February 2014 Open thread

More thread

More like this

Dang, beaten by Stu - but not on the old thread!

;-)

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Feb 2014 #permalink

Bernard says this :
"As I’ve noted on several other sites, there is no hiatus, no pause in global warming"

And links this:
"the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001"

" which can account for much of the hiatus in surface warming observed since 2001."

Silly scientists.

#4, silly how you mix up 'global' with less than 3% of the climate system. Silly Bets.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 10 Feb 2014 #permalink

Silly, Betty, where have you said the scientists have it wrong and proved it?

Go on, prove there's a haitus!

"Go on, prove there’s a haitus!"

I'm not the one who said it, the scientists are. See Bernards link at #2...

You're welcome.

Betula and other denier/downplayer memes;

"Say anything so we don't do anything". In other words, clutch at every straw, no matter how flimsy, just to ensure that the main policy remains business-as-usual....

The hiatus is the latest straw. Before that it was the sun, before that there was no warming, etc. How long these people will distort and deceive to ensure that we continue spiraling towards hell in a hand basket is anyone's guess.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Feb 2014 #permalink

What Betty's given quote says: "hiatus in surface warming "

What Betty sees: "hiatus in all warming"

And that's Bettytoofuckedinthehead's comprehension of plain, simple English, never mind more difficult concepts.

"How long these people will distort and deceive to ensure that we continue spiraling towards hell in a hand basket is anyone’s guess"

Are you referring to the scientists?

Technically correct terminology for the confused (eg Betty; 2Stupid):

There has been a reduction in the rate of surface warming. Most precise definitions of "hiatus" and "pause" can be expressed as "temporary halt" which is not correct when applied to surface warming.

Arguing over definitional nitpicks is a deniers' favourite time-wasting tactic, so let's not bother.

The important things to remember are that the reduction in the rate of surface warming will be transient as the climate system remains in radiative imbalance and that imbalance is increasing over time. Energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as a whole, which is mostly ocean. OHC increased sharply in the 0 - 2000m layer during 2013, demonstrating unequivocally that energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as a whole. That is called "global warming".

Betty

What do you think is the cause of the increased rate [of sea level rise in recent decades relative to late Holocene average], Betula?

Let’s remember that water expands when it warms up and ice melts when it warms up, both of which cause mean sea level to rise.

Let’s factor in that pesky long term GAT graph that you won’t talk about, plus any OHC reconstruction you like for the last few decades, and those world glacier mass balance graphs you don’t want to discuss and…

What is it that you are denying Betty? Radiative physics or the efficacy of CO2 as a climate forcing?

You *still* have not told us. Please answer those questions before we continue further.

Oimjakon, Russia today -12.5° C. Busted the 'old' Feb record by almost 3° C ('old' is 2010 in this case).
Yesterday date record at -22.2° C.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 10 Feb 2014 #permalink

"What Betty’s given quote says: “hiatus in surface warming ”

Quote:
"the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001″

I must have mistaken "global average surface air temperatures" for the surface of the globe average air temperatures..

“Go on, prove there’s a haitus!”

I’m not the one who said it

No, you did say it.

You claim there's a haitus every single hour of the day for the last three weeks.

SO, Betty, I take it that you disagree that there's been any haitus.

Looks like Betty thinks there's been more warming than before!

SUDDENLY, WE HAVE A DENIER CHANGE THEIR MIND!

Well done, dear!

the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001

Actually it has trended up at 0.05 - 0.1C/decade with the higher figure more likely to be accurate (see Cowtan & Way 2013; in press).

Ahem.

Arguing over definitional nitpicks is a deniers’ favourite time-wasting tactic, so let’s not bother.

Betty - please answer the questions at #12 instead of playing denialist distraction games.

"What is it that you are denying Betty? Radiative physics or the efficacy of CO2 as a climate forcing?"

I don't recall denying any of that. Though it's not as cut and dry as you would lead to believe...
Don't you find it interesting that the report Bernard linked to just came out? This is new information and a new idea about what the scientist are calling a "hiatus". How can this be? I thought we knew everything?

Convection, conduction, cloud cover, ocean currents etc...all still misunderstood apparently. Yet we manage to punch all the uncertainties into GCM'S to come up with accurate predictions of future hypothetical worst case scenarios...interesting.

Also interesting, is that the article quotes Steve Rintoul who, it just so happens, I went to High School with. Steve studies ocean currents in Antarctica and works for CSIRO...

I was talking to him last summer at our 35th high school reunion....he told me that the they need more data in his field of research to make any conclusions about anything...the science of studying ocean currents in this area is way to young and more information is needed...

"You claim there’s a haitus every single hour of the day for the last three weeks"

I just link to what the scientists say. You read the links and claim they didn't say it.

Jeepers, Tamino's caught a live one. Got a clowntroll who thinks that using all the available data is a cherry pick, put selecting two points from a dataset with 12500 data points in it is sensible. Best unintentional comedy I've seen for a while.

I must say, the quality of denial (just either by misdirected intellect or sheer unintentional entertainment) has really gone down over the last few years, on all the blogs I read and the smaller group I post at as well. WUWT collapsing into infighting, the almost-sensible-but-misguided having to make common cause with tinfoil hatters, not even imitation serious science to put on the table - its like they're not even trying anymore.

Now, I realise Duffer's probably too busy bailing out his house and Mikey needs a new keyboard beause his hyphen key jammed, so neither of them can post here, but who does that leave? Olaus, who makes clowntrolls past look like Nobel Laureates; GSW, who still hasn't seen the "kick me" sign stuck on his back for going on four years and Betula, who tries so hard to be Brangelina but only manages to be Kimye. Kind of like kidding yourself you're serving civet coffee when its really just Getreidekaffee...

Nil desperandum guys, no doubt you're regretting nailing your colours to the "no global warming since YYYY" mast, but I'm sure someone will toss you another talking point soon...

"Are you referring to the scientists?"

Scientists aren't the ones clutching at every straw to deny, deny and deny Batty. The goalpost shifters are the deniers. The latest mantra is the alleged 'hiatus'. But that pre-supposes that there was warming until recently. But wait - until recently according to your lot it wasn't warming! What gives? There can't be a hiatus if it didn't warm to begin with. Oh yes, I forgot: those convenient 'natural cycles' and/or 'its the sun'. Its a doomsday myth, its the sun, it is warming, it isn't, and if it is its not due to us.... the list of lies and distortions is endless.

Anything, so long as humans are not culpable.

The debate was actually 'over' more than a decade ago, but given the influence of those with power and privilege on policy, its a small wonder that humanity is intent on going over the precipice. And they can thank the army of idiots helping them along. Just look at the intellectual 'quality' of most of the comments to the Independent article Bernard linked. Bottom-feeders. But they all think they know what they are talking about. Sad.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Feb 2014 #permalink

I don’t recall denying any of that. Though it’s not as cut and dry as you would lead to believe…

You are wriggling again.

Let me make it simpler:

Do you deny that -

There is a greenhouse effect (Y/N)?

CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing (Y/N)?

How can this be? I thought we knew everything?

A really stupid strawman. Stop it Betty.

Convection, conduction, cloud cover, ocean currents etc…all still misunderstood apparently.

This is just a stupid lie, Betty. Stop it.

“What is it that you are denying Betty? Radiative physics or the efficacy of CO2 as a climate forcing?”

I don’t recall denying any of that

Well, yet more expected "I'm not saying nuthin'" from Betty, but HILARIOUSLY then goes immediately to go on with:

Though it’s not as cut and dry as you would lead to believe…

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Convection, conduction, cloud cover, ocean currents etc…all still misunderstood apparently.

Ah, since the only one who thinks it doesn't exist is you, Betty, that would be YOU misunderstanding them, dearie!

“You claim there’s a haitus every single hour of the day for the last three weeks”

I just link to what the scientists say.

Ah, a reality denier too!

But do you agree that you DO NOT think that there has been any temperature haitus, dearie?

"But do you agree that you DO NOT think that there has been any temperature haitus, dearie?"

In terms of "hiatus" I agree with the scientists in Bernard's link.

Thanks Bernard, for backing me on this.

In terms of “hiatus” I agree with the scientists in Bernard’s link.

So you agree that there has been no haitus in temperatures, Betty.

Like I said, eventually a denier changes their mind and agrees that there is genuinely global warming going on!

In terms of “hiatus” I agree with the scientists in Bernard’s link.

So you agree that there has been no haitus in temperatures, Betty.

Like I said, eventually a denier changes their mind and agrees that there is genuinely global warming going on!

I wish you would actually read the links people provide. From Bernard J's link at #2:

"The winds lead to extra ocean heat uptake, which stalled warming of the atmosphere. Accounting for this wind intensification in model projections produces a hiatus in global warming that is in striking agreement with observations," Prof England said.

"Unfortunately, however, when the hiatus ends, global warming looks set to be rapid."

The impact of the trade winds on global average temperatures is caused by the winds forcing heat to accumulate below surface of the Western Pacific Ocean.

"This pumping of heat into the ocean is not very deep, however, and once the winds abate, heat is returned rapidly to the atmosphere" England explains.

"Climate scientists have long understood that global average temperatures don't rise in a continual upward trajectory, instead warming in a series of abrupt steps in between periods with more-or-less steady temperatures. Our work helps explain how this occurs," said Prof England.

"We should be very clear: the current hiatus offers no comfort - we are just seeing another pause in warming before the next inevitable rise in global temperatures."

England is talking about ENSO, or more precisely, the La Nina phase of ENSO. You should know that LN has been predominant over the last decade and this explains much of the recent slowdown in the rate of surface warming which is commonly but erroneously characterised by scientists as a "pause" or "hiatus" - terms apparently picked up from the MSM which has been targeted relentlessly by misinformers and deniers misleadingly over-emphasising the importance of this transient phenomenon.

* * *

Just look at you though, Betty. You cannot leave this alone. You are trolling with it for all you are worth but at the same time avoiding facing up to the core issues:

- CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing

- OHC is increasing rapidly (QED)

- The slowdown in surface warming is a transient phenomenon

- Decadal variability is an irrelevance on multi-decadal scales

- The long-term trend is our real concern

Let's remind ourselves that the climate system is mostly ocean. Let's have another look at OHC 0 - 2000m.

That is global warming in correct usage.

BBD, the long post there is hiding the salient fact:

Betty thinks that there has been no haitus and that Global Warming is still underway.

They just can't bring themselves to say it.

Probably afraid they'll be crucified for apostasy!

"So you agree that there has been no haitus in temperatures, Betty"

I agree with the scientists that claim..."the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001"

English is obviously not your strong suit.

“So you agree that there has been no haitus in temperatures, Betty”

I agree with the scientists that claim

So you agree that there has been no haitus in temperatures, then, Betty?

Is it REALLY so difficult to say what you think? You've prattled what you think plenty of times without equivocation before, when it led to "There is no problem to deal with", what's the problem now?

Why are you unable to actually say that what you think? Because it's that there is continuing global warming?

Or do you claim that there has been a haitus, which really does rather indicate that you have been whining in, for example, post #7, where you claim to not believe there's been a haitus!

Sure Wow. Either we decide that the OHC data are faked by a cabal of climate scientists hell-bent on ushering in world socialism or we accept what they say: global warming in its correct usage hasn't stopped or even slowed down. Decadal variability in the rate of surface temperature warming is a normal part of natural variability. It's only desperate deniers who try to make a big deal out of this by claiming - incorrectly - that "global warming has stopped". I do wish actual scientists would be more careful with the fucking terminology though - it encourages the denial monkeys.

"Climate scientists have long understood that global average temperatures don't rise in a continual upward trajectory, instead warming in a series of abrupt steps in between periods with more-or-less steady temperatures. Our work helps explain how this occurs," said Prof England.

"We should be very clear: the current hiatus offers no comfort - we are just seeing another pause in warming before the next inevitable rise in global temperatures."

I do wish actual scientists would be more careful with the fucking terminology though – it encourages the denial monkeys.

I suspect politicians. They will insist that any official word contain nothing that would "alarm" "important people" or cause some connected lobby group to create problems for an MP. Therefore they will want to vet every word and insert as much scope for plausible deniability of what's said (see Betty for the classic example of "say nothing in every word").

When media barons keep talking about "What about this haitus", then the IPCC reports are going to be asked to put something about "this haitus" into it.

As I said, anything to deny, deny, deny. The alleged hiatus is the latest thread of comfort for this bunch of deceivers. Note the important point the Birchy leaves out"that the heat has been taken up by the oceans. Once some threshold is reached, probably around 2020, the warming starts again. They explained it.

All Batty can do is to say there is a hiatus - and leave it at that. No depth. Ne analytical thinking. Just, 'there's a hiatus'. The tow warmest years on record were 2010 and 2005 respectively. All of the warmest 10 years have occurred since 1998. But none of this matters to the deniers.

Is it really worth debating them then? They cannot debate science because science is not their strong suit to begin with, and second, they only (ab)use science to bolster a very different agenda.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Feb 2014 #permalink

"As I said, anything to deny, deny, deny."

Heck, Betty is reduced to denying anything they've said means anything or indicates anything it believes or accepts.

Remember: Betty claims never to have said there is a haitus (see post #7, but it's in other posts too) and accepts the scientists who say that there is no haitus, but the only quote of the scientists it'll give (but, remember, NOT say they agree with) is on about a haitus existing.

Every word has meaning until they're asked to support the claims. Then there was no claim whatsoever...

Come on Betty.

Do you deny that:

- There is a greenhouse effect (Y/N)?

- CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing (Y/N)?

"for example, post #7, where you claim to not believe there’s been a haitus"

Never happened. Your interpretation. I was correcting you, because you were taking the words of scientists as my own. But thanks for treating me like a scientist, it's the thought that counts...

Now, you may be addressing OHC, but you are ignoring the article that Bernard linked, including words in the title of the article itself, "the ongoing warming hiatus", along with "it is unclear how the ocean has remained relatively cool there in spite of ongoing increases in radiative forcing" and "This hiatus could persist for much of the present decade if the trade wind trends continue, however rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous wind trends abate."

Note the words "unclear", implying there is something we don't know, and the word "expected", which implies it may not.....perhaps because some things are "unclear".

“for example, post #7, where you claim to not believe there’s been a haitus”

Never happened.

Reality denial: post #7 exists. If it didn't, there'd be a gap between #6 and #8.

"Your interpretation. I was correcting you, because you were taking the words of scientists as my own"

So you don't believe the scientists who claim that there's been a haitus.

Betty

The slowdown in the rate of surface warming cannot go on for very long because the radiative imbalance within the climate system is increasing. At best you might get a few more years, then very rapid warming will resume. You don't understand physical climatology. Listen to the experts:

"Unfortunately, however, when the hiatus ends, global warming looks set to be rapid."

The impact of the trade winds on global average temperatures is caused by the winds forcing heat to accumulate below surface of the Western Pacific Ocean.

"This pumping of heat into the ocean is not very deep, however, and once the winds abate, heat is returned rapidly to the atmosphere" England explains.

"Climate scientists have long understood that global average temperatures don't rise in a continual upward trajectory, instead warming in a series of abrupt steps in between periods with more-or-less steady temperatures. Our work helps explain how this occurs," said Prof England.

"We should be very clear: the current hiatus offers no comfort - we are just seeing another pause in warming before the next inevitable rise in global temperatures."

Now come on Betty.

Do you deny that:

- There is a greenhouse effect (Y/N)?

- CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing (Y/N)?

"The slowdown in the rate of surface warming cannot go on for very long"

Remember, BBD, Betty here is insisting that any words about haitus are about what OTHER people are saying.

Therefore addressing any points made by any words on haitus, not being believed by betty, are addressed to a different person.

Maybe it would be best to see what BETTY thinks, rather than what it thinks other people say.

After all, if other people have already said it, there's no point to betty saying they said it.

So, give a point to your lack of posting, betty, there's a dear.

Dishonest denialist tripe from Betty:

Note the words “unclear”, implying there is something we don’t know, and the word “expected”, which implies it may not…..perhaps because some things are “unclear”.

What the experts say:

"Scientists have long suspected that extra ocean heat uptake has slowed the rise of global average temperatures, but the mechanism behind the hiatus remained unclear" said Professor Matthew England, lead author of the study and a Chief Investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.

"But the heat uptake is by no means permanent: when the trade wind strength returns to normal - as it inevitably will - our research suggests heat will quickly accumulate in the atmosphere. So global temperatures look set to rise rapidly out of the hiatus, returning to the levels projected within as little as a decade."

Maybe it would be best to see what BETTY thinks, rather than what it thinks other people say.

- Is there a greenhouse effect (Y/N)?

- Is CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing (Y/N)?

- Has OHC increased rapidly over the last decade (Y/N)?

- Does this demonstrate that energy is accumulating rapidly in the climate system (Y/N)?

- Transient decadal variability is an irrelevance on multi-decadal scales (Y/N)?

- The long-term trend is our real concern (Y/N)?

That was @ Betty, obviously...

BBD, the earth is a little more complicated than yes or no's. My question is, and always has been about how future scenarios are predicted and whether or not they are exaggerated to create desired global policies under the guise of sustainable development, which coincidently, is wealth redistribution.

Simplified...yes, there is a greenhouse effect, without it we wouldn't exist. Is CO2 one type of forcing, yes, it is a type of forcing.

#53, NWO complottery?
How about the 'redistribution of wealth' happening right now, in the Koch- and Exxonsystem presently at rule, that is making the 10% richest ever richer and the rest, particularly the poorest, ever poorer? (US, Holland at least this is true for).

It is right to be wary, which is all the more reason for you to gain some knowledge of climate science. Only that will enable you to distinguish reality from lobby. Your #53 suggests you'd be quite willing to learn. Other posts, not at all. So what's it gonna be?

The questions by BBD in #51 actually ARE simple Y/N questions. You tackled the first two (Y on both). What is so hard about the other four?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 10 Feb 2014 #permalink

Just answer the fucking questions yes or no, you evasive little shit. Your dishonesty sickens me.

My question is, and always has been about how future scenarios are predicted and whether or not they are exaggerated to create desired global policies under the guise of sustainable development, which coincidently, is wealth redistribution.

You are mentally ill, btw. Still, let's get the job finished:

- Is there a greenhouse effect (Y/N)?

- Is CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing (Y/N)?

- Has OHC increased rapidly over the last decade (Y/N)?

- Does this demonstrate that energy is accumulating rapidly in the climate system (Y/N)?

- Transient decadal variability is an irrelevance on multi-decadal scales (Y/N)?

- The long-term trend is our real concern (Y/N)?

Is CO2 one type of forcing, yes, it is a type of forcing.

Look at the pretty picture Betty.

GAT and climate forcings 1900 - present

Key: GAT (decadal means) are shown at the top (green). The three lower curves are coherently-scaled forcings. Well-mixed GHGs (blue) and solar (yellow; bottom) bracket the total net forcing (red).

Betula at #3.

Reread and parse my post very carefully.

I said very deliberately said "global warming", not "surface temperature", knowing that you or one of your mates would split hairs to claim that there's somehow no continued accumulation of heat. There is no "hiatus" in global warming, as the England et al 2014 paper very clearly explains.

You are a fool.

Further, the "hiatus" is simply noise in the surface temperature record, resulting in large part from the very same phenomenon explained in England et al 2014. The noise in the signal varies such that at least 11 years to several decades are required to discern the signal, so calling a "hiatus" from the cherry pick of 1998 is incompetence and/or deliberate mendacity - at the least. Take your pick and tell us which is your motivation.

You've had this explained to you many times - did you damage your brain falling out of a tree?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Feb 2014 #permalink

Well said, Bernard. The warming has most certainly not stopped. Biotic proxies alone continue to show ongoing range and altitudinal shifts anyway, despite the so-called hiatus in surface temperatures. And in many parts of the world, surface temperatures do continue to rise.

And yes, I think Betty has damaged his brain falling out of a tree.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Feb 2014 #permalink

I agree with you Jeff. I totally recognaize that the best biotic proxie showing that the hiatus is non-existant is you (and the rest of the deltoiders). :-)

Keep it up!

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 11 Feb 2014 #permalink

"BBD, the earth is a little more complicated than yes or no’s."

The questions weren't:

What is the earth? Y/N

Apparently when you complain of English not being someone's first language, you're trying to paper over your own incapacity in that sphere...

Woof Woof Woof! Lappie.

Olaus

What the fuck is wrong with you brain?

OHC 0 - 2000m

Look at it, you dishonest idiot. Go on. Look.

Global warming - unabated, unpaused, no hiatus. Stop lying to yourself and everyone around you. Grow up and face the facts like an adult. This ridiculous charade has gone on long enough.

Wow

Since Betty is a dishonest, evasive coward, I have filled in the answers for him:

- Is there a greenhouse effect (Y/N)?

YES

- Is CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing (Y/N)?

YES

- Has OHC increased rapidly over the last decade (Y/N)?

YES

- Does this demonstrate that energy is accumulating rapidly in the climate system (Y/N)?

YES

- Transient decadal variability is an irrelevance on multi-decadal scales (Y/N)?

YES

- The long-term trend is our real concern (Y/N)?

YES

So, Betty, do you disagree with any of those YES?

If so, where is your evidence that it should be NO?

Probably repeating what others have linked to but WTH:

Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?

And by the way, for the ignoratti, the phenomena described in the above can have implications for sea level rise along north america's east coast. Explain why?

Note on the UK's spot of water bother, the Met' office has issued an interesting report. The Recent Storms and Floods in the UK - pdf

Yes I can see the bits the likes of Betula will take out of context so if you are thinking of trying that - don't!

George Monbiot has some apposite words here: Drowning in Money . This administration is in a pickle of their own making. About time we saw Georgy Porgy out on the Somerset Levels explaining why he cut EA funding. Georgy boy should get an armful of jabs (been there and done that) before floating his boat as he is sure to get a ducking and catch something nasty - maybe Eric Pickles.

Thanks, BBD, for the questions and answers in #64 and your link to OHC (I'd not seen this data before).

I'm finding it difficult to understand global warming well enough so that I can answer a few questions on it when asked by friends who also wish to learn. I've managed to write a few paragraphs of notes (too long to post in a comment thread), but I don't know if they're near enough correct or seriously flawed. Any ideas on who/where I could ask for some guidance?

By Pete Attkins (not verified) on 11 Feb 2014 #permalink

“for example, post #7, where you claim to not believe there’s been a haitus”

Wrong again. #7 says no such thing. Stating I didn't say something isn't the equivalent of saying I disagree with what it is I didn't say...except at Deltoid of course.

"The questions by BBD in #51 actually ARE simple Y/N questions. You tackled the first two (Y on both). What is so hard about the other four?"

Probably because I was answering the questions at #48.

#51..."The long-term trend is our real concern"

Yes, and "It is unclear whether the increased rate reflects an increase in the underlying long-term trend."

"Has OHC increased rapidly over the last decade?"

It's irrelevant, you said it yourself.

“for example, post #7, where you claim to not believe there’s been a haitus”

Wrong again. #7 says no such thing

Nope, #7 says as I describe it.

Just because you want to retreat to "I was spouting meaningless babble" doesn't mean anyone else has to retreat into your insanity with you, dear.

“Has OHC increased rapidly over the last decade?”

It’s irrelevant, you said it yourself.

No he didn't you cretinous arselick.

Yes, and “It is unclear whether the increased rate reflects an increase in the underlying long-term trend.”

So you agree that there is no such thing as a haitus!

Again!

To be denied!

Again!

@Lionel A
Many thanks for the links, especially the UK Met Office report.

By Pete Attkins (not verified) on 11 Feb 2014 #permalink

"There is no “hiatus” in global warming"

"Further, the “hiatus” is simply noise in the surface temperature record"

What hiatus?

Oh, the surface temperature hiatus, not a deep ocean hiatus! I keep getting my hiati mixed up, what with England throwing around the phrase "a hiatus in global warming" and all...

" Accounting for this wind intensification in model projections produces a hiatus in global warming that is in striking agreement with observations," Prof England said."

Just curious, how accurate are the records of deep ocean heat (below 700m) before, say 2000? How many bathythermograph data points were used during the first 2 decades of measurements? How about after 2 decades? And why did the sea level drop 7mm in 2011? And what is causing the trade winds? And how long will they last?

"No he didn’t you cretinous arselick"

"Transient decadal variability is an irrelevance on multi-decadal scales (Y/N)? YES"

Lionel,

Regarding your Met office link, it says nothing, it summarizes nothing...
What's to take out of context? Nothing.

Oh for fuck's sake Betty. Sometimes you really do take the biscuit. OHC is increasing. The rate it increases is called the rate of ocean heat uptake. Wind-driven variability in mixing affects the rate of OHU and so the rate of OHC increase. They both modulate the rate of surface temperature increase.

Sometimes more energy goes into the sea. This produces decadal variability in OHC increase and in the rate of surface warming. My point, as you know perfectly fucking well, is that deniers like you cannot wave at transient variability in the rate of GAT increase and pretend that it has any effect on the long-term forced trend.

Fuck you and you intellectual dishonesty.

Yes, and “It is unclear whether the increased rate reflects an increase in the underlying long-term trend.”

Reference your quote-mining or expect no response.

And why did the sea level drop 7mm in 2011?

Massive acceleration of the hydrological cycle caused by evaporation from a warming ocean, as predicted by climate scientists for decades.

Less denial and more reading would help.

Just curious, how accurate are the records of deep ocean heat (below 700m) before, say 2000? How many bathythermograph data points were used during the first 2 decades of measurements?

If you think that sparsity of sampling means inaccuracy of results, then you are even more of an ignorant fuckwit than I supposed. Furthermore, I reject your crude attempts to inject evidence denial into this discussion. If you think you can prove error with the OHC reconstructions, fuck off and publish. If not, accept the reconstructions - with their published error bars.

Always the same with you lot - get shoved into a corner by the scientific evidence and you start trying to deny it. But it won't wash here. Either you turn up some solid evidence that there are real problems with OHC data or shut up with the denialist cant.

And one last thing, you dishonest little shit. You quote mined the questions to misrepresent them. Here's the context you clipped away so you could try and lie about what was really said. The bit you wanted to lie about is in bold:

- Has OHC increased rapidly over the last decade (Y/N)?

YES

- Does this demonstrate that energy is accumulating rapidly in the climate system (Y/N)?

YES

#68, nice try. You actually can do some research. I think you 'probably' actually responded to #51 with your #53. I surmise this from the interjection of the first paragraph in #53. There remains reason to ask you what is so hard about the other four questions. And you are quite aware of that.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 11 Feb 2014 #permalink

Batty,

And what is causing the trade winds?

Are you blind? See first ref' in my #66.

And there have been known trade winds as long as sailing vessels ventured further than their own coastlines.

How long will they last?

Sheeesh what a gormless question! How long is a piece of string?

As for sea level rise, ref' to Jerry Metrovica and also Scott Mandia. Go read up.

I see that you didn't understand that Met Office report, that is if you bothered to read it which I doubt.

Betula, you can be sure that the OHC is accelarating in the very same robust way "thousands of scientists" knew that the atmosphere was warming faster and faster. :-)

:-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 11 Feb 2014 #permalink

"Has OHC increased rapidly over the last decade (Y/N)? YES"

" Does this demonstrate that energy is accumulating rapidly in the climate system (Y/N)? YES"

" Transient decadal variability is an irrelevance on multi-decadal scales (Y/N)? YES"

If question #3 claims question #1 is an irrelevance, then question #2 is also an irrelevance..

The long term trend is our real concern...

"I see that you didn’t understand that Met Office report, that is if you bothered to read it which I doubt."

I read it. It talks about current weather and makes predictions about the future.

"I think you ‘probably’ actually responded to #51 with your #53."

Keep thinking.

"Sheeesh what a gormless question!"

I thought climate models could predict these things.

#84

If you weren't a pathological denier, you would have no trouble at all in understanding the internal consistency in what I wrote. Energy is accumulating in the climate system (ie the ocean) at a rapid rate. Sometimes, the rate increases slightly - just slightly - but that's enough to reduce the rate of surface warming for a decade or so. Which is why you cannot use decadal variability in the rate of surface temperature rise as the basis of a claim that "global warming" has paused.

It's a lie, Betty. I've explained this to you repeatedly on this thread. It should be obvious by now.

But you go beyond mere intellectual dishonesty. In your case, it really is mental illness.

We can also be sure Olap doesn't have a citation for his drivel-cum-slur. Nor does he understand the meaning regardless of tense of the verb 'to know'. Although to be fair, Olap is well versed as a 'know nothing'.

In other news, (h/t to Barry over at the warren), Dr Charles Monnett (of drowned polar bear renown) has been vindicated after a Clouseau-level series of harrassments investigations by the IG.
“This agency attempted to silence me, discredit me and our work and send a chilling message to other scientists at a key time when permits for oil and gas exploration in the Arctic were being considered. Following over two years of hell for me and my family, my name has been cleared and the accusations against the scientific findings in our paper have been shown to be groundless” Dr. Monnett said.

Betty

It's just dawned on me that in your ignorance you might not grasp the key physical concept here. Do you understand the term specific heat?

Do you understand that tiny variations in OHU will have major impacts on surface/tropospheric GAT because of the difference in specific heat between water and air?

Thank'ee chek.

I wanted to say that it's hard to believe the deniers have such trouble understanding the "hiatus", with all the explanations that are given out there, but it's not really hard to believe when you understand how dumb a denier can be.

The hiatus, which refers to atmospheric temperatures only, in the context of the planet continuously gaining energy means very little in the same way that a few days of steady or even dropping temperatures over a summer says nothing about any trends in the temperature for that season, or for the year. A good illustration is the "escalator" at SkepticalScience. An ideologically motivated denier with low intelligence would look at that graph and to them it would mean nothing; nothing would register. They can't understand that when looking at a set of stairs, fixating on the horizontal section of an individual step tells you nothing about where the stairs are going.

With a denier idiot, when you have such a high level of stupidity compounded by politically motivated intellectual dishonesty, the result is a human being whose reasoning ability is reduced to a level worse than that of a dumb animal. So trying to reason with a Betula or a Karen or O'louse is as futile as having a discussion with a dog. Actually some dogs are pretty smart, so maybe I should say _ as futile as a discussion with a dog's arse. A flatulent one. The experience is not productive but very unpleasant. When I see BBD or Jeff Harvey give long, detailed responses to those idiots I shake my head knowing that it's an absolute waste of time and effort and that nothing that both of them have said will even register in their moronic heads.

Betty, 42.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 11 Feb 2014 #permalink

I never could get as denier to explain how all the extreme heat events (record arctic melts 2005 & 2012, US droughts and Aussie and US wildfires, Katrina etc etc.) happened during their dearly beloved hiatus.

Chek, among all believers at Deltoid, you might be the thickest, :-) Weather doesn't end with the "hiatus", and why should it?

Now, run to Jeffie!

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 11 Feb 2014 #permalink

Maybe try that again only with words that mean something in English, Olap.
" Weather doesn’t end" drivel drivel drivel - wtf?

Weather doesn’t end with the “hiatus”, and why should it?

Why should it? Because climate is the sum of weather, and many weather events lead to climate. That was Chek's point - "all", "etc etc"...

You refuse to see the forest for the trees.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 11 Feb 2014 #permalink

Olaus, I wont' suggest that you run to Jonas, because both you and GSW are already clinging to his leg....

Not once in two years here have you tried to discuss science. There's a simple enough reason: you're scientifically illiterate.

Instead we have been subjected to your witless musings that apparently only you think are hilariously funny. That's a form of insanity, you know...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Feb 2014 #permalink

“Sheeesh what a gormless question!”

I thought climate models could predict these things.

An example of a gormless question that climate models can't predict.

“No he didn’t you cretinous arselick”

Indeed he didn't.

“Transient decadal variability is an irrelevance on multi-decadal scales (Y/N)? YES”

So you agree with BBD that the answer is YES, yet refused to answer yes.

In response to

“Has OHC increased rapidly over the last decade (Y/N)? YES”

” Does this demonstrate that energy is accumulating rapidly in the climate system (Y/N)? YES”

” Transient decadal variability is an irrelevance on multi-decadal scales (Y/N)? YES”

Betula at #84 (previous page) responds:

If question #3 claims question #1 is an irrelevance, then question #2 is also an irrelevance..

The long term trend is our real concern…

If Betula thinks his postulate is true, then he thinks OHC increase over the last decade is "transient". So, can Betula give us one single cite that suggests that is the case?

Alternatively, if Betula does not think his postulate is true, this is a stupid and obvious evasion, to go with all the others.

Which is it Betula?

None of the Above, I think, Frank.

After all, Betty never says anything, just says what others are saying.

At least those JAQing off on the internet are actually considering themselves participants, Betty daren't go for that level of activity.

#6, possibly the worst dep is still to come, a somewhat strange system filled with subtropical air and a lot of moisture bombing out Friday.
Generally no end in sight of this pattern.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Feb 2014 #permalink

What is it with deniers and hyperbole?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/12/nigel-lawson-met-off…

"There's been bad weather before. And anyhow, climate change is a global phenomenon, and you don't attribute local things like this necessarily to some global picture.

"The fact is, there is no evidence whatever to link it."

Really? NO evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation

All you need to refute a claim of NO BLACK SWANS is a single black swan.

The scene: Betula is doing his regular trucking run, carting manure from the A.Watts factory with Karen as co-driver. He needs someone to keep him warm overnight. After all, the planet IS cooling _ before long he'll be needing two co-drivers to keep him warm. Destination: Murdoch Media. An environmentally friendly company which turns garbage into very soft newspaper with an obvious dual purpose. Of course, smart people don't read it and only buy it for toilet use; others, known as "deniers", read it religiously before wiping their arses. Some have even been known to wipe their arses first before reading, thinking that the olfactory experience will enhance their comprehension.

Anyway Betula is speeding down the highway and a warning sign tells him, "slow down, road hazard ahead".

_ Don't you think you should slow down, Betts?

_ No, baby, I'm sick of those do-gooders telling me what to do. I mean, Christ, we can't do anything anymore. Those liberals are taking away our freedoms: we can't speed, smoking is dangerous, guns kill...blahblahblah. And don't get me started on "gnowbull" warming.

_ But what if we have an accident? I mean...if we die, we die. I suppose we all have to go sometime. It's our precious cargo I'm worried about. Uncle Rupert will be very upset if the manure doesn't get delivered.

_ Nonsense, Karen. Even if we hit a tree there's no certainty that anything too serious will happen. That's all alarmist crap. I've read all the safety reports and main roads reports etc., it's full of "may's" and "possibilities" and "could". They tell you that if your car overturns you "may" suffer serious injury; if you hit a tree at speed there's a "possibility" you could die. How can you believe anything they say? Many of my friends have had accidents and they're OK _ they walked away with minor bruising. A mate of mine even got shot in the head and he survived. I tell you Karen, I'm sick of all the scare campaigns.

_ Gosh, you're so wise and intelligent Betts. I knew there was a reason why I'm attracted to you.

_ Ditto, Karen baby. You know what makes me laugh? It's that alarmist idiot Jeffy on Deltoid. He was telling us how animals and plants are moving, shifting habitat zones and all that nonsense, because of global warming. The bloke is shamelessly making stuff up. You know how I know it's a lie? I've been gardening for 30 years, and many of the trees I have on my property _ I planted them more than 20 years ago _ haven't gone anywhere. They haven't even moved an inch.

_ You're right, Betts. The trees in my garden haven't moved either. What a liar he is.

As night falls, they both go to sleep with the comforting knowledge that uncle Rupert will not allow any evil liberal government to change their way of life. The familiar smokestacks from the coal burning power stations which they had grown to love will be safe, at least until the last tonne of coal is burnt.

I’ve been gardening for 30 years, and many of the trees I have on my property _ I planted them more than 20 years ago _ haven’t gone anywhere. They haven’t even moved an inch.

Love it, jp.
There's a similar level of idiocy about closed systems in a Guardian AGW comments thread here today in which the D-K's are out in force "correcting" the professionals, even after the term has been defined for them.

Incidentally, if your Win system has thoughtfully upgraded your IE to IE11, you'll need to engage compatibility view or theguardian.com/uk pages no longer render. Or stick with Firefox or Chrome.

Nice find stu 2

"What’s not commonly understood is that when we talk about global warming, we mean cat breeding. Over the last 50 years, 90 per cent of the extra heat that’s been stored by the earth is found in fur balls. So if we want to track how climate is changing, we need to be looking at fur balls to understand it."

Still just one of many competing theories of course. Some thought provoking comments also,

cohenite:
Cats can lick their own arses; climate scientists can only lick each other’s arses. These technical distinctions are important.

Indeed ;)

From which it can be determined that deniers neither understand climate science nor comedy.

GSW is walking with Stu2stupid, in deep thought, pondering the meaning of life and what the hell this global warming thingy thing is.

_ "God I hate these climate scientist pricks," he tells stu2stupid on the way to cleaning the toilets of the science building.

_ "I asked one of them the other day what all those equations were _ I think they call them equations. You know those things they write with numbers and letters, and he just looked at me as if I was stupid or something. What an arrogant prick.

_ Yeah, I agree GrissoWanky.

_ I walk past some of those climate science lecture and I KNOW those idiots don't know what they're talking about. I mean, 2 years ago...even 3 years ago, I remember the temperature was pretty much the same at this time of the year.

_ That's right, Grisso. A big conspiracy if you ask me. They're getting paid to say it's warming. We don't need no fancy science and equations and stuff to tell us there ain't any warming.

_ You know Stu2, I was thinking really hard the other day, and I mean really, really hard _ I had steam coming out of my ears. And then, suddenly, I had this eureka! moment. This thing they go on about, the planet retaining energy and getting warmer and that, well that's just as stupid as saying the heat is hiding in fur balls.

_ Hahahaha.....stop it Grisso, I'm going to piss myself. That's so funny. OMG, you're a genius.

_ You know what else, Stu2pid? Those climate scientists lick each other's arses. How's that for thought provoking?

Hahahaha....hohoho...hahaha....I don't know how you came up with that, Grisso. And all those wankers think they're smarter than you, just because they think they know a bit of science and play around with some fancy equations and graph thingies. Grisso, you're so smart you turn me on. Can I give you a blow job?

Ssshhh!!....keep your voice down, Stu2pid. I'll lock the toilet doors. When you're finished I'll suck you off too... unless you want to have a 69.

Thanks Grisso, but I prefer kneeling down. At least we don't lick each other's arse, like those climate scientists, hey?...hahahahha.

#9. - LOL....but don't think I didn't notice your story was full of m̶a̶n̶u̶r̶e̶ shit.

Meanwhile, in Ontario, just outside of Algonquin Park, the short bus from Predictions Travel Group is carrying a group of Deltoidians on a 3 day winter trip to witness climate change first hand. On board is jp and Hardley, who were in the middle of a discussion about Hardley being a scientist, when all of a sudden the bus entered the highway and started to increase in speed. Jp's first thought was to imagine a linear regression model to predict that, with a doubling of acceleration, surely the bus would eventually overheat and explode killing all on board. It was at that point that the acceleration of the bus seem to stop and the speed leveled off, causing some confusion and a bit of panic amongst Jp and Hardley, who both scrambled to calculate where the energy causing the acceleration went.

As they contemplated the interactions of air brakes, applied brake pressure, standard transmissions, steering mechanisms and the inner thought processes and reactions of bus drivers, Hardley noticed something moving on the floor of the bus....A Spider! ..."That these inverts were foraging at a time when they should be in diapause is clear evidence that something is amiss..."

"You call Gavin Schmidt at GISS and I'll contact someone over at RealClimate" said jp...

When Hardley called NASA'S GISS, Jeffrey Sachs of The Earth Institute answered...."A spider you say? This could put the nail in the coffin and really get some action on creating policies that will eliminate poverty!! Listen Hardley, Gavin's not here right now and I'm off to meet with Ban Ki Moon regarding the Millennium Development Goals, let me put you through to one of our adjunct professors at our International Research Institute for Climate and Society"...

"Hello, James Hansen speaking"...

"Hi Mr. Hansen, my name is Hardley and I found a spider in Algonquin in January!"..

"Sounds like you've witnessed climate change first hand Mr. Hardley", this will teach those skeptics! Let me see if I can put through some funding for you through the CCAFS that I helped establish, but first I'd like to mention it to a few of the men on our Board of Advisors, Pajandra Pachauri and George Soros...they will be thrilled!

Meanwhile, jp was calling over at RealClimate...

"Hello, Gavin Schmidt here, contributor to Environmental Media Services. Yes, Mr. Mann is also a contributor, but he's all wrapped up in law suits at the moment, can I help you? What's that? A spider? I'll write up something for RealClimate immediately! In the meantime, I'll have our parent group, Fenton Communications get the word out to our hundreds of liberal clients worldwide, including the Guardian....Thanks Hardley!"

Once they realized that their trip had been a big success, even before it started, the thought of not having to leave the bus and be subject to frostbite brought big relief. Hardley continued to thrill people with thoughts about himself and jp continued to contemplate the recent acceleration hiatus....as the bus began the exit off the highway.

Betula, it was much, much funnier when jp did it.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Feb 2014 #permalink

Birch brain seems to spend a lot of his so-called professional life writing bullshit up here. I guess his tree pruning company isn't doing so well so he's stuck at home.

He is also still licking his wounds after making astonishingly stupid comments about the health of North American ecosystems and the alleged C0w fertilization effect.

Methinks one too many branches has fallen on his head. His attempt at comedy, like Stu2s and GSWs, is about as flat as a pancake.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Feb 2014 #permalink

Addendum: excellent humorous commentary JP. I've mentioned to John Birch numerous times that there is a huge volume of studies in the empirical literature showing biotic changes in response to warming - and he ignores the lot. First, because he doesn't read much (if any) of the primary literature, and second, because even if he did read it he wouldn't understand it. So all he can fall back on is the Algonquin Park crossing I made 2 years ago, and comments on our website, as if that is the sum of all of the evidence we have accumulated on the ecological effects of warming. He's stuck his head up his a** with respect to the piles of other evidence made by my colleagues around the world and published in many scientific journals.

Its fun debating these guys face to face because when the studies are cited, all they can do it pout and pound their fists and say, "I don't believe a word of it!" or "It proves nothing!". The audience of course laughs at the denier, who has no empirical foundation on which to construct a counter argument. Lomborg was easy. Batty would be a pushover.

On blogs, however, they can get away with their deceptions by ignoring the comments or challenges they don't like while focusing on pedantics. Look at how Batty has stuck tirelessly with the Algonquin meme while failing to address any of the substantial empirical evidence in the biological/ecological evidence for warming. And note how he constantly refuses to answer BBDs questions. He can't answer them, so he consistently tries to move the discussion to other areas.

I have said it before and I will repeat it: he can't argue his way out of a wet paper bag. Neither can GSW, for that matter, hence why he constantly scuttles over to the Jonas thread to pay homage and worship to his hero. Reading how he strokes Jonas's already bloated ego is nauseating. And then we have Olaus, the goofy Swede, who has never once discussed anything scientific. Instead, his tactic is to paste commentaries from denier blogs and then to run away.

What a bunch of schmucks.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Feb 2014 #permalink

GSW #12:

Last time Cohenite dropped into Deltoid to drop some truth bombs he got what Dellers might whine about as "intellectually pack raped". His infantile observations were so thoroughly shredded that I expect he still has his tail between his legs, thus ensuring no one could lick his arse without his caudal appendage occluding the target.

If you post on that stupid echo chamber that is Catallaxy, tell him to drop by again anytime he's ready for a bit more pwnage.

BTW - I see Stu2 no longer makes any pretence of being Mr neutral, hiding his denial behind JAQ'ing off and concern trolling. So he's openly rejectionist nos? And to think I missed his coming out party... :-(

#19 is why I visit Deltoid. Literary art.

#20, that one will take on Britain on Sunday/Monday. First another big deluge plus storm force winds tomorrow there. Climate revisionism is pinning the jet.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 13 Feb 2014 #permalink

Now Betula, no more pussy footing about with you, there is a new short video from Peter Sinclair at Climate Crocks. This video show a number of top scientists explaining what is happening listen and learn

New Video: Abrupt Climate Change, and the Expected Unexpected.

Now use each name that comes up to let Google be your friend to discover where each is coming from. Given some of your past hand-waving you need to pay particular attention to the issue of species loss from C 5:28.

Also remember that we rely upon continued electrical power to run low lying pumping stations for fresh water and sewage and rising groundwater sure does not help (as has been the case with railway signalling equipment) in areas where direct flooding has not taken place. Remember the terms pluvial and fluvial in that Met' Office report linked to above, what was the other 'freshwater' related term?

FrankD

I see Delingpole has left the Telegraph blog. I do not know why, nor what he is going to do next, but I am *very* curious on both points.

Probably a "Glenn Beck/Fox losing advertisers" scenario.

I'd *love* to know why the Torygraph shitcanned Dellers. I'm not sure about ad revenue though - difficult to establish that a blogger was killing page revenue in the rag proper. But you could be wholly or partially correct. Hopefully the facts will emerge, timidly, into the harsh light of day and we can all have a bloody good laugh.

To paraphrase possibly the worst song ever:

Hot dog, jumpin' frog. Schaaaden-freude!

While on a high not, we mustn't forget the cheeky Monckey getting sacked from UKIP *by email* last year.

Snorf.

"While on a high note..."

... and I can see Olaus now screaming-:

"There's still no evidence that climate change deniers are well funded! There's still no evidence at all! Why would the fossil fuel industry invest in denial when they are such fervent believers in democracy?!?! They only ask for the truth! Is that too much to ask for?"

Yup, Olaus is going to deny that big money flows from the polluters to undermine democracy. Its what happens when one is willfully ignorant and blind... he's been doing this for a long time now.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Feb 2014 #permalink

Delingpole did scrape the barrel with this one recently:

Climate science is for second-raters says world's greatest atmospheric physicist , order your new irony meter after reading that headline!

Lindzen is finished as a scientist if he did write this:

Was Lindzen suggesting, asked Tim Yeo at this point, that scientists in the field of climate were academically inferior.

"Oh yeah," said Lindzen. "I don't think there's any question that the brightest minds went into physics, math[s], chemistry…"

and the other silly things. Lindzen has turned into a bitter old man, one who looks quite unwell in that picture. Considering his vitriolic words about those who should be colleagues will the NAS do the right thing before it is too late?

This output via Delingpole whilst Britain is taking a pounding from an unprecedented series of storms may just have been too much even for the Torygraph as the truth starts to sink in faster than the water drains away.

More to come tomorrow on the storm front.

Larger picture of a huge wave rolling in towards the Portland shore in this update: UK storms: Eyewitness accounts from the worst-affected areas. I was once posted to that area and joined my first aircraft carrier (Victorious 893 Squadron Sea Vixen FAW2) in Weymouth Bay in stormy weather.

Up off the deck of an MFV (Motor Fishing Vessel - RN auxiliary), that had smashed its bridge against the side of the carrier on two previous trips out, with one hand for the rope ladder the other holding a kit bag with a hold-all over that shoulder. Jump for a rung of the top of a wave and scramble like mad before the next wave comes along.

I'll bet Deler's has never had to do anything like that in his cosseted little life.

It seems the US right-wing misinformation machine Breitbart.com is extending its reach to the UK, and Dellers has been scraped up to help.

Rumours that he was fired by Torygraph blogs are circulating, but I have no evidence at all. Yet.

@Lionel

"Was Lindzen suggesting, asked Tim Yeo at this point, that scientists in the field of climate were academically inferior."

I don't think anyone, other than you, is disputing that point Lionel. You'd have to have a pretty warped sense of reality to imagine that climate scientists come anywhere close to being the "brightest of the bunch" and there's certainly an argument to be made for some of them being not quite the "full shilling".

A few have given evidence at the recent parliamentary hearings, Myles Allen comes to mind for example and more recently one Emily Shuckburgh. (link below)

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=14877&player=si…

If you think that "genius" is "one smart cookie", then it says more about you than it ever could about the "cookie" in question.
;)

GSW

You’d have to have a pretty warped sense of reality to imagine that climate scientists come anywhere close to being the “brightest of the bunch” and there’s certainly an argument to be made for some of them being not quite the “full shilling”.

You are spouting utter bollocks. Doubtless you have no PhD yourself, nor in all likelihood any tertiary qualifications at all. Judging from your posts here you are a fuckwit of limited natural intelligence. The above quote serves as an excellent illustration of your own distorted perception of reality.

Nope.
That one did not assist this blog to emerge from chronic circumlocution. :-)

"whilst Britain is taking a pounding from an unprecedented series of storms may just have been too much even for the Torygraph as the truth starts to sink in faster than the water drains away."

Unprecedented.

Let's analyze a recent headline: "Weather: Climate Change 'To Blame' For Storms"

Now let's read the article....

"Climate change is almost certainly to blame for the severe weather that has caused chaos across Britain in recent weeks,"

"Dame Julia Slingo said there was not yet "definitive proof" but that "all the evidence" pointed to a role for the phenomenon."

"Dame Julia told journalists the "clustering and persistence" of individual storms was extremely unusual."

"She said: "We have seen exceptional weather. We cannot say it's unprecedented, but it is certainly exceptional."

http://news.sky.com/story/1208850/weather-climate-change-to-blame-for-s…

So, we went from climate change is to blame, to it's almost certainly to blame, to there is no definitive proof, to we cannot say it's unprecedented....unless of course, you are Lionel.

If you weren't such a clown as to prefer a multiplicity of partial, ellipsed quotes in a denier central media outlet article, you might have watched the Julia Slingo video interview on the same fucking page where her own words are unmediated.

"The science that we have says that it's quite likely that there is a contribution. There's some basic science here that points to a compounding effect if you like of climate change on the very extreme rainfall, very severe levels of storminess and possibly even the very prolonged clustering of storms that we've seen throughout this winter.

But then you are a clown with your earnest, eighth grade parsing of Murdoch reportage. We know that with very high confidence.

Don't you dare attract that nutter poptart here, StuPid.

2 Stupid.

Anyone who references poptech as any sort of reliable source automatically and forever invalidates their credibility. It's a Godwineque thing, carved in stone.

Seriously, the guy's a rabid fruitcake. Do some checking and find out for yourself. Greenfyre's is one place to start.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 13 Feb 2014 #permalink

"You’d have to have a pretty warped sense of reality to imagine that climate scientists come anywhere close to being the “brightest of the bunch”

Oh, the irony. This coming from a guy with basal degree who worships a non-academic on another thread. An outrageous comment that deserves no further response except that it belongs in the bin.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Feb 2014 #permalink

Stu2's list is a farce. Many of the papers are published in journals with non-existant impact factors, don't appear on the Web of Science, or are by the 'usual suspects'. Note that it was put up in 2009; not much said about it since. Many of the studies were pre-1988 before AGW was really on the agenda. Its also interesting how people who don't work within the field and who don't publish much themselves are desperate to vindicate denial in any way they can. The Oregon Petition was the first feeble attempt to do so (and this charade is still used to argue that many scientists are skeptics); then we have more petitions in which it is claimed that the names are 'leading scientists' when most are on the academic fringe (I looked up the publication lists of many of them on the WoS and some had none; others 5 or 6; few had more than 20). Then Stu2 scrapes up this latest attempt to rehabilitate denial. It won't work, Stu2; you can try all you like but the vast majority of scientists and research is not on 'your side'.

If this is the best you can do and then link to bloggers who aren't scientists, then may I suggest you stick with the crappy denier blogs where you glean your views.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Feb 2014 #permalink

#36, go tell that in Somerset mate.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 14 Feb 2014 #permalink

"Unprecedented."

Yes.

Unprecedented. Or are you going to claim that reports two and a half centuries ago would be more accurate than the vast network of instruments available today?

Admittedly, any Heath Robinson contraption YOU'D build would be worse than the pigskin buckets of SST measurements of yore, but I believe that the instruments bought are actually made by people who know what the fuck they're doing.

Many so-called "alarmists" have said, approximately,

"There have always been freak weather events"

in the light of the weather the UK is experiencing. However, if the climate is changing to one where such events are NOT freaks or outliers or extremes, BUT THE NEW NORMAL, then what, exactly is the difference in what we'd currently see?

NOT A FUCKING THING.

You don't get hurricanes every day in hurricane season in places where the climate is hurricane-heavy. So if a place like, say NY State, changes climate to one where there IS a hurricane season, then hurricanes wouldn't happen all the time, and deniers would point at the "freak past event" and claim

"That we get hurricanes nearly every year, we always used to get them here before! Therefore it's just weather!"

and be 100% entirely WRONG in their claim.

#46, for that we have a well known saying: one swallow makes no summer so a million swallows absolutely make no summer.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 14 Feb 2014 #permalink

I suppose another saying to cover it is when you point at the moon, the fool is looking at the finger.

#49, hm, indeed.
Otoh when directing the pistol at the target, the marksman focusses on notch & bead.
Sorry. Free association. Can't get that Lawson bastard out of my cranium.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 14 Feb 2014 #permalink

"Unprecedented. Or are you going to claim that reports two and a half centuries ago would be more accurate than the vast network of instruments available today?"

Just a minor qualification - claims that these are the worst floods in two and a half centuries (alternatively, since 1767) are wrong. 1767 is when the instrumental record began, with regular monitoring at what is now the Radcliffe Meteorological Station.

"The worst since 1767" implies 1767 was worse. In fact, this year is the worst ever measured. In fact it is probably the worst since 1362's Grote Mandrenke, which was a single (massive, but not reliably measured) storm, not the succession of events we have seen this year.

oops, sorry for the tag fail

"Otoh when directing the pistol at the target, the marksman focusses on notch & bead."

That, though, is why in military circles, a pistol is thought of as merely a trophy to take off the dead guy.

Indeed, Frank. Betty didn't care to find out if it was the worst or not, they only cared it wasn't saying it was the worst ever.

#53, ah, or to turn around in case of shaming fail. Got a present for Lawson.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 14 Feb 2014 #permalink

Betula #36

There was a litany spoken two evenings ago of early 21st century broken records on a variety of extreme weather events in the UK. WTF do you think that means you clot?

Brunel's Devon Coast railway was undermined for the first time since built and Brunel's earlier bridge across the Avon at Clifton Bristol was closed for the first time in its history. What do you think this indicates?

Sorry for the quality of that shot taken with a cheap 35mm viewfinder (Halina Paulette) as I was starting off with 35mm reversal film in 1967.

More pathological denial from Betty and 2Stupid.

These two will simply implode over the course of the next decade as the climate signal really starts to emerge.

Extreme precipitation events - including snowfall, of course - are linked to increasing atmospheric WV, which is slowly elevated as tropospheric temperatures increase.

There is a positive trend in atmospheric water vapour and we are beginning to see the consequences, although it's just the merest tickle compared to what is coming. As anyone with even a shaky grasp of the basics of physical climatology ought to be able to see.

Isn't it weird how deniers are now trying the "What are these 'climate deniers'? Nobody denies the climate changes!" yet when you show evidence of a climate changing, they scream "THAT'S JUST WEATHER!!!".

I.e. they deny that climate can change.

Pete Attkins

RE: your #67 previous page

Any ideas on who/where I could ask for some guidance?

My apologies - somehow I managed to miss your comment - possibly it did not appear straight away? Anyway, I strongly advise regular visits to Skeptical Science, which provides about the best one-stop archive of information on the web, arranged by topic. See the "Most used Climate Myths" section at the top left of the page. Click "View all arguments" at the bottom of that list and browse by topic.

The blog is vigilantly moderated, so if you post a question on the relevant thread it will be seen and you should be answered quite quickly.

Once again, sorry for the slow response.

SkS quite strictly keeps argument producing bafflegab out of the comments by applying their policy quickly.

They'll tend to let deniers break the rules more times than they'll let realists because it's easier to dodge complaints of partisanship when you're being mean to "those on the same side" than "those you oppose".

Quack from Delingpole earlier today: "It's OK. I'm not going away. The fight continues!"
Really.
Meantime the guy is pledging allegiance to the Brit proto-fascist party UKIP. There or even further right is the libertarians' real orientation.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 14 Feb 2014 #permalink

the Brit proto-fascist party UKIP

Ah yes, the party with the UKIP town councillor who claims climate change is God's wrath visited on legalising gay marriage.

Still, as TV commentator Charlie Brooker points out, at least he's ahead of the nutter curve in acknowledging it's man made climate change..

#62, well, fascism is principally secular, so... He got suspended for his 'religious' banter. Apparently not for the nonsensical content per se.

I live in the first country of the world to legalize gay marriage (Holland). And guess what (Wow, please close eyes for a sec) - I'm praying for God's wrath on this country. I'm praying for the millenium flood to hit us like it already did twice this century elsewhere in Europe. Holland desperately needs it to wash away the climate revisionism here.
We have a couple of brand new gas power installations doing nothing. Shipping coal from the US or from Spitsbergen is simply much cheaper so we do just that. And we are close being the most backward country of Europe re renewables particularly solar (and to discourage solar energy, which is _actually_ becoming really cheap, the government slapped taxing on Chinese panels, 'to protect Dutch companies' - that is, they were eased into bankruptcy _first_).
We've come away incredibly cheaply from CAGW until now. Time to have a show of how vulnerable this country really is.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 14 Feb 2014 #permalink

"(Wow, please close eyes for a sec) – I’m praying for God’s wrath on this country"

It's a perfectly fine way to use god apocryphally. Remember, I wasn't one proscribing what constitutes an atheist and what doesn't.

It takes a committed atheist to scream in the heat of sexual passion "Oh, random fluctuations in the quantum states!" rather than "Oh God!". It is not expected that the bonker or bonkee proclaiming this are praying to an actual deity.

I'm most disturbed by an "expectedly bad trajectory" to AGW.

If it's going to go titsup, I'd, personally, prefer it to go titsup quickly so that those who have reaped most benefit from delay get just as fucked over as those poor bastards who, at "expected BAU trajectory", haven't got a chance of avoiding it.

If it were going to take out the retirement of those born today if those retiring today do nothing while they're alive, then I'd "prefer" that they join in on the shitstorm.

If we REALLY start making EXTREMELY hard choices, we may be able to avoid much worse for the future generations, and in that case I want things to be on the mild side, so that those generations who had least to do with the problem have least cost to it.

But the middle-prediction leaves me *probably* dying of old age before I see my countrymen buried under the inevitable, and that's probably the worst thing: it's deniable until it's irreversible.

Weaksauce action is out of scope for anyone with a conscience for the unborn generations (and as a singleton with no kids, they won't be MY generations, but I proscribe more care for humanity than merely self interest).

We know where the endpoint is at 400ppm. If we're not going to change, then no lukewarm sensitivity will stop us getting there. And if that point is inevitable, I would prefer we get there sooner than later. If only so justice is served to those most culpable.

Poor Chek and Bernard J can't actually debate so they make dishonest personal attacks against me.

You can find detailed rebuttals to all the lies, misinformation and strawman arguments from Greenfyre in the "Rebuttals to Criticism" section of the list. For a nice summary of a real nutter,

http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/truth-about-greenfyre.html

"Greenfyre is the Internet blog and screen name for a radical environmental activist, Mike Kaulbars from Ottawa, Canada. He is a founder of the Earth First! chapter in Ottawa, Canada, an eco-terrorist organization with a long history of violence and sabotage."

Birch Bark

So, we went from climate change is to blame, to it’s almost certainly to blame, to there is no definitive proof, to we cannot say it’s unprecedented….unless of course, you are Lionel.

Seeing as how you have some trouble in understanding the thrust of the arguments in the MO report I pointed you too and would rather read it from an interpreter of interpretations via some orifice of a muck raking, status-quo protecting outfit of racketeers then I have assembled a few choice quotes. I have included page numbers for each segment.

Has climate change been a contributing factor?

...A comprehensive study of trends in storminess, for the period 1871-2010 from an ensemble of reanalyses by Wang et al. (2013)12 provides some important insights. They show a robust signal of increasing numbers of strong winter cyclones and with increasing intensity for the high latitude North Atlantic (Figure 21), covering the region to the north of the UK and including Iceland. [1]This is associated with a reduction in storminess further south and supports a wide body of evidence for a poleward shift of the Atlantic storm track.(21)....

....Although the number of strong winter cyclones has not increased since 1871, the mean intensity has. Notably, for very strong cyclones, the mean intensity has increased significantly. A more comprehensive study of storms affecting the UK is needed to explore these findings in more detail, but the current evidence does suggest an increase in storminess.

The persistence of the recent storminess is unusual, and although clustering of storms is quite common, the continued run of deep depressions, through December, January and on into February, is not. It is this continued run of storms that has created the exceptional flooding conditions experienced in the Somerset Levels, for example. (21-22)...

...However, there is now some emerging evidence that, over the UK, daily heavy rain events may be more frequent (Figure 22). What in the 1960s and 1970s might have been a 1 in 125 day event is now more likely to be a 1 in 85 day event. This supports other evidence that UK rainfall is increasing in intensity14. This increase in the frequency/intensity of extreme daily rainfall events, as the planet warms and the atmosphere can hold more water, has been discussed in the literature for a number of years15, and robust evidence for this is increasingly seen around the world.(22-23)...

...In terms of the global temperature record, climate models are able to simulate the evolution of the observed record since 1860 with considerable skill and the difference between the simulations with and without anthropogenic greenhouse gases is statistically significant. It is this result that enabled the IPCC18 to state that ‘It is extremely likely (95-100% certain) that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.

It follows that to perform climate change attribution of the recent storminess and heavy rainfall requires a climate modeling system that is able to simulate these weather systems and their potential drivers. A limitation until recently has been model resolution (horizontal and vertical). It is only now that the climate models are reaching a level of detail and skill that is necessary to address the issues raised by recent events. This was demonstrated in a seminal paper on the attribution of extreme events by US and UK scientists in 2013 (24)...

...It is worth emphasizing that there is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly heavy rain events.(25)...

...Flash flooding, which can be exacerbated by land management and land use practices (particularly the extension of impermeable areas), may also increase if the recent intensification in rainfall translates into an enduring trend.(26)

[1] See a helpful diagram, Fig. 4.16, demonstrating this aspect in Barry & Chorley 1982 page 174.

Birch Bark

So, we went from climate change is to blame, to it’s almost certainly to blame, to there is no definitive proof, to we cannot say it’s unprecedented….unless of course, you are Lionel.

Seeing as how you have some trouble in understanding the thrust of the arguments in the MO report I pointed you too and would rather read it from an interpreter of interpretations via some orifice of a muck raking, status-quo protecting outfit of racketeers then I have assembled a few choice quotes. I have included page numbers for each segment.

etc. etc. as #67 above.

Sheesh! Now we have PT Barnum's circus in here pointing to its history of smoke and mirrors with added exploding cars. F'ing clown!

Jeff, you need to read the "Rebuttals to Criticism" section,

Criticism: Journal [Insert Name] has a low impact factor.

Rebuttal: Impact Factor is a subjective determination of popularity not scientific validity that is widely abused and manipulated. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supportin…

The list has been significantly updated since 2009.

Apparently you are unable to count but there are over 1000 papers published since 2000 and over 1250 papers published since 1990 on the list.

When you can't form a valid argument you make nonsensical statements like Jeff.

Poptech cracks me up with his bilge. He describes Greenfyre as a "radical environmental activist"....

I suppose that refers to anyone who thinks that humans and the natural world are on a collision course... scientists like me included.

Well, Poppy, methinks you are a 'radical corporate-loving denialist'. Two can play at that game.

Get lost, eh?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Feb 2014 #permalink

Poor Lionel and all the clowns apparently don't understand that the traffic to the list is now off the charts. Being in denial of the validity of the list only works at alarmist sites. You guys can thank your clown college friend Greg Laden for the inspiration to update it again. He shouldn't of censored my comments, now I have new inspiration to go on a promotion rampage. Millions of hits are not the goal anymore as that has already been achieved and is too easy. We need something more epic.

Poppy, if your argument was so valid you'd write it up yourself for a peer-reviewed journal where it could be properly scrutinized and, in all likelihood, bounced. Instead its on your crappy blog, where mostly your slavish admirers lap it up.

Put your money where your mouth is. Are you a scientist? Please tell me what it is that you do. What I find for the most part is that the most vocal AGW deniers haven't got anything close to a degree in any scientific discipline. And the few that do are stuck in the BSc category. As someone with 136 (and counting) peer-reviewed articles and who has attended many conferences and workshops where climate change and its effects are discussed, I've yet to meet a denier. That is in two decades and counting. But I have met plenty of climate scientists who agree that humans are the major agent forcing current changes in climate. You are clutching at straws and you know it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Feb 2014 #permalink

OK, OK, OK. I have checked who contribute to Poptech and its a bunch of computer scientists/analysts.

You are disqualified. The lot of you. Stick with your hard drives and leave science to the scientists.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Feb 2014 #permalink

Oh fuck. There goes the neighbourhood.

Jeff, Kaulbars shouldn't associate himself with eco-terrorists if he wants to be taken seriously but his nutter nonsense has long been refuted as has all of yours.

Jeff, I am a computer analyst with a university education but I am not about to post the details and no I don't have a graduate degree but it is a shame you claim to have one as you cannot even count.

"Rebuttal: Impact Factor is a subjective determination of popularity not scientific validity that is widely abused and manipulated"

A ridiculous statement that only could be made by someone who is totally clueless about how science works and who will do anything - ANYTHING - to vindicate the garbage found in bottom-feeding journals. Next thing Poppy's going to say is that 21st Century Science and Technology is an excellent source.

First of all, impact factor reflects not only the number of citations an article receives but generally how likely it is that a submitted paper will be rejected. Journals with low impact factors often have very relaxed acceptance policies, meaning that a paper will also be accepted after being very critically reviewed, whereas journals with high impact factors often pre-reject 50% or more of submissions and still reject a high proportion of the papers after being sent out for peer review. Again, Poppy is setting is/their own definition criteria to bloat the number of papers on his/their list.

Finally, what do a bunch of computer people know about climate science, or any science for that matter? Virtually nil. So why would several laymen jump on the denier bandwagon when they know nothing about climate?

Now this is the crux of the matter. The reason is simple: politics and ideology. They won't admit it, but, like most deniers, they come from the far end of the political right. Correct guys?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Feb 2014 #permalink

I don't only claim, Poppy, I do. I have a PhD. I am a senior scientist and a Professor. And you don't anything remotely related to a scientific degree - at least in any relevant fields - and yet you clearly are an AGW denier.

You are waste of time, Poppy. It is no small wonder you don't submit your Earth-shattering survey to any kind of scientific journal, and certainly not a rigid one. So on the blog it will stay.

I have better things to do than to waste my time with your kind of willful ignorance.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Feb 2014 #permalink

Jeff, when you don't have valid arguments it appears you just make stuff up. Impact factor has nothing to do with a paper's likely hood of rejection since many popular journals like Nature frequently reject papers arbitrarily, "...each Nature journal has to decline many papers of very high quality" - Nature

http://www.nature.com/authors/author_resources/about_npg.html

I thought you published? And you don't need to be a scientist to create a bibliographic reference. You really need to read the Rebuttals to Criticism section,

Criticism: The editor is not qualified to compile the list.

Rebuttal: The editor's university education writing research papers is all the qualifications that is needed to compile such a list, since the papers are either explicit to their position, were written by a skeptic, or were already cited by and determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by highly credentialed scientists, such as Sherwood B. Idso Ph.D. Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory and Patrick J. Michaels Ph.D. Climatology not the editor.

Criticism: Popular Technology.net is a right-wing website.

Rebuttal: This is a dishonest ad hominem as the editors are politically independent.

Jeff, you do know how to read?

Oh, here we go again. The usual "Eco-terrorists" crap. Straight out of the right wing "Wise Use" et al. handbook.

I suppose Poppy gives the much more damaging "Corporate terrorists" a free pass.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Feb 2014 #permalink

Jeff, the criteria for inclusion is stated and quite simple,

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supportin…

Criteria for Inclusion: All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a peer-reviewed journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm.

It is a shame you have a PhD since you can't even do basic addition or apparently read. It should be rather embarrassing a lowly computer analyst can so easily correct you.

The list is not a survey but a bibliographic resource.

Jeff goes off into strawman la-la land, where am I discussing corporations? Yes I support corporations, no I don't support actual "terrorists" of any kind, not your emotional construct of what one is.

Poptech

Stop whining. You are an active misinformer being treated with the moral and intellectual contempt you deserve. Fuck off with your blether about ad hominem. As for you presuming to call anyone else dishonest - words fucking fail me.

Now bugger off.

Blah blah blah

Can we ignore the nutter please? Hopefully he will bugger off soon.

Listen, pal, I was a Nature editor. Papers were not rejected arbitrarily. The editors sit down daily and discuss new submissions. Those sent out for review must be vigorously defended by the editor responsible. Sure many good papers get rejected from Nature; but its likely that most eventually get published in very good journals anyway. If I think my research is good enough for Nature and it gets rejected, then I usually send it to one that's still excellent, like Ecology or Ecology Letters. I don't automatically go for 'Compost Weekly' or some other lousy one.

Then you write this hilarious refrain:

"highly credentialed scientists, such as Sherwood B. Idso Ph.D. Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory and Patrick J. Michaels Ph.D."

First, these ' highly credentialed' scientists have had or still have clear connections with polluting industries such as Western Fuels, a coal industry lobbying group. In the eyes of many, including myself, this means they are damaged goods. And the fact that they have PhDs does not mean that they are 'highly credentialed'. That's your wording. Many do not agree.

Its ironic that you put PhD after names as if this validates them. I've been attacked dozens of times by a bunch of the ignoranti on here because I dared provide my professional qualifications when challenged. Initially the attacks were to claim that I had no scientific pedigree; when I dimsissed this the next attacks were that I was waving my CV and narcissistic. A no win situation.

I am sure this same bunch will be pleased to see you parading the PhDs of known deniers around. Heck, the Idso's are a comedy team. They deny that C02 drives climate change but at the same time argue that putting more stored C02 into the atmosphere is great for nature and the biosphere. That is strangely a position that we would expect Western Fuels to have. A coincidence?

I think anyone with half a brain can come to their own conclusions there. But anyway I am done with you. You are a waste of my time.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Feb 2014 #permalink

BBD, I know nutters like you can't handle people learning these papers actually exist so all you got left is personal attacks and dishonest ad hominems. It is a shame you can't form a valid argument.

"It is a shame you can’t form a valid argument"

Oh! The irony!

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Feb 2014 #permalink

Poptech

There is no robust scientific sceptical case. You are too stupid/insane to recognise this otherwise self-evident fact, but that is your problem. Go back to Poptech-land and deal with it solo.

"So if a place like, say NY State, changes climate to one where there IS a hurricane season"

Actually, NY state is a hurricane climate state, but we can claim it's not and then pretend it will be, even though this year it wasn't ...

"The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season was the first Atlantic hurricane season since 1994 to end with no major hurricanes, and the first since 1968 to feature no storms of at least category 2 intensity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Atlantic_hurricane_season

Jeff, thanks for refuting your own argument,

"Sure many good papers get rejected from Nature"

You can't dispute their impeccable credentials so you resort to dishonest ad hominems.

Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics with Distinction, University of Minnesota (1964); M.S. Soil Science with a minor in Physics, University of Minnesota (1966); Ph.D. Soil Science with a minor in Meteorology, University of Minnesota (1967); Research Assistant in Physics, University of Minnesota (1962); National Defense Education Act Fellowship (1964-1967); Research Soil Scientist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1967-1974); Editorial Board Member, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1972-1993); Secretary, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1973-1974); Vice-Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1974-1975); Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1974-2001); Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1975-1976); Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977); Secretary, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1979-1980); President, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1980-1982); Member, Task Force on "Alternative Crops", Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (1983); Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2007); Editorial Board Member, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-2003); President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present); Member, Botanical Society of America; Member, American Geophysical Union; Member, American Society of Agronomy; ISI Highly Cited Researcher

Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, University of Chicago (1971); S.M. Biology, University of Chicago (1975); Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979); Research and Project Assistant, Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin (1976-1979); Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1980-1986); Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007); President, Central Virginia Chapter, American Meteorological Society (1986-1987); Executive Board, American Association of State Climatologists (1986-1989); Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995); President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988); Chair, Committee on Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society (1988-1999); Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, Cato Institute (1992-2012); Visiting Scientist, Marshall Institute (1996-Present); Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-2007); Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Member, Association of American Geographers; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Director, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute (2012-Present); Contributor and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1995, 2001, 2007)

The reason for stating they have a PhD is to show they have a research education, something you claim yet posted blatantly bogus nonsense about my list that anyone who could count and read can see is not true.

You don't even have any valid arguments left and like the other clowns here resort to barrages of personal attacks. Anyone with half a brain can count better than you, that is for sure.

Shills. Look them up on Sourcewatch.

Next.

Look, PT, you are going to go backwards waving industry shills like Michaels and the Idsos around. It's completely counter-productive. Try something less blatantly insane and self-defeating - like going somewhere else.

Poptart, as history shows, there is no point in 'debating' fundamentalists, particularly those who mistake rhetoric for reasoning.

In any case, we already know that ~3% of climate scientists disagree with the consensus, so your project is pointless.

Your waving around of your pet collection of - what? 0.01% of papers? which even if they were all of pristine provenance (which they are not) and weren't subject to your uneducated biases (which they are - just ask Pielke) - is even more pointless.

But I expect it keeps you occupied which must be nice.
.

Evidence denial, PT. First and last refuge of the misinformer. They are shills and everybody knows it but you. Wakey!

Betula, your #91 is in the 'Ain't even wrong' category.

You are showing the comprehension of a nematode.

Poor, chek delusionally believing anyone takes his long debunked consensus arguments seriously.

Which Pielke strawman are you referring to?

Poor poptart, delusionally believing his list is of any use except to fellow cranks looking for big sounding numbers. They sure as shit aren't actually doing anything with them, just like with all the data they bleated they wanted.

As for the Pielke reference - don't play the innocent. It's likely the only time a climate scientist engaged with you. Try casting your mind back to when you punting your 450 or whatever even more irrelevant number it was years ago.

chek,

Why were Dr. Pielke's papers listed?

Hehehe,.. Little Bonaparte (Jeffie), the prominent maggotologist who believs in the Elders of fossil fuels (combating climate scientists), got smacked around the usual way. What a masochist!. :-)

Like I have said many times, Deloids are the only biotic proxie confirming that the globe is heating up faster and faster. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 14 Feb 2014 #permalink

Yap! Yap!

Try original thinking.

Poptart, a more relevant question is why are you bothering?
There's no demand for snake oil or its salemen here.

choke, why can't you answer the question?

PT

Speaking of questions, perhaps the more interesting question is: why do some people (almost never qualified experts) reject the standard scientific position on CC?

It's a very odd thing to do.

BBD, it seems to be a pattern here with you and your clown friends making arguments you cannot support.

So tell me why were Dr. Pielke’s papers listed?

Lets hear the strawman.

I want to thank all the clowns here as I am having too much fun with "PhD" Jeff failing at elementary math and then refuting his own arguments. I could not have asked for anything better.

I have no idea what the Pielke conversation is about. What interests me here is the fundamental issue raised at #8:

Why do some people (almost never qualified experts) reject the standard scientific position on CC?

It’s a very odd thing to do. If you want to talk to me, you can talk about this.

BBD, I am not interested in discussing your red herrings based on strawman arguments. It distracts from my clown pummeling about my list.

Not prepared to discuss the fundamental issue here at all, PT? Weak.

It distracts from my clown pummeling about my list.

Well maybe, just maybe, you should have some more clowns performing on the other side of SS Denial, list solved.

Whatever, what a pathetic, illogical, cringeworthy, buttock-clenching, shoddy sense of self importance you have.

Your village needs your return - Limbaugh is getting too old for the role.

Nor prepared to acknowledge that his list is monumentally less significant than the ~ 3% of climate scientists who distance themselves from the consensus arrived at by the evidence for AGW.

Who knows, another 10 or 20 years and poptart may have found enough self-defined loopholes to grow his list to 0.02% of papers.

Ooops my bad - it seems poptart did remove the disputed Pielke papers from his list.

In my defence I've taken no more notice of this Calfian bag'o'shite or subsequent developments since it first surfaced over 4 years ago.

Lionel, the SS Alarm has been a wreck diver tourist attraction off the coast of the Maldives for years now.

A sample of the email I just received from real scientists this week,

"Great blog post. You may want to add my most recent paper" - [Scientist]

"Thanks for putting your time into this project, All the best," - [Scientist]

Look at these incoming hits! never seen anything like his before.

Choke, let me know when all the scientists on the planet are polled so we can actually determine a consensus.

Look at that Choke learns how to do research, maybe he can teach "PhD" Jeff.

PT

Why do you think some people become convinced - despite lacking any professional expertise - that the mainstream scientific position is wrong?

Climate Basic #1:

There is no coherent scientific argument countering the mainstream scientific position on AGW.

Poptart, get back to me when all the National Academies of Science on the planet have withdrawn their concurrence with the mainstream climate science position on AGW.

@poptech

Good to see you here poptech! Remedial education Jeff is still reeling from Hougoumont I'd imagine ;)

The deltoids are quite unique, enjoy while you can!
;)

Red Herrings galore!

BBD, let me know when all the scientists on the planet are polled so we can actually determine the "mainstream scientific position".

Choke, how many National Academy scientists signed a position statement on climate change?

GSW, I only visit the clowns here when I have to teach them basic things like how to add or read.

PT

BBD, let me know when all the scientists on the planet are polled so we can actually determine the “mainstream scientific position”.

The mainstream scientific position on AGW exists. You can deny this, but it won't make it go away.

That's why I'm interested in your behaviour. What you are doing is beyond quixotic. It is very odd. So why do it? Talk to me about your motivations.

@poptech

"GSW, I only visit the clowns here when I have to teach them basic things like how to add or read"

Fair enough poptech, if I was asked to express a view, the majority haven't actually mastered being able to think! Admittedly when you poke them they make a noise, but on that alone could they be classified as being sentient? Personally I have my doubts. Would have jeff ~ slime mold on that count I think.
;)

Heh, when Bjornie grooms'em they stay groomed, right Griselda?

And Poptart, there is no herring redder than your dumb list.

BBD

That’s why I’m interested in your behaviour. What you are doing is beyond quixotic. It is very odd. So why do it? Talk to me about your motivations.

In the immortal words of J P McEnroe, "You cannot be serious."

GSW, I only visit the clowns here when I have to teach them basic things like how to add or read.

But not yet got the hang of writing, from your #72 last page:

He shouldn’t of censored my comments...

You work it out.

And BTW you cannot tell the difference between a statement of fact and an ad hominem. Go do a rain check on that latter and quite frothing here.

adelady

:-)

There are two sides to every story... I'm curious as to PT's fundamental motivations, but only he can tell us what they are and so far he is - oddly - refusing to do so.

This is your first encounter with the libertarian, fruitcakian Poptart, BBD?

... and "£enviro-terrorist" Greenfyre before that. The Poptart show ploughs a thankless, lonely furrow of rejection and imaginary supportive emails but the circus eventually comes your way. And goes, thankfully.

You cannot rationalise with nutters, BBd.
They don't understand what you mean..

chek

This is your first encounter with the libertarian, fruitcakian Poptart, BBD?

No ;-)

Perhaps that is why he is being rather cautious.

adelady

Thanks for the link to carnage past. As I said, it makes old Don Q look like an underachiever.

the UK is getting another well deserved thrashing tonight. i can imagine many climate change denier flood victims in the south of england are wondering whether they backed the right horse after all lol.

still no mention of climate change on tv. can everybody really be that much of a gutless coward. its completely surreal. i'd expect such events to spur massive interest in the issue but they just go on about how the floods can be avoided in future without mentioning the elephant in the corner.

and of course as soon as the weather improves they will continue to ignore the pressing need to do the inevitable, which is severely ration energy use.

AndyUK, the abiding question of the moment is how is Nigie 'fatbutt' Lawson being enabled as a spokesman for anything except paid grandstanding grifters.

BBD, as I said let me know when all the scientists on the planet are polled so we can actually determine the “mainstream scientific position”. So far all I have seen is a very small and very vocal percentage of the world's scientists make baseless declarations.

It is only "quixotic" to your strawman. I was told repeatedly that these papers do not exist and I don't like liars. I also don't like my comments censored so my great friend Greg Laden made the mistake of censoring my comments and now I must make all your lives hell, which gives me great pleasure.

Choke, you guys are masters of logical fallacies, ad hominem, red herrings and strawmen are your specialties. The fact that you are unfamiliar with what these are does not surprise me. Maybe remedial education Jeff can fill you in.

adelady, thank you for bringing up the computer illiterates at Skeptical Science,

http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/02/google-scholar-illiteracy-at-s…

In a desperate attempt to diminish the value of the list of peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic's arguments, former bike messenger and man-purse maker Rob "Scumbags" Honeycutt from Skeptical Science not only lies but puts on a surprising display of his Google Scholar Illiteracy. He fails to use quotes when searching for phrases, is unable to count past 1000 and fails to remove erroneous results such as, "Planet Mutonia and the Young Pop Star Wannabes" - believing it to be a peer-reviewed paper about global warming. It is clear that not only does he not understand how to properly use Google Scholar, he has no idea of the relevance of any of the results he gets.

Update: Rob was forced to concede I was correct (though never owns up to blatantly lying) and has desperately made a flawed updated "analysis". His original inaccurate number of 954,000 results went down to 189,553 results (which he fails to mention in his update) of which 160,130 (84%) CANNOT BE VERIFIED due to the 1000 result limit imposed by Google Scholar. The remaining results are irrefutably filled with erroneous nonsense such as, "The Last Stand of Chuck Norris: 400 All New Facts About the Most Terrifying Man in the Universe" that has to be individually removed before any sort of accurate count can be taken (see the updates for more information). None of which was done leaving his post to be worthless and those who cite it computer illiterate.

Behind the scenes was even more revealing,

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-censorship-o…

"Exit strategy for the Meet the Denominator thread: Do we have one? [...] Poptech is indefatigable ...Against such an adversary traditional methodologies are doomed to impasse. This makes the thread the Skeptical Science version of Afghanistan (substitute with many other protracted losing campaigns). I say we let Rob write up a closing synopsis ...but giving Skeptical Science the last word. And lock the thread & throw away the key." - Daniel Bailey [Skeptical Science], February 18, 2011

Please tell me you wish to discuss the "Meet the Denominator" thread as I would thoroughly enjoy giving the clowns here a Google Scholar education as well.

Was that your "look squirrels"" moment Poptart?
You sad fuck.

Never mind the squirrels, what about the bollocks?

The mainstream scientific position on AGW exists. You can deny this, but it won’t make it go away.

That’s why I’m interested in your behaviour. What you are doing is beyond quixotic. It is very odd. So why do it? Talk to me about your motivations.

It appears to me that you're assuming you're communicating with as rational being rather than a transparently political zealot brandishing a (prized by some fringe gullibles) bag'o'shite and proud of it, BBD.
This is poptart's moment in the sun.
This is all he'll ever be.
You and I and a million others know it's fuckwittery defined, but there's always another half dozen mois- knickered GSW's waiting ... somewhere.
Over a fucking rainbow, perhaps.

BBD,
No one other than you is arguing that the quoted scientists are saying there is no such thing as AGW.
Perhaps you might need to read the Poptech compilation?
You do appear to be conflating the issue with your aggressive questioning.

Awww, StuPid, you appear unaware that Poptart will entertain any old shit such as invented, curve-fitted cycles in his list. Anything, other than mainstream AGW.
Just exactly the way the shills and think-tanks like it.

Correction:
No one other than you (BBD) & chek.

*Sigh* StuPid, you haven't a clue - or rather as much of a clue as Poptart. Let me explain.
If Poptart had some point, he'd tell us something like Wanker and Dill et al 2003 said whatever, thus showing a cionsiderable flaw in the accepted data/statistics /equations/conclusions/ concept blahdy-blah.
But no, he doesn't.
Instead he invites you (the gullible) to rummage through his stinky bag'o'shite on the premise that surely, somewhere in there, 500, 800 or10,000 cranks with their POS papers can't be wrong.
Being a fuckwit who wouldn't understand the difference between radiative transfer and a radiator transplant, you decline to examine the said bag'o'shite but lazily buy into poptart's premise.
Poptart will deny his premise, but then he hopes everybody thinks - or rather doesn't think - like you.
Meanwhile, in the real world the predictions of AGW are playing out.

Chek,
For someone who often complains about lack of respect for Science & scientists your comments @ # 41 & @ # 43 are rather contradictory. . . or perhaps you did not actually read the Poptech link?

GSW says,

"if I was asked to express a view, the majority haven’t actually mastered being able to think!"

This is the revelation by one of the master debaters, priest Monsignor Asinus Cohenitis of the Denialist church:

"Cats can lick their own arses; climate scientists can only lick each other’s arses."

When BBD calls him a "fuckwit with limited intelligence", you'd have to agree. You have to feel abit sorry for anyone who is so dimwitted that they think the above idiotic statement is "thought provoking."

I can just imagine the congregation of deniers pondering that most profound statement, no doubt on the threshold of mastering the ability to "think". They might even concede that it's not on the same level as e=mc², but as grounbreaking revelations go, it's pretty close they would claim.

And then Monsignor Asinus Cohenitis comes in and says, "sorry guys, I didn't mean for you to think about it for so long, it was only a joke. I just wanted to insult those climate scientists _ who think they're smarter than me _ and I couldn't think of anything clever to say. Please go back to your normal routines."

Grisso (GSW) curses, angry that the Monsignor, the man he so respected as an authority on everything, had tricked him. He had spent days thinking, pondering, mulling over those words. So many thoughts had run through his head; he had been wondering whether the Monsignor had photographic evidence of such debauchery; and if it was true, whether it wasn't interfering with their supposed research; if it could be proven that they spent so much time licking each other then maybe he could prove that all the climate research was bogus; was it something even deeper _ a riddle, the answer to which would reveal the meaning of life? It even crossed his mind that this licking of arse might even be pleasurable; should he suggest to the congregation that they try it?

GSW and all his friends in the congregation are shattered. They know they'll have to wait a long time before the next, hopefully genuine, "thought provoking" revelation is given to them. In the meantime their brains quickly revert to their normal state of dormancy.

StuPid, there are too many coffee granules and grains of salt in the world still to be counted and sorted before ever again finding the time to devote to click-thru on a Poptart link.

Poptart writes,
"He shouldn’t of censored my comments..."

That's not even a typo; it's the English level of a 12 year old. I don't think it's an ad hominem to state that someone with such a poor level of literacy is very unlikely to have studied enough to be able to debate climate science, let alone critique any scientific paper in order to establish whether any study he lists is worth the paper it's written on.

Could Poptech tell us if the paper by Albert Parker/Boretti being discussed by Tamino in his latest post (under the title "Making stuff up") is included in his list of "denier" papers.

And let's not forget the academic and intellectual contributions of David Archibald's papers, e.g., http://n3xus6.blogspot.com.au/2007/02/dd.html _ he was in such hurry (poptech told him to hurry up, he wanted to put it on his list) that he didn't notice he typed the same paragrah twice, let alone the typos. That paper tries to correlate global temperature with solar cycles, but as Nexus states, he uses just "5 stations out of the hundreds and hundreds available! Not only did he only choose 5, all 5 were within several hundred miles of each other in South Eastern USA!" No doubt that paper is on the list. Are those representative of the quality of the list?

Lionel @ previous page...

"I have assembled a few choice quotes. I have included page numbers for each segment. etc. etc. as #67 above."

Which quote states the floods are unprecedented and climate change is to blame? Let's look:

"A more comprehensive study of storms affecting the UK is needed to explore these findings in more detail, but the current evidence does suggest an increase in storminess".

The evidence suggests a comprehensive study is needed to provide more detail. Oh wait, that wasn't a suggestion, it was a statement. The suggestion is about an increase in storminess...

"The persistence of the recent storminess is unusual, and although clustering of storms is quite common, the continued run of deep depressions, through December, January and on into February, is not."

So clusters of storms are common, though this cluster is unusual...
Unusual - the new look of a scientific consensus.

""However, there is now some emerging evidence that, over the UK, daily heavy rain events may be more frequent"

"

It's not actual evidence, it's emerging evidence. It hasn't emerged yet, but it's on it's way. We'll let you know when it arrives. We'll know when this happens because something unusual may happen when it does...

"It is worth emphasizing that there is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly heavy rain events."

So climate change is to blame because a suggestion can't be falsified. Brilliant.

"Flash flooding, which can be exacerbated by land management and land use practices (particularly the extension of impermeable areas), may also increase if the recent intensification in rainfall translates into an enduring trend."

So climate change is to blame for the floods occurring now, because if it rains more in the future, flash flooding may increase. That's a truly astounding bit of information there...

Thanks Lionel. Informative as usual.

Ah, I see that Beetlejuice apparated, right on cue.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Feb 2014 #permalink

chek,
So even though you haven't read it, you still claim to know who contributed to the compilation at the Poptech link and (apparently by agreeing with BBD's aggressive questioning) that all those peer reviewed reports and papers are claiming that there is no such thing as AGW?
here is a copy/paste from the link:
Criticism: Popular Technology.net is an AGW "denier" website.
Rebuttal: This is a dishonest ad hominem as we believe there is a scientific hypothesis called anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
And for Jp:
There are a lot of papers re solar cycles on this list:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supportin…
All have been published via peer review.
I guess you could go through all of them and let us know whether they pass your 'quality' question and if Archibald's paper is amongst them?

...and with him came the denialist coterie, also on cue.

Somewhere there is a number of villages missing their idiots.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Feb 2014 #permalink

FrankD from #51 on the previous page:

In fact it is probably the worst since 1362′s Grote Mandrenke, which was a single (massive, but not reliably measured) storm, not the succession of events we have seen this year.

I was going to make this observation a few days ago but pressings issues irl intervened - you've reminded me...

One of my passions is the vernacular architecture of northwestern Europe. Many of the building techniques and materials are actually good monitors for climatic events and conditions, and I suspect that there is scope for at least several papers analysing historic flooding using the structural integrity of buildings of various known ages and repair profiles.

If it's not already being investigated it would be worth a tap on someone's shoulder.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Feb 2014 #permalink

Criticism: Popular Technology.net is an AGW “denier” website.

Rebuttal: This is a dishonest ad hominem as we believe there is a scientific hypothesis called anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Yep, that sets up a juvenile and asinine strawman in order to not rebut the critique despite being labelled "rebuttal", and for bonus points it misuses the term "ad hominem".

Thanks for showing us that the stie isn't scientifically serious, and apparently doesn't even have a decent grasp of basic logic. That was your point, right?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 15 Feb 2014 #permalink

i dont know about the vernacular architecture, but shoddy modern english buildings are not up to present conditions, not being designed for intense, month long hurricanes. woops, there goes another roof. the council can always console themselves that the repair work will probably be added to GDP!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-26178194

Its hilarious to see that the usual clots: gormless stupid w****** (GSW) Olly et al think Poppy is 'thrashing me'. It shows you how utterly deluded they are.

Of course its the complete reverse. Poppy leaves his appalling list on his web log where its primarily going to be 'scrutinized' by the idiot brigade of converted deniers. No chance he'll try and send to to a solid peer-reviewed journal where it will be jettisoned in a nanosecond. Also, his 'interpretation' of impact factors is complete and utter garbage. Scientists are able to gauge the strength of their research and send it to the appropriate journals. You don't send groundbreaking research (at least if you think its groundbreaking) to a bottom-feeding journal. Yet much of the so-called denial literature is in there. Certainly a disproportionate amount. This has nothing at all to do with popularity but with methodology and the significance of the results. I'd like to know how many peer-reviewed papers Poppy has in his amazing career. My guess is a big, fat, ZERO. Yet he thinks can lecture me on the way that science works. He's only trying anything he can to rehabilitate crappy denier science. Again, why not send his groundbreaking research to a top journal? I asked self-righteous/legend in his own mind Jonas this on his thread. He claims to know more than most statured climate scientists, and does not hesitate to denigrate esteemed researchers like James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth, Ben Santer and Michael Mann.

The response? Silence, followed by the usual blatherings about "Jeffie this" and "Jeffie that" and various ad homs. Similarly, Poppy is in way over his head. He writes about science as if he isn an 'insider' when in reality he's way way out in the cold (metaphorically of course). But that doesn't stop the other non/pseudo intellectuals - GSW and Olly - wading in to his defense. The lot of them are a waste of time.

As for 'eco-terrorists', Poppy didn't even understand the thrust of my response, illustrating the limits of his intelligence. It seems to me that his interpretation is anyone who actively apposes rapacious, unregulated free market absolutism is an 'eco-terrorist'. Its so easy to smear Greenfyre with this tag as a means of dismissing the core thrust f his arguments. But the fact is that Poppy is a right-wingnut who probably is an uber-capitalist eludes him. What I am saying is that unregulated free market absolutism and nakedly predatory capitalism are far greater threats to nature and humanity than his 'eco-terrorists' are. The consequences of business-as-usual for the biosphere and human civilization are terrifying to contemplate. We are on a collision course with the natural economy if we don't act soon, and climate change is going to be a major driver that undermines critical ecosystem services. Of course this will all be over Poppy's head, leaving me to wonder on what scientific basis he is an AGW denier? He has no scientific bonafides. The answer, therefore is clearly based on political and economicv ideology. As it is with GSW, Olly, Stu2, Betula and the rest of this lot on Deltoid.

Poppy, I am also afraid that criticizing Sarah Palin won't do. By now the US is a corporate state. It doesn't matter who is in power. They've won.They've largely co-opted the Senate, Congress, and the Supreme Court. You so-called democracy is a farce. Both parties depend on corporate donations to get elected and are utterly beholden to corporate power. Its a plutocracy. Both So in that sense you've got your way. But don't try claiming that you are interested in the veracity of the science.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 15 Feb 2014 #permalink

I'd just like to say that I'm quite enjoying some of jp's literary contributions ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 15 Feb 2014 #permalink

The meet the denominator post is one of my favorites as I never grow tired of humiliating the computer illiterates at skeptical science.

Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science

In a desperate attempt to diminish the value of the list of peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic's arguments, former bike messenger and man-purse maker Rob "Scumbags" Honeycutt from Skeptical Science not only lies but puts on a surprising display of his Google Scholar Illiteracy. He fails to use quotes when searching for phrases, is unable to count past 1000 and fails to remove erroneous results such as, "Planet Mutonia and the Young Pop Star Wannabes" - believing it to be a peer-reviewed paper about global warming. It is clear that not only does he not understand how to properly use Google Scholar, he has no idea of the relevance of any of the results he gets.

Update: Rob was forced to concede I was correct (though never owns up to blatantly lying) and has desperately made a flawed updated "analysis". His original inaccurate number of 954,000 results went down to 189,553 results (which he fails to mention in his update) of which 160,130 (84%) CANNOT BE VERIFIED due to the 1000 result limit imposed by Google Scholar. The remaining results are irrefutably filled with erroneous nonsense such as, "The Last Stand of Chuck Norris: 400 All New Facts About the Most Terrifying Man in the Universe" that has to be individually removed before any sort of accurate count can be taken (see the updates for more information). None of which was done leaving his post to be worthless and those who cite it computer illiterate.

Which clown here would like an education on how Google Scholar works?

JP, all you got is a typo? When you have to resort to breaking out the Grammar Nazi, it is clear you don't have much else. I was going to say - I hope you could teach remedial education Jeff how to read but it looks like you cannot either,

"...let alone critique any scientific paper in order to establish whether any study he lists is worth the paper it’s written on."

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2014/02/10/february-2014-open-thread/co…

Criticism: The editor is not qualified to compile the list.
Rebuttal: The editor's university education writing research papers is all the qualifications that is needed to compile such a list, since the papers are either explicit to their position, were written by a skeptic, or were already cited by and determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by highly credentialed scientists, such as Sherwood B. Idso Ph.D. Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory and Patrick J. Michaels Ph.D. Climatology not the editor.

Criteria for Inclusion: "All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a peer-reviewed journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm."

It doesn't say - "papers must be approved by an alarmist clown".

Look Poptart, let me reiterate: we already know ~3% of scientists disagree with the evidence-based consensus on AGW.
Your hobby collection representing a much lower percentage is not news, and changes nothing.

Poor Choke, forced to resort to expletive-laced tirades.

My premise is that these peer-reviewed papers exist. The list is simply a resource and I made it for reasons such as these,

"I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line." - John H., Comment at RealClimate.org

A fascinating fact is how many emails I receive thanking me for the list.

Choke, can you please show me the comprehensive survey of all the world's scientists to support your long debunked talking point?

"...and changes nothing."

The ridiculous web traffic my list is receiving says otherwise.

By 'long debunked', you of course mean disparaged by denier blogs and their dunderheaded clientele of fuckwits.

However, I can't seem to find any peer reviewed papers challenging the findings of Oreskes (2004) Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010), Cook et al. (2013). Not even an attempt.

And as for your 'ridiculous web traffic' - well, I couldn't have put it better myself.

What is also utterly ironic here is how Poppy appeals to authority in listing a number of scientists who have been on the corporate payroll at one time or another as bonafide experts. Yet when the names of Hansen, Mann, Santer Trenberth and others is raised (e.g. scientists with vastly greater standing in the scientific community) out come the smears and knives. Its strange how scientific illiterates like Poppy, GSW, Olly, Stu2 and the others who expose their stupidity on this blog don't seem to hesitate trying to give the impression that they know more than people with the degrees and years of experience in relevant research. Its pure Dunning-Kruger.

Olly is always chiding me for the fact that I have a very strong resume (my research vastly out cited both that of Idso and Michaels last year and I have more than twice as many citations of my work since 1993 than Michaels has in his entire scientifiic career). Yet Olly doesn't castigate Poptart for waving the CVs of Idso and Michaels as if this vindicates them (e.g. when it comes to appealing to authority it depends on who you are and what you believe). Why don't the far better CVs of the vast majority of climate scientists vindicate them?

Given that the vast majority of climate scientists agree over the role of human forcing on climate (as the IPCC documents clearly show), then all that the deniers are left with is scraping the barrel for any names they can and to bloat their qualifications to give the impression they are leaders in the field. The fact that many have been (or still are) on the corporate payroll is ignored.

Lastly, Poptart uses the Jonas tactic in an attmept to downplay the positions of every Academy of Science in every nation on Earth with respect to their positions on AGW. Its the old, "They didn't have a democratic vote" chestnut. Hilarious! Its as if all the members of the NAS or AAAS were shut out by the views of a few senior members. This is total and utter bullshit., If the official statements of these prestigious bodies were at all controversial, it would be all over the corporate media and the denialosphere. The fact is that these decisions are based on rank-and-file opinion. They are not flippant; they are the consensus view.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 15 Feb 2014 #permalink

“Flash flooding, which can be exacerbated by land management and land use practices (particularly the extension of impermeable areas), may also increase if the recent intensification in rainfall translates into an enduring trend.”

So climate change is to blame for the floods occurring now, because if it rains more in the future, flash flooding may increase. That’s a truly astounding bit of information there…

That above was intended as a lead in, in fairness, to a point about inappropriate methods of providing hard-standings for vehicles in front of properties which is one of many factors exacerbating rapid flooding. There are also many problematic land practices in the catchments of our rivers some of which Owen Paterson has been encouraging of late.

Hum! So you missed the full context and just pick holes in statements that you don't fully understand the foundation of. This is typical of the denier, which includes those one time scientists who PT is currently championing.

However, here is one of a number of statements which will answer your continued attempts to NOT SEE THE ELEPHANT, from page 26:

In terms of the storms and floods of winter 2013/2014, it is not possible, yet, to give a definitive answer on whether climate change has been a contributor or not. The climatological context discussed earlier was unusual, with the Atlantic jet stream being more intense and reaching further back into the tropical East Pacific than normal. Those factors in themselves would allow warmer and moister air to enter the storm systems. It is also the case that the sub-tropical Atlantic is now warmer than it was several decades ago and that too would act to enhance the moisture content of the storms.

Now go read page 24 on models and note the reference 19.

Also visit The recent pause in warming and read the three part paper linked to at the foot of the article. This will provide you with more context as well as knocking on the head any idea of a slow down in the rate of Earth warming from anthropogenic causes.

But then you never like or understand context so that suggestion is probably a waste of time with the likes of you.

Jeff wrote:

Hilarious! Its as if all the members of the NAS or AAAS were shut out by the views of a few senior members.

Indeed, and if true the likes of Lindzen would have (not of Ha!) been ejected years ago.

2Stupid

You need to answer the same question Poptech is too frightened to deal with here.

As for your lie about "aggressive" questioning, well that just shows how frightened you are of confronting the reasons for your odd behaviour. If I were to question you or PT "aggressively", you would know about it. Stop making shit up, there's a good lad.

And explain why you and so many other unqualified and ill-informed people see fit to deny - vehemently - the validity of the standard scientific position on CC. This despite the towering foundation of evidence on which the standard position now rests. Why the super-quixotic behaviour? Why the extreme departure from rational, objective reasoning?

Please talk about your motivations. Show PT how it's done.

BBD, you hit the nail on the head with this question:

And explain why you (the deniers) and so many other unqualified and ill-informed people see fit to deny – vehemently – the validity of the standard scientific position on CC.

This is the main point. And they never answer it because then their right wing-libertarian views would have to be expressed. They don't give a damn about the science they don't understand. Instead, they use it to camouflage their own political agendas.

The prevailing view on CC is that the it is primarily due to human forcing. No ifs or buts.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 15 Feb 2014 #permalink

So, accepting Poptech's numbers on the previous page and at #57 uncritically contains the grand total of 1250 papers out of 29,423 (189,553 - 160, 130). That's 4.2% - so Poptech pretty much agrees with Cook et al.

What I find bizarre is that he dismisses "long debunked consensus arguments" yet is effectively using the same argument in reverse. Either the number of papers is relevant or its not. Of it is, he lost and if it isn't, his stamp-collecting is pointless.

Yet he continues to fight an argument he claims is "long debunked". I don't see anyone keeping a list of phlogiston papers, but there is silly old Andrew, breathlessly adding every paper he can get away with to his pointless list. A bit sad, really, to see so much effort expended on such a futile exercise.,

"If it’s not already being investigated it would be worth a tap on someone’s shoulder."

It's not being investigated, however, the idea of an investigation surely suggests climate change is to blame for the current flooding, therefore, no investigation is needed.

Up next: The thought of studying the changing designs of bilge pumps throughout history suggests climate change is to blame for storminess..

Up next: The thought of studying the changing designs of bilge pumps throughout history suggests climate change is to blame for storminess..

That is not a coherent statement, whatever Coles to you!

Remedial education Jeff is still confused why you don't send a bibliographic resource to a peer-reviewed journal.

I did not interpret anything but made a factual statement,

Impact Factor is a subjective determination of popularity not scientific validity that is widely abused and manipulated.

And supported it with multiple sources,

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supportin…

The Number That's Devouring Science
(The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 15, 2005)

"Deluged by so many manuscripts, high-impact journals can send only a fraction out to experts for review. Nature, for example, rejects half of the submissions it gets without forwarding them to referees, says its editor in chief, Philip Campbell. [...] Dr. DeAngelis, of JAMA, says editors at some top journals have told her that they do consider citations when judging some papers. "There are people who won't publish articles," she says, "because it won't help their impact factor." [...] Fiona Godlee, editor of BMJ (formerly known as the British Medical Journal), agrees that editors take impact factors into account when deciding on manuscripts, whether they realize it or not. ...She says editors may be rejecting not only studies in smaller or less-fashionable fields, but also important papers from certain regions of the world, out of fear that such reports won't attract sufficient citation attention."

European Association of Science Editors statement on inappropriate use of impact factors
(European Association of Science Editors, November 2007)

"The impact factor, however, is not always a reliable instrument for measuring the quality of journals. Its use for purposes for which it was not intended, causes even greater unfairness."

"Quality not Quantity" – DFG Adopts Rules to Counter the Flood of Publications in Research
(German Research Foundation, February 2010)

"Whether in performance-based funding allocations, postdoctoral qualifications, appointments, or reviewing funding proposals, increasing importance has been given to numerical indicators such as the H-index and the impact factor. The focus has not been on what research someone has done but rather how many papers have been published and where. This puts extreme pressure upon researchers to publish as much as possible and sometimes leads to cases of scientific misconduct in which incorrect statements are provided concerning the status of a publication. This is not in the interest of science,"

Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research
(British Medical Journal, Volume 314, pp. 498–502, February 1997)
- Per O. Seglen

"Summary points: - Use of journal impact factors conceals the difference in article citation rates (articles in the most cited half of articles in a journal are cited 10 times as often as the least cited half) - Journals' impact factors are determined by technicalities unrelated to the scientific quality of their articles - Journal impact factors depend on the research field: high impact factors are likely in journals covering large areas of basic research with a rapidly expanding but short lived literature that use many references per article - Article citation rates determine the journal impact factor, not vice versa"

The Impact Factor Game
(PLoS Medicine, Volume 3, Issue 6, June 2006)
- The PLoS Medicine Editors

...it is well known that editors at many journals plan and implement strategies to massage their impact factors. Such strategies include attempting to increase the numerator in the above equation by encouraging authors to cite articles published in the journal or by publishing reviews that will garner large numbers of citations. Alternatively, editors may decrease the denominator by attempting to have whole article types removed from it (by making such articles superficially less substantial, such as by forcing authors to cut down on the number of references or removing abstracts) or by decreasing the number of research articles published. These are just a few of the many ways of "playing the impact factor game." One problem with this game, leaving aside the ethics of it, is that the rules are unclear—editors can, for example, try to persuade Thomson Scientific to reduce the denominator, but the company refuses to make public its process for choosing "citable" article types. Thomson Scientific, the sole arbiter of the impact factor game, is part of The Thomson Corporation, a for-profit organization that is responsible primarily to its shareholders. It has no obligation to be accountable to any of the stakeholders who care most about the impact factor—the authors and readers of scientific research."

Show Me The Data
(The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 179, Number 6, pp. 1091-1092, December 2007)
- Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, Emma Hill

"It became clear that Thomson Scientific could not or (for some as yet unexplained reason) would not sell us the data used to calculate their published impact factor. If an author is unable to produce original data to verify a figure in one of our papers, we revoke the acceptance of the paper. We hope this account will convince some scientists and funding organizations to revoke their acceptance of impact factors as an accurate representation of the quality—or impact—of a paper published in a given journal. Just as scientists would not accept the findings in a scientific paper without seeing the primary data, so should they not rely on Thomson Scientific's impact factor, which is based on hidden data."

Irreproducible results: a response to Thomson Scientific
(The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 180, Number 2, pp. 254-255, January 2008)
- Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, Emma Hill

"Impact factors are determined from a dataset produced by searching the Thomson Scientific database using specific parameters. As previously stated, our aim was to purchase that dataset for a few journals. Even if those results were for some reason not stored by Thomson Scientific, it is inconceivable to us that they cannot run the same search over the same database to produce the same dataset. The citation data for a given year should be static. In essence, Thomson Scientific is saying that they cannot repeat the experiment, which would be grounds for rejection of a manuscript submitted to any scientific journal."

Nefarious Numbers
(arXiv:1010.0278, October 2010)
- Douglas N. Arnold, Kristine K. Fowler

"The impact factor for a journal in a given year is calculated by ISI (Thomson Reuters) as the average number of citations in that year to the articles the journal published in the preceding two years. It has been widely criticized on a variety of grounds: - A journal's distribution of citations does not determine its quality. - The impact factor is a crude statistic, reporting only one particular item of information from the citation distribution. - It is a flawed statistic. For one thing, the distribution of citations among papers is highly skewed, so the mean for the journal tends to be misleading. For another, the impact factor only refers to citations within the first two years after publication (a particularly serious de deficiency for mathematics, in which around 90% of citations occur after two years). - The underlying database is flawed, containing errors and including a biased selection of journals. - Many confounding factors are ignored, for example, article type (editorials, reviews, and letters versus original research articles), multiple authorship, self-citation, language of publication, etc."

Ouch.

I like how Remedial education Jeff accuses me of ad hominens and then attempts to use them against me.

I told you already I am just a lowly computer analyst, you are "PhD" Jeff who can't count and refutes his own arguments.

Please quote where I write as an "insider" and please stop the pathetic attempt at mind games with other commentators here, you are embarrassing yourself even more.

An eco-terrorist is someone who uses terrorism in the name of the environment. Just like the organization Greenfyre was a chapter co-founded of = Earth First.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/truth-about-greenfyre.html

"My experience is that many people are impressed and supportive of the radical militant actions that we do. ...I make no secret of my militant activism, arrests etc; [...]
...we do break the law. [...] In a few weeks I, and 50 others are off to jail. ...I do what I do because of a "pure, true love for the Earth.
"

- Mike Kaulbars, 1990

Man Gets 6 Years in Plot to Damage A-Plants (The New York Times, September 8, 1991)

"A member of the militant environmental group Earth First has been sentenced by a Federal judge to six years in prison for his role in a conspiracy to damage nuclear power and weapons plants in three states. [...]

Mr. Davis acknowledged his actions and told the judge that he took responsibility for them. But he also said he had been trying to protect himself and others against what he saw as the potentially deadly danger of nuclear plants."

Who needs a paper when you have this,

One sentence doesn't refute the four papers I pointed to Poptart, however much you wish it did.

Remedial education Jeff, you can keep lying and calling me "right-wing" but it is not going to make you feel any better about being a far-left socialist. In reality I will remain an independent.

Your alarmist, economically illiterate rants are not over my head. They just prove that this is ideological for YOU.

Don't tell me you are a political illiterate as well? The United States is not a "Democracy" but a Constitutional Republic.

You guys made the mistake trying to pass your BS off using computer systems you don't even understand how to use,

Computational science: ...Error …why scientific programming does not compute. (Nature, Volume 467, pp. 775-777, October 2010)

"Researchers are spending more and more time writing computer software to model biological structures, simulate the early evolution of the Universe and analyse past climate data, among other topics. But programming experts have little faith that most scientists are up to the task.

[...] as computers and programming tools have grown more complex, scientists have hit a "steep learning curve", says James Hack, director of the US National Center for Computational Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. "The level of effort and skills needed to keep up aren't in the wheelhouse of the average scientist."

As a general rule, researchers do not test or document their programs rigorously, and they rarely release their codes, making it almost impossible to reproduce and verify published results generated by scientific software, say computer scientists. [...]

Greg Wilson, a computer scientist in Toronto, Canada, who heads Software Carpentry — an online course aimed at improving the computing skills of scientists — says that he woke up to the problem in the 1980s, when he was working at a physics supercomputing facility at the University of Edinburgh, UK. After a series of small mishaps, he realized that, without formal training in programming, it was easy for scientists trying to address some of the Universe's biggest questions to inadvertently introduce errors into their codes, potentially "doing more harm than good". [...]

"There are terrifying statistics showing that almost all of what scientists know about coding is self-taught," says Wilson. "They just don't know how bad they are."

As a result, codes may be riddled with tiny errors that do not cause the program to break down, but may drastically change the scientific results that it spits out."

What an embarrassment.

PT

Why are you refusing to discuss your motivation for your irrational, counter-factual, non-expert rejection of the mainstream scientific position on AGW? What is making you behave in this peculiar - some would argue demented - fashion? Can you justify your stance here? If so, why not do that and establish some kind of intellectual credibility? Come on man; I'm getting fed up with asking you to do this.

What an embarrassment.

Indeed, most would be embarrassed by your transparent attempt to smear with a generalisation but no specifics. But not you, poptart. You just shovel away.

They're all insane, aren't they, chek? Completely batshit. Blethering away at right-angles to the argument and yet expecting to be taken seriously. It's abundantly clear that not *one* of these fuckwits has ever cut it in the real world. They cannot think straight.

"Computer analyst" my arse. Some monkey in sales.

FrankD, are you illiterate too?

"So, accepting Poptech’s numbers on the previous page and at #57 uncritically contains the grand total of 1250 papers out of 29,423 (189,553 – 160, 130). That’s 4.2% – so Poptech pretty much agrees with Cook et al."

The "1250" was for papers published after 1990, nothing else. The list contains 1350+ papers.

You can't use Google Scholar PERIOD for any such comparison. Google Scholar is an imperfect, dynamic, academic search engine not a static, scientific, bibliographic database that only includes peer-reviewed content. It is littered with junk like coloring books and editorials by Al Gore.

It is amazing how many computer illiterates there are in this world. Are you really this dense or are all alarmists born this stupid.

Choke, I refuted Anderegg et al. (2010) but you are too computer illiterate to understand,

Google Scholar illiteracy in the PNAS

It is really embarrassing so many computer illiterates are here, it explains a lot.

PT, you are innumeracy personified. So rather than engage with concepts you demonstrably cannot handle, let's pitch the approach at the level a sales monkey might be able to cope with.

Do you understand simple, generic terms like "the overwhelming majority"?

Y/N?

Next, we will apply this concept to the scientific evidence, and then to the scientific literature.

BBD, it is not possible for me to have a motivation towards your strawman argument. I am glad you think my real job and over 18 years of Computer Science / Information Technology experience is fake. I've never worked a day in sales in my life but I have repaired over 5000 computer systems (PCs and Servers) in my career.

BBD, get back to your janitorial work and stop interrupting the discussion.

So, PT, too weak to answer the original question about why unqualified and ill-informed people virulently reject the mainstream scientific position despite the confounding weight of evidence supporting it.

Also too weak to discuss even a crude, bulk quantitative analysis of the evidence supporting the mainstream scientific position: aka "the overwhelming majority" in very simple terms for the innumerate.

* * *

Sorry for mistaking you for a sales monkey when you are in fact a PC repairman.

BBD, It is not possible for me to answer strawman arguments from janitors.

Computer illiterate, PC techs don't repair servers (I wouldn't let them near them), why am I not surprised you don't know this.

See!

Fuck off, you lightweight buffoon.

:-)

Since PT won't answer the question, I will do it for him:

1/ Why do ill-informed laymen reject the mainstream scientific position on AGW?

Because they are ill-informed laymen who do not and cannot understand the scientific evidence. Often, but not invariably, they are also right wing ideologues.

2/ What does "the overwhelming majority" mean?

It means most of a given set or quantity. In the case of scientific evidence concerning AGW - and the papers published exploring that evidence - there is a clear and overwhelming majority underpinning the mainstream scientific position. Stupid little lists and yapping misdirections are utterly irrelevant to this incontrovertible matter of fact.

So far Choke, Remedial education Jeff, Lioness, Grammar Nazi or even the Janitor cannot answer this question,

How many National Academy scientists signed a position statement on climate change?

Instead we get deflections and excuses because they are too afraid to answer.

Pick the straw out of that, PT.

I'm not a janitor, PT. I am a retired businessman. I sold up and walked away three years ago, aged 45. Early retirement is great. Enjoy fixing those PCs.

How many NAS members explicitly reject the mainstream scientific position on AGW, PT?

Alright, the Janitor answers his own strawman argument with lies and misinformation, all the while avoiding showing where all the scientists on the planet have been surveyed as to their position on climate change.

What lies? What misinformation? Everything I have said here is factually correct. It is all true. If you claim that it is lies and misinformation, you will have to demonstrate exactly how so. We both know you cannot do this, so throwing the big words around is stupid.

You are fucking hopeless, you know. I wouldn't have employed you in a million years, back in the day.

But since you are sensitive to this point, you can answer it:

How many NAS members explicitly reject the mainstream scientific position on AGW, PT?

...can you please show me the comprehensive survey of all the world’s scientists to support your long debunked talking point?

Who needs to "comprehensive[ly] survey of all the world’s scientists"? Haven't you heard of representative sampling?

In fact I'm sure that I've pinged you on this point previously, so the question should probably be "haven't you bothered to do your homework and learn even the basics ofrepresentative sampling?".

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 Feb 2014 #permalink

BBD, It is not possible for me to answer strawman arguments from janitors.

Translated:

"BBD I cannot actually justify my rejection of the scientific position on AGW because I don't understand the science and anyway I don't actually have a coherent, well-supported scientific counter-argument. I'm just a nutter, really.

This is why I hate being put on the spot like this, and why I will resort to truly infantile evasiveness and suffer the consequent embarrassment rather than answer you in any way."

How many NAS members explicitly reject the mainstream scientific position on AGW?

;-)

Bernard J. I do not believe it is possible to get an accurate representative sample of all the world's scientists, sorry.

Let's start off as we mean to continue. I know how denier amnesia strikes at every turn of the page, so to keep the focus where it needs to be:

BBD, It is not possible for me to answer strawman arguments from janitors.

Translated:

“BBD I cannot justify my rejection of the scientific position on AGW because I don’t understand the science. Nor do I have a coherent, well-supported scientific counter-argument because as we all know, none exists. I’m just a nutter, really.

Obviously I hate being put on the spot like this and I will resort to truly infantile evasiveness and suffer the consequent embarrassment rather than answer you in any way.”

* * *

What does "overwhelming majority" mean, PT?

Now, how many NAS members explicitly reject the mainstream scientific position on AGW, PT?

"JP, all you got is a typo? When you have to resort to breaking out the Grammar Nazi, it is clear you don’t have much else."

Wrong, dickhead. The point was that it wasn't a typo; it showed your poor literacy. The main thrust of the post, the "much else" which you obviously avoided is the quality of the papers. I gave you two examples of "peer reviewed" denier papers: one with "made up" stuff and the other just pure shiite. I asked whether they're on your list. Are they?

"Criticism: The editor is not qualified to compile the list.
Rebuttal: The editor’s university education writing research papers is all the qualifications that is needed to compile such a list,..."

Typical of a right-wing, tea-party type idiot to be evasive and deliberately (unless you're too stupid to have understood the point) shift the focus. I'm talking about you, dick-brain, not somebody else, when I'm questioning your ability to critique a scientific paper. Are you telling me that you've written research papers dealing with climate science?

To state that your list of papers has been peer reviewed is meaningless; also important is the quality of the peer-review _ especially stuff coming out of E&E, which by all accounts is a publication which is poorly regarded by the scientific community. I mean, the proof is in the pudding, right? Can anyone imagine the execrable crap from Archibald being peer-reviewed and accepted by Nature or Geophysical Research Letters? Get real, you stupid prick; your list is pile of shit, and as I said, you don't have the qualifications or the ability to critique any of those papers and sort out the good from the bad.

So, you're not in sales, you're a computer repairer. Fair, enough. I can't boast of any skills _ I'm flat out knowing how to use mine properly, let alone repair it. And you also claim to be an expert at "googling", and especially how google scholar works. Great. Let's get back to the real issue: what the fuck do you know about climate science and how are you able to tell a shit paper from a good paper. The answer is that you know fuck-all, and anyone who references articles/papers in their blog about CO2 being plant food and how the increasing acidification of the oceans might be beneficial is know-nothing idiot, and a dangerous one at that. I'm not qualified in anything, my only skill being the ability to smell BS a mile away and I sure smelt you coming.

PT

Ah! More clowns:

“Great blog post. You may want to add my most recent paper” – [Scientist - Mickey Mouse]

“Thanks for putting your time into this project, All the best,” – [Scientist - Ginger Spice]</blockquote?

And now that your list is sorted you are sinking being fresh out of freeboard.

In other words 'Foxtrot Oscar'.

PT

Ah! More clowns:

“Great blog post. You may want to add my most recent paper” – [Scientist - Mickey Mouse]

“Thanks for putting your time into this project, All the best,” – [Scientist - Ginger Spice]

And now that your list is sorted you are sinking being fresh out of freeboard.

In other words 'Foxtrot Oscar'.

Drat this mangled hand, hit ? instead of > which of course fubared the formatting.

Betty

Fuck off. You have no idea just how much misery and damage has been inflicted here over the last several weeks by the most intense and sustained period of high wind and rainfall since records began. You don't live here. You have nothing to say about what is going on here right now. This is not a topic for you to play your stupid denialist football gamse with. So I reiterate: shut up and fuck off.

A pretty fair summation of the situation, BBD, jp and Lionel.

The problem is that it's water off a well-oiled idiot's back and Poptart can maintain his level of evasive numptyness indefinitely, which looks clever to his fawning knuckledragging accompaniers.

Now, how many NAS members explicitly reject the mainstream scientific position on AGW, PT?

There was that Happer and his band of super-annuated cranks petition some years ago, but it was so insignificant (less than two dozen retirees IIRC) I can't be arsed googling it, just like I can't be arsed clicking denier links to their dopey, ickean "research".

"I’m not a janitor, PT. I am a retired businessman. I sold up and walked away three years ago, aged 45. Early retirement is great. Enjoy fixing those PC's"

Are you insinuating there is something demeaning about working, even if someone finds that work enjoyable?

" I’m interested in your behaviour." "It is very odd. So why do it? Talk to me about your motivations"

Betula, ever the twerp, just WTF has that to do with attribution of climate change?

Did you bother to visit those ref's I provided including that Peterson et al. 2013: reference on page 24?

If not go do it before returning with more tosh.

Are you insinuating there is something demeaning about working, even if someone finds that work enjoyable?

No. The PC repairman thinks I'm a janitor (because he is a fuckwit) and I was setting him straight. He also overstates his own abilities for rhetorical purposes, so I had a little dig at that too. I took early retirement because I could. It is a privilege that I earned by working fucking hard for years and by being sharp. If I want to sneer at PT for being a moron and one of life's losers, I can. Same goes for you.

Motivations for loathing denier scum - we've been through this. You are committing a crime against humanity and against the entire ecosystem. On a personal level, I look at my son (six and a half now) and consider his future and what is going to happen to his children, should he have any. The rage and frustration that results is more than enough to motivate me to give you and PT and all the rest of the lying denier vermin like you a hard time.

"You are committing a crime against humanity and against the entire ecosystem."

Interesting. I've planted more trees In my lifetime than you could ever count, not to mention the dead, dying or decayed trees I have had removed from along roads and structures for safety reasons or the countless amount of plant material I have nurtured back to health or pruned or cabled to help prevent storm damage over 30 years...providing a service for people who care about their trees...all the while befriending some of the best landscape architects in the world, including those in England.

In addition, I've changed my light bulbs to CFL's..

Yet, you are seething about the crimes against humanity which I have supposedly committed, that being to point out the inconsistencies, uncertainties, lack of data, gaps in knowledge and biases that somehow always seem to be negated or overlooked to form the predicted future catastrophic scenarios that drive policy...

What have you done besides talk?

On a personal level, I look at my son (six and a half now) and consider his future and what is going to happen to his children, should he have any. The rage and frustration that results...

Indeed, and when I look around at my eleven grandchildren (some in their early 20s and one just six months - no greats yet as far as I know) I feel as you do.

The youngest daughter has four boys 5 - 17 and although having a Chemistry 1st herself with her other half a Phd in same, when I consider how we help out whilst she does a teaching PGCE and because they are struggling, with worse to come as the exchequer starts to make excuses for Dave's rash promises I shudder to think.

A big bomb has been lit under this administration with their reneging on climate treaty promises and fracking stupidity with much of the Tory heartland having been washed out of home. Little wonder Dave talks big (that's what PR gurus do) , but will he, can he, deliver?

Not that I have more confidence in Ed's lot. Farrage is a loose canon and also a no-no WRT climate change, the Lib Dems will likely be wiped out.

Not since the French broke their bank supporting the rebellion of the American Colonists leading directly to 'a shortage of cake' has there been such an explosive event driven political tinderbox. Maybe early 1940 came close in Britain though.

Before long some may be happy to find somewhere like this to call home..

This is of course something I would be unlikely to survive. Indeed if I had had the miss-fortune to be displaced by recent storms I doubt I would have survived that either.

There are sure to be problems with the supply of food, basic cleaning material and medicines before long. We are practically on a war footing (rationing?) as the rough edge of the storms starts to bite.

Yet, you are seething about the crimes against humanity which I have supposedly committed, that being to point out the inconsistencies, uncertainties, lack of data, gaps in knowledge and biases that somehow always seem to be negated or overlooked to form the predicted future catastrophic scenarios that drive policy…

Self-serving rubbish. You have done nothing of the kind. All you do - and please do not have the fucking gall to deny it since we have all seen reams of *evidence* - is to try and cast doubt over the science. And fail miserably. The rest is just endless intellectual dishonesty and that is your crime against the species. You are corrected endlessly here and yet you keep on with the same fucking lies and distortions. You aid and abet the shills, apparently willingly. You think you are blameless? No you aren't. You are lying to yourself now. Might as well go for the full house, eh?

What have I done? What I can. Donated to the Climate Science Legal Defence Fund and kept up the pressure on the BBC to stop giving coverage to the shills. Paid a small fortune for cavity wall insulation, loft insulation, installed low energy bulbs, don't drive, don't fly. Fuck you and your hypocrisy, Betty. You were paid to plant the fucking trees by your rich clients and you try to pass yourself off as doing your bit for the environment? There's just no limit to your intellectual dishonesty is there?

I don't click links to denier blogs, and especially not for third rate cartoonists.

Josh hits the nail on the head again GSW, as usual! :-)

And thanks to you pop tech for being gentle on the fabricating maggotologist! The poor lad can't help himself. He suffers badly from self-idolatrine majoris and try to wipe away the shame with name calling and conspiracy theories. When the reality hits him really har he takes a walk-about to experience climate change first hand.

Even though the accelerating global warming has been on a stand still for 15 years or so, the guy can actuallly see how it destructs the biotope. ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 15 Feb 2014 #permalink

Olaus

Even though the accelerating global warming has been on a stand still for 15 years or so

Still repeating debunked lies despite being corrected multiple times? Intellectual dishonesty, much?

Hail Olaus well met!

Did we ever get to the bottom of whether Joffrey had actually "witnessed climate change first hand" ? I know that's what it said on some blog he was associated with, but I think he denies it now(?). Even if he does deny it now, his behaviour is certainly "consistent with" believing he was a witness. ;)

Interlude
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrjl2h4Zo5U
;)

Poptart, Google Scholar is not the main source of scientific studies. The Web of Science is. But since you've never done any science in your life, you probably don't even have access to the site. Figures.

Second, the fact that every Academy of Science in every nation on the planet verifies the existence and threat posed by AGW is proof positive of a large scientific consensus. But what the hell would you know? You are a computer guy and that's it. You don't know ow peer-review works so you come up with your own convenient interpretation. Speaking of which, Poppy, how many peer-reviewed publications do you have? Tell me again? A big, fat zero?

You are pushing your won tea-party/libertarian agenda and you know it. This has nothing to do with the veracity of science. You bloat the qualifications of a few contrarians you like in an appeal to authority, when there are many more qualified scientists on the other side of the debate. You also hash up your interpretation of the importance of impact factors: for the umpteenth time scientists generally submit their best research to high quality journals because the studies are more visible there. These journals have high rejection rates - in some cases pre-review rejection. Journals with low impact factors are far easier to get papers accepted in. You can bullshit all you like but the vast majority of my peers in science aim for the best possible journals their work can be published in. And that does not mean bottom feeding journals with low impact factors. Of course the system is not perfect - far from it. But is the best we have. And in NO WAY does your crapola web commentaries undermine that hard fact.

Why don't you try and publish some of the bilge you write on your blog? Put your money where your mouth is. Of course, you might try Nature, or Science, or PNAS but f course your 'list' will be sent to the bin. But you continually fail to answer this question, as well as BBDS earlier: how does a computer guy with no experience in science at all develop opinions on CC that contradict the vast majority of climate scientists? At scientific conferences I attend (yes, that is something I do Poppy) climate change skeptics are never seen. AGW is by now accepted by the majority of scientists. And there's tons of empirical evidence that proves it. Much of this comes from nature, where we have witnessed quite dramatic shifts in species distributions polewards over the past 3 years as well as to higher elevations. Moreover, there have also been quite dramatic changes in the seasonal phenology of many plants and animals. These shifts are occurring in the blink of an evolutionary eye. The climate is changing rapidly. That part of the debate is over. Done.

As of the USA being a " Constitutional Republic" you have me on the floor with that one. Its a plutocracy. Or, as John Perkins refers to it, a "Corporatocracy". Both parties are beholden to corporate power. Obama received 1.2 billion dollars from banks and corporations for his 2008 election campaign alone, and, as Paul Street has written, he was vetted by corporate lobbyists long before he came to power to ensure that he was no threat to their interests. Democracy in the USA was co-opted some time ago; if you think you live in a healthy functional democracy then you truly are nutty.

BTW, you must be in pain; you sing off so many of your stupid posts with 'Ouch'. Perhaps you ought to take some medicine for whatever it is that afflicts you.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 15 Feb 2014 #permalink

Olaus, its too bad that without those 'maggots' and other insects you dismissively refer to (although I don't personally study the Diptera; fascinating order though) humans would not be able to survive for very long.

Its just that you and your fellow deniers are so prohibitively stupid that you don't understand even that basic fact. Oh, and by the way, are you going to castigate Poppy for waving the CVs of Idso and Michaels? My guess is no - you are too busy exercising your vapid hypocrisy for that.

Good heavens, you and GSW are stupid. There isn't an AGW denier who has ever written into Deltoid with anything half resembling intelligence. Its actually amusing awaiting a denier here with something a half-arsed relevant education - that spot remains vacant.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 15 Feb 2014 #permalink

The level of the delusion exhibited by Olly and GSW is that Poptech is somehow thrashing me in this debate.

That in itself it hilarious; a guy who has never done science in his life conjures up a list of studies - many in comedy-book level rags, many not on the WoS, and many published before Hansen's testimony in 1988, that allegedly oppose the theory of AGW. Then the guy produces his own criteria as to the quality of scientific journals - again bearing in mind he's never, ever published in one. He's probably never been to a scientific conference, doesn't do any primary scientific research, but he feel cockily confident to lecture me on the peer-review system.

Excuse me again while I stop laughing. But there's more. Like an innocent little school boy he tells me that the USA s not a plutocracy but a Constitutional Republic (guffaw, guffaw). The he goes on about eco-terrorists as if they are big, bad people who threaten our safety (bring out the concern troll hankies here folks) whilst giving those intent on sending our planet to hell a veritable free pass.

Get lost you dupes. Oh, and 'ouch'.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 15 Feb 2014 #permalink

Its actually amusing awaiting a denier here with something a half-arsed relevant education – that spot remains vacant.

And is likely to remain so because scientists and members of the public with a clue about the science recognise that there is no coherent and supported scientific counter-argument to the mainstream scientific position. Which is why people with little lists of contradictory and frequently very weak papers are demonstrably innumerate. They cannot even do bulk quantitative analysis. They don't understand what "overwhelming majority" means, so atmospheric physics was always going to be a stretch.

BBD @ 24, great comment. I am very glad that you, Lionel, JP, Bernard, Chek and others are here to counter the insanity of the scientific illiterati who post in here. Keep up the great work - science is on our side.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 15 Feb 2014 #permalink

That;s it exactly, BBD. There is no other coherent theory.

How mant times have we all seen deniers complain that every event - rain/drought/heat/cold - and bastardising Popper (who they'll never have read but picked up on a denier blog somewhere) becomes warmist evidence for AGW therefore AGW is not falsifiable.

But that assertion is itself false, because AGW already predicts the conditions from which those events will arise, due to it's very coherency.

Silly question BBD.
Read comment @ # 50.
Your question assumes incorrectly that there are people who believe that humanity has no impact on the global environment. That is nonsense.
If there was no such species as homo sapiens then of course the global environment would have evolved in a different manner.
If there was no such species as worms or mosquitoes then the global environment would have evolved differently.
As I mentioned earlier, your aggressive questions are a rather obvious attempt to conflate the real issue.
Jeff Harvey is at least honest enough to point out that it is based on ideologies.

# 25 Cheers, Jeff!
It's nice for layman such as myself to hear that our (often meagre in my case) attempts at combatting the Great Mass Corporately Sponsored Stupidity are recognised by people working at the coalface of human knowledge.

Bernard J. I do not believe it is possible to get an accurate representative sample of all the world’s scientists, sorry.

It's good to have this admission on the record - it says quite a lot about your lack of understanding of both statistical sampling and of the scientific process and the literature it generates.

That is all.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 Feb 2014 #permalink

StuPid. Oh fuck off with your false concern and your invited spin doctor mate poptart.

Quite, Bernard.

Poptart is a fucking moron who wishes that pulling two examples of a Google search (like we haven't all had inappropriate results from a Google search anyday, everyday) will discredit Rob Honeycutt's analysis that his cherry-picked papers represent 0.01% of published, peer-reviewed papers. Representative sampling computation is beyond poppy's skillset. It may be a minor data skill in the realm of computer data analysis, but it's beyond poptart's ken

As we already know around ~ 3% of climate scientists do not approve of the consensus position (and that Lindzen as one example, is frequently shown to be in Cornwall Alliance-sized error wromg) so what the fuck Poptart and his 0.01% of papers is meant to show that wasn't already known is a complete mystery.

All that remains is that these grifters have to make some sort of name for themselves, even if it's just kidding fuckwittted punters at the level of StuPid, Griselda and Olap.

The Janitor is still flailing around in his rubbish dodging the questions he cannot answer,

How many National Academy scientists signed a position statement on climate change?

Choke can't answer it either probably because he lacks a science education like you.

Good to see the Grammar Nazi tied up in knots about a typo to hide the fact he does not have any real arguments. I have no peer-reviewed "denier" papers on my list so I have no idea what you are talking about. Why are you lying that I am right-wing? Is it because you are intellectually dishonest?

"Quality" is purely subjective and irrelevant since extreme ideologues like yourself will attempt to attack any paper that causes them massive cognitive dissonance as being of "poor quality". You really need to read the rebuttals section,

Criticism: Most of the papers come from Energy & Environment.
Rebuttal: The IPCC cited peer-reviewed journal Energy & Environment only represents 10% of the list. There are still over 1200 papers from over 350 other journals on the list, including over 120 papers from Geophysical Research Letters.

Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- The IPCC cites Energy & Environment 22 times
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek, Scopus and Thompson Reuters (ISI)
- Found at hundreds of libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, McGill University, Monash University, National Library of Australia, Stanford University, The British Library, University of British Columbia, University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University of Queensland and MIT.
- Thompson Reuters (ISI) lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed physical science journal
- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- "E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
- "I have published a few papers in E&E. All were peer-reviewed as usual. I have reviewed a few more for the journal." - Richard Tol Ph.D. Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands
- "All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed" - Multi-Science Publishing
- "Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed" - E&E Mission Statement

My list is damning to your cause, as my site is being hammered with incoming hits now, absolutely amazing how much traffic this is generating. Please send my thanks to Greg Laden, I could not have been inspired without his censorship.

It does not require a graduate degree to be able to understand the science. High School physics will do but I have done university level physics. And, as has been shown here having a "PhD" does not mean you know how to even do basic addition, see remedial education Jeff's recent embarrassment as an example.

Choke's computer illiteracy amazes me. You cannot use Google Scholar for a representative sample because there is no way to filter erroneous results. This is all in my post trying learning how to read.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/02/google-scholar-illiteracy-at-s…

"Rob claims to have done a statistical sampling of 200 papers and found 6% were erroneous (his sampling methods are not disclosed) but due to the ranking of Google Scholar results a true random sampling would not be possible with results over 1000. This is because Google Scholar uses a ranking system that heavily weighs citations (among other factors) that would place actual peer-reviewed content towards the beginning of the results and erroneous content towards the end.

How are documents ranked? (About Google Scholar)

"Google Scholar aims to rank documents the way researchers do, weighing the full text of each document, where it was published, who it was written by, as well as how often and how recently it has been cited in other scholarly literature."

Sampling fails here with results over 1000 since more erroneous results would likely fall outside of the sample range, producing misleading statistics."

Neanderthal computer users like yourself will continue to believe otherwise in blissful ignorance. If you want me to keep embarrassing you like this, let me know, as I thoroughly enjoy educating computer illiterates like yourself.

Remedial education Jeff, like most scientists at the universities I dealt with do not understand databases. Web of Science is a bibliographic database of only 12,000 Journals so it cannot be the "main source of science" since it is missing thousands of Journals, while Scopus covers 20,000. Google Scholar on the other hand cites far more than this and quite possibly nearly every academic paper available online but they don't give exact numbers. Regardless this is easy to prove, name a published paper not available on Google Scholar but is on the "Web of Science".

Who needs access to a for-profit, commercial product of the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation when you get Google Scholar for free? Since when did Jeff become an elitist capitalist?

I make no appeals to "authority" but rather appeals to their qualifications which are impeccable. I do not claim they are right because of their qualifications but rather they are qualified to review the papers.

I am well aware your favorite Journals reject papers of very good quality all the time. You keep repeating your own "appeal to authority" by being an elitist Journal bigot. Science is not about elitism and your bloated ego. As stated in the rebuttals section,

Criticism: Journal [Insert Name] has a low impact factor.
Rebuttal: Impact Factor is a subjective determination of popularity not scientific validity that is widely abused and manipulated. This list does not discriminate against Journals based on unscientific popularity metrics.

Actually I am quite familiar with peer-reviewed works as I assisted in the publication of papers on nuclear waste disposal and material science.

You continually ignore the question - why would I submit a bibliographic resource to a journal? It does not make any sense

It is quite clear you failed political science, as you do not even know what form of government the United States has. Your statements on this issue read like lunatic conspiracy theories found on a 911 Truther website. I am really beginning to doubt you have a PhD at all but likely ordered one from a diploma mill.

No education Poptech,

Their credentials are impeccable IN YOUR OPINION. And the fact that they have been on the corporate payroll matters n the opinions of many others. As it turns out, Michaels publication and citation records are in fact mediocre. If, as you persistently claim, I have a 'remedial education', then Michaels must be a dunce. I have >40 published articles more than him and more than twice as many career citations. All tis shows is that your definition of 'impeccable credentials' is highly selective.

And yes, I have a PhD and a Visiting (Endowed) Professorship. As for Google, you don't think that is for profit? The Web of Science screens journals on the basis of at least some modicum of quality. As for assisting in the publication of peer-reviewed papers, are you a co-author? My guess is a big fat NO. That;s like saying you collected wild grasses for a scientist who studies fungal endophytes in them. Talk about bloating your own credentials. You have no scientific pedigree whatsoever. Speaking of which, using your 'remedial education' barb, you must be 'inverted education Poptech'. No bonafides.

Cut the crap will yo and admit at the heart of your profound ignorance of anything remotely scientific is a political ideology that hates all things related to government, supports Tea-Party type nonsense and is essentially right wing libertarian. It never fails to amaze me how a bunch of right wing loons forever try and camouflage their blatant political leanings under the guise of science. But in the end it always bleeds through.

As for Energy and Environment, with its scintillating high impact factor of what is it - 0-point something? That says it all.

Go back to your hole, Poppy, where you can enjoy the slavish support of your fellow AGW deniers. You aren't welcome here.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 Feb 2014 #permalink

An addendum: why do dopes like Poptech and his ilk - with no formal training in any relevant fields - latch on to AGW?

There are many fields of contemporary environmental science where there are essentially 'controversial' opinions. In fact, warming is one of the least, given that there is a broad scientific consensus over the issue. The split, as Chek and others have said, is certainly more than 90-95% in agreement that humans are forcing climate.

In my field, there has long been a debate over the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Here, there are two sides which are almost evenly split: those who support the 'rivet popper hypothesis' and those who support the 'redundancy hypothesis'.

The former argues that all species, to some extent, play an important role in maintaining ecosystem functions and regulating nutrient cycles, water cycles and biogeochemical cycles are variable spatial and temporal scales. The latter argues that many, perhaps most, species are superfluous to the functioning of ecosystems and that a small number of important, or 'keystone species' are the key drivers.

The debate at one time was quite acrimonious, with scientists on both sides exchanging heated arguments on the validity of each hypothesis. As more data has come in, it has become evident that both hypotheses are, in fact, complementary: when keystone species decline, once less important species 'step up to the plate' and fulfill the functions that the keystone species did before that. In fact, it appears that there are clear trade-offs between dominance (competitive ability) in a community and adaptation to change. Many keystone species do not adapt well to rapid changes in biotic and abiotic processes in ecosystems, whereas less common interstitial species do. Work by Carpenter in lakes that have become more eutrophic in Wisconsin have provided elegant evidence of these trade-offs with respect to zooplankton communities.

The thrust of my argument is that I don't see the likes of Poptech vehemently arguing on blogs about the debates over the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning because, at least up to now, it falls outside of the visible policy spectrum. If it did fall within this spectrum, then am sure you'd see a whole new army of bloggers lacking any relevant scientific training suddenly becoming instant armchair experts and bitterly denouncing one of the hypotheses - probably the rivet popper, because it argues that all of biodiversity matters - not on the basis of science but on the basis of political ideology. In other words, they'd argue that its too expensive to try and protect all of the natural economy, and, besides, we now know that much or most of it isn't necessary anyway to sustain itself, so why bother?

Underneath all of this pontificating, of course, is their belief that all government is evil and that deregulation is the way to go.

One last point: I am not a 9-11 truther you clot (Poppy). I know more about your system of government than 99% of your own people do (clearly you included). But if you honestly believe that you live in a representative democracy where every vote actually counts, then I really think that you are in urgent need of medical attention.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 Feb 2014 #permalink

Remedial education Jeff, does not understand the difference between degrees achieved [education] and volume of papers published. Everyone that works at the for-profit multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters CORPORATION is on the "corporate payroll" yet that is where you get your "science" from. Hypocrisy? Yes.

A five year old CV of Dr. Michaels lists his extensive publications, though it doesn't hold a candle to Dr. Idso who is an ISI highly cited researcher. Dr. Idso's publication record literally spanks yours.

You seem massively confused about what "impeccable credentials" means, as it has nothing to do with volume of papers written or popularity contests (citations).

Obviously Google is for profit but their business model allows me to use Google Scholar for free, unlike for-profit multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters CORPORATION you shill for. You prefer your "science" where only elitists who can afford to pay can access it. That is not very "democratic" of you.

The Web of Science uses a subjective inclusion process that unscientifically discriminates against thousands of peer-reviewed journals so elitists such as yourself can pretend their science does not exist.

"Assisted with publication" as in assisted in reviewing and editing the papers before submission, as well as assisted in the research prior to the papers, but no I am not a co-author. This isn't bloat but what I actually did and does not appear anywhere on my resume.

Actually I have an information technology / computer science university education but at the end of the day I am merely a computer analyst, while you will remain remedial education Jeff who cannot count and refutes his own arguments.

The IPCC citing Energy & Environment 22 times does say it all,

http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-abou…

Remedial education Jeff, you sure sound like a lunatic 911 Truther with your embarrassingly bad political science arguments. The fact that you think in a Constitutional Republic like the United States with the electoral college, every vote literally counts just demonstrates your absolute ignorance of all things relating to the United States form of government. I have never seen such massively blissful ignorance on a scale like this before. Is the schooling in Australia that bad that they do not actually teach political science? I can't believe that as I have met far too many well educated Australians, so it has to be you personally failed political science or never took it but instead got some retard level education on the subject from some Truther like website. Please stop posting on this subject you are embarrassing yourself beyond belief.

PT demonstrates a breathtaking lack of comprehension ability:

The fact that you think in a Constitutional Republic like the United States with the electoral college, every vote literally counts just demonstrates your absolute ignorance of all things relating to the United States form of government.

Jeff was indicating the exact opposite you clot. Here I'll help you out for Jeff at the end of #37 wrote this:

But if you honestly believe that you live in a representative democracy where every vote actually counts, then I really think that you are in urgent need of medical attention.

The US government is characterised by cleptocracy and crony-ism. Democracy it isn't.

I now of a little book which will help you reassemble an adequate cognitive framework to replace your broken one:

The Little Earth Book which is full of pithy little essays describing many of the bad things humans have imposed, or allowed to be imposed, on the planet and themselves. Do find a copy and study it. Otherwise....

Further engagement with an organism that displays the cognitive ability of a nematode is likely to be fruitless. BTW nematodes, as with monads, are one of those types of organism likely to thrive when the ecological shit overwhelms higher organisms - including us for we are unlikely to survive the sixth great extinction that we have initiated - this snowball will gather momentum as it rolls down the slope of organism and ecological complexity.

What PT and Co. have not realised yet is that they are on the same side of scientific argument as Lamarckism was two centuries ago. Also the debate over punctuated equilibrium has been more acrimonious between researchers than the drivers of climate change and indeed still continues.

Uneducated dork Poptech, learn some basic political science. Sure the US is a constitutional democracy - but in name only. Power has been largely co-opted by ruling elites very closely tied with corporate power. The fact is that both major political parties are beholden to it. It seems that I am not the only one who believes this; many eminent scholars agree with me; all of these dwarf you intellectually, Poppy. David Korten is one:

http://livingeconomiesforum.org/Plutocracy

Noam Chomsky another:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/27/noam-chomsky-were-no-longer-a-fun…

Still more:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/inequality-campaign-finance_n_…

Others are Chris Hedges, Joseph Stiglitz,the late Gore Vidal, Edward Herman, Greg Grandin, Tom Engelhardt, Paul Street, and many others. I don't need to be lectured about the state of US democracy by a crappy computer programmer.

Here's a rundown of Energy and Environment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_%26_Environment

Impact factor (2012) 0.319; it ranks 90 out of 93 journals in the field. Shall I say it? OUCH! Talk about bottom feeding. The journal is sub-benthic. Heck, a fictional journal like Compost Weekly probably has a higher impact factor. Of my 136 peer-reviewed papers in my career, NONE of them are in a journal with an impact factor lower than 0.5. Most are over 1.5. I have 6 in Nature. What this means is that the articles it publishes are virtually not cited by anyone. Why not, Poppy? If there are so many scientists who disagree with the alleged consensus over AGW, why are they not heavily citing the incredibly important articles in E & E? That's how impact factors are generated, after all. Heck, this indicates that even the deniers aren't citing the articles.

As for being 'remedial', its clear that anyone who disagrees with your arrogant self-righteous bullshit, irrespective as to their scientific pedigree, would be smeared in that way by you. Like other deniers, you exaggerate the qualifications of a small number of mostly mediocre scientists who are deniers, whilst smearing and impugning a far greater number with far greater credentials. Many of those whose reputations you bloat are either on or have been on the corporate payroll. You are as daft as a brush, you know that? Oh, and when are we going to see you try and publish your amazing list in a solid journal Poppy?

My gosh its so easy to annihilate you in a debate. I don't know if its just because you are plainly stupid, or if this is willful ignorance. Methinks its a bit of both.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 Feb 2014 #permalink

Here's David Korten's bio:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Korten

Joesphe Stiglitz:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz

Chris Hedges:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges

There are of course many others. Chomsky of course needs no introduction.

These people possess qualifications that are many times more prestigious that Poptech's basal degree.

Poppy, to quote yourself: "Please stop posting on this subject you are embarrassing yourself beyond belief".

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 Feb 2014 #permalink

I do not believe it is possible to get an accurate representative sample of all the world’s scientists, sorry.

Oh, my. DuKE territory indeed, and massively confirmed by various other jawdropping statements.

But then this has been the case every time I have seen Poptech in action.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 16 Feb 2014 #permalink

My list is damning to your cause,...

The delusion is strong in this one.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 16 Feb 2014 #permalink

It does not require a graduate degree to be able to understand the science.

This is true, but without one it's awfully easy to delude yourself that you've understood it when you have not.

Disregarding that, it does require a graduate degree and at least one reasonably well-received peer-reviewed publication in the field to be able to rebut a strong consensus in the field. Without it there's no evidence you have actually understood the field you are going against. And if you don't publish your claims in the literature it tends to suggest that you aren't confident they'll survive being put into the ring where scientific claims get evaluated. It also suggests that your would prefer them to remain untested where they might still mislead unscientific readers rather than have them tested and found wanting.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 16 Feb 2014 #permalink

Isn't it funny the way Poptech refuses to answer any questions?

I think he's a dishonest coward, so once again, I will say for him what he lacks the balls to admit for himself (to himself, even):

“BBD I cannot justify my rejection of the scientific position on AGW because I don’t understand the science. Nor do I have a coherent, well-supported scientific counter-argument because as we all know, none exists. I’m just a nutter, really.

Obviously I hate being put on the spot like this and I will resort to truly infantile evasiveness and suffer the consequent embarrassment rather than answer you in any way.”

* * *

What does “overwhelming majority” mean, PT?

Now, how many NAS members explicitly reject the mainstream scientific position on AGW, PT? You seem to have all these pointless little numbers at your fingertips, so why won't you answer?

I have no idea how many NAS members signed the position statement on AGW. Why don't you link to it and tell us? I will make a prediction though: whatever you think you can demonstrate by waving this at us, you are mistaken.

But remember, we *also* need to know how many NAS members explicitly reject the mainstream scientific position on AGW.

Now a warning to Betula.

Before stepping back in here with your idiot claims try not to step on this land mine Climate change is here now and it could lead to global conflict.

Now read that in conjunction with the Met' Office reports I cited up thread.

Thanks to TP (no not a typo for poptwerp but Think Progess/Climate Progress) for the reminder of something I was going to post last evening but being late I had to retire.

Poptech:

"Remedial education Jeff.... Is the schooling in Australia that bad that they do not actually teach political science? I can’t believe that .. so it has to be you personally failed political science or never took it..."

Yeah, Jeff, did you cut political science class in Australia when you were growing up? Was the 20,000 km trip to school to much for you or something?

Oh wait a minute, the fact that Poptech has never read your CV, doesn't stop him crapping on as if he had. Could have knocked me down with a feather...

Still more grist for the mill:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

Sheldon Wolin's definition of the US as an example of 'inverted totalitarianism' is convincing. Of course, if your head has been stuck well up your nether region for the past two decades or so, then of course you'll spew out the traditionalist crap that Poppy does.

Listen people, he's a loser. Not worth the time of day. I apologize for baiting him with simple logic. His posts are amazingly puerile. Grade school stuff really. And his beloved E & E with an impact factor of 0.319? Ranked 90th out of 93 journals in the field? It doesn't get much funnier. Pure comedy gold.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 Feb 2014 #permalink

Where's PT?

I want some answers.

- Why do a minority of ill-informed non-experts reject the mainstream position on AGW? Without the expertise to understand the science, what makes them imagine that they have a rational basis for dismissing it as flawed? Explain this.

To help you think straight, here are two prompts:

- How can the clueless be expected to be taken seriously when they don't understand the science they reject?

- How can the clueless expect to be taken seriously when there is no coherent, well-supported scientific counter-argument* against the standard position?

These are not "strawmen". Make that claim and you must demonstrate *why* they are strawmen and that is going to be a challenge. In fact the "strawman" claim is simply a childish attempt to dodge the questions. It won't wash here. Answers are required to these fundamental issues. Issues which prompt some people to compile incoherent lists of contradictory and often very poor quality papers and then wave them around as if this actually demonstrated something other than the insanity of the waver.

* Climate fact: there is no coherent, well-supported scientific counter-argument against the standard position. Disagree? Then let's see it.

Just in case anyone doesn't understand the shoddy practices of E & E editor Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen, here is a quote from some correspondence about a "paper" she published from well known crank Oliver "iron Sun" Manuel:

As you know, I like to publish what is considered outside currently accepted ideas. But being published in E&E is for debate, not evidence of 'truth'.
Sonja

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.ca/2011/02/peer-review-at-e.html

Thus how can anyone consider E & E to have any value at all as a science journal when neither the journal nor its editor respect truth?

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 16 Feb 2014 #permalink

Our host had a few things to say about Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen's editorship some years ago. Nothing has changed since.

Just to piss Poptech off, but also in case there are interested readers out there, here's the DeSmog profile of S B-C.

Now PT thinks the likes of DeSmog and Sourcewatch are smear sites peddling defamatory lies, but here he has a problem. If the profiles are inaccurate and/or defamatory, why have the individuals concerned not sued? I would, if it were me. In a New York minute. And I'm a Brit.

Here are a few more interesting links about these lists of papers that are supposed to demonstrate something or other:

Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil

"Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading"

Energy and Environment - "journal of choice for climate sceptics"

Interested readers should read - and ponder the absence of legal action.

I've been following this closely ;-) All credit to Bob Ward. If you are interested, there's more detail in this article he wrote about the basis for the complaint lodge with the Charities Commission. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. Let's hope it goes better than the attempt to get the GWPF to reveal the identity of its seed donor.

Jeff, yes I raised that one a thread or so ago, and elsewhere, but don't know what the current state of play was but the Charities Commission ISTR lacks teeth by being a poodle of others in the denier world, or something like that.

Lawson is sure acting as if he cares not about any rules for running a charity with recent bit of propaganda even though the UK is now talking more about climate change.

Expect a subtle change in arguments from that mob of the GWPF. Benny a mobster, who'd have thunk it?

Its late here but I'll chase this up tomorrow.

Interesting.
At Deltoid there is much about listening to experts from ' mainstream science' yet experts from 'mainstream economics' are sneered at.
Jeff Harvey links to what he would call 'outliers' if they were 'scientists'.
That independent UK article is not backed by 'peer review' or by the ' mainstream economics'.
There are other charities around the globe that have lost their 'charitable status' and hence govt funding due to PROVEN political activism.
If this one PROVES to be the case, then so be it.

At Deltoid there is much about listening to experts from ‘ mainstream science’ yet experts from ‘mainstream economics’ are sneered at.

What, you mean the "experts from ‘mainstream economics'" who predicted the global financial crisis, and who structured an economic system that avoided it? Oh, those "experts from ‘mainstream economics’"...

Newsflash 2 Stupid: any economist, mainstream or otherwise, who predicates intergenerational sustainable economic activity on an exponential growth model deserves to be "sneered at". See, thermodynamics is The Law, and most current (and temporary) economic models are fantasmagorical constructs built to make rich people richer at cost to poorer people, and to the future.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Feb 2014 #permalink

Bernard J.
Interestingly; I agree that projective or predictive modelling is not proving to be a successful concept to dictate policy; including economic modelling from the 'mainstream'.
You appear to have misunderstood.

First Post. Thanks guys for your posts. I have been reading this blog for some time now and find it a valuable read as try to fight the good fight in my social circles
Just thought I would give you a heads up to the latest nonsense circulating on the denialosphere from the Daily Fail and Rose re supposed conflict of interest re the UKICCC

By Billy the Mountain (not verified) on 17 Feb 2014 #permalink

"At Deltoid there is much about listening to experts from ‘ mainstream science’ yet experts from ‘mainstream economics’ are sneered at"

Wrong. In fact, IMHO too much attention is paid to neoclassical economists and their tidy little econometric models that examine the effects of climate change primarily on the material economy. The natural economy - via a range os ecosystem services that underpin the health of the material economy - are downplayed and in some cases ignored.

The field does ignore economists - those who argue for a steady-state economy and who argue that the neoclassical models are well past their sell-by-date.

Lastly, notice how Poptart has, after being repeatedly spanked, has finally decided to abandon ship and head back to his lousy blog to lick his wounds. His parting post is yet more crap. Again, his interest in climate is not scientific but political - like it is with pretty well every denier I have met, most of whom share a common ideology.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Feb 2014 #permalink

Note also how Poptechs question about funding is a complete red herring - he mentions ONLY Exxon-Mobil. Why not a wider range of the fossil fuel industries? This is a classic smoke-screen.

Lindzen had to admit before congressional testimony in the 1990s that he received 2500 dollars a day in consulting fees from coal and fossil fuel interests. Balling, Michaels, and the Idsos have also received funding from similar sources.

http://www.jayhanson.us/page82.htm

McKitrick is a Senior Fellow at the libertartian think tank the Fraser Institute, which of course receives all kinds of corporate funding including the Koch Foundation.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fraser_Institute

My gosh, Poppy is an incompetent debater.... what next?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Feb 2014 #permalink

@PopTech:

Actually I have an information technology / computer science university education but at the end of the day I am merely a computer analyst

No, no you're not. Jesus you're a stupid liar.

PopTech, previous page:

I have repaired over 5000 computer systems (PCs and Servers) in my career.

Playing Angry Birds and swapping out a drive on your SAN once a week does not make you a "Computer Analyst".

Also, let me add that if you entered the field with a university degree in CS in 1996 and could not find anything better than resetting passwords for a living, it's pretty safe to say that degree was either from a piss-poor school or non-existent.

I work on predictive computer models all day, every day. Please stop calling yourself a Computer Analyst (wow, now there's a job title I haven't seen in 15 years, by the way), because you are not nor ever will be one and your frothing idiocy is giving us who actually do work in the field a bad name.

Please cut your losses and slink away now. You will anyway, you're an incompetent and delusional clown. You've already demonstrated you don't know how search engines work. Or basic statistics. Or government. Or economies. Just save yourself the additional embarrassment... the sight of a sad, over the hill helpdesk monkey with a Napoleon complex flailing at respected PhDs has lost its amusement value. It's just pathetic now.

@Stu2:

I agree that projective or predictive modelling is not proving to be a successful concept to dictate policy;

OH HAHAHA I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE. Your wit is as subtle as it is sharp.

Oddly enough, the same energy companies who pump millions into the denial industry to discredit models when it financially benefits them give my company tens of millions of dollars a year for predictive computer models to tell them what kind of power plants to build where and when, when to turn them on and off for maximum efficiency, how to stay within emission regulations.... when it financially benefits them.

Sadly I'm not allowed to tell you what those models say about the financials of different sorts of power generation, about the state of the grid and about renewables... let me just say that it's pretty starkly different than what comes out of the denial industry. This'll probably last until the exact moment when certain financial balances change just a bit more.

Poor dumbass Stu another apparent computer illiterate who has no comprehension of when I did what in my career and what my current position is. FYI, the Computer Analyst job title still exists,

http://jobsearch.monster.com/search/computer-analyst_5

Mine is actually more detailed but it would give away too much personal information. Desktop support positions reset passwords, which is not what I do.

Angry birds? Maybe that is the retarded games you play but I have better things like penetration testing software to run on my phone that is much more fun. Why would you swap out a HD once a week when enterprise class drives on average last years? Are you really that ignorant of IT?

I don't know how search engines work? Prove it, I will enjoy educating you.

Remedial education Jeff, I have more important things to do at the moment than further your education here but relax I will be back to help you.

@Jeff:

Note also how Poptechs question about funding is a complete red herring – he mentions ONLY Exxon-Mobil. Why not a wider range of the fossil fuel industries? This is a classic smoke-screen.

It's actually more pathetic than that. This is the actual question:

"1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?"

Note the word "direct". Every proven shill on that page cheerfully answers "No", since everything gets laundered through Heartland et al. anyway.

What a clown.

And it gets better. He's too stupid to even try to obfuscate what abject rags he is getting his shill-spew from. Have a gander at this sequence:

Climate Change - A Natural Hazard (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 215-232, May 2003)
- William Kininmonth

Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
- Marcel Leroux

New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming? (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 327-350, May 2003)
- Theodor Landscheidt

The "Greenhouse Effect" as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, May 2003)
- Hans Jelbring

Seems the good folks over at Energy & Environment have a bit of a one-track mind, don't you think?

But hey, don't take my word for it, this is the editor:

My political agenda for E&E is not party political but relates to academic and intellectual freedom. I am an [sic] geographer turned international relations specialist (environment as special field) and as such have long been critical of environmentalist exaggerations. I have observed and recorded 'scare mongering' effects utilised by politics on policy and economic competition since the early 1980s. I now believe that in a subject as new, complex and poorly understood as climate science and climate history over geologic time – which I studied as a physical geographer and geomorphologist in Australia – all voices should be published and debated. However, the opposite happened once the climate research, with help of the IPCC and the WMO became de facto servants of global and EU energy ambitions.

It's a good thing PopTech didn't expect to be taken seriously.

Poppy get even more delusional:

"I have more important things to do at the moment than further your education here but relax I will be back to help you"

Un-be-lieve-able. That a computer programmer is going to teach me about science and how it works. Stu above and I already showed how farcical Poppy's 'funding question' is. So far we've comprehensively debunked that, his take on impact factors, his attempt to legitimize E & E, his take on US government, and pretty well everything else he's said.

Poppy, stick to your blog. You can't argue worth a damn.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Feb 2014 #permalink

"Pretty starkly different than what comes out of the denial industry"
?????????
At this moment I sincerely regret that we share the same name.
:-(

#92, "The reason for stating they have a PhD is to show they have a research education, " - proves them liars, not demented.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 17 Feb 2014 #permalink

"“Pretty starkly different than what comes out of the denial industry”

Actually, Stu2, its totally appropriate. Stu is correct. The denial industry - in fact, corporate capitalism as currently defined - aims to ensure that we consume, consume. and consume more resources in order to ensure that profit margins continue rising and investors benefit. The whole system is rotten to the core and is sending our planet's ecological life support systems into the abyss. Oh yeh, those in power know it, the corporate elites know it, economists know it, but they are too beholden to the current system to want to change it, irrespective as to its consequences. Its all about short term greed and profit and damn the future.

If you don't think there is a denial industry then methinks you have a lot to learn.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Feb 2014 #permalink

Jeff, please xcuse me quoting from that Ross Gelbspan (who has a blog here) but I think a wider audience deserves reminding why we are now suffering from the onset of climate change when mitigation could have been set in train two decades ago.

Highlighted in this paragraph are just some of those who are to blame, yes blame:

For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics—Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others—who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis. Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question is hopelessly mired in unknowns. Most damaging has been their influence on decision makers; their contrarian views have allowed conservative Republicans such as Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.) to dismiss legitimate research concerns as "liberal claptrap" and have provided the basis for the recent round of budget cuts to those government science programs designed to monitor the health of the planet.

A longer, but still not exhaustive, roll call of dishonour can be found here:

An extensive database of individuals involved in the global warming denial industry.

It’s a good thing PopTech didn’t expect to be taken seriously.

Or recognise the sheer Canutian pointlessness of his 0.01% of barrel-scraping papers when we already know 3% of climate scientists are outside the AGW consensus. He seems to have some sort of wilful blind spot regarding this.

@PopTech:

Poor dumbass Stu another apparent computer illiterate

Oh sweetheart, why can't you take friendly advice? You should have left when you still had at least the pretense of dignity to hang on to.

who has no comprehension of when I did what in my career

Cupcake, you said you fixed PCs and servers for a good part of it. Your words, not mine. That means you're not a dev. As a rule we're not allowed to waste time on hardware because we're too damned expensive to go look for a FM1 replacement cooler bracket or stare at an fsck or VM snapshot or WU. Sorry, that's what the Computer Analysts are for.

Either way, you're a liar or completely delusional about what you do and its worth.

and what my current position is.

Umm no, because you haven't said anything about it. You don't know what my hair color is, either. If I had to guess, your company gave you a private office years ago just to get you away from everybody. Other than that, I'm sure you'll be as vague as you possibly can to preserve the illusion.

Wait. You are extremely maladjusted for your age. Before I keep making fun of you, are you on the autism spectrum?

FYI, the Computer Analyst job title still exists

Congratulations. I never disputed that.

http://jobsearch.monster.com/search/computer-analyst_5

Oh good! The Popster shows off his search engine prowess. Let's see what we have here...

Computer Analyst: tech support for some jackwagon ERP system, tech support for everything else they have, maybe some ETL monkeying on Sunday afternoon. Idaho. 40K. It's helpdesk in a dress.

Next.

Best Entry Level Computer Analyst/Support Technician

...and my point is already proven. Thank you for looking that up for me, buddy.

(Are you for real? You cannot possibly be serious.)

Can we now please close the discussion on whether Computer Analyst is routinely used to describe development positions? It's not, you're not a developer and you sure as Shinola are not practicing in the field of Computer Science.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. Don't worry, you're still a legend in your own head.

Mine is actually more detailed but it would give away too much personal information.

Yep, called it. It's all so super-mega-specific and super-advanced that we'd instantly be able to identify you. How predictable and pathetic.

Desktop support positions reset passwords, which is not what I do.

I know. You spent half your career replacing a network card here, a mouse there... which has finally culminated in this wonderful ultra-super-duper position you can't tell anyone about.

I have better things like penetration testing software to run on my phone that is much more fun.

What? No, that's absolute monkey work that every serious dev org automated about a decade ago. Do you squee with delight in making your own butter every day?

Also, that makes you a network admin or a junior tester. Noble, necessary and worthy occupations, but not development.

The biggest problem, however, is that "penetration testing software to run on my phone" is nonsensical. You don't do penetration testing to run on anything, you do penetration testing on things that are running there. I'd write this off as a typo, but it's in a very suspicious spot. It has the distinct whiff of something you read about somewhere yesterday that sounds absolutely awesome but you wouldn't know from a hole in the ground.

Why would you swap out a HD once a week when enterprise class drives on average last years?

Okay. Everybody off the bus. I read this sentence several times and am still fervently hoping you're just trolling now... but I have this deep, sad, sinking feeling you're not.

- Hard drive failure rates are not linear. High in the first few months, long dip, slowly rising tail.
- Failures can cause overheats which cascade.
- Even enterprise drive failure rates can go up to 10% in the first year.
- Many large corporations don't even use enterprise drives in their arrays anymore because they're not worth the money.
- Drives are usually added to arrays as needed over time, so a single array has drives of many different ages in it.

Oh, wait.

You ARE aware that most servers have more than one hard drive, right?

Hang on, let me read your sentence again.

The only reason you would say something so monumentally, farcically stupid is if you have:

A) Never seen a server with more than a few drives
B) Never been allowed near a server in your life

Help me out here. Which one is it? The only other thing I can think of is massive brain damage.

Are you really that ignorant of IT?

After your previous sentence, this display of misplaced arrogance is so precious it should come with its own rhinestone bracelet.

I don’t know how search engines work? Prove it, I will enjoy educating you.

Okay. I posit that Google Scholar trawling up messes of unrelated and vacuous material when doing a search for papers supporting AGW is completely irrelevant when trying to determine a ratio of papers for versus papers against.

Before you educate me on that, I urge you again, STRONGLY this time, to just cut your losses and go away. Again, you're dragging an engineering field through the mud when you're obviously not even part of it, and frankly, at this point I'm starting to get that clubbing-a-mentally-challenged-baby-seal feeling and I don't like it.

Jeff. WRT my #57 on the Charities Commission I have now found this Guardian article which asks the question What's the point of the Charity Commission?.

Note the Tory appointed chair William Shawcross, given it would seem Lawson's ability to pull strings in the background that appointment cannot be good WRT the status of such a deceitful organisation as the GWPF.

More here:

Charity Commission 'not fit for purpose', says Margaret Hodge

and the National Audit Office stuff can be found here:

The regulatory effectiveness of the Charity Commission.

Note for PT, note that Michael Hintze has been linked to large donations to the GWPF who were so reluctant, and still are, to reveal who is supporting them financially as required by the terms of the Charity Commission. That is not the behaviour of honest brokers, is it?

@Jeff, Lionel:

The public denial industry is just the latest tip of the iceberg. Nixing Kyoto. Nixing CAFE standards. SUV classifications. Gutting the EPA. On and on and on. I don't get why corporations don't just drop the pretense and share a single logo of a giant middle finger. They've so warped and polluted discourse and norms that they've gotten people working like dogs and blaming themselves for not being able to make ends meet.

There's the food drive a Walmart held -- FOR IT'S OWN FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES.

The 85 richest people in the world own as much as the 3,500,000,000 poorest. If you think this is normal, or right, or acceptable or even tolerable, you're a damned psychopath. Yes, Betty, there needs to be some redistribution. It's completely out of control, getting worse and you're sitting right here with the rest of us working harder, getting poorer... and defending it because OOGAH BOOGAH commies.

Somehow, to me, this one just exemplifies the level of fuckery the best:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

Picking up on Stu's:

- Hard drive failure rates are not linear. High in the first few months, long dip, slowly rising tail.
- Failures can cause overheats which cascade.
- Even enterprise drive failure rates can go up to 10% in the first year.
- Many large corporations don’t even use enterprise drives in their arrays anymore because they’re not worth the money.
- Drives are usually added to arrays as needed over time, so a single array has drives of many different ages in it.

Thanks you, you have saved me the bother whilst I was chasing down another maze of twisty passages.

I was going to offer PT my collection of BYTE magazines which went back to the 1980s for his education on drive arrays, failure stats etc. etc. and more. Darn it I eventually chucked them out last year. I still dipped into them from time to time but not enough to justify keeping them any longer. Shame really, full of interesting stuff but I realised I would not be dipping into them 'real soon now'.

Stu,

The 85 richest people in the world own as much as the 3,500,000,000 poorest. If you think this is normal, or right, or acceptable or even tolerable, you’re a damned psychopath.

I think that you know we get it, but as Betula, PT & Co. seem to have trouble with this that is why i cited 'The Little Earth Book' upthread.

@Lionel:

You've seen this, right?

Are you fucking blind, Poptech?

As well as an evasive, dishonest coward?

Answers. Come on. Stop running away and hiding. I know you are in trouble, but at least try to justify your lunacy and stupidity. Let's have some fun.

- Why do a minority of ill-informed non-experts reject the mainstream position on AGW? Without the expertise to understand the science, what makes them imagine that they have a rational basis for dismissing it as flawed? Explain this.

To help you think straight, here are two prompts:

- How can the clueless be expected to be taken seriously when they don’t understand the science they reject?

- How can the clueless expect to be taken seriously when there is no coherent, well-supported scientific counter-argument* against the standard position?

These are not “strawmen”. Make that claim and you must demonstrate *why* they are strawmen and that is going to be a challenge. In fact the “strawman” claim is simply a childish attempt to dodge the questions. It won’t wash here. Answers are required to these fundamental issues. Issues which prompt some people to compile incoherent lists of contradictory and often very poor quality papers and then wave them around as if this actually demonstrated something other than the insanity of the waver.

* Climate fact: there is no coherent, well-supported scientific counter-argument against the standard position. Disagree? Then let’s see it.

Not at all Griselda.
You can't get upset by shit you don't step in.

PT

E&E is a journal with sod-all impact edited by a politicised denier which publishes a good deal of garbage. Fact.

The fossil fuel industry funds shills whose junk science featured disproportionately in the incoherent lists of contradictory bollocks peddled by climate liars like you. Fact.

You need to learn to cope with matters of fact, PT.

#80, like Hollande said - if the UK wants to leave the EU we'll roll out the red carpet ; )

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 17 Feb 2014 #permalink

Stu

I sussed PT for a delusional wanker way upthread. First guess - sales monkey. Then he told me he was a PC repairman (with delusions of grandeur). The man's just another self-aggrandising loser. Nice rip-up job you did there though. Chapeau!

#76 - 85 parasites are no match for 3.5 billion.
That is the thing that always baffles and frustrates me most. Whatever lessons can be learnt from history and are taken by most of those 3.5 billion, they remain unable to truly learn the lesson. To strike and resist, just for a day could often be enough.
There is a responsibility on these 'masses' that is never taken, even when the stakes are between killing others then dying at the Somme or Verdun or simply desertion and take the risk of that - withOUT having to press on conscience.

Let me put it another way and smash a taboo (again). It is this. Hitler did nothing wrong and cannot be held accountable for Shoa or WW II (in Europe). His millions of followers - those who elected him and his party, then those who produced his destruction machine, then those who physically pulled the triggers and dropped the Zyclon-B, ARE responsible.
Laying it all on that single clown with his couple of cronies will never solve the problem, but perpetuate it.
Imagine the hostility I always get for this simple observation.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 17 Feb 2014 #permalink

@GSW:

Bound to upset the self confessed communists that inhabit this blog.

Only you, GSW. Only you can pack 3 idiotic lies in a single sentence. Only you proudly append an infantile smiley to the tripe. Only you sit there like a stroke-riddled monkey waiting for adulation for flinging poo that is not even your own.

Your masochism is getting creepy.

@BBD:

The man’s just another self-aggrandising loser.

Sure, and a dime a dozen in that respect, but this one is just a whole new level of stupid. Dense as a post, bord voor de kop, who do you think you are fooling with this stupid. I always wonder about the ones that hold down jobs -- the level of D-K dissonance just roils off of these guys like vats of rancid yoghurt -- who has to work with these people? How long does it take them to find a little treadmill farm with people sufficiently dumb or deaf to be able to stomach that level of incompetence and arrogant idiocy? This one is so bad the only place I can picture him is at the State of CA (almost impossible to fire someone), being the Computer Analyst (one of the few places still using the title) in charge of the cafeteria's web server.

And thank you for the compliment. I never enjoyed the S part of CS too much. As a lowly dev, I'm at peace just being an engineer because I enjoy doing it and because I'm really good at it.

I guess I'm saying this clown walked into the wrong damned thread to try to pull that pathetic claptrap.

@cRR:

Hitler did nothing wrong and cannot be held accountable for Shoa or WW II (in Europe).

Umm, sorry, yes he can. I know what you mean, but he definitely CAN be held accountable.

The way I always put it that without a few million people looking to fix their inferiority complex, he would just be a random bigoted mediocre painter with a meth habit.

Delingpole is just a moronic right wing blabbermouth. He doesn't seem to understand that the truly gigantic floods that have caused so much damage are caused by intense rainfall over a short period and it is the short period that is exceptional. So the fact that we've just had the wettest January since records began IS of central importance and it IS why these floods are extraordinary. It's worth noting that those of us who aren't blinded by right-wing ideology can just look at the astonishing damage and see that anyway. But of course Dellers is a climate change denier, so he has to sound off about the unprecedented flooding which is of course linked to AGW as all extreme weather events must be because they are occurring inside the climate system and the climate system now has much more energy in it than it did 50 years ago. Basic physics, basic physical climatology.

Then the fucking monkey compounds his sins by crapping on about dredging - completely ignoring the fact that Somerset is so low-lying relative to the datum that dredging does not improve drainage. In fact it tends to make thinks worse at high tide. To improve drainage of the Somerset Levels, you would need to lower sea level. But sea level has risen quietly all through the C20th, hasn't it? And whoopsie...

But fuckwit right-wing ideologues like Dellers just keep on spewing out rubbish and counterfactuals. He's a perfect match for Breitbart.com.

He doesn’t seem to understand that the truly gigantic floods that have caused so much damage are caused by intense rainfall over a short period and it is the short period that is exceptional.

Essentially, refusing to accept that drinking a glass of water is different than getting one thrown in your face.

Maybe cRR or Jeff can get him a nice little cottage nestled in the crook of the Maas somewhere?

Before I keep making fun of you, are you on the autism spectrum?

Stu, somewhere on the interweb is a trail of evidence that implies that poptech has a mental illness. Given that we are currently blessed with his company perhaps Andrew could confirm or refute this for the thread.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 17 Feb 2014 #permalink

Here are some undisputed facts about E&E:

The list of '900+' papers [yes, this is Poptech's list] linked to by the Global Warming Policy Foundation as supporting climate scepticism included more articles published in Energy and Environment than any other journal.

We reported last week that nine out of the top 10 authors listed by the GWPF were linked to ExxonMobil. We also discovered that prominent scientists featured on the list didn't agree that their work supported skepticism about anthropogenic global warming - and had unsuccessfully asked for their work to be removed from similar lists in the past.

We used the same data analysis tools to examine where the papers on the list were published. The most cited journal by a clear margin was Energy and Environment, which provided 131 papers to the list - almost 15 percent of the total.

Energy and Environment's editor Sonja-Boehmer Christiansen has said that she is "following [her] political agenda" in editing the journal, which is co-edited by Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Christiansen noted in evidence submitted to the UK Parliament that E&E has been characterised as " a journal of choice for climate skeptics," also stating: "If this [is] so, it happened by default as other publication opportunities were closed to them…"

Now look at the last two paragraphs of the quote. That's right - S B-C co-edits with Benny fucking Peiser. And yes, "review" at E&E is so biased that otherwise unpublishable crank bollocks appears there. She admits it plainly.

It's a sink journal for denalist garbage, and it is used by the UK branch of the denial industry to get things published that no reptuable journal would touch - then this bilge is pumped into paper lists compiled by climate liars and used to make the false claim that the very visible and very strong scientific consensus on AGW does not in fact exist. A falsehood so obvious and stupid that only ideologues and morons could ever fall for it.

Hello Poptech.

#88, I know.
Something worse - if my take on it were implemented, total anarchy would result. Something like leadership is essential for society.
I'm looking for kind of a middle way in which more responsibility is taken on by the electorate than is habitually the case. It wouldn't per se mean better leaders get chosen but I would like to see leaders chosen less blindly, and more informed by history and a minimum of insight into e.g. the charm of the psychopaths. Or rather, more USE of this knowledge.
My initial brutal statement notwithstanding I do agree with you - leadership, those entrusted with our trust, of course does carry responsibility as well. But the burden is not 100%, causing a Hitler to be the devil in disguise and all Germans to be senseless, nonthinking puppets, and that is what I would like to educate. I think it is or has to be 50/50.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 17 Feb 2014 #permalink

#90, love to. Except after the river floods of 1995 a lot of houses along river banks were disowned in order to give the rivers much more overflow space. Government will simply not permit new housing there.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 17 Feb 2014 #permalink

Bernard J

Oh yes, our Andrew K is a nutter. There was never any doubt about that. But I'm still going to kick his arse until his eyes bulge because he's an active and voluble misinformer. Normally I'd go easy on the deranged, but not with this one.

It’s not, you’re not a developer and you sure as Shinola are not practicing in the field of Computer Science.

I was going to point out earlier that the implication he was a developer was quite challenging to square with his obvious difficulties with fairly basic logic, but I was kinda busy at the time.

(And on that basis he wouldn't get anywhere near one of my projects...)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Feb 2014 #permalink

Interesting info on HDs at your #79 Stu.

The purchase of a manufacturer of the most reliable again, is that another case of reliability hindering unit turnover and thus profits? Maybe not but...?

IIRC Seagate caused Amstrad a pile of trouble back in the early 1990s with the failure rate of HDs in a new model PC.

No I had not seen that, little need really being in my dotage running a computer mostly for communicating on environmental issues and photo' imaging. I also occasionally run a Flight Sim' so that I can practice my landings in a Sea Vixen. I don't fly in commercial jets, never have, but I have had quite a few trips in military aircraft including those with bang seat. However, my last flight was in a Tiger Moth in 2007.

I have long realised that pattern of use was a factor in MTBF stat's for drives and back a few years used to run 24/7 protected by an UPS and monitor off when not in use. I still use UPS (for which I have found a supplier of replacement batteries and I have one serviceable UPS spare to switch in if necessary) .to save hassle with brown outs and even short outages - the type that catch a HD spinning down and then spin it up again before it has stopped.

I no longer run 24/7 - save the ergs.

That sort of treatment can lead to grief if it happens too often as it did with gas turbine engines. Indeed I was just setting about fixing a Turbomeca Palouste in a flight pod (with two others in bits in slings in the hangar extension trying to rob one of bits to fix t'other) which had come down from the flight deck where some bod had done just that, pressed the start button before it had wound down when we hit that Russian SAM Kotlin in the Med' and I then had other things on my mind.

My last Seagates were 5 4MB SCSIs back in 98, which were in caddies for switching without powering down the 'puter. I had a 4MB SCSI Quantum Fireball inside the machine alongside an IDE which later was the boot drive, but then most of the OS was in firmware.

I am only moving into terabyte sizes to keep pace with ever increasing digital image file sizes and their back up. Back in 98 I quickly realised that with photography CD storage didn't hack it, not with large TIFFs anyway.

Hum! Had a PT moment, thought I had hit the key twice and didn't read back.:

I had a 4MB SCSI Quantum Fireball inside the machine alongside an IDE which latter was the boot drive,

@stu

Don't you work with cows? 'Im sure you've posted something in the past about your intimate relationship with cows. How are things out on the Kibbutz? ;)

@comrades
So are you all communists then? chek seems happy to be labelled such, and labelling joffrey thus, would actually be being kind (or at least collectivising the various bits of hate speech he espouses as being a "known doctrine" would be being kind)

Come on Deltoids, any of you freaks actually object to being labelled "Communist"?

I think the response will be telling here.
;)

I'm not a communist or even a socialist, really. I suppose the best-fit label would be humanist.

Your take on this really, really stupid btw.

Chek's not a commie. He likes Alan Holdsworth so he can't be.

Gormless Stupid W****** (GSW) is doing what all scoundrels do who are being hammered in a debate: resorting to sand-box level sniping. I might just as well respond that gormless is a fascist. Besides, anyone who thinks James Delingpole has something useful to say is, at the very least, profoundly stupid.

As an aside, don't expect him or simpleton Poppy to address my response to Poppy's nonsense that US is a 'Constitutional Republic'. In name perhaps, but in reality no way. Not even close.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Feb 2014 #permalink

Thanks BBD'

So if you listen to Alan Holdsworth, you can't be a communist chek, is that right? ;)

Besides, anyone who thinks James Delingpole has something useful to say is, at the very least, profoundly stupid.

Indeed, and here is another example:

Dear James Delingpole: You Are The Problem.

Now to add an accent to a post above where I cited a Monbiot article here he is out and about:

George Monbiot canoes across the UK floods – video.

So, watermelons are we - no shortage of water Delingpole, but that is better than being a vitriolic dried up old husk of a bloger with mental health issues - how else to explain the phenomenon that is Delingpole?

@All

So honestly, none of you actually deny being a communist? chek? DDB? and ideoligally bizzare jeff?

Really, you're all going to cough to being communists?

I thought some of youwould only cough to being lunatics, but what the hey, what you think you are is up to you!

;)

It took almost exactly 400 years for the UK to evolve from rule by a monarch with delusions of absolutism to something like a social democracy, which as far as I can see remains the best hope for the common man, despite the canker of plutocracy which still remains to be cauterised. Does that answer your question, Griselda?

I knew I should have taken my socks off to double check. That @ #6 should of course be 300 years.

So honestly, none of you actually deny being a communist? chek? DDB?

I told you that I wasn't a communist or even a socialist, but would answer to "humanist" as a best-fit label. Did you not read my comment? It was directly after your question.

* * *

So if you listen to Alan Holdsworth, you can’t be a communist chek, is that right?

Lest you fail to get the joke, what I wrote was intentionally nonsense. The intention was to get you to consider that what you wrote was unintentionally nonsense.

The intention was to get you to consider that what you wrote was unintentionally nonsense.

Don't forget you're addressing Griselda, who thinks the intellectually raped Dellers is someone worth referring others to.
Is it worth watching once again the swivel-eyed, know-nothing poltroon stutter and bluster, tongue-tied in the face of someone with an actual intellect? Why yes, yes it most certainly is.

Chek unearths a classic:

[Delingpole:] It is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers. Because I simply haven't got the time; I haven't got the scientific expertise. What I rely on is people who have got the time and the expertise to do it and write about it and interpret it, you know. I am an interpreter of interpretations.

Translation:

I am a clueless but voluble buffoon.

The funny thing is that it's not my job to read peer-reviewed papers either, but intellectual integrity requires that you attempt to understand a field of science before you can claim that it is wrong.

Jeff Harvey @ # 71 previous page:
" Its all about short term greed and profit and damn the future."
Interestingly, in some ways I agree with that comment.
What I find strange however is that you don't seem to understand that the 'solution' many of you here appear to thoroughly endorse (the creation of a market for emissions and the associated regulatory and licencing regime) is actually tarred with exactly the same brush and is working from exactly the same song sheet and therefore creating just more of the same problems.
The relevant bureaucracies and academic organisations you appear to be endorsing are peopled by academics with exactly the same financial and economic qualifications as those whom you sneer at and criticise.
Look up the figures, look up the qualifications, look up the results and look up the behaviour.
The brokerage on a global market that is in the $trillions is rather substantial.
Far, far more substantial than any environmental or social goals that are being used as justification for creating this market.
IMHO It would be far more cost effective to achieve worthwhile environmental and social results by investing a fraction of those trillions on direct action such as planting and revegetating problem areas (as a simple environmental example) and investing to enable girls and women in developing nations to be educated and therefore cognizant of such things as their personal human worth and importantly the benefits of such things as safe contraception. (as a simple social example).
As a simple question for you:
Would girls and women in developing nations choose to bear and raise very large families if they were educated about safe contraception?
And addendum questions:
Which is a proven and practical way to reduce the rapid population growth that is occurring in third world or developing nations:
a) Teach girls about safe contraception or
b) create an emissions trading market?

Which is a proven, practical way to prevent environmental harm in agriculture?
a) Educate farmers in developing nations about best practice and efficient farming methods or
b) Create a emissions trading market?

Stu-pid started a war he does not have the brain power nor technical knowledge to win. What a retarded hack.

Cupcake, you said you fixed PCs and servers for a good part of it. Your words, not mine. That means you’re not a dev. As a rule we’re not allowed to waste time on hardware because we’re too damned expensive to go look for a FM1 replacement cooler bracket or stare at an fsck or VM snapshot or WU. Sorry, that’s what the Computer Analysts are for.

Either way, you’re a liar or completely delusional about what you do and its worth.

My words were "for a good part of it"? ...oh that's right I said no such thing but made a general statement, "but I have repaired over 5000 computer systems (PCs and Servers) in my career." I never said for how long in my career or when.

Stu-pid demonstrated his computer illiteracy by trying to sound like he knows what he is talking about using technical terms (he doesn't understand) but it just exposed his bullshit.

AMD FM1 socket boards are found on low-end budget systems. If the HSF bracket broke that is because the board is some cheap budget board, was not properly installed or stressed by an after market HSF. The fact that you specifically mentioned that means you experienced the problem, which means you are not worth jack since your system was built with low-end budget parts. What a retard.

HSF brackets don't break on high end server class boards unless you physically break it from mishandling.

What is an "fsck snapshot" you retard? fsck is a file check/repair utility for Linux. Now we know you run Linux and use virtual machines, Yawn.

I know exactly what I do and what I know which is apparently much, much more than you. Please bust out some developer lingo bullshit so you can get an education in computer science as well you retarded hack.

Other than that, I’m sure you’ll be as vague as you possibly can to preserve the illusion.

Nope, to preserve my privacy.

I know. You spent half your career replacing a network card here, a mouse there… which has finally culminated in this wonderful ultra-super-duper position you can’t tell anyone about.

Not even close but I will never give exact details about my career since I like my privacy.

What? No, that’s absolute monkey work that every serious dev org automated about a decade ago. Do you squee with delight in making your own butter every day? Also, that makes you a network admin or a junior tester. Noble, necessary and worthy occupations, but not development.

ROFLMAO, you have no REMOTE idea what you are talking about or what I just said. You think penetration testing / security engineering is monkey work? (not my job BTW) What a retard, please stop embarrassing yourself Stu-pid and remember those words every time you see some corporation get hacked and millions of credit cards are stolen. The reason they were hacked was because of some joke developer like yourself did not know how to code and the company did not employ good penetration testers / security engineers.

The biggest problem, however, is that “penetration testing software to run on my phone” is nonsensical. You don’t do penetration testing to run on anything, you do penetration testing on things that are running there. I’d write this off as a typo, but it’s in a very suspicious spot. It has the distinct whiff of something you read about somewhere yesterday that sounds absolutely awesome but you wouldn't know from a hole in the ground.

It is only nonsensical if you are Stu-pid. Try reading retard, "penetration testing software". You don't know what this is because you are hack and technologically illiterate.

- Hard drive failure rates are not linear. High in the first few months, long dip, slowly rising tail.
- Failures can cause overheats which cascade.
- Even enterprise drive failure rates can go up to 10% in the first year.
- Many large corporations don’t even use enterprise drives in their arrays anymore because they’re not worth the money.
- Drives are usually added to arrays as needed over time, so a single array has drives of many different ages in it.

- Wrong, failures can happen at any time, being influenced by a variety of factors including usage and environmental but on enterprise class drives failures on average are very low and are mainly seen after 5 years.

- You have no idea what you are talking about, unless the cooling system for the drive bays or the server room fails AND the temperature monitoring hardware /software fails (which auto-shuts down the servers) you are not going to see cascading failures.

- Actually outside of companies like Google most corporations use enterprise class drives in their servers for their reliability Stu-pid.

The point again, is you do not replace drives on servers every week.

The last time a drive was replaced on one of our servers due to a failure was last summer. You really need to stop pretending you know what you are talking about.

Okay. I posit that Google Scholar trawling up messes of unrelated and vacuous material when doing a search for papers supporting AGW is completely irrelevant when trying to determine a ratio of papers for versus papers against.

The education begins,

1. Please provide the filtering method to remove all erroneous content from a Google Scholar search.

2. Please provide me with the 1001 result for a Google Scholar search.

Come on you retarded hack, you can do it.

Really, you’re all going to cough to being communists?

Communist? We're not still living in the 1950s, you know.

The last of our friends who was a real live communist died about nearly 20 years ago. afaik, the only communists in Australia now are about 15 groups of 30 or fewer people who spend most of their time arguing about which group is more/better/purer communist than another. They're irrelevant socially. Politically they tend to lose membership (or fail to attract it in the first place) to other organisations with more capacity for real policy development.

The point is poptart that you know fuckall about climate science, and fuckall about the worth of individual climate papers.

So I repeat (to the point of boredom): we already know that ~3% of climate scientists do not include themselves in the consensus. Therefore what the good god-damned fuck is your 0.01% of iffy papers from the likes of E&E trying to show that isn't already known?

I think the point is Adelady. that Poptart and Griselda live in hand-me-down versions of reality mediated by their late, second-hand introduction to 'politics'. Geo-politics isn't even on their radar yet.

Relax Choke, I am educating Stu-pid on technology and exposing his bullshit.

Come on, Poptech. Answers.

* * *

- Why do a minority of ill-informed non-experts reject the mainstream position on AGW? Without the expertise to understand the science, what makes them imagine that they have a rational basis for dismissing it as flawed? Explain this.

To help you think straight, here are two prompts:

- How can people be expected to be taken seriously when they don’t understand the science they reject?

- How can people expect to be taken seriously when there is no coherent, well-supported scientific counter-argument* against the standard position?

These are not “strawmen”. Make that claim and you must demonstrate *why* they are strawmen and that is going to be a challenge. In fact the “strawman” claim is simply a childish attempt to dodge the questions. It won’t wash here. Answers are required to these fundamental issues. Issues which prompt some people to compile incoherent lists of contradictory and often very poor quality papers and then wave them around as if this actually demonstrated something other than the insanity of the waver.

* Climate fact: there is no coherent, well-supported scientific counter-argument against the standard position. Disagree? Then let’s see it.

If you have nothing, you need to acknowledge that you have nothing or you slide into nuttery. People snigger.

Janitor, stop trying to save Stu-pid his epic embarrassment from not knowing what penetration testing software is, nor anything about HDs, Servers or Google Scholar. Stu-pid made a big mistake bullshitting now comes the pummeling. I will enjoy this.

Poptech, you aren't answering the questions. Again. Why do you have a problem with discussing the fundamentals or your position?

We need to explore this.

To be clear:

- You are not a climate scientist

- But you think they are all wrong

- Yet you haven't got the expertise to make this judgement (just like Delingpole).

- This is arrogant and stupid

Previous page..
"What have I done? What I can. Donated to the Climate Science Legal Defence Fund and kept up the pressure on the BBC to stop giving coverage to the shills. Paid a small fortune for cavity wall insulation, loft insulation, installed low energy bulbs, don’t drive, don’t fly"

Wow Barney, you help make lawyers rich, you try to stifle free speech and you insulated your house. Somewhere a drowning polar bear just made it to shore... Congratulations!

When you've planted thousands of trees and thousands of shrubs and nursed thousands more back to health, get back to me about any real difference you've made, other than making sure the hot air you spew stays within the confines of your own house...

By the way, isn't it amazing how it always comes back to Jeffrey Sachs and Gavin Schmidt of the Earth Institute....the mission of the Institute being the achievement of the MDG'S, with Pachauri and Soros on the Board of Advisors...

Here we have Joshua Wolfe of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund co-author a book with Gavin Schmidt with a forward by Jeffrey Sachs...
http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Change-Picturing-Gavin-Schmidt/dp/B0057DC…

What a small world, eh Barney?

GSW, #20 previous page..

"Did we ever get to the bottom of whether Joffrey had actually “witnessed climate change first hand” ?

Yes, he saw a spider and watched his friend get frostbite.

">What a small world mind, eh Barney?

Couldn't help but correct that for you, Betty.

I will enjoy this.

Only because of your overweening egotism.
The fact is you're already exposed and lost.

"Yes, Betty, there needs to be some redistribution. It’s completely out of control, getting worse and you’re sitting right here with the rest of us working harder, getting poorer… and defending it because OOGAH BOOGAH commies."

Not sure what it is you think I'm defending, but perhaps you could fill me in with an example from something I said...

Stu, since you are being honest, why don't you fill me in on what you believe would be the best way to redistribute the wealth and what organization would oversee the redistribution? How would the money be allocated and what would the program be called? This obviously wouldn't happen overnight, but would take years of planning and putting all the pieces in place....when will all this planning occur and what organizations would be involved?

There will need to credible authorities, experts, and a consensus to justify the redistribution....what organization would or could oversee such an undertaking?

"Only because of y̶o̶u̶r̶ my overweening egotism"

Couldn’t help but correct that for you, chek.

"Climate fact: there is no coherent, well-supported scientific counter-argument against the standard position"

The standard position being predictions of catastrophic future scenarios...
And because the predictions can't be falsified, they are considered fact...
And because they are considered fact, climate policy is needed...
Climate policy comes in the from of Sustainable Development..
And "Sustainable Development is often an over-used word, but goes to the heart of tackling a number of inter-related global issues such as poverty, inequality, hunger and environmental degradation."

And this can only be accomplished with aid flowing from rich nations to poor nation...

And away we go:

"The standard position being predictions of catastrophic future scenarios…
"

The word "catastrophic" wasn't mentioned once in the AR4 WG1 report, which defines the "standard scientific position".

Ergo, you've just demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about. Or, you're a liar.

By craig thomas (not verified) on 17 Feb 2014 #permalink

You spent half your career replacing a network card here,

Forgot to mention this gem the first time. (Stu-pid's posts are the ones that just keep on giving)

Onboard NICs (not a card and not replaceable without swapping the MB) have been common for over 13 years now and almost never go bad outside of physical damage. You have to go back to the '90s when networking companies like 3Com (now defunct) were major players for PCI based NICs. Those almost never went bad either so long as you used reliable brands (3COM, Cisco, Intel ect...). Stu-pid's IT talk sounds like many retards who can't bullshit well, so he is going to get the pummeling he deserves.

Really, you’re all going to cough to being communists?

So, basic logic is beyond you too. Whodathunkit?!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 18 Feb 2014 #permalink

BBD,
The Poptech link is a resource.
It is self explanatory.
Go read it and take issue with the authors of the peer reviewed publications.
Let's be clear.
You are not a climate scientist either apparently.
Your aggressive questioning here is redundant and misdirected.

Stu2 is full of it as usual. He writes,

"You are not a climate scientist either apparently.
Your aggressive questioning here is redundant and misdirected"

No it isn't. Its totally appropriate. Problem for you, Stu2, is that BBD is agreeing with the vast majority of scientists, every Academy of Science around the world, every major scientific body as well as the conclusions of the various IPCC reports; Poptart isn't.

So, as usual, you are totally and utterly wrong.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Feb 2014 #permalink

John Birch:

"“Did we ever get to the bottom of whether Joffrey had actually “witnessed climate change first hand” ?

As it turns out, I've seen plenty of examples. Over here in Europe, I have seen extensive range expansions of plants and animals first hand. The Oak Processionary caterpillar began expanding its range north in the 1980s from central France, reached Holland by 1991 and is now a serious pest here. The tiger spider, in the genus Argiope, was confined to central Europe but began expanding northwards in the 1980s; it arrived around this area of the Netherlands (Gelderland) around 2000; its now abundant. I did a survey of ground beetles 13 years ago and found several species from the south that had rarely been recorded in the Netherlands. A number of plant species including Rorippa austriaca that are native to more southern Europe have spread northwards over the past 30 years and are now abundant in The Netherlands. Some are becoming disruptive invaders. I could list many more examples of biota either spreading north or increasing their ranges in central and northern Europe including birds. The Little Egret was a casual in Holland from the south until about 5 years ago; now it is a breeding resident. I have seen it several times this winter.

And of course there are the hundreds of studies reporting similar phenomena in the empirical literature. Trouble is, Barky, you are too stupid or lazy (or both) to go that route. As I have said before, your debating skills need serious attention because, to be honest, they stink.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Feb 2014 #permalink

StuThe Poptech link is a resource.id @ #31

"The Poptech link is a resource redundant collection of the third rate and partisan and therefore useless."

Corrected that for you, StuPid

Jeff Harvey,
Let BBD answer for himself.
I am much more interested in your response to my comment re your post on the previous page.
For Chek,
How would you know either way?
You have already stated that you won't be reading it haven't you?

Tried it 4 years ago StuPid, and poptart's regressed into his defensive bunker mentality even more so since.

And why waste time on acknowledged shit by an acknowledged shit collector when there is too much real science to keep up with?

Chek nails it. Poppy is a legend in his mind with the most basic academic qualifications. He actually links to embarrassing blog posts - such as asking who are IMHO a bunch of shills whether they actually directly received funding from one multi-national corporation (Exxon-Mobil). A total farce.

Corporations do everything they can to hide where they send donations and funding. Its been a tried and trusted measure of anti-environmental corporate PR since the days of Lippmann and Bernays. "Put the words in somebody else's mouth" has been their mantra. But, of course, they don't often do that directly but more clandestinely through public relations firms, think tanks and astroturf groups to which the scientists are affiliated. Most of those on the list have strong links with these kinds of groups that have been heavily funded by the fossil fuel (coal, natural gas and oil) industries. They can only deny that they have received direct funding from one corporation but not funds that have been indirectly channeled through other sources.

So of courser Poppy's question is ridiculous. But heck, the guy doesn't even classify as a psuedo-academic. Repairing computers does not qualify.

To Stu2s question: I have said it before and I will say it again. There is no interest on the part of western ruling elites - corporations and the governments they own - to eliminate the poverty gap between the north and south. They fully realize that if people in the south attain some measure of social justice and a significant increase in the standard of living, that it will of course have a major negative impact on consumption rates in the north. I've presented all kinds of evidence for this numerous times on Deltoid, and every times I get grade-school level responses from the usual suspects. The bottom line is that every developed nation in the world fosters an ecological deficit - meaning we consume for resources than our own natural ecosystems can sustainably produce. To maintian the massive inequities in wealth and consumption we are therefore forced to reach into poorer lands of the south to effectively loot and plunder their resources. Of course, our corporate media can be relied upon to forever package brazenly imperial policies under the guise of 'humanitarianism', 'freedom', 'democracy' and 'human rights' when if one reads any of the declassified western documents drawn up by government and corporate planners the real agendas - maintaining the status quo - become evident. We live in fully fledged military industrial complexes where the primary agendas are aimed at ensuring that the wealthy remain in power and control. This is nothing new; it goes back to the American Revolution and European colonialism and current agendas which remain the same.

The problem is, debating this with the likes of Poppy and Birchy is a complete waste of time. They have been so dumbed down by years of continual exposure to the usual lies from the corporate media and the education system - of US exceptionalism and a noble belief in spreading democracy - that they don't have a clue of what is really going on. The usual ripostes are that I don't know what I am talking about (no evidence procured) or that I am a communist. This is the depth of their understanding of the US and global economy and broader political arena.

As I have said, the US is a plutocracy through and through. Actually, after the second world war, the US briefly became more egalitarian, but by the 1970s the corporate sector was becoming more worried about an 'excess of democracy' there. By that they mean that they were concerned that the poor might have a disproportionate influence on government, and of course vote for policies that would more equitably distribute wealth and power. I don't know how a country can become 'too democratic', but the ruling elites certainly see real democracy as a threat to their interests. By co-opting both major parties, they have ensured that they have control over the reins of power. This is what Sheldon Wolin, Chris Hedges and others have been discussing in their writings of the past 20 years. But it goes back well before that, when James Madison once famously remarked that the US should be run by a 'better, more capable set of men' meaning the rich upper white classes. The rest were effectively 'chattle' to be manipulated. Walter Lippmann, early PR guru, said in the early 1920s that it was necessary for corporations to 'manufacture consent' among the general public, meaning though the use of propaganda. Again, the public were seen as a bewildered herd whose best interests were beyond their own capabilities and must be controlled by the better set of men I referred to above (the rich).

Nothing has changed - in fact, as I discussed earlier, power and wealth are more concentrated than ever. I've rad volumes on the history of corporate PR, and about the multi-billion dollar PR industry (e.g. Hill-Knowlton, Porter-Novelli, Burson-Marstellar, Ketcham, Edelman, et al), who funds them and about corporate front groups to know exactly how they function. Its my take that Birch and Poppy have never heard of any of them, and, even if so, know nix about the public relations industry. I've also read volumes of US history, Latin American history and imperialism, enough to know exactly what's going on in the world, and the social and environmental consequences of unregulated free markets under the guise of the 'Washington Consensus'. I've given many lectures on the link between politics, economics and both social injustice and environmental destruction. So being told by Poppy that I don't know what I am talking about is a complete joke.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Feb 2014 #permalink

So honestly, none of you actually deny being a communist?

I note that GSW has never once actually denied being a paedophile for the pree-schooler child.

Jeff,

The tiger spider, in the genus Argiope, was confined to central Europe but began expanding northwards in the 1980s; it arrived around this area of the Netherlands (Gelderland) around 2000;...

I know Argiope bruenichii as the Wasp Spider and I photographed these examples near here in Southern England, adjacent to a new ATC centre, on 13 September 2002. The date is precise, recorded by one of the 35mm SLRs used and saved in spreadsheet form.

IF Dellingpole merely listens to the words of the experts, then surely he's believing in the consensus of those experts without being able to verify.

And as the slug horde here keep banging on about "science isn't consensus!".

Betula, farts again:

By the way, isn’t it amazing how it always comes back to Jeffrey Sachs and Gavin Schmidt of the Earth Institute...

Huh! HTF can you boil the source of climate science down to just two individuals. And that book BTW pre-dates theClimate Science Legal Defense Fund by a wide margin (I have had a copy since it was published, floating houses in the Netherlands depicted for example. WTF are you on?

And your #26 is all strawmen or BS for clearly you have not studied these papers that I cited up thread..

Now go do that before continuing with your fatuous comments. But there is much else you need to grasp, that you have not yet done so shows bad faith on your part.

Betty

Wow Barney, you help make lawyers rich, you try to stifle free speech and you insulated your house. Somewhere a drowning polar bear just made it to shore… Congratulations!

Translated into actual truths:

"Wow BBD, you actually help scientists defray the legal costs forced on them by malicious deniers attacking and smearing them in public. You try to counteract the peddlers of misinformation on the internet, and you insulated your house. Individual efforts make no difference, of course, but you clearly aren't a mendacious hypocrite like me."

When you’ve planted thousands of trees and thousands of shrubs and nursed thousands more back to health, get back to me about any real difference you’ve made, other than making sure the hot air you spew stays within the confines of your own house…

Translated into actual truths:

"I'm trying to pass off my completely irrelevant day job as gardner to rich bastards as some sort of planet-saving heroics. This is, of course, utterly dishonest and hypocritical of me, but I'm too far gone to stop myself behaving like this."

By the way, isn’t it amazing how it always comes back to Jeffrey Sachs and Gavin Schmidt of the Earth Institute….the mission of the Institute being the achievement of the MDG’S, with Pachauri and Soros on the Board of Advisors…

Translated into actual truths:

"And I'm a nutter wallowing in conspiracist ideation like a good many climate change deniers."

2Stupid

BBD,
The Poptech link is a resource.
It is self explanatory.
Go read it and take issue with the authors of the peer reviewed publications.
Let’s be clear.
You are not a climate scientist either apparently.

Poppy's list is a mish-mash. There is no coherent, well-supported scientific counter-argument to the mainstream scientific position. Don't believe me? Then produce one from Poppy's rag-bag of conflicting papers. You will find this impossible.

I'm not a climate scientist, Stupid, but unlike you I do have a clue and I have actually read enough of the primary literature to discuss it sensibly. You I have shredded many times precisely because you *have not* read the relevant papers and *do not* understand the science under discussion. Everybody here saw it happen, so while you can deny this, it will be an obvious and childish lie.

And in the UK we have the most regressive administration ever, even more so that Thatcher's lot. And before anybody bangs on about me being leftist I am not exactly enamoured with Ed's lot who are could only ever function as a little to the right of centre being hamstrung by those who wield the financially coercive power.

That is the problem Jeff highlights, all current 'democracies' are just lip service to humanitarian government.

The regressive party has as demonstrated by police actions at Balcombe and Barton Moss become repressive.

One only has to follow the antics of the manic looking Michael Gove to realise the trouble we are in.

Note the efforts of fruitcake Delingpole:

The Gove gang does not simply wish to beat his critics in argument but humiliates them too. Two weeks ago, Suzanne Moore criticised Gove in the Guardian. Every slight must be punished and Toby Young of the Telegraph duly denounced Moore's "hysterical, ill-informed rant". So delighted was his fellow Telegraph pundit James Delingpole, he cried that Young had given "Suzanne Moore such a seeing-to, she'll be walking bow-legged for weeks", an insult so gross even Delingpole had to apologise.

.

Hence my consideration that Delingpole may have mental health issues. This gang would be wearing brown-shirts were it the 1930's.

The standard position being predictions of catastrophic future scenarios…
And because the predictions can’t be falsified, they are considered fact…

Oh, so you are arguing that the very clear evidence from paleoclimate behaviour is bogus, are you? Good luck with that, Betty.

How can you be so confidently wrong, so abysmally ill-informed on the basics but so endlessly volubly wrong?

Read a fucking textbook why don't you? Try this one.

Poppy’s list is a mish-mash. There is no coherent, well-supported scientific counter-argument to the mainstream scientific position. Don’t believe me? Then produce one from Poppy’s rag-bag of conflicting papers. You will find this impossible.

Janitor, like everything else you have argued this is addressed in the "Rebuttals to Criticisms" section;

Criticism: The list does not present a scientific argument.
Rebuttal: The list is a resource not a scientific argument. The purpose of the list is to show that peer-reviewed papers exist that support skeptic arguments.

Criticism: Some of the papers are mutually exclusive.
Rebuttal: The list is a resource not a scientific argument and does not discriminate between competing skeptical viewpoints. It is left up to the person using the resource to make up their own minds regarding any mutually exclusive claims. It should be noted that skeptics accept the existence of independent thought and debate on climate change.

The list is a resource not a scientific argument

"A resource" is empty. A bag of seeds is "a resource". It's also not a scientific argument. It also, just as your list is, NOT a source of useful information in making a scientific argument.

And if you're not making a scientific argument, then what are you doing?

" It is left up to the person using the resource to make up their own minds regarding any mutually exclusive claims"

I have: it has zero impact on the science as understood by the consensus of scientists and every national academy of science.

Wow, keep up the strawman. The purpose of the list is to be used as a resource for skeptics and to show that these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise.

How many National Academy Scientists signed a position statement on climate change?

PT

The *point* here is not your incoherent and essentially useless list of contradictory papers. The *point* is that there is no coherent and well-supported scientific counter-argument to mount against the standard scientific position on AGW.

You "sceptics" seem incapable of understanding that this means you have nothing except rhetoric and bluster.

Scientific arguments are never won by rhetoric and bluster. They are decided by the scientific evidence. In the real world - not the fantasy parallel universe inhabited by deniers - the evidence supporting the standard scientific position is overwhelming and "sceptics" have nothing. Hence idiots like you and absurd, rag-bag lists. Rhetoric and bluster. Misdirection.

You are a simpleton, PT, and you haven't got the first idea how science actually works. If you did, you would instantly recognise how painfully absurd your list actually is.

How many National Academy Scientists signed a position statement on climate change?

Christ, still with this bollocks?

We don't know and we don't care, PT, so either just tell us and link to whatever it is they signed or fuck off with this nonsense.

I guarantee that whatever you think you can prove here, you will be wrong. So come on, share your numbers with us.

But be sure to reveal how many NAS members explicitly reject the standard scientific position on AGW as well. If you want to play numbers games with me, then you will play them properly, with *all* the relevant figures on the table.

I have an inkling Will Happer managed to scrape up two climate scientists (Michaels, Spencer) in his failed petition a few years ago, but I'm not wasting time researching the exact details just to make a counter non-point to poptart's fantasy world non-point.
What does he think these organisations are?
Neighbourhood Soviets?
Is he a communist or something?

"How many National Academy Scientists signed a position statement on climate change?"

And denial of the science of climate that leads inevitably to AGW is a position too.

"The purpose of the list is to be used as a resource for deniers and to show that these papers exist contrary to absolutely no claims otherwise."

There, fixed that for you. It's ONLY DENIERS who insist that claiming 97% support means there are 0% contrary reports. That's a denier strawman, dearie.

Oh, by the way, the Oraskes study show that, despite all claims by deniers otherwise, that the vast majority of papers support AGW's conclusions and premises.

#100 - " I suppose the best-fit label would be humanist.", said BBD.
Well, how low can you go. I smell one of the worst things imaginable here. The L-word.

I, too, suffer this pathology.

Did you know the very first people to get wiped out during the start of any genocide are the humanists inside the own group. Fathom what this fact means. Daily - it could be essential to survival.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 18 Feb 2014 #permalink

chek

I have no idea what PT is referring to. That is why I want him to *link* to the document in question and *link* to a list of those who signed it and *link* to a reliable source for number of NAS members that explicitly reject the mainstream scientific position on AGW. Not that any of this matter one bit as it has no bearing on the central issue - the issue PT's list is designed deliberately to obscure - which is that there is no coherent and well-supported scientific counter-argument to the mainstream scientific position on AGW. This of course is the reason why a strong, near-universal scientific consensus on AGW has arisen - there is a consilience of evidence for and none against the standard position.

The only thing that interests me here is whether PT knows his list is worthless but peddles it to mislead, or whether he is so hopeless that he actually thinks it matters in some way.

The fact that he endlessly refuses to answer my questions aimed at clarifying his motivations strongly suggests that he is actively dishonest.

BBD, I believe what poptart's up to is questioning the validity of the elected governing bodies of institutions to take positions on matters without polling all their members.

IIRC, Princeton crank Will Happer attempted to raise a petition to overturn the official position (and I'm not even sure it was the actual NAS) but only managed to raise a couple of dozen signatures of which Spencer and Michaels were the sole climate scientists.

John Mashey documented it years ago, but as I said, I'm not playing along with poptart's red herring and investing energy into it. Perhaps someone with a better snippets library than I has fuller details to hand.

BBD, I believe what poptart’s up to is questioning the validity of the elected governing bodies of institutions to take positions on matters without polling all their members.

Amazing Choke actually understands the argument.

"The purpose of the list is to show that peer-reviewed papers exist that support skeptic arguments"

Nonsense. This is a subjective argument.

"How many National Academy Scientists signed a position statement on climate change?"

This information is irrelevant. The NAS would not make a decision on an issue as important as AGW with major policy implications if the view amongst the scientific community was in any way controversial; that every nation on the planet has taken a similar view is a huge nail in the coffin of AGW denial. Alone it is fatal to their cause.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Feb 2014 #permalink

Ian Forrester: Just in case anyone doesn’t understand the shoddy practices of E & E editor Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen, here is a quote from some correspondence about a “paper” she published from well known crank Oliver “iron Sun” Manuel:

"As you know, I like to publish what is considered outside currently accepted ideas. But being published in E&E is for debate, not evidence of ‘truth’.
Sonja"

Thus how can anyone consider E & E to have any value at all as a science journal when neither the journal nor its editor respect truth?

Dealt with in the Rebuttals to Criticism section. Is it too much to ask to read the rebuttals to all the nonsense you post and at least respond to that?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-abou…

Misinterpreted Quote: "Scientific Truth"

Another out of context quote of editor Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen has it's meaning frequently distorted, "I do not claim that I or my reviewers can arbitrate on the 'scientific' truth of publications that the IPCC selects as most relevant" (Origin: Letter to Michael Mann).

This is the correct interpretation,

"I stand by this, truth is far too strong a term for any reviewer to claim when judging a paper on something as complex and poorly defined a set of phenomena as 'climate'.

In fact, with reference to the next edition of E&E on paradigms in climate science (edited by Prof. Arthur Rorsch of the Netherlands) I would claim that nobody except people caught inside a fixed paradigm which they mistake for truth, could ever claim to deliver truth by peer review.

Only time and experience will tell the truth…

I do however accept that policy cannot always wait for the truth and rarely does, hence the high risk of policies that get it wrong, and the persuasive power of scaremongers, and the attraction to politics and those with political ambitions of fear. Politics has always been much motivated by fear. coupled with the promise of salvation, or rather being able to solve the problem, in our case by more research and green technology and/or changes in life styles. I am a political scientists and see many motives for the IPCC and its supporters to combine 'alarmism' with grand solutions."

- Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment

The NAS would not make a decision on an issue as important as AGW with major policy implications if the view amongst the scientific community was in any way controversial;

Exactly, but it's fools rubes like StuPid who are poptart's audience.

"BBD, I believe what poptart’s up to is questioning the validity of the elected governing bodies of institutions to take positions on matters without polling all their members"

Nope. What Poppy is doing is clutching at the most flimsy of straws since the positions of National Academies across the world are devastating for the cause of denial. Its the last thing they can think of in their feeble attempts to try and delegitimize it. I know a few members of the NAS in the US and they would laugh hysterically to read Poppy's argument - but its something I have seen many deniers do.

Most importantly, none of the deniers (like Poppy or Jonas) has anything remotely resembling a scientific background. They're all armchair or blog scientists who have become self-professed experts not only in climate science but on the ways in which peer-review functions. Note ow Poppy has steered well clear of his favorite journal - E & E - after it was sown that its a bottom feeder with a virtually invisible impact factor - meaning most of its papers are almost completely ignored. Heck, even the skeptics don't cite them.

And his Exxon-Mobil questionnaire was similarly appalling and loaded.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Feb 2014 #permalink

For the benefit of the credulous, StuPid, this may throw some perspective on the value of poptart's denier "resource". And the vast body of evidence his resource needs to ignore in order to maintain its ideological purity.

Geochemist James Lawrence Powell reviewed all 2,258 peer-reviewed scientific articles about climate change, written by 9,136 authors, published between Nov. 12, 2012 and December 31, 2013.

"Of all those hundreds of papers and thousands of researchers, Powell found one article, authored by a single scientist, that attributed climate change to something other than human actions: "The Role of Solar Activity in Global Warming," by S.V. Avakyan, appearing in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Science, Vol. 83, No. 3."

"My previous study, of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 through Nov. 12, 2012, found 13,950 articles on “global warming” or “global climate change.” Of those, I judged that only 24 explicitly rejected the theory of man-made global warming."

Powell, a past president of Oberlin, Franklin and Marshall, and Reed colleges, invites anyone to reproduce his survey of the science:

Oh PopTech. Dear, dear, dear PopTech.

My words were “for a good part of it”? …oh that’s right I said no such thing but made a general statement, “but I have repaired over 5000 computer systems (PCs and Servers) in my career.” I never said for how long in my career or when.

Umm no, "I have repaired lots of computer systems" would be a general statement. You did not make a general statement, you made a very, very specific one: you repaired 5000 systems.

So as a ballpark, if it was trivial stuff, you probably spent around 5000 hours making those repairs. With an average full-time position @1600 hours or so, it would have been over 3 years of cranking out one repair every hour. Toss in the 30,000 support calls you've claimed to have handled as well at an optimistic-for-IT 6 minutes each and we're looking at 5 years straight. A good part of your career already, assuming the calls and defective machines come in regularly and even the server repairs are simple. Which they're not, of course. You'd be happy to hit 50% efficiency. So we're looking at at least a decade of helpdesk monkey, putting that degree to good use. All of this is assuming you are competent, which is almost impossible to believe. But none of that matters, really. Three years ago you claimed 25 years of experience with zero mention of software development, databases or climate change.

Very impressive. All that learning in three years. I stand in awe, Andrew.

Also duly noted is that you are unaware of what the things you say actually mean and lack self-awareness so badly you manage to REPEAT the fact that proves my point in your flailing attempt at a rebuttal. I fear I might have been right earlier about you having an actual developmental disorder.

AMD FM1 socket boards are found on low-end budget systems. If the HSF bracket broke that is because the board is some cheap budget board, was not properly installed or stressed by an after market HSF. The fact that you specifically mentioned that means you experienced the problem, which means you are not worth jack since your system was built with low-end budget parts.

Wait, your self-worth is determined by your CPU+chipset?

Sorry, no. Never owned an FM1 socket board. I picked it because I think the name is funny AND BECAUSE IT WAS A RANDOM EXAMPLE, YOU MORON. That deduction process is scarily linear and rigid. Another datum point.

HSF brackets don’t break on high end server class boards

Again, random example of a chore that would fall to you, rather than a developer. That was obviously the distinction I was making. This loopy harping on details and repeated comprehension failure? Yeah.

What is an “fsck snapshot” you retard?

Umm, nothing, because I NEVER SAID THAT. I said "fsck or VM snapshot". Not even half way and you're already obviously emotional, belligerent, shrieky and unable to focus on things as they are actually being said. The proper grouping in that sentence was crystal clear but here you are.

fsck is a file check/repair utility for Linux.

I know. Needless stating of the obvious in order to regain a sense of control over the conversation.

Now we know you run Linux and use virtual machines, Yawn

Third identical occurrence of this category error. Failure to grasp basic patterns and tone of conversation. Continuing negative escalation through being dismissive, condescending, abrasive and obnoxious -- most likely a primitive coping mechanism born from developmental delay and retained as effective because of unawareness of social norms, lack of adult self-judgement and complete lack of empathy.

I know exactly what I do and what I know which is apparently much, much more than you.

Apparently? Saying "apparently" there means you either don't know what I do for a living or you don't know what you do for a living. But it can't be that, since I've been pretty explicit about my 9 to 5, and I do think you know what you spend your days doing at least on some level.

So the only option is that you are unable to frame an objective comparison, most likely because of inability to manage agitation from preceding situations in a normal and reasonable time frame.

Also... inability to present fully formed concepts that have a subjective component. Reduced coherence when attempting to discuss a statement connected to self-worth and risk of sense of inferiority.

Please bust out some developer lingo bullshit so you can get an education in computer science as well you retarded hack.

Compulsive repetition of defensive mantras as coping mechanism. Out of context recitation of formulaic, primitive arguments in order to continue to escalate the discussion. Escalation most commonly a tactic subconsciously adopted in early childhood as the only one available due to developmental delays in communication and emotional growth. In this case follow-up care for the developmental issues (in the form of intensive behavioral therapy to replace the primitive coping mechanisms with more normative ones when the child is able to) must have been severely lacking or completely absent.

Nope, to preserve my privacy.

Not even close but I will never give exact details about my career since I like my privacy.

Poppycock. You're insinuating that you could be identified by merely giving a vague description of what it is you actually do, and the only way that could happen is that you've been making an ass of yourself on the Internet for so long that you can be tracked just by cross-referencing your lies.

Oh, wait. Oopsie. clickety-clickety... yeah, you're pretty much already there. You really need to knock it off with that pathetic "oh my, the Firefox hit squad is coming for me" spiel. If they wanted to find you it would take less than an hour, no matter how many red herrings you throw out there.

The reason they're not harassing you is because they don't care to. And neither do I. You're an insignificant, dense, lying stooge.

By the way, twenty years repairing PCs and answering support calls is not a career, it's a job. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. Just stop the dumb lying about it.

Wildly inaccurate framing of the world and the individual's position in it. Often caused by caregivers attempting to bolster the child's confidence as the gap of the developmental delay narrows by entertaining, acknowledging, sometimes even reinforcing or implanting unrealistic ideas of competence and/or intelligence, planting the seeds for irreparable levels of cognitive dissonance, exceptionalism and delusions of grandeur.

ROFLMAO

Continued escalation. Unreasonable harping on insignificant details or misinterpretations. Complete disregard and hostility for any attempts at moderation or correction. While the topic may still change, it is all but certain that with nothing but the single coping mechanism available the now developmentally disabled person will do anything to make the situation so uncomfortable, socially embarrassing and inappropriate, combative and unreasonable that the other parties eventually have no choice but to either concede, simply stop responding completely or physically leave the confrontation. This result reinforces the defense mechanism even further while at the same time isolating and alienating.

I think we can all follow along from here.

you have no REMOTE idea what you are talking about or what I just said.

Naked bullying. Blatant assertion.

You think penetration testing / security engineering is monkey work?

Andrew, your reading comprehension is awful. Please, when you get this upset next time just take a break. That way you don't say idiotic things and I don't have to spend time pointing them out.

Security Engineering as a separate process with a separate headcount is idiotic and almost always makes the software less secure by creating a security police desperately trying to plug vulnerabilities with all other devs completely disregarding security because that's what the SEs are for.
If a dev can't write reasonably secure code with a good initial set of unit tests, they can go be Computer Analysts and answer the phone. Every checkin gets a security review. Every break gets a fix, a unit test and another review. Security is part of the normal dev process and every dev participates.

No, penetration testing is not monkey work. However, a helpdesk clown manually running Metasploit on his phone during lunch? I was being charitable.

In our service layer, 3K out of the 5K unit tests are security-related and run daily. We do simple port scans daily and have VMs continuously running URL fuzzer, XSS and two instances of our own fuzzer continuously rotating through every end point in the server farm. And you're going to help out by a stock Metasploit run on your phone while you wait for your Hot Pocket?

Clinical delusions of grandeur, incremental distancing from reality, total lack of correction or external perspective from almost complete isolation caused by combative and primitive handling of any conflict. Often not laid off because of pervasive stereotypes causing people to assume someone as socially stunted as Rain Man must have fantastical talents as well. Most likely given sole ownership of a non-critical process that requires minimal interaction and afterwards ignored with great relief.

(not my job BTW)

So not help desk, not development, not security... what the hell did they pawn off on you? How is that basement office?

What a retard

Andrew? Could you please knock it the fuck off with the discriminatory terms? It's getting really, really, really offensive, and repeating it compulsively and defensively makes it so much worse.

Regression to combative primitive posturing out of relief from spotting a weak spot which is again illusory and due to pure agitation and panic-based utter failure to comprehend the simplest arguments. Failure to spot patterns in own behavior, structure and tone of the argument presented.

please stop embarrassing yourself Stu-pid

Tragically unaware subconscious copying of the idiom of the perceived enemy. The defensive escalation enters the 3rd Act, with commensurate further regression to the most primitive defensive tools: shrieking, jeering and name-calling. Almost certainly stuck at this strictly infantile level of reasoning until all the built-up anger and fear can be released when the discussion is "won" by making civilized discussion effectively impossible.

and remember those words every time you see some corporation get hacked and millions of credit cards are stolen.

Occasional retreat to at best tangentially related rote, memorized, redundant and vapid belligerence. State the obvious and gather extra reserves of idiotic, misplaced confidence by stating the sky is blue and everyone should feel blessed to be reminded of it.

The reason they were hacked was because of some joke developer like yourself did not know how to code

Starts the necessary transfer of blame and responsibility to allow declaration of victory with a bit more shrieking. May or may not be true. May or may not be grounded in reality. Justification for the blame-shifting can be realistic, but that is entirely optional -- form here on out the escalation is planned to be continuous.

and the company did not employ good penetration testers / security engineers.

For most of the recent large breaches, it was physical security, education and a few admin failures. But hey, why let the facts stand in the way of a perfectly good tantrum.

Finds temporary pet cause and thinks it is an argument. In most cases, does not understand the cause or why it is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Is now several fundamental levels away from the core topic and almost certainly confused and scared.

It is only nonsensical if you are Stu-pid.

Gathering steam for the end run. Will stick to strict infantile reasoning whenever possible, flail and start the foot-stomping.

Try reading retard

God this is getting annoying, you little bigoted jerk.

“penetration testing software”. You don’t know what this is

Any pretense of truthfulness and reason is now fully abandoned. The insults must now be continuous to build sufficient pressure to end the conversation. Failure to comprehend basic sentences is now more than likely than not, and the projection and blame shift has to be instantaneous and complete.

Andrew, sweetheart, you wrote:

I have better things like penetration testing software to run on my phone that is much more fun.

I apologize for being sarcastic about it before -- I thought it was obvious what the issue with sentence is and was trying to be cute about it. And whooosh, here we are.

The sentence is broken. It is not English. As it stands it is a grammatically busted way of saying you have a phone which is much more fun than something else (mine, presumably) and that you run penetration software on it. From the context I assume you were actually trying to say that you think staring at a Metasploit run like a goldfish is much more fun than playing Angry Birds and hey, no accounting for taste. But for the sentence to actually say that you at the very least need to separate that final clause with a comma, and two more to separate your example so it sounds a little less like an Albanian on bath salts.

Let me just say that it is frightening to see a self-professed journalist unable to comprehend the language or produce something comprehensible in it.

because you are hack and technologically illiterate.

Holy projection, Batman! Tell you what, I'll resist the obvious bonus pun just this once.

Oh, and now: the hard drive interlude. This ought to be good.

failures can happen at any time

Yes... they can. What is your point? Do you really need to say monumentally obvious things every few minutes? Is it like a dead man's switch on your brain?

Okay, wait. I think I see what the basic problem is. You fundamentally do not understand the concept of a ratio. I think it's safe to assume then that statistics are out of the picture.

Hmm. Let me try it this way.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/putting-hard-driv…

Scroll down to that final graph. Look at the pretty lines. Just about the only large-scale data set available anywhere shows exactly the pattern I described for Hitachi. It shows exactly the pattern I described for WD, just more pronounced. Seagate shows the same pattern until the bad batches of 1.5TB drives start committing mass seppuku.

So again, on my side of the argument: the largest and most recent reliability data set available. Your turn.

being influenced by a variety of factors including usage and environmental

So you mean if I don't use it, the drive will last longer? And that if I set it on fire it might break? Andrew! Where do you come up with this stuff!! Your profound insights into the complicated workings on using versus not using, not to mention that part about not setting it on fire... my mind is blown.

but on enterprise class drives failures on average are very low

Okay, good. Now, what's the numerical value for "very low"? And, um... Andrew? How do you know? What do you base this on?

and are mainly seen after 5 years.

...which you have determined objectively by...

Oh, wait. You're just asserting this. So against my data, you bring bald assertions from a lifer help desk jockey who has proven only he is a pathological liar and dense as a post.

Well, I'm sure that with your decades of experience you can back this up later in your comment.

unless the cooling system for the drive bays or the server room fails AND the temperature monitoring hardware /software fails (which auto-shuts down the servers) you are not going to see cascading failures.

No, you're right. HDD makers have been frantically improving vibration tolerance in specific RAID models because they were bored.

But I'm sure, with your decades of large-scale data center experience, you'll be backing up this assertion real soon now.

Actually outside of companies like Google most corporations use enterprise class drives in their servers for their reliability

Actually, almost everyone is going to tiered SSD/bulk consumer SATA for high performance applications because it's faster and cheaper, and other stuff has been on SANs for at least a decade anyway. And most expansion boxes I see added to SANs now are bulk consumer SATA too. Just up the redundancy, add a couple of hot spares and you still save enough for a nice vacation.

But hey, I'm sure what you said was probably right when you read it in a magazine in 2006.

Stu-pid.

Oh Andrew, you get the gold star for consistency. Just make sure you don't eat it like you did with the paste, will ya?

The point again, is you do not replace drives on servers every week.

Why can't you just accept by now that you're a complete idiot? Why do you make me show you over and over, down to the last letter?

Fine. Let's see if I remember some numbers.

Starting 4 years ago my company started hosting hot and warm customer data. SQL Server, nothing too complicated but nice volume (think 1.5TB live data with 50-100GB daily churn a pop. Started with 2, now up to 6.

So currently we need about 10TB.
Scratch/tempdb/routine churn reserve adds 50%.
RAID doubles it (mix of 5 and 10).
OS overhead adds 10%.
SI shenanigans another 10%.

So for our situation we'd need 37TB raw space (rounded up). Back then the best spindle/price point was 10K/15K 146GB (and it got better since once distributors starting unloading them).
So currently, we have 250 spindles in our rack. (Not entirely true, we started with a batch of leftover 73GBs and the newest wave is 2.5" 10K 300GB, but you get the idea).

There are 6 age groups in the pool, from 5 years to 6 months. The failure curves don't overlap perfectly, of course, but I think even you can figure out 250/(5*52) is pretty close to 1. So yes, there are 3 stacks of spares on our admin's desk and he averages about one drive a week. Sometimes none, sometimes two or three.

Okay. So we've now established that it is perfectly normal to be changing a drive a week, and that it is happening right now, twenty feet from my desk. Let's also be perfectly clear that 10TB of live data (and the 40TB to support it) isn't a big deal these days. No exotic seven figure EMC cargo containers, just a few racks with a server and a stack of expanders.

Now, I'm sure, we'll get to hear about the vast experience you based all of those assertions on earlier.

The last time a drive was replaced on one of our servers due to a failure was last summer.

Wait, WAS replaced? They don't even let you do that, Andrew? I thought you were, like, really good at repairing servers and stuff.

Anyway. Let me guess. 5 servers, tops? How many spindles total... 20? All bought at the same time? Beefiest box is Exchange? Total churn for a day is what, 10GB?

I've got to hand it to you, Andrew. The pure unmitigated balls on you, sitting there dispensing anecdotal advice about enterprise drives when the heaviest server room you've ever been near could be run off of stone tablets. I should have read through all of your message first and saved myself the time doing remedial server planning math for a delusional caveman.

What a waste of time. Okay, let's wrap this up quickly.

You really need to stop pretending you know what you are talking about.

Just shut up and find out if there's remedial ABT out there for untreated Aspergers. Just leave the grownups alone and go get help. Please. Just go away.

Oh, I forgot.

Me:

I posit that Google Scholar trawling up messes of unrelated and vacuous material when doing a search for papers supporting AGW is completely irrelevant when trying to determine a ratio of papers for versus papers against.

To which you reply:

The education begins

Oh for crying out loud you delusional yokel. Look, I'M SORRY you're not as smart as you think you are. I truly am. It must suck. But why do you torment us? Why are you still standing there, a veritable Black Knight of call center mediocrity and science denialism?

You're not here for the hunting, are you.

Okay, deep breath. Let's see what you've got.

1. Please provide the filtering method to remove all erroneous content from a Google Scholar search.

Oh Jeebus on a pogo stick it's even worse than I feared. You haven't understood a single word of what I posited above, have you Andrew? Did you even actually read it or zoom all the way down, here secure in your superior knowledge? I bet there was triumphant spittle and a supremely annoying giggle involved.

I now have to ask a grown man for the second time in a single comment if he knows what the word "ratio" means.

If you had any shame you'd go away and stay away. Actually, never mind. If you had any shame you'd have left two comments ago. Christ, I don't know if I can take much more of this. You're like a giant kamikaze punching bag filled with dumb.

Okay. Step 1, Andrew. Scroll up and this time actually fucking read the paragraph that starts with "I posit". That's what we're talking about. Please take your time. Google "ratio" this time. Ask a friend to help you. Please realize your first question above is EXPLICITLY irrelevant by what I posit. It's the entire point, actually. So give that a think, take a nap and read it again.

If you at this point plan on writing something that AT ANY POINT contains the words "filtering", "erroneous", "Mutonia" or "Chuck Norris", please, in the name of all that is good and decent... take a step away from the keyboard, move to the moon and stay there.

2. Please provide me with the 1001 result for a Google Scholar search.

Why the hell would I? We're not talking about me providing you with a damned thing. We're talking about the noise being irrelevant to determining the answer to the first and fundamental question: the ratio of scientific papers supporting AGW versus the ones in denial. Actually, FIRST you have to demonstrate you actually understand what that sentence means. THEN we can discuss the answer. And no more dodging this time, you pampered ignorant high-horse fruit loop. I swear, one more scroll-by like that and I will kick your dog.

Oh hey, Andrew. Please provide me with a pina colada and a unicorn.

Whoa, you're onto something here. Making clinically insane demands is fun!

Come on you retarded hack, you can do it.

I could, but I don't have to in order to answer the question. That's the everloving point that I'm pretty sure you'll continue to miss. So far, you seem simply too delusional and stupid to absorb any knowledge whatsoever. I'm not holding my breath.

Oh, and Andrew? Fuck you too, you bigoted lunatic.

I'll throw the ball in Poppy's delusional court:

How do you think National Academies (as well as major bodies like the American Geophysical Union) reach their consensus view on AGW? Do you think they flip a coin? Well, the odds of the National Scientific Academies of 150 nations all reaching the same view on CC by coin flipping would be billions to one. So it can't be that. Ok, how about one senior member at the top - such as the academy president - makes the decision? Nope, cannot be, since that assumes every President of every National Academy either agrees that humans are driving CC (unlikely, although it provides more evidence of scientific consensus) or that they feel empowered to speak for the rank-and-file membership. But this would generate an outcry.

The fact is that these decisions are not reached lightly. These bodies are inherently quire conservative, and to unanimously agree over a topic as important as CC means there is a broad consensus over the issue. There's little doubt that a significant majority of climate scientists are in agreement. I have spoken to many of them and in m career have yet to meet a denier. Part of the reason for this, if you look at Poppy's list, is that many of the deniers are old, retired scientists; there is very little younger blood in there. Many are emeritus; many of the old guys aren't even climate scientists. This is one major achilles heel for the AGW denial movement; they cannot recruit much new blood. They have depended for the most part on an aging cohort for the past 20 years and this lot is not being replaced.

Again, in the end this will undermine them.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Feb 2014 #permalink

Jeff

Most importantly, none of the deniers (like Poppy or Jonas) has anything remotely resembling a scientific background.

Indeed so, which is why I am fascinated by Poptech's absolute flat refusal to answer a simple question like:

- Why do a minority of ill-informed non-experts reject the mainstream position on AGW? Without the expertise to understand the science, what makes them imagine that they have a rational basis for dismissing it as flawed?

Time and time again he dodges this. He will *not* answer. And that refusal tells us all exactly what we need to know about Poptech.

Poptech, you knobhead, Sonja B-C works with Benny fucking Peiser. Do you not know who Benny is and what he does? You cannot whitewash Sonja B-C. She's a politicised denier and shill-enabler. This is a matter of fact, not conjecture. Deal with reality, FFS.

#60 -
"In fact, with reference to the next edition of E&E on paradigms in climate science (edited by Prof. Arthur Rorsch of the Netherlands)"

*) Rörsch is NOT Prof. but pensioned a long time ago;
*) Rörsch doesn't know shit about climate, he's, oops, WAS a molecular biologist.

Rörsch is the Dutch specialist in gish gallops. Beware. He can type 10.000 syllables of total nonsens per minute, without so much as indenting a new paragraph, and does.

"Only time and experience will tell the truth…" - like 'one swallow makes no summer so a billion swallows CERTAINLY make no summer'. The crazier the record heat or moisture the more this is taken as evidence that nothing is changing.

Oimjakon in east Siberia just posted its snowiest February on record. So that must mean the Ice Age Is Here. No need to look at the temperatures there.
(don't, men. It's ghastly what's going on there. Ghastly).

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 18 Feb 2014 #permalink

All six bullets from Stu there. Reload!

Fucking brilliant. Top banana, Stu.

;-)

I think our Peter 'Tethy's Petroleum and fracking is good for you' Lilley is related to Poptart and Betula, certainly by his recent display of boneheaded 'not understanding the answer given' to his, as Dr Emily Shuckburgh pointed out 'not well formed question' which was the no warming canard from C 11:41 so please no food or liquid in mouth whilst listening to Lilley:

MPs on the Energy and Climate took evidence on the IPCC's 5th Assessment Review on 11 February 2014..

Lilley remarked, 'Its quite unusual for people to answer questions they normally go into a great .....inaudible.' Well he should know being a politician well schooled in evading direct answers!

"How do you think National Academies (as well as major bodies like the American Geophysical Union) reach their consensus view on AGW?"

Heck, why is a refutation of consensus so necessary in poptart's world?

Why is a "large" number of papers that he *believes* are unaccounted for in all the consensus of any worth? The point that there is at least one paper that says AGW is wrong would show the point that there is a paper saying AGW is wrong and doing any more than that is insisting on a consensus as creating validity.

Stu-pid continues to embarrass himself.

Oh PopTech. Dear, dear, dear PopTech.

My words were “for a good part of it”? …oh that’s right I said no such thing but made a general statement, “but I have repaired over 5000 computer systems (PCs and Servers) in my career.” I never said for how long in my career or when.

Umm no, “I have repaired lots of computer systems” would be a general statement. You did not make a general statement, you made a very, very specific one: you repaired 5000 systems.

Stu-pid it was a general statement as I said over 5000 systems (which is an estimate). I never said how long during my career I did this or when. It is quite easy to do a lot of work in a short period of time when you work 10-12 hour days and 6 days a week. But you are too Stu-pid to know better.

So as a ballpark, if it was trivial stuff, you probably spent around 5000 hours making those repairs. With an average full-time position @1600 hours or so, it would have been over 3 years of cranking out one repair every hour. Toss in the 30,000 support calls you’ve claimed to have handled as well at an optimistic-for-IT 6 minutes each and we’re looking at 5 years straight. A good part of your career already, assuming the calls and defective machines come in regularly and even the server repairs are simple. Which they’re not, of course. You’d be happy to hit 50% efficiency. So we’re looking at at least a decade of helpdesk monkey, putting that degree to good use. All of this is assuming you are competent, which is almost impossible to believe. But none of that matters, really.

Please stop embarrassing yourself. Not only can you easily do multiple repairs per hour (multiple machines running various diagnostics and scans at the same time), support calls can easily average less than 3 minutes depending on the problem. Then you have support calls where multiple users have the same problem and the same fix resolves all the calls. When you average these factors in with 10-12 hour work days and 6 day work weeks your numbers become worthless. While I do not work in desktop support, I have trained helpdesk personnel in my career.

Three years ago you claimed 25 years of experience with zero mention of software development, databases or climate change.

Yep, I changed the length all the time so people cannot guess my age but I do have extensive development experience as well.

"Yep, I changed the length all the time so people cannot guess my age"

Just like you change your claims so people cannot guess what you're on about.

Let me bust a taboo, once more huh.

Consensus has no meaning and no place in bèta sciences. The concept, the very word ought to be avoided entirely.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 18 Feb 2014 #permalink

Wait, your self-worth is determined by your CPU+chipset?

Sorry, no. Never owned an FM1 socket board. I picked it because I think the name is funny AND BECAUSE IT WAS A RANDOM EXAMPLE, YOU MORON. That deduction process is scarily linear and rigid. Another datum point.

Stu-pid it was not a random example but something you experienced on your budget part system retard. I have extensive experience debating on tech forums and no one throws out nonsense like that except when they are bullshitting based on their limited personal experience. You got pwned by your own bullshit.

Third identical occurrence of this category error. Failure to grasp basic patterns and tone of conversation. Continuing negative escalation through being dismissive, condescending, abrasive and obnoxious — most likely a primitive coping mechanism born from developmental delay and retained as effective because of unawareness of social norms, lack of adult self-judgement and complete lack of empathy. [...]

Compulsive repetition of defensive mantras as coping mechanism. Out of context recitation of formulaic, primitive arguments in order to continue to escalate the discussion. Escalation most commonly a tactic subconsciously adopted in early childhood as the only one available due to developmental delays in communication and emotional growth. In this case follow-up care for the developmental issues (in the form of intensive behavioral therapy to replace the primitive coping mechanisms with more normative ones when the child is able to) must have been severely lacking or completely absent.

Please stop deflecting your developmental disabilities on me because you are technologically illiterate. Whatever personal cognitive problems you experience in life is not an excuse for still being a retard. I understand the embarrassment of not knowing what "penetration testing software" is but you will get over it.

Does your psycho-babble ranting defense really work on people you talk to Stu-pid?

"Please stop deflecting your developmental disabilities on me because you are technologically illiterate."

I would ask you to actually converse in what's happening in the shared reality of this universe rather than the invention you inhabit by choice, but you have no reason to do so, do you, poptart?

Notice how the nutter is ignoring me now. He knows he's on the back foot.

Who is Benny Pieser, knobhead?

What does he do?*

Why do a minority of ill-informed non-experts reject the mainstream position on AGW?

Without the expertise to understand the science, what makes them imagine that they have a rational basis for dismissing it as flawed?

* Have you really not got the remotest clue about the operation and personnel of the denial industry in the UK or are you just being disingenuous?

Peiser. Might as well get the cretin's name right.

chek #57

Aahh. I see. So it was a rhetorical question :-)

Did I mention that rhetoric and bluster are all the deniers bring to the table? That they are obligate misrepresenters because there is in fact no coherent, well-supported scientific counter-argument to the mainstream scientific position on AGW?

I did? Over and over again, you say? Sorry about that.

;-)

* * *

And in other news, he-e-e-e-r's Benny!

Poppycock. You’re insinuating that you could be identified by merely giving a vague description of what it is you actually do, and the only way that could happen is that you’ve been making an ass of yourself on the Internet for so long that you can be tracked just by cross-referencing your lies.

Oh, wait. Oopsie. clickety-clickety… yeah, you’re pretty much already there. You really need to knock it off with that pathetic “oh my, the Firefox hit squad is coming for me” spiel. If they wanted to find you it would take less than an hour, no matter how many red herrings you throw out there.

My title is very specific and really narrows down who I work for so I'll pass. No one can track me because I never post anything that could let them. I don't know about a hit squad but I did get emailed death threats (likely emotional ranting but I took them seriously regardless) and they tried to get my website taken offline by harassing my ISP, the authorities got involved in both cases. Needless to say they still don't know who I am.

Actually no, the only thing they would find is planted information since I never use my real last name online.

By the way, twenty years repairing PCs and answering support calls is not a career, it’s a job. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course. Just stop the dumb lying about it.

It is not possible to lie about your delusional fantasies, Stu-pid.

Security Engineering as a separate process with a separate headcount is idiotic and almost always makes the software less secure by creating a security police desperately trying to plug vulnerabilities with all other devs completely disregarding security because that’s what the SEs are for....[Googled Bullshit]

Stu-pid, I never said for development work. You need to learn to read the context of what some says.

And you’re going to help out by a stock Metasploit run on your phone while you wait for your Hot Pocket?

Retard, why is your reading comprehension so bad? Where did I say I was "helping out" by running something on my phone? I am not going to get into it here but Googling "penetration testing software" and finding the first result as Metasploit just confirms you know nothing of the subject.

So not help desk, not development, not security… what the hell did they pawn off on you?

Yes you don't know what I do by design.

For most of the recent large breaches, it was physical security, education and a few admin failures.

Thanks for confirming you know nothing on this subject but continue to try and bullshit in blissful ignorance.

It looks like I completely broke Stu-pid.

You delusional nutter!

;-)

Who's Benny Peiser, knobhead?

;-)

Man did I break Stu-pid,

Hmm. Let me try it this way.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/putting-hard-driv…

Scroll down to that final graph. Look at the pretty lines...
Stu-pid does not even read the links he cites,

"Their collection of more than 27,000 consumer-grade drives."

"and are mainly seen after 5 years."

…which you have determined objectively by…

Oh, wait. You’re just asserting this.

Stu-pid, if you knew anything about IT (which you repeatedly demonstrate your don't) you would know why HD manufacturers make their warranties the length that they do,

http://www.wd.com/en/products/internal/enterprise/

No, you’re right. HDD makers have been frantically improving vibration tolerance in specific RAID models because they were bored

Enterprise SAS drives have higher vibrational tolerances Stu-pid, this is why it is not recommended to use consumer SATA drives in enterprise level RAID arrays.

Actually, almost everyone is going to tiered SSD/bulk consumer SATA for high performance applications because it’s faster and cheaper,

ROFLMAO! Since when did SSD drives become cheaper than HDDs?

. So yes, there are 3 stacks of spares on our admin’s desk and he averages about one drive a week. Sometimes none, sometimes two or three.

Okay. So we’ve now established that it is perfectly normal to be changing a drive a week, and that it is happening right now, twenty feet from my desk.

My apologizes, I guess you can replace drives every week if you don't design your datacenter properly and use consumer level drives for enterprise level applications. One of the reasons I have so much free time is I do things right the first time. I can't give any more details as it would give too much away.

We’re talking about the noise being irrelevant to determining the answer to the first and fundamental question

Can Google Scholar be used to determine the ratio?

If the answer is "Yes", then you have to be able to provide the following,

1. Please provide the filtering method to remove all erroneous content from a Google Scholar search.
2. Please provide me with the 1001 result for a Google Scholar search.

Oh, and Andrew? Fuck you too, you bigoted lunatic

Yep, I broke Stu-pid.

Man did I break Stu-pid,

Hmm. Let me try it this way.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/putting-hard-driv…

Scroll down to that final graph. Look at the pretty lines...
Stu-pid does not even read the links he cites,

"Their collection of more than 27,000 consumer-grade drives."

"and are mainly seen after 5 years."

…which you have determined objectively by…

Oh, wait. You’re just asserting this.

Stu-pid, if you knew anything about IT (which you repeatedly demonstrate your don't) you would know why HD manufacturers make their warranties the length that they do,

http://www.wd.com/en/products/internal/enterprise/

No, you’re right. HDD makers have been frantically improving vibration tolerance in specific RAID models because they were bored

Enterprise SAS drives have higher vibrational tolerances Stu-pid, this is why it is not recommended to use consumer SATA drives in enterprise level RAID arrays.

Actually, almost everyone is going to tiered SSD/bulk consumer SATA for high performance applications because it’s faster and cheaper,

ROFLMAO! Since when did SSD drives become cheaper than HDDs?

. So yes, there are 3 stacks of spares on our admin’s desk and he averages about one drive a week. Sometimes none, sometimes two or three.

Okay. So we’ve now established that it is perfectly normal to be changing a drive a week, and that it is happening right now, twenty feet from my desk.

My apologizes, I guess you can replace drives every week if you don't design your datacenter properly and use consumer level drives for enterprise level applications. One of the reasons I have so much free time is I do things right the first time. I can't give any more details as it would give too much away.

We’re talking about the noise being irrelevant to determining the answer to the first and fundamental question

Can Google Scholar be used to determine the ratio?

If the answer is "Yes", then you have to be able to provide the following,

1. Please provide the filtering method to remove all erroneous content from a Google Scholar search.
2. Please provide me with the 1001 result for a Google Scholar search.

Oh, and Andrew? Fuck you too, you bigoted lunatic

Yep, I broke Stu-pid.

Oh dear. Andrew farted out another one when I wasn't looking.

Ah, what the heck. What's another few minutes after that jumbo one, right? Let's see what he's up to now, and if he can keep up his perfect score on proving me right with his rebuttal.

Me:

You spent half your career replacing a network card here

(Random aside: how surreal is it to meet a self-styled, allegedly university-educated "Computer Analyst" with 25 years of experience... too stupid to figure out how to blockquote. Jesus wept.)

Forgot to mention this gem the first time.

Gem? I thought it was pretty innocuous.

Uh-oh. He's going to do it again, isn't he?

(Stu-pid’s posts are the ones that just keep on giving)

Giving you what, you utter lunatic? Do you realize how badly you are humiliating yourself here? Half the time you don't even understand what people are saying to you, and the other half you spend triumphantly bleating on and directly proving yourself wrong. Every time. Within the same comment. Again, without further ado, let's see if you keep your perfect score.

Onboard NICs (not a card and not replaceable without swapping the MB) have been common for over 13 years now and almost never go bad outside of physical damage.

Umm, yes. Captain Obvious strikes again, as expected. But what is the beef here?

I'm getting the sinking feeling it's with "half his career".

But Andrew, you claim 25 years of experience. I'll take the banker's rounding on 12.5, thank you very much, so it is, holy shit he did it again, by the numbers you provided yourself (AGAIN), correct to say you swapped out network cards for half your career.

Perfect score. I am speechless.

Oh, hang on, Andrew actually claimed 25 years of experience in 2011... so since we're now coming up on 28 years of experience, swapping network card up until 13 years ago is safely within the margins. Ah, Andrew, you rascal. Leave nothing to chance, eh?

You, sir, ARE the failboat. I've never seen anything like this. It is absolutely astonishing to see this level of idiotic self-destruction.

Hmm. I just noticed I'm only half-way through his comment. Oh what further wonders will you show us Andrew...

Deep breath...

You have to go back to the ’90s when networking companies like 3Com (now defunct) were major players for PCI based NICs.

Christ on a crutch. Are you on a dare to get as many things wrong as you possibly can or something? 3Com was taken over by hp. Defunct implies full-stop cessation of activities, not being bought out by one of the top 3 hardware integrators.

Those almost never went bad either so long as you used reliable brands (3COM, Cisco, Intel ect…).

I swear you're doing it on purpose now. When did Cisco make wired NICs?

Anyway, thank you for the history lesson Andrew. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Anyway, about that "common for 13 years" cutoff...

As a random aside, sure integrated NICs almost never go bad, but also can't upgrade them. These days, with an integrated NIC adding only pennies to the cost of the motherboard and GbE being around for 16 years, that doesn't matter. But in the 1990s, the hop from 10 to 100 to 1000 took only 3 years, and motherboard makers liked charging a premium for networking. With a discrete card, you had the option to essentially pre-upgrade with the new protocol as soon as it's available rather than wait for the machine's planned replacement cycle. I'll probably get back to this.

Some OSes had poor or no driver support for some of the smaller chipset makers, and the drivers from the chipset maker were often... lacking. But no matter what wonky OS you picked, be it OS/2, BSD, XP x64, whatever... odds are there was a rock-solid 3C5X9 driver for it. I know for a fact that there are OS kernel and aux chipset driver devs that still use an old discrete NIC when a new chipset or major OS revision comes out to bootstrap driver development.

The performance of integrated networking was often (way) worse than that of a dedicated card even on the same protocol, something that is often true even today. Usually this is because motherboard makers cut corners with integrated NICs a lot -- cheap, oddball RealTek or BroadCom chips, shared or insufficient PCI(e) lanes, a bad implementation on the chipset itself, the list goes on.

The CPU overhead of integrated networking was (and is) often far higher than that of a dedicated card. Of course a user who runs Word, or a help desk app is not going to notice or care. But for workstations that do time-critical simulations, or rendering, every cycle counts and the added expense of a discrete NIC isn't even a blip on the radar. I'm not sure if that counts though, because since Andrew brought it up this way it is pretty clear he might be a bit confused with an actual workstation. Now that I think about it, he'd probably try to eat it. Anyway, one of his colleagues would still have to stoll over and install the discrete NIC.

There is always a delay between a new protocol being introduced and it being available on motherboards. As of today, that is the case for 10GbE. There are a handful of server motherboards that support it, but for our friendly workstation user, Andrew -- hopefully sated from lunching on that other workstation -- would still, today, have to make his way over with a separate card and a screwdriver.

And because of all the reasons above, servers routinely use discrete NICs. I'm not sure that counts though, since Andrew has had quite a few Freudian slips -- hell, full-on headers into the pavement -- that make it pretty obvious he is not now, nor is it likely he ever was allowed anywhere near a production server.

Still, all this adds up to a bunch of special cases where a helpdesk monkey would relive his youth by grabbing the anti-static bag, a ratty Philips head and set off in search of cube A322... in order to bring them more perfect networking.

Ah... I teared up for a sec there.

It also means that even if he hadn't nailed his fate twice before by being unable to substract (I know, I know, multiple digits, it's hard) he made sure to include the failboat history of NICs so I wouldn't forget to add these additional reasons which would STILL make his problem with my "half his career" statement invalid. Which was, as would be obvious to any sane person, an offhand phrase that was by no means intended as an exact cutoff. To be so petty and stupid to lift that piece of fluff and dedicate an entire comment to whining about it AND BEING WRONG AGAIN... what an epic failure of nitpicking.

That's our Andrew! When he shoots himself in the foot, he uses a bazooka. Thrice.

Stu-pid’s IT talk sounds like many retards who can’t bullshit well

And once again a hearty fuck you to you for continuing to use that term, Andrew. What a petty, callous little gnome you are.

so he is going to get the pummeling he deserves.

Hang on, what happened to education? It sure didn't take long to bring the insecure little caveman out in Andrew, it seems.

I have to know, Andrew. What possesses you to do this AGAIN? What the hell went through your puny, addled brain when you clicked "Submit Comment"? On some level, deep down, part of you must have realized before sending this one that you had self-destructed completely several times before by proving yourself wrong. Surely there is a nugget of rational thought left. Surely.

I can even have understanding for idiotic grandstanding like

I am educating Stu-pid on technology and exposing his bullshit.

Janitor, stop trying to save Stu-pid his epic embarrassment from not knowing what penetration testing software is, nor anything about HDs, Servers or Google Scholar. Stu-pid made a big mistake bullshitting now comes the pummeling. I will enjoy this.

Again with the pummeling though. Sheesh. Would you like some valium, Oog? And this time he'll enjoy it, too. I hope it doesn't take too much time out of his busy animal torture schedule.

Anyway, I can understand the chest-thumping. Insecure, feeling powerless, grasping for control, hey, whatever.

It's just the utter, utter lack of self control and self awareness when hitting that Submit Comment button. Imagine being this stupid and this much of a loose cannon in real life. No wonder they won't let him near servers. A guy like this at a VMWare console after someone laughed at his shoes during lunch? Yikes.

Man did I break Stu-pid,...

No you didn't you loon, even when you repeat yourself. You still don't understand the relative lack of importance of the small number of papers (even taking in those of dubious quality) that negate the vast field of understood science that impinges upon global warming and climate change, from physics, to chemistry, from astrophysics to ecology.

You are about as useful as a Peter Lilley in an Energy Department of government.

Poptech

Who is Benny Peiser, you knobhead?

What does Benny do?

You didn't know about our Sonja and Benny, did you? And now your fave journal editor turns out to be a proven politicised denier and shill-enabler, you won't admit your howling incompetence.

Why do a minority of ill-informed non-experts reject the mainstream position on AGW?

Without the expertise to understand the science, what makes them imagine that they have a rational basis for dismissing it as flawed?

Why are you absolutely refusing to answer these questions, knobhead? What are you scared of?

It can't be ridicule, because you are having that heaped on you already.

* * *

It's always the same with these denier scum though. Nail their ridiculous pretensions and they whine and then pretend you don't exist because they cannot handle the fucking truth. Pathetic doesn't begin to cover it.

Some choice words from our Peter Lilley in the broadcast linked to in my #70 above, sorry about the interruption from that idiot PopFart (needs his own thread but not here at Deltoid eh!):

'I'm a humble policy maker we expect the summery for policy makers to give us something to go on, it talks merrily about models it then gives us some figures which are actually not those forecast by models but as you say multiple lines of evidence i.e. they don't believe the models to give a full account so they take some other unspecified factors into account and then just fudge factors in my (inaudible maybe 'trade') and produce a lower figure they have to really because the models have been consistently running too hot'

How many strawmen, misdirections and ignorant simplifications in that statement.

Later, and instead of listening and learning something we hear this:

'If I can cut short a very long and irrelevant answer ....'

He then acted the spoiled kid, what a buffoon, he was the disgrace.

Behaving like a prize arrogant ass, they should sign him up for a role in Blandings . But then his tomfoolery is probably OTT for even the second series of which ten minutes was more than enough.

What does Benny do?

Has meetings with Peter Lilley, who I am sure is in cahoots with Lawson, and others who align with the GWPF.

Oh for crying out loud, he's still at it?

Yeah, definitely not here for the hunting.

I'll see if I can muster the energy later today.

The political right, digging its own grave with its bare hands...

The people will remember who lied to them about climate change, and they will be frightened and angry and looking for scapegoats. It's only politicians too stupid to understand the science and its implications who are also too stupid to see the plague pit they are excavating for themselves.

Stu

Waste of ammo. Just laugh at the pillock.

Stu-pid, you are only fooling the other computer illiterates here with your long winded nonsensical posts.

3Com is defunct (go look up what the word means) retard,

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/products/2008-03-21-2458296920_x.htm

Cisco made network adapters, you not knowing this does not surprise me.

Integrated NICs have been common on everything PC and server related for over 13 years now.

The performance of integrated networking was often (way) worse than that of a dedicated card even on the same protocol, something that is often true even today.

Performance is directly related to the networking chipset and has nothing to do with MB integration Stu-pid

The CPU overhead of integrated networking was (and is) often far higher than that of a dedicated card.

Only when compared to enterprise level cards.

And because of all the reasons above, servers routinely use discrete NICs.

No they don't. When was the last time you built or worked on a server?

Poor Stu-pid thinks that if he writes longer meaningless posts the bullshit can be hidden.

Lionel A

February 18, 2014
Man did I break Stu-pid,…

No you didn’t you loon

Yes, I broke him bad but only those computer literate would understand and they are not commenting. Stu-pid is now resorting to long rant filled pyscho-babble posts and irrelevant tech commentary to cover up his bullshit.

I don't know why the Janitor keeps commenting, shouldn't he be getting on with his rubbish duties?

"Rörsch is the Dutch specialist in gish gallops. Beware. He can type 10.000 syllables of total nonsens per minute, without so much as indenting a new paragraph, and does"

Don't I know it. During the Lomborg saga he was on my back big time.

There is this well hidden but nonetheless clear anti-environmental movement in The Netherlands. And it pops its ugly head into often. Check out any number of online blogs - like the Groene Rekenkamer - and its hits you smack in the face.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Feb 2014 #permalink

Why won't you answer a few simple quesitons, knobhead? Are you afraid that your stupid errors, bias and ridiculous pretensions will cause us to snigger at you? If so, it's too late for that. So answer the questions. You look incredibly weak when you get as evasive as this.

- Who is Benny Peiser?

- What does Benny do?

You didn’t know about our Sonja and Benny, did you? And now your fave journal editor turns out to be a proven politicised denier and shill-enabler, you won’t admit your howling incompetence.

- Why do a minority of ill-informed non-experts reject the mainstream position on AGW?

- Without the expertise to understand the science, what makes them imagine that they have a rational basis for dismissing it as flawed?

* * *

Look, Poptech, I know you are an ill-informed nutter, okay? I know this. The purpose of this exercise is to get you to admit how utterly ridiculous you are to yourself. Which is why your flat refusal to engage and answer the last two questions in particular is so very revealing.

If I were you, I'd be considering disappearing soon. This could get worse for you.

The political right, digging its own grave with its bare hands…

Indeed and Bob Ward exposed more of the antics, including what he described as Lilley's meltdown here:

UK floods making climate sceptics hot under the collar.

Must have been distracted to miss that one at the time. Time to simply ignore papa-tango.