February 2014 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #1 GSW
    February 25, 2014

    GWPF piece on the UK floods and the Met office’s “New Norm”.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_vVZXw7e1A

    (H/T Bishop Hill)
    ;)

  2. #2 BBD
    February 25, 2014

    The GWPF are industry shills, you numpty. Why are you linking to paid liars?

    How is it possible to be that stupid and still use a computer?

  3. #3 BBD
    February 25, 2014

    Instead of peddling energy industry-funded lies, why not respond to Lionel A? He specifically addressed his last comment to you, amongst others. Yet your follow-on comment was merely worthless spam. Why is that? Are you simply unable to admit that what Lionel A is trying to explain is far more closely connected with the reality of the UK flooding than some calculated mendacity issuing from the GWPF?

    Is that it? I do wonder, sometimes. You lot seem so utterly incapable of any serious engagement it’s almost the only possibility that makes sense.

  4. #4 GSW
    February 25, 2014

    @BBD

    “The GWPF are industry shills, you numpty.”

    As opposed to Peter Sinclair the “award winning environmental activist”, you dipstick.

    http://www.ecocenter.org/newsletters/ecolink/peter-sinclair-will-receive-munzel-award-environmental-activism

    Some more on his background,

    “He isn’t a scientist, but he frequently interviews people who are.”

    That makse him even more sciency than joffrey then!
    ;)

  5. #5 chek
    February 25, 2014

    GSW, the equivalence isn’t with Peter Sinclair, it’s with the Met Office. But thanks for confirming your stupidity.

  6. #6 chek
    February 25, 2014

    However, it is noticeable that the industry shills haver been out in force this month since the heavy rains in some regions seem to have convinced a large number of the public that climate change is underway.

  7. #7 BBD
    February 25, 2014

    chek

    Yes, I noticed that too. It’s funny how the shills get very loud and very visible whenever Joe Public shows any sign of noticing what’s actually happening.

  8. #8 BBD
    February 25, 2014

    GSW

    That’s twice in a row you’ve thrown out a stinking spam-fart instead of engaging with Lionel A. So come on, you evasive little toe-rag. Respond to Lionel A’s point about N Atlantic SSTs and storm tracks.

  9. #9 Stu
    February 25, 2014

    So for GSW, receiving a non-monetary, obscure award is as big a detriment to credibility as, oh, I don’t know…

    The Global Warming Policy Foundation does not reveal where its funding comes from. [...] Its total income for the period up to 31 July 2010 was £503,302, of which only £8,168 (or 1.6%) came from membership contributions. [...] In 2012, the Guardian exposed Lawson’s links to coal-fired power companies in Europe.

    [SourceWatch]

  10. #10 chek
    February 25, 2014

    That Griselda et al gullibly buy whatever drips from mouth of the GWPF’s Benny Piffle and think it trumps that of a data-led organisation like the Met Office is all you need to know.

    Incidentally, taken as a whole for the UK the winter period Dec/Jan/Feb (not finished yet) has, despite severe rain and flooding in some areas the Met Office was right about it being drier than average. So far, anyway.

  11. #11 Lionel A
    February 25, 2014

    The GWPF is running outside of the rules for a charity on at least two counts,

    1) They are not Restoring Balance and Trust to the climate debate they are promulgating pure propaganda.

    2) They are not forthcoming on who is providing their funding, even by refusing to full FOI requests.

    Here is their statement in full – THE GWPF: HISTORY AND MISSION

    How many untruths can one spot in that document?

    Wiki’s take.

    much more at DeSmogBlog.

  12. #12 chek
    February 25, 2014

    “The GWPF: Who We Are”
    Heh!
    Shouldn’t that be “Who We Purport To Be”?
    Trades Descriptions Act and all that…

  13. #13 Stu 2
    February 25, 2014

    Frank D #@ 92 previous page.
    My answer was that 2 of those multiple choice options (a & b) have proven to have some effect at solving that particular problem (housing shortage in Australia) but the other 2 created unintended, third party impacts.

  14. #14 Jeff Harvey
    February 26, 2014

    Come on guys, go easy of gormless (GSW) – he’s got a third rate basic science diploma and is suffering from loneliness as his hero (Jonas) has his posts delayed on the basis on their vacuous content. So all he has left is the GWPF and other shills to keep him ‘informed’ about the state of the world.

  15. #15 Wow
    February 26, 2014

    “GWPF piece on the UK floods and the Met office’s “New Norm”.”

    Given their incompetence at science (or economy, Lawsom, remember) why should their take on the floods be of any interest to anyone?

  16. #16 Lionel A
    February 26, 2014

    Ah! Yes I remember Lawson as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his measures inducing the Lawson boom, and then bust.

    Typical of an administration focused on economic magic rather than solid, sound practices which recognised the need for a national skills base in technology, especially of the old fashioned engineering kind. What Thatcher & Co. did to the railways was butchery, this after the earlier butchery of Ernest ‘conflict of interest’ Marples & Dr Richard Beeching.

    Growing up in the 1950s in a city which had two of the major railways cross on the level through a very wide level crossing I have taken a keen lifetime interest in railway operations. I was fortunate to have holidays at Dawlish and Dawlish Warren where as I built sand castles I could watch ex. GWR Castles, Kings, Strars, Halls, Counties and many other types on the trains along that sea wall that has suffered so much recently.

    A townie of the same era has written an excellent book describing how British Railways was plundered by successive free market economic lunatics and thieves with the latest major round being under Major’s government in the 1990s. One Tory Grandee, Cecil ‘had an affair’ Parkinson also had a conflict of interest as his wife’s family owned a construction company Jarvis. Jarvis being a name that now resonates to track fault caused fatal disaster.

    See The Greatest Railway Blunder by Adrian Vaughan for the full story. It will leave you shaking your head but is typical of the way we are being sold out by those who don’t give a damn about the population at large, in any country.

    As for Lawson and the GWPF all they promote is a ‘Load of old Blaby’. If that is the best you have got GSW & Co. then you are really desperate.

    Wiki has a reasonable run downNigel Lawson, Baron Lawson of Blaby.

    In 2011, Bob Ward claimed the GWPF was “spreading errors” and “the ‘facts'” Lawson “repeats are demonstrably inaccurate”[39] Ward referred to Lawson’s “many times” repeated statement that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change worst case scenario predicted the rise in Third World living standards in 100 years would be limited to just nine times current levels.[39] In fact, said Ward, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report estimates living standard will rise by a factor of 66 but crucially makes no assessment of how it will be affected by climate change.[39] Ward also criticised Lawson for repeating in a 2010 BBC radio debate that Antarctic ice volumes were unchanged even after his error was highlighted by his opponent, Professor Kevin Anderson.[39] According to Ward, Lawson provided no evidence to back his claim which is contrary to satellite measurements and he similarly incorrectly implied that the correlation between CO2 and sea levels was uncertain as sea levels were rising more slowly since 1950 than before it.[39] The current sea level rise is accelerating. Given the Charity Commission requires that statements by campaigning charities “must be factually accurate and have a legitimate evidence base” Ward suggested that they review the GWPF.[39] Lawson’s son Dominic Lawson is also a climate change sceptic, taking a similar viewpoint as his father in his columns in the Independent on Sunday.[40][41]

    Time to call ‘shop’ on this nefarious, unethical organisation.

  17. #17 FrankD
    February 26, 2014

    Good answer, Stu2 #10.

    It’s just that its not an answer to any question I asked. Quell suprise!

    Duck and weave, Stu, duck and weave…

  18. #18 wmmbb
    Australia
    February 26, 2014

    Nicholas Loris claims: “It’s time for calm on Climate Change”. Looks like climate scientists are not rigorously trained in the disciplines of science. It is all too much pain for too little economic gain,.But, I suppose, it does depend on what questions are asked, what is known and on what basis.

    The IPCC are completely wrong., They just are. So if everybody remains calm then all will be well – or even better in the short term. By the way, if you had not noticed, warming has gone into a hiatus.(meaning that the trend of surface mean temperatures have not increased.

    Furthermore, modelling is completely hopeless since the models are inconsistent. Remember, the 97% of climate scientists who are not realists really means 97% of scientific literature – and this takes no account of the opinions of political scientists, or indeed the leading climate scientists who are not undertaking climate research.

  19. #19 Lotharsson
    February 26, 2014

    Been away for a bit. That was epic. Bonus points for the hunting joke reference.

  20. #20 Stu 2
    February 26, 2014

    Frank D @# 14
    Your question was:
    what should governments do : a, b, c, d.
    I have answered the question.
    If you want to discuss further then it’s over to you.

  21. #21 craig thomas
    February 27, 2014

    Tim Flannery doing an online Q&A:

    https://www.facebook.com/events/525492887570419/

  22. #22 cRR Kampen
    February 27, 2014

    For most people a thought of snow translates into a concrete memory of a blizzard some short time later, even if weather remained balmy.
    Agitprop like this works for that reason: http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/462046/Winter-is-NOT-OVER-Eight-inches-of-snow-to-hit-UK-this-weekend-in-ferocious-final-freeze .

    Never mind there is nothing on the charts to suggest this. Just a couple days return to normality after which temps go crescendo again.

    In November these bastards came with http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/442873/Coldest-winter-in-modern-times-on-way-with-snow-forecast-for-Britain-starting-next-week .

    Nothing remotely like that happened, instead part of the country drowned in a winter that was also very mild. But the facts do not matter at all.

    Mediavomit like this works. Media like this know that. They are therefore also responsible for the devastation of Somerset and the 8.000 victims of Typhoon Haiyan.

  23. #23 BBD
    February 27, 2014

    cRR

    The *real* story of winter snow in the UK is much more interesting than alarmist lies in the gutter press. Something is changing.

  24. #24 cRR Kampen
    February 27, 2014

    BBD, we just went through another ‘winter’ in Holland of a kind absolutely unimaginable before 1990.
    Poll in the most read newspaper in Holland, which is gutter press and gutter is generally most read, show 77% of plebs seeing nothing the matter because it snowed in the USA and +12° C is still cold even if +5° C is the fucking normal.

    Nothing is changing except climate. If people’s houses burn down in some AGW induced bush fire just show them some footage of Scotland from your link and they’ll be quite assured again, i kid u not. I mean, that actually happened in Australia (otherwise a stooge like Abbott would never have received a vote).

  25. #25 BBD
    February 27, 2014

    cRR

    To be clear – “alarmist” lies was ironic – these same “newspapers” peddle denial – it was just an inversion ;-)

    Second, the point is that high altitude NH snowfall seems to be very high this winter – precipitation has stepped up – not just in the storm tracks bringing unprecedented flooding to the UK. Climate is of course the “something” that is changing – but I thought Hamish MacInnes’ observations were very interesting (and noted that he’s backing away from his previous “scepticism”):

    The veteran mountaineer added: “This snow is not just something happening in Scotland.

    “This turmoil is throughout the world. I have been in contact with people from all over the world, people in rescue teams, and they have got the same pattern – even more pronounced than us.”

  26. #26 cRR Kampen
    February 27, 2014

    #21, on that note, I read Hamish’ change of mind as driven by observation and like it. True skeptic : ). Above your quote:

    He said he had been critical of climate change science in the past.

    “I wrote an apology to the people who predicted climate change,” he said.

    “I thought it was just a historical pattern, it probably is to a large extent, but I did kind of poo-pooed the idea of climate change.”

    The veteran mountaineer added: “This snow is not just something happening in Scotland.

    Et cetera.

    I did kinda apology years ago. Notwithstanding university meteo- and climatology training I believed it had to be the sun until 2004, losing the Svensmark myth finally by then (as to global warming I was convinced of that by 1989). Sometimes I still feel ashamed a bit… Otoh I have in-depth knowledge of AGW denial perspectives and can recognize revisionists from those willing to learn instantly.
    I might remain vulnerable to the kind of remark directed at zealous antismoking ex-smokers (revisionists, don’t even think of it!).

  27. #27 FrankD
    February 27, 2014

    Stu2, your inability to distinguish between factual statements and normative statements is both revealing and tragic.

  28. #28 Wow
    February 27, 2014

    “To be clear – “alarmist” lies was ironic – these same “newspapers” peddle denial – it was just an inversion”

    Actually, they peddle alarmism like there’s no tomorrow: a clam that they make is that there WILL be no tomorrow if we do anything about AGW. They’ll claim that everyone’s being asked to go back to the stone age. That’s alarmism right there. They’ll claim that it’s all a scam to kill off poor people by denying them fossil fuels. Alarmism. They’ll claim that it’s the poor nations insisting that the rich first world give them all their money so they can live fat and happy whilst we crash and burn. This causes no mental problems with their earlier claims about poor people. And it’s alarmist. They’ll peddle it as a world-girdling conspiracy. Alarmist.

    And so on.

  29. #29 BBD
    February 27, 2014

    Wow

    Yes, I agree – that’s what I meant, but I expressed it with all the clarity of a sewage sample.

  30. #30 Jeff Harvey
    February 27, 2014

    Nathan Rao is a typical gutter journalist. Here is Wetteronline’s forecast for the UK on Saturday:

    http://www.wetteronline.de/wetter/grossbritannien

    So much for 8 inches of snow and bitterly cold. The forecast from Friday through Tuesday is much the same – then it gets milder. Rao is full of bullshit.

  31. #31 Lionel A
    February 27, 2014

    Ah! Glen Coe and the Cairngorms, I have been camped out in those places for periods ranging from a weekend to fourteen days.

    I may have recounted previously about my tumble down the North slope of the Buachaille Etive Mòr having climbed the East side. There was still quite a bit of snow in the saddle near the top, it being early spring, so my companion, a more experienced climber than myself, suggested glissading down the slope. Having pointed out the lack of ice picks he indicated the lack of these for braking control would be no problem as long as one stayed sliding with back to the slope so as to dig in heels as brakes. I watched as he set off and as he got about a quarter the way down pushed of myself. A few yards later I lost my balance and flipped face down but still going feet first down. I accelerated rapidly passing him very soon. Fortunately I managed to return to the correct position for braking, just as well as the snow was about to run out into scree. My companion was only about half way down at this point.

    I was jarred a bit as I ran into scree but stood up, knees shaking within trousers, and as my companion came within earshot I called out, ‘What kept you?’

    That companion I learned whilst I was at another air base, had fallen into a crevasse on Greenland and been lost.

    The Cairngorms were memorable for another event whilst camped adjacent to Ryvoan Bothy. But that is another story.

  32. #32 GSW
    February 27, 2014

    Entertaining piece from investors.com

    “If Democrats Believed In Warming,They’d Nominate Gore”

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022614-691397-climate-fanatic-democrats-should-back-al-gore-not-hillary.htm

    “On the other hand, Al Gore invented the Internet, as CNN’s Wolf Blitzer discovered in 1999 after asking him why he should be president. Tough act to follow, but Gore became the only person to win an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize for a movie — and a Grammy for the audiobook, to boot.”

    “Its falsities, a British court found, ranged from incorrectly blaming climate change for snowmelt on Kilimanjaro and drowned polar bears to predicting the scientifically impossible demise of the Gulf Stream.”

    Quite a few laughs in there for those disposed.
    ;)

  33. #33 cRR Kampen
    February 27, 2014

    #21, sorry, BBD, I should’ve mentioned I DID have to do a small calculation there but then your irony was not at all lost on me, lol!
    And then, thanks for #25, ‘sewage sample’ – I was looking all day for a phrase like that, ‘bile’ and ‘vomit’ having been spent fubar during the ‘debate’ : )

  34. #34 cRR Kampen
    February 27, 2014

    #28, quite a laugh indeed for us disposed :)

    ‘Incorrect’ is not the same thing as incorrect. You really need to take that rainy Sunday afternoon to read Deltoid mate.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/11/an-error-is-not-the-same-thing/

  35. #35 BBD
    February 27, 2014

    So, GSW, all you’ve got is ancient “Al Gore is fat” irrelevancies. No response to Lionel A about N. Atlantic SST anomalies, storm tracks and recent UK flooding. Nothing, nada, zilch.

    Here’s a hint, old windbag: Al Gore has nothing to do with physics, and AGW is caused by physics. So guffing emptily on about Al G isn’t going to have any effect on AGW.

    It’s just another paint-peelingly foul spam-fart. If you cannot or will not engage here, why not take a flying fuck, eh?

  36. #36 chek
    February 27, 2014

    all you’ve got is ancient “Al Gore is fat” irrelevancies

    He’s the US right wing bête noire, which like ‘librulls’ doesn’t really translate outside their good ol’ boy stink-sewer in the fresh air of the real world.

    But morons with all the intellectual depth of a dew-drop puddle like Griselda @ #28 can only dutifully parrot the scripted lies they’re given.

  37. #37 cRR Kampen
    February 27, 2014

    #17, Craig, well, indeed. There were targets and some were taken methinx.

  38. #38 Stu 2
    February 28, 2014

    Frank D @ # 23,
    I would suggest you might need to be more concerned about your ability to foster a genuine discussion.
    So far all you have done is focus on fostering critical comments about me or defensive comments about you.
    I have tried to point out that I’m not interested in either of those but if you are interested in furthering the discussion topic, it’s over to you.

  39. #39 adelady
    February 28, 2014

    Wow

    Actually, they peddle alarmism like there’s no tomorrow: a clam that they make is that there WILL be no tomorrow if we do anything about AGW. They’ll claim that everyone’s being asked to go back to the stone age. That’s alarmism right there.

    Are these the same people who tell us that we’re hypocrites because we’ve done “absolutely nothing” ourselves about our own emissions unless we’re living in a cave, childless, dressed in rags, gnawing on raw root vegetables? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen some individuals make that move from one comment to the next.

  40. #40 Olaus Petri
    February 28, 2014

    Fellas, Gav’s latest says this with reagard to the missing heat:

    “Specifically, the influence of volcanic eruptions, aerosols in the atmosphere and solar activity all took unexpected turns over the 2000s. The climate model simulations, effectively, were run with the assumption that conditions were broadly going to continue along established trajectories.”

    Me thinks he should look more into the deep blue, like a true Deltoid scientits. What your take fellas? I thought sicence was settled? :-)

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2105.html

  41. #41 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Olaus

    Try to understand what Schmidt et al. actually says before commenting. You think there’s a conflict between this study and eg England et al. (2014) but there isn’t. The increased strength of the trade winds described in England et al. has suppressed El Nino and increased the frequency of La Nina – something explicitly acknowledged in Schmidt et al.

    There are several reasons for the current disparity between CMIP5 and observations, something long suspected by climate scientists. The key point is that none of them involve the fake sceptic’s favourite false claim – that sensitivity to CO2 forcing has been over-estimated. From Schmidt et al. :

    We conclude that use of the latest information on external influences on the climate system and adjusting for internal variability associated with ENSO can almost completely reconcile the trends in global mean surface temperature in CMIP5 models and observations. Nevertheless, attributing climate trends over relatively short periods, such as 10 to 15 years, will always be problematic, and it is inherently unsatisfying to find model–data agreement only with the benefit of hindsight. We see no indication, however, that transient climate response is systematically overestimated in the CMIP5 climate models as has been speculated, or that decadal variability across the ensemble of models is systematically underestimated, although at least some individual models probably fall short in this respect.

    Most importantly, our analysis implies that significant warming trends are likely to resume, because the dominant long-term warming effect of well-mixed greenhouse gases continues to rise. Asian pollution levels are likely to stabilize and perhaps decrease, although lower solar activity may persist and volcanic eruptions are unpredictable. ENSO will eventually move back into a positive phase and the simultaneous coincidence of multiple cooling effects will cease. Further warming is very likely to be the result.

    Read the words. Try – for once – to understand what is being said.

  42. #42 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    This stupid meme needs taking out the back and shooting in the head:

    I thought sicence was settled?

    The science *is* settled: GHGs are an efficacious climate forcing. Doubling CO2 will raise GAT by at least 2C and very likely ~3C or more.

    You are confusing the settled science with the ongoing investigation into the mechanisms governing short term variability. It’s just more evidence that you really do not understand the climate “debate” at all. Perhaps you should just sit and listen.

  43. #43 Rednose
    February 28, 2014

    So volcanoes, aerosols, the Sun and El Nino all conspired to work together to dampen the warming trend.

    What a coincedence

  44. #44 FrankD
    February 28, 2014

    Okay Stu2, one last try. This was supposed to be a simple question to establish some basics before further discussion. I honestly expected a quick and clear reply, but lets be clear, it is your obfuscation that is preventing the discussion moving along. I have clarified the sticking point twice without progress, but third time counts for all…

    You have said that (A) land releases and (B) cutting fees and charges have been tried and “have had a measure of success in alleviating the problem without creating too many third party or unintended consequences”, while (c) negative gearing reform and (d) closing out foreign buyers “did create unintended consequences.”

    Of course, I’ve been round the buoys too many times to make any assumption about what you think, so I’m seeking confirmation, which might then allow this conversation to proceed beyond step one.

    Given my question was “governments should…?”, is it fair to say that had you answered the question I actually asked, you would have said “Governments should do A & B”?

  45. #45 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    What a coincedence [sic]

    Yes. But much more likely than a conspiracy, which is what you are clearly implying.

    You need to learn to weigh probabilities like a sane adult.

  46. #46 Olaus Petri
    February 28, 2014

    Of course BBD, it read as follows: the missing heat is down there already, but it is also, at same time, hidden by volcanos, aerosols and the sun. :-)

    I love when settled climate science shows how the accelerating warming of the atmosphere, that was settled, robust, and detetected first hand by Jeffie Bonaparte, has become something else, but still is robust, settled, and perhaps even recognized first hand by our dear Little Napoleon. :-)

  47. #47 Rednose
    February 28, 2014

    There are several reasons for the current disparity between CMIP5 and observations,

    Oh you mean like “hiatus”

    But I thought the CMIP5 were all based on Physics.
    Surely the observations must be wrong and need correction.

  48. #48 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    “Oh you mean like “hiatus””

    Or as realists call it “cherry picking nonsense.

  49. #49 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Olaus

    Of course BBD, it read as follows: the missing heat is down there already, but it is also, at same time, hidden by volcanos, aerosols and the sun.

    No, it doesn’t. You haven’t understood what is being said at all. Try again.

  50. #50 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    “Of course BBD, it read as follows: the missing heat is down there already, but it is also, at same time, hidden by volcanos, aerosols and the sun”

    Indeed it would read as that from the ignorant deniers. This is not unexpected.

  51. #51 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Rednoise

    Oh you mean like “hiatus”

    Are you being purposefully imbecilic?

    The slowdown in the rate of surface warming is the consequence of several factors (see #37) but not of an over-estimation of S.

    Try harder.

  52. #52 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    “Are these the same people who tell us that we’re hypocrites because we’ve done “absolutely nothing” ourselves about our own emissions unless we’re living in a cave…”

    Indeed.

    And those who do are “hairshirt loonies” and therefore want everyone as impoverished as them, therefore should not be listened to.

    Deniers never listen to themselves, it would be too depressing.

  53. #53 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Why do deniers revel in stupidity like kids in a fountain?

  54. #54 Stu 2
    February 28, 2014

    Yes Frank D.
    If the evidence indicates that those 2 options have had some success in solving that particular problem (housing shortage in Australia) then obviously those are the best 2 options.

  55. #55 Jeff Harvey
    February 28, 2014

    You gotta love (or loathe) Olly’s scientific illiteracy. He writes as if I am the one who has definitively concluded that the science of AGW is settled. Now I know the guy is a right wing quack, but even that takes the cake. He’s trying what Michael mann refers to as ‘The Serengeti Strategy’ whereby individuals are singled out as making pronouncements that are not supported by the scientific community by-and-large.

    Yes, the science is settled beyond a reasonable doubt. And I am not saying it on my own – every major scientific body on Earth is saying it. Every respectable scientific journal accepts it. You’ll be hard pressed to find a single scientist at any major conference who disagrees. The shills don’t count – they are for the most part on the academic fringe, as Poptech unintentionally showed on his wretched list.

    But since I am a qualified scientist (gosh, that simple fact pains Olly, GSW and the other small band of idiots who write in here; noen of them has anything more than a comic-book level diploma is a field related to science) and I argue that there is consensus, then I am targeted. I am used to it. I have had to deal with far more challenging clowns over the past 10 years of my career than from the likes of losers like Olly and Co. Heck, Olly’s not even original in his smears; he imitates the musings of Jonas, GSW et al. My guess is that he’s a supine follower.

  56. #56 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    ” then obviously those are the best 2 options.”

    WRONG.

    Logic fail FTW!

    No, those two options have evidence they work.

    Fuck all about whether they are the best.

  57. #57 Rednose
    February 28, 2014

    The slowdown in the rate of surface warming
    But we are told the warming is “accelerating”

    iis the consequence of several factors

    all conspiring to work together to almost exactly cancel out any warming, getting on for 20 years now it seems.
    http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/02/Santer-pause-2.jpg
    Do they have secret meetings to work out a plan?

  58. #58 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Rednoise

    Can’t you understand the meaning of words like “transient” and “temporary”?

    You clearly haven’t read #37, so off you go and try again. Note especially the final sentence of the quote from Schmidt et al.

    * * *

    Like kids in a fountain.

  59. #59 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    I suppose it’s too much to ask some lying idiot of a denier actually to scroll up the page, so here, again, is Schmidt et al.:

    Most importantly, our analysis implies that significant warming trends are likely to resume, because the dominant long-term warming effect of well-mixed greenhouse gases continues to rise. Asian pollution levels are likely to stabilize and perhaps decrease, although lower solar activity may persist and volcanic eruptions are unpredictable. ENSO will eventually move back into a positive phase and the simultaneous coincidence of multiple cooling effects will cease. Further warming is very likely to be the result.

    Read the words, Clown.

  60. #60 Rednose
    February 28, 2014

    Try again

    The slowdown in the rate of surface warming

    But we are told the warming is accelerating

    is the consequence of several factors
    All conspiring to work together to cancel out any warming,
    Do they have secret meetings as it seems to have been going on for about 20 years
    http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/02/Santer-pause-2.jpg

    Cherry pick your own start date.

  61. #61 chek
    February 28, 2014

    You’re quoting the GWPF’s spin, Redarse?
    What’s the smart money over at The Beano saying?

  62. #62 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    all conspiring to work together to almost exactly cancel out any warming, getting on for 20 years now it seems.

    Stupid fucking lies don’t cut it with me, Clown.

    Data for you. Try looking at it for once.

  63. #63 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Cherry pick your own start date.

    I used one of the usual climate-liars’ choices. Your claim is falsified.

    How about you admit it now? Right now. Next response.

    There are the data. So come on, let’s see some fucking intellectual integrity from you then.

    Admit your error. Now.

  64. #64 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    I’m waiting, Clown.

  65. #65 Rednose
    February 28, 2014
  66. #66 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    How about you admit your error, Rednoise?

    The data are right in front of you – fully updated, no tricks. Wood for Trees. Absolutely open.

    Your claim is falsified, so admit your error. Now please.

  67. #67 Rednose
    February 28, 2014

    What does Santer show, after eliminating ENSO and volcanoes?
    Is it a 15, 20 or 25 year hiatus?

  68. #68 cRR Kampen
    February 28, 2014

    Another something on the psychopathology of climate revisionists – tube vision. They cannot see more than one thing at a time nor hold more than one thing in memory at any time.

    http://horses.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/placeholder-menhoofdstel-oogkleppen-296×247.jpg

    So these people cannot fathom the fact that different things can have relations to each other. Most particularly they cannot comprehend the concept of balance.

    #42 by one ‘Olaus Petri’ demonstrates the pathology in multiplicity in one sentence:
    … the missing heat is down there already, but it is also, at same time, hidden by volcanos, aerosols and the sun. (followed by the smiley of total ignorance but for some insanity awareness).

    The guy can thus not understand that heat gets distributed across different elements of the climate system (air, oceans, cryosphere) because he can see only one of these at any time and must think that one element is all of the system. What bafflement, then, exemplified by ‘ the missing heat is down there already, but it is also, at same time, hidden ‘ where ‘Petri’ rambles about ‘missing’ heat, ‘hidden’ heat (it can’t be both) and the same heat taken to exist doubly while ‘hiding’ everywhere at once.

    I wouldn’t trust this fellow to cross a road with. Either he sees no car in his thin line of vision at the split second he looks to the other side and crosses and gets run over by all those ‘hidden’ cars, or he sees a car and sits down to cry because the road is uncrossable and will be so forever.

  69. #69 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Clown

    Here is the abstract to the Santer et al. paper the GWPF is lying about.

    Read it:

    Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures have shown slower warming since 1998 than previously. Possible explanations for the slow-down include internal climate variability, external cooling influences and observational errors. Several recent modelling studies have examined the contribution of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions to the muted surface warming. Here we present a detailed analysis of the impact of recent volcanic forcing on tropospheric temperature, based on observations as well as climate model simulations. We identify statistically significant correlations between observations of stratospheric aerosol optical depth and satellite-based estimates of both tropospheric temperature and short-wave fluxes at the top of the atmosphere. We show that climate model simulations without the effects of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions overestimate the tropospheric warming observed since 1998. In two simulations with more realistic volcanic influences following the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, differences between simulated and observed tropospheric temperature trends over the period 1998 to 2012 are up to 15% smaller, with large uncertainties in the magnitude of the effect. To reduce these uncertainties, better observations of eruption-specific properties of volcanic aerosols are needed, as well as improved representation of these eruption-specific properties in climate model simulations.

    Do you understand what this is saying? Straospheric sulphate aerosols from volcanism have acted as a negative forcing, offsetting the forcing increase from GHGs. See also #37, Schmidt et al. Huge shock, as Schmidt is a co-author of the Santer paper.

    The liars at GWPF have picked a graph out of context and used it to fool you.

    Now admit your error. You don’t even need to remove volcanic aerosol negative forcings to falsify your claim.

    I have done so right here, right in front of you so admit your error. Enough fucking evasions now.

    Admit your error.

  70. #70 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    What does Santer show, after eliminating ENSO and volcanoes?
    Is it a 15, 20 or 25 year hiatus?

    Can’t be more than 18 years.

    Admit your error.

    Now.

  71. #71 cRR Kampen
    February 28, 2014

    #63 reddy, dada, ceci n’est pas une pipe :D :D

  72. #72 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Not even 15 years

    Admit your error.

    Now.

  73. #73 FrankD
    February 28, 2014

    (housing shortage in Australia)
    Oh dear, Stu2, you’ve answered the wrong question again. Not being psychic, I don’t know if you misunderstood what I wrote and all your answers are directed at a (different) question that I didn’t ask.

    My question was about your economic thoughts on housing affordability (for owner-occupiers, specifically), not on housing availability. These are two separate (if related) problems, and different solutions will work on them differently. Since I don’t know which question you were sort-of-more-or-less-answering (that “if” could be misconstrued…), I can’t usefully evaluate the merits of that answer.

    If I were not assuming good faith here, I might think the confusion was deliberate. But the elephant in the room here is this: Even assuming good faith, if elicting a meaningful answer to such a simple question is so difficult, what prospect is there that this discussion can lead anywhere productive for the much more problematic question of economic levers with regard to energy and climate?

    All I’m trying to do here is understand your general economic outlook, so I can factor that into my comments. And I’ve had these discussions run at cross-purposes for days on end too many times to be arsed jumping on to that go-round again. But you don’t make it easy. If you want – as you have claimed several times – to have a productive discussion, you’ll need to show you are honestly engaging with the questions put to you*. Otherwise, you’re no different to the other clownshoes here – just slightly less obvious than they are about being an utter waste of space.

    *as I will if the discussion ever gets off this merry-go-round.

  74. #74 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Whoah! Certainly not 25 years.

    You have been lied to. Fooled. Conned. Had over. Made a monkey of.

    Admit your error.

    Now.

  75. #75 Rednose
    February 28, 2014

    The published peer reviewed graph is there for all to observe.
    All you have to do is comment on it. How long has the trend of the TLT anomaly in Fig 1c remained fairly flat?
    The nearest 5 years will do.

  76. #76 Lionel A
    February 28, 2014

    Is it a 15, 20 or 25 year hiatus?

    Rednoise, you really are a fuckwit ignoramus if you think that any hiatus in surface temperatures means that the Earth is no longer accumulating heat from incoming solar radiation that is modified and then trapped in the various Earth systems, mostly fluid.

    Here, go read this three part report from the Met office:

    The recent pause in warming, this report may need you to put on a thinking head.

    And stop relying on The Three Monkeys – Monckton, Foster and Peiser of the GWPF, which is a totally discredited haven of ideologues which should be stripped of its charity status. It is a travesty that it has not been:

  77. #77 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Clown, I’ve just shown you using graphs even a fuckwit like you can understand that your claim is false for 15, 18 and 25 years.

    Santer et al. does not make the claim you make, nor does it say what you think it does (hint: read the abstract).

    Now why have you not yet admitted your error?

    Stop misdirecting to evade.

    Look at the graphs at #66, #68 and #70.

    There is NO GETTING OUT OF THIS NOW.

    Admit your error.

  78. #78 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    I have to say this display of black-is-white dishonesty is staggering, even by Clown’s standards.

  79. #79 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    “Now why have you not yet admitted your error?”

    Because once a denier admits to error, they’ve admitted that they *can* be wrong, therefore they would have to *check* their facts.

    And this is devastating to their case.

    (I realise it was a rhetorical question, but the answer is still valid)

  80. #80 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    “Is it a 15, 20 or 25 year hiatus?”

    None of the above.

    No haitus.

  81. #81 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    “http://www.thegwpf.org”

    Not a science paper, is it.

    “Santer-pause-2.jpg”

    The name of a file is not proof of a pause or haitus.

  82. #82 Wow
    February 28, 2014
    The slowdown in the rate of surface warming

    But we are told the warming is accelerating

    How can you quote someone telling you there is a slowdown then claim you’re told it’s accelerating?

    Do you change what you see in your own head?

  83. #83 cRR Kampen
    February 28, 2014

    #75 Wow “And this is devastating to their case.” – they respond as if it is devastating to their very existence. System I jolted out of comfort zone.

  84. #84 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    True, they invest so extremely in their statements, much as the most fundamentalist religious (the ones able to convince themselves to commit human atrocities) invest their entire being in their faith being *right*, that to be wrong in their argument is, for them, to be wrong in their humanity.

    Such extreme investment is the prime motivation for many of the most spittle-flecked denier morons.

    THEY ARE THEIR ARGUMENTS. End one, they believe ABSOLUTELY the other will end.

  85. #85 Rednose
    February 28, 2014

    BBD#73

    Well I asked you for YOUR opinion about a specific graph published recently which you continue to fail to give.

    Is it 15, 20 or 25 years.
    Go on its not difficult.
    Here is the link again.
    http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/02/Santer-pause-2.jpg

  86. #86 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    “Well I asked you for YOUR opinion about a specific graph published recently which you continue to fail to give.”

    He did give his opinion on it: NWOR.

  87. #87 cRR Kampen
    February 28, 2014

    #81, rotate screen anticlockwise or head clockwise a bit. There are conventions re the orientation of graph axes you know.
    BBD has given his ‘opinion’, that is a reading of the facts, repeatedly. It’s not difficult. Um, you said that? ‘It’s not difficult?’

  88. #88 Rednose
    February 28, 2014

    No he has huffed and puffed but not answered the question

  89. #89 cRR Kampen
    February 28, 2014

    Punched Nose imagines himself O’Brien (‘1984′) – “If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.”

  90. #90 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    “Well I asked you for YOUR opinion”

    He gave it.

    See, this is why so many don’t bother to answer the petulant demands of whiny little denier crapsacks: they don’t even notice when they’ve been answered.

  91. #91 cRR Kampen
    February 28, 2014

    #84, he’s not giving you your 2 + 2 + 5? Tee, hee, now what are you going to do about it?

  92. #92 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    “No he has huffed and puffed”

    1) He hasn’t literally huffed and puffed
    2) A figurative huff and puff IS A RESPONSE.

    Seems you don’t even know what your native tongue is…

  93. #93 cRR Kampen
    February 28, 2014

    #80 Wow, exactly, which is why climate revisionism is very scary indeed. ‘Fascism, anyone?’ – to quote a recent essay’s title.

  94. #94 Lionel A
    February 28, 2014

    Rednoise, Foxtrot Oscar with your links to the lying liars and the lies they tell under the umbrella of the GWPF, they cannot be trusted. EOS!

  95. #95 Lionel A
    February 28, 2014

    No he has huffed and puffed but not answered the question

    He has answered your malformed question you dunce, you are clearly too thick to understand his message.

    I wonder if you are GWPF?

  96. #96 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    To falsify the claim that there has been no warming for “about 20 years” let’s look at three periods.

    There has been no “hiatus” over the last:

    15 years

    Nor over the last:

    18 years

    Nor over the last:

    25 years

    There are the data. There are the linear fits. Either you are accusing me of cooking the graphs – in which case you must show how – or you are wrong.

    Now we both know you cannot hide graph-cooking on Wood for Trees because it is wide open. We both know it uses data direct from the original sources and cannot be tampered with. We can both see that these three graphs are correct and show exactly what they purport to show.

    All three falsify your claim that there has been no warming for “about 20 years”. There is no doubt about this. No equivocation. No room for argument. Nowhere left to go.

    You are wrong. So admit your error.

    Now.

    You have no choice. Can’t you see that?

    Admit your error.

  97. #97 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    “Admit your error.”

    He can’t: he’d die!

  98. #98 Jeff Harvey
    February 28, 2014

    Its utterly amazing that in the course of the past several weeks, the GWPF has been shown to be one of the most blatantly biased climate change denial organizations around, that that its status as a charity has been heavily criticized.

    And right on cue, Rednose shows up after a prolonged absence with a flagrant distortion by – you guessed it – the GWPF. Unvelieveable. In the lastes example they are distorting the conclusions of a paper by Santer and colleagues. Worst of all, Rednose thinks he’s making a good point, when in reality his point is utter balderdash: a selective misinterpretation of the Santer study and certainly at odds with the views of the authors.

    Over the years I have encountered a number of climate change deniers and other anti-environmentalists on Deltoid, and not a single one of them has a scintilla of common sense or scientific knowledge. If the likes of Rednose, GSW. Olaus, Tim C, Pentax, Brad Keyes, Sunspot/Karen/Mack, Betula, et al ad nauseum are the best of the ‘armchair brigade’, then no wonder that much of the denial community are seen as laughingstocks.

  99. #99 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    Well I asked you for YOUR opinion about a specific graph published recently which you continue to fail to give.

    Is it 15, 20 or 25 years.

    Oh FFS. I don’t need ‘opinions’, you clown.

    To answer your question I took the same data (you will see UAH TLT presented in each of the three graphs above) and two surface temperature data sets and instead of eyeballing and opinionating, as you are doing, I tested your claim empirically.

    And showed it to be false.

    When are you going to admit your error? You cannot seriously DENY your error – that would be the mark of a lunatic.

    So how long are you going to keep this fucking nonsense up?

    You asked – I demonstrated – you were making a false claim.

    Admit your error.

    Now.

  100. #100 BBD
    February 28, 2014

    He can’t: he’d die!

    Your point is taken. This pathological dishonesty and flat refusal to admit an absolutely unequivocally demonstrated error is surely the hallmark of mental illness. Perhaps he really does sense that if he admits one error, the myriads of others will burst through the walls of his denial and his mind will implode under the onslaught of reality.

Current ye@r *