December 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    December 15, 2013

    Radiative physics and paleoclimate is “ideology”?

    News to me.

  2. #2 chek
    December 15, 2013

    Funny how that works…

    No,what’s funny is how your dysfunctional though processes work. Nowhere do either the article or I suggest that 60% of the snow pack disappeared this year during this years weather.

    That’s just your own stupid in action refusing to admit that AGW is well established and has beenh taking its toll for quite some time now. Your denial notwithstanding..

  3. #3 Betula
    December 15, 2013

    Means to a goal. The goal is based on ideology.

    No news there.

  4. #4 chek
    December 15, 2013

    though processes

    should be “thought processes “,
    Although it remains an open question whether Betty actually has any, or if they’re just an illusion caused by knee-jerk denial.

  5. #5 Stu 2
    December 15, 2013

    BBD @ # 80
    I have read the words, but unlike you apparently, I don’t wear a set of “efficacious CO2 only plausible explanation” blinkers.
    For example:
    “It is somewhat disturbing how different simulations
    of the Snowball in FOAM and the different configurations
    of CAM are from each other. The major causes of these
    differences are different surface albedos, all of which are
    within the range that could potentially be relevant for
    Snowball sea glaciers [Warren et al., 2002], and different
    cloud parameterizations, which should be viewed extremely
    skeptically when applied to the Snowball climate. All of this reflects the fact that we should imbue no climate model with
    undue respect and reverence and must be particularly
    careful when using such models to simulate a climate so
    vastly different from our own.”
    ——————————————————————————
    The ” Complete mind-block over the role of CO2 in SE deglaciation ” from you @ # 91 is possibly your own “efficacious CO2 only plausible explanation” blinkers in operation again as Abbot et al very clearly states that the modelling is inconclusive and that at this point it is still a developing hypothesis and will remain open to interpretation and other influences.
    At @ #97 you claim this:
    “It’s the implication that the entire mainstream scientific position is exaggerated for political motives that beggars belief.”
    Who is exaggerating BBD?
    It certainly isn’t Abbot et al. They are careful to point out that their work is far from conclusive.
    A good example of exaggeration is people who claim that the entire mainstream science is saying that human emissions, human behaviour and particularly human CO2 ppm is the ‘only plausible’ explanation for all the woes of our natural world.
    Another good example of exaggeration is when celebrity scientists make claims about causal links in the media which are not supported in the scientific literature.

  6. #6 chek
    December 15, 2013

    As if your goal – unenlightened self-interest – isn’t an ideology, eh Betty? Remind us what it is you do here again?

  7. #7 Betula
    December 15, 2013

    “Nowhere do either the article or I suggest that 60% of the snow pack disappeared this year during this years weather”

    Right. You suggest that LAST YEARS low snowpack was the result of AGW….not weather….because it was low. Yet, when I post the heavy snow they are receiving this year (that has created an above normal SWE) I am reminded that it is weather, not AGW…..even though I said it was weather when I posted it.

    Still funny how that works,

  8. #8 Betula
    December 15, 2013

    “Remind us what it is you do here again?”

    Highlight your hypocrisy.

  9. #9 chek
    December 15, 2013

    A good example of exaggeration is people who claim that the entire mainstream science is saying that human emissions, human behaviour and particularly human CO2 ppm is the ‘only plausible’ explanation for all the woes of our natural world.

    Oh, just fuck off with your dumb strawmen, Chebbie.

  10. #10 chek
    December 15, 2013

    Highlight your hypocrisy

    Well considering you invariably end up shining a searchlight on you and your fellow traveller’s depths of stupidity and lack of comprehension, that doesn’t seem to be the way it works in practice.
    Time for another 90 day disappearance, Betty.

  11. #11 Betula
    December 15, 2013

    Chek…

    The searchlight is on #7.

  12. #12 BBD
    December 15, 2013

    #5 Stu 2

    You have not understood these papers.

  13. #13 BBD
    December 15, 2013

    Betty

    Means to a goal. The goal is based on ideology.

    So radiative physics and paleoclimate are means to a goal based on ideology.

    Right.

  14. #14 Betula
    December 15, 2013

    Well, if the United Nations Millennium Development Goals are to be achieved, they need to redistribute the world wealth to do it….that’s a given. But how?

    You have the same goals Barney…what do you suggest they do?

  15. #15 chek
    December 15, 2013

    Betty – yes it is, and your poor comprehension is highlighted.

    The snowpack is the result of multiple years of accumulated snow. The majority has disappeared. This year’s – one single year’s – snowfall does not make up for that.

    Why you pretend otherwise is what the spotlight is on, and the stupid victim pleading doesn’t work either.

  16. #16 chek
    December 15, 2013

    Perhaps you.ve been freaked by some imaginary bogeyman version you’ve heard from some paranoid pinhead on the radio or with an obscure website Betty, because not all Americans see it the way you appear to..

    “In the United States, over 528 cities are members of ICLEI, an international sustainability organization that helps to implement the Agenda 21 and Local Agenda 21 concepts across the world. The United States has nearly half of the ICLEI’s global membership of 1,200 cities promoting sustainable development at a local level. The United States also has one of the most comprehensively documented Agenda 21 status reports. In response to the opposition, Don Knapp, U.S. spokesman for the ICLEI, has said “Sustainable development is not a top-down conspiracy from the U.N., but a bottom-up push from local governments”.

    “A June 2012 poll of 1,300 United States voters by the American Planning Association found that 9% supported Agenda 21, 6% opposed it, and 85% thought they didn’t have enough information to form an opinion” according to Wiki.

  17. #17 Betula
    December 15, 2013

    The SWE is a common snowpack measurement cheky. The more snowpack, the more SWE…

    And to say a single years snowfall doesn’t make up for snowpack is ludicrous..

    http://www.powelltribune.com/news/item/9164-storms-improve-mountain-snowpack

    Of course, none of this is distracting me from reminding you of your hypocrisy on the subject of AGW and weather…see #7.

  18. #18 chek
    December 15, 2013

    And to say a single years snowfall doesn’t make up for snowpack is ludicrous

    Not if you understand trends Betty, which of course you don’t.
    Just as you can’t comprehend the difference between weather and climate, just like your dimwit denier ally PantieZ.

  19. #19 Richard Simons
    December 15, 2013

    Well, if the United Nations Millennium Development Goals are to be achieved, they need to redistribute the world wealth to do it….that’s a given. But how?

    Oh dear! We are well into the reds-under-the-bed, boogeyman-in-the-closet territory here, aren’t we? Are we to expect that the next batch of secret documents to be revealed will be super-secret, never to be revealed even under pain of death, e-mails from the UN to all climatologists instructing them to pretend that climates are changing? What puzzles me is that any moderately competent observer can see that various species are extending their ranges to higher altitudes and latitudes. How does the UN manage to do this?

  20. #20 Betula
    December 15, 2013

    “Just as you can’t comprehend the difference between weather and climate”

    Sure I can….you taught me. If snowpack is below average it’s due to AGW, if snowpack is at average or above average, it’s due to weather.

  21. #21 chek
    December 15, 2013

    “Historic average” Betty. “Historic”.
    The “historic” is important, which is the whole point of this extended exercise in lying that you’re currently engaging in. To no avail, I should add.

  22. #22 Betula
    December 15, 2013

    Richard Simons..

    It’s called the IPCC…..established by two U.N organizations.

    And Climate change and the MDG’s go hand in hand…once again, the question is, how to get the funds from rich nations to achieve them?

    “Neither the impacts of climate change nor strategies for achieving the MDGs can be addressed adequately without greater recognition of the disproportionate burden of environmental changes in developing countries. The concept of climate justice seeks to highlight this recognition and provide guidance on a better way forward. A climate justice approach acknowledges that the burdens arising from climate change and the costs of climate change adaptation and mitigation must be shared equitably, taking into account the vastly different levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted historically and currently by rich and poor nations.”

    http://www.realizingrights.org/pdf/Climate_Change_and_the_MDGs_-_Realizing_Rights_GCAP_and_GCCASeptember_2010_FINAL.pdf

  23. #23 Betula
    December 15, 2013

    Here you go chek…

    If snowpack is below it’s historic average it’s due to AGW, if snowpack is at or above it’s historic average, it’s due to weather.

  24. #24 chek
    December 15, 2013

    You don’t seem to understand what the word “average” means Betty.

  25. #25 Jeff Harvey
    December 15, 2013

    “……just blinded by ideology.”

    No one is more ‘ blinded by ideology’ than Betty, but he’s not going to admit it. He thinks he’s rational and those who disagree with him are the blind ones. The stupidity of some of his comments beggars belief.

  26. #26 Wow
    December 15, 2013

    chec, that’s because betty thinks they’re average, and hence an average has, like, 90% of the events on one side and 10% on the other.

    This skews the definition of average a little if you daren’t look at the assumption made.

  27. #27 Wow
    December 15, 2013

    I don’t understand this diatribe predicated on “distribution of wealth” being bad.

    Capitalism is predicated on the distribution of wealth.

    Trickle-down economics is entirely about the distribution of wealth.

    Civil liability is about distribution of wealth.

    Are these morons saying that capitalism is bad because it talks about the distribution of wealth to those who deserve it and those who don’t?

  28. #28 BBD
    December 15, 2013

    Betty

    You have the same goals Barney…what do you suggest they do?

    Confiscate all assets owned by right-wing ideologues, sell same, scatter the proceeds from low-flying aircraft over rural villages in developing nations.

  29. #29 BBD
    December 15, 2013

    Richard Simons asks:

    What puzzles me is that any moderately competent observer can see that various species are extending their ranges to higher altitudes and latitudes. How does the UN manage to do this?

    Mind control, Richard. Same as used on people. The animals don’t wear tinfoil hats and so are susceptible to the vibrations in the ether.

    I really had thought this was obvious, but always happy to help with the detail. .

  30. #30 Lotharsson
    December 15, 2013

    The animals don’t wear tinfoil hats and so are susceptible to the vibrations in the ether.

    Faaaaark, now you’ve gone and given it away. Betula is obviously in the know because he was much more circumspect. Note that the question about the animals’ ranges was cunningly ignored in favour of – oh, look, over there, a squir…er, make that a global wealth redistribution conspiracy!

  31. #31 BBD
    December 15, 2013

    Should anyone doubt the truth of what I reveal at #29 there is corroborating evidence. Only look to the domestic pets of those-in-the-know. Note that this one has also acquired a firearm and is probably a regular Internet user too.

  32. #32 Richard Simons
    December 15, 2013

    Of course, BBD! I guess I need to wear my tinfoil hat more often.

  33. #33 Wow
    December 15, 2013

    Shhhh.

    Don’t mention the HAARP.

    Oh, now I’ve said it..!

  34. #34 Wow
    December 15, 2013

    Hah! This mind control conspiracy is just a trap by the Alco company to push everyone to buying their products!

    FOLLOW THE MONEY, PEOPLE!!!

  35. #35 pentaxZ
    December 15, 2013

    bbd, i didn’t ask you, did I? I asked jeffie. And now he admits he will not answer. As I said, that in it self is a screaming answer. What a bozo.

  36. #36 Wow
    December 15, 2013

    Oh, panties, complains when your petulant whines are answered, complains when they aren’t.

    Why you so stupid, stupid?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1c261dxGWQ

  37. #37 BBD
    December 15, 2013

    The source of the answer is irrelevant – the answer is the thing. Well, it would be if you were here in good faith, but you have now confirmed that you are not by *once again* failing to acknowledge that there is a problem with the framing of your question. Even if you did this out of ignorance rather than by design, now it has been pointed out the only response demonstrating good faith would be an acknowledgement of the problem with your question itself.

    Instead you prefer to call Jeff names. This speaks volumes about you, none of it complimentary.

  38. #38 BBD
    December 15, 2013

    Pentax

    I really shouldn’t have let this slip either. You are lying again:

    And now he admits he will not answer. As I said, that in it self is a screaming answer. What a bozo.

    In fact although he began by *saying* he wasn’t going to answer you, Jeff then wrote a very long comment answering you in considerable detail.

    Jeff #94 previous page:

    I am not dodging your question. I don’t want to answer it because its bloody inarticulate and unscientific… I have also answered it before and yet it hasn’t sunk into your dense skull.

    [...]

    For the umpteenth time:

    Extinction is NOT an instantaneous process. You don’t change an environmental parameter on one day and expect instantaneous extinction the next day. Given that one often starts with large populations exhibiting considerable genetic variation, the effects of local and global changes lead to a decline in abundance that make play out over decades or even centuries.

    Which is exactly what I said only using more words. So you have in fact ignored both of us and capped it off by making a dishonest claim about Jeff. Too bad they don’t award points for this stuff.

  39. #39 Betula
    December 15, 2013

    “make that a global wealth redistribution conspiracy!”

    How can it be a conspiracy if they say that’s what they want to do?

  40. #40 Betula
    December 15, 2013

    “You don’t seem to understand what the word “average” means Betty”

    Sure I do, it’s like Global Average Temperature….by the way, what is the average temperature?

  41. #41 Betula
    December 15, 2013

    Simons….

    “various species are extending their ranges to higher altitudes and latitudes”

    New revelation….various species extend their ranges.

  42. #42 Betula
    December 15, 2013

    “I don’t understand this diatribe predicated on “distribution of wealth” being bad”

    A comprehension problem on your part.

  43. #43 BBD
    December 15, 2013

    Sure I do, it’s like Global Average Temperature….by the way, what is the average temperature?

    This is.

    * * *

    @ #41 Are you actually claiming that this has nothing to do with AGW?

    @ #42

    A comprehension problem on your part.

    So fuck ‘em, eh? Deny our role and responsibility and walk off whistling?

  44. #44 Betula
    December 15, 2013

    BBD…

    Were various species extending their ranges before AGW?

    What is the correct GAT to get various species to stay put?

    Fuck who?

  45. #45 BBD
    December 15, 2013

    Were various species extending their ranges before AGW?

    This is both irrelevant and evasive. Please answer the question: are you claiming that this has nothing to do with AGW?

    What is the correct GAT to get various species to stay put?

    Late Holocene pre-industrial norms.

    Fuck who?

    Don’t be disingenuous, Betty; it looks awful. As you knew perfectly well, the inhabitants of the developing world.

    I can see why you might want to avoid this though. What you argue is selfishly vile and inhumane.

  46. #46 Betula
    December 15, 2013

    “Don’t be disingenuous, Betty; it looks awful. As you knew perfectly well, the inhabitants of the developing world”

    So this is about redistribution of wealth….I thought it was a conspiracy?

  47. #47 BBD
    December 15, 2013

    Please answer the question: are you claiming that species range expansion to higher latitudes has nothing to do with AGW?

    So this is about redistribution of wealth….I thought it was a conspiracy?

    No, Betty, it’s about the planetary human response to a planetary-scale problem. The UN MDGs are suggestions, pointers towards a possible, humane, equitable global future response to AGW. Something you apparently object to but seemingly not without a degree of shame since you are obfuscating.

  48. #48 Betula
    December 15, 2013

    “Please answer the question: are you claiming that species range expansion to higher latitudes has nothing to do with AGW?”

    The statement was “various species range expansion”. That’s a pretty broad statement, so which species are you referring to Barney?

    “The UN MDGs are suggestions, pointers towards a possible, humane, equitable global future response to AGW.”

    They are goals. The question is, how will they get the financing to achieve them. Please answer the question Barney.

  49. #49 ianam
    December 15, 2013

    so which species are you referring to Barney?

    The ones whose ranges are expanding to higher latitudes, moron.

  50. #50 ianam
    December 15, 2013

    Why is this Betula gollum such a coward? Why is it so reluctant to state that species ranges expansion has nothing to do with AGW? Could it retain some vestigial sense of ethics, some deep primitive reluctance to lie?

  51. #51 ianam
    December 15, 2013

    They are goals.

    But immediately previously, you claimed that the goal was redistribution of wealth. Thanks for conceding that was a lie.

  52. #52 ianam
    December 15, 2013

    A good example of exaggeration is people who claim that the entire mainstream science is saying that human emissions, human behaviour and particularly human CO2 ppm is the ‘only plausible’ explanation for all the woes of our natural world.

    A good example of exaggeration is this exaggeration of yours. Actually, it isn’t an exaggeration, its just fabrication and a complete abdication of rationality. But it is still the sort of blatant radical hypocrisy so common with deniers.

  53. #53 BBD
    December 15, 2013

    The statement was “various species range expansion”. That’s a pretty broad statement, so which species are you referring to Barney?

    You need someone familiar with the fieldwork to tell you that. The effects appear to be widespread and sufficiently uncontroversial for studies like this to pass peer review. Are you implying that you don’t trust ecological scientists?

    Given that the effect appears to be real (unless we believe the researchers are falsifying their results), we are back to the still-unanswered question:

    Are you claiming that species range expansion to higher latitudes has nothing to do with AGW?

    They are goals. The question is, how will they get the financing to achieve them. Please answer the question Barney.

    By tax, obviously. You appear to object to tax and I do not, so long as the level of taxation does not become problematic. But at least we are clarifying the reason behind your rejection of physical climatology.

  54. #54 BBD
    December 15, 2013

    ianam, we crossed.

  55. #55 ianam
    December 15, 2013

    the CAGW high priest himself is claming sea levels is rising. How can you as a true CAGW believer say othervise?

    the CAGW high priest himself is claming sea levels is rising at a accelerating rate. How can you as a true CAGW believer say othervise?

    BWAHAHAH!

    As I said, the imbecile doesn’t even know what acceleration is … and is also oblivious to the fact that a rate can be constant over one period of time while also accelerating over a longer period. There’s just no bottom to the depths of stupidity of deniers.

  56. #56 ianam
    December 15, 2013

    But at least we are clarifying the reason behind your rejection of physical climatology.

    It’s not as if it had ever been unclear for Betula or any other denier.

  57. #57 pentaxZ
    December 15, 2013

    Nannys Asshole: “As I said, the imbecile doesn’t even know what acceleration is …”

    Why post this here? Tell your imbecile high preast directly.

  58. #58 ianam
    December 15, 2013

    pentaxZ, you stupid dishonest sack of shit, I quoted you. No where on these pages is there any quote from Pachauri. But again, not that you are capable of understanding simple English or basic concepts, ” a rate can be constant over one period of time while also accelerating over a longer period”. Your graph is only for 20 years … and yet even then you wrote the the rate is decelerating. Why? Because you’re the sort of thing one would scrape off the bottom of their shoe.

  59. #59 ianam
    December 15, 2013

    Here is something on sea level rise that pantywad won’t understand a bit of: http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=365

  60. #60 ianam
    December 15, 2013

    See how futile it is to debate denier scum, folks? I regret it every time I do. Time to go do something productive.

  61. #61 Wow
    December 15, 2013

    ““As I said, the imbecile doesn’t even know what acceleration is …”

    Why post this here?”

    Because you’re clueless about the intense lack of any comprehesnion on your part, panties.

    Duh.

  62. #62 Betula
    December 15, 2013

    “Are you implying that you don’t trust ecological scientists?”

    Oh, someone with a title…well why didn’t you say so earlier?

    “By tax, obviously”

    You mean they’re going to tax the middle class and poor? Isn’t that going to put more of a burden on them?

  63. #63 Betula
    December 15, 2013

    “You need someone familiar with the fieldwork to tell you that”

    You mean you’ve been talking out of your ass?

  64. #64 Betula
    December 15, 2013

    “But immediately previously, you claimed that the goal was redistribution of wealth”

    Um, wouldn’t financing your goals be part of the goal?

    Just saying.

  65. #65 Betula
    December 15, 2013

    Ianam @ 59

    From your link…

    “Their impact could be tremendous, it could be sudden, and it could be horrible”

    Didn’t they already make this movie?

    The very next line…

    “The relatively modest acceleration in sea level so far is not a cause for great concern”

    Sorry, gave away the ending.

  66. #66 BBD
    December 15, 2013

    Betty

    Are you claiming that species range expansion to higher latitudes has nothing to do with AGW?

  67. #67 Wow
    December 15, 2013

    Betty claims nothing.

    JAQing off over the internet has a long history with Betty.

  68. #68 chek
    December 16, 2013

    Betty has no time for commie concepts such as “the greater good”.

    Note how the normally Mr Pars-O-Matic takes the comment “The relatively modest acceleration in sea level so far is not a cause for great concern” without teasing out how long should ‘concern’ be suspended for: a day? A week? A month? A decade? Never? – to axiomatically mean the last option.

    Betty’s only ‘concern’ – like a dumbed-down, camper version of the Strangelove character – is that Agenda 21 is coming to steal away his precious bodily fluids, despite the fact that the USA is the foremost implementer as the link in a previous post shows.

    So there’s that, and the never-ending gigatonnes of ill-thought out fuck-all that comprise Betty’s horizons.

  69. #69 Betula
    December 16, 2013

    Chek visits the middle east….

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=408_1387133659

  70. #70 chek
    December 16, 2013

    … and Mr Betty Fuck-all still obsesses about spot weather as if it’s a self-evident point.
    Unbelievable.

  71. #71 Richard Simons
    December 16, 2013

    Why is this Betula gollum such a coward?

    Betula’s policy always seems to have been to make cowardly innuendos and accusations of bad faith, without ever saying anything substantial.

  72. #72 Lotharsson
    December 16, 2013

    Oh, someone with a title…

    Nope, more lies – or maybe insufficient cognitive abilities. The reference was to someone with expertise AND the evidence to back their claims up, not to someone with a title.

    Which, entirely coincidentally I’m sure, is essentially the opposite of you in these matters.

  73. #73 ianam
    December 16, 2013

    Dishonest sack of shit: The goal of the Joneses is to go into debt.
    Decent person: No, their goal is to buy a house.
    Dishonest sack of shit: Well, if their goal to buy a house is to be achieved, they are going to have to go into debt … that’s a given, but how? laterSo this is about going into debt.
    Decent person: No, it’s about buying a house.
    Dishonest sack of shit: That’s a goal. The question is, how will they get the financing to achieve it. Please answer the question, decent person.
    me: But immediately previously, you claimed that the goal was going into debt. Thanks for conceding that was a lie.
    Dishonest sack of shit: Um, wouldn’t financing your goals be part of the goal? Just being a dishonest sack of shit and moron.

  74. #74 ianam
    December 16, 2013

    [Sorry for the tag fail. Worth repeating]

    Dishonest sack of shit: The goal of the Joneses is to go into debt.
    Decent person: No, their goal is to buy a house.
    Dishonest sack of shit: Well, if their goal to buy a house is to be achieved, they are going to have to go into debt … that’s a given, but how? later So this is about going into debt.
    Decent person: No, it’s about buying a house.
    Dishonest sack of shit: That’s a goal. The question is, how will they get the financing to achieve it. Please answer the question, decent person.
    me: But immediately previously, you claimed that the goal was going into debt. Thanks for conceding that was a lie.
    Dishonest sack of shit: Um, wouldn’t financing your goals be part of the goal? Just being a dishonest sack of shit and moron.

  75. #75 ianam
    December 16, 2013

    Betula’s policy

    The policy of all these scum is to deny the obvious or claim the absurd, and when refuted to respond by denying the obvious or claiming the absurd, and when refuted to respond by denying the obvious or claiming the absurd, … ∞

  76. #76 Stu 2
    December 16, 2013

    Betula’s question @ # 39 is valid.
    There is no conspiracy, it is well and truly publicly documented.
    No need for tin foil hats :-)
    Much public money has been invested .
    In Australia, the ANU has been given a very hefty Federal Government Grant.
    Here are a few examples but there are many more:
    http://deldem.weblogs.anu.edu.au/
    http://www.southampton.ac.uk/C2G2/media/Stockholm-Soton/Dryzek%20NW-Harvard.pdf
    http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/portal/article/view/1734

  77. #77 Lotharsson
    December 16, 2013

    There is no conspiracy,…

    I didn’t say there was about the goals of the Millenium Development Goals. (Apparently satire goes over some heads…)

    But Betula does rather appear to be claiming that climate science concerns are indeed a conspiracy created in order to meet the goal of redistributing wealth, as ianam capably satirises. Care to comment on that larger (and apparently unsatirical) claim by Betula? No?

    In Australia, the ANU has been given a very hefty Federal Government Grant.

    So you’re apparently saying government funding of universities – or your other term, “public investment” – is … only done because someone in power has a goal to “redistribute wealth” and thinks this is an appropriate way to achieve it (quite apart from all the other far more effective ways they have of achieving that goal)? (It’s a bit hard to tell – your links don’t appear at all relevant to Betula’s claims about wealth redistribution, so you’ll have to explain why you think they are.)

    If you actually think that about government funding or public investment, that really is tinfoil hat territory and ianam’s illustrative dialogue involving a dishonest sack of shit applies. If not, you might care to clarify.

  78. #78 Lotharsson
    December 16, 2013

    Worth repeating

    Seconded.

  79. #79 pentaxZ
    December 16, 2013

    “If contradictory evidences -like record cold vs. rising global temperatures- can be sited as equally proving the same hypothesis, can it really be called science? ”

    “The peer review process itself has come under a lot of scrutiny lately, as well. Traditionally, in order to eliminate potential bias which might be caused by personal friendships or philosophical differences, an editor would remove an author’s name, then send the article to peers who would review and comment. A “double blind” peer review process, kept everyone honest. Unfortunately, in today’s politically charged, grant-hungry world of “climate science” where billions of dollars in research money influence trillions of dollars in policy, peer review has become something far less than honest. There is simply no “double blind” practiced anymore. All of the major climate journal editors have taken to leaving the authors’ names on the documents sent out for review so the “in crowd” reviewers can rubber stamp one another’s papers.”

    Oh bogger!

    http://guardianlv.com/2013/12/antarctica-record-cold-and-growing-ice-chills-global-warming-theories/

  80. #80 Lotharsson
    December 16, 2013

    If contradictory evidences -like record cold vs. rising global temperatures- can be sited as equally proving the same hypothesis, can it really be called science?

    Except that it’s not contradictory evidence, and it is not cited by scientists as “equally proving the same hypothesis”. (And even if you don’t have any scientific understanding yourself you might twig that the writer appears to have no clue about science because he doesn’t know to spell cite”.)

    Were you fooled by the writer or were you trying to fool readers here?

    But you do play a useful role. If there were a solid case against the scientific conclusions, one would expect it to be made. The very fact that you rotate through an impressive circular list of very poor arguments strongly suggests that no such solid case exists. Do keep up the good work ;-)

  81. #81 pentaxZ
    December 16, 2013

    “What, then, is actually behind the widespread obsession – with so little evidence – with global warming, and the resulting desire to implement massive new governmental policies? The answer, says Robinson, is not complicated: “Power and money.”

    http://wnd.com/2013/12/global-warming-iced-by-coldest-days-ever/

  82. #82 ianam
    December 16, 2013

    Betula’s question @ # 39 is valid.
    There is no conspiracy, it is well and truly publicly documented.

    That’s just like saying that it is well and truly publicly documented that Obama wants to turn the U.S. in a Socialist country and take away everyone’s freedoms because his Affordable Care Act isn’t a secret. I’ve found that the right wing cretins (funny how predictable it is that AGW deniers will be such) who say these sorts of things are genuinely too stupid to understand what is wrong with their logic: If A wants to do X and some conspiratorial moron thinks that X implies Y, it isn’t valid to conclude that A wants to do Y. It isn’t even valid if X truly does imply Y rather than that just being some harebrained imbecile’s imagining. A classic example: Oedipus wanted to screw Jocasta, and Jocasta was Oedipus’s mother, but Oedipus did not want to screw his mother … inferring that he did commits an epistemic or intensional fallacy, an invalid application of Leibniz’s Law.

  83. #83 ianam
    December 16, 2013

    Now PentaxZ is citing World’s Nuttiest Deniers.

  84. #84 Stu 2
    December 16, 2013

    Lotharsson and ianam
    Betula’s question at 39 was this:
    “make that a global wealth redistribution conspiracy!”
    “How can it be a conspiracy if they say that’s what they want to do?”
    I was merely pointing out, it is a valid question.
    Betula didn’t introduce the word “conspiracy” or make references to tin foil hats etc.
    ianam, you could perhaps read the links that were posted before you make comments such as this:
    ” That’s just like saying that it is well and truly publicly documented that Obama wants to turn the U.S. in a Socialist country and take away everyone’s freedoms because his Affordable Care Act isn’t a secret.”
    You would discover that it is nothing like that at all.
    Lotharsson, you could perhaps just read the words (as BBD says often) rather than make an unsubstantiated comment like this :
    “So you’re apparently saying government funding of universities – or your other term, “public investment” – is … only done because someone in power has a goal to “redistribute wealth” and thinks this is an appropriate way to achieve it ”
    There was no ‘apparently’.

  85. #85 ianam
    December 16, 2013

    After reading http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/bkgd.shtml and considering the unassailable logic of Betula and Stu2, I just realized that the goal of the Salvation Army, Toys for Tots, The American Lung Association, and all similar nefarious organizations is the redistribution of wealth, and they’re doing it in plain sight — so you can’t complain that I’m conspiracy mongering!

  86. #86 ianam
    December 16, 2013

    You would discover that it is nothing like that at all.

    It’s exactyl like that, you fucking imbecile.

  87. #87 ianam
    December 16, 2013

    There was no ‘apparently’

    FUCK but you are stupid! It appears to Lotharsson that you were saying that, so you were apparently saying that. Your “there was no ‘apparently’” seems to be intended to confirm how things appeared to him … that you really are so stupid and demented as to think of public investment in education as having the goal of redistributing wealth.

  88. #88 ianam
    December 16, 2013

    I was merely pointing out, it is a valid question.

    No, you lying sack of putrid garbage, you asserted that it is publicly documented that wealth distribution is one of the Millenium Development Goals, rather than the goals that actually are published. Betula’s idiotic question is only valid if the MDG were actually publicly documented as being equivalent to his harebrained conspiracy mongering.

  89. #89 ianam
    December 16, 2013

    “How can it be a conspiracy if they say that’s what they want to do?”
    I was merely pointing out, it is a valid question.

    Where do they say they want to do that?

    Betula didn’t introduce the word “conspiracy” or make references to tin foil hats etc.

    So if I say (and demonstrate) that you are stupid lying piece of garbage, you will retort that you didn’t introduce the words “stupid”, “lying”, or “garbage”, and consider that to be some sort of rebuttal?

    As I’ve said, there is no bottom to the stupidity of deniers.

  90. #90 ianam
    December 16, 2013

    The policy of all these scum is to deny the obvious or claim the absurd, and when refuted to respond by denying the obvious or claiming the absurd, and when refuted to respond by denying the obvious or claiming the absurd, … ∞

    Notice that that is exactly what Stu2 has done in each and every one of his posts and, one can safely predict, will continue to do. The end.

  91. #91 ianam
    December 16, 2013

    The policy of all these scum is to deny the obvious or claim the absurd, and when refuted to respond by denying the obvious or claiming the absurd, and when refuted to respond by denying the obvious or claiming the absurd, … ∞

    Notice that that is exactly what Stu2 has done in each and every one of his posts and, one can safely predict, will continue to do. The end.

  92. #92 ianam
    December 16, 2013

    The policy of all these scum is to deny the obvious or claim the absurd, and when refuted to respond by denying the obvious or claiming the absurd, and when refuted to respond by denying the obvious or claiming the absurd, … ∞

    Notice that that is exactly what Stu2 has done in each and every one of his posts and, one can safely predict, will continue to do. The end.

  93. #93 pentaxZ
    December 16, 2013

    A picture speaks a thousand words. Unprecedented? Yeah right!

    http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/warming-in-cycles-carter1.jpg

  94. #94 Lotharsson
    December 16, 2013

    Lotharsson, you could perhaps just read the words (as BBD says often) rather than make an unsubstantiated comment like this:

    Don’t be (apparently) supremely stupid. My comments came about precisely because I had “read the words”.

    Furthermore, don’t be (apparently) supremely obtuse. My use of “apparently” cannot be reasonably interpreted as claiming that you wrote the word “apparently” in your comment – as ianam capably points out. “Apparently” as I used it indicates that the writer is providing their own interpretation of what someone else wrote and allowing that their interpretation might be incorrect – and is inviting clarification if their interpretation is incorrect. (I further note that to date you have provided no such clarification.)

    Please, please, please tell me that the explanation for this apparent obtuseness is that English is your third language, or you have a documented difficulty comprehending high school English, or some such, rather than trolling or attempted distraction from your complete (and fairly typical) inability to argue your point…

  95. #95 Lotharsson
    December 16, 2013

    If I’m not mistaken, PentaxZ has been fooled again, probably by one of Bob Carter’s carefully edited graphs that mistakes local for global and conveniently shears off the last half dozen decades. If not that, it is probably one of the other common sources of misleading material for those who are highly gullible – but deeply proud of how well they reckon they can see through other people’s gullibility.

    As I said earlier it’s so good of PentaxZ to demonstrate that the only arguments against the scientific case vary in quality between unsubstantiated, through to crap, complete crap and complete and utter crap. Do carry on, excellent work thus far. Every single post seems to reinforce that message…

  96. #96 BBD
    December 16, 2013

    #93

    That’s NGRIP or GISP. Only an idiot would take the top of the Greenland Ice Sheet as a proxy for the whole world. Give me a global reconstruction that even *shows* these supposed “Minoan” and “Roman” “Warm Periods”.

    Here’s a little test for you: google them. All you get is a mass of denier rubbish. What is conspicuously absent is any reference in the reviewed paleoclimate literature.

    Go on, you unsceptical numpty. Do your homework for once. Get me a reference showing that these multiple “warm periods” were synchronous and global – or even existed at all – or admit that you’ve been fooled again by liars. And when you have established that yes, you have been tricked by liars, be angry with them like any normal person would be.

  97. #97 BBD
    December 16, 2013

    Pentax

    I am still waiting for you either to support your claim that SLR has been ~1.5mm/y across the Holocene or admit that you were wrong.

    You seem to think you can make absurdly incorrect claims (repeatedly) then skip away when asked either to substantiate them or admit error.

    I say you are wrong and worse, you know it but refuse to admit it. Thus both wrong and dishonest.

    Prove me wrong. Provide supporting references for your 1.5mm claim. I’m fed up with asking and with waiting. Get on with it.

  98. #98 pentaxZ
    December 16, 2013

    Ohhh, dealing with reallity really hurts, that’s obvious.

    “…that mistakes local for global and conveniently shears off the last half dozen decades.”

    Now, I wonder, how many trees did the lyer mann use for his infamous hockey stick? Was it 1000? 100? No, wait, it was one. What a joke!

  99. #99 Wow
    December 16, 2013

    Yes, it is obvious that even being asked to deal with reality gives you genuine physical pain, panties.

    “Now, I wonder, how many trees did the lyer mann use for his infamous hockey stick? Was it 1000? 100? No, wait, it was one”

    You’re lying again, panties.

  100. #100 Wow
    December 16, 2013

    So panties, Carter is a fully paid up shill for the fossil fuel industry, monckton is not only barking mad but a con artist who targets the gullible, watts is selling his site to big industry, ignores the rampant criminality of wegman, the paid-for incompetence of mcintyre, and the banal contradiction from religious mania of inholfe and instead wishes to make up lies about people working out the truth from the facts available to ensure that panties will not have to pay one jot of compensation for the damage and destruction he is causing, for purely ideological and personally financing reasons.