September 2013 Open Thread

The thread, there is more.

Comments

  1. #1 Berendaneke
    September 17, 2013

    Correction:
    Hahahaha, the moron BBD :evil: excrements:

    “the oceans are part of the world too”

    Now for once he likes the oceans as being part of the world. However when I educate him, that the global temperature fakers in CRU, GISS and NOAA calculate their “Global Temperatures” fake the global temperatire because there are practically no temperature air measurements from the OCEANS (take note poor BBD :evil:), i.e. ca. 71% of the earth’s surface. Now BBD does not like to be reminded of the oceans: BBD :evil: the partisan clown.

    In addition BBD :evil: does not know how many stations are covered in the GHCN database!!!! hahahahaha :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    Again:
    In addition BBD :evil: does not know how many stations are covered in the GHCN database!!!! hahahahaha :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    And once more:
    In addition BBD :evil: does not know how many stations are covered in the GHCN database!!!! hahahahaha :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    ALL: “There is no AGW …”

  2. #2 Lionel A
    September 17, 2013

    For those willing to see what the reality is the ever watchful Sou has an article with a link to the PDF of a free access PNAS paper by Ben Santer et. al. on ‘Human and natural influences on the changing thermal structure of the atmosphere’.

    Those who have been around this topic for longer than the dog-watch put in by the detractors will know the stick that Ben Santer got over his previous paper on attribution in 1996 ‘A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere‘, the one which Pat Michaels, unwisely as it turned out, brought to the fore in a 2010 House Science Committee Meeting on Climate Change reported on here: House Science hearing “Rational Discussion of Climate Change” with Lindzen, Michaels, and Curry.

    Just look at the recognised credentials of those industry mouth-pieces who have continued to cover themselves in glory gory.

  3. #3 Lionel A
    September 17, 2013

    Thank you freddy for making doubly sure that my post hits a new page.

    One has to hand it to these idiots.

  4. #4 Nick
    September 17, 2013

    #1 The simpleton returns, bejewelling his ignorance with his little shiny buttons. The spatial distribution of measurement stations may be a problem for you, son, but rest assured that others have long anticpated you, and developed the methodology to deal with it…and then there are satellites and ocean buoys that are quite useful for corroboration. And guess what?

    Also, what do you think the world’s glaciers are telling you, ignoramus? Now I will go back to ignoring you.

  5. #5 BBD
    September 17, 2013

    All

    Please let’s not talk to the fucking lunatic.

    The only way we are going to get rid of this insane troll is to blank it. Everybody, all the time. No matter what.

    We seem to be all the moderation there is here now, so let’s act together in our own interest.

    Blank the insane troll. Totally.

  6. #6 Lionel A
    September 17, 2013

    Sadly the links in that article from Climate Progress no longer link to the then live broadcast of that 2010 House Science Committee Meeting on Climate Change but I have tracked down the recordings.

    Panel 1

    The rambling, vitriol laden rhetoric from Republican Ralph Hall has to be listened to to be believed. How does this pass as acceptable behaviour. Fortunately Bob Inglis follows and nails the point that the diatribe from Hall is ‘On the Record’.

    Panel 2

    this is the one that includes the exchange between Pat Michaels and Ben Santer, which can also be found as a stand alone on YouTube.

    Those with a grasp of the history of denial, once again for more than a dog-watch, will know about the ‘unfortunate’ behaviour of Michaels WRT Santer’s being one of the lead authors of the IPCC Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995 (SAR).

    Panel 3.

  7. #7 Berendaneke
    September 17, 2013

    BBD, again nobody has asked you, and also nobody likes yu, and you are NOT the moderator but only a helpless clown :lol:

    This is BBD: :lol: :roll:

    Your lunatism must be rejected:

    All

    Please let’s not talk to the fucking lunatic.

    The only way we are going to get rid of this insane troll is to blank it. Everybody, all the time. No matter what.

    We seem to be all the moderation there is here now, so let’s act together in our own interest.

    Blank the insane troll. Totally.

    You should fuck off here as you miss the topic and always derange others. In addition, you regularly misinform readers who come here in good faith and must read your insane bollocks.

    Therefore, BBD troll :evil:, do all of us a favor and piss off.

  8. #8 Berendaneke
    September 17, 2013

    All

    Is anbody of all able to explain what clown BBD :evil: meant be exrementing:

    let’s act together in our own interest

    My questions to this utter trial of a conspiration on the internet:

    A) WHO IS ALL

    B) WHAT IS “OWN INTEREST”

    Anybody who honestly and truthfully explains to the audience what the CAGW cown BBD :evil: meant will get a payment of 1000 Austrialian Dollars as compensation of adherence to truthfuless and rejection of hidden conspiration.

  9. #9 Berendaneke
    September 17, 2013

    Correction:

    All

    Is anbody of all able to explain what clown BBD :evil: meant be exrementing:

    let’s act together in our own interest

    My questions to this utter trial of a conspiration on the internet:

    A) WHO IS ALL

    B) WHAT IS “OWN INTEREST”

    Anybody who honestly and truthfully explains to the audience what the CAGW cown BBD :evil: meant will get a payment of 1000 Austrialian Dollars as compensation of adherence to truthfuless and rejection of hidden conspiration.

  10. #10 Lionel A
    September 17, 2013

    Ben Santer v Pat Michaels archived by Peter Sinclair.

    Now here is Ben Santer putting the record straight on the Michaels nonsense over Santer’s lead authorship procedures with the IPCC SAR 1995.

    Oreskes & Conway also covered this in ‘Merchants of Doubt’ from page 208.

  11. #11 Berendaneke
    September 17, 2013

    @4 Nick :evil:

    Your text on the assessment of a global temperature is full of mistakes and error, hence it cannot be accepted:

    The spatial distribution of measurement stations may be a problem for you, son, but rest assured that others have long anticpated you, and developed the methodology to deal with it…and then there are satellites and ocean buoys that are quite useful for corroboration

    You asserted the utter bollocks “… and developed the methodology to deal with it …”

    Can you develop further what you mean with “developed” and which “methodology”

    Show what you :evil: know (but I bet you don’t know anything at all, it’s just a hoot from a moron :evil:)

  12. #12 Berendaneke
    September 17, 2013

    @Lionel A, not entirely true: “Ben Santer v Pat Michaels archived by Peter Sinclair”

    It as originally archived by Michael Mann at Princeton.

  13. #13 Berendaneke
    September 17, 2013

    @6 Lionel A

    Can you explain in own words (not copy paste please) what was wrong in the excellent speech of Republican Ralph Hall.

    I could fully agree to everything he said.

    Please delineate what you did not like.

  14. #14 Berendaneke
    September 17, 2013

    For all readers who could not read the interview Congressman Hall (then chair of the House’s Science Committee) had given to the National Journal (NJ), I cite here the most interesting parts:

    $£$£$£$£$£US$$$$$$$US$$$$

    NJ: Do you think climate change is causing the earth to become warmer?

    Hall: I can’t say it doesn’t have a percentage of effects on it – one percent, three percent, five percent. But I don’t think it’s the cause. I don’t think we can control what God controls.

    We put $32 billion into it and don’t see very much change.

    NJ: Last year the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science published a survey finding that 97 percent of scientists were in consensus that human activities lead to global warming.

    Hall: And they each get $5,000 for every report like that they give out. That’s just my guess. I don’t have any proof of that. But I don’t believe ‘em. I still want to listen to ‘em and believe what I believe I ought to believe.

    NJ: Have you read Governor Perry’s book, Fed Up?

    Hall: Yes.

    NJ: He essentially says climate science may be a conspiracy theory or may be put forth by scientists who are working together to put forth findings in order to get funding. Are you on the same page as Gov. Perry on this?

    Hall: I’m pretty close. I think we ought to have an honest ear to science. They can come before my committee. I always put someone to come and testify when they’re testifying against it to give them the other side. I think we oughta listen to ‘em. I just don’t think we oughta mind ‘em.

    Because what have we got for the $32 billion we spent?

    NJ: Do you mean the $32 billion that was spent in the stimulus?

    Hall: I mean everything that’s been spent knocking and pushing global warming. I’m really more fearful of freezing. And I don’t have any science to prove that. But we have a lot of science that tells us they’re not basing it on real scientific facts. And we need to listen to more. I’m willing to listen for more.

    If we believe everything they say, we can’t clean China. They’re producing six coal-fed operations a week. We can’ t clean the world for them. We can’t clean it for Russia. We can’t clean it for India. We can’t clean it for Mexico.

    We’re poorer now than we’ve ever been since the Great Depression.

    NJ: Paul Krugman and other columnists have criticized Republicans and said that the party could become labeled anti-science.

    Hall: I’m not anti-science, I’m pro-science. But we ought to have some believable science.

    NJ: What’s the appropriate role for government on the issue of climate change?

    Hall: To listen to good science, proper science and know the difference. And not to use it for political thrust or political gain, because it’s something that affects the world. But we can’t be 9-11 for the world. I wish we could. We could have at one time. But we can’t now. We have to be more careful what outlays we make for something that hasn’t been proved.

    $£$£$£$£$£US$$$$$$$US$$$$

    In summary: it is shocking to see what the REAL motivation of “climate” scientists is and I am happy to see very reasonable politicians in the US who fight insane aberrations of real science.

  15. #15 Berendaneke
    September 17, 2013

    @3 Lionel A

    To whom are you speaking when you address “Fredi”. I haven’t seen a “Fredi” commenting here. Do you see ghosts? Maybe too much ethanol today, clown :evil: ????

  16. #16 BBD
    September 17, 2013

    If anybody knows how to contact Tim Lambert, will they please just do it.

  17. #17 Berendaneke
    September 17, 2013

    @BBD clown :evil:

    Why are you clown so desperate ?

    I have the e-mail address of Tim. Do you want me to contact him and what do you want me to convey to him?

    Information required, desperate clown :evil: :roll:

  18. #18 BBD
    September 17, 2013

    #6 Lionel A

    Those with a grasp of the history of denial, once again for more than a dog-watchThose with a grasp of the history of denial, once again for more than a dog-watch

    Reminds me once again of the Jack Aubrey “joke” about why a dog-watch is so named: “Why because it is cur-tailed!”

    :-)

  19. #19 Lionel A
    September 17, 2013

    Ah! Another Patrick O’Brian fan, unless I have that wrong.

    Kept me sane through the long weeks of recovery in hospital following two cardiac arrests in two days.

    I have since re-read in chronological order, rather than order of purchase, dissecting the text for accuracy in sailing terms, parts of a ship etc.

    I like the sort of music mentioned too, Locatelli is much overlooked.

    All that is another side to my library having once been into sailing small boats, ones without engines. Had to take a handling and rule of the road proficiency test – this in Portsmouth harbour before getting a ticket to go solo or take others along. Magic days.

    These are skills, and ship construction too, that humans may find a need for in the future, but the pattern of trades that were once familiar, although varying year on year (old logs are fascinating – no not tree rings freddy – you responding to that name freddy is indicative), will likely change rather as temperatures gradients change WRT latitude and longitude.

    OT I know but in the absence of any sensible commentary from you know who….?

  20. #20 Lionel A
    September 17, 2013

    BBD I like the one about the ‘…lesser of the two weevils’ too.

    Both priceless.

    I complained to retailer about the unexpectedly hard nature of some biscuits they were selling describing them as being ‘Like Pusser’s hard-tack but without the weevils’, the face he made should have been caught by camera.

  21. #21 BBD
    September 17, 2013

    Oh yes, POB is wonderful stuff. And like you, I’ve read the lot (more than once!) in correct chronological order. And will do so again. All except the final, unfinished volume, which I can’t face.

    The lesser of two weevils – Aubrey’s other “joke”!

    I thought you might be a POB man. Good to have it confirmed! And I hope your health is improved. If I may say so.

    Locatelli – here I plead ignorance. Somewhere along the line I *saw* a CD “Music of POB” or some such, and for whatever stupid reasons didn’t buy it. So I don’t know. Still.

  22. #22 Lionel A
    September 17, 2013

    And above at #14 we see that freddy and Ralph Hall both have a similar problem with providing coherent informed opinion.

  23. #23 Lionel A
    September 17, 2013

    Thanks

    Locatelli – here I plead ignorance.

    Locatelli, another Italian baroque composer and near contemporary of Vivaldi, Marcello, Albinoni, Torelli etc. The Scarlattis are worth a look too and of course Corelli (these latter of a slightly earlier age) – Christmas Concerto part of which was rightly in the sound track of the film being a cert for that played by Aubrey and Maturin whilst off the West coast of South America.

    The two CDs ‘Musical Evenings with the Captain’ marketed by a US company are OK but do not do justice to Locatelli.

    The music from the film I have discovered on other CDs which I have collected. I have suggestions. Maybe best go to email as it is so OT.

  24. #24 BBD
    September 17, 2013

    #22 Hall is your classic fundamentalist pig-ignorant denier vermin. Read the man:

    I can’t say it doesn’t have a percentage of effects on it – one percent, three percent, five percent. But I don’t think it’s the cause. I don’t think we can control what God controls.

    And:

    And they each get $5,000 for every report like that they give out. That’s just my guess. I don’t have any proof of that. But I don’t believe ‘em. I still want to listen to ‘em and believe what I believe I ought to believe.

    Unbelievable. And enough. The US needs to sort itself out in a very profound way. People like this need to be removed from – and kept from – the levers of power.

    * * *

    Thanks for the gentle warning about the Musical Evenings CDs – duly noted. Locatelli I think I will just try. As for further suggestions, post ‘em up! There’s no topic here. Anything which isn’t outright lunacy ought to be welcomed, and besides, it’s only the one comment. Also I don’t really feel like posting an email up – not even a disposable one – given the atmosphere in here. Nor should you.

  25. #25 pentaxZ
    September 17, 2013

    Hehe…it’s quite funny to see all the deltoid regulars panic shining through. Indeed, being a warm monger isn’t so hipp these days. The whole CAGW church is crumbling down. It’s now just a matter of time before it’s completely in ruins.

    Now time for education, deltoid regulars, aka zealots:

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/

    http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf

  26. #26 BBD
    September 17, 2013

    Panic? You tool.

    I chopped your rubbish up into little bits earlier today. You should be the one having an attack of nerves.

    Instead you quote liar Morano and a paper you haven’t even read, let alone understood.

    You aren’t worth the bother. You don’t have the chops for this.

  27. #27 chek
    September 17, 2013

    It’s now just a matter of time before…

    Oh be still my laughter aching sides, but that one can go in the bulging collection of phrases along with its equally drole companion ‘the final nail’ of which there’s surely enough to sink a battyleship.

    That aside, no PantieZ, it’s not ‘a matter of time’.
    It’s a matter of being shown the evidence which none of you troglodytes and your masters have managed to do for all the years they’ve been at it and feeding you.

    Of course they fool morons like you, but luckily the population isn’t composed of morons. Just the denier brigades seem to have an excess of them. Still keeps you company I suppose. Dumb as shit company I grant you, but company nevertheless.

  28. #28 chek
    September 17, 2013

    For extra points, anybody fancy running a sweep on how many IPCC report lies we’ll see between now and the 27th?

    I’m guessing the boldest and most jaw-dropping ones will be released about the 25th or so.

    There should be a special prize for the most fanciful and egregious which still passes the denier smell test. SpamKan and PantieZ are as good proxies as could be wished for (i.e. zero threshold) , although Gordon runs them close in the behold-the-self-inflicted-cretinisation of the ageing populace stakes.

  29. #29 pentaxZ
    September 17, 2013

    bbd #26 You did? Hahahahahahahahaha….duh, perhaps in your dellusional mind.

    “Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.”

    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
    “Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
    UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ – Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001
    ‘The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!’ -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 – Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.
    “I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
    “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
    “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
    “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” – declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications. (LINK) & (LINK)
    “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
    UN IPCC Lead Author Tom Tripp Dissents on man-made warming: ‘We’re not scientifically there yet’ – July 16, 2009
    The UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s claim that the UN IPCC is an “very open” also needs examining. The IPCC summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The UN is all about politics.
    UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s alleged global warming “consensus,” according to a May 10, 2007 article. Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?
    Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton, accused the UN of “censorship” on July 23, 2008. “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.
    Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.
    Here is a small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN IPCC’s “very open” process.
    (Below are excerpts from various U.S. Senate reports which Climate Depot’s Morano authored during his years at the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.)
    One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
    In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN's] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar concluded.
    Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.
    Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.
    In addition, a Greenpeace activist co-authored a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace, was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN’s policy prescriptions.
    The UN IPCC’s own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.
    In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party’s convention platform battle – not a scientific process. During an IPCC Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.
    Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for Policymaker’s process on January 24, 2007.
    McIntyre wrote: “So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.”
    Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained. He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”

    Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher: “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”

  30. #30 chek
    September 17, 2013

    You just fucked your credibility by mentioning Wegman as an authority.

    So take your oil-shill retirees looking for post-retirement cash and fuck off PantieZ.

  31. #31 chek
    September 17, 2013

    Just accept that you were never the brightest bulb in the room PantieZ, and trying to fool people at a minimum ten times smarter than your dismal self is never going to work.

  32. #32 Berendaneke
    September 17, 2013

    @29 pentaxZ

    This compilation of first class climate scientists’ testimonies on the political spin of the IPCC CAGW clowns shows excellently the intellectual and moral decline of the whole AGW climate church community. They deceive, they manipulate data, they lie, they exaggerate whenever it suits there insane eco fundamentalist will for dominance against “bad” western mankind.

    The CAGW leper islanders of nihilism and firm believers of the post-normal manipulative pseudo-climatology will go mad and the next few decades will be a catastrophy for their rotten view of the world: NO DECADENT GOD GAIA WILL HELP THEM OUT OF THEIR MISERY.

  33. #33 pentaxZ
    September 17, 2013

    Evidence, chek, evidence? Ok, show us the evidence for the 50 000 000 climate refugees. Show us the evidence of extinct animals due to AGW. Show us the evidence of the diminishing polar bear population. Show us the evidence of the accelerating sea level rise. Show us the evidence of increased bad weather. Show us the evidence of diminishing ice at the poles. And the best of them all, show us the evidence that anthropogenic co2 is the main driver of global warming. You stupid zealots claims that weather and climate is out of order, the burdon of proof therefore lays heavy on your, and only your shoulders.

    And by the way, pseudoscientific blogs like ss, rc and its likes isn’t by any definition valid as proof of anything at all.

  34. #34 pentaxZ
    September 17, 2013

    Hahahaha…..chek, how are you doing? Sounds to me that you need a strain jacket and a padded room. Perhaps some nice meds too.

  35. #35 chek
    September 17, 2013

    The religious belief of the likes of PantieZ in their Holy Icons (Morano for instance) is a hoot to behold, ain’t it?

  36. #36 chek
    September 17, 2013

    The evidence is in the link where DC guts, fillets and frames Wegman, you moron.

    Although inability to read and comprehend might have saved your sorry, ragged arse from that final indignity.
    Though not anyone else following your pitiful exchange.

  37. #37 chek
    September 17, 2013

    pseudoscientific blogs like ss, rc

    Yeah, we know. Blogs run by scientists referencing scientists are a complete anathema to cranks and the fantasy world they live in.

    Tell us something we don’t already know outside the oh-so-fucking-predictable bubble you morons live in.

  38. #38 Jeff Harvey
    September 17, 2013

    Note how Pemtax cites work from a shill in estimating the effects of warming on polar bear demographics:

    http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-payments-university-victoria-professor-susan-crockford-probed

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-leak-susan-crockford-of-university-of-victoria-recruited-to-help-think-tank-undermine-ipcc/

    One more ‘expert’ on the think tank payroll discredited then. Let’s get to the facts:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01552.x/full

    http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/07-2089.1

    There are many more rejoinders to Crockford’s ‘crock’. Its too bad that PantieX’s understanding of population ecology is somewhere in the vicinity of ‘profoundly ignorant’. That’s hardly surprising. He’s never been to a university ecology lecture in his miserable life.

  39. #39 Jeff Harvey
    September 17, 2013

    To illustrate my last point, the latest point, and to prove that Pantie cannot read or understand basic English, here is a recent post from him:

    “Show us the evidence of extinct animals due to AGW”

    Sigh. How many frigging time must I debunk this old chestnut? I have at least a dozen times earlier, but since the deniers on this site don’t understand the basics of complex adaptive systems nor of the concept of ‘lag effects’, I am forced to again.

    Pantie, you vacuous twit, cause and effect relationships in nature are not instantaneous. In other words, a change in parameter ‘y’ does not result in an instantaneous response from parameter ‘z’. Given the scales involved, there are temporal lags which can encompass decades or even centuries. We scientists – you know, people like me who have worked in the field for over 20 years – realize that at the scales involved there will be declines in the abundances of species caused by various anthropogenic disturbances that lead to what we call ‘relaxation’ downwards to lower thresholds which may or may not stabilize at some equilibrium. In other words, for your simple little noggin, this means that over their ranges species will slowly decline after an initial perturbation either to extinction or to become much less common but stable provided suitable habitat remains. The loss of temperate forests in North America did not result in the instantaneous extinction of Bachman’s Warblers or Ivory-Billed Woodpeckers. Instead, they declined over 1-2 centuries as the forests were felled and eventually became so rare as to be unable to survive in viable numbers. The same applies to tropical forests. For example, clearing of the Mata Atlantica forests of Brazil in the 1950s (primarily) did not result in virtually instantaneous extinctions within 10-20 years (a time scale that in ecological and evolutionary terms IS virtually instantaneous). Instead, many species endemic to the region declined gradually so that by the mid 1990s none had been reported extinct but many were, and are, teetering on the edge of extinction. Climate change has only become readily apparent since the 1980s, and there are plenty of examples of species in population free fall as a result. This is what we should be concerned with. The extinction card is forever dredged up by the illiterate army of deniers who can’t tell a ground beetle from a rhinoceros.

    So, for the umpteenth time, I have been forced to explain the concept of time lags and the ‘extinction debt’. And I am fully prepared for the numbskulls on Deltoid to wade in here with their comic-book level of understanding on the subject.

  40. #40 BBD
    September 17, 2013

    Pentax

    .duh, perhaps in your dellusional mind.

    No, right here on this thread. Where everyone can go back and check. And where the evidence will remain.

  41. #41 Jeff Harvey
    September 17, 2013

    Now I’ve demolished PentaxZ and his extinction argument, let me briefly turn to Karen, who bitterly implied that ecosystem services are rubbish and that we should be debating climate change.

    Question to Karen: Exactly what factors do you think help to maintain an optimally breathable amount of gases in the atmosphere for plants and animals? What factors are important in regulating biogeochemical cycles and for renewal of atmospheric gases? Gee whiz… its those pesky ecosystem services again and species/biodiversity that are involved in sustaining humanity. Try as they might, this army f ignorant anti-environmentalists just ca’t bring themselves to admit that humans are utterly dependent on biodiversity.

    Given the hilarity of Karen’s ignorance yesterday (describing ecosystem services as ‘farming’) I can’t wait to see what nugget of stupidity she will come up with this time.

  42. #42 chek
    September 17, 2013

    Ok, show us the evidence for the 50 000 000 climate refugees

    Some are on the USA’s doorstep
    Many more to Australia are likely termed economic refugees

    The current Great Extinction is probably something you half-wits are unaware of. Why would you ever bother informing yourselves?

    And that’s your two links used up.

    The same with sea level rise. You think Morano’s going to inform you?

    Do you think Superstorm Sandy and the Colorado floods are normal weather? How many weather disasters can even a rich country like the USA withstand per decade, let alone per year?

    Even you must know that the 2012 polar ice was a record low – they do HAVE newspapers and a at least semi-literate population in Sweden, I take it.

    And best of all – there is no other explanation than CO2 that fits the facts. None of you half-wits nor any of your masters have an alternative that withstands examination.

  43. #43 Karen
    September 17, 2013

    #97 BBD

    That was in the good old days, you know, this was a really worthwhile & top blog, Timmie often got 10 replies to a post :)

  44. #44 Nick
    September 17, 2013

    I notice ‘climate data analyst’ John McLean made it into Camera Boy’s Morano copy-paste of disaffected Republican voters.. LOL… populated by grabs from 4 to 5 year old ‘testimonies’ to a stacked committee in a hijacking of democratic process that is all too common.

    Morano, employed by Inhofe, was effectively defrauding the US taxpayer by disseminating misinformation. The amount of public money Inhofe has spent on deceptive conduct is considerable, much greater than the FF money that puffs his campaign chest. This ought to horrify the neo-lib / science-as-conspiracy dribblers who Gish Gallop here…if they had a clue. Elected by the people to be a mouthpiece for industry interests.

  45. #45 Karen
    September 18, 2013

    Flannery: Look, it will be a very, very small increment.

    Bolt: Have you got a number? I mean, there must be some numbers.

    Flannery: I just need to clarfy in terms of the climate context for you. If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.

    Bolt: Right, but I just want to get to this very basic fact, because I’m finding it really curious that no one has got (this) fact. If I buy a car … I want to know how much it costs and whether it is going to do the job.

    Flannery: Sure.

    Bolt: In this case I want to know the cost of cutting our emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 and will it do the job: how much will the world’s temperatures fall by if Australia cuts its emissions by this much.

    Flannery: Look, as I said it will be a very, very small increment.

    Bolt: Can you give us a rough figure? A rough figure.

    Flannery: Sorry, I can’t because it’s a very complex system and we’re dealing with probabilities here.

    Bolt: …I’m just trying to get the facts in front of the public so we know what we’re doing. Just unbiased. Is it about, I don’t know, are you talking about a thousandth of a degree? A hundredth of a degree? What sort of rough figure?

    Flannery: Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mtr_today_march_25/

    lol

  46. #46 Karen
    September 18, 2013

    “To those of us who have been following the climate debate for decades, the next few years will be electrifying. There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering.”

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/

    ………………………………………………….lol………………….

  47. #47 Karen
    September 18, 2013

    Take your bat n’ ball and slither home guyz …………

  48. #48 Karen
    September 18, 2013

    “what is commonly called the “mainstream” view of climate science is contained in the spread of results from computer models. What is commonly dismissed as the “skeptical” or “denier” view coincides with the real-world observations. Now you know how to interpret those terms when you hear them.”

    lol

  49. #49 Stu 2
    September 18, 2013

    Yes Robert Murphy @#12 previous page.
    This site has definitely lost its sparkle.
    Interesting article by Terence Corcoran in the Financial post yesterday.
    “The Tide Is Rising On Climate Models And Policies.”
    It attempts to summarise the polarisation of the politics.
    For some reason I am not able to link it through to this site but it should be possible to find it with the title and author.

  50. #50 Stu 2
    September 18, 2013

    Nick @#47 previous page.
    As a resident of the Murrumbidgee Valley I can tell you that you have completely missed the point of those SHL releases in 2010 and 2011.
    Whether they impacted on the flooding peaks or not does not change that SHL were, in fact, releasing stored water from the still largely empty Eucumbene into spilling dams and flooded systems.
    Their operating licence demanded that this was done despite the fact that it was clearly wasteful and impractical.
    It was water that had been accrued or held back during the depth of the drought under rules associated with Exceptional Circumstances.
    It would have been far more useful for that water to have stayed in Eucumbene where there was room to store it. Clearly the lower dams or the river systems did not need any of it at the time! It could then have been used later (after the flooding) to achieve much more sensible and practical environmental, social and economic outcomes.
    That was, after all, one of the key reasons why the Snowy Hydro System was built.

  51. #51 Lotharsson
    September 18, 2013

    More lies from Karen, and she completely ignores all the other times she’s been caught out.

    Her purpose here is…

  52. #52 Nick
    September 18, 2013

    #50…Stu2, please try and understand the point. I make no comment on Snowy Hydro policy. That is not relevant, except for Marohasy in her attempt to cause damage.

    The point I make is that Marohasy is a sloppy researcher.

    I simply point out that Marohasy tried to sell a claim about the floods that was not supported by the data, in order to embarrass SH and the state government of the time.

    SH’s storage network,and operational practise, had no additive effect on flood heights. In fact, Snowy Hydro’s Tantangara Dam minimised upper Murrumbidgee flows. NSW Office of Water operate Blowering, and, while they had limited buffer to exploit, they still managed to prevent the Tumut River catchment above Goobarragandra junction from adding to flood height at any point downstream.

    The floods were generated entirely from catchment OUTSIDE Snowy Hydro’s control.

  53. #53 Nick
    September 18, 2013

    #46,47,48….simply rubbish,Kaz. You have started a new day with a shit-storm of unbacked assertion….the pre-emptive ‘strikes’ on the IPCC statement are empty, though their sheer number shows the the hold over the MSM that the liars have.

    #45, demonstrates that Bolt is an on-message ignoramus. The world has to wait for him to catch up. We knew that long ago Kaz. Bolt is doing his duty to his backers, and he is especially vulnerable as a sycophant: chip on both shoulders, poorly educated but passionate, loathes academia, and is in awe of men in suits with money. Bolt is the perfect stooge. Flannery is indicating that we are committed already to a GAT temperature rise and decay trajectory that runs for centuries. Bolt deliberately doesn’t understand that we can still influence how high that trajectory rises: he just sees the length in order to argue ‘what’s the point?’

    But it’s actually quite dumb to play dumb too often.

  54. #54 Stu 2
    September 18, 2013

    No Nick,
    That is still not the point.
    Of course everyone did everything they could do minimise the extent the major flooding and of course the major flooding was out of everyone’s control.
    The point remains that prior to the circumstances you are highlighting, when there had already been significant flooding and full lower dams , and after the major flooding when everything downstream was completely full, SHL was still releasing water from Eucumbene into a system that did not need it, purely because of the rules.
    It was wasteful and impractical.
    If the media chose to dramatise it and those you criticise used that as leverage does not alter the fact that it was definitely sub optimal and counter productive behaviour.

  55. #55 Nick
    September 18, 2013

    # 54, Stu2 ,sorry, you don’t get to redefine what the point of my observationsabout Dr Marohasy is,and how she pursued her end…OK? I made my point unambiguously when I first mentioned her.

    On your point, SH’s operational practise demanded by its charter, Marohasy certainly disapproved of SH’s operational process and possibly not without some justification…however,she could not confine her disapproval to the process, she insisted on trying to find fault where there was none [and where in fact SH had assisted flood minimisation]

  56. #56 Stu 2
    September 18, 2013

    That is still not the point Nick and you are not entirely correct.
    There was plenty of warning and numerous submissions from many different quarters such as local councils and representative organisations about developing evidence that SHL was indeed creating a problem by releasing water that was not needed from Eucumbene. Those warnings and submissions started over 6 months prior to the actual crisis.
    The fact that when the crisis hit they then did everything possible to minimise it, does not change the fact that they did indeed contribute to the larger and over riding problem.
    I don’t believe Marohasy was a major player in these events. From my recollection, her media attention came after the event.

  57. #57 Nick
    September 18, 2013

    #56 I am entirely correct,Stu 2… and about 100 post ago I made a point about Marohasy’s actions that you wish was something else…. I can understand how the concern over releases could arise, but people were warning of a problem that did not actually exist. No matter the rumblings and allegations about SH, no one checked the public data, sometimes erroneously claiming that SH’s generation-flow confidentiality was a hindrance to getting the picture clear…You can still do check the data if you wish. Access the NOW stream and dam data page and time search flows and storage for all the catchments and sub-catchments involved.

    Snowy Hydro did not exacerbate flooding. The location and timing of record rainfalls was the cause. NOW’s operation of Blowering minimised any impact of SH power generation flows at Tumut and all points downstream. Fascinatingly, the Tumut River flooding [and hence contribution to the Murrumbidgee] was entirely generated from catchment down stream of the dam,so massive and localised were the rainfalls. And the Tumut peaked after the Murrumbidgee at their junction, so the highest flooding at Gundagai and downstream was largely Murrumbidgee water. The second peak was more Tumut water, but , again, I promise, not from SH and Eucumbene.

    SH has to pay for infrastructure and operational costs from its power generation assets, so they must send water down pipes, but the actual volume going down the Tumut power system is quite modest. Most of the water banking up at Blowering was run-off from uncontrolled catchments [Bago Plateau, Blowering Mountains, Yarrangobilly River] not water from Eucumbene and /or Tooma.

    Local media failed to give their stories substance, in not doing basic research…classic ‘teach the controversy’ default position. “We just report, we don’t investigate” Maybe they were unaware of how they could pursue the information,I don’t know.

    SH’s contribution to Murrumbidgee base flow characteristics is real, obviously, but no one calculated base flow contribution to flood height because they did not use any real data for their assertions. The contribution was vanishingly small. I expected Marohasy, as a professional researcher to look before leaping. To act as a skeptic.

  58. #58 Berendaneke
    September 18, 2013

    Beware of Jeff Harvey :evil: :roll:

    university ecology lecture

    NEVER IN MY LIFE WOULD I WASTE MY TIME WITH SUCH UTTER RUBBISH

    Education for Harvey: your loathed blown-up “eco-system services” is nothing else than agriculture, farming. Why the fuk did you not try to become a farmer, instead of an insane eco clown :evil: who wastes our money, why the hell???

  59. #59 Berendaneke
    September 18, 2013

    @57 Nick :evil:

    #56 I am entirely correct

    Everybody who expresses himself in such a degusting manner is by nature a full-blown utterly arrogant idiot :evil: :roll:

  60. #60 adelady
    September 18, 2013

    I’m really gobsmacked about the various comments about “ecosystem services”. Do people really think that “ecosystem services” are entirely related to functions and areas of immediate utility to specific people? Just an obsession of food forest gardeners, orchardists, winegrowers and broadacre farmers/ pastoralists concerned about pollination or soil depth or root systems of pastures or penetration/ retention of water and fertiliser. Nothing about air quality, flood control, coastal protection, water quality, pest control or anything else among the dozens/ hundreds/ thousands of things that sustain us.

    I know I shouldn’t be surprised, but in fact I’m amazed at this.

  61. #61 Nick
    September 18, 2013

    #59.. ah, the massive irony, the projection from Strike Through Boy! Scores of interjections from you, and no substance, nothing. Just abuse and scorn : can’t get any more arrogant than that can we, kettle? I await some content from you, go on make a contribution, it’s a public forum.

  62. #62 Berendaneke
    September 18, 2013

    The next German federal election will show a terrible defeat of the gren fundamentalist party :evil: because of incredible, but well documented, reproaches of disgusting pedophilia among green fundamentalists :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

  63. #63 rhwombat
    September 18, 2013

    Nick: please don’t feed it. Starvation is indicated for SpamKan & Panties too.

  64. #64 Bernard J.
    September 18, 2013

    Here’s one for the books.

    Australians who watch the ABC’s Chaser series (I don’t) may have caught the segment where a Newscorp staffer and former Liberal apparatchik Chris Kenny was mocked with a rather crude photoshopping of his image so that he was apparently having sex with a dog. It certainly didn’t amuse Mediawatch.

    Fair enough, but one of the people who were supposed to be most damaged by this depiction – Kenny’s own son no less – has had the guts to stand up and tell it as it is, and that is that his father is a:

    …a staunchly neo-conservative, anti-progress, anti-worker defender of the status quo. He is an unrelenting apologist for the Liberal Party. He was one of Alexander Downer’s senior advisers at the time of the Iraq War. He’s been known to argue for stubborn, sightless inaction on climate change. He spits at anyone concerned with such trivialities as gender equality, environmental issues or labour rights from his Twitter account on a daily basis. Recently, he characterised criticism of the lack of women in Tony Abbott’s Cabinet as a continuation of the Left’s “gender wars”. He is a regular and fervent participant in The Australian’s numerous ongoing bully campaigns against those who question its editorial practices and ideological biases. The profoundly irresponsible, dishonest, hate-filled anti-multiculturalist Andrew Bolt has recently referred to Kenny on his blog as “a friend”.

    http://junkee.com/in-defence-of-the-chasers-picture-of-my-dad-having-sex-with-dog/19967

    It’s the last paragraph that’s the sting in the tail…

  65. #65 Nick
    September 18, 2013

    #63, weak of me!

  66. #66 Bernard J.
    September 18, 2013

    Adelady said:

    I’m really gobsmacked about the various comments about “ecosystem services”.

    and I can only concur. I’ve avoided comment prior to now because others have taken the baton and made good points, but it’d telling that those who deny climate change are also completely oblivious to the absolute dependence that humans have on a functioning biosphere.

    They can deny the truth, but there’s no hiding from it – as time will prove…

  67. #67 Nick
    September 18, 2013

    #64, the country’s information stream is being held to ransom by these inadequates with their unresolved personal issues: rule by the most petulant. Praise to the son.

  68. #68 Stu 2
    September 18, 2013

    Nick.
    There are better examples to criticise Marohasy than this one.
    Your summation of the events are incorrect.
    The DISV RAR releases by SHL were not related to power generation but to the operating licence. Of course SHL made power from that water when it was economically viable to do so. It was significant amounts of water. Go and look up the licence. In total it was over 2000GL that was put into the southern connected system that did not require it and it was not able to be managed successfully . That was extra water over and above the usual requirements, ostensibly to pay back the environment.
    The media was not privy to the numerous very well informed warnings from various different stakeholders and representative organisations. Everyone involved tried to have the problem repaired without the need for a media circus. Unfortunately the relevant authorities did not listen and failed to act. When the crisis did hit it the media typically over dramatized the situation.
    Marohasy was not a major player in these events. You claim further up post that she was responsible for embarrassing SHL. I disagree. In this particular instance, if the authorities were embarrassed, it’s because there was indeed substance to her claims.

  69. #69 pentaxZ
    September 18, 2013

    jeffie, so in other words, you don’t have one single example of species gone extinct due to AGW? Why doesn’t that surprise me. But that’s no wonder, if the “alarming” rate of the AGW (which hasn’t shown its face the last 17 years anyway) is on the century scale species has no problem adapting to the change. You know, survival of the fittest. Not understanding such thinhs is quite normal for a dogmatic pseudoscientist as you, jeffie.

    Hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha…..you are so utterly stupid, chek. Nor the habitants ov Kivalina or Shishmaref are climate refugees. You know, before the white man came around, the native people populated these islands on a seasonal basis. But when the white man came around, they forced natives to settle down on those islands permanently. Because as you might know, the white mans bureaucracy has no tolerance with free, unbound people. The native people knew it’s inadvizable to have a permanent rezidence on those islands because they are sandy barrier reef islands. Not so stable in other words. But they were forced anyway. So the reason of those islands decay is urbanization, nothing else. And it’s easily proven. No other island in the archipelag is affected. How can that be? Wouldn’t AGW affect all the islands, you stupid idiot?

    Yes, humans have caused extinction of animals. Endemic animals due to hunting. Nothing att all to do with AGW, not the slightes. “Palaeobiologist Anthony Barnosky fears humans are creating a mass extinction.” Barnosky fears! And we should of course take his word for it? Because it’s a BBC article? BBC which long ago decided that impartiality isn’t of interest when it comes to reporting about AGW! Give me a break, moron.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/02/the-sixth-first-climate-refugees/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/09/breaking-news-seventh-first-climate-refugees-discovered/

  70. #70 Nick
    September 18, 2013

    #68 ‘There are better examples to criticise Marohasy than this one’ … I don’t see a need, but go right ahead and provide some more.

    The total amount involved in the RAR, and DISV, is irrelevant to the Murrumbidgee flood event that Marohasy thought she could ping SH over. That 2000GL is a huge quantity, which is divided or allocated between the Murray and the Murrumbidgee over a 12 month period. SH generates and distributes: they don’t have unallocated water to generate with, unless they are doing pump-storage activity in-system.

    The actually relevant quantities of ex-Tumut catchment RAR/DISV water that went down the Tumut generation system in the week leading up to the floods are in the order of a few tens of megalitres, a tiny fraction of the two-catchment RAR & DISV. These small quantities, exiting at Blowering, were what some people thought had made the Murrumbidgee flood peak worse. It was a reasonable question to ask, but the answer was: no contribution. That weeks water was trifling in quantity compared with the catchment run-off during the floods.

    This ‘critical’ week’s water has been unhelpfully lumped with the other argument about the wisdom of paying back the water borrowings, as SH was obliged by charter, over the months during a season of high flow…

    Post floods,the SH’s license was altered by government to make that payback requirement more flexible.

  71. #71 bill
    September 18, 2013

    I agree with Adelady. It’s almost breathtaking to discover these people really are even more stupid than one imagined.

    The Disgusting Luke, el Gordo, SpamKan and the Emoticon Thing are Planetary Autists.

    Milk comes from Supermarkets, if the bees die off we’ll just make some more or teach the moths to do whatever it is they do instead, and the whole biosphere could be reduced to people like me, our companion animals, and the ones we choose to eat and that would function just fine forever. Oh, and some lawn grasses and shade trees…

    They are, in short, the Creationists of the 21st Century! They may even claim to reject God, but all the same anthropocentric and grandiose imbecilities are just as central to their ‘thought’.

    There’s a lot of them about. In the new Cabinet, for instance. Sadly, we’ll all (including all the other species) have to pay for their arrogant stupidity.

    Homo sapiens sapiens my arse! What are we going to do with the maladapted?

  72. #72 Nick
    September 18, 2013

    #68, and at the request of NOW, IIRC, Snowy Hydro did cease transfers for generation for a few days at the height of the flood. There was no substance to claims about the flood, but Marohasy was keen to push them. The then-inflexibility of the water allocation and payback time frame was an issue, one that has been resolved and one that Marohasy should have confined herself to. But she is a ratbag,and she runs a nuthouse at her blog.

  73. #73 Karen
    September 18, 2013

    The ABC is purely a disseminator of propaganda, you only have to look at the war reporting, eg Iraq, Libya and now Syria to see that they have an agenda.
    They tell lies that support of the US and globalist agendas that have now killed millions of people, do you really think the ABC cares about climate change or the whether it is caused by co2 ?

    You all seem grab onto anything or anyone that will feed your irrational trace gas anxieties, rationality is the only extinct species in here………… lol

  74. #74 Jeff Harvey
    September 18, 2013

    “jeffie, so in other words, you don’t have one single example of species gone extinct due to AGW? Why doesn’t that surprise me”

    It doesn’t surprise you, Pantie, cos’ you’re THICK. Yo clearly didn’t understand my response to your nonsense. Hardly surprising, given your grade-school level education. That’s the problem with academics on here engaging in debates with utter laypeople lacking even the basic knowledge. Of course there aren’t any extinctions – at least officially recognized – yet from the recent AGW because of the factors I mentioned. The time lag is too short; as I said yesterday, changes in large scales habitat structure – to the level of entire biomes – of course generate extinctions, but over centuries. There’s clear evidence that previous climate change episodes in the Earth’s history generated extinction cascades that took hundreds or even thousands of years to be realized. The best example is the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, when it is likely that the impact of a large asteroid impacting Earth was responsible for massive climate shifts in turn leading to the extinction of dinosaurs. But this extinction event was borne out over many centuries, even millennia. The dinosaurs did not disappear within 20 years.

    The other fact – which clearly you do not have a clue about – is that for a species to recognized as being officially extinct means that it has not been recorded in the wild for 50 years. This is the IUCN protocol, and is universally recognized amongst scientists. With respect to tropical forests, there are species that have not been observed in the wild since the late 1960s and early 1970s that are still considered extant, even though in all likelihood they have been extirpated.

    Finally, many recent studies are reporting sharp declines in the abundance and range retractions of species where climate change is likely to be an important factor. These declines are a warning that something is amiss.

    Simply put, Pentax, you are as stupid as a sack of potatoes. You write in here with your basal level knowledge thinking you have something useful to say. Sometimes I find it very hard to engage in debate with you and the other deniers here because your level of discourse is so utterly childish and simple. As I said a few days ago, if people like you, Berendaneke, Luke, Karen and other deniers on Deltoid are a representative cross-section of the ‘skeptical’ side of the public, then our society is in deep, deep trouble. Pretty well all of you write like Forrest Gump.

  75. #75 Karen
    September 18, 2013
  76. #76 Jeff Harvey
    September 18, 2013

    “your loathed blown-up “eco-system services” is nothing else than agriculture, farming”

    See the end of my last comment. More kindergarten-level musings. Since when is the activity of soil organisms recycling nutrients, ‘farming’? Since when is the maintenance of a breathable atmosphere ‘farming’? Since when is pollination and seed dispersal ‘farming’? Sine when is the breakdown of terrestrial wastes and the mitigation of floods and droughts ‘farming’? Since when is the stabilization of coastlines and protection of the Earth’s living surface from the harmful ultraviolet rays of the sun ‘farming’?

    Good grief. These people are complete quacks. How does none discuss in a rational matter science with such an army of numbskulls?

  77. #77 Jeff Harvey
    September 18, 2013

    I should have said one, but I have to admit I am almost at breaking point here. Tim really has to get back in here and start filtering out the deniers. Not one of them has anything of intellectual value to say.

  78. #78 Nick
    September 18, 2013

    #75, I predicted yesterday that you would trundle off to bed and forget all the lessons you had learned.

    Kaz, we dealt with Kens Clowndom already. Just to recap,mid tropospheric temperatures are never the same as surface temperatures, and furthermore UAH’s data is biased cool through data processing choice which contaminates their altitude band. So disagreement between BOMs surface temp claim and UAH’s high altitude figure is absolutely expected.

    Ken thinks that disagreement is ‘unfortunate’. That’s because he’s a nitwit in concern troll mode.

  79. #79 Karen
    September 18, 2013

    JeFfErY you are grandstanding…. you are only exhibiting your self importance here, if you cannot PROVE that co2 has caused any problems then shut up!

    That means, YOU PROVE !

    And don’t give us any of that consensus bullshit

  80. #80 Stu 2
    September 18, 2013

    Nick @#70 & #72.
    The anomaly in the licence was partly resolved for the Murrumbidgee catchment POST FLOOD and paradoxically and perhaps even ironically AFTER the media and people like Marohasy got a hold of it and over dramatized it all.
    The anomaly still exists in the Murray catchment.
    A great deal of water has been wasted for no good reason other than inflexibility.
    There have been several damaging flow on effects in both valleys.
    I think it is a real shame that the relevant authorities did not heed the warnings from well informed people and organisations many months before it got splashed across the media.
    That way they could have easily avoided the ensuing damage control.
    You are attributing Marohasy way too much credit for any of this.
    She was not a major player.

  81. #81 Karen
    September 18, 2013

    Numptie Nick,

    The satellite measured TLT (for JeFfErY, Tropospheric Lower Temperature) accurately shows what most atmosphere above the Australia is doing, which is the quantity that is most directly related to greenhouse gas impacts. The models indicate that the rate of warming should be larger in the mid to upper troposphere than at the surface. If co2 caused warming, it would turn up in the satellite data before we saw it in the surface charts.

    :)

  82. #82 Nick
    September 18, 2013

    #81 You linked to the article, Kaz. Ken indicates it is ‘satellite data for the mid-troposphere’ …TMT, not TLT If you want to know what ‘most atmosphere’ above Australia–and elsewhere– is doing, see below

    You want to know the shape of CO2 induced warming?

  83. #83 Nick
    September 18, 2013

    #80 “There have been several damaging flow-on effects in both valleys” Such as?

  84. #84 BBD
    September 18, 2013

    #81

    The moron you have now *twice* linked – despite correction – has no idea what he is talking about and nor do you.

    Now you force me to repeat myself.

    – Your source uses mid-troposphere (MT) data *not* TLT

    – There is a known cool bias affecting MT data which is contaminated by cold stratospheric readings

    – This is why the rest of what you say is wrong

    TLT is in very close agreement with the surface temperature reconstructions – effectively validating them – as I have shown here countless times.

    Stop repeating debunked rubbish and try to understand the facts.

  85. #85 BBD
    September 18, 2013

    Nick – we crossed, sorry.

  86. #86 BBD
    September 18, 2013

    A general note.

    Deniers – yes, this is the correct term – constantly screech that there is no catastrophe yet, no mass extinction yet, no metre of sea level rise yet, so what the scientists say must be “alarmist” and wrong.

    This is nonsense.

    What the scientists actually do say is that if CO2 forcing continues to rise *then* by later this century irreversible changes will be underway that *will* result in abrupt temperature rise and concomitant mass extinctions, sea level rise, drought, agricultural productivity impacts and so on.

    What scientists actually do say – but not often or loudly enough – is that we are still right at the beginning of the process. It will be decades before the true magnitude of climate change will emerge definitively from the weather noise. By which time, it will be far too late to stop or even mitigate the worst damage.

    Using present conditions to argue that future change will be trivial or non-existent is a glaring example of intellectual dishonesty or profound stupidity.

  87. #87 Berendaneke
    September 18, 2013

    The US House Science Committee recommended to cut the budget for certain NOAA activities:

    citation:

    “With respect to research and service activities, we believe opportunities for some cuts exist particularly with respect to climate-focused efforts unrelated to weather forecasting and emergency preparedness functions….

    “We do not support any funding for NOAA’s proposed Climate Service. Despite the claim that this is a budget neutral proposal that would include assets consolidated from other line offices, we have serious concerns regarding the objectivity and utility of a new line office that will place greater strain on existing resources. Furthermore, we are concerned about the tendency that this line office would be used for advocacy as opposed to providing real services. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology launched an investigation into NOAA’s Climate Services on September 21, 2011, and will not support the creation of a climate service until that investigation is complete.”

    I hope my friend Tony Abbott will follow the US House and smash down all eco fundamentalist CAGW insanities.

    :lol: :lol:

  88. #88 Karen
    September 18, 2013

    It’s a damned shame it didn’t manifest for you BBD, if it had of happened then you wouldn’t look like such a barbeque sausage fuck now. lol

    If it had, I would be on your side :)

  89. #89 adelady
    September 18, 2013

    for a species to recognized as being officially extinct means that it has not been recorded in the wild for 50 years.

    Thanks for that. I wanted to ask doofus about what “extinct” means and how that relates to a 40 year period of observed warning. You’ve dealt with it.

  90. #90 BBD
    September 18, 2013

    #88 WTF are you blithering about?

    Respond to #84. Admit your error.

  91. #91 Berendaneke
    September 18, 2013

    @BBD

    Crap shit insania from one of the most primitive idiots on the internet, a wannabe important, but only mentally impaired crap bollocks moron:

    A general note.

    Deniers – yes, this is the correct term – constantly screech that there is no catastrophe yet, no mass extinction yet, no metre of sea level rise yet, so what the scientists say must be “alarmist” and wrong.

    This is nonsense.

    What the scientists actually do say is that if CO2 forcing continues to rise *then* by later this century irreversible changes will be underway that *will* result in abrupt temperature rise and concomitant mass extinctions, sea level rise, drought, agricultural productivity impacts and so on.

    What scientists actually do say – but not often or loudly enough – is that we are still right at the beginning of the process. It will be decades before the true magnitude of climate change will emerge definitively from the weather noise. By which time, it will be far too late to stop or even mitigate the worst damage.

    Using present conditions to argue that future change will be trivial or non-existent is a glaring example of intellectual dishonesty or profound stupidity

    WHAT AN INCREDIBLE STUPIDITY FROM AN IMPAIRED ECO FUNDAMENTALIST FUCKWIT :evil:WHO THINKS HE IS SOMETHING SPECIAL.

    NO, HE IS THE ARCHETYPE OF AN IDIOT :evil:

    Hahahahaha, something will come in x thousand years, you idiot, hahahahaha, your grand grand grand grand …. 10000x …. grand grand grand children have to move because of flodding, your clown :evil:

    piss off now, BBD, you will not be given credit for your hallucinations, fuck off now and try to lead a decent life.

  92. #92 bill
    September 18, 2013

    What a maroon!

    On a more pleasant note, Sophie Mirabella has just conceded defeat to a humanist who believes in Science!

    And take note of the photo of the new Cabinet while you’re at the ABC. Yep, Australia’s moving forward again – to 1965!

  93. #93 Karen
    September 18, 2013

    Tell me BBD, when the IPCC made the statement that the Himalayas would be melted within 35 years –

    a/ did you believe it, and defend it as being valid ?

    b/ did you disbelieve it, and pass on your concerns about that being total rubbish ?

    c/ did you disbelieve it, and keep quiet ?

  94. #94 Berendaneke
    September 18, 2013

    bill :evil:

    your usual helpless crap

    What a maroon!

    On a more pleasant note, Sophie Mirabella has just conceded defeat to a humanist who believes in Science!

    And take note of the photo of the new Cabinet while you’re at the ABC. Yep, Australia’s moving forward again – to 1965!

  95. #95 BBD
    September 18, 2013

    #93

    This is not a response to #84. You have not admitted your error.

    Please admit your error.

    * * *

    Re the transposition typo 2350 -> 2035 – only deniers desperate to discredit the IPCC but lacking any scientific grounds for doing so latch on to typos and other trivia.

  96. #96 pentaxZ
    September 18, 2013

    jeffie, ” The best example is the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, when it is likely that the impact of a large asteroid impacting Earth was responsible for massive climate shifts in turn leading to the extinction of dinosaurs.”

    And what exactly has that to do with co2? Were there any AGW then? What was the level of co2 back then? You are nothing but a shitload of bollocks.

    Still you haven’t produced one single evidence that anthropogenic co2 is causing extinction of species.

  97. #97 Karen
    September 18, 2013

    I think you know that they were using gray literature, anything alarmist would do.

    Answer the question!

  98. #98 bill
    September 18, 2013

    I thought you were supposed to be an Aussie, SpamKan?

  99. #99 Karen
    September 18, 2013

    #98 bill,

    wot ?

  100. #100 bill
    September 18, 2013

    And here’s another interesting snippet bound to whip the Hysterics into a frenzy. Seems the cure for Wind Turbine Syndrome has been found.

Current ye@r *