September 2013 Open Thread

The thread, there is more.

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    September 26, 2013

    #99 captures the fundamental, absolute *cluelessness* of this idiot.

  2. #2 Lotharsson
    September 26, 2013

    If it has nothing to do with raising the temperature of the atmosphere then why do you alarmanize about it?

    Oh my, oh my, you really are superbly clueless.

    “Is not the same as” does not mean “has nothing to do with”. Your average grade 7 kid could tell you that.

  3. #3 BBD
    September 26, 2013

    To summarise:

    “I (Sunspot) cannot understand that the amount of energy needed to raise the upper 2000m of global ocean by 0.09C is absolutely mind-bogglingly vast.

    I cannot understand that expressing this accumulation of energy as a small-sounding change in ocean temperature is a *trick*.

    I cannot understand that expressing the accumulation of energy in correct units – ~25 x 10^22 Joules since 1955 – is *not* a trick.

    I am clueless and I am in denial.”

  4. #4 Lotharsson
    September 26, 2013

    In other news, my salary is not the same as my net wealth. According to Karen this means my salary can have nothing to do with my net wealth.

    Also, my dietary habits are not the same as my weight. According to Karen, that means my dietary habits can have no influence on my weight.

  5. #5 Lotharsson
    September 26, 2013

    And in still other news, I have three tonnes of mulch and a garden.

    Since the mass of mulch isn’t the same as the area occupied by the mulch, the mass has nothing to do with how much area it will cover if spread out. And it especially has nothing to do with the difference in area covered if I spread it thickly or really thinly…

  6. #6 bill
    September 26, 2013

    Well, I am still waiting on the answer to ‘how this incredibly small’ and ‘almost unmeasurable’ amount of ‘heat’ can magnify or intensify to a higher temperature

    And you will wait ’til the Call to Judgement, you sad little poster child for Dunning-Kruger, you, because you are stupid and simply cannot understand what everyone else here, with the likely exception of some of the dimmer of your fellow-travelers, grasped years ago.

    I repeat – SunSpam, you are stupid. Pole-axingly, deadeningly, numbingly, screechingly, vacuously, complacently, smugly, arrogantly, imperturbably, condescendingly, depauperately, insouciantly, Pollyannaishly, prissily, shrilly, and above all overwhelmingly stupid.

    You are stupid when you wake up in the morning, stupid late at night, stupid in your stupid dreams.

    Not a little bit, not slightly, not just-a-tad, not occasionally, not debatably, not cryptically; no, none of these! You are full-on, totally, 100% died-in the wool stupid, you stupid, stupid, stupid little noisome stupid smear in the gusset of humanity, you!

    That’s why you’re a Denier.

    But most of all, you’re stupid. If you hadn’t had AGW Denial to be stupid about, and feel great because you’re able to be stupid along with a whole bunch of other stupid people, you’d just be stupid about something else, and doubtlessly are.

    Because you’re stupid.

    Get it?

  7. #7 Karen
    September 26, 2013

    So ummm, what will this infinitesimal increase in ocean temperature do?

    It appears that no one knows, the script is being written now in some decaying sanitarium no doubt.

  8. #8 bill
    September 26, 2013

    QED

  9. #9 bill
    September 26, 2013

    What, a cereal manufacturer, you dim-witted nonentity?

  10. #10 Rednose
    uk
    September 26, 2013

    Praise the Lord.
    We have been saved from thermageddon.
    All those 10^29 little ergs beamed to the ocean depths to prevent a 30 odd degree rise in temperature of the atmosphere.
    Its a miracle.
    Bow down and keep The Faith,
    LoL

  11. #11 bill
    September 26, 2013

    Speaking of stupid, another smug, incredulous ignoramus appears…

  12. #12 Rednose
    UK
    September 26, 2013

    I try to fit in with the surroundings Bill

  13. #13 Rednose
    UK
    September 26, 2013

    Anyway. Whats the latest from walton mountain. You had an election or something. Have I missed much while away?

  14. #14 Karen
    September 26, 2013

    Hey Bileee, I’m with you, I hope it does get hot honey, otherwise I will have wasted my money on a really big air conditioner. :)
    lol……. no gwowbull worming at my house……hehe…

    Now Bileee, are you a bit thick? or syintificaly challenged? or just a loud mouth old prick with onset dementia?

    I ask this because you appear to be toooo stupid to answer a simple question.

  15. #15 Karen
    September 26, 2013

    Hi Rednose :)

    They have been a grump bunch in here since Prime Minister Abbott took their
    co2 global warming away :)

  16. #16 Rednose
    uk
    September 26, 2013

    Hi Karen

    or just a loud mouth old prick with onset dementia?

    Afraid you left out “miserable” in that description.

    If this lot were all against Abbott, then it was probably a good result.

  17. #17 bill
    September 26, 2013

    It’s a great big stupid love-in. Get a room, it’s repulsive.

  18. #18 Lionel A
    September 26, 2013

    Don’t you just love what is happening to the numbering around here.

    My page 22 now #61 (was #57) was referring to an asinine Boris at #55 which is now a post by Jeff Harvey.

    So to put the record straight I was not indicating to ignore Jeff, I never would.

  19. #19 Nick
    September 26, 2013
  20. #20 Lionel A
    September 26, 2013

    BBD

    I cannot understand that expressing the accumulation of energy in correct units – ~25 x 10^22 Joules since 1955 – is *not* a trick.

    Now you will freak SunKrank out talking in Joules.

    That is why when asking her/he/it about the comparison of heat energy required to melt one gram of ice to the heat energy required to raise one gram of fresh water through one degree Celsius I indicated that calories would do.

    BTW WRT Cronin on Page 19 under the sub-head ‘Sea Surface Temperatures and Ocean Circulation in the last few lines we read:

    ….greater land and sea ice, reduced albedo, and so on (see chapters 5 – 7 in this volume).

    What do you make of that statement?

    It reminds me of the confusion Boorish is in over albedo.

    That same paragraph could be used to test SunKrank’s understanding of feedbacks WRT the difference between negative and positive feedbacks. I suspect that she would think increasing sea ice, thus with increased albedo causing further cooling was a negative feedback.

    Now if I put it to Boorish that albedo of something was 1.25, what would he make of that?

  21. #21 Rednose
    uk
    September 26, 2013

    The “asinine” Boris seems to have led you lot by the nose for the last few pages/threads.
    Are you sure its not Tim winding you up to maintain the blog stats?

  22. #22 Lotharsson
    September 26, 2013

    Are you sure its not Tim winding you up to maintain the blog stats?

    Ah, a lovely little bit of conspiratorial ideation.

    I reckon if Tim wanted to “maintain the blog stats” he’d churn out another article – there’s plenty of material – that would see the deniers frantically trying to defend it…

  23. #23 Lionel A
    September 26, 2013

    Nick #18. Shukman again! I daresn’t watch. He has already dismayed me to much this week by allowing Bishop Shill on the News, ‘News‘ now there is a joke.

    Hey all you muppets in the peanut gallery, we knew about the use of clams for climate research. Guess what, scientists have also had lots of holes drilled in mud, coral, ice to discover how and why climate has changed.

    Give me strength, and now RedNoise has returned with his inane and childish sham humour.

    RedNoise is like those bottom dwelling worms that appear in the sediment record from time to time (here today – stir – gone tomorrow), stirring the sediment, which helps scientists differentiate between layers of churned and not churned – thus providing, like dendrochronology and clams – sectional differences which aid dating.

  24. #24 Nick
    September 26, 2013

    #22 Don’t worry,Lionel, it’s a simple tale that he hasn’t managed to stuff up. It’s mainly for the Karens.

  25. #25 BBD
    September 26, 2013

    Rednoise

    The “asinine” Boris seems to have led you lot by the nose for the last few pages/threads.

    Go back and read the thread again. You haven’t understood the words at all.

    Please try to remember that telling childishly obvious lies both pointless and stupid.

  26. #26 Rednose
    September 26, 2013

    Page 21 #7

    But Kai, you are a lying, sock-puppeting nutter! You aren’t a fucking scientist – you aren’t even a complete human being! You don’t have any basis for sneering at others here. We all know hugely more than you do, and none of us are clinically insane.

    So off you go and kill yourself!

    Looks to me you are being led.

  27. #27 Rednose
    September 26, 2013

    and now RedNoise has returned with his inane and childish sham humour.

    Missed you too Lenoil

  28. #28 adelady
    September 26, 2013

    Well, I am still waiting on the answer to ‘how this incredibly small’ and ‘almost unmeasurable’ amount of ‘heat’ can magnify or intensify to a higher temperature that will fry the planet.

    Oh my giddy aunt!

    I tried, I really tried. It’s like trying to teach table manners to toddlers – but without all the fun to offset the frustrations.

  29. #29 bill
    September 26, 2013

    Not only is SunSpam terminally stupid, but RedNoise is so stupid that he can’t see how stupid SunSpam is!

    Of course, there’s always the possibility that Rednoise is just an arrogant, uppity conflict-entrepreneur who’s too dishonest and manipulative to care how paralyzingly stupid his allies are… But I’m betting the former. You’re too stupid to see how stupid SunSpam is, right, Rednoise?

  30. #30 Lionel A
    September 26, 2013

    SunKrank and RedNoise are both too ignorant to appreciate how ignorant they are.

    Now there is no shortage of articles refuting the ‘warming has paused’ BS (that the BBC seems so fond of lately along with other MM talking heads) with this one at CP joining this one at ClimateDenialCrockoftheWeek and this one from Stefan Rahmstorf at RC.

    No more ‘stupid’ please peanuts, you can stop lol-ing around.

  31. #31 BBD
    September 26, 2013

    #25

    Looks to me like you are either too stupid to understand written English or lying.

  32. #32 Karen
    September 26, 2013

    Did you know that a fly turd is about 20 times greater in width than the distance traveled by the mercury in a thermometer if it was placed in the ocean at a depth of 300 mtrs for 55 years…….lol

  33. #33 chek
    September 26, 2013

    Poor stupid Spamkan, still not able to understand the difference between heat and temperature, despite all the assistance and having parroted the definitions.

  34. #34 Lotharsson
    September 26, 2013

    Karen tries to ridicule something she doesn’t understand by typing something about the width of fly excrement on a computer based on electronic features that are tens of nanometres in width.

    Teh irony. It burns.

  35. #35 Karen
    September 26, 2013

    C’mon guyz, what will this pissy increase in ocean temperature do?

    How will it convert the planet to Hades?

  36. #36 Rednose
    September 26, 2013

    Bill#28
    This “stupid” theme is a bit boring Bill. Cant you liven it up a bit, give me something to work with.
    And you do seem to have a bit of a cob on lately, if you dont mind me saying. Its only an election, your side can try again in another 4 or 5 years.

    Still here is something that might cheer you up, though I haven’t seen any of these arguments used here on this blog.
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/9/26/breaking-ipcc-responds-josh-239.html

  37. #37 Boris
    September 26, 2013

    Tomorrow is doomsday for leper islanders: AR5

  38. #38 Karen
    September 26, 2013

    chekie luvs sci fi,
    star wars, battle star galactica, ipcc, the simpsons…….lol

  39. #39 Karen
    September 26, 2013

    AR5 might tell us how to put wires into the ocean to get the energy out…….

  40. #40 Rednose
    September 26, 2013

    From the UK Guardian

    >blockquote>Climate scientists wrangle over crucial projections on likely effects of global warming just hours before report’s deadline
    Fraught negotiations over a landmark review of the world’s knowledge of climate change were making slow progress on Thursday with just hours to go before early Friday’s deadline .

    But, but… I thought the Science was settled.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/26/ipcc-climate-report-slow-progress?CMP=twt_gu

  41. #41 Karen
    September 26, 2013

    They are still trying to explain the missing heat, no doubt the PR companies will charge a fortune to spin this one……….

  42. #42 Karen
    September 26, 2013

    Why was there record cold temperature in the Arctic this summer?

    Did the heat make the cold or did the cold make the missing heat?
    I wish you guyz would make up your minds about this.

  43. #43 Karen
    September 26, 2013

    Funny how the alarmist wankers use that millions of nuclear bombs energy going into the ocean as a sick sort of analogy ………lol…..which is just so ridiculous by the way.
    Meanwhile Fukashima spews it radioactive guts into the Pacific ocean and the greenies in here don’t give a shit………………..?

  44. #44 Stu
    September 26, 2013

    which is just so ridiculous by the way.

    What analogy would you prefer, moron?

  45. #45 Lionel A
    September 26, 2013

    Teh irony. It burns.

    Yep! What else can we expect from a ‘flying fid’ like SunKrank?

  46. #46 Stu
    September 26, 2013

    By the way,

    no doubt the PR companies will charge a fortune to spin this one

    Please elaborate. Which PR companies have “spinned” climate change on behalf of the IPCC or any government before, and which ones do you anticipate being used for the AR5?

  47. #47 Rednose
    September 26, 2013

    #43

    What analogy would you prefer, moron?

    Correction to my comment earlier

    though I haven’t seen any of these arguments used here on this blog.

    This is obviously IPCC Answer 1 Argumentum ad hominem

    Stu-pid
    Lol

  48. #48 Lionel A
    September 26, 2013

    But, but… I thought the Science was settled.

    Nope you dope on a rope, the rope of pearls made of denier straw-men arguments and misdirections.

    Now did you miss my my #29 on this page?

    Pay attention at the back there and start your science courses.

    Science is never settled, completely, it is just that enough is known to be able to talk about established science WRT climate. All you have to do is study at the sources cited here and ignore everything from the woo scientists of the denial-o-sphere.

    Andrew Montford, Matt Ridley etc are not reliable sources far from it tools of the GWPF for one thing. Their kind of wrong-headedness was typified by that UKIP goon Farage in a recent address to the Euro-state representatives when he held up spurious images of Arctic ice and talked a load of BS. It would seem that UKIP ridding themselves of Monckton has done little for their science knowledge.

    If there are fraught negotiations then it is likely due to the vacillation and cowardice of policy makers beholden to the vested interests with empires to preserve. In other words a repeat of previous IPCC negotiations reported on by Joe Romm, Naomi Oreskes and others.

    That you so flippantly remark on this demonstrates that not only are you ignorant of the true state of knowledge on climate change but also of the history of denial.

    Else, you could of course be complicit in the actions that are trying to undermine urgent policy decisions for short term profit against almost for sure the end of civilisation as we know it. Are you ready for that latter. The choices are stark, what is it about the increasing magnitude and frequency of the signals coming from the natural world that you cannot grasp the import of?

  49. #49 Stu
    September 26, 2013

    Oh for fuck’s sake Rednose. Let me count the ways.

    1) It wasn’t directed at you.
    2) Calling Karen/Mack/Sunspot a moron is not an ad hominem, it is a statement of fact. He is a complete and utter moron, as demonstrated on this and many previous threads. As a random recent example, he has no concept of the difference between heat and temperature (and in true D-K fashion refuses to listen and/or look it up).
    3) Even if Karen/Mack/Sunspot weren’t a moron, “what would you prefer, moron” is STILL not an ad hominem attack, it is an insult.

    Let me (AGAIN) try to explain the difference.

    Insult: “you’re wrong because of X, moron”.
    Ad hominem: “you’re wrong because you are a moron”

    Is there some sort of code of honor amongst denialists that you have to be wrong about EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THING you address?

    You, Rednose, are a moron. And that is a statement of fact.

  50. #50 Stu
    September 26, 2013

    The choices are stark

    Lionel, didn’t you see “Karen”s “I have a big AC”? Don’t you hear the implicit “I’m fine, screw those ni-CLANG” after it?

    The entire premise is that no, they won’t make choices, because they don’t have to. Africa starving? Bangladesh flooding? What the hell do they care? They damned well know what is about to happen, but they figure it doesn’t affect them and they’ll be DAMNED if gas or electricity prices have to go up to protect some darkies halfway across the globe.

  51. #51 Lionel A
    September 26, 2013

    Meanwhile Fukashima spews it radioactive guts into the Pacific ocean and the greenies in here don’t give a shit…

    You really are a non-comprehending (about anything) numpty aren’t you SunKrank. The analogy using atom bombs is to do with heat energy not radiation.

    No wonder you don’t ‘get’ science.

    And I see that Rednoise is now in your lol-ling class.

    You’re the twins ting-a-ling
    You’re the twins ting-a-ling
    You’re the brothers ******** and we know where you’re from
    As you walk along the Prom, prom, prom
    The brass band plays tiddly om pom pom
    They say as you pass there goes two feats of arse
    You and your brother…

  52. #52 Lionel A
    September 26, 2013

    Lionel, didn’t you see “Karen”s “I have a big AC”?

    Yup! I did.

    Two words describes their frame of mind(lessness),

    cognitive dissonance.

    Along with a few other things besides lying to themselves and others.

  53. #53 Lionel A
    September 26, 2013

    The Guardian story that RedNoise has missed:

    Leading climate change economist brands sceptics ‘irrational’.

  54. #54 BBD
    September 26, 2013

    #42 Sunsock

    Meanwhile Fukashima spews it radioactive guts into the Pacific ocean and the greenies in here don’t give a shit

    Making shit up again, Sunny!

    AKA lying!

    ;-)

  55. #55 Stu
    September 26, 2013

    Quiz for “Karen”: the total energy consumption in the US is about 2 x 10^22J. What is the ratio of US energy consumption versus the OHC increase?

  56. #56 Stu
    September 26, 2013

    @BBD: oh, I missed that one. Strawmen, look out! “Karen” is a-comin’!

  57. #57 Jeff Harvey
    September 26, 2013

    “PR companies will charge a fortune to spin this one”

    Amongst all of Karen’s vacuously ignorant musings, this one has to take the cake. The biggest PR companies have been working on behalf of the oil, coal, natural gas, automobile, logging, pesticide, GMO, mining, development et. al. corporate lobby for years. To suggest that PR companies work on behalf of the scientific community or environmental NGOs has to be one of the most hilariously incorrect and stupid remarks I have heard in a long, long time.

    Karen, may I suggest you check out the client list of Burson-Marstellar, Edelman, Porter-Novelli, Hill-Knowlton, Ketcham et al. et al. et al. Get back here when you know even remotely what you are talking about.

  58. #58 Lionel A
    September 26, 2013

    Jeff, SunKrank could do worse than to start here:

    The Legacy Tobacco Documents Library assisted also by this:

    Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition.

    She-he-it has so much ground to make up whilst she-he-it continues to clown-shoe about.

  59. #59 Stu
    September 26, 2013

    Jeff, Lionel, don’t do that. I tried to leave it as an open question to show the clown can’t answer it. Now “Karen” is going to put all of those firm names into Google, find a 1972 $2,000 contract one of them did for Greenpeace and go “LOLOLOL” again.

    Open-ended questions, people.

  60. #60 Stu
    September 26, 2013

    By the way, the site is busted again. Anyone else getting warnings from sitemeter?

  61. #61 Rednose
    September 26, 2013

    Stu-pid#48

    You, Rednose, are a moron.

    But now you have gone from the second worst to the worst type of argument, simple name calling.
    Sort of fits in with your immature social outlook.

    Imbecile

  62. #62 Rednose
    September 26, 2013

    Quiz for Stu-pid

    What is the ratio of OHC estimated increase for the last 40 odd years to the total OHC.

    http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/ocean-heat-content-relentless-but.html#more

  63. #63 chek
    September 26, 2013

    the worst type of argument

    You haven’t got any ‘argument’ Redarse.
    Calling you a moron is an observation widely noted.

    Stu yes that popped up for me too.
    I disabled Java as a precaution

  64. #64 chek
    September 26, 2013

    Instead of reading twaddle from cranks like Motl, you could look directly at the data and follow that up with some expert evaluation.

    But you won’t because you’re a moron.

  65. #65 Rednose
    September 26, 2013

    Shrek#62

    Calling you a moron is an observation widely noted.

    I would say you are using IPCC Answer Number 4 there claiming some sort of general agreement.

    Argumentum ad Populum

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/9/26/breaking-ipcc-responds-josh-239.html

  66. #66 Stu
    September 26, 2013

    Rednose:

    But now you have gone from the second worst to the worst type of argument, simple name calling.

    Now you’ve gone from being simply wrong to trying to distract by tone trolling.

    You were wrong when you accused me of using an ad hominem, Admit this first, or you lose al pretense of trying to have a good-faith discussion.

    Be a grown-up for once.

  67. #67 Stu
    September 26, 2013

    For fuck’s sake Rednose. You are too stupid to properly use, assess or imbue logical fallacies. You simply don’t understand what they mean.

    Not argumentum ad populum: “Rednose, everyone here knows you’re dumber than a sack of hammers. Anyone in doubt can review your commenting history here.”

    Argumentum ad populum: “There’s totes more blogs that don’t agree with AGW than there are that do agree LOLOLOL, and they are totes more popular too so there LOLOLOL”. (Actual argument from these here open threads).

    Allow me to restate the fact: you, Rednose, are a fucking moron.

  68. #68 chek
    September 26, 2013

    Argumentum ad Populum

    No, you conflate popularity with a consensus arrived at by analysing the data and reaching similar conclusions. A consensus based on evidence is not remotely similarto a popular vote.

    Unfortunately for you, the evidence based consensus, the evidence having mounted for some months now, is that you’re a drive-by moron link-spammer no different to SpamKan.

  69. #69 Rednose
    September 26, 2013

    How is progress on the quiz question?

  70. #70 Rednose
    September 26, 2013

    Shrek#67

    You weren’t a sketch writer for Monty Python in a past life by any chance?

    Stu-pid#66

    There’s totes more blogs that don’t agree with AGW

    Sorry, being dumb, not understand.

  71. #71 BBD
    September 26, 2013

    Stupid, pointless question. Avoidance tactic. The point about OHC increase is that it demonstrates – unequivocally – that CO2-forced warming of the climate system continues as expected. Of course deniers are desperate to deny this fact, but the fact is, it is undeniable. You and I have been over this in detail. You were corrected again and again, yet here you are, being a tit about OHC once more. It is annoyingly dishonest, which is why you get called a moron etc. What do you expect? You deserve it. Try behaving in an intellectually honest manner for a change.

  72. #72 Rednose
    September 26, 2013

    trying to have a good-faith discussion.

    I doubt you would recognize one if it slapped you in the face.

  73. #73 BBD
    September 26, 2013

    Don’t be fucking cheeky, Rednoise. Your miserable behaviour in previous “discussions” with me here disbar you from making remarks like that. You are an ignorant bullshitter, nothing more. And you know it as well as I do.

  74. #74 Rednose
    September 26, 2013

    Its as stupid and pointless as the question posed by Stu earlier.

  75. #75 BBD
    September 26, 2013

    You are just trolling, Rednoise. And you aren’t very good at it. Why bother? Go and play in some denier mudhole of wrong. You will be happier and so will we. Win-win.

  76. #76 chek
    September 26, 2013

    You weren’t a sketch writer for Monty Python in a past life by any chance?

    Certainly not, Biggus Roseus Arsus.

    How is progress on the quiz question?

    You’ve been shown where the NOAA data is.
    Knock yourself out.

    Btw, do you think crank string collector Motl bothered with values such as salinity/density/mass when he was doing his Mickey Mouse calculations?

    It’s OK the question is rhetorical.

  77. #77 Karen
    September 27, 2013

    Thank you for this link Rednose :)
    http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/ocean-heat-content-relentless-but.html#more

    I note that up thread the loons have now shifted the basket ball hoop 2 mtrs lower.

    eg. OHC is not dangerous anymore, it is now just some sort of invisible ninja validation that co2 is warming the ocean even though it has stopped cooking Gaia and no one has worked out a fiendish scenario for it….. lol

  78. #78 bill
    September 27, 2013

    So, RedNoise is defending this vacuous freak, showing that he has as much of a clue as the vacuous freak does. (Those are statements of fact, by the way.)

    Who else? C’mon Deniers, ‘fess up and show us that this is your collective dullard revenge on all those clever kids who paid attention and ‘got’ things!

  79. #79 Craig Thomas
    September 27, 2013

    So, instead of referring to NASA, BoM, CSIRO, or any other actual science organisations for his knowledge of climate change, Rednose prefers to use a crank site called “BishopHill”.

    And Karen just linked to Motl, a crank who has made no contribution to climate science.

  80. #80 bill
    September 27, 2013

    Oh, and you’re stupid RedNoise. Really stupid.

  81. #81 Karen
    September 27, 2013

    What you guyz are actually saying, under your stinking breath, is that the OHC graph is only being used as a theatrical prop to fool alarmist greenies.

    Therrmageddon is upon us… Woooooo Woooooo says the co2 boogie man….. lol

  82. #82 Karen
    September 27, 2013

    aaand, the big fat tub of lard that is fooled by it the most is BBD

  83. #83 Lotharsson
    September 27, 2013

    What you guyz are I am actually saying, under your my (it’s always projection) stinking breath, is that the implications of the OHC graph is only being used as a theatrical prop to fool alarmist greenies are way above my intellectual pay grade and I couldn’t accept even if I understood, so I fall back onto primary school level ridicule.

    FIFY.

  84. #84 Karen
    September 27, 2013

    Hi Lothie,
    Are you guyz are expecting some sort of new esoteric premonition from the climate gods?

  85. #85 Karen
    September 27, 2013

    Is AR5 the new prayer book of revelations for the co2 cult?

  86. #86 Boris
    September 27, 2013

    Lotharsson, can you describe in own words what you mean by saying “its always infection”???? Is it an unconditional reflex when you close to vomiting?

  87. #87 bill
    September 27, 2013

    Mouthbreather incredulity gets old very quickly. There’d be little remaining in modern science if the credibility standard was your infantile notion of the plausible.

    When it comes to accusations of cultism it is, indeed, always projection.

    And, speaking of cultists, ‘Boris’ can’t even comprehend written text. Are you attacking us through Google translate or something, Kai?

    愚か者

  88. #88 Lotharsson
    September 27, 2013

    What you’re apparently saying, Karen, is that perhaps because (as you have acknowledged) you are unable to comprehend basic high school science, you simply give up and pretend science is “religion” instead (when it suits you to do so).

    I guess that makes a twisted kind of sense. The scientists talking about heat energy and its relation to temperature might indeed sound like religious gobbledegook if you can only hear it as gobbledegook because you simply aren’t equipped to understand it.

  89. #89 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    Well folks, we now know that Sunny is obese and very unhappy about it!

    Because (all together now) it’s always projection!

    :-)

  90. #90 Karen
    September 27, 2013

    What ? BBD, you have no peer reviewed papers that model or project/predict a planet that spontaneously combusts because the ocean is 0.06 C warmer now that 55 yrs ago….. lol

    What about gray literature?

    A newspaper clipping?

  91. #91 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    Sunny asks:

    Is AR5 the new prayer book of revelations for the co2 cult?

    No, it’s a slightly out of date summary of the state of scientific knowledge about AGW.

    Faith-based assertion is what deniers do, Sunny. Science operates by falsification and any emergent scientific consensus arises from scientific evidence and is always provisional.

    Science is not a faith nor a cult nor is it opinion. What deniers do is faith-based and cultish and entirely based on scientifically unsupported opinion.

    The pseudo-sceptic discourse on sensitivity is a perfect example. The vast majority of the evidence points to a value for ECS/2xCO2 of around 3C. The lowball results so adamantly endorsed by “sceptics” are in fact rather problematic.

    These so-called observationally-derived estimates (eg Otto et al. 2013) are based on short time-series subject to large uncertainties and include significant assumptions about aerosol negative forcing which have a major influence on their results. If you listen to what actual climate scientists are saying, you quickly grasp that these results are not considered robust. If you listen to “sceptics”, ECS is below 1.5C.

    That’s faith, not science.

  92. #92 bill
    September 27, 2013

    SunSpam, you can rabbit on in Denial of your own incomprehension all you like, but the fact is, petal; you’re a fuckwit. A shit-for-brains. You have no place in an adult conversation regarding AGW, or any other scientific issues.

    Deep down you know it, which is why you hate us all. But your pointless resentment won’t change anything – you’re thick, and your views are inconsequential.

    Well, they would be, but what we are struggling against is a whole bunch of inadequate sad-acts like yourself, who’ve allowed themselves to be herded around by a bunch of tobacco scientists, venal old billionaires and libertard zealots so that you can gum up the works on their behalf, and stop the actual bright and competent people from doing what needs to be done.

    I sincerely hope you’re as obnoxious and objectionable in real-life as you are online, SpamKan, because if and when the shit really hits the fan you really don’t deserve to come out of this without penalty.

    None of you do.

  93. #93 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    #89

    I’ve said all I’m going to say about OHC and the relative thermal capacity of water vs the atmosphere, Sunny. You now have pages of people upthread trying to help you beat your confusion on this topic. At this point, you can STFU and learn, or just STFU. We are all past caring. You need to find a new topic to mangle and misunderstand.

  94. #94 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    Bill puts it so much better than I do, but we crossed.

  95. #95 Karen
    September 27, 2013

    “which is why you hate us all” hahahahaha

    I don’t hate you all Bileeee, only barnturd.. lol

    You are upset because your pathetic insults bounce off me, Bileee if you can’t handle a bit of jovial tit for tat then pull your big ugly head in.

    The OHC debacle has been quite trying for you all, never mind, AR5 might spin something that will cheer you all up and get the temperature moving up again. :)

  96. #96 Karen
    September 27, 2013

    “I’ve said all I’m going to say about OHC and the relative thermal capacity of water vs the atmosphere, ”

    You didn’t say anything of any significance, in fact you ran away from the subject, you are pathetic !

    You are still hiding from the truth, and you should be ashamed of yourself for continually flogging that misleading OHC graph.

    tch tch tch tch

  97. #97 adelady
    September 27, 2013

    Is AR5 the new prayer book of revelations for the co2 cult?

    Far from it. The most interesting thing for me when the full WG1 report is out will be just how much new information and analysis has been published since the close off date for submissions. The science as presented will be a good snapshot, but in some areas it will look a bit dated.

    It’ll also be fascinating to see what they make of the previous disparity between modelling and loss of Arctic sea ice and whether they finish up in the same position as the last report. Publish a heap of graphs and projections, following melt seasons make it look ridiculously understated. http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b017744cf5360970d-pi

  98. #98 Lotharsson
    September 27, 2013

    You didn’t say anything of any significance, in fact you ran away from the subject, you are pathetic !

    One of the irony meters in my reserve that hasn’t even been unpacked and plugged in yet just went “sproing!”

  99. #99 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    #97

    Are you sure it was an irony meter? I just lost a whole bank of lie detectors.

  100. #100 bill
    September 27, 2013

    SunSpam, I’m not some obeast sad-act whose only pleasure in life is attempting to torment the bright people you resent and despise.

    (And pretending to be a woman is, I suspect, the closest you’ll ever manage to get to one.)

    You pathetic, inadequate, futile fool.

    ‘Jovial’?! Phhhhttt! My arse. If this is how you carry on in real life, petal – assuming you ever leave Mommy’s basement – and if things go pear-shaped out there I wouldn’t waste my time trying that defence if I were you. I remind you that you have come here, where you are palpably not welcome, to goad as your sole purpose; you could scarcely hope to have accumulated more resentment against you, little troll, but every day you keep on playing at being SunSpam it’ll grow just a little more…