October 2013 Open Thread

Comments

  1. #1 chek
    October 8, 2013

    Conservative groups at the forefront of global warming denialism are doubling down on trying to discredit the new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In recent weeks, they’ve been cranking out a stream of op-eds, blogs and reports to sow doubt in the public’s mind before the report is published, with no end in sight, Chek Climate News has learned.

    “The goal is to inform the public, scientific community and media that the upcoming IPCC report doesn’t have all the science to make informed judgments,” said Jim B’Ozo, a spokesman for the Clownshoe Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Chicago that has been spearheading the efforts.

    Clownshoe gained notoriety last year after running a billboard campaign comparing climate change believers to “Tunabomber” Jed Kyrgyzsta (pronounced ‘kyrgyzsta’), which caused several corporate donors and ichthusophiles worldwide to withdraw support for the group.

    The 5th assessment report by the IPCC, the world’s leading scientific advisory body on global warming, concludes with at least 95% certainty that human activities have caused most of earth’s temperature rise since 1950, and will continue to do so in the future. That’s up from a confidence level of 90%in 2007, the year the last assessment came out. The IPCC, which consists of thousands of scientists and reviewers from more than 100 countries, shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Almost-President Al Gore. Governments are supposed to use its periodic reviews of climate risks to set targets for reducing carbon emissions and other policies. Because the IPCC’s conclusions are produced by a consensus process, they are inherently conservative.

    Environmentalists told ChekClimateNews they believe skeptics’ attempts to sway public and media opinion will fail to resonate with people. They say the spate of costly and deadly weather events over the last year has turned climate change into something tangible for many people.

    In addition, scientists have become more proactive when it comes to squashing scientific inaccuracies pushed by skeptic groups. Dozens of prominent scientists involved with drafting IPCC reports formed a Climate Science Rapid Response Team that punches back against misleading claims about climate research.

    Kevin Trenberth is part of that team as well as a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and an author and editor on the forthcoming IPCC report. He explained that nearly every time there is a scientific paper linking man-made carbon dioxide emissions to climate change, the “denial-sphere” immediately responds with accusations that the research is wrong.

    “The scientists get nasty emails. Certain websites comment. … So a bunch of us formed this rapid response team to deflate these arguments.” The group has been very busy since the IPCC released a 20-page summary of its report for policymakers on Sept. 27, as well as Working Group I’s assessment, which examines the science behind climate change.

    To try to shape coverage of the findings, the Clownshoe Institute released a 1,200-page report on Wednesday by the provocatively titled Not-a-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The 10-year-old coalition of nongovernment “scientists” and “scholars” disputes the reality of man-made climate change.

    Their new report, “Climate Change Re-interpreted Again”, uses layman’s language to present solid evidence that today’s climate changes are well within the bounds of natural variability,” according to Bob Clownshoe, a former marine geologist at Australia’s James Cook University and a consultant to clownshoe groups. “Real world observations tell us that the IPCC’s speculative computer models do not work, ice is not melting at an enhanced rate, sea-level rise is not accelerating, the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is not increasing, the sky is not really blue, water is not really wet and dangerous global warming is not really occurring,” he said in a news release.

    The report rests its argument largely on the uncertainty surrounding climate sensitivity, a measure used by scientists to determine how global temperatures will change in response to carbon dioxide emissions. In short, it says the IPCC exaggerates the warming effect of CO2.

    The report is the latest in the Clownshoe Institute’s “Climate Change Re-interpreted” franchise and the cornerstone of its campaign against the IPCC’s fifth assessmentt. Clownshoe is aggressively pushing its own report (Craig Clownshoe was pushing to call it “Climate Change Re-interpreted Again, Bitch!” according to insider Dr. Nils Driveshaft-Clownshoe) in op-eds, blogs and in articles in conservative newspapers and news stations. Among others, it has received coverage in the Australian newspaper The Daily Clownshoe, The Washington Clownshoe and the UK’s Clownshoe Mail, in articles that all had to be “significantly” changed due to “errors”.

    Other groups participating in the report include the Science & Clownshoe Policy Project, a research and advocacy group founded by climate skeptic Fred Clownshoe —who is also the director of Clownshoe ‘s Science and Environmental Clownshoe Project—and the Center for the Study of Clownshoes, an Arizona-based climate clownshoe group partly funded by ExxonMobil and Shoelace World.

    Over the next few weeks, authors of the report will hold speaking events in New York City, Boston, Florida and St. Louis. A Washington, D.C. event will be co-sponsored with the Clownshoe Foundation, a conservative think tank. In early October, Clownshoe and Clownshoe will give talks in England, Germany and the Netherlands. The Clownshoe Institute will also release videos and podcasts on its website using content from the events. Clownshoe isn’t alone in taking pre-emptive swipes against the IPCC.

    For months, Cato’s Clownshoe, a libertarian think tank in Washington, D.C. co-founded by billionaire Charles Clownshoe, has been publishing a series of blog posts and op-eds by Patrick Clownshoe, the organization’s director for the Center for the Study of Clownshoes, challenging the new IPCC report. In recent weeks, this activity has increased significantly. He has written an op-ed for The Wall Street Clownshoe and been a source for media outlets like Greedygorbs, publishers of the famous Rich Lists among other titles.

    Clownshoe said his dream outcome would be for the IPCC to acknowledge the scientific errors revealed by the clownshoe community. “That’s what a responsible organization would do, but for obvious reasons it would also mean the end of the IPCC,” Clownshoe said. “So it is understandable that they wouldn’t commit professional suicide.”

    The website Clownshoes With That? has also picked apart leaked drafts of the report and is publishing multiple stories per hour chronicling how the new IPCC report is filled with “dodgy statistics” and “serious frauds.” Furthermore, leading skeptic Lord Christopher Clownshoe loudly accused the IPCC of unlawfully dumping reports into the blogosphere without a permit or so much as a by-your-leave.

    While in the past, IPCC scientists have seemed ill prepared for clownshoe campaigns, they say they are more ready for dealing with the criticism this time around. Created in 2010, the Climate Science Rapid Response Team now has 135 climate researchers on standby for media outlets and policymakers to interview and ask questions. Journalists and others contact the group through its website and organizers track down the best scientist to call or meet the inquiring party.

    Dr.Trenberth said that the website has made it easier to respond to scientific inaccuracies, but that the constant attacks on his and his colleagues’ work by clownshoe groups “is tiresome.” “We’ve heard these arguments before. We’ve debunked them before. Why are we debating the same things over and over? We need to move forward.”

    For clownshoes, keeping the debate alive is exactly the point.
    Conservative groups known for attacking global warming science like the Clownshoe Institute, Cato’s Clownshoe and the Global Clownshoe Policy Foundation have received many millions of dollars from energy companies and sympathetic interests to cast doubt on the science of climate change and the need for policies to curb emissions.

    James Clownshoe, a senior environmental fellow with the Clownshoe Institute suggested “Climate change is a major political topic again,” ever since President Obama made climate action a priority for this second term, said Taylor. “People are looking for a more centralist view. We’re trying to give it to them. For instance Professor Richard Clownshoe’s sphincter theory suggests that were the climate ever to warm it would immediately be evacuated into outer space. The IPCC doesn’t tell them that”.

    Environmentalists and several scientists said they’re not as worried as they might have been just a few years ago. Cindy Baxter, a longtime climate campaigner, said she thinks climate clownshoes “are getting more shrill, but getting less notice,” because people are more convinced that global warming is real.

    But Patrick Clownshoe of Cato’s Clownshoe said he isn’t convinced his messages are falling on deaf ears, especially among IPCC scientists. “Do I think the IPCC is very sensitive to these critiques?” he said. “Do I think they keep an eye on what me and my apparently few clownshoes are saying? You bet I do, if only for the entertainment value.”

    © Chek Climate Reports Oct 7 2013

  2. #2 rhwombat
    King Coal's Sphincter, NSW
    October 8, 2013

    Wombat makes enthusiastic sea lion noises of approbation for CCR @#1 – in lieu of the unfortunate fact that the normal method for wombats to show sincere appreciation is to leave at least two cubic droppings on a prominent landmark.

  3. #3 Joe
    October 8, 2013

    @chek

    Only an informal question: is there a web address of “ChekClimateNews”?

  4. #4 Joe
    October 8, 2013

    @chek

    When I google “clownshoe climate” there is no reasonable information. Whom do you mean with the term “clownshoe”?

    Is it the Heartland Institute???

  5. #5 Joe
    October 8, 2013

    chek, what is your opinion on my subsequent comparison of the final draft version of the SPM, as finalised by the IPCC just before the Stockholm Meeting in the last days of September 2013, with the SPM after modification by politicians in Stockholm in order to create more alarmism and reduce or hide scientific uncertainties as expressed by the IPCC scientists.

    In Chapter B. Observed Changes in the Climate System

    IPCC scientists say:

    Since 1950, changes have been observed throughout the climate system: the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the extent and volume of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen (see Figures SPM.1 and SPM.2). Many of these observed changes are unusual or unprecedented on time scales of decades to millennia.

    Politics wants to read:

    Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

    Please note that the small but important word “unusual” has been removed.

    In Chapter B.1 Atmosphere

    IPCC scientists say:

    Each of the last three decades has been warmer than all preceding decades since 1850 and the first decade of the 21st century has been the warmest (see Figure SPM.1). Analyses of paleoclimate archives indicate that in the Northern Hemisphere, the period 1983–2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years (high confidence) and likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).

    Politics wants to read:

    Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).

    The mentioning of the MWP in the SPM was therefore deleted by politicians because they do not want too much disturbance of the intended alarmism.

    IPCC scientists say:

    Global mean surface temperature trends exhibit substantial decadal variability, despite the robust multi-decadal warming since 1901 (Figure SPM 1). The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998−2012; 0.05 [−0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (1951−2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

    Politics wants to read:

    In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

    Politicians are hence very eager to prevent people from thinking that the last 15 years of temperature stagnation have any significance.

  6. #6 Joe
    October 8, 2013

    chek, your “clownshoe” is irritating and counter-productive as it reduces the ease of reading comprehension of what you want to express!

    Whom do you mean by saying “billionaire Charles Clownshoe”????

  7. #7 rhwombat
    King Coal's Sphincter, NSW
    October 8, 2013

    Clownsocktroll.

  8. #8 ianam
    October 8, 2013

    Joe

  9. #9 ianam
    October 8, 2013

    Joe

  10. #10 ianam
    October 8, 2013

    That’s all that needs to be said. (Sorry for the first one.)

  11. #11 Joe
    October 8, 2013

    rhwombat, ianam

    poor argumentation, actually no argumentation!

  12. #12 Jeff Harvey
    October 8, 2013

    “The mentioning of the MWP in the SPM was therefore deleted by politicians because they do not want too much disturbance of the intended alarmism”

    B*. The MWP wasn’t deleted – it was never included because it was a virtual non-event that was a construct largely of the denial industry. The MWP was only ‘generated’ after Mann et als. 1998 paper in Nature. You see, Joe you simple fool, the deniers are incapable of producing their own science independently. Instead, IMO they make things up when studies are published that they don’t like. In other words, like creationists, their job is simply to try and poke holes in the empirical literature to promote their own agenda. The MWP is a case in point.

    Get your ‘facts’ correct Joe/Kai etc. at least.

  13. #13 Jeff Harvey
    October 8, 2013

    Actually Joe, rh and ianam’s responses are valid. That is because your arguments are so utterly ridiculous that they don’t deserve a polite response. You make Karen’s nonsense look good – and believe me that is saying a lot.

  14. #14 bill
    October 8, 2013

    Will no-one rid us of this turbulent imbecile?

  15. #15 bill
    October 8, 2013

    Oh, and +1 for Chek Climate News.

  16. #16 Joe
    October 8, 2013

    #7, #8, #9, #10, #12, #13, #14:

    all ad hominem, most of them without any substantial real stuff, just plain ad hominem.

    Do you feel better now?

  17. #17 ianam
    October 8, 2013

    poor argumentation, actually no argumentation!

    The former is false, the latter is true but irrelevant. Neither I nor anyone else has any obligation to argue a claim; the claim does not gain any legitimacy by a failure to argue against it. If your argument is cogent, you should be happy that no one has offered a rebuttal. But that is not what you’re about … your intention is to troll, to be disruptive, to get a rise out of people. I’ll give you one: you’re a stupid fucking piece of dishonest shit and I hope you die a horrible death, soon.

    Now I have nothing else to say.

  18. #18 Bernard J.
    October 8, 2013

    Joe
    October 8, 2013

    rhwombat, ianam

    poor argumentation, actually no argumentation!

    This is and always has been your mods operandi.

    It’s good to see though that you are admitting as much to rhwombat and ianam.

  19. #19 Bernard J.
    October 8, 2013

    rhwombat.

    Your nick wouldn’t be a reflection of said marsupial’s rhomboid poops, would it?

    My students and I always used to marvel at how they produced that shape – I lost count of how many times I was asked if they have square bums.

  20. #20 Jeff Harvey
    October 8, 2013

    Joe/Kai,

    #12 was not ad hominem. Read it again you fool: the MWP is an artificial construct of the denial industry. It was never considered until after Mann started publishing his proxies. The denial industry in not proactive; it is reactive. It waits until studies show some causal factor with GW linked to human activities. It then attempts to downplay or counter these studies by producing results(usually not published in reputable sources) suggesting alternate non-anthropogenic explanations.

    That isn’t science; its dishonest chicanery. The creationists do it. Climate change deniers do it. Anti-environmentalists do it. It is often referred to it as “directed conclusions”; in other words, generating results with a pre-determined view.

    If the best you can do is the crap you’ve put up her so far, then you’re lucky anybody responds to you.

  21. #21 ianam
    October 8, 2013

    I’ll add this rebuttal of the garbage from Joe the troll who is a shit stain on humanity, not for him but for the intellectually honest folks:

    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/global-warming-pause-ipcc

  22. #22 BBD
    October 8, 2013

    Oh give me a break. Kai-troll running a “Joe” sock and still pasting the same shite from WTFUWT and expecting to be taken seriously?

    Troll, you know absolutely nothing. Here’s some actual science for you, which has been referenced here dozens of times, so wake the fuck up and pay attention: there was not global and synchronous MWP. It is as Jeff says, simply a denier meme used to try and discredit IPCC TAR. You are a silly mug, a gull, a dupe, a rube, a mark, a fuckwit, a fool.

    The latest and most extensive millennial reconstructions fully support the reconstructions in MBH98/99. They fully support AR5.

    See the findings of the PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia

    Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

    This is the state of knowledge. It has nothing to do with Mann, Bradley and Hughes, nor with the IPCC. Get your infantile head around the facts and update yourself. Stop simply being a repeater for other people’s lies. Show some vestige of intellectual pride FFS.

  23. #23 bill
    October 8, 2013

    In your case, Kai, it’s more like sub hominem.

    For, Dear Jackass, I put it to you plain – you are a Jackass; you bray like a Jackass, have Jackass thoughts, lead a Jackass life, and have sad little Jackass dreams.

    And, most of all, you’re a slavish partisan of the tribe of Jackasses, a veritable terrier under the Jackass Flag, hence your execrable, Jackass, efforts here.

    Why the phony affront: is anyone here offering mealy-mouthed pretense that they regard you as anything other than the most blithering of idiots? Hardly.

    I repeat: you are a Jackass. Decry it all you like; this is a statement of fact.

  24. #24 BBD
    October 8, 2013

    #1 chek

    ChekClimateNews number one! NIPCC number ten!

    And love the running clownshoe gag! (Geddit??)

    ;-)

  25. #25 Lotharsson
    October 8, 2013

    And love the running clownshoe gag! (Geddit??)

    As long as it’s not the sole gag.

  26. #26 BBD
    October 8, 2013

    Ooowwww…

  27. #27 Lotharsson
    October 8, 2013

    Well, I couldn’t find the right smiley for sticking out one’s tongue so I would have warned you to hold your nose when you read it but that would have been insole-nt.

    (Note to self: arch humour not big hit with BBD?)

  28. #28 chek
    October 8, 2013

    Thanks all, I was hoping it would provide some mild amusement and hopefully insight.

    And love the running clownshoe gag!

    I’ll have to give that one a stamp of approval. On a slightly more serious note, the motif did seem to highlight the small, enclosed, incestuous world of denialism as it developed. A lot of noise originates from comparatively few entities. For example, the George C. Clownshoe … oooh, no stop missus etc. that’s quite enough of that.

    Joethetroll, it’s a work of semi-fiction. Any resemblance to actual persons, is either accidental or entirely their own fault. You may well find Inside Climate News is what you’re looking for on the net.

    And finally, apologies to Katherine Bagley whose original article was mangled adapted.

  29. #29 chek
    October 8, 2013

    … andf thanks to my html skills for sodding #28 up, although at least the links still work.

    (Note to self: arch humour not big hit with BBD?)

    Perhaps it rankles a bit?

  30. #30 Lotharsson
    October 8, 2013

    Perhaps it rankles a bit?

    Ouch, were you in-tendon to be that callus? I bet it fell flat with BBD. I’m thinking he’s a bit more strait-laced when it comes to pun-ditry than he gives himself credit for.

  31. #31 FrankD
    October 8, 2013

    I was thinking a little while back that the best way this blog could be immunised against B. Freddiekai by conversing only in rhyming slang.

    Now that I’ve read ChekClimateNews, I’m revising that opunion.

  32. #32 BBD
    October 8, 2013

    @ check and Lotharsson

    Oh no! Stop! You two! Behave!

    ;-)

  33. #33 BBD
    October 8, 2013

    For example, the George C. Clownshoe …

    It’s so right. The Family Clownshoe – one size fits all.

  34. #34 Lotharsson
    October 8, 2013

    FrankD, that sounded corny even with my tinea.

    (Or did that look tinny to my cornea?)

  35. #35 Lionel A
    October 8, 2013

    @ Lotharsson

    As long as it’s not the sole gag.

    Stobit! You’ll clog this thread up with splinters.

    Well I suppose you could always set fire to them. Gedit?

  36. #36 chek
    October 8, 2013

    This thread’s becoming a platform for pedestrian flip-floppery.

  37. #37 Lionel A
    October 8, 2013

    This thread’s becoming a platform for pedestrian flip-floppery.

    Soon change that with some rapid-reheat.

    Nice one at #1 btw.

  38. #38 chek
    October 8, 2013

    … or perhaps it needs a reboot?

  39. #39 BBD
    October 8, 2013

    FFS chek!

    ;-)

    You always like this or was lunch a bit above average?

  40. #40 BBD
    October 8, 2013

    And it’s all my fault. I unleashed this horror upon the world…

    Where’s me .38?

  41. #41 Lionel A
    October 8, 2013

    Well here is one 38. .

    On another track at Real Climate Climate Change on Film. North Pole: Living on Thin Ice.

    There is your chance James Delingpole, David Rose and the whole bloody GWPF team, go and join them and see how real science is done.

    Second thoughts, don’t bother, that team can do without liabilities tagging along, you would not have a clue as to how to survive.

  42. #42 chek
    October 8, 2013

    OK, back to business.
    Mike Mann’s put this video out to support the Democrat candidate for Governor, Terry McAuliffe against Ken Clownsh Cuccinelli in the upcoming Virginia election.

    With sea level rise there already over 14 inches since 1930, and North Carolina next door shutting its eyes and putting its fingers in its ears as its officially adopted solution together with the shutdown currently making the Republican brand toxic, I’ll wish him well too.,

  43. #43 chek
    October 8, 2013

    OK, back to business.
    Mike Mann’s put this video out to support the Democrat candidate for Governor, Terry McAuliffe against Ken Clownsh Cuccinelli in the upcoming Virginia election.

    With sea level rise there already over 14 inches since 1930, and North Carolina next door shutting its eyes and putting its fingers in its ears as its officially adopted solution together with the shutdown currently making the Republican brand toxic, I’ll wish him well too.

  44. #44 chek
    October 8, 2013

    Bloody 500 errors!
    Sorry for the double post folks.

  45. #45 chek
    October 8, 2013

    It’s Williwatts that needs the experience of a trans-polar trek, Lionel.
    I had a quick look, but can’t find the details at the moment, but I do recall him making great hilarity of a similar expedition a few years ago, from his lair in sunny Califormia.

  46. #46 Joe
    October 9, 2013

    One fundamental question to all of the climate alarmists on Deltoid:

    Since it is quit obvious that you alarmists would vote for Democrats in the US or for green lefty parties in Oz, are you convinced that people who vote Democratic in the US or green-leftist in Oz are *better* humans compared to climate deniers (or “crank fuckwits” etc. how you use to denounce them) who vote Republican in the US or Abbott in Oz?

    Don’t hesitate to confess your position!

  47. #47 bill
    October 9, 2013

    One fundamental question to all of the climate alarmists on Deltoid:

    Since it is quit obvious that you alarmists would vote for Democrats in the US or for green lefty parties in Oz, are you convinced that people who vote Democratic in the US or green-leftist in Oz are *better* humans compared to climate deniers (or “crank fuckwits” etc. how you use to denounce them) who vote Republican in the US or Abbott in Oz?

    Don’t hesitate to confess your position!

  48. #48 Lionel A
    October 9, 2013

    What Guiseppe here doesn’t grasp, amongst a multitude of other things, is that we recognise that a left-right political continuum is a feature of what poses as democracy is a totally so last century way of thinking.

    Natural systems don’t give a flying fuckig for politics although because of human impact on the planet natural systems, of which humanity is a part and not overlords, will respond to aspects brought out by the socio-political enterprise depending upon how the different factions manage resources whilst safeguarding eco-systems, the later being in a state of near collapse.

    Climate change is one of the big threats to ecosystems, along with resource depletion (including fresh water and even the air we breath) and pollution. These latter two are both results of overconsumption by a few, with consumption being in an inverse relationship with numbers of a particular social class, at the expense of many. In other words the consumption, carbon and pollution footprints of the top one percent are much larger per capita than other social classes below.

    What none of us expect is a communist system but would like to see a more equitable sharing of the planets resources with an overall, and large, reduction in all of those adverse factors indicated above.

    If this does not happen and soon, the planet is going to turn into one big Syria as ecosystems and our ability to feed ourselves unravel like the threads of old worn out knitwear.

    Even in so called First World countries, there are growing pockets of the disadvantaged breading grounds for big trouble.

    But of course shallow thinkers and blinkered readers such as Guiseppe, who use narrow streams of information acquisition would never have thought through all this.

    I would suggest, for one aspect, that Guiseppe takes up the challenge presented by BBD (and Bill IIRC) of reading Professor Callum Roberts on the oceans and seas:

    The Unnatural History of the Sea: The Past and Future of Humanity and Fishing

    Ocean of Life

    Reading these reminds me again of how close Bill Ruddiman has been with his pushing back the date of the start of the Anthropocene.

  49. #49 chek
    October 9, 2013

    It may surprise the Joetroll that many senior US climatologists Hansen and Emanuel for example (and indeed many academics across the world) are registered Republicans and old-school conservatives. It is possible to be both a small ‘c’ conservative and a relatively decent human being.

    However they tend not be the “free-market” uber alles , jihadist, neoliberal, tea partyist privatising fanatics (and in some cases are actual ex-Trotskyite permanent revolutionaries) that have hi-jacked many Republican/Conservative parties globally. But an ideology that both chooses and promotes ignorance and crassness in pursuit of its ends has no future. Anyone in opposition to those (absence of) values is a de facto “better person” imho.

    Indeed former “monsters” of the old Right such as Nixon in the US and Heath in the UK seem like lefty dreamers in comparison.

  50. #50 BBD
    October 9, 2013

    (and in some cases are actual ex-Trotskyite permanent revolutionaries)

    viz Ben Pile, from LM Group to professional misrepresenter on contract to Godfrey Bloom, late of UKIP.

    It’s amazing how far into the slurry-pond a hatred of “environmentalism” can propel some people.

  51. #51 Jeff Harvey
    October 9, 2013

    “Since it is quit obvious that you alarmists would vote for Democrats in the US”

    Joe, you are such an ignorant dork. Do you actually think the Democrats are a left wing Party? They are part of the corporate-political establishment through and through. As the late Gore Vidal said, there is one party in the US: the Property Party, with two right wings: Republican and Democrat. The great US writer Sheldon Wolin has referred to the American political system as a form of “Inverted totalitarianism”. A corporate state.

    Joe is as dense as a plank.

  52. #52 BBD
    October 9, 2013

    Joe is as dense as a plank.

    He is also a sockpuppet hydra and abusive troll who has been banned from commenting here by Tim, so the reasons for ignoring him multiply apace. Just strike out his comments like this (eg bill #47 – that’s the spirit!) and try and ignore the horrible stink. It will eventually dissipate.

  53. #53 BBD
    October 9, 2013

    And – whaddaya know – the DOS attacks have started up again. As they do every time the screws get tightened on Kai – Freddy – Boris – Berendwanker.

    Coincidence? Perhaps. But this fucking nutter fits the bill of social-inadequate script-kiddie very well indeed, so it’s hard not to be rather suspicious. Especially what with the timing of the problems here. Not to mention his own claims of mad skillz etc, and his completely fake-sounding “complaints” and “test comments” when the interruptions were at their worst a few weeks back. I thought it might be him then, and I think it might be him now.

    Scum.

  54. #54 Lionel A
    October 9, 2013

    What did I write about Lindzen being in a spiral of decline he now resorting to WeUseWishfulThinking to claim ‘arctic sea ice is suddenly showing surprising growth’.

    Joins Curry & Michaels in the SAD (Silly And Deluded) group with Spencer and Christy orbiting ever closer.

  55. #55 chek
    October 9, 2013

    As it’s a bit quiet I wondered if a random if related musing might provide some reflection away from the textbooks and referenced papers I know many of us take time to read if not fully understand.

    Having recently seen the (not-at-all-the-reported turkey, imho given the limitations of blockbuster format and the requirements of getting an image in front of a mass audience) and subsequently re-read the book of same name, subtitled “An Oral History of the Zombie War”. (Yes Virginia it’s a fictional SF-style fantasy, which is to say that much use is made of a series of allegories which may or may not be pertinent to the reader).

    Now I isn’t no scholar. as should be plainly obvious since well before this, and I hate to seem pretentious – Who, Moi? But for a series of concisely drawn character studies of reaction in the face of an existential threat (here’s hoping the relevance is peeking through at this point) that imho again, rivals Dickens it’s a great read.

    I’m not saying reading it will make you a better person, or more popular, or more attractive to women or more in touch with the ol’ zeitgeist, but then again, ya never know.

    In any case, the three acts of the movie are achieved very well if it’s understood the book is its inspiration.

    And now back to our normal scheduling.

    Are deniers getting even more boring and predictable in their ineptitude? asks the LA Times

    I think the answer to that one is already fairly well established.

  56. #58 BilB
    October 10, 2013

    Lets add some substance to the discussion and lety people draw their own conclusions. Deniers will always win if the ‘discussion’ is performed in words or data and that is because any contrary argument no matter how false halves the value of the truth simply due to the doubt factor. So lets leave the words out of it. Numerical data suffers as it requires interpretation and that automatically opens the field for intereter doubt.

    The first one is the history of the Atmospheric CO2 measurtements and at the end there is a list of all of the institutions that have contributed to the data and who add their credibility to information’s validity

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA7tfz3k_9A&feature=player_embedded

    The second is a timelapse image compilation from satelite photographs an the story here is obvious, ice dimishing at an alarming rate

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ3QUdIxvxg&feature=player_embedded

    The third is a graphical evaluation of that ice loss rate

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChABcwItlAE&feature=player_embedded

    The conclusions are inescapable: rising atmospheric CO2 levels equal proportional Arctic Ice loss; overshoot is inevitable to a very hot global environment.

    So each person can accept the undeniable evidence, or not. But be aware that in not accepting the “in plane sight” evidence ones IQ automatically slumps 30 points.

  57. #59 bill
    October 10, 2013

    From the LA Times link –

    Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying “there’s no sign humans have caused climate change” is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.

    Exactly.

  58. #60 BBD
    October 10, 2013

    chek

    I haven’t seen the film yet but like you, I thought Brooks’ book surprisingly good. And not just because so little in the genre lives up to the early brilliance of Romero’s Night/Dawn/Day trilogy with its (ahem) biting socio-political satire. In fact despite the occasionally shaky acting in the first 20 minutes, the long version of Dawn is an enduring classic, a real fairground mirror – welcome to the moronic inferno.

    * * *

    I’m delighted to see that the letters editor of the LA Times is doing his job properly. The deniers are treated with far too much generosity by most of the media and this is desperately overdue for reversal. Arguments from false assertion should not be rebroadcast in the letters page or anywhere else. Editors need to edit, not pander to liars and facilitate false balance.

  59. #61 BBD
    October 10, 2013

    #58 BilB

    Good links, but I disagree with the substance of your argument. Data are valuable. Data quantify. Data underpin the strongest arguments.

    Deniers deny everything with equal ease. Showing them video evidence instead of numbers and graphs won’t even give them pause. You will get exactly the same rubbish in response: it’s natural variability; the ice is recovering; we’re heading for an ice age; CO2 isn’t ever going to make much difference (fundamental physics denial); Murray Salby woz repressed etc.

    I’ve been forced to conclude that deniers are qualitatively different. They are fundamentally incapable of processing information like rational beings. Denial may be the cause or it may be an emergent property of their brain chemistry, but it is *deep*. It lies beyond the reach of reasoned argument. It is exactly what they are constantly accusing everybody else of with trademark projection: it is a manifestation of blind faith.

  60. #62 BilB
    October 10, 2013

    BBD,

    The videos are for the casually interest but persuadable public. A video is a powerful credibility gap bridge, so spread them around liberally because the MSM is certainly not going to.

  61. #63 BBD
    October 10, 2013

    Ah. I think I’ve misunderstood exactly what you meant in your first paragraph at #58. I read “people” and “deniers” as equivalent, but clearly they are not. In which case what you say is reasonable, although certain data presentations are vivid and instantaneous – no need for a video!

    Keeling curve

    The underlying problem is that the public isn’t paying attention. The public may even be inclining towards mild-form denial, although this seems to evaporate in the face of local reactions to extreme weather events. The public isn’t here in droves trying to improve its understanding. We are mostly talking either to deniers or to each other.

  62. #64 Mack
    October 10, 2013

    One small lie for Mann. one giant fraud for mankind,

  63. #65 adelady
    October 10, 2013

    And now for the good news! (I wish.) http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/oct/10/scienceofclimatechange-climate-change

    For Sydneysiders, the study finds this “timing of climate departure” comes around four years earlier, in 2038. People in Canberra and Melbourne get 2045 as the year when their climate “shifts beyond historical analogues”. Adelaide catches up in 2049.

    For the entire globe, the year 2047 is the point when annual average temperatures move permanently outside modern day boundaries, according to the study.

  64. #66 Wow
    October 10, 2013

    Yes, Mack. One small lie for the trashing of Mann, one giant fraud on mankind just so your political ideology can be free of blame…

  65. #67 Wow
    October 10, 2013

    “The videos are for the casually interest but persuadable public.”

    Most of the public IS persuaded and know that AGW is going on. However, they’re powerless, know they’re powerless and know that there’s absolutely no direction from their “leaders” and hence do what they can to get through the days.

    But they know there’s a problem and do something about it:see the public collective investment divesting itself of fossil fuel stocks. Despite the public whining by the extremely vocal extremist fringe, CFLs sold well enough to make a mint on razor thin margins. Smaller and more efficient cars are selling better to the general public than the idiot cars that RWNs insist they’re going to buy two of “just to enjoy a bit nicer weather, so haha to you!”.

    None of the parties do anything about it, but on the promise of doing something about it, the Tories won, despite the “MAGGIE THATCHER!!!!” scare tactics.

    And every time the tories show they were talking bollocks about being green, their ratings drop.

    The public HAVE BEEN persuaded.

    Those in power use the fake roots denialist industry to make out that they’re “listening to the public” and “waiting until we’re sure, and everyone agrees that we must do something about it”.

  66. #68 bill
    October 10, 2013

    Gee, ‘Mack’ dropped by to show us his new bumper sticker!

    Tell us, ‘Mack’, how many other independent reconstructions have arrived at the same Hockey Stick shape? Oh, you don’t know? You mean they don’t tell you that at Jo Nova’s? Golly!…

    I sincerely hope Cuccinelli is about to be creamed – certainly he’s not polling well, but there’s still more than 3 weeks to go…

  67. #69 BBD
    October 10, 2013

    @ Sunspot sock “Mack”

    Sunny, you are banned from posting except to your own thread, so please fuck off.

    But you can take this with you!

    PAGES-2K verifies MBH99

    Caption: Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman.

    There you go, cretin. Your ridiculous lie skewered by the latest, most comprehensive, independent research by dozens of authors worldwide. Mann was right, and you and your stupid denier chums were wrong all along.

    It’s o-ver, fuckwits.

    Read all about it!

    PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia

    Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

  68. #70 Lionel A
    October 10, 2013

    Having looked at the Real Climate post ‘The evolution of radiative forcing bar-charts‘ (I have quite a few of those versions here in various documents and books) earlier, see above, as the result of a new post at Eli’s , I had to call in again to look see what Joe had written.

    Well the chart presented therein is well worth a look. It just about sums up the level of argument of the crack-heads around here – including our Joe sock. Crack as in broken and not out out their heads on dangerous materials, although it can be difficult to tell the difference at times, with our Joe in particular.

    Is their an emoticon for a crack-head in that latter sense?

  69. #71 bill
    October 10, 2013

    I’m guessing you mean this chart, Lionel?

    Sums it up beautifully – particularly the multiple instances of ‘all of it’, which had me genuinely laughing-out-loud.

  70. #72 BBD
    October 10, 2013

    I saw that at the time but couldn’t really believe “our” sock posted it. A sense of humour and a grasp of the scientific context are both required, which on the face of it would disqualify him.

  71. #73 Lionel A
    October 10, 2013

    Aargh! Yes Bill, html snaffu again!

    This was intended, fingers crossed this time:

    the chart presented therein

    I intended for any followers to see the actual thread over there as well as that chart.

  72. #74 bill
    October 10, 2013

    Seems we’ve got the gremlins in again.

  73. #75 bill
    October 10, 2013

    …and having said that they’re gone!

  74. #76 Joe
    October 11, 2013

    Hey guyz, I have no idea about which Joe you are talking about, Real Climate and other nonsense.

    Could you ignorants express yourself more exlicutly and in understandable language!

  75. #77 bill
    October 11, 2013

    Hey guyz, I have no idea about which Joe you are talking about, Real Climate and other nonsense.

    Could you ignorants express yourself more exlicutly and in understandable language!

  76. #78 Lionel A
    October 11, 2013

    I have no idea about which Joe you are talking about…

    Well you wouldn’t would you dork because you cannot read. If you could it would be blindingly obvious. But of course not being able to read, not the same as being able to see words as reading implies understanding, you don’t have any idea about anything, except maybe fence post array errors.

  77. #79 BBD
    October 11, 2013

    Don’t talk to the banned troll, Lionel. Eventually, it will go away.

  78. #80 FrankD
    October 11, 2013

    Hilarious doings over at WWOTW – one Winged Monkey’s had its poo thrown back at it by a Winkie, which infuruated it. Then all the other Winged Monkeys and Winkies joined in a giant faeces-slinging stoush and it is so on!

    Read all about it at Sou’s place. Like a good birdseye chilli, the irony burns, but is so delicious…

  79. #81 Lionel A
    October 11, 2013

    FrankD

    Yes, hilarious. I don’t bother with WUWT much and Sou’s dissections of doings over there are priceless.

    As somebody pointed out Eschenbach has an entry at DeSmogBlog.

    Amongst his credentials is a California Massage Certificate, Aames School of Massage.

    Well, well. One cannot get much higher than that in science now can one.

    I note Lubos Motl has chimed in at WUWT with this bit of cheer-leading:

    Willis, I am a supporter of yours. In this exchange, I found myself in the middle between you and Roy but when the dust settled, it’s clear that I agree with you much more than with Roy.

    String theory must be becoming increasingly dull.

  80. #82 chek
    October 11, 2013

    Phew, that was a close thing for ol’ Roy there. His relief must be palpable.

    It’s also hard to believe that a hard working, regularly publishing scientist like Willis has no relevant qualifications, which are after all only pieces of paper.

    However, such details are easily addressed.
    Clownshoe School of Climate Science for Citizen Scientists more commonly known as the ClownShoe³ awards, each one hand tooled then finished harnessing the incredible power of laser technology and printed onto carefully selected card stock, can be in the mail to you within days of payment clearance. Established many years. Many satisfied customers.
    “Better than an industrial compressor for pumping up your CV” Mr. John O’S (UK)
    “Mine says I’m the first ever Climate Scientist!” Mr. Tim B. (Canada)
    I also have mine on a T-shirt! (Dr. Judith C, USA)

  81. #83 rhwombat
    King Coal's Sphincter, NSW
    October 12, 2013

    Chek:
    “More than made up for that crappy JCU PhD that I never got” Mr John McL(Australia)

  82. #84 adelady
    October 12, 2013

    rhwombat … now that was really unkind.

    And you’ll be smiling on the other side of your face when the temperature drops next year by 2 degrees (?? or whatever it was supposed to do last year).

  83. #85 bill
    October 12, 2013

    Last year was 1956, I seem to recall, or was it even earlier?

    Not. Even. Wrong.

  84. #86 Joe
    October 12, 2013

    chek, what do you want to express with your uninspired Clownshoe idiotism?

  85. #87 BBD
    October 12, 2013

    chek, what do you want to express with your uninspired Clownshoe idiotism?

    Banned troll.

    We seem to have the DOS problem back again. Surprise, surprise.

  86. #88 BBD
    October 12, 2013

    chek, what do you want to express with your uninspired Clownshoe idiotism?

    Banned troll.

    We seem to have the DOS problem back again. Surprise, surprise.

  87. #89 Joe
    October 12, 2013

    Banned troll.

    We seem to have the DOS problem back again. Surprise, surprise.

    Please don’t feed the bbd troll who ony writes insane bullshit

  88. #90 Joe
    October 12, 2013

    bbd, nobody has asked you twerp, hence shut up you dirty asshole.

    chek again the question to you : what do you want to express with your uninspired Clownshoe idiotism?

    Please Deltoids, don’t pay attention to this utter arselick bbd. He is a shame for everything.

    Listen BBD, nobody likes you here and misses you. Just piss off, arsehole

  89. #91 BBD
    October 12, 2013

    Just piss off, arsehole

    But I haven’t been banned. So I can comment here.

    You have been banned, so:

    bbd, nobody has asked you twerp, hence shut up you dirty asshole.

    chek again the question to you : what do you want to express with your uninspired Clownshoe idiotism?

    Please Deltoids, don’t pay attention to this utter arselick bbd. He is a shame for everything.

    Listen BBD, nobody likes you here and misses you. Just piss off, arsehole

  90. #92 Jeff Harvey
    October 12, 2013

    Joe, If a vote into Deltoid, pretty well everybody would boot you off, simply because you are an ignorant, moronic idiot as your kindergarten-level comments show.

    I am sure all of your sock puppets have been banned. But if that is not the case, that can be remedied. Watch this space. Your time is running out here.

  91. #93 Jeff Harvey
    October 12, 2013

    Why our species is well and truly headed for the precipice:

    http://www.zcommunications.org/the-coming-plague-by-stephen-leahy.html

    And yet watch the deniers put their usual lying spin on this.

  92. #94 Joe
    October 12, 2013

    BBD, yes you are right, for once

    “But I haven’t been banned. So I can comment here.”

    Very rare that you excrement something a bit true, namely that I AM NOT BANNED, BUT YOU, YOU DISHONEST MULTIPE SOCKTROLL AND CHRONIC LIAR.

  93. #95 Joe
    October 12, 2013

    Jefff, just learn to read thermometers and you will be enlightened to learn that CAGW is bullshit.

    But you layman haven’t even heard from the peplopause or the FUDA currents, such a bloody layman there you are

  94. #96 chek
    October 12, 2013

    re. #90
    Joe = clownshoe.

  95. #97 bill
    October 12, 2013

    hey, clownshoe! –

    chek, what do you want to express with your uninspired Clownshoe idiotism?

    Banned troll.

    We seem to have the DOS problem back again. Surprise, surprise.

    Please don’t feed the bbd troll who ony writes insane bullshit

    bbd, nobody has asked you twerp, hence shut up you dirty asshole.

    chek again the question to you : what do you want to express with your uninspired Clownshoe idiotism?

    Please Deltoids, don’t pay attention to this utter arselick bbd. He is a shame for everything.

    Listen BBD, nobody likes you here and misses you. Just piss off, arsehole

    BBD, yes you are right, for once

    “But I haven’t been banned. So I can comment here.”

    Very rare that you excrement something a bit true, namely that I AM NOT BANNED, BUT YOU, YOU DISHONEST MULTIPE SOCKTROLL AND CHRONIC-

    Jefff, just learn to read thermometers and you will be enlightened to learn that CAGW is bullshit.

    But you layman haven’t even heard from the peplopause or the FUDA currents, such a bloody layman there you are

  96. #98 Joe
    October 12, 2013

    chek = arseshow

  97. #99 Joe
    October 13, 2013

    bill, clownshow!

    @ Sunspot sock “Mack”

    Sunny, you are banned from posting except to your own thread, so please fuck off.

    But you can take this with you!

    PAGES-2K verifies MBH99

    Caption: Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman.

    There you go, cretin. Your ridiculous lie skewered by the latest, most comprehensive, independent research by dozens of authors worldwide. Mann was right, and you and your stupid denier chums were wrong all along.

    It’s o-ver, fuckwits.

    Read all about it!

    PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia

    Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

  98. #100 Joe
    October 13, 2013

    wow, clownshow, kindergarden!

    “The videos are for the casually interest but persuadable public.”

    Most of the public IS persuaded and know that AGW is going on. However, they’re powerless, know they’re powerless and know that there’s absolutely no direction from their “leaders” and hence do what they can to get through the days.

    But they know there’s a problem and do something about it:see the public collective investment divesting itself of fossil fuel stocks. Despite the public whining by the extremely vocal extremist fringe, CFLs sold well enough to make a mint on razor thin margins. Smaller and more efficient cars are selling better to the general public than the idiot cars that RWNs insist they’re going to buy two of “just to enjoy a bit nicer weather, so haha to you!”.

    None of the parties do anything about it, but on the promise of doing something about it, the Tories won, despite the “MAGGIE THATCHER!!!!” scare tactics.

    And every time the tories show they were talking bollocks about being green, their ratings drop.

    The public HAVE BEEN persuaded.

    Those in power use the fake roots denialist industry to make out that they’re “listening to the public” and “waiting until we’re sure, and everyone agrees that we must do something about it”.

1 2 3 6

Current ye@r *