Date record was 20.0° (2004), is now 20.2° C.
Oops, 20.4° C, mercury rising.
Until so far the opening of April : )
Sometimes it’s hard to know when it’s the first of Apri or not:
“Look out your window, can you see global warming?”
Look out your window, can you see the fucking Himalaya??
Kampen, if you didn’t get it, you can switch the senator for Mr. first hand Bicorne,
#5, you can’t explain? Hint, hint, nudge, nudge, winkie wink?
Are you from Barcelona Kampen?
I see meathead is now sourcing CFACT for information. Are there no depths to which this idiot will not stoop for his information?
Petri, Tina Fey was mocking Sarah Palin’s assinine reply to a question about what insight she had gained into Russia by living in Alaska…sheesh.
Meanwhile, looking out your window literally and metaphorically, I understand how you see only what you want to see.
It’s difficult for Olap’s little pointy head to think rationally, sitting on his little monocorne hardhat.
Eli misses Tim.
Everyone misses Tim. (Well, perhaps not the ferals that have over-run the place in his absence.)
#7, true, Holland is experiencing the Barcelona climate at present. Or to be sure, we are moving ABOVE that climate. We are actually moving above Gibraltar climate.
You don’t even know where all these places are.
#8, it is a kind of honesty for once. CFACT, it doesn’t even have a front door. Just a postbox. Coward liars.
Eli, prosecution and sentencing will be done by events. Let us sit back, relax and enjoy the mayhem.
Kampen, even though:
“Lake Superior, the largest of North America’s Great Lakes, is on its way to becoming the world’s biggest hot tub”, has the Chicago area set what appears to be an all time low Winter-cold record 2014.
Must be the accelerating global warming, because “according to scientists, climate change is causing the lake to heat up faster than any other lake on the planet.”
One would think that the hot water reservoir of Lake Superior (and the other great lakes) would balance up the harsh cold weather, or ist it first hand climate. Hmmm……
So does Stu 2
He has been missing in action for months.
#15, you are in fact pointing to the much larger regions going through record warmth. Also, you are pointing to the new, and dramatic, climate change re Rossby waves getting stuck. In some places this results in very stubborn cold pools. In one place, really. Of course, the stubborn hot pools are simply more impressive.
Like the period 1-10 April in Holland is set to achieve 13.3° C average temp, the ‘old’ record was 11.8° C waaayyyy back in 2011.
In Holland, most people love it. They are looking forward to a summer with such anomalies, as we’re still due for one. They will cry because such a summer will be unbearable. This is Holland, see, and we have some moisture rendering a 35 degrees day something else than it is in the Spanish interior.
Summer in Holland is still the only season that has not gotten out of hand but our turn will come.
#15, “One would think that the hot water reservoir of Lake Superior” – remembering there wasn’t much water to begin with
“Some are born idiots. Others have idiocy thrust upon them, But Olap makes it a triple whammy by asking for yet more.
It’s not like he hasn’t already been told.
Corporate honesty from Australia’s mining industry? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqXzAUaTUSc&feature=youtu.be
I know chek, it’ fascinating that your “triple whammy” shows that the planet’s fastest warming lake is to be found in a very cold area. But climate science is climate science…
#21, yeah, strange, what is a cold area could never ever warm up, of course, and never did, of course, so you’ll be snowmobiling on that lake all summer.
Funny, really funny, how the Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else… But, well, climate science is climate science and it has predicted that long time before it began to happen.
#19, this is a really dumb troll. Hilarious really.
Kampen, I agree. Chek’s “tripple whammy” isn’t any good, like all affectoids he posts here.
#24, just whammed and you know it, of course.
Kampen, I know, chek’s Lake Superior belly flop is painful to watch.
Ah, I see now. Olap went for the fourth dimensional stupid quadro-whammy and thinks those zones in my post at #19 are fixed. Even a time traveller wouldn’t see that one coming!
#26, yes, talk about it now, because…
Shy 0.7° C of today’s date record here, it was 22.2° waaayyyy back in 2001 and today’s max is 21.5° C.
Stretch of 4 days 20+ now, the record for this time of year was 1.
Tomorrow will be added to the stretch and looks like becoming the hottest of em all.
Normal max? For 1-10 April it is +11.6° C, already an inflated number due to drastic warming. Summer in March/April – temps these days are the norm for second half of June.
15 Open Threads in a row. Must be a record.
“already an inflated number due to drastic warming.”
Are you sure? Raw temp data or AGW adjusted?
Chek, the fastest heating lake on the planet – Da hot tub – has got the antarctic accelerating global warming sea ice flue.
Yes Olap, we know you have that one factoid lodged solid in the pointiest part of your head and therefore impervious to any further data. It must be quite the conundrum for you.
PantieZ @ #30
Raw temp data or AGW adjusted?</blockquote
(for which 'AGW adjusted' = conspissssary!!!!!)
The nutters must be out for their springtime walk.
Chek, why don’t you show us your “crippled whammy” again.
Of all portentologists here at Deltoid your the best.
You are the crippled whammy, Olap. You just can’t help it.
NRO continues its message, sceptical of CAGW, with an article by Rupert Darwall (http://www.cps.org.uk/experts/rupert-darwall/),
“Why the IPCC Report Neglects the Benefits of Global Warming -It needs catastrophe scenarios.”
“The summary [AR5 WG2], as the object of intensive political editing by government officials, is a document designed to generate talking points for sympathetic politicians and pundits to re-spin. Scientific coherence is not its goal. Instead of raising the bar in pursuit of objectivity, the current working group doubled down on its 2007 summary: It unfurls a series of distortions designed to magnify the threats, ignore the benefits, and downplay the possibility of adapting to climate change.”
The “Scientific coherence is not its goal.” well yes, something of an understatement there. Advocacy dressed up as science.
One would think that the hot water reservoir of Lake Superior (and the other great lakes) would balance up the harsh cold weather
Olap – he who puts the ‘more’ into moron, the tin-pot on cretin and the id into super-stupid.
If by ‘one would think’ you mean ‘what I (Olap) would think’, one would think (that is the rest of the sane world would think) sheer experience by now would have warned you off taking the road that your catastrophically limited abilities in reasoning would take you. But I guess you’re too thick and vain to even comprehend that.
What other, sane people do to find out is go to people who study these thing – but that does take some effort.
Indeed the Great Lakes do support a micro-climate but that doesn’t make them immune to intrusions by polar air masses
If you read the links (doubtful), one of the upsides of the freeze is: ” that perhaps it can prevent lake water levels from lowering like they did just last year. “With the ice cover, less water gets evaporated so lake levels stay high and help preserve some of the water”
Predictable Griselda – ignore the Report, go for the NRO’s dumb right wing rag conspisssary theory. By Buckley’s NRO. Fucking hell.
Shorter Griselda – don’t listen to the science, listen to the billionaires. They promise to trickle down all over you.
Don’t be so miserable chek, not everyone has your “lack of education”/ “one world view” of things. Get with the whole “Freedom of speech” thing, it’s the future!
Oh sod off, GSW. You have nothing to say and you aren’t clever enough to taunt artfully. You are simply dull, repetitive and tedious.
As you most certainly aren’t a millionaire Griselda, your ‘one world view’ of things is from the inside of your arse trying to look out.
‘Ignores the benefits’ – what a troll. It doesn’t divide into the profit and loss columns you worship in your holy books, it deals with ‘impacts’ and the impacts aren’t good, despite the ‘good news about global warming’ trash you’ve been pre-primed with on your preferred liar sites.
Oh, and free speech doesn’t mean idiocy shouldn’t be challenged, or libel be prosecuted. Never did, never will.
Well as you both don’t seem to have a problem with “Freedom of speech” in principle, some more from Darwall’s article for you to ruminate on,
“More egregiously, the summary speaks of rapid price increases following climate extremes since the 2007 report. This negligence amounts to downright dishonesty, as the summary omits mention of one of the principal causes of the 2007–08 spike in food prices, which is highlighted in the main body of the report. It was not climate change that increased food costs, but climate policies in the form of increased use of food crops in biofuel production, exacerbated by higher oil prices and government embargoes on food exports.”
Indeed. Thought Chris Field did well at the press conference in front of the Guardian, for want of better word, “Journalists” and sks “scientists”. Video here,
So why won’t the increasing radiative forcing from unabated CO2 emissions cause temperatures to increase over time?
As surface/tropospheric temperatures rise, physical climatology predicts several apparently unavoidable consequences:
– Increase in severity of summer heatwaves
– Increase in frequency and severity of drought
– Increase in intensity of precipitation
– Seasonal and spatial alterations in rainfall patterns
Why will these not have negative impacts on agricultural yields?
Ahh. This Rupert Darwall.
But BBD, a Heartless employed hack trumps the regiment of scientists who compiled WG2. In Griselda’s opinion.
Yes BBD, that Rupert Darwall, Huffingtonpost article here
“There is the obsession with secret funding sources and with the ideological motivations of non-adherents, things the philosopher Karl Popper identified as telltale signs of a pseudoscience.”
I think we’ve been there and done that over and over, don’t you chek?
Au contraire Griselda, there’s no question about the the funding providers and motivation of the think-tank brigade who make assertions but don’t actually do any work – other than to gainsay the work of others such as the IPCC.
So Darwall tries the double-bluff routine, and denier half-wits like you think that invalidates their perceived strategy of maintaining BAU. Whether that’s because you’re an idiot or a motivated idiot who misunderstands and laps up quote-mined Popper is immaterial.
Pointing out that your source is a right-wing ideologue is no more than due diligence, GSW.
Darwall is also, however, an ill-informed parroter of denier memes, which completes the undermining of his reliability as a source:
Instead of relying on speculative models based on the condescending assumption that farmers are robots and don’t adapt, a more intelligent approach would be to examine how farmers and agricultural output have reacted to climate change in the past. But the IPCC rendered this approach impossible when it erased previous periods during which temperatures might have been higher than they are now (symbolized by the Hockey Stick in the IPCC’s 2001 report). In 2005, Jonathan Overpeck, one of the drafting authors of the 2014 summary, e-mailed a colleague, saying he intended to “deal a mortal blow” to the supposed “misuse” of the Medieval Warm Period in the 2007 report. Overpeck succeeded in his aim of getting rid of the Medieval Warm Period.
Tired old denier memes, long debunked, but apparently good enough for Darwall.
But not good enough for me.
Now, back to the core argument, which is of course, grounded in physical climatology.
You skipped over that in your usual way.
Well, they bought, devised and paid for them, and they still work on the numpties like Griselda, Olap, PantieZ et al. who still believe mightily in them as articles of their faith.
I’d guess the corporately sponsored support for them is open ended as long as there remains another gullible fool still drawing breath..
Have you read the latest on Recursive fury over at Lucia’s?
Funny indeed that one of the “poor reviewers” of Loo’s super-scientific paper was a PhD-student in “journalism” with a couple of conf. papers on prostitution under her belt. Who wold have thunk?
I’m sure she could hav been a good reviewer if Loo’s paper was dealing with the increasing rates of prostitution coming with large amounts of well funded, privileged, heterosexual, (often) white men crounding up an climate scare conventions.
Amazing what kind of crap climate scientologist and portentoigst can get through the rigorous poor review process. In this case they got caught, but like we say in super-science: “the hidden statistics” is enormous.
*sigh* It’s a psychology paper you moronic imbecile.
Dr. Lewandowsky is a cognitive scientist, not a climate scientist. His paper is a study of … wait …. y’know if you have some time to spare (and you seem to have all the time you need to memorise garbage) you could volunteer as a subject.
Your type of robustly parroted ignorance would be ideal for Stephan’s research.
“Evidently, “Elaine McKewon is a third-year journalism PhD student at the University of Technology, Sydney”. Presumably, at the time she reviewed the article she was a 2nd-year PhD student.”
A predoctoral journalism student reviewing the stats and methodology of a pseudoscience study. Mmm.. what could go wrong there?
Lucia’s article is worth reading; McKewons’ take seems to be your a “denier” until you can get a certificate saying otherwise. i.e. that’s everyone.
“Superscience” indeed Olaus!
Cheek, Loo’s paper is a joke regardless of genre and field, and so is a peer reviewer of her calibre. Not to you though, but that’s in order.
The one’s worthy studies in cognitive psychology is portentologists and sooth sayers with bicorne personality and failblesse for imaginary well funded right wing conspiracies against climate science.
worthy studies in cognitive psychology is (sic) portentologists and sooth sayers (sic)
No comment necessary, but I doubt the cognitive science community (or any other community) are shaking in their boots at Olap’s grasp of reality or next pronouncement.
It is a matter of fact that conspiracist ideation is quite common amongst “climate sceptics”.
A matter of fact. Anyone who has interacted with “climate sceptics” for a year or two will accept this without demur.
Are you denying that this is a matter of fact? There is an internet-full of evidence supporting this, so think carefully before you respond.
There are two persistent nutters in this very thread who will go to their graves chanting “the hockey stick is broken” on the say-so of a paranoid Canadian crank and another know-nothing crank’s novel.
Nothing any scientist says or shows them will ever taint their faith in cranks.
And neither of them ever answered the question of how we square a global and synchronously warm MCA with a low climate sensitivity to radiative perturbation.
Instead, on we go with the evidence denial: the huge mass of science that demonstrates that there was no global and synchronous MCA as warm or warmer than the present:
PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia
Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.
* * *
McIntyre and Montford, the karaoke star vs…
PAGES-2K authors and affiliations:
Department of Botany, Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology, Karachi, 75300, Pakistan
Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York 10964, USA
Kevin J. Anchukaitis,
Brendan M. Buckley,
Edward R. Cook &
Jason E. Smerdon
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 2543, USA
Kevin J. Anchukaitis
School of Earth Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Asfawossen Asrat &
Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune, 411008, India
Hemant P. Borgaonkar
Dipartimento di Matematica e Geoscienze, University of Trieste, 34128, Italy
Martina Braida &
Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Birmensdorf, 8903, Switzerland
Ulf Büntgen &
Département Paléoenvironnements et Paléoclimats (PAL), Université Montpellier, Montpellier, 34095, France
Brian M. Chase
Department of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies and Religion, University of Bergen, Bergen, 5020, Norway
Brian M. Chase
Laboratorio de Dendrocronología y Cambio Global, Universidad Austral de Chile, Casilla 567, Valdivia, Chile
Duncan A. Christie &
Center for Climate and Resilience Research, Universidad de Chile, Casilla 2777, Santiago, Chile
Duncan A. Christie &
Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Tasmania 7050, Australia
Mark A. J. Curran,
Andrew D. Moy &
Tas van Ommen
Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, Tasmania 7005, Australia
Mark A. J. Curran,
Andrew D. Moy &
Tas van Ommen
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado 80305, USA
Henry F. Diaz
Department of Geography, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, 55099, Germany
Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yunnan, 666303, China
Faculty of Science, Nepal Academy of Science and Technology, Khumaltar, GPO Box 3323, Lalitpur, Nepal
Narayan P. Gaire
Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China
Quansheng Ge &
School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia
Departamento Astrofísica y CC de la Atmósfera, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, 28040, Spain
J Fidel González-Rouco
Lemaitre Center for Earth and Climate Research, Earth and Life Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1348, Belgium
School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, Wits, 2050, South Africa
Stefan W. Grab &
David J. Nash
Hydrologic Research Center, San Diego, California 92130, USA
Nicholas Graham &
Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research & Institute of Geography, University of Bern, Bern, 3012, Switzerland
Martin Grosjean &
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, 00014, Finland
Sami T. Hanhijärvi &
Atte A. Korhola
School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011, USA
Darrell S. Kaufman &
Nicholas P. McKay
International Project Office, Past Global Changes (PAGES), Bern, 3012, Switzerland
Thorsten Kiefer &
Lucien von Gunten
Department of Symbiotic System Science, Fukushima University, Fukushima, 960-1248, Japan
Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, 106 91, Sweden
Paul J. Krusic
Laboratoire d’Océanographie et du Climat: Expérimentations et Approches Numériques (LOCEAN), Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris cedex, 575252, France
Department of History, Stockholm University, Stockholm, 106 91, Sweden
Fredrik C. Ljungqvist
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd., National Climate Centre Auckland, 1011, Zealand
Andrew M. Lorrey
Department of Geography, Climatology, Climate Dynamics and Climate Change, Justus Liebig University, Giessen, 35390, Germany
Jürg Luterbacher &
Johannes P. Werner
Laboratoire des Science du Climat et de l’Environnement, Gif-sur-Yvette, 91 191, France
Department of Geography, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK
Danny McCarroll &
Maria R. Prieto
Desert Research Institute, Nevada System of Higher Education, Reno, Nevada 89512, USA
Joseph R. McConnell &
Instituto Argentino de Nivología, Glaciología y Ciencias Ambientales (IANIGLA), CCT-CONICET-Mendoza, Mendoza, 5500, Argentina
Mariano S. Morales,
Ignacio A. Mundo &
British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, CB3 0ET, UK
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Nagoya University, Nagoya, 464.8601, Japan
Takeshi Nakatsuka &
School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, Brighton, BN2 4GJ, UK
David J. Nash
Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32308, USA
Sharon E. Nicholson
Department of Glaciology, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association, Bremerhaven, 27570, Germany
College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4RJ, UK
Jonathan G. Palmer
Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
Jonathan G. Palmer,
Steven J. Phipps &
Chris S.M. Turney
ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
Steven J. Phipps
Centro de Estudios Cientificos, Valdivia, Chile
Department of Chemistry ‘Ugo Schiff’, University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino, 50019, Italy
Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA
Timothy M. Shanahan
LASG, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100029, China
Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 119017, Russia
Olga N. Solomina
Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA
Eric J. Steig
National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research, Goa, 403 804, India
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA
Department of Biology, Ghent University, Ghent, 9000, Belgium
Department of Geography, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, K1N 6N5, Canada
Andre E. Viau
Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, 2100, Denmark
Bo M. Vinther
Institute for Coastal Research, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Geesthacht, 21502, Germany
Sebastian Wagner &
National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado 80305, USA
Eugene R. Wahl
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
James W.C. White
Department of Forest Science, Shinshu University, Nagano, 399-4598, Japan
Competing financial interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
A predoctoral journalism student reviewing the stats and methodology
Just another freely given pointer to how little Olap and his contingent of moron’s know about the higher education system.
Easy to see how the cranks outed themselves, only to regret it laiter. But only when they realised how bad it made them look, not how stupid they actually are.
Chek, to you a third-year doctoral candidate may look impressive, but people with insights in higher education and normal peer review standards find it rather strange, to put it mildly.
Its kinda strange how meatball and gormless throw around their weight as if they are qualified to comment on anything remotely academic (neither of these regular Deltoid morons has anything remotely close to a PhD) and yet they are happy to throw heaps of praise on people who don’t have PhDs who challenge the vast majority of the scientific community on AGW. Look at the vat majority of blogs they inhabit: Watts (no PhD), McIntyre (no PhD), etc etc etc.
When scientists do have PhDs, it doesn’t matter how excellent their qualifications are: if they argue in favor of the IPCC conclusions, then they are to be smeared, ridiculed, and attacked relentlessly. Look at Mann; Hansen; Santer; Trenberth; and many others. Me included. Meatball and gormless aren’t anywhere close to me in terms of scientific standing, but that doesn’t stop them.
We have a word for this. Its called ‘hypocrisy’. And you can bet your bottom dollar that if that graduate student has been critical of research by Lewandowsky or AGW, meatball and gormless would have been praising her to the hills. It all depends on what side you’re on.
Jeff, why are you so impressed with a second (or third) year PhD-student reviewing Loo’s paper for a academic journal? His paper is crap, but why the smell wasn’t picked up by the reviewer seems quite obvious, don’t you think?
But you, Oily, are the archetypal proof that deniers are, indeed, conspiracy cranks. As BBD pointed out above, everyone familiar with the debate knows it’s true…
So smiley that up, deadhead!
Bill, the ones shouting about conspiracies are climate scientologists. Their favorite tune is about the right wing fossil fuel lobby obstructing climate scientists. Sounds familiar?
And Mr Bicorne and his minion chek are both equally impressed with a third year PhD-student in journalism doing peer review for a cognitive psychology journal.
#30, the freezing point of water went up rendering skating a rarity these winters. We also shift the season twice yearly so a to get plants flowering six weeks early and losing leaf six weeks late.
#55, the cognitive community observes this petritroll.
Two points in response to meatball:
He says, “Their favorite tune is about the right wing fossil fuel lobby obstructing climate scientists. Sounds familiar?”
Its familiar because its true, at least partially. They don’t obstruct climate scientists, but they do invest heavily in distorting or downplaying what we do know about AGW in order to mislead the public and policymakers. they do this through a range of outlets: think tanks, policy forums, astroturf groups and media ownership/advertising as well as ‘flak’. If meatball think that corporation that profit from the unlimited use of fossil fuels are honest brokers of the truth, then he is more deranged than even I thought before.
As for Lewandowsky’s paper being crap, that’s hilarious. Its crap IN YOUR USELESS OPINION because the conclusions reveal what most scientists already know – that there is a huge scientific consensus over the reality and potentially severe consequences of AGW. As someone who works at both a university and a research laboratory, I can say that I’ve met only a small number of AGW sceptics in my entire career. The fact that Tol was highlighted as one dissenting’scientist'(which he is NOT; he’s an economist) among 70 academics who were lead authors in the IPCC shows how thin on the ground contrarians.
I find it amazing that deniers outside of academia can lecture scientists on matters relating to the views of the scientific community. Meatball hasn’t been anywhere near a university science lecture hall in his life, and he tries to lecture me about what my peers think about CC. That he even tries is a joke of the most immense proportions.
Here’s the crux of it:
Swedish meatball calls me ‘Mr Bicorne’.
Actually I am a tenured Professor. I have 140 publications and 3500 plus citations. My research now well outcites any climate change denier he can name (including Richard Lindzen, the pin-up boy of the deniers). But my views on CC fall in line with an overwhelming majority of climate scientists as well as other environmental scientists.
For this I am relentlessly smeared by him and a few other equally unqualified idiots (GSW, Jonas etc).
That’s the MO for idiots like meatball who camouflage their political views by claiming to be interested in science.
Mr Bicorne, your opinions are a not in harmony with climate science, they are on par with climate scientology. Huge difference, my friend.
And that’s why you also think a third year Phd-student in journalism is a good reviewer for an article in a cognitive psychology journal.
You can waive all you want with your bicorne, but that doesn’t change a thing regarding the poop-quality of Loo’s paper.
The Yokohama-report will give climate scientology a few extra days in the sun, but will soon be pushed back to the fringes again, as reality and real climate science undress its unscientific first hand portentology.
GSW does not even know which paper McKewon reviewed. Oh, and PhD students reviewing paper is not unknown. I reviewed at least 15 for two of the top journals in my field during my PhD. Chosen explicitly by the Editors, it should be noted.
I personally would consider someone working in the field of journalism an excellent reviewer for a paper that investigates public comments in electronic media.
Breaking news that may be some interest to Mr Bicorne,
“French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte Had A 1.5 Inch Penis, Documentary Reveals ”
It’s not all good news though,
“The Channel 4 programme will be broadcast on Wednesday at 9pm, and sees an apparently unimpressed Evans remark: “I’ve seen a lot of penises, from a Chihuahua to a Sperm Whale. This is so withered.”
“By the way, Urban Dictionary defines “Napoleon complex” as “a personality complex that consists of power trips and false machismo”
I’m sure you’ll be invited to participate in the follow-up jeff – “Reunited at last!”
Marco, so you also think that a third year Phd-student in journalism with a few conf-papers on prostitution for her name, was a good choice, and that she, due to this background, probably was hand picked by the editors?
I don’t think Olap and the howling thickoids realise that a PhD student is not an undergraduate? Why would they? It’s not like they’ve studied past grade school.
Chek, I’m well versed in the academic hierarchy, but not you apparently. Regardless, the peer review quality of a third year Phd-student with interests in prostitution, is meagre, to say the least.
If she rigorously had been singld out by the editors to review an article on, for instance, prostitution problems associated with massive climate scare convention, I might have agreed with the choice.
Its gets worse:
from meatball: “Mr Bicorne, your opinions are a not in harmony with climate science, they are on par with climate scientology”
Says someone who has no formal qualifications in any relevant field. Its too bad that the vast majority of scientists doing the actual research and with the strong pedigrees disagree with you, meatball – hence the conclusions of the latest IPCC reports, the official statements of every National Academy of Science in every nation on Earth etc. If anyone is practicing voodoo science, its the AGW deniers.
As for gormless, its a bit rich him accusing me of expressing ‘machismo and power trips’ given the content of his posts. You write as if you are some kind of expert, when the truth is you are an uneducated idiot where it counts. The point being, gormless, that you have no scientific expertise in any field remotely connected to environmental science. I do, and way more than you. All you have left is bullshit and sour grapes.
And I reiterate: in terms of scientific qualification, I shit all over you, gormless and your sidekick, meatball. Stick that in your craw.
The monkeys know nothing about that and care even less. They’re told to go fling their barely comprehensible shit, and off they go. Reduced to inventing their own inane sub-divisions of science, wishful thinking, projection and penis envy as above. Comments #69 and 71 above aren’t in touch with anything of any relevance to anyone.
Maybe Stephan is recording this material for an even more devastating future paper. His work so far won’t have captured the half of it.
Regardless, the peer review quality of a third year Phd-student with interests in prostitution, is meagre, to say the least.
What the fuck would you know about it, beyond the two phrases of irrelevance you’ve been briefed on to go shit-flinging?
Olaus, since you suddenly show some small amount of sanity in #74, I recommend you look through the references of the Recursive Fury paper. You might be interested to learn there are two references to McKewon’s prior work on climate science denial in the media, and in particular about narratives.
That is, she actually has experience in an area directly relevant to Recursive Fury.
Perhaps Olaus will now question why he did not know McKewon had published in a relevant area, and that Recursive Fury even references those papers (which , I should note, is the likely reason she was selected as peer reviewer).
Chek, the very smelly shit was found all over the loo-paper, but not by the third year Phd-student in journalism with some kowledge about prostitution.
And Mr Bicorne goes on, missing the essential part, as always. Dear little Napoleon, you distort what real climate science says, and turn it into climate scientolgy and first hand portentology.
The age of unscientific scare mongering is about to end though. Probably because more and more people understands that the accelerating global warming was lobal.
You’re drifting away in your own made up world, Olap.
Can’t say we’ll miss anything.
Aha, thanks Marco, she has apparently done som work based on the 97%-strawman. Amazing! No wonders that she couldn’ feel or smell the Loo-crap.
I stand corrected though, she was probably not elected on the basis of her work on prostitution but as a part of the blindfolded crowd conducting research on false premises, ergo that sceptics are not to be found within the 97%-figure.
Even worse chioce.
What false premises?
It’s been plainly apparent for years that deniers are cranks, idiots and loons. Lewandowsy isn’t news, it’s just confirmation.
Sane people do not behave as you and your little gang do, Olap.
#81, as good an admission as any. Carry on.
Meatball, get this through your mutton-soft brain: the conclusions of the IPCC lay out the AGW predicament in black and white, This IS the state of the art in the science. And the vast majority of scientists agree. I work with them you clot. You don’t. My guess is that you’ve probably never met a qualified scientist in your life.
Moreover, if the Lewandowsky article is so incorrect, where are all the peer-reviewed rebuttals? As it turns out, the sole source of rebuttals is contrarian mutterings (Tol and the denialsophere). The truth is that the vast majority of scientists concur with the conclusions of the IPCC and with the statements produced by every major scientific body and nation on Earth. If its not exactly 97%, its well over 90%, and represents about as unified an opinion as is possible in any area dealing with the environment. Good grief, if anybody is pushing ludicrous conspiracy theories its meatball, who appears to suggest that most climate scientists do not agree with the IPCC reports, or that most of them are contrarians. He’s either insane, or deluded, or both.
What is so remarkable from the likes of meatball and gormless is that they rant on about ‘science’ and ‘non-science’ as if they can distinguish between the two. Neither of these fuckwits is a scientist, yet they try and lecture scientists about two. I’ve asked meatball innumerable times what his day job is, and every time he does not reply. Its not like telling us what he does will give his identity away or anything, but it will give away the fact that he’s got no qualifications whatsoever in any area remotely relevant.
As Chek said, it takes unmitigated gall for meatball to lecture anybody here about anything academic. To belittle a PhD student, given meatball’s own scientific illiteracy, is galling to say the least.
“It’s been plainly apparent for years that deniers are cranks, idiots and loons. Lewandowsy isn’t news, it’s just confirmation”.
EXACTLY. Couldn’t say it better myself. There are very, very few scientifically qualified deniers. If there were, we’d know all about them. They would be given veritable megaphones by the think tanks and lobby groups to bloat their numbers. But they simply do not exist. That’s why the few there are become household names, like Lindzen, Singer, Michaels, the Idso’s, Balling, Spencer, Soon etc. And now Curry. They are primarily old, most have mediocre publishing and citation records, and they are constantly quoted in denier circles. Many of them have been sniping on for decades. As far back as 1998 a memo from the American Petroleum Institute was leaked in which they claimed to be concerned that they might lose their anti-AGW argument if they continued to rely on the same people as deniers. Here we are, 16 years later, and many of the prominent contrarians are the same old farts that were being used for propaganda purposes in 1998. THE FOSSIL FUEL LOBBY SIMPLY CANNOT RECRUIT ENOUGH YOUNGER SCIENTISTS TO DOWNPLAY AGW. That is clear.
This is proof, if ever there was any, that they are exceedingly few in number. The 97% number? Its easy to arrive at that figure.
Mr Bicorne, you are a typical 97%-believer. If I say that CO2 is a GHG, you invent that I don’t believe this, If I say that nature itself responds to rising temps, you fabricate that I don’t bleive this, and so on….
The 97% is a figure without meaning except when it comes to display the conspiratorial mind-set of climate scientologists and portentologists.
Deal with Napoleon. Your boggey man isn’t real and that’s also a major explanation behind why Loo’s paper has high shit-quality. Everything in it caused by conspiracy ideation and recursive fury.
Good news for OP, GSW and co,
La La La La La La La!
Criminal negligence at work by the GOP.
But in reality,.
When was not knowing an excuse for allowing species wipe-out – including us. If those bozos don’t change their tune then they should become extinct otherwise we will have another late Permian grade extinction event.
Great article on the threat of SLAPPs that led to the retraction of the Lewandowsky et al. paper.
The key here is that AGW deniers and anti-environmental groups will use any means – no matter how devious or unsavory – to silence the scientific community by-and-large. This is what they have done using SLAPPs to intimidate grass roots opposition to corporate activities. Note that in retracting the article, the journal made it clear that they consider the paper sound but that the threat of lawsuits from well-funded denier sources threatened to overwhelm then financially. Expect more of this to occur as the evidence for AGW piles up and pressure for mitigation becomes greater.
Meatball, you wouldn’t know fact from fiction if it bit you in the ass.
And again I ask you: what is your profession? If you have an ounce of courage you’ll tell us all what you do.
But you won’t, because it will reveal to all of us here what a useless lying sack of s*** you are.
you are a typical 97%-believer
That’s the result of several peer reviewed surveys. Not having any science, just disbelief and denial backing you up, is your own fault for being a credulous idiot.
Nobody cares what a dumbo like you and your pals think, it’s what you can show. And you’ve got nothing to show, apart from moron-level denial.
Chek, I am certainly much more happy to have 97% of scientists on my side than a measly 3%. And the 3% are more often than not on the academic fringe.
What the deniers think is that, by smearing scientists and through the use of bullying and threats, they can silence us. Irrespective of the Lewandowsky paper, there’s other studies also showing that the vast majority of published studies as well as qualified scientists support the conclusions of the IPCC as well as their own national academies of science. The idiot denier brigade use the old strategy I have discussed before: that without 100% unequivocal proof of a problem, then the problem does not exist. Thus, they see as a threat any studies showing an overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW, and they do everything they can to silence them. Then they argue that there are no accurate surveys, and try to turn this into an argument suggesting that a large proportion of the scientific community – maybe even a majority – downplay AGW. This is their strategy, and why papers like Lewandowsky’s are seen as a threat. Its also remarkable that those who are most vehemently critical of Lewandowsky’s work are not academics or scientists but ideologues like meathead and the denier weblogs he reads.
Note how they don’t do their own surveys because they know full well that the results – if properly scrutinized and peer-reviewed – would also produce results heavily meaning towards >90%.
Olaus is doing a great job here of providing fodder for Lewandowsky’s next paper.
I’m tempted to say “Surely he realises that’s what he’s doing?”, seeing I’m in the mood to play for the laughs
Yup, Olaus is doing great work, making further unsubstantiated claims about McKewon.
Ah well, what else can you expect from the dismissives.
What’s unsubstantiated Marco? “97%” is given a meaning it doesn’t have IRL and from there on the rest becomes crap, like Jeff’s bicornish litanies and fabrications.
The scare monger carnival has lost its rythm, thanks to climate scientology.
Sounds true. See: Donors Trust.
These are matters of fact, you clueless, dishonest fucking shill.
Ah, Olaus, now says he’s just making stuff up anyway!
But nice work moving the goalposts again, after being caught peddling misinformation (again). But, MbW, eh?
It’s funny how the clowns can be so noisy yet never actually answer a direct question.
Here are some they skipped earlier:
Dodged question #1:
A matter of fact. Anyone who has interacted with “climate sceptics” for a year or two will accept this without demur.
* * *
Dodged question #2:
why won’t the increasing radiative forcing from unabated CO2 emissions cause temperatures to increase over time?
What’s true, meatball, is that the VAST MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS (certainly > 90%) AND PUBLISHED RESEARCH SUPPORTS AGW. And on this basis most scientists agree that we ought to be doing something about it. And I sure as hell know a lot more working scientists than you do, Petri, because I am one of them and I work with them as well. YOU DON’T. Your worldview comes from blogs and other similar shitty sources.
And see if you can answer my question: what is your profession? Or, like Jonas, will you continue to hide behind the truth that your background has nothing remotely science-y in it?
By the way, for the record your last post (#94) was about as juvenile as it can get. I do not describe litanies nor do i make up fabrications. The IPCC and every major scientific organization on the planet reach the same conclusion: GW is serious, it is largely man-made, and we need to take serious actions to mitigate its most deleterious effects.
On this point there is almost complete agreement among the scientific community. There are very few dissenting scientists. As I said, if there were, the denial lobby wouldn’t have to depend on the same boring old farts as well as people like Richard Tol or Bjorn Lomborg. This very fact shows that the vast majority of scientists – myself included – have moved on.
Its really weird watching Petri ritually humiliate himself on here, forever trying to impugn the bulk of the scientific community under his silly ‘scientology’ banner. He’s got very littel of the scientific community on his side, so he;s left with nothing more than to smear most of us as ‘scientologists’. Heaven knows who the ‘real’ scientists are, but I think I listed just all of the ones Petri listed earlier (the old retired farts club plus Tol and Lomborg).
And trust Petri to come out with this garbage only days after the IPCC published its most serious report yet, and only weeks after the joint UK Royal Society-US National Academy of Science article that reached the same serious conclusions. Petri is do utterly deluded its as if these reports don’t exist. There aren’t any similar studies from esteemed scientists disputing AGW; instead, the denial lobby relies on wafer thin crap from corporate funded think tanks or weblogs. That’s ‘their science’ in a nutshell.
Petri is a typical denier: all bravado with an anonymous monicker on a web site but totally invisible in the real world. He’s never been near a science lab in his life, yet he thumps his chest here as if he’s some sort of alpha male in science able to distinguish between sound and shoddy research. When challenged on his source of wisdom, its always the same: smear, smear, smear, without a shred of empirical support. When asked what he does professionally to be such an armchair expert, its always the same teflon strategy: avoid, avoid, avoid. That’s because this twerp’s brilliance is in his own mind. He clearly has a pre-determined worldview but in reality is as thick as a pile of bricks.
Poor Mr Bicorne, I’m also among the 97%, but your conspiratorial mind can’t handle that information. And that’s why 97% has no meaning what so ever, except for fringe climate scientologist like you.
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.
Past time for more thread.