February 2014 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #1 Bernard J.
    February 12, 2014

    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.

  2. #2 chek
    February 12, 2014

    Quite so, Bernard.
    I can’t see how anyone can explain even one metric – the sustained decline in Arctic sea ice cover without ever more heat entering the climate system.

  3. #3 Jeff Harvey
    February 12, 2014

    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…

  4. #4 Wow
    February 12, 2014

    “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.

  5. #5 Wow
    February 12, 2014

    “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.

  6. #6 FrankD
    February 12, 2014

    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?

  7. #7 Wow
    February 12, 2014

    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.

  8. #8 Lionel A
    February 12, 2014

    Surf waves like the one in the picture at the head of this Betula UK storms: Met Office issues ‘Red Warning’ for wind.

  9. #9 cRR Kampen
    February 12, 2014

    #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.

  10. #10 Wow
    February 12, 2014

    What is it with deniers and hyperbole?

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/12/nigel-lawson-met-office-floods-global-warming

    “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.

  11. #11 jp
    February 12, 2014

    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.

  12. #12 chek
    February 12, 2014

    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.

  13. #13 Stu 2
    February 12, 2014
  14. #14 GSW
    February 12, 2014

    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 ;)

  15. #15 chek
    February 12, 2014

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

  16. #16 jp
    February 13, 2014

    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.

  17. #17 Betula
    February 13, 2014

    #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.

  18. #18 Bernard J.
    February 13, 2014

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

  19. #19 Jeff Harvey
    February 13, 2014

    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.

  20. #20 Jeff Harvey
    February 13, 2014

    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.

  21. #21 FrankD
    February 13, 2014

    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… :-(

  22. #22 Betula
    February 13, 2014

    ” I guess his tree pruning company isn’t doing so well so he’s stuck at home.”

    Actually, there is a reason for that…

    http://connecticut.news12.com/news/nation-world/winter-storm-takes-aim-at-mid-atlantic-northeast-1.7053381

  23. #23 cRR Kampen
    February 13, 2014

    #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.

  24. #24 Lionel A
    February 13, 2014

    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?

  25. #25 BBD
    February 13, 2014

    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.

  26. #26 Wow
    February 13, 2014

    Probably a “Glenn Beck/Fox losing advertisers” scenario.

  27. #27 BBD
    February 13, 2014

    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.

  28. #28 BBD
    February 13, 2014

    “While on a high note…”

  29. #29 Jeff Harvey
    February 13, 2014

    The many heads of climate change denial. A must see.

    http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1392291059.html

  30. #30 Jeff Harvey
    February 13, 2014

    … 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.

  31. #31 Lionel A
    February 13, 2014

    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.

  32. #32 BBD
    February 13, 2014

    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.

  33. #33 GSW
    February 13, 2014

    @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=silverlight&wfs=true

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

  34. #34 BBD
    February 13, 2014

    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.

  35. #35 Stu 2
    February 13, 2014

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

  36. #36 Betula
    February 13, 2014

    “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-storms

    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.

  37. #37 chek
    February 13, 2014

    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.

  38. #38 Stu 2
    February 13, 2014

    Maybe this one may assist?
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Preface

    “Only Peer-Reviewed papers are counted. Supplemental papers are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers; * Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses, and Submitted papers.”

  39. #39 chek
    February 13, 2014

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

  40. #40 Bernard J.
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  41. #41 Stu 2
    February 14, 2014

    Which particular guy are you referring to Bernard J?
    This one?
    https://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396
    or one of these?
    http://www.poptech.org/staff
    or these?
    http://www.poptech.org/board_and_advisors
    And I should refer to this one in your opinion?
    http://bigsight.org/mike_kaulbars

  42. #42 Jeff Harvey
    February 14, 2014

    “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.

  43. #43 Jeff Harvey
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  44. #44 cRR Kampen
    February 14, 2014

    #36, go tell that in Somerset mate.

  45. #45 Wow
    February 14, 2014

    “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.

  46. #46 Wow
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  47. #47 cRR Kampen
    February 14, 2014

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

  48. #48 cRR Kampen
    February 14, 2014
  49. #49 Wow
    February 14, 2014

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

  50. #50 cRR Kampen
    February 14, 2014

    #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.

  51. #51 FrankD
    February 14, 2014

    “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.

  52. #52 FrankD
    February 14, 2014

    oops, sorry for the tag fail

  53. #53 Wow
    February 14, 2014

    “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.

  54. #54 Wow
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  55. #55 cRR Kampen
    February 14, 2014

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

  56. #56 Lionel A
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  57. #57 BBD
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  58. #58 Wow
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  59. #59 BBD
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  60. #60 Wow
    February 14, 2014

    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”.

  61. #61 cRR Kampen
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  62. #62 chek
    February 14, 2014

    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..

  63. #63 cRR Kampen
    February 14, 2014

    #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.

  64. #64 Wow
    February 14, 2014

    “(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.

  65. #65 Wow
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  66. #66 Poptech
    February 14, 2014

    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.”

  67. #67 Lionel A
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  68. #68 Lionel A
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  69. #69 Lionel A
    February 14, 2014

    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!

  70. #70 Poptech
    February 14, 2014

    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-supporting.html#ImpactFactor

    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.

  71. #71 Jeff Harvey
    February 14, 2014

    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?

  72. #72 Poptech
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  73. #73 Jeff Harvey
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  74. #74 Jeff Harvey
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  75. #75 BBD
    February 14, 2014

    Oh fuck. There goes the neighbourhood.

  76. #76 Poptech
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  77. #77 Poptech
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  78. #78 Jeff Harvey
    February 14, 2014

    “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?

  79. #79 Jeff Harvey
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  80. #80 Poptech
    February 14, 2014

    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?

  81. #81 Jeff Harvey
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  82. #82 Poptech
    February 14, 2014

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

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Criteria

    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.

  83. #83 Poptech
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  84. #84 BBD
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  85. #85 Poptech
    February 14, 2014

    Jeff, for total annihilation of your crack pot “right-wing” theory about my site,

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/05/case-against-sarah-palin.html

    That has to hurt, how does it feel to be so absolutely and completely wrong like this?

  86. #86 BBD
    February 14, 2014

    Blah blah blah

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

  87. #87 Jeff Harvey
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  88. #88 Poptech
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  89. #89 Jeff Harvey
    February 14, 2014

    “It is a shame you can’t form a valid argument”

    Oh! The irony!

  90. #90 BBD
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  91. #91 Betula
    February 14, 2014

    “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

  92. #92 Poptech
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  93. #93 BBD
    February 14, 2014

    Shills. Look them up on Sourcewatch.

    Next.

  94. #94 Poptech
    February 14, 2014

    Haha, “Sourcewatch”,

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/10/truth-about-sourcewatch.html

    Where all the alarmists go to get their dishonest smears.

  95. #95 BBD
    February 14, 2014

    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.

  96. #96 chek
    February 14, 2014

    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.
    .

  97. #97 BBD
    February 14, 2014

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

  98. #98 Lionel A
    February 14, 2014

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

    You are showing the comprehension of a nematode.

  99. #99 Poptech
    February 14, 2014

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

    Which Pielke strawman are you referring to?

  100. #100 chek
    February 14, 2014

    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.