February 2014 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    February 18, 2014

    Lionel

    Thanks for the Bob Ward link. And being as ‘ow we know each other I don’t mind if you call a spade a knobhead.

  2. #2 Jeff Harvey
    February 18, 2014

    “-Why do a minority of ill-informed non-experts reject the mainstream position on AGW?”

    That’s the 64,000$ question. And, as i have said, its not based on the science they don’t understand, but on the basis of their own warped libertarian/anti-government/deregulatory political ideology. Its simple, really. But they do everything they can to keep the truth hidden. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain why so many utter laypeople are not only AGW deniers, but actually expend the effort to set up blogs in which they expound their position – often embarrassingly, as in Poptech’s case. But of course he’s not the only one. The internet is full of idiot bloggers all professing to possess the wisdom that escapes climate scientists.

  3. #3 BBD
    February 18, 2014

    Jeff

    its not based on the science they don’t understand, but on the basis of their own warped libertarian/anti-government/deregulatory political ideology. Its simple, really. But they do everything they can to keep the truth hidden.

    They do seem to have a problem ;-) with addressing the logical discontinuity inherent in their assumption that they know better than the experts despite not actually being experts themselves.

    I say logical discontinuity, but you could just as easily call it laughable pretension, which better indicates the lack of self-awareness and risible arrogance of these commentators.

    Of course political ideology is the mainspring driving the majority of vocal science denial. And what a powerful distortion it exerts on their perceptions. Entire fields of science blanked or actively denied; blatant misinformers revered and cited as authorities; astonishing illogicality as normative, right down to switching randomly between incompatible (and flawed) arguments as to why CO2 forcing isn’t a problem.

    It’s the grotesque intellectual dishonesty that really irritates me, especially when it is combined with relentless posting of the same old tripe, no matter how often debunked. The leitmotifs of utter disregard for reason, logic, coherence and above all, good faith make for nasty music.

  4. #4 Jeff Harvey
    February 18, 2014

    Great article and video by George Monbiot showing how the UK government has effectively subsidized the record breaking floods (worst in over 250 years, despite Delingpole’s crap) through allowing farmers to till their soil in the autumn, facilitating the loss of soil via runoff into rivers. This highlights an important ecosystem service – flood prevention – which I recall was feebly ridiculed by one of our old (now thankfully banned) AGW deniers, KarenMackSunspot…

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/17/farmers-uk-flood-maize-soil-protection

  5. #5 Stu
    February 18, 2014

    Sometimes I hate it when I’m right (see #64). The tactic is blind, mindless rote repetition of increasingly idiotic things until we all leave or until he gets banned. Case in point: #94. This is not someone who is operating in any objective form in reality.

    It looks like trolling, but it isn’t quite that. The guy really IS like this. He’ll do this to a stranger at the supermarket. A completely warped personality. And since they essentially “win” every argument, they never really learn anything. Yes, he really is that fucking stupid without knowing it.

    I worked with an Aspie who abused his disability in this exact same way. I aged a decade in under a year then, I am not playing with this particular brand of brainless fucking asshole ever again.

    Oh, and thank you for confirming you were lying about your experience Andrew. I could really only narrow it down to two Andrews before that. Jesus that was easy to bait out of you. And don’t worry, I won’t tell those super duper dangerous Firefox enemies of yours. Your secret identity is safe with me because it is worthless, because you are worthless.

    What a goddamned waste of space. Time for a perspective and soda.

  6. #6 BBD
    February 18, 2014

    Soda? Live a little. Vintage Macallan for your efforts.

    ;-)

  7. #7 Betula
    February 18, 2014

    Craig Thomas at #28, previous pg

    “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”

    From AR4:

    “The possibility of abrupt climate change and/or abrupt changes in the earth system triggered by climate change, with potentially catastrophic consequences, cannot be ruled out “

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch2s2-2-4.html

    Ouch.

  8. #8 Betula
    February 18, 2014

    Barney,

    Thanks for the textbook link at #45 by William Ruddiman…

    Now, what do you think are the odds that Ruddiman would somehow be linked to the Earth Institute? That would be another amazing coincidence wouldn’t it?

    Let’s see:

    William Ruddiman, Graduate of Columbia University…

    Worked at Columbia’s Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory from 1976 to 1991….

    “Lamont-Doherty is a core component of the Earth Institute, Columbia University, which brings together people and tools to address some of the world’s most challenging problems from climate change and environmental degradation, to poverty, disease and the sustainable use of resources.”

    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/about-ldeo/mission

    No surprise there, since the “Earth Institute experts work hand-in-hand with academia, corporations, government agencies, nonprofits and individuals. They advise national governments and the United Nations on issues related to sustainable development and the Millennium Development Goals.”….

    I also noticed James Hansen gave one of Ruddiman’s books a great review…

    ” But I stand with Ruddiman: the simultaneous upward departures of CO2 and CH4 from climate indicators, unique in 420,000 years, is probably an early footprint of humankind.”–James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies”

    http://www.powells.com/biblio/9780691121642

    This is shocking, since The GISS is also a unit of The Earth Institute, of which Hansen is now an adjunct Professor..

    So, why does the issue of climate change always come back to the MDG’S, Sustainable Development, poverty and the need for financing from rich developed nations to poor undeveloped nations?

  9. #9 Stu
    February 18, 2014

    Soda? Live a little. Vintage Macallan for your efforts.

    That’s actually the perspective part of the equation.

  10. #10 Poptech
    February 18, 2014

    Stu-pid, your turning to psycho-babble arguments means I broke you bad. It happens all the time with online hacks like yourself who don’t know what they are talking about.

    BTW, People with Aspergers Syndrome are incredibly easy to deal with (I work with one) and your inability to communicate with someone like this at work just shows your limited mental ability. But thanks for the material showing alarmists are bigoted against people with developmental disabilities!

    Pure pwnage.

    Oh, and thank you for confirming you were lying about your experience Andrew.

    I always change the length of my experience and have on multiple occasions: 10, 15, 20, 25 years …who knows which is true? That is the whole point, it keeps the idiots like your guessing.

    I could really only narrow it down to two Andrews before that. Jesus that was easy to bait out of you. And don’t worry, I won’t tell those super duper dangerous Firefox enemies of yours. Your secret identity is safe with me because it is worthless, because you are worthless.

    ROFLMAO! Please don’t expose my planted information Stu-pid, I wouldn’t want you to become one of my puppets as you have suffered enough humiliation as it is.

  11. #11 chek
    February 18, 2014

    So, why does the issue of climate change always come back to the MDG’S, Sustainable Development, poverty and the need for financing from rich developed nations to poor undeveloped nations?

    Yes, it must be a complete mystery to paleo right wingers.

    Perhaps you’re just unable to comprehend the inherent contradictory lunacy of un-sustainable development and its accompanying component risks of war and famine taken to their logical conclusion of global shortages in a nuclear armed and warming world.

  12. #12 BBD
    February 19, 2014

    Betty

    I don’t think Thomas Cronin has any link to the Colombia Earth Institute (a fine seat of learning) but his textbook reads much like Ruddiman.

    What pisses me off about you is that you haven’t bothered to read either of them yet you think you are more expert than the experts. This is absurd.

  13. #13 BBD
    February 19, 2014

    Columbia FFS. Mental block.

  14. #14 BBD
    February 19, 2014

    Dear knobhead

    Answer the questions or people will assume that you are dumber than a glans.

  15. #15 BBD
    February 19, 2014

    And dishonest too.

  16. #16 BBD
    February 19, 2014

    Oh why wait for the lies and evasions.

    Here are the facts:

    – There is no coherent and robust scientific counter-argument to the mainstream scientific position on AGW

    – Consequently, there are no well-informed/intellectually honest “sceptics”

  17. #17 Stu 2
    February 19, 2014

    BBD,
    The question that Poptech asks is basically just a paraphrase of your questions. It is based on the idea of a political consensus, just like yours was, and therefore is not a scientific question only the hypothetical pretense of one.
    Not surprisingly, you don’t like the question.
    Jeff Harvey,
    At the risk of sounding like BBD; you didn’t answer my questions at all.
    I agree that greed plays a large part in creating issues with poverty and environmental harm in the world.
    My question was simply asking how does creating a centralised emissions trading market, with all the attendant regulatory and licencing regimes go anywhere towards solving those problems?
    Those schemes, which is what most here at Deltoid seem to be endorsing, are quite clearly more of the same type of behaviour, peopled by those with the same type of qualifications and using the same type of economic theories and models.
    Perhaps you just chose to ignore those multiple choice questions in favour of lecturing and ranting about the ills of Capitalism and America in particular?
    I understand that you believe the system is ‘rotten to the core’.
    My question was based around what would be the PROVEN and PRACTICAL ideas about SOLVING the dilemma.
    Do you believe that creating a globally centralised emissions trading market will solve such problems as overpopulation and poor farming methods in disadvantaged and developing nations?
    Do you think that creating a centralised emissions trading market will stop developing economies like China and India and even developed nations like Germany from using fossil fuel energy?
    The brokerage on a market in the $trillions is quite substantial.
    IMHO the political and social solution that people here appear to be advocating, still has that ‘greed monster’ running the show.
    In government NRMs, attempting to manage them like a corporation and to operate under the scientific PRETENSE that they actually have the means to produce such things as better weather and then to actively legislate to MONOPOLISE the means to produce something as pretentious and nefarious as better weather, is failing to achieve any practical or positive results for disadvantaged nations or the environment.
    The grand challenge or the grand experiment is simply not delivering the desired results.

  18. #18 adelady
    February 19, 2014

    “The word “catastrophic” wasn’t mentioned once in the AR4 WG1 report, which defines the “standard scientific position”.
    ….
    From AR4:
    “The possibility of abrupt climate change and/or abrupt changes in the earth system triggered by climate change, with potentially catastrophic consequences, cannot be ruled out “

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch2s2-2-4.html

    Ouch.

    Now can we all please turn to the relevant page in our textbooks, boys and girls, and see what the difference is between WG1 and WG3. Quiet please. Now write down what you think the answer is and I’ll see as I walk around. That’s good, Jenny, and I see Robert’s got it right as well.

    I hope the rest of the class noticed. One is not the same as Three. So that means that … yes, Charles, you’re right too. WG3 is not the same thing as WG1. Well done, everyone!

    Ouch indeed.

  19. #19 BBD
    February 19, 2014

    2Stupid

    The question that Poptech asks is basically just a paraphrase of your questions. It is based on the idea of a political consensus, just like yours was,

    Cobblers!

    I argue from the consilience of evidence. Politics doesn’t come into it.

    Please stop the silly misrepresentations.

  20. #20 Stu 2
    February 19, 2014

    BBD,
    It was nonetheless a neat paraphrase of your questions and apparently why you didn’t like it.
    While I agree that consilience is probably a better word, it is NOT the word that is most often used. That word is most definitely CONSENSUS. . .and is often bandied about here.

    Consilience (n.): The agreement of 2 or more inductions drawn from different sets of data; concurrence. Also an E.O. Wilson book. –

    consensus (kənˈsɛnsəs)
    — n
    general or widespread agreement (esp in the phrase consensus of opinion )

  21. #21 Bernard J.
    February 19, 2014

    …you are only fooling the other computer climatological science illiterates [everyw]here with your long winded nonsensical posts.

    There, fixed it for you.

  22. #22 Jeff Harvey
    February 19, 2014

    Stu2,

    Oh yes, I did answer your question. Because there is no way on Earth we are going to deal with AGW via any means unless we can overhaul the current economic and political system completely. Certainly economic globalization under the guise of free markets and neoliberalism does not work. Markets are neither free, new or liberal. Emissions trading falls into this sphere; it deals with symptoms and appears to be aimed at ensuring that we remains addicted to fossil fuels and avoid any kind of transition to renewables.

    I agree that it is going to be hard to get nations addicted to fossil fuels (and especially those beholden to the corporate state) to switch technologies. But if we don’t, I think we are staring down the barrel of a gun. We are already greatly simplifying most terrestrial and aquatic (freshwater and marine) ecosystems and thus reducing their capacity to support man.

    Its my opinion that radical changes are necessary in the way that the global material economy works towards some form of steady-statism where we have to abandon the profit motive and its attendant economic growth. Economies cannot grow forever because resources are finite.

  23. #23 Jeff Harvey
    February 19, 2014

    Birch brain: “So why does the issue of climate change always come back to the MDG’S, Sustainable Development, poverty and the need for financing from rich developed nations to poor undeveloped nations?’

    He still doesn’t get it. He still cannot understand the simple fact that much of our wealth in the ‘rich developed nations’ originates and is maintained by looting and plundering resources form the ‘poor, undeveloped nations’. There’s ample evidence for this just looking at the ratio of capital flows from south to north over many years. Bitchy actually appears to think our wealth is intrinsically maintained.

    I’ve gobe over tis dozens of times – with evidence – and it still hasn’t sunk in through his bark. The man is a complete was of time.

  24. #24 chek
    February 19, 2014

    It is based on the idea of a political consensus, just like yours was, and therefore is not a scientific question only the hypothetical pretense of one.

    The false balance created by poptart’s list of crap (a large proportion put forward by the politically motivated grifters at E&E) as perceived by the scientifically illiterate as some sort of consumer choice has nothing whatsoever in common with the consensus arrived at by empirically evidenced science.
    You’re succeeding in kidding yourself, but others are not fooled.

  25. #25 chek
    February 19, 2014

    It is based on the idea of a political consensus, just like yours was, and therefore is not a scientific question only the hypothetical pretense of one.

    The false balance created by poptart’s list of crap (a large proportion put forward by the politically motivated grifters at E&E) as perceived by the scientifically illiterate as some sort of consumer choice has nothing whatsoever in common with the consensus arrived at by empirically evidenced science.
    You’re succeeding in kidding yourself, but others are not fooled.

  26. #26 chek
    February 19, 2014

    Sorry for the dupe. I gave the first ‘unable to connect’ attempt a few minutes just in case, but of course as soon as resubmitted, both appeared.

  27. #27 cRR Kampen
    February 19, 2014

    #3, – “I worked with an Aspie who abused his disability in this exact same way.”

    With respect, it is of course not a ‘disability’. Contrary, it is a talent. To any talent belongs some drawback, but that doesn’t make it a disability.
    This makes the accusation of abuse far worse in my eyes and I agree wholly with the accusation.

  28. #28 Lionel A
    February 19, 2014
  29. #29 Lionel A
    February 19, 2014

    Sorry folks, that spade finger struck again.

    rayduray in a reply at Climate Crocks offers a reality check:

    The embedded video however is a doozy, as if NBC were trying to keep up with ABC’s right-wing nutcase John Stossel for the most Tea Party friendly interview they could come up with. Instead of focusing on the real issue that the federal flood insurance program is flat broke, actually in debt for $24 Billion, and needs to re-balance premiums with payouts, the damn NBC reporter wants to let the viewer know that the government is the bad guy, as always. Sheesh. How about for once saying that a nation that refuses to live in reality might be the real issue we need to face?

    and links to more on the widening wealth divide issue that Betula refuses to acknowledge in this article Yes, Virginia, You Pay Subsidies Not Just to Banks but to Flood-Prone Homes of the Rich.

    This issue strikes a chord with me in the UK as I consider the measures that will be taken to alleviate the losses of those who live along the banks of the Thames in some of the more expensive real estate from Sonning to City and the inadequate few millions being offered to those businesses and farms that went under in Somerset and elsewhere. One business alone lost a million in stock and equipment.

    Read the rest of that rayduray reply for John Stossel’s gain at the expense of the less well off.

    What do you say to that Betula?

  30. #30 Lionel A
    February 19, 2014

    Hum! This is weird. Why is the end blockquote failing after ‘need to face.’ in the above.

    Let me cut and paste and test it here and see what happens. Did it work by returning this part to normal text?

  31. #31 Lionel A
    February 19, 2014

    Hum! Even more weird. The blockquote before test it here failed.

    Now cutting and pasting from working tags in Page Source:

    Let me cut and paste and

    test it here and see what happens

    . Now is this bit in normal text?

  32. #32 Lionel A
    February 19, 2014

    I don’t know what was going on, especially at #28 where I had backtracked using the Firefox re-load previous page arrow and carefully inspected the tags, and compared those to working ones. The odd thing is that on inspecting page source after #28 the blockquote tags had vanished from within that section. WTF!

    Whatever, it seems the Arctic is in a worse shape and will warm faster than feared. Is that not a catastrophe in the making Betula?

    Arctic Autumns On Track To Warm A Staggering 23°F, NOAA Warns

    and

    Melting Ice Makes The Arctic A Much Worse Heat-Magnet Than Scientists Feared.

    Which brought me a reminder of this article, which should scare the bejeezus out of anyone:

    Arctic ice melt ‘like adding 20 years of CO2 emissions’.

  33. #33 Wow
    February 19, 2014

    Performance is directly related to the networking chipset and has nothing to do with MB integration Stu-pid

    Sorry, darling, please comprehend engineering before making claims of others’ stupidity.

    MB integration will remove many of the functions of a separate card because such features are already integrated in chipsets on the motherboard, such as access to larger amounts of memory, or checksum calculations.

    This means that the chipset on the motherboard will be undertaking the tasks it had before PLUS those offloaded by the PHY interface.

    To reach a price point, the chip used for ethernet implementation will be the cheapest possible to reach minimum requirements. A separate board will be more expensive even if it consists of the same components, therefore the marginal difference of adding a better quality component is lower, and it will mostly be required, since only those wanting the features will have the need to buy the separate card, where the motherboard will be used even if the computer never connects to a network.

    I suppose when you need to belittle someone when you have so little experience to fall back on, you’ll bafflegab your way into thinking that some plausible scenario can be pretended to be a universal and all you need is hope that nobody bothers to notice your failure.

  34. #34 Wow
    February 19, 2014

    it is NOT the word that is most often used.

    Yes, a more commonly used word is often used, despite being less accurate, when committing information to the mainstream.

    You do not expect newspaper headlines to be grammatically correct, and will not expect absolute accuracy in the body written for the general public.

    Yet when the newspaper is talking about climate change, you whine and bitch and moan that a less useful name is used.

    But the CONSENSUS is brought about BY the CONSILIENCE.

    So here you’re not even wrong.

  35. #35 Wow
    February 19, 2014

    Here’s something amusing for those who’ve been here ages.

    Anyone remember Brad Keys?

    He now has a blog site. Before I tell you its name, please remember all the whines from deniers about how “denier” was entirely and always about making out self-proclaimed “skeptics” to be the monstrous holocaust deniers.

    So, given that, what do you think of Bray’s blog site?

    climatenuremberg

    ROFLcopter alert!

  36. #36 Olaus Petri
    February 19, 2014

    I love settled science. For instance: First did “thousends of scientists” settle that the atmosphere was heating faster and faster. When that wasn’t the case just one or two scientists suggested that “the missing heat” was hiding in deep water, impossible to measure with any accuracy. According to Deltiods that’s “robust”, as robust as the settled science about an accelerating warming in the atmosphere. :-)

    Another very new setteld science (behind the missing heat) ,able to clarify the findings of “thousends of scientists”, is stronger trade winds:

    http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/02/scienceshot-pacific-ocean-keeping-earth-cool%E2%80%94-now

    And this is of course also consisted with that trade winds should “weaken” due to global warming, which the settled scince also has found:

    http://www.livescience.com/729-global-warming-weakens-trade-winds.html

    :-)

  37. #37 Lionel A
    February 19, 2014

    What do I think. Well the design put me off within seconds and the tile is hardly original:

    Denier Delingpole Wishes For ‘Climate Nuremberg’, Says ‘Hanging Is Far Too Good’ For Climate Scientists!

    but then never mind, it looks like Delers has met his Waterloo:

    James Delingpole leads Telegraph into vicious climate over email

    downhill all the way now, it was a good start in that direction with the move to Breitfart.

  38. #38 Wow
    February 19, 2014

    “I love settled science”

    Woof woof woof.

    Seems you find you need another email address, lappers. ISP kicked you off again?

  39. #39 cRR Kampen
    February 19, 2014

    #33 Wow – what do I think… Took a look, read two of the articles, and –
    * name and design of the blog marginalizes the bradthing entirely, which is good;
    * there is insanity on those pages. My gut hurts from it. Can’t put my finger on it. But writings of e.g. Breivik gave me the same feeling.

  40. #40 chek
    February 19, 2014

    The problem for you Olap is that because you rely on denier blogs as your primary sources, it all seems confusing and contradictory.
    What you’ll find is that climate science hasn’t said that CO2 cancels out natural variability, which has short term effects, despite what your trash sources lead you to believe.

    All you need to know in simple terms is that more energy is entering the Earth’s system than is leaving it, and the energy has to go somewhere.

    If you looked into Dr Vecchi’s work you’d see that he’s talking in centennial scales, not the next five minutes or five years.
    But thanks for confirming your utter buffoonery yet again, although that’s already well established with no further confirmation required, thank you.

  41. #41 Wow
    February 19, 2014

    chek, the problem that deniers have is that they think that CO2, if it controls temperature, means that it cannot be anything BUT CO2 doing it.

    I.e. natural variability is removed if CO2 is a cause of climate change if you’re ignorant of the science. Therefore there is EITHER “natural variability” OR “AGW” and they then crow when natural variability exists as if this somehow “proves” AGW wrong.

    It’s not even a strawman: they genuinely cannot conceive of anything other than this dichotomy.

    Something either FROM or normalised from the extremely religious: monotheism insists that there is “one cause” for things (and that this cause is “God’s Will”(tm)). It’s no more noticed by them than water is noticed by fish.

  42. #42 Wow
    February 19, 2014

    cRR, I didn’t bother reading anything on it.

    With all the victimisation from deniers about the holocaust, the name of the blog was the only thing I got from it and all that I needed.

    The content was completely irrelevant.

  43. #43 FrankD
    February 19, 2014

    Thanks Adelady (#16), I did notice that, but I was too busy picking up my pencil to raise my hand.

    Your Joyce Grenfell is uncanny, BTW.

    “George, don’t do that…

  44. #44 Lionel A
    February 19, 2014

    Now can we all please turn to the relevant page in our textbooks, boys and girls, …

    Which is more or less what Dr Emily Shuckburgh was inviting Peter Lilley to do during that MPs on the Energy and Climate took evidence on the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Review on 11 February 2014 that I cited above.

    Lilley’s ‘meltdown’ whilst engaging Dr Shuckburgh was astonishing enough but the bumbling, thrashing questions from Graham Stringer which followed brought another element of the surreal to the proceedings. Why don’t these people inform themselves more before attending such events? Yes I know, they are being paid, or otherwise coerced into not understanding the science, i.e. keep making pretences of asking awkward questions, questions to which answers have already been provided, over and over.

    Stringer’s questions had all the hallmarks of GWPF involvement, as did those of Lilley.

  45. #45 cRR Kampen
    February 19, 2014

    #40, for me a must to take some time to check things like that, from the ‘know your enemy’ motive. Once is quite enough.

    When Watts did what he did with the d-word I instantly coined ‘climate revisionism’ and we know what I really mean.

  46. #46 jp
    February 19, 2014

    Poptart,
    Late reply but when I read your response it was, “sigh…here we go again, idiot pulling out the usual denier toolbox of sophistry: avoidance, strawmen, playing with words, etc…plus delusional stupidity, for good measure.” So I wasn’t that motivated to have any further discussion, but since you’re still hanging around like a bad smell…

    Here we go. Too much nonsense to reply to so I’ll split the posts to make them easier to digest. I’ll give you the satisfaction of having the final word and, in that deluded head of yours, believing that you’ve given me a “spanking”.

    Let’s start with the typo business. Poor Poptart, you’re either extremely dishonest or so dumb that you don’t know what a typo is. I’ll go for both _ you’re dumb AND dishonest. If we’re to talk about remedial education, I would have thought that someone writing, “I shouldn’t of…” would be a prime candidate for remedial education. How do you unintentionally type “of” instead of “have”?

    Since you keep denying the obvious _ for the 3rd time _ I’ll say it again: it’s not a typo. A typo is an unintentional mistake where you either type the wrong letter or miss one. If I were picking on typos _ or even grammatical errors _ just for the sake of it, you’d be correct in your assessment that I don’t “have any real arguments”. But I’m not.

    I didn’t intend to make a big deal of it and I’d normally ignore petty things like that because besides being pointless there’s also the adage, “don’t do to others what you don’t want done unto you.” Having limited education, I’m not that confident about my English competence that I should go around correcting others’ grammar. But in your case it was relevant to my central argument _ i.e., you’re not educationally (and probably not intellectually) equipped to have any meaningful input into the climate science debate.

    Anyone can make a grammatical mistake, even a scientist, but there are errors and there are errors. Yours is so egregious as far as grammar is concerned that I have trouble believing that someone with even 1 year of uni education can make an error like that. It’s illiterate, plain and simple.

  47. #47 jp
    February 19, 2014

    Poptart,
    Re my lying about your political leanings:
    You should also learn what the meaning of lying is. It reminds me of politics in Australia, where before the last election conservatives were calling Julia Gillard a liar because she broke a promise, and thereby displaying their ignorance of the difference between a broken promise and a lie. How dumb can you get.

    Unless you can prove that I knew your exact ideological position _ hard to do considering how subjective such an assessment is _ and that I chose to deliberately misrepresent it, then your accusations of lying and dishonesty are unsubstantiated and hollow _ much like everything else you write. Right-wing, tea-party type idiot is definitely the impression I got from a brief visit to your blog and clicking a couple of links. But now you tell me you’re not a right-winger. Maybe I’m wrong, or maybe you’re so stupid you don’t even know at which end of the political spectrum you belong to.

    From my experience, somebody whose blog is littered with anti-left, anti-green attacks doesn’t generally belong to the moderate middle ground.

    To say there are no “denier” papers on your list is just as disingenuous as your denial of being right-wing. I mean, WTF? If the list is not a compilation of dodgy papers intended to cast doubt on the mainstream IPCC view, what is it? Sure, the word “denier” wouldn’t appear on their title, but their purpose is to either deny the anthropogenic influence of global warming or cast doubt on the fact that there’s any warming at all; they’re papers that give intellectual succour to denier memes, ergo they’re denier papers. Stop playing with words, fuckwit, because that DOES
    demonstrate that you don’t have any real arguments. But we already knew that anyway.

  48. #48 jp
    February 19, 2014

    Poptart,

    “Quality is purely subjective.”

    What a stupid statement to make. You think you’re tasting a dish or judging a painting
    here? Even there, the subjectivity has its limits. I don’t know much about science but it’s obvious to me that the quality of a paper depends on the quality of the evidence presented and the logic underpinning its interpretation.

    Scientists might argue about what such and such finding means but when a paper has been classified as bad there’s very little subjectivity in that determination. The bad leaps out at you to the extent that even a layman like myself can see it. I gave two specific examples which you totally ignored (I wonder why): one, which makes up stuff, just the latest of a long list of “denier” papers that Tamino has exposed over the years, and the other Nexus calls the worst paper he’s ever seen. It purports to correlate global temperatures to solar cycles but, as Nexus says, 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!” Stop avoiding; tell us what you think of those two papers.

    According to your subjective opinion, is it OK to make stuff up in a supposedly scientific paper? According to your subjective but very scientific opinion (cough…cough..), is it OK to use just 5 stations in a small area of the US to represent global temperature data?

    I remember reading another one by Archibald _ can’t remember on which blog, maybe someone here knows the paper I’m referring to _ where he attempts to link the rise and fall of Lake Victoria to solar cycle or sunspots (recollection is a bit vague). The purpose of that exercise, I guess, being some attempt to adduce evidence against sea level rise. Absolute, illogical nonsense. But the amazing thing is that no matter how unscientific and glaringly stupid a paper is, not only will you not find any deniers criticizing it, you’ll find them approvingly nod and praise it.

  49. #49 jp
    February 19, 2014

    Poptart,

    Now we come to the strawmen:

    “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”

    followed by a long list of references telling us that E & E is peer-reviewed and how wonderful it is.

    Where did I say anything about the number of papers coming from E & E, and where did I say that it wasn’t peer-reviewed? What is it, dishonesty or reading comprehension failure?

    I said that E & E is poorly regarded by the scientific community, which it is. And I proved that one reason for that is their lax, unsatisfactory peer-review process which let’s extremely poor papers through, as the Archibald one above shows. I also never said that they only publish bad papers. Maybe there are good papers, but I can’t imagine that too many reputable scientists would want their name sullied by having their papers sitting side by side with Archibald’s.

    “Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed” – E&E Mission Statement

    Hahahaha…..you’re not a part-time comedian, are you? My god, you paste this after I’ve told you about the Archibald paper published by E & E and you’ve got the gall to mention cognitive dissonance. I might be too harsh on you; maybe you don’t know what the word “rigorous” means.

  50. #50 Stu
    February 19, 2014

    jp: “Rigorous?” For fuck’s sake, he doesn’t understand even “ratio”.

    Man, to let myself be trolled so hard by that clown… *bows head in shame*

  51. #51 BBD
    February 19, 2014

    Stu

    Don’t be hard on yourself. You saw an arse that needed kicking and you did the right thing. With commendable gusto and elan, if I may say so.

  52. #52 BBD
    February 19, 2014

    2Stupid

    You are arguing from false equivalence: political consensus is not the same thing as a scientific consensus. The latter is exclusively evidence-based and excludes political bias. You may claim otherwise, but you would have to prove it, and you will fail. The “activist scientists are cooking the books” meme is a denier lie, not to mention a conspiracy theory involving leftie scientists and world socialism etc. I repeat: cobblers.

  53. #53 GSW
    February 19, 2014

    @BBD

    “..as a scientific consensus. The latter is exclusively evidence-based..”

    Funnily enough BBD, there’s a letter in nature that touches on that very point and questions how objective it all is.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7486/full/nature12786.html

    “Here we show that even when scientists are motivated to promote the truth, their behaviour may be influenced, and even dominated, by information gleaned from their peers’ behaviour, rather than by their personal dispositions. This phenomenon, known as herding, subjects the scientific community to an inherent risk of converging on an incorrect answer and raises the possibility that, under certain conditions, science may not be self-correcting.”

    Which is certainly worrying. (If you need “herding” explaining ask stu, I’m sure he said he works with cows)

  54. #54 chek
    February 19, 2014

    and questions how objective it all is.

    How objective it all is, Griselda? The letter writer (ffs) doesn’t say that. That’s your own sneaky invention.

    I think you’ll find historically that data beats “behaviour”, and “personal dispositions”. Just ask Galileo Galilei, Watson & Crick or Barry Marshall.

  55. #55 GSW
    February 19, 2014

    @chek

    I had no expectation that you would even read the letter let alone understand it. But thanks anyway, full marks for keeping the red flag flying etc.
    ;)

  56. #56 chek
    February 19, 2014

    No sweat, Griselda.
    Say hello to intellectual oblivion and the rest of the fuckwits when you get back there again..

  57. #57 Lionel A
    February 19, 2014

    And now for the bit GSW did not quote:

    By examining the impact of different models of reviewer decisions on the dynamic process of publication, and thereby on eventual aggregation of knowledge, we provide a new perspective on the ongoing discussion of how the peer-review process may be improved.

    Note GSW that it talks about improving, not reconstructing because peer review is broken. Except that is for that narrow line of journals which are frequently shown up for having ‘a herd mentality’ , like E&E for example.

    What is it with these people and context blindness?

  58. #58 chek
    February 19, 2014

    Taking a leaf out of BBD’s book: Griselda what motivates a trivial, emoticon chuffing half-wit like you and your posse to begin to imagine you have the least inkling of what climate science is telling us?

  59. #59 GSW
    February 19, 2014

    @chek

    Eh.. thanks chek and say hello to your comrades when you see them next.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGXOjm95WWo
    ;)

    @Lionel
    You missed the point Lionel. Just help you, it’s not “.about improving, not reconstructing..” who said anything about that?

    “we provide a new perspective on the ongoing discussion of how the peer-review process may be improved”

    I’m happy with a “discussion of how the peer-review process may be improved”

    if you’re happy with

    “an inherent risk of converging on an incorrect answer and raises the possibility that, under certain conditions, science may not be self-correcting”

    Which seems to be something that you lot (aka the common herd) are not able to even contemplate as being a possibility! It’s a form of denial Lionel, pure and simple.
    ;)

  60. #60 chek
    February 19, 2014

    under certain conditions, science may not be self-correcting”

    As stated earlier, data fucks your attempted context-free smear.

  61. #61 chek
    February 19, 2014

    p.s. As I’ve already stated numerous times Griselda, I don’t click links from deniers which are invariably poor substitutes for the capacity to state their case, such as it me be.

  62. #62 chek
    February 19, 2014

    should be: such as it may be.

  63. #63 turboblocke
    France
    February 19, 2014

    Nothing new there: Feynman mentioned it many times in his speeches/interviews. It’s a bug in science, whereas it’s a feature for deniers.

  64. #64 BBD
    February 19, 2014

    Oh come on Olaus; at least give thinking a test drive:

    Here we show that even when scientists are motivated to promote the truth, their behaviour may be influenced, and even dominated, by information gleaned from their peers’ behaviour, rather than by their personal dispositions.

    So if their peers are sufficiently well-informed about eg. physics and paleoclimate, then good ideas will spread because there is no contradicting scientific evidence.

    What pseudo-sceptics refuse to acknowledge is that they have no coherent and well-supported scientific counter-argument to the standard scientific position on AGW.

    Not-biased, non-stupid scientists go by the scientific evidence.

    Result: a strong scientific consensus.

  65. #65 BBD
    February 19, 2014

    This is sloppy and ambiguous:

    <blockquote<there is no contradicting scientific evidence.

    I should have written:

    “then good ideas will spread because there is no scientific evidence that contradicts them.”

  66. #66 Stu 2
    February 19, 2014

    Jeff Harvey @ # 20,
    Thank you for your answer.
    I am still wondering what your practical and proven methods to mitigate specific issues such as population growth and environmental harm via inappropriate land use would be?
    You seem to agree that the ones on offer via a centralised emissions market and all the attendant regulatory and licencing rules is clearly not delivering worthwhile results.
    What practical or proven system do you envisage could successfully replace what we have now?

    BBD @ # 50,
    I merely observed your questioning technique and Poptech’s return question.
    I am not the individual here who is being argumentative and asking aggressive rhetorical questions, whether from false equivalence or any other perspective.
    The observation remains unchanged regardless of your use of semantics and direct accusations. Poptech’s question was a paraphrase of your question, it was based on the idea of consensus and you therefore apparently and not surprisingly did not like the question.
    jp @ # 44,
    Using ‘of’ instead of ‘have’ (or more correctly the abbreviation ‘ve) is becoming a common grammar error in many English speaking nations around the globe.
    Your attempt to use that simple and common grammar error to pass judgement on someone’s education level is rather silly. I have seen and heard that particular error made by many highly educated people in speech and in writing. It doesn’t mean anything other than they committed an increasingly common grammar error.
    Let’s also remember that this is a blog and people aren’t required to spell check or grammar check their comments. Poptech is far from the only commenter here who has committed basic typo and grammar errors.
    Perhaps you could’ve (of) or should’ve (of) left that one alone? :-)

  67. #67 chek
    February 19, 2014

    Your attempt to use that simple and common grammar error to pass judgement on someone’s education level is rather silly.

    You either know or you don’t know, StuPid.
    Not recognising the faux pas implies unfamiliarity with the written word, specifically the educated written word.
    As for making excuses for the plainly obvious, well……

  68. #68 jerryg
    February 19, 2014

    Interesting article in Smithsonian about ecosystem collapse:
    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-long-mass-extinction-180949711/

  69. #69 BBD
    February 20, 2014

    2Stupid

    You are living down to your name.

    Start where the argument begins: “sceptics” cast doubt on the mainstream scientific position but are not themselves experts.

    Logic fail.

    “Sceptics” maintain that the science they do not understand is wrong but they have no coherent and well-supported scientific counter-argument to the standard scientific position on AGW.

    Logic fail.

    Do I really have to go on?

  70. #70 Bernard J.
    February 20, 2014
  71. #71 Stu 2
    February 20, 2014

    BBD @ # 67:
    ” but they have no coherent and well-supported scientific counter-argument to the standard scientific position on AGW.”
    I note that you are now basing your position on the concept of ‘coherence’ of a scientific position.
    Have you perhaps considered that the AGW hypothesis is ‘coherent’ because it studies global warming primarily connected to ONE particular influence (anthropogenic) while other studies look at a myriad of hypotheses connected to highly variable climactic behaviour and therefore, by their very nature, would not be as ‘coherent’ as scientific research on AGW?
    Why does a lack of ‘coherent’ scientific work suddenly discount the fact that the debate is primarily about the amount of negative Anthropogenic influence on the climate?
    BJ @ # 68,
    Here’s the journalist whom you think has smacked somebody or other:
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/thedrum/matt-grudnoff/4050668
    Perhaps you could ask Jeff Harvey how much attention we should pay to someone like this?

  72. #72 BBD
    February 20, 2014

    2Stupid

    I note that you are now basing your position on the concept of ‘coherence’ of a scientific position.

    What else would qualify as a robust scientific position? Do you know what “coherent” means?

    No internal contradictions is a good working definition.

    So back to the scientific mainstream, where we have plenty of evidence that paleoclimate behaviour is incompatible with ECS <2C/2xCO2. Central estimates from paleoclimate behaviour are ~3C/2zxCO2 Rohling et al. (2012).

    Remember that these estimates are for a doubling of the pre-industrial concentration of CO2, so if BAU continues and we exceed ~560ppmv CO2 it is likely to get warmer still. We are at ~400ppmv now.

  73. #73 Stu 2
    February 20, 2014

    Yes BBD, I do know what the adjective, coherent, means.
    Here is a simple dictionary definition.

    PRIMARY MEANINGS OF: coherence
    n
    the state of cohering or sticking together
    n
    logical and orderly and consistent relation of parts

    Now I’ve answered your question will you answer mine?

    “Why does a lack of ‘coherent’ scientific work suddenly discount the fact that the debate is primarily about the amount of negative Anthropogenic influence on the climate?”
    Please keep in mind that I also pointed out that the AGW hypothesis is focused on only one particular influence (Anthropogenic) whereas much of the other work is focused on various other influences in our chaotic climate systems and therefore unlikely to be coherent.

  74. #74 chek
    February 20, 2014

    Watch out BBD, both Stupid’s IQ points are likely doing mid-air heel clicks at that zinger!

  75. #75 Wow
    February 20, 2014

    it’s obvious to me that the quality of a paper depends on the quality of the evidence presented and the logic underpinning its interpretation.

    And, more importantly, how much it produces productive new work.

    The mathematical proof of the uncertainty in a planetary orbit (i.e. chaos theory) was produced DECADES before it was possible to use it, but when it was used, it was HIGHLY productive.

    E&E’s “papers” are all dead ends, leading nowhere.

  76. #76 turboblocke
    February 20, 2014

    Looks like a straw man Stu2… The mainstream scientific position is that there are both natural and manmade influences on climate. However the sum of all manmade influences is to impose a rising trend on the natural variation.

    You also talk about the failure of a centralised emissions trading scheme… how do you arrive at that conclusion when a) such a scheme is working well for sulphur emissions. b) there is no such centralised scheme for carbon emissions.

  77. #77 adelady
    February 20, 2014

    Please keep in mind that I also pointed out that the AGW hypothesis is focused on only one particular influence (Anthropogenic) whereas much of the other work is focused on various other influences in our chaotic climate systems and therefore unlikely to be coherent.

    I hate to be the one to rain on this particular parade. But ….

    You do realise that – even if what you said happened to be true – the only scientific way to show the anthropogenic effects is to work out what the results would be without that anthropogenic influence and work out the differences.

    Of course it’s not true in the first place. Just a reminder, the IPCC goes to a lot of trouble to present this information to their non- scientific audience by listing all possible influences and quantifying each and every one of them. Why do they do that if they are only “interested” in greenhouse gases?
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-2.html

  78. #78 FrankD
    February 20, 2014

    # 71 our chaotic climate systems

    *sigh*

    just….

    *sigh*

  79. #79 Wow
    February 20, 2014

    “Why does a lack of ‘coherent’ scientific work suddenly discount the fact that the debate is primarily about the amount of negative Anthropogenic influence on the climate?”

    It doesn’t because it isn’t.

  80. #80 Bernard J.
    February 20, 2014

    This is the leader of Australia – watch it through to the end:

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=553915951305937

  81. #81 Lionel A
    February 20, 2014

    Astonishing, particularly at the end, ‘rabbet caught in the headlights’ sprang to mind. Maybe he needs to run on Duracells.

    Oh dear! An ex fire-fighter who cannot handle ‘rapid fire questions’. There is an old story about some fire-fighters, particularly part timers, setting fires so that they get a call-out from which to gain pecuniary advantage[1].

    Abbott sure is setting fires all around him but seems to lack the wit to tackle them. Intellectually empty.

    There is hope for Betula, GSW, OP and PT yet. A move to Australia could set them up for a role as PM.

    Indeed I recall many years ago being on a weekend walk through a part of the Forest of Dean with my father and grandfather when we came across a sort of clearing where piles of cleared under-storey were afire. The three of us set too with the fire-beaters that were always on hand in these woods. I had by this time had quite a bit of fire fighting training in the RN. We soon had the fire under control and shortly some bods turned up and it became apparent that they were in the part-time fire crew for the area. The odd things were, the speed with which they had appeared and also we recognised one of them as being somebody we had passed on our way to the clearing.

    Make of that what you will.

  82. #82 Lionel A
    February 20, 2014

    Argh! Replacement hand urgently required.

    Indeed I recall many years ago being on a weekend walk through a part of the Forest of Dean with my father and grandfather when we came across a sort of clearing where piles of cleared under-storey were afire. The three of us set too with the fire-beaters that were always on hand in these woods. I had by this time had quite a bit of fire fighting training in the RN. We soon had the fire under control and shortly some bods turned up and it became apparent that they were in the part-time fire crew for the area. The odd things were, the speed with which they had appeared and also we recognised one of them as being somebody we had passed on our way to the clearing.

    Make of that what you will.

  83. #83 Betula
    February 20, 2014

    “There is an old story about some fire-fighters, particularly part timers, setting fires so that they get a call-out from which to gain pecuniary advantage”….

    “Make of that what you will”…

    Tony Abbott said “shit happens” to make more money?

  84. #84 Lionel A
    February 20, 2014
  85. #85 BBD
    February 20, 2014

    2Stupid

    “Why does a lack of ‘coherent’ scientific work suddenly discount the fact that the debate is primarily about the amount of negative Anthropogenic influence on the climate?”

    Please keep in mind that I also pointed out that the AGW hypothesis is focused on only one particular influence (Anthropogenic) whereas much of the other work is focused on various other influences in our chaotic climate systems and therefore unlikely to be coherent.

    What does “coherent” mean? It means that the hypotheses are mutually compatible, even mutually re-enforcing. It means that different lines of evidence converge, in which case it is a precondition of consilience.

    Everything you write is nonsense. Why do you bother?

    The complete absence of a coherent “sceptical” scientific case happened because there is no evidence supporting any of the myriad “sceptical” attempts to deny the fact that CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing.

    The fact that there is a complete absence of a coherent “sceptical” scientific case should indicate to sane people that “sceptics” are in fact deniers solely reliant on rhetoric and misrepresentation – as indeed they are.

    No matter how much you blether and obfuscate on this point, it will not go away. “Sceptics” have *nothing*. All the evidence supports the mainstream scientific position which is why it is the mainstream scientific position.

    You are all ridiculous. Look at you: ill-informed non-experts challenging the standard scientific position without even having a coherent and well-supported scientific argument… it is completely absurd.

  86. #86 Stu 2
    February 20, 2014

    BBD @ # 82
    Scientists (sceptical or otherwise) do not ‘deny’ that CO2 plays a role in in climate.
    But I question why you would imply that any of them would use the phrase ” that CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing.” ?
    Your earlier comments and questions were related to the AGW hypothesis.

  87. #87 Jeff Harvey
    February 21, 2014

    Another devastating video showing how the oldest Arctic ice is disappearing…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-BbPBg3vj8

    Terrifying really. The consequences of this are already being seen in terms of the record rainfall in the UK this winter (already an all-time record – some places have received almost 500 mm in less than 3 months: contrast this with Delingpole’s out-and-out fabrications, which some idiots gladly soak up). And against this calamity we have climate change deniers who can barely add or subtract screaming that AGW is a myth…

    The fact that our species is intent on undermining our global ecological life-support systems in spite of the growing consequences is sure-fire evidence in my opinion that we are intent on heading for our own extinction.

  88. #88 Wow
    February 21, 2014

    Stu Pid, your query has been answered. So why do you continue to act as if it hadn’t?

  89. #89 chek
    February 21, 2014

    StuPid,,instead of your endless inane ‘questions’ why not read a fucking book?
    There’s even an online and updated version available here
    Read it once, then re-read it Then when you think you have another of your dumb questions, read it again. After that, you may be somewhat up to speed.

  90. #90 andyuk
    February 21, 2014

    in the uk, this winter is surely going to break a record for warmth too. i think we’ve had just a few slight frosty nights here in the midlands. it seems spring arrived in mid February. the blackbirds certainly seem to like it. i was watching one carrying mud to make its new nest.

  91. #91 Lionel A
    February 21, 2014

    Jeff,

    And against this calamity we have climate change deniers who can barely add or subtract screaming that AGW is a myth…

    Absolutely. And here is one denier Lawson engaged in obfuscation, listen and weep.

  92. #92 Lionel A
    February 21, 2014

    Andy, yes I have been surprised at the early blackbird activity this year, but then if the snows come in late could be a problem for them.

    If temperatures stay as the are then last years bumper apple crop is unlikely to be repeated this year.

    Now 2Stuid, can you explain why that would be?

  93. #93 Lionel A
    February 21, 2014

    Stu Pid, your query has been answered. So why do you continue to act as if it hadn’t?

    That is easy, it is because he has the intellectual capacity of a nematode.

  94. #94 Lionel A
    February 21, 2014

    I have just found this rather good complaint (and rebuttal) letter addressed to Jamie Angus, Editor of Today Programme.

    An Open Letter to the BBC on Lord Lawson’s Today Programme appearance.

    Pay attention at the back there for this is a lesson for you laggards who refuse to learn about the climate system.

  95. #95 Wow
    February 21, 2014

    “That is easy,”

    It was rather rhetorical. Stu Pid doesn’t do answers and doesn’t like questions to him. But others will see his refusal to explain himself and can draw their own conclusions.

    Yours is the front runner.

  96. #96 FrankD
    February 21, 2014

    Yep, they’re losing it! Rampaging Roy Spencer has chucked the toys out the pram with the (unintentionally) funniest brain-splosion in the longest time.

    Shorter Roy: ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A GLOBAL WARMING NAZI!

    Sou has the story.

    Quick, call the whaaaaaambulance!

  97. #97 andyuk
    February 21, 2014

    “I have just found this rather good complaint (and rebuttal) letter addressed to Jamie Angus, Editor of Today Programme.”

    its no good writing to the bbc with rational or scientific arguments. the hacks employed by the institution are mostly media and politic studies graduates and threatened by knowledge, reason and science. they have been trained to only recognize capitalism and socialism. the left and right feed off each other for survival and are united in their disdain for the rational, scientific worldview which threatens them both equally.

  98. #98 Lionel A
    February 21, 2014

    …contrast this with Delingpole’s out-and-out fabrications…

    Doesn’t it just, a clear visualisation of old ice being flushed out around the top of Greenland into the Denmark Strait, that which is not reduced to melt-water that is.

    Somebody recently remarked that the best use for Pickles was as a sandbag, Deler’s might just find himself in use as a punt pole in flooded areas if he doesn’t watch his language whilst out and about in the countryside.

  99. #99 Lionel A
    February 21, 2014

    Having seen the Spencer meltdown reported at Sou’s I figure his pal Christy isn’t doing much better:

    McNider and Christy Style Themselves Revolutionary But Defend Inertia

    and I note that David Rose farted again recently:

    Climate change deniers – just who is Daily Mail reporter David Rose?.

  100. #100 Lionel A
    February 21, 2014

    As for old ice being flushed around the top of Greenland check out the NOAA-NCDC Global Analysis – January 2014 and click on the left hand red-blue map to see a larger image. Look at that dark red stain over southern Greenland and consider what that is doing to the glacier flows.

    Think also about all that heat energy in the lower Atlantic from Florida-Carolina and up in an arc to the UK – the most common storm track.

    Yes there is a deep blue blob over lower Eastern US but also over the northern Eurasian landmass. If we, in the UK, get north-Easterlies shortly that could spell more trouble.

1 4 5 6 7 8 10