September 2013 Open Thread

The thread, there is more.

Comments

  1. #1 Berendaneke
    September 11, 2013

    BBD fuckwit :evil:

    For the last time, I don’t care how many fucking stations there are. You must care, clown :evil:, as the GHCN database is at the heart of your warming delusion. All your pagan warming belief is based on the values in the GHCN database. And your worshipped paleo shit is totally irrelevant, fuckwit :evil:

    It is utterly fucking irrelevant. Wrong, clown :evil:, it is dramatically relevant, and you complete idiot don’t know this, you leper putrid moron :evil:

    If I wanted to know I would find out, in under 30 seconds, but I can’t even be bothered. Especially since you are mithering me about it. No, you idiot :evil: will not find out, as you are at war with information provision and a computer illiterate

    You have been shown up to be utterly clueless on topics that *do* matter, over and over again. Ah, fuqwit :evil: confess now which things “matter” according to your incompetence

    You cannot read graphs.

    You cannot understand basic scientific modes of thinking. I am the one who understands science and YOU NOT, non-scientist and clown :evil:

    You deny evidence. Which evidence, clown :evil:, SPEAK which not-existing evidence

    You deny physics. Bollocks, moron, YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND PHYSICS AS AGW TROLL

    You are a worthless pile of lunatic shite bubbling away in a cellar somewhere. Sane people aren’t interested in your lunatic gibbering. blah blah blah blah :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    PISS OFF CLOWN :evil:

  2. #2 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    @ Sausage

    The stupidest commenter on Deltoid still can’t read a graph and understand that the number of stations in the GHCN network is utterly irrelevant!

    Despite multiple explanations! We need a new word. “Stupid” doesn’t go nearly far enough!

  3. #3 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    You’re a religious nutter, aren’t you Sausage? That’s why your mind is so horribly scrambled. Or was it drugs, or a motorcycle accident? Please don’t tell us you were born this way.

  4. #4 chek
    September 11, 2013

    Poor Freddyfuckwit.

    Unable to answer the ‘why’ about any of his nutter statements and mesmerised by his stupid little rows of emoticons. It must be like the movies for him.

  5. #5 Lionel A
    September 11, 2013

    Even buses and trains avoid contact with Berenfreddydanek, so much vitriol, enough to behave like thermite.

  6. #6 chek
    September 11, 2013

    You’re a religious nutter, aren’t you

    Word usage as above which include ‘confess’, ‘pagan’ and ‘leper’ suggest more than passing familiarity with the Big Book of Imaginary Friends for our wizened little cocktail sausage contributor. The Pope style pronounce,ents as if from on high further reinforce the perception.

    Maybe Andy Montford concocted one conspiracy too many than was good for him, and when not spattering up these pages he’s chewing carpets or pine trees.

  7. #7 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    the Big Book of Imaginary Friends

    Ha! New one on me, that. Very droll.

  8. #8 Turboblocke
    September 11, 2013
  9. #9 chek
    September 11, 2013

    Thanks! But, I shouldn’t mock really as several folks I have a great deal of respect for are believers. And in the end, Freddyfred’s just another frightened child pretending not to be.

    If only they’d direct their energies in more productive, life-enhancing ways, but that’s likely too much to expect given the ubiquity of Morano-style thought policing in the environs inhabited by our denier contingent.

  10. #10 el gordo
    September 11, 2013

    Alright, let me get this right, you think the Minoan, Roman and Medieval periods showed a bit of regional warming, but they were not universal like AGW.

    Whereas the universal temperature rise over the last quarter of the 20th century is unprecedented throughout the Holocene?

    The science on the YD is still not settled, but the Antarctic Cool Reversal (ACR) a couple of thousand years before the YD is generally recognised as being caused by meltwater.

    A very strong example of global warming leading to cooling.

  11. #11 Luke
    September 11, 2013

    Ah yes the ongoing verbal violence of Deltoidia. The land that time forgot.

    Where cunts are cunts unrelenting.

    Guys it’s time to dust off and nuke the entire site from space. Time to do something useful with your lives instead of this ongoing nihilistic whine. The sound of fingernails down the chalk board.

    Paint peeling on the verandah. Leaves falling off the tree.

    It’s dead Jim !

    And sheer (and WILL YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP AND HAVE A DAY OFF YOU BORING FUCKING CUNT) tedium of BBD.

    So utterly pointless. So boring.

  12. #12 Lionel A
    September 11, 2013

    Yes chek, that Morano thuggish domination of a ‘conversation’, that is why:

    <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/09/08/september-2013-open-thread/comment-page-4/#comment-166840&quot; I posted this

  13. #13 chek
    September 11, 2013

    you think the Minoan, Roman and Medieval periods showed a bit of regional warming

    Where are you getting your data for all these grandiosely titled ‘periods’ (which, let’s not forget are invented by interested parties to diminish the significance of the modern warming)

  14. #14 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    This is interesting: more on *seasonal* temperature trends from Kosaka & Xie via Tamino.

    If this catches your attention, you will also be interested in Cohen et al. (2012) Asymmetric seasonal temperature trends.

  15. #15 Lionel A
    September 11, 2013

    Argh! Being badgered, its late.

    Yes chek, that Morano thuggish domination of a ‘conversation’, that is why

    I posted this.

  16. #16 Stu
    September 11, 2013

    Luke, what are you still doing here?

  17. #17 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    Why don’t *you* fuck off Luke?!

    After all, we now know you are a rather sad Walter Mitty type with a very large mouth but nothing to say. Further irruptions are redundant.

    But of course, you have nowhere to go, having been banned even from DK Corrals like Nova’s.

    Ever wondered why you get kicked out of every moderated blog in the world Luke? Does this not trouble you? But as I said yesterday, self-awareness isn’t really part of your psychological make-up, is it?

    :-)

  18. #18 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    Gordy

    A very strong example of global warming leading to cooling.

    Nope. Hemispheric effects in antiphase, not global cooling. As usual, fucking wrong.

    Read this. Get a clue.

    Shakun et al. (2012).

    How about you stop commenting on paleoclimate, eh? Seriously. Just stop. Please. Enough bullshit and sheer bloody wrongness is enough. Come on now.

    Stop.

  19. #19 chek
    September 11, 2013

    Yes chek, that Morano thuggish domination of a ‘conversation’, that is why I posted this

    Still reading through it Lionel, and thanks for the link.
    At one time I’d have checked in there at least once or twice a week, but with the number of papers thrown up here during the course of the monthly open threads it’s a lot less now.

    Which is a shame because Jim, Brendan and Ross make a major contribution in their own way. Keep your eye on the thimble and all that.

  20. #20 el gordo
    September 11, 2013

    ‘How about you stop commenting on paleoclimate, eh?’

    Do you want me to remain ignorant?

    Isostasy

    ‘In Sweden, post-glacial shorelines rise northward and are still rising at a rate of about 1 meter per century. In Stockholm, a notch was chiseled in rock in 1704 with a historic document telling where sea level was relative to the notch. Now that notch is 300 years old and the Baltic is 3 meters lower there. The same kind of story is repeated again and again, always the same–old shorelines have not just risen, they have risen progressively higher as you go in the direction of thicker ice. The coincidence is well beyond random probability.’

    Don Easterbrook

  21. #21 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    Gordy

    Do you want me to remain ignorant?

    No, I want you to stop posting horse-shit on the Internet and instead use your time to educate yourself.

  22. #22 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    Don Easterbrook is a liar, Gordy. A notorious liar. Never mention his name to me again. It does not help you. Quite the reverse.

  23. #23 el gordo
    September 11, 2013

    ‘…use your time to educate yourself.’

    That is precisely why I’m here.

    Shakun but not stirred.

    ‘The implication of this relationship for understanding the role of CO2 in glacial cycles, however, remains unclear. For instance, proxy data have variously been interpreted to suggest that CO2 was the primary driver of the ice ages, a more modest feedback on warming, or, perhaps, largely a consequence rather than cause of past climate change.’

  24. #24 chek
    September 11, 2013

    Gordon, I asked you @ #8 “Where are you getting your data for all these grandiosely titled ‘periods” and you’ve ignored it.

    Why is that? I suspect it’s very likely because you’re talking denier shite again, but now you know it and hope the question will go away and disappear down the page.

    It won’t.

  25. #25 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    If you really are here to educate yourself Gordy, why the fuck are you wittering to me about isostasy? I told you about this, albeit without using technical language. Can’t you just read the fucking words? See Page 3 #63:

    “And as usual, you are completely wrong. Much apparent or *relative* sea level change is regional because it is caused by uplift or subsidence of the land relative to the sea. Is there anything that you *do* know anything about?

    Now dig out your examples and do some background – bet you they are the result of local geology on the move… But you can do the work, Gordy, because I’m fed up with debunking your crap.”

    * * *

    You have not read S12. There has not been time. Nor do you ever read the many references I provide for you, so I don’t believe your shitting lies about being here to educate yourself. Fuck no. You are here to spew out denialist horse-shit, repetitiously, despite endless correction, forever and ever amen.

    Fuck you, and fuck your lies. You insult not just my intelligence, but that of every other good faith commenter present.

    You are scum, Gordy.

  26. #26 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    Here, for others, is a summary of the findings of Shakun (2012):

    – NH summer insolation increases from ~ 21.5ka

    – By ~19ka, mid/high latitude NH temperature increase causes sufficient melt from NH ice sheets for freshwater flux to inhibit NADW formation and halt AMOC

    – NH *cools* as equatorial -> poleward heat transport stops

    – With the NH ‘heat sink’ turned off, the SH *warms*, as it must

    – Deep water warming in SH causes release of carbon to atmosphere. This *positive feedback* globalises and amplifies the warming

    – NH melt resumes, fully engaging strongly positive ice albedo feedback

    – Deglaciation accelerates until largely complete by ~11.5ka. Holocene interglacial begins

  27. #27 BBD
    September 11, 2013

    #19 chek

    Yes, I’ve asked him to provide evidence for global and synchronous “Roman” and “Minoan” warm periods – at least twice and probably three times now. Because I cannot find any.

    No response from Gordy. But on the lying SOB ploughs, blanking us both, repeating his rubbish.

    As I said, scum.

  28. #28 chek
    September 11, 2013

    I suspect it’s mostly based on memories of movies filmed in Arizona or some such. BBD.

    Fucking clowns who don’t even realise they’re wearing greasepaint and size 60 shoes.

  29. #29 el gordo
    September 11, 2013

    There was no synchronous warming during the Minoan, Roman or Medieval periods, the only time there has been synchronous warming over the last 10,000 years is the last 25 years of the 20th century?

  30. #30 chek
    September 11, 2013

    Well, quite.
    But that wasn’t the question.
    Let’s try again:
    “Where are you getting your data for all these grandiosely titled ‘periods?”

  31. #31 el gordo
    September 11, 2013

    chek you are an ignorant nasty piece of work.

  32. #32 el gordo
    September 11, 2013

    I always go straight to the SS bible for everything worth knowing.

  33. #33 el gordo
    September 11, 2013

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

    No need to think for yourself, the bible will tell you how to think

  34. #34 chek
    September 11, 2013

    chek you are an ignorant nasty piece of work

    Thanks, I expect nothing less from disinformed denier trash.
    Now, about the RWP and MWP you’ve been wittering about:
    “Where are you getting your data for all these grandiosely titled ‘periods?”

  35. #35 chek
    September 11, 2013

    Come now Gordon, how are we expected to believe in your carefully constructed alternate universe if you won’t share the fucking data?

  36. #36 Andrew Strang
    Australia
    September 12, 2013

    Is there still a sly, vulgar fool on this thread? A hypocrite with a heart so full of petty spite that almost any scapegoat would do? A gutless abuser who hides his real name? Someone who seems to resent the general, common core of human decency by default? Someone who would deny this mirror? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder#Symptoms .

  37. #37 el gordo
    September 12, 2013

    chek

  38. #38 chek
    September 12, 2013

    So asking unqualified ignorami to verify their disinformed assertions and quack histories marks one as a sufferer of NPD, does it Gordon?
    Who knew?

  39. #39 Stu 2
    September 12, 2013

    Lotharsson,
    If you’re trying to say that you think this blog is better than other blogs of a different political persuasion to yours then I would have to say that’s a total no brainer. Of course you would think that and argue that. You seem to be highly offended that my observation has been that this blog has somewhat dropped in standards. My comment about Jeff Harvey’s tendency to over use the word denier and also accuse people of being right wing libertarians is a feature of that observation.
    The fact remains that this blog along with many others may pretend they are science blogs but in truth they are not.
    As you yourself said earlier:
    ————————————————————————–
    ” If so, this blog was always an advocacy blog, if only because Tim’s posts responded primarily to newspaper articles mauling science in the name of political advocacy. ”
    ————————————————————————-
    I agree with that comment of yours Lotharsson but on your MO to this point I would suspect you’re now contemplating writing yet another lecture style response that will conclude that there is something wrong with my comprehension skills and I have suspiciously misinterpreted you.
    Don’t bother Lotharsson. Jeff Harvey agreed with me earlier that this blog is not what it once was.

  40. #40 Stu 2
    September 12, 2013

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.!!
    I mistyped my email address. This is a copy/paste
    My apologies if it appears twice.

    Lotharsson,
    If you’re trying to say that you think this blog is better than other blogs of a different political persuasion to yours then I would have to say that’s a total no brainer. Of course you would think that and argue that. You seem to be highly offended that my observation has been that this blog has somewhat dropped in standards. My comment about Jeff Harvey’s tendency to over use the word denier and also accuse people of being right wing libertarians is a feature of that observation.
    The fact remains that this blog along with many others may pretend they are science blogs but in truth they are not.
    As you yourself said earlier:
    ————————————————————————–
    ” If so, this blog was always an advocacy blog, if only because Tim’s posts responded primarily to newspaper articles mauling science in the name of political advocacy. ”
    ————————————————————————-
    I agree with that comment of yours Lotharsson but on your MO to this point I would suspect you’re now contemplating writing yet another lecture style response that will conclude that there is something wrong with my comprehension skills and I have suspiciously misinterpreted you.
    Don’t bother Lotharsson. Jeff Harvey agreed with me earlier that this blog is not what it once was.

  41. #41 Nick
    September 12, 2013

    Andrew, you’re the only one here using a ‘real name’…it might even be your own. But to answer your question, Emoticon Boy, Luke, Kaz…

  42. #42 Nick
    September 12, 2013

    #34, this blog is at its best when Tim has time to give an analysis or media/science deconstruction and we discuss…otherwise a rump of bad faith actors will just dump Moranoish mendacity here for the patient few committed to explicatory answers to get increasingly impatient about as those answers are ignored. There is still a lot to be gained IF you read links and are genuinely interested in papers.

  43. #43 el gordo
    September 12, 2013

    It seems a waste of time asking contrarians to reply to questions, because of the adversarial nature of the debate.

    Looking forward, it would be worthwhile looking at the incoming data and have a robust discussion without vitriol.

  44. #44 Stu 2
    September 12, 2013

    Yes of course Nick but despite what Lotharsson argues, this blog has not been a good place for discussions for quite some time.
    I have also noticed that National Geographic seems to no longer sponsor this blog? Their logo has disappeared from this page?

  45. #45 Lotharsson
    September 12, 2013

    That is precisely why I’m here.

    Then, just like Luke, you’re doing it wrong.

    You have to learn to crawl before you can try to run, and I seem to remember there was even another step in the process in there somewhere.

    You haven’t learned to apply the very basics of climate science yet (let alone learnt to be actually skeptical). There are much better resources to use if you want to learn the basics of climate science than posting contrarian bollocks here that’s clearly far beyond your level of understanding and waiting for informative responses, and you’ve been pointed to some of those resources many times over.

    Curiously, however, there’s no evidence that you’ve availed yourself of any of those resources or improved your level of basic understanding over all this time. One might be tempted to infer that you’re not actually here for the reason you claim. Feel free to prove me wrong!

  46. #46 Lotharsson
    September 12, 2013

    Don’t bother Lotharsson.

    Pre-emptive critique innoculation doesn’t work with me.

    So don’t bother ;-)

    If you’re trying to say that you think this blog is better than other blogs of a different political persuasion to yours …

    No, I’m saying that you’ve misidentified this blog as a blog of a political persuasion, and you’ve ducked and weaved on that point ever since.

    It is a blog of a scientific persuasion. Or to use the term you were previously using, this is a science advocacy blog, not a political advocacy blog.

    Such a blog dealing with climate science necessarily ends up discussing political positions sometimes, because many of the people vocally pushing anti-science and pseudo-science in the domain of climate are doing so in order to advance their political positions. But that no more makes it a political advocacy blog than a blog that advocates the modern understanding of geography is a religious advocacy blog on the basis that it needs to point out that many of the Flat Earthers are motivated to take their positions on religious grounds.

    You seem to be highly offended that my observation has been that this blog has somewhat dropped in standards.

    Irrelevant and wrong. I’m not offended because I agree with the generalised observation but as I explained six different ways I disagree with your reasoning and further characterisations.

    My comment about Jeff Harvey’s tendency to over use the word denier…

    On what basis do you make that judgement? There is a veritable shitload of evidence of denial, and in most cases where I’ve noticed Jeff applying the term it seems well supported by the evidence, in which case it’s not “overused”.

    … and also accuse people of being right wing libertarians is a feature of that observation.

    That is the basis of the observation that blog standards have dropped or the blog is “political”?

    How very odd. I’m not going to explain it again – most readers have already got it.

    The fact remains that this blog along with many others may pretend they are science blogs but in truth they are not.

    And I’m calling that out as bullshit.

    Again.

    (The quote of mine that you provided in an apparent attempt to support this false claim says that this is a science advocacy blog which must discuss anti- and pseudo-science motivated by political advocacy. In other words it says the very opposite of what you claim. See the beginning of this comment…)

    You seem to be strongly motivated to dismiss this blog as “not being a science blog” and even frame it as “a political blog”, despite all of the scientific discussion that takes place here. What possible motivation might one have to dismiss the scientific discussion? Hmmmm……

  47. #47 Berendaneke
    September 12, 2013

    BBD moron :evil:

    I give you a last chance to tell us how many stations are covered in the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) database, which is by far the most holy sancatuary of post-normal crap “climatology” to which you :evil: and the other inhabitants of leper island are addicted to, and which is inifnitely more relevant for the CAGW scientology church to found its unethical claim of doing harm to the economy of western nations, as compared to all the completeky irrelevant paleo crap from a few cherryoicked trees or cores or similar “robust’ shit specimen of partizan greenpisser ideology research.

    BBD fuvkwit :evil: ! Try to focus on the essentials in your miserable life and shit on your paleo crap!

    How many stations the fuck are covered in your holy GHCN database. YOU HAVE TO KNOW THIS, MORON :evil: :evil: !!!

  48. #48 Berendaneke
    September 12, 2013

    Lotsrsoon fuvkwit :evil:

    despite all of the scientific discussion that takes place here.

    SCENTIFIC DISCUSSION HERE :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    WHAT A STUPID CHOKE, SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION HERE BY ALL LEPER ISLAND INHABITANTS WITH THEIR GREEN POLITICAL LEPER SPIN :evil:

    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    All now: IT’S akways political!

    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

  49. #49 Lotharsson
    September 12, 2013

    Freddy, take your meds.

  50. #50 Karen
    September 12, 2013

    Physicists claim further evidence of link between cosmic rays and cloud formation

    http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/54622

  51. #51 Berendaneke
    September 12, 2013

    Losth fuqwit :evil: still released from your psychiatric ward and off your thioridazine?

  52. #52 Lotharsson
    September 12, 2013

    I have also noticed that National Geographic seems to no longer sponsor this blog? Their logo has disappeared from this page?

    I don’t believe it was ever sponsorship. I seem to recall National Geographic took over day to day site management whilst ownership was retained by SEED. That initially led National Geographic to brand the ScienceBlogs sites using their icon (and remove some of the comment authoring options and a couple of other changes that weren’t uniformly positive), but the icon reverted a while back.

    Given that ScienceBlogs has always had its own brand and as pointed out at the bottom of the page has its own registered trademark owned by its own corporation, it’s difficult to conclude purely from that change that National Geographic has ceased their involvement (although that could have happened without any fanfare).

  53. #53 Lotharsson
    September 12, 2013

    #45: it’s always projection…

  54. #54 Karen
    September 12, 2013

    New paper finds IPCC climate models don’t realistically simulate convection
    More problems for the models: A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds climate models do not realistically simulate convection, “a key element of the weather and climate system for transporting mass, momentum, and thermal energy,” because of a large gap in the scale or resolution required to simulate convection [1-2 km] compared to global atmospheric motions [on the order of 10,000 km].

    According to the authors, “It has been challenging to simulate convection realistically in global atmospheric models, because of the large gap in spatial scales between convection (10^0 km) and global motions (10^4 km).” The authors find “an essential change for convection statistics occurred around 2-km grid spacing. The convection structure, number of convective cells, and distance to the nearest convective cell dramatically changed at this [2 km] resolution,” which is a much, much smaller resolution than used by IPCC climate models.

    Skeptics such as Dr. Noor van Andel have shown that the so-called “human fingerprint” or “hot spot” of global warming [that exists only in climate models] is a consequence of incorrect assumptions regarding convection, and this new paper may shed light on the reasons why.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/new-paper-finds-ipcc-climate-models.html

    Deep moist atmospheric convection in a sub-kilometer global simulation
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50944/abstract

  55. #55 Karen
    September 12, 2013

    42nd Daily Record of Year for Antarctic Sea Ice Extent – 250,000 sq km of New Ice in 3 Days

    http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/42nd-daily-record-of-year-for-antarctic-sea-ice-extent-250000-sq-km-of-new-ice-in-3-days/

    lol… this record breaking sea ice extent has to be the result of the warm water it is immersed in.. :)

  56. #56 Berendaneke
    September 12, 2013

    #47: WRONG, BUT it’s always political…

    you are not very intelligent

  57. #57 Luke
    September 12, 2013

    “There are much better resources to use if you want to learn the basics of climate science than posting contrarian bollocks here that’s clearly far beyond your level of understanding and waiting for informative responses, and you’ve been pointed to some of those resources many times over.”

    Pigs bum – you just don’t being shown up. You could some serious issues – a list from me – and all you get back are diversions and appeals to authority, verballing and devotee apologies for material that is a disgrace or a serious concern.

    Verballing is a serious issue here – I never said I liked Nova, didn’t believe in AGW, didn’t think it to be a risk (at some level). I didn’t vote for the LNP at the recent election either and I’m here of my own free will and profit not from the interaction. So assume nothing !

    So given your house etiquette – swearing at you is more profitable and enjoyable.

  58. #58 Berendaneke
    September 12, 2013

    @46 blah blah blah no meat no substance just bpnarcisstic blah blah bkah from an inteklectualy impaired leper island greenpisser :evil: off his meds

    I don’t believe it was ever sponsorship. I seem to recall National Geographic took over day to day site management whilst ownership was retained by SEED. That initially led National Geographic to brand the ScienceBlogs sites using their icon (and remove some of the comment authoring options and a couple of other changes that weren’t uniformly positive), but the icon reverted a while back.

    Given that ScienceBlogs has always had its own brand and as pointed out at the bottom of the page has its own registered trademark owned by its own corporation, it’s difficult to conclude purely from that change that National Geographic has ceased their involvement (although that could have happened without any fanfare).

    blah blah I I and I blah blah blah

    How boring and irrelevant!

  59. #60 Karen
    September 12, 2013

    Questions may be needed to address the obvious long-wave radiation deficit.

  60. #61 Lotharsson
    September 12, 2013

    Speaking of a science advocacy blog needing to mention politics, we have a vocal climate science denier loudly lobbying to become science minister.

    He advocates delaying action apparently on the basis that climate sensitivity is low, and even says publicly that “Most of the stuff [Lord Monckton] says is entirely reasonable…” whilst repudiating overwhelming consensus amongst the researchers.

  61. #62 Berendaneke
    September 12, 2013

    All: it’s always nausea with Lotharsson …

    the leper island greenpisser :evil: off his meds

  62. #63 Karen
    September 12, 2013

    ” Dr Jensen, the member for Tangney in Western Australia, who has a master’s degree in physics and a PhD in material science.”

    Just what we need Lothie, some sensible balance.

    Vote 1 ……..Dennis Jensen.. Science minister.

  63. #64 Lotharsson
    September 12, 2013

    Pigs bum – you just don’t being shown up.

    Bollocks. You’ve entirely – but reliably – missed the point.

    My mention of you was to point out that your claim to be coming here to try and resolve your list of “issues” is a distinctly sub-optimal strategy, just as el gordo’s “come here to learn” strategy is. If you really wanted to investigate those issues you’d go somewhere that people with the specific expertise hang out – and you wouldn’t display the myriad signs of bad faith discussion that you display here.

  64. #65 Berendaneke
    September 12, 2013

    Dr. Jensen is a physics master (unlike all the CAGW lepers) and best qualified as Oz science mininster. In addition he treats “climate scientists” consensus of paid greenpissers, most of them laywers, economists, political lobbyists, very few deranged meteorologists, as what this crao consnsus is:

    PURE SHIT!!!

    All: it’s always political ….. :evil:

  65. #66 Berendaneke
    September 12, 2013

    “bad faith discussion”: oh poor Lotharsson, go whining to mummy, what a pity with your “bad faith” of believing in crap scientology of greenpisser CAGW.

    Fuck off you whining in-patient off his meds

    All: it’s always political … :evil:

  66. #67 Craig Thomas
    September 12, 2013

    I think there’s a bit of a heatwave at the moment in Freddy’s part of the world.

    As to his emoticon use, perhaps those are merely mistranslated chunks of Schwyzerdütsch?

  67. #68 Nick
    September 12, 2013

    #49…is it ‘new’ ice or just old ice spread out further? None of us know do we? We do know short-term fluctuation is highly likely to be an ice re-distribution,not generation,at any time of the year. It is simply not possible to call it ‘new’ ,as in newly frozen,because the satellite is simply detecting extent. Volume may have dropped while extent increased. Calling it ‘new’ is misleading,and as the blog owner spends his time trawling the data he’d be well aware of that…

  68. #69 Berendaneke
    September 12, 2013

    @62 clown, wrong, you pour out your ignorance here:

    We do know short-term fluctuation is highly likely to be an ice re-distribution,not generation,at any time of the year. It is simply not possible to call it ‘new’ ,as in newly frozen,because the satellite is simply detecting extent. Volume may have dropped while extent increased. Calling it ‘new’ is misleading,and as the blog owner spends his time trawling the data he’d be well aware of that…

    wrong and boring. Go studying textbooks of glaciology, moron!

    Have you ever seen ice in nature, you idiot?

  69. #70 Berendaneke
    September 12, 2013

    @61 boring and irrelevant. Fuq off, fiiot

  70. #71 Nick
    September 12, 2013

    # 55, That’s the pity with Jensen: on paper he has what’s needed for a Science portfolio, but as he’s a right-wing hysteric / techno-Cornucopian, he defers to liars like Monckton….really, just extraordinary, but true.

  71. #72 Nick
    September 12, 2013

    #63, sea ice extent has nothing to do with ‘textbooks of glaciology’, you moron…really,you are an utter incompetent. Go and play with your shiny buttons.

  72. #73 Berendaneke
    September 12, 2013

    I advocate the appointment of the honorary MP Dr. Jensen as next Minister of Science of Australia and have written a letter to my friend Tony Abbott recommending this. This will help to put the international greenpisser CAGW ideology and irresponsible hysteria into perspective of scientifically irrelevant and economically harmful deviation by fanatic eco fundamentalists who want to overturn our world again to communism and poverty.

    And, beware of Lotharsson and Thomas: both are off their meds at the moment and not accountable.

    All: it’s always political … :evil:

  73. #74 Berendaneke
    September 12, 2013

    @63, off your meds again?

    sea ice has nothing to do with ice, insane moron? Piss off fuqvit

    Your political spin is untenable :evil:

    YOU ARE A PRIMITIVE RIGHT WING NUTTER WITHOUT DECENCY

  74. #75 Nick
    September 12, 2013

    #68…projection again! You seriously need to consider rehab.

    You will not find anything much useful about sea ice edge behavior in a textbook about glaciology, sweetie, glaciology is land-based…

  75. #76 el gordo
    September 12, 2013

    Thanks for that SMH link Loth.

  76. #77 Lotharsson
    September 12, 2013

    Dr. Jensen is a physics master…

    …or more specifically, his Ph.D. is in material science (and he hasn’t published any successful peer-reviewed climate science research unless I’m mistaken), all of which fails to demonstrate competence in climate science.

    This is a perfect example of the discussion I was having with Stu 2 about people who may have tertiary science qualifications but have no expertise in climate science. Regardless of their “science” tertiary qualifications, if they have no demonstrated competence in climate science their opinions should carry no more weight than anyone else who has no expertise in climate science such as your baker, auto mechanic, heart surgeon, or your favourite loopy foreign viscount.

    This is especially true when they claim that the heavy consensus that has formed amongst those with demonstrable competence in the field based on the evidence is mistaken. The not-competent calling the demonstrably competent “mistaken” (or worse) should be a red flag in any field of knowledge where anyone is free to submit a paper for peer-reviewed publication and thereby demonstrate at least basic competence.

  77. #78 Stu 2
    September 12, 2013

    Lotharsson @#40 and@#46.
    Your use of the term “pre-emptive” presupposes that there are battle lines drawn.
    There aren’t.
    At least I don’t view you as an enemy. From your rather acerbic comments to me however, I will say that it’s becoming increasingly unlikely that I would consider you as a friendly blogger.
    I was just observing that this site is no longer what it once was and that people are making unfounded accusations about each other largely based on their political affiliations. Nick’s comment above @#55 about Jensen being a very recent example.
    You are of course entitled to your opinion as I am mine.
    I was not intending to offend, I was just offering an observation. If you have decided to be offended or perhaps overly defensive that is entirely your decision.
    As for National Geographic, I apologise if “sponsor” was the wrong word choice. Their logo has nonetheless disappeared from this site.
    I think it’s a shame that this site has degenerated.

  78. #79 Jeff Harvey
    September 12, 2013

    “I was just observing that this site is no longer what it once was”

    That’s because Tim doesn’t invest much energy here any more and we are left with endless ‘open threads’.

    You have to realize, Stu2, that its the deniers who are distorting and mangling science to bolster a political agenda, and not scientists on the other side. That’s why deniers are for the most part relegated to blogs, where there is no peer-review and thus anything can get said and packaged as ‘sound science’. It also explains why many on the academic fringe – Nova and McIntyre are good examples – end up here.

  79. #80 Craig Thomas
    September 12, 2013

    Ah, the irony….

    Dr Jensen suggests he would be better qualified than anyone to take charge of science.

    “I’m not aware of any other scientist [in the Parliament],” he said.

    Then…

    “In the climate area there is appeal to authority and appeal to consensus, neither of which is scientific at all,” Dr Jensen told Fairfax Media on Thursday.

    What. A. Clown.

  80. #81 Stu 2
    September 12, 2013

    I substantially agree Jeff Harvey except that it isn’t only those you call “right wing” or call “deniers” who are guilty of this behaviour.
    Plenty of others who are not qualified are running blogs on the “other side” as well.
    There have also been plenty of science ministers appointed by government who have far less scientific qualifications than Jensen.

  81. #82 Jeff Harvey
    September 12, 2013

    This article pretty well eviscerates everything the Arctic ice-collapse deniers have been saying here.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23964372

    Note what many have been saying about ice thickness – far more of an important indicator of ice loss than extent.

    B-bye Karen and Berendaneke. Its back to your respective caves.

  82. #83 Lotharsson
    September 12, 2013

    Your use of the term “pre-emptive” presupposes that there are battle lines drawn.

    Huh? Pre-emptive doesn’t imply that. Pre-emptive was a description of your “don’t bother”.

    …people are making unfounded accusations about each other largely based on their political affiliations. Nick’s comment above @#55 about Jensen being a very recent example.

    I’m not sure that’s correct. I presume you’re referring to his comment on Dr. Jensen. It’s difficult to find a more plausible motive than political position for any politician with some scientific training to delegate his scientific understanding to a propagandistic unscientific vaudeville act like Monckton (unless perhaps one wants to invoke religion, but that doesn’t appear to be the case here).

    Which leads to a linked topic, although the link may not be immediately obvious:

    Plenty of others who are not qualified are running blogs on the “other side” as well.

    And what has been pointed out here is that the situation is not symmetrical, so the same critique doesn’t apply to “both sides” when one side is siding with the experts and the evidence and one is not.

    A writer who isn’t scientifically competent pointing out that the scientific evidence is sufficient basis for concern isn’t espousing an opinion that goes against the evidence-based opinion drawn by the heavy majority of those who are competent.

    A non-mechanic car driving enthusiast writing a blog for non-mechanics that accurately reports best maintenance practices as specified by competent mechanics and car manufacturers based on their experience and extensive evidence is in a very different position to another non-mechanic who blogs that the large body of mechanics are getting it wrong because he says so or based on his own analysis.

    An attempted critique of the former blog on the basis that the author is not a mechanic is not valid, because their advocated maintenance practices are NOT predicated on their own expertise but on the real expertise of the body of mechanics and manufacturers.

    The same critique against the latter blog carries much more weight. The non-expert needs to provide sufficient evidence and analysis to demonstrate that the vast body of mechanics are wrong, and usually evidence is simply not provided. Even when evidence & analysis is provided and is asserted by the non-qualified author to be of sufficient quality, the audience are also non-mechanics. That means they don’t have the ability to figure out whether the argument is actually robust (in part because they don’t know what they don’t know but need to know in order to assess the quality of evidence). The auto maintenance contrarian blog in this case is in effect asking unskilled readers to trust its unskilled analysis and evidence OVER the analysis of the evidence performed by the skilled – which is precisely what Dr. Jensen is doing when he offers his own unskilled opinion and cites the even more unskilled Monckton.

  83. #84 Nick
    September 12, 2013

    #72, My comments on Jensen,Stu2, are based on his writing and behavior: I’ve read his offerings on science and politics at Jo Nova’s. I stated that he was on paper very suitable…but his openly offered opinions on science are highly political where they should be cautious, play shamelessly to an audience, and reveal poor judgement. Even offering a qualified endorsement of Monckton’s views is a mistake, simply on the basis that Monckton is known to have lied about his CV and achievements,let alone on his serial misrepresentation of papers despite their authors explicit positions. Politicians have to show better judgement….Jensen fails.

  84. #85 Berendaneke
    September 12, 2013

    @72 clown, YOU FAIL, not Dr. Jensen.

    Forgotten to take your meds, clown :evil:

    All (with deep empathy please): it’s always political … :evil:

  85. #86 Berendaneke
    September 12, 2013

    @78, not 72: clown, YOU FAIL, not Dr. Jensen.

    Forgotten to take your meds, clown

    All (with deep empathy please): it’s always political …

  86. #87 Nick
    September 12, 2013

    #72, and as Jensen has happily partaken in the Coalitions campaign,the strategy of which was to create alarm by fibbing about the state of the economy, he is a right-wing hysteric as a matter of mundane reality. It’s not personal.

  87. #88 Berendaneke
    September 12, 2013

    Losthsome clown :evil:

    you are more than anybody else here a political propagandist. That reproach this anybody else is a ridiculous perversion in its own right. Your connection to science and research is zero.

    Since when are you off your meds, fuckwit :evil: ?

  88. #89 Berendaneke
    September 12, 2013

    @81 partizan fuckwit :evil:

    Master your hatred, clown, and accept the new government, clown :evil:

    You should take your meds again, clown :evil:

  89. #90 Nick
    September 12, 2013

    #80, it’s perfectly clear you are quite mad, Emoticon Boy…with deep empathy please,seek some help. You are only upsetting yourself,you are incapable of rational comment,and it seems you are getting sicker.

  90. #91 Berendaneke
    September 12, 2013

    Harvey, you ALWAYS cherrypick those parameters which best fit your bad faith of insane CAGW scientology and hate those which reject your bad pagan faith. Therefore you are a true science fuckwit :evil: !!

    You should now take your anti-schizophrenic drugs again!

    PS: you have no knowledge of meteorology, hence don’t open your dirty mouth so wide, you are an irrelevant science ignoramus and ugly narcist (I, I, my ego, I, I, …). Shut up and piss off, blether)

  91. #92 Berendaneke
    September 12, 2013

    @84, still off your meds with derealization problems, clown :evil: ?

    – You now nothing about meteorology
    – You are poor
    – You are ugly
    – Your paleo addiction is crap behavior
    – You are an insane leper island inhabitant

    Take your meds now, go to your doctor to get your treatment, fuckwit :evil:!!!!!

  92. #93 Berendaneke
    September 12, 2013

    @74 Thomas, the clown are you, not Dr. Jensen!

    You are a superbrat without manners. You parents should be ashamed!

    Nobody likes you, nobody cares about the crap you produce.

    Just piss off, moron :evil:

  93. #94 Berendaneke
    September 12, 2013

    @73 Harvey whining:

    That’s because Tim doesn’t invest much energy here any more and we are left with endless ‘open threads’

    Oh, you poor boys, daddys protection missing, oh huhuhuhu, we are left alone with superior and far more intelligent counterparts than us and don’t know now to impose our bad faith … whiny … whiny

    Poor Jeffrey what a pity that somebody disturbs your insane weather dreams

    … its getting warmer, how bad, bad, mummy please help me

  94. #95 BBD
    September 12, 2013

    #84 Nick

    You should have seen him when he was “Freddy”!

    Mind you, I think we are witnessing reversion to the mean.

    :-)

  95. #96 BBD
    September 12, 2013

    You are a superbrat without manners. You parents should be ashamed!

    It’s always projection!

    :-)

  96. #97 Nick
    September 12, 2013

    #85-89…Tim, can you block this person, please?

  97. #98 Nick
    September 12, 2013

    sorry BBD,#85-88, ha!….

  98. #99 Berendaneke
    September 12, 2013

    @71 Loathsome indredulty

    should be a red flag in any field of knowledge where anyone is free to submit a paper for peer-reviewed

    Listen, you asshole: What you excrement here is

    1) Again and always appeal to authority

    2) Advocacy of scientific dictatorship

    To which degree are you already degeneratec, fuckwit. :evil:

    NEVER EVER WILL ANYBODY GIVEN AUTHORITARIAN PRIORITY, UNDER NO AUSPICES, UNDERSTOOD, YOU MORON!!!

    Go to North Korea where you can pursue your authoritarian wishes!

  99. #100 Berendaneke
    September 12, 2013

    @89-92

    helpless appeal to authority by climate fuckwits

1 3 4 5 6 7 28

Current ye@r *