.

  87. #87 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    ‘This is “barycentrism”, a strain of crankery so extreme that it is explicitly banned at WTFUWT (I have just re-checked the comment policy).’

    Anthony rejects UFOs too, so he’s not the sharpest knife in the draw.

    And let me assure you that barycentriism has nothing to do with astrology.

  88. #88 el gordo
    September 15, 2013
  89. #89 chek
    September 15, 2013

    And let me assure you that barycentriism has nothing to do with astrology.

    So don’t fucking tell us what it isn’t in lieu of what negligible effect it actually is. Or we might just think it’s just another desperate thrashing about of a deluded half-wit crank of the Anything But CO2 persuasion

    Btw, Gordon that’s rhetorical because we already know that’s what it is and what you are.

  90. #90 el gordo
    September 15, 2013
  91. #91 BBD
    September 15, 2013

    #87

    Anthony rejects UFOs too, so he’s not the sharpest knife in the draw.

    So you believe in UFOs? Or have I misunderstood this?

    And let me assure you that barycentriism has nothing to do with astrology.

    I didn’t say that it did. Although it does. Both are unsupported by empirical evidence.

  92. #92 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    ‘So you believe in UFOs? Or have I misunderstood this?’

    There are a many unidentified flying objects captured on cameras and mobile phones on a daily basis.

    At the moment this UFO phenomenon remains a mystery.

  93. #93 chek
    September 15, 2013

    Jeff @ #86 What you have to remember Jeff is that the pitiful collection of cranks, liars and the most cack-handed of SpamKan relays imaginable are the sum total result of the Koch et al investment in pure shit.

    Cheap internet yapping by the above coterie is what they’ve been told they’ve bought. Anyone else would be suing for a refund.

  94. #94 BBD
    September 15, 2013

    #92 Fair enough. Note that I was careful not to put words like “alien spaceships” into your mouth.

    Good faith!

    :-)

  95. #95 BBD
    September 15, 2013

    Cheap internet yapping by the above coterie is what they’ve been told they’ve bought. Anyone else would be suing for a refund.

    It’s a hackneyed old cliche, but you owe me a keyboard.

  96. #96 chek
    September 15, 2013

    Yes Gordon, we know of the effect – it’s how distant planets across the galaxy are detected.

    There’s always some crumb of truth in the giant crank loaf.

  97. #97 chek
    September 15, 2013

    but you owe me a keyboard

    Oh, I think your input is owed much more than that BBD.

  98. #98 el gordo
    September 15, 2013

    Hate Media

    ‘The WSJ report said the change was small but “it is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet”. – See more at:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/we-got-it-wrong-on-warming-says-ipcc/story-e6frg8y6-1226719672318#sthash.RrawijVJ.dpuf

  99. #99 chek
    September 15, 2013

    reportedly admits

    I expect we’ll be seeing plenty of similar ‘reportedly’ type ‘reports’ in the lead-up to the actual release date.

    Meanwhile, you have your fun on Fantasy Island while the grown ups figure out what to do about it.

  100. #100 Berendaneke
    September 15, 2013

    @80 Linoel A eco lunatic and CO2 clown :evil:

    Your claim is totally unsubstantiated and therefore has to be rejected:

    Thanks you for taking the time to spell it out to one who clearly does not understand as much as he wants to think. Or maybe he gets riled when a mental black hole of his is exposed

    You did not apprehend that your knowledge in meteorology is far below the level of your black hole.

    Answer the question how many temperature stations are covered in the GHCN database? You will see that you are totally unable to answer this simple question:

    Therefore BLACK HOLE Lionel :evil:

Current ye@r *