September 2013 Open Thread

The thread, there is more.

Comments

  1. #1 Nick
    September 13, 2013

    Does the Karen know the answer and play dumb, or is it just genuinely ignorant?

  2. #2 Nick
    September 13, 2013

    That yawn says “genuinely ignorant”… Kaz, Christy has played you by selecting a baseline period that artificially lowers the obs relative to the models…it’s called dishonesty, Kaz. I believe you are an innocent dupe, given you could volunteer the claim that the planet is cooling….what do you say?

  3. #3 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    “Karen” is running away because it knows the hammer is about to fall. We’ve been thought this painful process many times before!

    Night night dear!

  4. #4 Lotharsson
    September 13, 2013

    What is it that you claim I misinterpreted?

    Come on, it’s easy to see. You’ve already provided the quote from me that demonstrates it. You said “I guess Lotharsson was perhaps misinformed re that ONE peer reviewed publication?

    In contrast, I pointed out that Carter has a grand total of one paper in climate science (and it fared extremely badly after publication). See the bit in bold font? That’s the key bit you left out that creates a significant misinterpretation. What a difference it makes!

    Which didn’t really do much to bolster the point I was making but did make your original comment look a bit odd.

    Yes, it would look a bit odd if you omitted the bold text from my comment and argument, but entirely relevant if you added the bold text back in.

    I’m guessing you won’t answer my questions about how a scientifically non-capable person tests scientific claims, or even who one should or should not listen to, when that non-capable person wants to have a very good chance of backing the strongest scientific claims. I’m guessing all of the discussion of how competence is and is not demonstrated to someone outside the field – and even the beautiful example of Bob Carter’s deep climate science incompetence despite his scientific publication record – hasn’t changed your mind one little bit.

    Am I right?

  5. #5 el gordo
    September 13, 2013

    ‘We are currently over four years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906.’

    Hathaway / NASA

  6. #6 Lotharsson
    September 13, 2013

    Can somebody help the pathetic fuckwit “Karen” out here please?

    Nobody expects the Span… … er, nobody can help Karen out on anything, BBD. You should know that by now. She doesn’t even understand the concept that 2016 +/- 3 ends in 2019, and I seem to recall an even more basic arithmetic error some time ago.

  7. #7 Luke
    September 13, 2013

    BBD – of course THAT paper wouldn’t make in Nature. HvS declared so himself. It’s an affront. But is it wrong? And why was Trenberth surprised and why was there a travesty. Why is it being discussed.

    As usual you are fucking idiot. And like your mates UNFUCKING able to give a serious answer except to divert. So for that get straight fucked.

    According to the modelled laws of previous physics it shouldn’t have happened. But it did like a whole bunch of other very average crap that gets through peer review.

  8. #8 Luke
    September 13, 2013

    ANYWAY

    May I ask any of the public parasite academics here ask what do you think the value proposition is for the continuation of this blog.

    Just asking.

    I suggest there isn’t one.

  9. #9 Stu 2
    September 13, 2013

    Lotharsson,
    May I suggest you read the list of publications I linked earlier?
    Many of Bob Carter’s peer reviewed articles are paleo-CLIMATIC studies.
    Apparently, according to that list, he has over 40 years experience in paleo- CLIMATE research.

    As I said, very tedious.

  10. #10 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    According to the modelled laws of previous physics it shouldn’t have happened.

    Rubbish. As usual, you go grossly overstate. Go back and read what HvS actually said. This is why you are treated as a joke here, Luke.

    To understand the present mismatch, we suggest four different explanations; none is pointing to a falsification of the concept that CO2 and other greenhouse gases exert a strong and likely dominant influence on the climate (statistics of weather). None represents a falsification of climate models. But all point to the need for further analysis and improvement of our tools – which are scenario simulations with climate models û for describing possible future developments.

    One is an underestimation of the natural climate variability, which could be related to variations in the heat-uptake by the ocean and/or in internal variations of the energy balance itself (such as cloud cover). Another possibility is that the climate sensitivity of models may be too large, but a longer period of mismatch would be required to ascertain this possibility, as 15-years trends are still strongly influenced by internal climate variations. A third possibility is that the set of external forcings prescribed in the CMIP5 simulations lack a component of relevance. In particular, the CMIP ensembles assume a constant solar irradiance, due to the difficulties in predicting solar activity. However, solar irradiance displays a negative trend in the last 15 years, which could be part of the explanation of this mismatch. Finally, although the number of simulations that produce a trend as subdued as observed is small, it is still not zero. The last 15 years may have been an outlier, especially considering that the starting years – 1998 – experienced a strong ENSO event, and therefore was anomalously warm. Thus, further analyses are necessary and we intend to carry them forward.

  11. #11 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    Luke

    I suggest there isn’t one.

    Trying to shut down the debate! Gosh!

    Who gives a stuff what you think.

  12. #12 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    Here’s a prediction.

    Having once again been shown to be a polemicist, Luke will become abusive, then return later and continue to shout misrepresentations while demanding that his shite be taken seriously and whining that it is not, even though he is answered every time and always shown to be a polemicist and misrepresenter.

  13. #13 Nick
    September 13, 2013

    #100 That’s a sweeping claim which can easily be refined. Carter has not been involved in global or hemispheric scale climate reconstruction work for the Holocene. He has co-authored one paper involving ENSO and GT, a paper which has been observed before as deeply flawed,and deliberately so. It was rebutted comprehensively by a number of expert authors.

    All his current work directly discussing climate is non-peer previewed, facetious and polemical in nature.

    He has looked at facets of sea-level, depositional and tectonic evolutions of various shelves, sediments and sea floors mainly around New Zealand and E Coast Australia, all a bit tangential to modern climate. He has no work in meteorology,atmospheric chemistry or physics,no experience of climate modelling and monitoring.

  14. #14 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    It’s time the denialati recognised that they are outside the scientific pale. Once you pass through the gates of reason into the wilds, there’s no coming back in again. Credibility is destroyed. Career may well suffer, and rightly so.

    Carter is simply another old man who has walked out through the gates into the dark. Bye Bob!

  15. #15 Lotharsson
    September 13, 2013

    Stu 2, what Nick said.

    If you had bothered to run a critical eye over that list of publications you linked to, you’d find that:

    – Some of them are conference proceedings, which aren’t “papers”
    – I suspect you’d find a bunch more that aren’t in peer reviewed journals
    – Most of the ones that address modern climate science are in journals other than science (e.g. economics journals) which strongly suggests that they don’t have defensible scientific content
    – The vast majority of his publication list isn’t relevant to expertise that would inform his current claims that climate science gets anthropogenic warming all wrong.

    So simply citing his “more than 100 peer-reviewed research papers” when almost the entire body of work doesn’t relate to the area of science his claims are in is another lovely example of the perils of appeal by non-specialists to alleged evidence of specialist competence: the non-specialists are highly prone to making erroneous assessments of competence.

    This is why scientists heavily emphasise claims that have been tested via peer review rather than trying to use “competence” or “ability” or “intelligence” or any other attribute of the claimant as a proxy to infer the validity of the claims. And this is why non-scientists should even more heavily emphasise the same.

    And this is why almost all of Bob’s claims about climate science can be immediately rejected, even by non-specialists. He could submit them to peer review – as he has done in his area of speciality over decades, so he clearly knows how to get published and can do sufficient quality work in at least one area of science – but he does not.

    It’s the dog that didn’t bark, and you don’t have to be a specialist to notice the lack of yapping…

  16. #16 Stu
    September 13, 2013

    Ehm, no.

    According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Carter has published over 50 original research in peer-reviewed journals mainly in the area of stratigraphy, the study of rock layers and layering. Carter’s articles on global warming have largely appeared in economics journals, rather than mainstream science journals.

  17. #17 Lionel A
    September 13, 2013

    PDF with Some help for Karen and her trouble with correctly assessing those charts by Christy.

    Note another issue has been indicated by others.

  18. #18 Lionel A
    September 13, 2013

    Here is another, from a history lesson:

    How to cook a graph in three easy lessons by the author of the thorough ‘Principles of Planetary Climate‘, now here is a quote WRT the result of one of Roy’s inputs to the WST, from the above link (go look it up) that gives another big clue:

    That’s not Roy’s prose, but it is Roy’s data over there in the graph on the right, which purports to show that the climate has been cooling, not warming. We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming , and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.

    So after that history, we’re supposed to savor all Roy’s new cookery?

    That’s an awful lot to swallow.

    I can hear the ‘roaches scuttling from here.

    And here is a paper (PDF) to go with the pretty slides in #8 above.

    Getting the picture yet Karen?

  19. #19 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    Tell her about the averaging Lionel. Or shall I keep the best bit for last?

    ;-)

  20. #20 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    And by happy coincidence, hot off the press comes more about warm ocean water causing basal melt and destabilisation of West Antarctic ice shelves:

    The [Pine Island Glacier] ice shelf is melting more rapidly from below for a number of reasons. The oceans are warmer than they have been in the past and water can transfer more heat than air. More importantly, the terrain beneath the ice shelf is a series of channels. The floating ice in the channel has ample room beneath it for ocean water to flow in. The water melts some of the ice beneath and cools. If the water remained in the channel, the water would eventually cool to a point where it was not melting much ice, but the channels allow the water to flow out to the open ocean and warmer water to flow in, again melting the ice shelf from beneath.

    “The way the ocean water is melting the ice shelf is a deeply non-uniform way,” said Anandakrishnan. “That’s going to be more effective in breaking these ice shelves apart.”

    The breaking apart of the ice shelf in the channels is similar to removing an ice jam from a river. The shelf was plugging the channel, but once it is gone, the glacier moves more rapidly toward the sea, forming more ice shelf, but removing large amounts of ice from the glacier.

    The melting of floating ice shelves does not contribute to sea level rise because once they are in the water, the ice shelves have already contributed to sea level rise. However, most of the Antarctic glaciers are on land, and rapidly adding new ice shelf material to the floating mass will increase sea level rise.

    “Antarctica is relatively stable, but that won’t last forever, said Anandakrishnan. “This is a harbinger of what will happen.”

    And the Pine Island Glacier isn’t just any old glacier. Readers here to *learn* should investigate why the PIG is a focus for research!

    :-)

  21. #21 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    @ Lionel

    And let’s not forget the other big naughty – comparing a specific atmospheric height in the models with TMT observations which are crap.

    The radiosondes were never meant for climatological monitoring of this type and the data are universally acknowledged to be unreliable.

    The satellite *TMT* data are contaminated by stratospheric readings and thus biased cool. Why didn’t Christy use the weighted *TLT* data that he and Spencer developed specifically to get around this problem?

    Bizarre!

    Then there’s the averaging thing…!

    :-)

  22. #22 Lionel A
    September 13, 2013

    Karen, with another pointer to ‘howlers’ this time one from Watts at his blog, in this post where after inflating his writing style Anthony goes onto describe most of the commenters, and the posters on his blog:

    My writing style definitely leans to the technical side, as visitors here well know. To make it easier to read, Climate Models Fail is being proofread by someone without a technical background. Her suggestions have been great.

    .

    Not much self awareness over at WUWT is there.

    Now I wonder who that ‘she’ is?

    Oh! And BTW Karen

    Lionel couldn’t slain why the fizziks don’t
    work in models either

    No the physics come first, used in creating models, and to constrain the models, along with other stuff – know about boundary conditions then? If so describe same.

    As BBD says – the averaging?

  23. #23 Lionel A
    September 13, 2013

    BBD.

    The satellite *TMT* data are contaminated by stratospheric readings and thus biased cool. Why didn’t Christy use the weighted *TLT* data that he and Spencer developed specifically to get around this problem?

    Indeed, that is one of the things I was trying to help her towards without giving too much away. After all the issues with satellite data biased cool by stratospheric contamination have been know about and papered on for years now. Christy and Spencer have to be, at the very least, suffering from cognitive dissonance to not acknowledge this now, others would put money on dishonesty.

    Amongst others, Ruddiman explains the problems of UAH satellite data and radiosondes in his ‘Earth’s Climate: Past and Future (a new edition in Oct 2013 by the look of things).

    Karen – answer these;

    In what way was radiosonde data biased?

    and

    How is atmospheric temperature data obtained by satellites?

  24. #24 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    It’s always troubled me that “sceptics” who claim that “climate science” is profoundly problematic never seem to read any textbooks.

    Why not? As a sceptic, I had no choice *but* to examine the standard scientific position, which one finds set out in textbooks.

    But of course it does require work. One has to read.

    The Internet, wonderful though it is, does not and cannot replace the structured and referenced exposition found in textbooks.

    WTFUWT etc ≠ textbooks!

    :-)

  25. #26 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    We only call you names when you deserve it!

    ;-)

  26. #27 Lionel A
    September 13, 2013

    And of course we should not forget the increasing frequency and strength of extreme weather events as with the latest example in Colorado. Ironic considering where one climate change centre is located.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah we all know about one weather event not being caused by a warming planet but do read my open words again any tossers who wish to make a thing out of that argument.

  27. #28 Lionel A
    September 13, 2013

    gordolocks,

    Bibles are for believers, for us then knowledge and wisdom is the key. Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom. What stage are you at? Oh! I see. You have not even got started at the ground floor yet.

  28. #30 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    Um, Gordy, why did you link to that Readfearn article? At first blush, it doesn’t really do you any favours.

  29. #31 Stu
    September 13, 2013

    What’s that supposed to be, Gordo? Proof that people make fun of denialists?

  30. #32 Luke
    September 13, 2013

    So the models are fucked. Don’t represent GAT. As bad as it gets.

    Trop hotspot stolen by Santa Claus (it’s there Jim – but you just can see it or measure it – just like Santa Claus)

    Palaeo is full of crooks – e.g. Hockeystick dogshit – what a dreadful indictment

    What a bunch of lying cunts you are sitting there on your public parasite ivory tower positions. None of you cunts have even done a decent day’s work. Bludgers.

    AND most importantly NOBODY can advance a value proposition for this blog’s continuation.

    It’s just a cess pit for university dickheads.

  31. #33 Luke
    September 13, 2013

    And BBD – list your 10 ten climate text books – they’d better be here in the next 10 minutes or we’ll know you don’t have any. And what’s the first 3 words on page 23 of each. BTW palaeo doesn’t count.

    Full of shit loon that you are.

  32. #34 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    So the models are fucked. Don’t represent GAT. As bad as it gets.

    Nope. Stupid again. And HvS says so.

    Read the words Luke.

  33. #35 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    None of you cunts have even done a decent day’s work. Bludgers.

    Argument from assertion, Luke. Logical fallacy.

    You sound bitter, Luke. Had a shit week?

  34. #36 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    It’s just a cess pit for university dickheads.

    Is that a chip on your shoulder, Luke, or are you just displeased to see me?!

  35. #37 Luke
    September 13, 2013

    So BBD is a university dickhead who hasn’t got any real climate text books nor read any.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    A child neglecting, stay up all night, climate change bed wetter who has never had a real job.

  36. #38 Olaus Petri
    September 13, 2013
  37. #39 chek
    September 13, 2013

    The Lukes are back on the meths and making up shit again, I see. The hysteric bray is all that’s left in their appropriately titled arsenal.

    Oh, and Olap, I don’t click on links without a comprehensive description of what the point of them is. Your shitsplat, even less so.

  38. #40 el gordo
    September 13, 2013

    ‘…why did you link to that Readfearn article?’

    Graham is an idiot.

  39. #41 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    Braying again, Luke!

    Okay, we’ll compare libraries.

    Go to your bookshelves and get down:

    Ruddiman

    Cronin

    Gornitz

    Pick pages! Any text!

    Off we go!

  40. #42 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    #31 Gordy

    On the evidence, I’d say you were! Why link to GR’s Guardian piece?

    Bizarre!

    ;-)

  41. #43 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    BTW palaeo doesn’t count.

    Why not? Are you denying the science Luke? I thought you were objective.

    Apparently you don’t understand what that word means.

    P.23 Ruddiman:

    of dating and correlation using fossils or other features in the sediments.

    Yes, bonus extra words!

    Coming up… Cronin!

    :-)

  42. #44 chek
    September 13, 2013

    Graham is an idiot.

    Yes of course, that must be right Gordon, whereas you’re a fine upstanding crank fantasist cancer on society.

    I still can’t get over the statistic that should I visit Australia (which I’d love to do, incidentally, perhaps when I’m visiting my brother in New Zealand) that by shaking hands with any random Aussie, I’m more likely to find myself shaking hands with a paedophile than a crank climate denier.

    Working in an educational establishment and being very aware of the general cultural esteem paedophiles are held in, I find that thought very uplifting.

  43. #45 chek
    September 13, 2013

    BBD, I suspect The Lukes are bi-polar crank morons.
    Any comment now they’ll become Luke 3 and declare they’re only fucking with us.
    Hyuk, hyuk, hyuk. Et pathetic cetera.

  44. #46 el gordo
    September 13, 2013

    ‘Why link to GR’s Guardian piece?’

    I had discussions with Graham when he worked at the Courier Mail, naturally we didn’t agree. We can converse on his questions, I’m game.

  45. #47 chek
    September 13, 2013

    But you know *nothing* except denier fantasies Gordon. How to converse at your level?
    It can’t be done.

  46. #48 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    #36 chek

    Just for you, here are the first few words in Cronin, page 23:

    Houghton (2003) calculated a release of 156Gt C between 1850 and 2000

    Perhaps Luke is on holiday again and away from his shelves.

  47. #49 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    And since I would hate to be accused of bluffing or lying, let’s turn to Gornitz, p. 23:

    Atlantic Conveyer); a glacial mode, where flow sinks to the south of the sill;

    :-)

    Now where was that blog debate between you and Kellow again, Luke?

    You never did say!

    :-)

  48. #50 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    Where the fuck are you, Luke?

    :-)

  49. #51 Luke
    September 13, 2013

    Listen cunt are you deaf – I said palaeo doesn’t count. Climate science for the impoverished.

    How about The Future of the World’s Climate Henderson-Sellers and McGuffie p 250 last two words – “associated uncertainty” 650pp

  50. #52 Luke
    September 13, 2013

    So at this point you’re a fucking idiot BBD. Which explains why you can’t answer any of my questions. A little palaeo turd parasiting his life away at some fetid university.

    I assume you do know who AHS is?

  51. #53 chek
    September 13, 2013

    Where the fuck are you, Luke?

    In the bathroom with his arm round Freddtyfrot necking all the Thioridazine they’ve got is my guess. The insane, Gordon twat-standard “expert” that he is.

  52. #54 Luke
    September 13, 2013

    “I still can’t get over the statistic that should I visit Australia (which I’d love to do, incidentally, perhaps when I’m visiting my brother in New Zealand) that by shaking hands with any random Aussie, I’m more likely to find myself shaking hands with a paedophile than a crank climate denier.”

    How about you don’t come ! We now have a new govt that doesn’t want illegal aliens or fuckheads.

  53. #55 Stu 2
    September 13, 2013

    Lotharsson,
    Until yesterday I knew very little about Carter.
    I was not interested in arguing about Carter.
    In an attempt to answer Bernard’s question I discovered that Carter has indeed authored and co authored many peer reviewed papers and whether you like it or not, you were wrong when you claimed that Bob Carter only has ONE peer reviewed paper on (climate) science.
    BBD has pointed out to Luke above @#34 that to discount paleo would be denying the science.
    I would agree with BBD. Of course it is relevant to climate science.
    I will further point out to you that at no stage was I dismissing peer review or academia. That is your claim about me.
    My objection remains that you were dismissive of people based on your opinion of their publishing record and/or their political affiliations.
    And Lotharsson. While what you say here may or may not have merit :
    ——————————————————————-
    – The vast majority of his publication list isn’t relevant to expertise that would inform his current claims that climate science gets anthropogenic warming all wrong.
    ————————————————————————
    That was NOT what you said originally NOR what I objected to.
    I have grown tired of your incessant lecturing about this.
    It would be much easier to admit that perhaps you were misinformed on this particular occasion.

  54. #56 Luke
    September 13, 2013

    So by now we have nobody who is prepared to defend the blog and answer what is the value proposition for the blog continuing.

    So we conclude you all squat to piss.

  55. #57 Luke
    September 13, 2013

    Stu 2 – Carter is a player and I’ve seen him up close in action a number of times. Not to be recommended unless you like you bullshit fresh and steaming.

  56. #58 chek
    September 13, 2013

    So now Gordon’s twat mates The Lukes Collective pretend not to understand the point of history and paleo data.
    The Year Zero Collective is here now!

  57. #59 Luke
    September 13, 2013

    He may have some knowledge of matters palaeo but he has no demonstrated useful experience to quote on modern meteorology.

  58. #60 Luke
    September 13, 2013

    So chek-mate – what is the value proposition for the continuation of the blog. Or are you just here as there are no women, men or farm animals that enjoy your company.

  59. #61 chek
    September 13, 2013

    So by now we have nobody who is prepared to defend the blog and answer what is the value proposition for the blog continuing.

    As long as it provides a platform for highlighting the anti-intellectual bankruptcy of little would-be brownshirts like The Luke Collective and crank fantasists like Gordon and Cox, it earns it’s place

  60. #62 Nick
    September 13, 2013

    So Gordy, you’re keen to converse on Readfearn’s questions : did you follow link one to read the two paragraphs from Monckton via SPPI pamphlet?

    Monckton makes this claim: “…many scientists have come to the view that they no longer need to adhere to any moral precept at all.”

    How do think Monckton ‘knows’ this? Do you think he has run a few surveys? Do you think Jensen is aware of this Monckton view? I’d say he might be now that he’s read Readfearn’s article!

  61. #63 Stu 2
    September 13, 2013

    Luke@#47. Jeff Harvey and Nick did say that this blog has suffered from the lack of attention by the blog owner. So I don’t think your assertion about no one is entirely fair.
    However, I have to agree with you that it is offering very little value in its present state.

  62. #64 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    Listen cunt are you deaf – I said palaeo doesn’t count.

    This is stupid, Luke.

    It is evidence denial. Science denial. Physics denial.

    Stop bluffing, posturing and denying and start being objective!

    Examine the evidence. We both know you haven’t.

  63. #65 chek
    September 14, 2013

    The Lukes have a ‘position’.
    Evidence doesn’t enter into it.

  64. #66 chek
    September 14, 2013

    Being realistic, what is to be expected from a clownshoe Nova shill? Objectivity?

  65. #67 el gordo
    September 14, 2013

    Monckton is a showman, surrounded by controversy, but as Jensen said, a lot of what he says is plausible.

    Lets move down to question 15…

    ‘Climate change scientists should be prosecuted and locked up – yes or no?’

    Not sure he even said it, but it makes sense when you consider the wrath of the masses when global cooling begins to bite.

  66. #68 chek
    September 14, 2013

    How about you don’t come ! We now have a new govt that doesn’t want illegal aliens or fuckheads

    As the subtext of my recent comments have pointed out all too plainly, you deniers are a minority ranking below paedophiles in the national scheme of things. You speak for nobody except your deluded micro-minority sect.

  67. #69 chek
    September 14, 2013

    but it makes sense when you consider the wrath of the masses when global cooling begins to bite.

    … or when the Sun goes out. Whichever happens sooner.

  68. #70 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    #52, Stu, in our present state Lionel has posted a link at #8 which is of great value..

  69. #71 Luke
    September 14, 2013

    Well thank heavens I’m a brown shirt and not a crank fantasist.

    So looks like BBD is empty on the climate texts.AS WE SUSPECTED.

    Stu2 – my question was serious – would be good for Loth, Chek-machine or BBD to say “the value proposition for this blog is …..”

  70. #72 BBD
    September 14, 2013

    So looks like BBD is empty on the climate texts

    Er, are we reading the same thread?

  71. #73 chek
    September 14, 2013

    “the value proposition for this blog is …..”

    ..enough to attract Nova shills and concern trolls and a regular parade of cranks attempting to do whatever it is they think they’re doing, but failing. Badly.

  72. #74 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    #58 …lock up climate scientists for their own protection of course,very considerate of you….back to link one, is that Monckton being ‘plausible’? Having the appearance of truth? ‘Many scientists’ are amoral according to Monckton’s diligent research. Only ‘the great religions,chiefly Christianity’,can provide the moral framework through which a scientist can work ethically, according to the deeply Christian viscount who lied publicly about being a scientist [in transcript of Wendy Carlisle's piece] and claimed to have published peer-reviewed work. Jensen’s judgement…is it ministerial material?

  73. #75 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    #63,that’s state-of-the-art denialism on demand! There is now no gap detectable between the provision of demanded evidence and the shunning of it with the latest denialbot model…

  74. #76 el gordo
    September 14, 2013

    ‘is it ministerial material?’

    Jensen is the most qualified scientist in the government, so I would be very surprised if Abbott picked anyone else. Greg Hunt should be sacked from his portfolio, he’s an ijit.

    Not sure about Monckton’s thinking on amorality, assuming he said it. So damn hard to get real quotes, always someone’s interpretation of what he said.

  75. #77 chek
    September 14, 2013

    What does the opinion of a diseased degenerate like Monckton have to do with anything?

  76. #78 el gordo
    September 14, 2013

    Back to question 15 ….

    In the near future, as temperatures continue to slide, the Klimatariat will come under great pressure to admit their folly.
    They may be publicly humiliated and severely chastised, but as its a collective its unlikely any one individual will be imprisoned.

    Those wind farms are a total waste, yet no politician will be held responsible because they were all brainwashed.

  77. #79 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    #67….”assuming he said it”…why assume when you can read the poor man’s every deranged musing in the ‘Monckton Collection’ at the SPPI blog!! Monckton wants you to know how batty he is,mate…he’s fucking crazy about himself! One of the great public romances.

    If you follow Readfearn’s link, you go to the ‘Open Parachute’ blog, read the short article in which there is a direct link to the legthy turgid absurdity “What is Science Without Religion?” at the SPPI’s site. Verbatim.

  78. #80 Nick
    September 14, 2013

    #69…’as temperatures continue to slide’… all windfarms are a ‘total waste’ ,all politicians are ‘brainwashed’…. this sort of rejection of reality shows why you are easy meat for Monckton.

  79. #81 chek
    September 14, 2013

    Those wind farms are a total waste

    How much of a fuckwitted luddite crank do you have to be to write off a resource that currently provides 17% of power to an economy the size of Germany’s?

  80. #82 el gordo
    September 14, 2013

    The big picture chek, the cost of energy in the US is a fifth of what the Europeans are paying, because of fracking, so its only a matter of time before the leaders lose their political will.

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/26/uk-renewables-eu-idUKBRE97P0FS20130826

  81. #83 Luke
    September 14, 2013

    Or El Gordo – if the temperature again starts to rise it will be open season on sceptics

    So 50:50 or phone a friend?

  82. #84 Bernard J.
    September 14, 2013

    The big picture chek, the cost of energy in the US is a fifth of what the Europeans are paying, because of fracking</blockquote?

    The bigger picture Fatso is that all fossil fuels are finite, and irrespective of the damage caused to the biosphere by heating the planet, any global economy that is expanded on the basis of the proportionately high use of them will eventually crash all the harder when they run out.

  83. #85 Bernard J.
    September 14, 2013

    The big picture chek, the cost of energy in the US is a fifth of what the Europeans are paying, because of fracking

    The bigger picture Fatso is that all fossil fuels are finite, and irrespective of the damage caused to the biosphere by heating the planet, any global economy that is expanded on the basis of the proportionately high use of them will eventually crash all the harder when they run out.

  84. #86 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    lol….barnturd……….. stuttering again through his cleft palette and hair lip

  85. #87 el gordo
    September 14, 2013

    ‘if the temperature again starts to rise it will be open season on sceptics’

    Freedom of speech on the blogosphere is not quite the same, hasn’t cost a penny.

  86. #88 el gordo
    September 14, 2013

    Luke its unlikely sceptics will be punished for discussing climate on the blogosphere.

  87. #89 el gordo
    September 14, 2013

    Bloody DoS attack.

    ‘Buying “a pig in a poke” refers to buying an unseen piglet in a sack. The piglet was actually a cat, so when you opened the sack after purchase “the cat was out of the bag.”

    ‘Governments bought the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ‘pig’ ‘that human CO2 was causing global warming wrapped in the ‘poke’ of their Reports. IPCC assured buyers it was a pig with 90+ percent certainty.

    ‘They fooled governments and media four times now they offer a new poke in Assessment Report 5 (AR5), but with 95 percent certainty it’s a pig. This is despite the fact that the cat is already out of the bag. Their predictions have failed.’

    Tim Ball

  88. #90 el gordo
    September 14, 2013

    BJ we have enough fossil fuels to last us a century and by then we should be into more sophisticated forms of energy.

  89. #91 Luke
    September 14, 2013

    El Gordo – but all the blog owners will be.

  90. #92 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    Sooo guyzz, why don’t the fizzzziks work ?

    National Academy of Sciences: climate models still ‘decades away’ from being useful

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/national-academy-of-sciences-climate-models-still-decades-away-from-being-useful/

    Have you guyzz got a climate model of some sort that has worked and will work into the future?

    short answer……..NUP……….. fizziks problemo…lol

  91. #93 Lotharsson
    September 14, 2013

    I will further point out to you that at no stage was I dismissing peer review or academia. That is your claim about me.

    Sigh. No, I’m pretty sure that’s not my claim about you. (Is “tedious” the appropriate term from your idiom?)

    I pointed out that you gave a very strong impression of trying to elevate non-peer reviewed claims to the same status as peer-reviewed claims. That is NOT the same as “dismissing” peer review. That is refusing to dismiss non-peer reviewed claims. The two are NOT equivalent, nor are they even “two sides of the same coin”.

    That was NOT what you said originally NOR what I objected to.

    And that is a complete red herring with regard to the validity (or otherwise) of your objection. Your objection wasn’t predicated on claiming that I had the facts wrong”. Your objection was to the validity of the reasons for my rejection, not the evidence to which those reasons applied. And you have completely failed to demonstrate WHY anyone should take your objection to the reasoning seriously.

    My objection remains that you were dismissive of people based on your opinion of their publishing record and/or their political affiliations.

    Sigh. I haven’t rejected people based purely on their political affiliations. No, really. Go find a quote. And I do mean an actual quote in context, since you keep (as Luke puts it) “verballing” me when you paraphrase me. And I do mean “purely”, because that’s your claim here. Find a quote where I reject someone with demonstrated competence based solely on their political affiliations. I’ll wait.

    Apart from that, I object to your objection of dismissal based on lack of publication records. Now, since you appear to think your objections without justification should be accepted, why are you arguing with my objection, especially since mine has ample justification?!

    You STILL haven’t demonstrated why someone with no climate science publication record should not be dismissed out of hand (even by unskilled people) when making contrarian claims about climate science. (And note how you once more “tediously” eliminated the critical distinction – “contrarian” – from my position in the quote above!)

    You haven’t shown why such a dismissal is a bad strategy for unskilled people seeking to find the most robust scientific claims. You simply assert that people shouldn’t do that. Saying it doesn’t make it so, and objecting doesn’t make the objection valid.

    Tellingly, you haven’t answered my questions about how the hypothetical non-skilled government minister should evaluate competing claims, nor have you answered Bernard’s questions about how one should treat Bob Carter’s claims. I’m betting you won’t.

    It has become obvious to nearly everyone here that you’re simply ducking and weaving, trying to have your objection without justifying it – and trying to focus discussion away from this key point which you haven’t even attempted to rebut:

    This is why scientists heavily emphasise claims that have been tested via peer review rather than trying to use “competence” or “ability” or “intelligence” or any other attribute of the claimant as a proxy to infer the validity of the claims. And this is why non-scientists should even more heavily emphasise the same.

    And this is why almost all of Bob’s claims about climate science can be immediately rejected, even by non-specialists. He could submit them to peer review – as he has done in his area of speciality over decades, so he clearly knows how to get published and can do sufficient quality work in at least one area of science – but he does not.

  92. #94 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    Can anyone tell me how money has been wasted on climate models?

  93. #95 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    Lothie………..

    I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..I said……….you said……..

    SHUT THE FUCK UP Lothie, you sound like the stooopid moles I have to put up with at the school council meetings !!!!

  94. #96 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    Surely bingo balls would be a better and cheeeper way to forecast the climate :)

  95. #97 Lotharsson
    September 14, 2013

    Impressive. Karen still can’t manage to emulate a five year old’s ability to scroll past something she doesn’t find interesting.

    (And she seems to have a distinct lack of self-awareness to go with her innumeracy and illogic. Altogether now…)

  96. #98 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    .you said……..I said……….you said……..I said………

    Lothie, is your perm purple ?

  97. #99 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    Lothie, do you wear incontinence pads ?

  98. #100 Karen
    September 14, 2013

    lol……..sorry Lothie :)

    I really do luv u ………..

Current ye@r *