January 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 chek
    January 4, 2014

    Not even a spit patch on the boots of the climate elves, though.

  2. #2 Bernard J.
    January 4, 2014

    BBD at#97 on the previous page:

    …I don’t think we’re going to be allowed to talk about that topic…

    I’ve been watching with curiosity how denialists have been assiduously skirting Sherwood et al 2014 since it was released. I suspect they waiting for a Monckton or an Eschenback to mangle the science so that it doesn’t say what they don’t want it to say, and then they’ll trumpet “fraud!”, “incompetence!!” or “conspiracy!!11!!eleventyone!”.

    Mack, I see that you’re back here now that Sou’s given you your marching orders. I wondered how long it would take…

  3. #3 Mack
    January 4, 2014

    Sou ?

  4. #4 chek
    January 4, 2014

    Just one word, and still one ‘tell’ included.
    Poor benighted KarenMackSpot.

  5. #5 Lionel A
    January 4, 2014

    Mack-the-Yack at #3, stop the pretence of not knowing who Sou is:

    AnonymousJanuary 2, 2014 at 12:45 AM

    The main point, that you entirely avoided Sou, is the fact that all the information that was requested was sourced from AGW sceptics, not just from WUWT.

    The kick in the teeth to the cultists is the fact that no alarmist were asked as they can’t be trusted to have reliable information.

    Karen

    from: Anthony Watts, most blessed and ethical professional hero @wattsupwiththat, rides gallantly to the Antarctic rescue .

    The black knight is now ready for burial.

  6. #6 Mack
    January 4, 2014

    Oh! yes Sou, the Hot Whopper. Looks like Karen got hit with the hot whopper. silly girl. I’m OK though, safe and sound here in this little padded cell with you residual Deltiod looneys

  7. #7 BBD
    January 4, 2014

    Lying fuck. You people push the boundaries of vile every single day.

  8. #8 BBD
    January 4, 2014

    @ chek, yes, that one is very good. A welcome reminder. I can never find the bloody things again.

    ;-)

  9. #9 BBD
    January 4, 2014

    Speaking of vermin, where’s Betty? My feet are itching for an arse to kick. Again.

  10. #10 BBD
    January 4, 2014

    @ Bernard J

    We’ll probably just get another great waving of Nic Bloody Lewis, Otto et al, and other relatively uninformative estimates of TCR from “observational” data. It was irritating as all **** the first time around, so I’m not looking forward to a re-run.

  11. #11 BBD
    January 4, 2014

    In other news, I see Bob Tisdale is “retiring from full time blogging”. Churning out climate misinformation is not covering the bills, apparently, so Bob needs a job. More at Stoat.

  12. #12 Bernard J.
    January 4, 2014

    KarenMackSunspot at #6:

    Oh! yes Sou, the Hot Whopper. Looks like Karen got hit with the hot whopper. silly girl.

    You’re as thick as evaporated molasses. One minute you didn’t know who Sou was, and the next you know to what it is that we are referring. How stupid can you be?

    And you keep emphasising the female gender thing when it’s irrelevant – you’re obviously trying to reinforce your failed tranvestism in the ‘Karen’ sock, but anyone with an intelligence quotient greater than that of a platyhelminth (apologies to flatworms) can see right through it.

    Given your especially stereotypical last two comments I have to wonder again if you’re just a sociopathic poe. If not, you’re more than five standard deviations from the population mean and deep into the Stupid side of the spectrum.

    I’ve said it before but I repeat it – I used to lament Tim Lambert’s absence from these threads, but the one good thing is that Deltoid now stands as a monument to just how ideological, self-centred and completely without evidence, logic, education and understanding are the deniers of science.

    It reminds me of the lines of caterpillars that manage to circle into loops, unable to break out and continue forward. The difference is that when we used to see these in the bush one could break the loop and send the beasies on their way – with the Denialati it seems that no amount of effort can ever break them from the merry-go-round of broken denier memes to which they are welded.

  13. #13 Bernard J.
    January 4, 2014

    BBD at #10.

    Indeed. Although I’m somewhat morbidly fascinated to see just how they twist it.

    It won’t take too long to find out, I suspect.

  14. #14 Lionel A
    January 4, 2014

    And WRT extreme weather (look out there at all that snow its cold out there) let’s remind those who still fail to connect the dots:

    It’s all in the jet stream

    The case for a connection between Arctic warming and summertime extreme weather events rests on the Arctic’s crucial role as a pacesetter and shapemaker of the jet stream, the powerful ribbon of upper level winds that steer weather systems from west to east across the Northern Hemisphere.

    Because the temperature contrast between the frigid Arctic and the milder mid-latitudes is what drives the powerful jet stream winds that guide weather systems, what happens in the Arctic is bound to have some sort of influence on the world’s weather.

    from Study Adds to Arctic Warming, Extreme Weather Debate.

    On the recent extreme weather around the coasts of the UK, not over yet, Owen Patterson looked rather uncomfortable recently when interviewed. Is it because he is like a rabbit caught in the headlights of an oncoming furore about job cuts in the Environment Agency (Efficiency savings ha! More like culling some unwelcome messengers and warning those left) and the fact that climate change is already having consequences, despite their spin so as to keep the door open for fracking.

    What happens when we are fracked out and nobody is looking after the workings because all the companies involved have vanished? Here is a warning from the US:

    Fracking Wells Abandoned in Boom/Bust Cycle. Who Will Pay to Cap Them?

    The answer as always is the tax payer, well except the big fossil fuel companies with tax exemptions.

  15. #15 chek
    January 4, 2014

    The Mysterious Case of Visceral Denier Hatred For the Voyage of the MV Akademik Shokalskiy.

    With a title almost Conan-Doylish in its self-explanitoryness, wtf is going on? The Guardian article’s comments section is as full of denier bile and actual jaw-dropping fictions (Antarctic sea ice was supposed to have disappeared? Really??) as Karenmackspots The Downfall parody here.

    What do any of those vile, ignorant shitsacks know about polar science exploration, its economics and practice and the required and related seamanship? Yes we know from first hand experience here that individual scientists are targets for the most scurrilous denier attacks, but I’m wondering if there’s something fundamental that I’ve missed. Is there a modern The Origin of Species or Principia Mathematica or somesuch in preparation, or what?

  16. #16 BBD
    January 5, 2014
  17. #17 Stu 2
    January 5, 2014

    Apologies if this ends up appearing twice:
    I mistyped my email address

    January 5, 2014

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    BBD,
    You have asked that climate or weather question numerous times and you appear to believe it is a very important question that has great significance.
    Betula didn’t need to answer it because of the way you have framed it. You have basically answered it yourself and you are obviously not interested in anything but your own framed answer.
    When discussing climate and weather, despite your framing, there is no a or b single right answer, which appears to be partly why ianam and Jeff Harvey got into such a scrap at the December thread.
    Perhaps instead you might consider some questions like these regarding that statistic:
    What significance does a highest November global average hold in terms of anything that could be done about average global Novembers?
    Does this statistic reveal something significant about NH Autumns or SH Springs or both?
    Where specifically on the planet is this statistic demonstrably manifesting itself as an urgent climate or weather problem?
    Do all months of the 2013 calendar year reveal the highest ever global mean temperature?

  18. #18 Bernard J.
    January 5, 2014

    I have to say that I am appreciating the Guardian more and more. Whenever a mainstream print media report is referenced in this country these days in any rational context it is almost always the Guardian – other outlets are conspicuous by their absence… The Australian Newscorps print media abdicated any pretense at objective impartiality in reporting by the beginning of the millenium, and although Fairfax is pulling its socks up somewhat since the Coalition won the election they’re a case of too little too late.

    I am fervently grateful for the appearance of the Guardian in Australia, and their role here seems really to be a reflection of their title.

    I suspect that News Corps will at some point take an active role in attempting to blunt the impact of the Guardian. If the do I hope that it blows up in their faces – spectacularly.

  19. #19 Bernard J.
    January 5, 2014

    I love it when the Scarecrow pretends that he has a brain. It’s so cuuute…

  20. #20 Betula
    January 5, 2014

    Chek…..”The answer as always is the tax payer, well except the big fossil fuel companies with tax exemptions”

    From your link…””The money would come from a conservation tax that oil and gas companies pay.”

    You’re such a putz….but it’s nice to see your touching concern for the U.S.taxpayer. I’m glad to see that you are on their side, even though they are the ones using the resources gained from fracking. They are the ones, through their greedy consumption, that are creating the climate change that will affect the poor nations. They are the ones that have contributed to the plundering of undeveloped nations, and they are the ones that are morally obligated to pay for damage that they have caused and will cause in the future. Climate Justice and Global Justice…rich nations to poor nations…

    But how do they pay Chek. A tax? A tax on what?

    That’s right Chek…”The answer as always is the tax payer”…and here you are feeling sorry for them.

    Classic.

  21. #21 Bernard J.
    January 5, 2014
  22. #22 Bernard J.
    January 5, 2014

    link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00484-002-0139-x#page-1

    onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01059.x/full

  23. #23 Bernard J.
    January 5, 2014

    eebweb.arizona.edu/courses/Ecol206/Walther%20et%20al%20Nature%202002.pdf

    http://www.ualberta.ca/~ahamann/publications/pdfs/Hamann_Wang_2006.pdf

  24. #24 Bernard J.
    January 5, 2014

    And one for the road.

    onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00796.x/full

  25. #25 Bernard J.
    January 5, 2014

    As if to lend evidence to my comment at #18, The Age derails.

    A good rebuttal from The Guardian could land them an appreciable slice of the Fairfax readership.

  26. #26 Lionel A
    January 5, 2014

    chek

    On that comments section at the Guardian isn’t it indicative of how the stupid and ignorant think they are clever when they are not. The educated and accomplished would not use handles like this one:

    TheGreatRonRafferty

    nor make such asinine comments.

  27. #27 Bernard J.
    January 5, 2014

    I said:

    A good rebuttal from The Guardian could land them an appreciable slice of the Fairfax readership.

    Well, It didn’t take long for the Guardian to call The Age on its blunder.

  28. #28 Lionel A
    January 5, 2014

    Betula at #20.

    Where did chek say anything about taxes. Can you not get any facts straight.

    Shakes head in disbelief!

    Then you cherry pick this statement:

    The money would come from a conservation tax that oil and gas companies pay.

    .

    Now let us all see that in context, context the moron misses:

    The money would come from a conservation tax that oil and gas companies pay.

    Still, given the number of wells already abandoned and the concern that more will soon be deserted, the money is not expected to go far. The state estimated that closing the 1,200 wells already abandoned would cost about $8 million.

    One such company, Patriot Energy Resources, which owns about 900 idle wells on state and private land, said in an October letter to Governor Mead that it was $1.9 million short of full bonding on those wells after the bankruptcy filing of Luca Technologies, its parent company.

    It is clear my fears are well (‘scuse pun) founded and you are either a few oil wells short of a viable portfolio or totally dishonest. That does not exclude you being both of those.

  29. #29 Lionel A
    January 5, 2014

    Aargh!

    Bernard J, I have just read through some of the comments at that Alex White Guardian piece and can only conclude that many brains are screwed and cannot produce coherent statements, let alone ones founded on fact.

  30. #30 Bernard J.
    January 5, 2014

    It’s tragic isn’t it Lionel?

    This is the reason that I despair for the human species and the biosphere in the Anthropocene – this level of idiocy is reflected in the ‘reporting of too much of the Western media, and in the election processes of too many ‘democracies’.

    It’s time that people start to be told what their evolutionarily-maladapted intellects are going to (now unavoidably) visit on their descendants.

  31. #31 Betula
    January 5, 2014

    Chek….”The answer as always is the tax payer”

    Lionel…..”Where did chek say anything about taxes”

    Now let’s try it this way…

    Lionel….Where did chek say anything about taxes

    Chek….”The answer as always is the tax payer”

    Shakes head in disbelief…

  32. #32 Lionel A
    January 5, 2014
  33. #33 Lionel A
    January 5, 2014

    Betula @ #31, you still don’t get it do you. Go look closely at my #14.

    It was you put those words into chek’s mouth at #20.

    You are a frigging moron. That is not an ad hominem but a statement of fact, only a moron would repeat such an egregious error once pointed out!

    And whist we are on that fracking costs topic here is more for you to digest:

    Who will pay the costs of the fracking revolution?.

  34. #34 Betula
    January 5, 2014

    “It was you put those words into chek’s mouth at #20″

    What words? Is there something we are disagreeing on here?

  35. #35 BBD
    January 5, 2014

    2Stupid

    Betula didn’t need to answer it because of the way you have framed it. You have basically answered it yourself and you are obviously not interested in anything but your own framed answer.

    What interests me is Betty’s profound (nay bottomless) intellectual dishonesty. You are an irrelevance. Fuck off.

  36. #36 BBD
    January 5, 2014

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Come on, you miserable, dishonest scum. Answer the question.

    November-only global monthly average temperature 1880 – 2013

    This November was the 345th consecutive month when global average temperature exceeded the C20th average.

    Weather or climate?

    Answer the fucking question. Now.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  37. #37 Bernard J.
    January 5, 2014

    I seem to remember that Betula had great difficulty answering other questions last year.

    It seems to be par for the course with him.

  38. #38 Lionel A
    January 5, 2014

    WTF is up with you? From your #20, here is you putting my words to chek:.

    Chek…..”The answer as always is the tax payer, well except the big fossil fuel companies with tax exemptions”

    Now do you see? Sheeeesh! and Sheeeeesh2!

  39. #39 chek
    January 5, 2014

    Q: How many AGW deniers does it take to change a light bulb?
    A: None. There have always been periods of darkness.

    Q: Why is Bettyfuckedinthehead so brain-achingly incompetent?
    A: Good question. Because that’s what corporately sponsored denial does to its believers?

  40. #40 Lionel A
    January 5, 2014

    chek and BBD. Are the video stories at the BBC News web site working OK for you? Here the video stream freezes after abot 15 sec’s but the audio continues. I am using Firefox.

  41. #41 chek
    January 5, 2014

    Hi Lionel. I’ve just watched the “N America weather: Polar vortex brings record temperatures” video, and its working fine in both IE and Firefox in my area. Having said that my connection speed is reduced from 24Mb to 18Mb this afternoon. Not sure if that’s weather related, or just due to more Sunday surfers than usual.

  42. #42 Betula
    January 5, 2014

    Lionel, I stand corrected…apologies to chek. Same ideologies…different names.

    Let’s rephrase:

    “The answer as always is the tax payer”

    Aren’t the tax payers the ones using the resources gained from fracking? Aren’t hey are the ones, through their greedy consumption, that are creating the climate change that will affect the poor nations? Aren’t they are the ones that have contributed to the plundering of undeveloped nations? And aren’t they the ones that are morally obligated to pay for the damage that they have caused and will cause in the future? Climate Justice and Global Justice…rich nations to poor nations…but where will the financing come from?

    “The answer as always is the tax payer”

  43. #43 Betula
    January 5, 2014

    “Come on, you miserable, dishonest scum. Answer the question”

    Who wouldn’t want to address a question asked in such a polite way?…that’s what I want to know.

    “Answer the fucking question. Now”

    Now this sounds like the angry, demanding, authoritative deputy I’ve come to know. The same one that wouldn’t lift a fucking finger if he were to witness an indiscriminate beating…

    But why won’t the bad deputy interrogate his co-worker, officer Hardley? Ah yes, the Deltoid code of silence…

    1. Here from 13 years ago…“Madison, Wisconsin was breaking maximum temperature records by over 5 C in mid-January”
    http://www.ecoglobe.org/nz/biodiv/biod2211.htm

    2. And a few years ago when he claimed to witness climate change first hand while on a 23 day trip (time scale) that involved frostbite.
    http://www.nioo.knaw.nl/en/node/2137

    3. And just recently….”After Britain has just had one of its warmest (and wettest) ever Decembers”

    Yet, as the self appointed deputy of Deltoid, you feel the anger to interrogate me for questioning the nutty professor. Like I’ve always said…you’re too obvious.

    Now, once again, put the bullet back in your pocket Barney, before hyperthermalia sets in.

  44. #44 BBD
    January 5, 2014

    Betty-scum

    How about you answer the question I put to you before asking anyone anything else?

  45. #45 BBD
    January 5, 2014

    More lies from Betty-scum:

    Now this sounds like the angry, demanding, authoritative deputy I’ve come to know. The same one that wouldn’t lift a fucking finger if he were to witness an indiscriminate beating…

    Specifically *not* indiscriminate. What vermin you are, Betty.

  46. #46 BBD
    January 5, 2014

    This is surreal, Betty.

    You just cannot admit – even when presented with direct, incontrovertible evidence – that seasonal climate change is as real as annual climate change. You flat-out refuse to admit to a matter of fact.

    You are so utterly fucking dishonest I don’t know how to describe what you are. It’s off the fucking scale.

  47. #47 Betula
    January 5, 2014

    chek….

    From the article you linked at #16:

    “In spite of a century of work, huge gaps in knowledge remain across the region investigated by the original expedition. To tackle these questions we spent the last two years building a team of experts keen to work with individuals outside their area of expertise. Meetings were held and questions honed. We decided, for instance, that among many other things we would investigate the circulation of the Southern Ocean and its impact on the global carbon cycle and the potential for new records of past climate change using tree ring and peat sequences on the subantarctic islands”

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/antarctica-live/2014/jan/04/antarctic-expedition-was-worth-it-chris-turney

    I thought the science was settled? I thought the future was settled? What’s with the huge gaps in knowledge?

    He also states…”We have been accused of being a tourist trip with little scientific value”

    The reports I saw simply stated there were tourists on board…which there were. In fact, in Turney’s article, he links to an article stating such….”The predicament and subsequent rescue of 52 passengers – both tourists and scientists”.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/03/antarctica-ice-trapped-academik-shokalskiy-climate-change

    And apparently, these tourists paid a hefty sum for their trip…
    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/01/03/the-rest-of-chris-turneys-life-mapped-out/

    You might also note in that article, the huge number of trees Turney may have to plant to keep his promise of offsetting the CO2 emissions…

    Of course, planting trees alone does nothing, since the trees were already on earth and they were just moved from one place to another. It is the actual growing of new trees that matters. They just need to hope that the number of replacement trees grown equals the number they plant….if, in fact, they are ever planted.

  48. #48 BBD
    January 5, 2014

    And since you are so keen on it, let’s have some more from June 2013. A handy resource, that thread. Saves typing it all out again:

    You can wish it away, but it will do no good in the end. The science-denying right is digging its own grave with its bare hands. When the climate shit hits the economic fan, the public will be frightened and angry and looking for scapegoats. Guess who will be right smack in the frame? Oh yes.

    Best not go shouting in the street about your part in the denial circus then, Betty. But you wouldn’t have the balls, would you? You won’t even admit to your lies and denial here when directly confronted over it.

    It’s all of a part. Contemptible from top to bottom.

  49. #49 BBD
    January 5, 2014

    Notice how the lying scum everywhere are trying to inflate the irrelevance of the Antarctic expedition into an attack on climate science?

    This is what lying scum do when they have no scientific case to make against the scientific consensus: they smear and they insinuate. They attack people and institutions. They use rhetoric and misrepresentation.

    Because that is all any of them have got.

    If you weren’t as thick as pigshit Betty you would recognise that this behaviour actually telegraphs just how weak your position really is. And you might think twice before indulging in it. But you are a moron.

  50. #50 Betula
    January 5, 2014

    “Specifically *not* indiscriminate”

    Based on what you believe is the future and whether or not you believe they agree with your vision of the future….yeh, pretty indiscriminate.

  51. #51 BBD
    January 5, 2014

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    No end to Betty’s astonishing intellectual dishonesty in sight, so let’s press on with a slightly different approach:

    November-only global monthly average temperature 1880 – 2013

    This November was the 345th consecutive month when global average temperature exceeded the C20th average.

    These are matters of fact. This is not weather it is climate change with both annual and seasonal expressions.

    Do you accept these matters of fact? Yes or no.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  52. #52 BBD
    January 5, 2014

    No Betty. Indiscriminate means indiscriminate. I was specific. You are apparently sub-literate as well as a lying toe-rag.

  53. #53 chek
    January 5, 2014

    Aren’t the tax payers the ones using the resources gained from fracking?

    Are they? Just the tax payers? Blimey, that lets a load of corporations off from paying them then.

    Aren’t hey (sic) are the ones, through their greedy consumption, that are creating the climate change that will affect the poor nations?

    Are they? Is all consumption ‘greedy’? And why would you think only poor nations will be affected?

    Aren’t they are the ones that have contributed to the plundering of undeveloped nations?

    Who are ‘they’?

    And aren’t they the ones that are morally obligated to pay for the damage that they have caused and will cause in the future?

    See previous answer. They really don’t call you Bettyfuckedionthehead for nothing, do they?

    Climate Justice and Global Justice…rich nations to poor nations…but where will the financing come from?

    From the producers and consumers of carbon which is currently dumped into the atmosphere for free. But there is a price to be paid, one way or another, is the obvious answer.

  54. #54 Betula
    January 5, 2014

    As a side note to #16, I noticed Turney stated…”We worked on our research programme with the Australian Antarctic Division”. Here’s his link…
    http://www.antarctica.gov.au/

    I checked out the AAD and found it interesting that it’s “Senior Principal Research Scientist and Leader of the Ice, Ocean, Atmosphere and Climate Program” is this man:
    http://www.acecrc.sipex.aq/access/page/?page=94

    I also noticed he was the “co-Chair of the ICSU/WMO Joint Committee for the International Polar Year 2007-2008″

    Would this be the same WMO that helped establish the IPCC and is striving to meet the Millennium Development Goals?:
    http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/weather/developmentgoals.html

    And is this the same ICSU that is working with the U.N to meet the Millennium Development goals?:
    http://www.icsu.org/publications/icsu-position-statements/sci-tech-un-mdg/

    These, along with other U.N. institutions that are working “Towards Security, Development and Human Rights for All, which presents a strategy for strengthening the United Nations in its attempts to help build worldwide scientific and technological capacities for achieving the Millennium Development Goals”

    But where can they find the financing needed to achieve these goals? Obviously they will need to redistribute wealth from rich nations to poor nations through climate policy as stated by this IPCC working group co chair:

    http://www.thegwpf.org/energy-and-poverty-what-is-really-at-stake-in-cancun/

    But by what mechanism ? And where can they find an authoritative consensus to validate this mechanism?

    Though it is really difficult to imagine answers to such difficult questions, it appears the head of the IPCC may be onto something…

    http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-chair-pachauri-advocates-carbon-tax-renewables-climate-battle/

  55. #55 chek
    January 5, 2014

    Based on what you believe is the future and whether or not you believe they agree with your vision of the future

    Bettyfuckedinthehead, all planning for the future is based on what someone or group believe. Basing those decisions on the best available evidence is the most prudent course of action in any situation.

    Because you deniers have no good evidence, all you can do is whinge about uncertainties which pertain to any plans for the future and your cretinous ‘beliefs’ which mean nothing.

  56. #56 Lionel A
    January 5, 2014

    Lionel, I stand corrected…apologies to chek. Same ideologies…different names.

    That took you a while with something oh so simple. Little wonder your grasp of the big issues is so faulty.

    Now remind me who picked up the tab for all those greedy, lying bastards who ran one banking scam after another. Yes the tax payer. Meanwhile Fred Goodwin, for one, got away with his loot and he wasn’t the only one who managed to ring fence his ill-gotten gains. Then there was Bob Diamond – he left a bank with big holes such that they are now shedding thousands of jobs in the UK.

    It is always the little people who get caught in the meat grinder, third world comes to the first world. Noticed how many need to use food banks to survive and now we will have the fall out from all this extreme weather and still you don’t grasp why this is happening and pick cherries as if they mean something they do not.

    You are ineducable. After awhile chewing birch bark becomes not worth the effort.

  57. #57 BBD
    January 5, 2014

    You are ineducable.

    His denial is so powerful that it is causing him to deny matters of fact. This is actually insanity, so yes, I would agree.

  58. #58 chek
    January 5, 2014

    I thought the science was settled? I thought the future was settled?

    Thinking is a bit too advanced an activity for a moron like you. You only end up with erroneous conclusions.

    The reports I saw…

    You mean of course the trash denier sites you follow.

  59. #59 BBD
    January 5, 2014

    I see Betty is linking to the catallaxyfiles now. Bit of a tell, that, Betty. Your ideology is showing.

  60. #60 chek
    January 5, 2014

    It’s no surprise that trashy, tenth-rate mytherings from cranks and fruitcakes are what passes for information in Betty’s fucked head.

  61. #61 Lionel A
    January 5, 2014

    I see Betty is linking to the catallaxyfiles now.

    Well that is His sink level, to mention another moron.

  62. #62 Lionel A
    January 5, 2014

    BBD:

    I see Betty is linking to the catallaxyfiles now…

    Well that is His sink level, to mention another moron.

    Connectivity issues here, maybe behind BBC News site issues. I’ll change the target in my ping/traceroute logger.

  63. #63 Stu
    January 5, 2014

    Betty. Seriously. One more pathetic McCarthyite allusion to “global justice” and you’ve conceded you have nothing other than sophomoric red-baiting left. I mean, really? This is it?

    WE ALL KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN, CLOWN. WE ALL KNOW THIS DOGWHISTLE. YOU ARE NOT FOOLING ANYONE.

  64. #64 Jeff Harvey
    January 5, 2014

    BBD, what Betty is saying is that he cannot answer your question. That’s because it proves that the long term climatic data sets prove without a shadow of a doubt that it is indeed, warming. And long-term biotic proxies prove this as well.

    The scientific community moved on years ago. But since common sense is dwarfed by the power and intransigence of corporate-owned governments (what Sheldon Wolin refers to as ‘Inverted totalitarianism’ in the US), then very little or noting has been, or will be done until its too late.

    Im currently reading economic hit man author John Perkins second book entitled ‘The Secret History of the American Empire’. Pretty appalling reading, really, but says it all. He refers to the US as a ‘corporatocracy’. Read alongside Michael Parenti’s equally excellent ‘Imperialism’ and it becomes clear why mitigating climate change is never going to be a priority of western government and corporate planners.

    The other day Betula, overwhelmed by a little basic ecology I wrote in here, concluded that ecological systems are too complex to make any decisions about the consequences of warming. Of course that is bullshit, but it is expected from someone with a less than sophomoric understanding of the field. As the paper by Papas-Moller in PNAS showed, long distance migratory birds that are unable to keep up with warming in their breeding ranges due to shifts in the phenology of their main insect prey are declining.

    This is empirical proof if ever there was that climate change is shifting the seasonal life cycles of species in food web, unraveling them in many cases and driving species declines. The empirical literature is full of examples. But Betty doesn’t read the primary literature. All I can say tho those who have some faith in scientists is that the opinions of people like Betula aren’t even considered in scientific conferences. Its accepted the AGW is stressing ecosystems and driving the decline of species and populations. Case closed. What scientists aren’t able to do, however, is to shift a political system hell-bent on taking us down the drain in the hunger for short term profit. Nobody can say that the warnings have not been raised. But as long as we remain prisoners of a political and economic ideology that is based on greed and profit, then the future in my opinion is dire.

  65. #65 Stu 2
    January 5, 2014

    BBD @ # 35 & 36 & 44 & 46 & 51 & 56 !!!!!!
    Somewhere in there you answered it yourself to your own personal satisfaction.
    Just as well others don’t carry on and on chucking tantrums when they don’t have their rather obvious, deliberately framed questions answered (although perhaps the owner of this blog would like that, as it definitely increases traffic).
    BTW, it is a bit of a silly question as questions involving climate or weather should not be reduced to a simplistic a) or b)
    However,
    Jeff Harvey has had a go above @# 63, replete with an ideology that is just as noticeable as the one you complain about @ # 58. (and a little bit of that ‘conspiracy’ type stuff as well)
    It appears that the real point of contention here is therefore the ideology?

  66. #66 BBD
    January 5, 2014

    Jeff

    I’m very pleased to see you back. I now challenge Betty’s ‘deputy hypothesis’ by expressing pleasure at an event outside my control. Unless, that is, you are being controlled by me, which you can confirm or deny ;-)

    * * *

    What scientists aren’t able to do, however, is to shift a political system hell-bent on taking us down the drain in the hunger for short term profit.

    Poor scientists. They do all the work and get all the blame. Stuck in the ice? Bad scientists on a jolly (don’t trust those climate scientists). Ecological scientists with hair on fire? Commies. Don’t trust them. Paleoclimatologists? Making stuff up. Don’t even bother. Atmospheric physicists? Got it all wrong mate. No idea.

    Yet all they were missing was an armchair and an ideology.

  67. #67 BBD
    January 6, 2014

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    No end to Stu 2’s astonishing intellectual dishonesty in sight, so let’s press on with a slightly different approach:

    November-only global monthly average temperature 1880 – 2013

    This November was the 345th consecutive month when global average temperature exceeded the C20th average.

    These are matters of fact. This is not weather it is climate change with both annual and seasonal expressions.

    Do you accept this as a matter of fact? Yes or no.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  68. #68 Stu 2
    January 6, 2014

    That’s a better question BBD although you just can’t seem to avoid the a) or b) or, yes or no or, either/or approach.
    I am not disputing the actual statistic itself at all BBD, nor am I arguing that the climate is in a statistical stasis or, if you like, not changing.
    Would you now consider answering the questions asked of you @#17?
    I also wouldn’t mind if you answered the one asked @#64.

  69. #69 BBD
    January 6, 2014

    I am not disputing the actual statistic itself at all BBD, nor am I arguing that the climate is in a statistical stasis or, if you like, not changing.

    I’m going to take that as a “yes” to the question:

    This is not weather it is climate change with both annual and seasonal expressions.

    What known change in forcings has occurred sufficient to explain the increase in OHC and GAT?

  70. #70 BBD
    January 6, 2014
  71. #71 BBD
    January 6, 2014

    Now, you have two problems. First, you have to explain why the GHG forcing is inefficacious, which is going to give you headaches when you look at Cenozoic hyperthermals and Quaternary glacial cycles and orbital forcing.

    Second, you have to provide an *alternative* physical mechanism explaining the increase in OHC and GAT and – here’e the fun part – reconcile it with a climate system apparently unaffected by increased RF from GHGs.

    This I have to see.

  72. #72 Stu 2
    January 6, 2014

    BBD @# 70
    No answers to my questions?
    However in answer to you:
    I have no headaches or problems and because I am not disputing there is such a thing as GHGs I fail to understand why you would summarily demand I have to explain why it is *inefficacious* (because I don’t believe it is) or provide an *alternative* or even *reconcile it* it with anything.
    But to simplify it for you.
    I have not disputed your statistical figure and I have not disputed that GHGs can impact climate or weather.
    You might consider explaining however why you:
    a) habitually exaggerate the associated research and draw conclusions that are not in the associated research
    b) assume every question has either a BBD predetermined answer or a BBD predetermined choice of answer.
    c) Only answer questions that you asked yourself or questions that you weren’t asked.

  73. #73 BBD
    January 6, 2014

    This is not an answer to the questions.

    * * *

    a) habitually exaggerate the associated research and draw conclusions that are not in the associated research

    I dispute this. Examples, please.

  74. #74 BBD
    January 6, 2014

    A spot more mood music for everyone to enjoy!

  75. #75 Stu 2
    January 6, 2014

    Here’s a little hint for you BBD.
    There is a big, huge difference between ‘highly efficacious’ and ‘inefficacious’. The bulk of the scientific research concludes neither inefficacious or highly efficacious WRT Anthropogenic CO2 or other human GHG emissions.
    But anyway, I’m still patiently waiting for you to answer questions that you have been directly asked rather than
    b) & c) @ # 71 that you apparently don’t dispute?

  76. #76 Jeff Harvey
    January 6, 2014

    Stu2, There’s nothing idealogical in detailing the underlying political and economic forces that are driving the destruction of the biosphere and social injustice. Not is there anything conspiratorial about it. You also make my comments seem as if they are ‘controversial’ because they fall outside of the general discourse in which our nations are described in the media as generally supporting peace, freedom, human rights and democracy. As a few journalists like Glen Greenwald, Chris Hedges, John Pilger and others have shown, when one scratches just barely below the surface the real truth emerges and it is a far cry from the we are bombarded with every day in the corporate media.

    If you are unaware of this, then its a waste of time going any further. Like Olaus and Betty, you prefer to accept the prevailing myths that would make Edward Bernays and Walter Lippmann proud. Its amazing to me that anyone who challenges the accepted wisdom is seen as a ‘radical’ whose views are crazy or dangerous. The term ‘manufacturing consent’ well applies to so many out there who wish to accept the myths of the ‘goodness’ and ‘decency’ of our political system, when as I said a small look deeper shows that it is rotten to the core.

  77. #77 Jeff Harvey
    January 6, 2014

    Listen to Chris Hedges and please tell me where is is ‘so radical’ and ‘far out’. IMHO his points here hit the proverbial nail on the head.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10456

  78. #78 BBD
    January 6, 2014

    Here’s a little hint for you, Stu 2: you are in no position to talk down to me. Your absolute cluelessness about everything is the defining characteristic of your commentary – apart that is from its utter intellectual dishonesty.

    Now stop your evasive wriggling and get your head applied to the questions.

    * * *

    Second, you made a dishonest claim about me:

    a) habitually exaggerate the associated research and draw conclusions that are not in the associated research

    I objected and asked you to substantiate it and you have not done so. Do you therefore retract your dishonest claim?

  79. #79 BBD
    January 6, 2014

    @ 2Stupid

    Let’s recap.

    I am not disputing the actual statistic itself at all BBD, nor am I arguing that the climate is in a statistical stasis or, if you like, not changing.

    I’m going to take that as a “yes” to the question:

    This is not weather it is climate change with both annual and seasonal expressions. Do you accept this as a matter of fact? Yes or no.

    So, what known change in forcings has occurred that is sufficient to explain the measured increase in OHC and GAT?

    Here’s a clue. Please note that the vertical axis indicates the radiative forcing change associated with the change in the atmospheric fraction of each gas. You were quibbling stupidly and evasively about efficacy of forcing, so you have either not looked at these graphs or did not understand them, or you are being stupid and blatantly evasive.

    Now, you have two problems. First, you have to explain why the GHG forcing is inefficacious, which is going to give you headaches when you look at Cenozoic hyperthermals and Quaternary glacial cycles under orbital forcing.

    Second, you have to provide an *alternative* physical mechanism explaining the increase in OHC and GAT and – here’e the fun part – reconcile it with a climate system apparently unaffected by increased RF from GHGs.

    I don’t think you’ve understood the last bit, so perhaps you should just read it again until understanding blossoms, if it ever does.

  80. #80 BBD
    January 6, 2014

    b) & c) @ # 71 that you apparently don’t dispute?

    Bollocks that didn’t merit a response.

  81. #81 Wow
    January 6, 2014

    “But how do they pay Chek. A tax? A tax on what? ”

    YOU are the one suggesting a tax, betty.

    If you don’t know what to tax, why did you bring it up?

  82. #82 Wow
    January 6, 2014

    Chek….”The answer as always is the tax payer”

    Lionel…..”Where did chek say anything about taxes”

    Yup, talking about taxpayers, not taxing.

    Silly girl.

  83. #83 Wow
    January 6, 2014

    “Aren’t the tax payers the ones using the resources gained from fracking?”

    No.

  84. #84 Olaus Petri
    January 6, 2014

    W. Connoley throws Turney under the bus. How dare he!

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/01/05/the-spirit-of-mawson/

  85. #85 chek
    January 6, 2014

    No he doesn’t, your reading skills are just shit Olap, and worryingly dependent on your wish fulfilment fantasies.

    Oh, and when a denier organises a scientific expedition – or even a piss-up in a brewery – you and your idiotically crowing cronies be sure to let us know now y’hear, y’all.

  86. #86 Wow
    January 6, 2014

    Woof Bark Woof!

  87. #87 Wow
    January 6, 2014

    Heh, “throwing under a bus” is rather trite coming from denier trolls that have thrown Lord Monckfish under the bus every time the moron has done something so mindbendingly stupid that they prefer to pretend he’s a nonentity (for the moment, they’ll parrot his statements when this furore dies down, don’t you worry) rather than fail at justifying the stupid.

  88. #88 Betula
    January 6, 2014

    Wow….”YOU are the one suggesting a tax, betty.”

    Um, not really. We are talking about developed nations paying for the development of undeveloped nations. We are talking about obligations. We are talking about morals. We are talking about how the developed nations became that way by plundered the resources of underdeveloped nations. We are talking about the consumers in the rich nations being selfish and greedy. We are talking about the damage their actions are going to do to the future global environment. We are talking about how the poor nations will be more greatly affected by climate change than rich nations. We are talking about climate justice and global justice. We are talking about the U.N. and it’s ability to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. We are talking about developed nations forgetting about self interests and thinking globally. We are talking about the integration of climate policy, development and sustainability. We are talking about the joint effort of many U.N organizations in helping to achieve the MDG”S and global equality.

    We’re talking about the WMO and the MDG”S:
    http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/weather/developmentgoals.html

    We’re talking about the WHO and MDG”S:
    http://www.who.int/topics/millennium_development_goals/en/

    We”re talking about UNEP and the MDG’S:
    http://www.unep-wcmc.org/biodiversity-conservation-and-the-millennium-development-goals_258.html,

    We”re talking about UNDP and the MDG’S:
    http://www.undp.org/content/ghana/en/home/mdgoverview.html

    We”re talking about UNFCCC and the MDG’S:
    http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/environmentandenergy/strategic_themes/climate_change/focus_areas/capacity_developmentandtheunfcccprocess/

    We”re talking about the IPCC and the MDG’s:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch20s20-7-1.html

    We”re talking about the Chairman of the IPCC and the MDG”S:
    http://www.kautilyasociety.com/tvph/pandits/r_k_pachauri.htm

    We’re talking about many other U.N.organizations and the MDG’s:
    UN/DESA, UN/DPI, ESCA, IMF, ITC, ITU, OECD, UNCTA, UNESCO, UNFIP, UNIDO, UNITAR, UNISDR, UNOPS, UNFPA, UNRISD, World Bank, WFP, WTO
    UNWTO and more….

    Do you disagree with any this Wow?

    The question now becomes one of how do we finance the MDG’S in order to create equality?. How do we redistribute wealth from rich nations to poor nations to correct the long term climate and global injustices that have been done?

    When this question was asked of Barney, his response (Dec. #53, pg 4) was:

    “By tax, obviously. You appear to object to tax and I do not”

    In other words…Bow Wow, Bow Wow!, which roughly translated means I was not the “one suggesting a tax”

    But since a tax was suggested by Barney, the question now becomes…what mechanism do we tax, and what authoritative body that speaks as a consensus can we point to in order to justify taxing that mechanism?

    These are tough questions to answer, so take your time, we don’t need anybody having another hyperthermalism.

  89. #89 Stu 2
    January 6, 2014

    BBD @ #77-79
    These were the answers to your questions:
    “When discussing climate and weather, despite your framing, there is no a or b single right answer”
    &
    ” questions involving climate or weather should not be reduced to a simplistic a) or b)”
    & later:
    ” I have not disputed your statistical figure and I have not disputed that GHGs can impact climate or weather.”

    Perhaps I also should have explained that there isn’t a simple yes or no answer to your questions?
    I assumed that people here understood that the climate and the weather are variable and complicated entities that can’t be explained by reducing them to simple social equations.
    That is apparently not the case as you have taken it as a ‘yes’.

    Jeff Harvey @ # 79
    Do you perhaps see the irony in this comment re ‘the politics’ and ‘consensus'; especially here at Deltoid?

    ” Its amazing to me that anyone who challenges the accepted wisdom is seen as a ‘radical’ whose views are crazy or dangerous. The term ‘manufacturing consent’ well applies to so many out there who wish to accept the myths of the ‘goodness’ and ‘decency’ of our political system, when as I said a small look deeper shows that it is rotten to the core.”

  90. #90 Lionel A
    January 6, 2014

    2Stuid to blockquote please learn to do so your quote salad is not easy to follow and furthermore is not worth the effort when done.

  91. #91 BBD
    January 6, 2014

    “When discussing climate and weather, despite your framing, there is no a or b single right answer”

    Rubbish and lies. The answer is climate change with annual and seasonal expression. I even gave it to you and still you spout your denialist bollocks.

    Shut off the evasions and lies and deal with this.

    Demonstrate some shred of intellectual honesty instead of lying to me and to yourself. It’s disgusting to behold.

  92. #92 Stu 2
    January 6, 2014

    Well yes BBD.
    ” The answer is climate change with annual and seasonal expression”
    Well done!
    Of course it isn’t either/or. Or a simple yes or no. Or simply just climate or weather.

  93. #93 Stu
    January 7, 2014

    Wait, have we established Stu2’s level of denial yet?

    Stu2, please pick where you stop following along:

    1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
    2) CO2 is a major factor in global climate change.
    3) Since the Industrial Revolution, humans have started to produce CO2 in levels sufficient to affect climate.
    4) This effect is accelerating.
    5) This effect could be minimized by minimizing global emissions.

    Let’s start with that.

  94. #94 Bernard J.
    January 7, 2014

    Stu, I remember we tried that with Betula and co a few months ago.

    They struggled with coherent responses then, and I doubt that Stu 2 will be any better able to respond now.

    It will be interesting to see, though…

  95. #95 Stu 2
    January 7, 2014

    Established a level of denial?
    That’s an interesting concept Lionel A.
    What does that mean exactly?
    It sounds like you and Bernard J think it’s some type of computer game that you have specifically designed for people like Betula and co to judge their ‘coherence’ abilities according to an unclear set of rules (that you must have figured out by now)
    If one stops following at perhaps, number 2, does that mean they reached level 2 in this game?
    Or maybe if one follows perhaps, number 5, but not any of the others, does that mean they made it to level 5 and hence won the game ?

  96. #96 Stu 2
    January 7, 2014

    Apologies Lionel A. It’s Stu’s game of levels, not yours.
    You were actually the one complaining that my comments are hard to follow.
    Since when was it unacceptable practice to separate quotes and put them inside quotation marks like this:

    ” 2Stuid to blockquote please learn to do so your quote salad is not easy to follow and furthermore is not worth the effort when done.”
    ??

    Actually Lionel A , that whole sentence of yours is rather hard to follow, but not because you did or didn’t use blockquote.

  97. #97 bill
    January 7, 2014

    <blockquote>I estimate that more than 70% of deniers cannot do this</blockquote>

    I estimate that more than 70% of deniers simply cannot do this

    Of those incapables, 90% will refuse to learn the code, even when shown the HTML. As above. I’ve done this several times here at Deltoid – not more than one of you has bothered to learn it.

    Reactionaries incapable of admitting error or deficiency, much?

  98. #98 Wow
    January 7, 2014

    “Established a level of denial?
    That’s an interesting concept Lionel A.”

    You misspelt “accurate”, stu-pid.

    “What does that mean exactly?”

    It means that your established M.O. here on deltoid is to deny any fact and make up any statement to deny the climate science that gives you an answer that sits badly with your ideology, dumbass.

  99. #99 Wow
    January 7, 2014

    “You were actually the one complaining that my comments are hard to follow.”

    And this is saying what? This is not clarifying your comments, nor is it displaying any explanation of why you think that attribution is incorrect.

    It is a statement of zero content and value. So why did you make it?

    “Since when was it unacceptable practice to separate quotes and put them inside quotation marks like this…”

    If you push a lot of quotes then it becomes hard to follow what’s going on, especially if a lot of “scare quotes”, “definitional statements” and “paraphrasing” is going on, which ALSO require “quote marks” around them, therefore making it hard to determine when someone such as yourself is flailing badly and making little sense (because you are not here to make sense, only noise) is quoting someone, who it is from and where you’re NOT quoting someone.

    For an arselick who likes to “dodge” questions and accusations with “Where did I say EXACTLY THOSE WORDS?”, you really don’t care to either denote which are literal quotes (therefore immune to the “exactly those words” dodge) nor avoid re-phrasing (therefore deliberately opening the “exactly those words” dodge, which you invariably avoid answering, preferring to leave the accusation of a statement never said to backing up the location of that statement).

    If this is just too difficult to follow, I suggest going some place where the level of education is lower.

  100. #100 Wow
    January 7, 2014

    “Actually Lionel A , that whole sentence of yours is rather hard to follow, but not because you did or didn’t use blockquote.”

    So you are agreeing that not using blockquotes makes following a conversation difficult, despite saying in the same comment: “Since when was it unacceptable practice to separate quotes and put them inside quotation marks like this…”

    THIS is your denier M.O. right here: you do not care what you say or do, all you need to do is piss in the pool you’re standing in.