April 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Olaus Petri
    April 3, 2014

    And the Loo, of course and the rest of the unscientific scare-gang. :-)

  2. #2 BBD
    April 3, 2014

    Olaus

    If you accept the radiative physics and the paleoclimate evidence for ECS being around ~3C if not higher, then why – how can you dismiss the potential for dangerous warming under BAU emissions scenarios?

    This is schizophrenic position. IMO either you are lying when you claim to be of the 97% consensus or you don’t really understand what it means to subscribe to that consensus.

  3. #3 BBD
    April 3, 2014

    And Olaus, since you are still wittering about Lewandowsky:

    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? Yes or no?

    There is an internet-full of evidence supporting this, so think carefully before you respond.

  4. #4 BBD
    April 3, 2014

    Come on, Olaus.

  5. #5 chek
    April 3, 2014

    Mr Monocorne – as we’ve seen with his political ramblings – isn’t capable of arguing a consistent point, because he understands none of it. A dipshit denier foot soldier told to go deny without the tools to do so.
    Griselda is his ‘intellectual’ backup, and we’ve seen how that works out.
    A waste of mass to the universe.

  6. #6 BBD
    April 3, 2014

    What never ceases to amaze me is the… plasticity of intellect displayed by “sceptics”. They clearly feel no need for coherent, cause/effect logic or for intellectual consistency. Argument debunked? Switch to some random alternative and regurgitate the original crap a week later. Rational (and intellectually honest) people cannot do this.

    If we had an argument about the merits of direct-mounting bridge humbuckers or some such bollocks, I would be constrained by the evolution of the conversation. I couldn’t just jump around or go back to something demonstrably wrong and carry on as if nothing had happened. Couldn’t.

    These people are profoundly odd.

  7. #7 chek
    April 3, 2014

    In a nutshell.
    Being exposed to the information that is flying about in fora like this one (crank ones excepted) would have a cumulative effect on anyone not a crank. And even a crank would have choose between honesty and maintaining loyalty to the crank theory by being dishonest.

    Just while we’re on the subject of humbuckers and out of curiosity, have you ever found it necessary to adjust the pole screws on one? And yet not only do the originals all have a row of’em, but there’s even the option twin rows of the bastards on some newer offerings.

  8. #8 BBD
    April 3, 2014

    And even a crank would have choose between honesty and maintaining loyalty to the crank theory by being dishonest.

    Not sure about this. Cranks are cranks because they reject (deny) evidence and have bendy, squishy plastic minds that somehow accommodate to the cognitive dissonance.

    It’s so hard to tell if you are dealing with the merely clinically insane or with conscious and calculated dishonesty. I’m tending towards the view that they are simply barking and the apparent dishonesty is simply an emergent property.

    Just while we’re on the subject of humbuckers and out of curiosity, have you ever found it necessary to adjust the pole screws on one?

    No, never. I think the magnetic field is strong enough, even with fancy degaussed magnets (tone chasing) that pole height isn’t an issue. With weedy Fender single coils, apparently not, hence the factory adjustment with the poles high at D and G and low at B. I suppose neck radius might also be a factor – strat fretboards being being curved; Les Pauls flatter.

  9. #9 BBD
    April 3, 2014

    there’s even the option twin rows of the bastards on some newer offerings.

    DiMarzio’s had them way back in the early ’80s, if not before. Hex key adjustable. I had one in the bridge of a geetar I once owned…

  10. #10 Jeff Harvey
    April 3, 2014

    “And the Loo, of course and the rest of the unscientific scare-gang.”

    Meatball has nothing new to say. He’s a broken record. He doesn’t provide any definition of what good scientific practice is because he’s not a frigging scientist. He’s a complete and utter layman who hates government. He assumes that all of the IPCC documents as well as the unanimous conclusions of every major scientific organization on Earth are examples of ‘unscientific scaremongering’ (he doesn’t say it but it is inferred). Its no wonder that he ends up as detritus in webs where he can anonymously blather on and on ad nauseum. As if scientists listen to him. Any scientists. He should be honored that I dare waste my breath on his nonsense.

    If I can figure out his drunken, semi-illiterate babble at #100, I assume he is suggesting that the vast majority of scientists and scientific evidence actually supports the denier meme. If this is true – and given his English writing is about grade school level so I cannot be sure – then he’s dafter than I thought. Insanity? Seems to be a distinct possibility. This is like arguing with someone who is convinced that 97% of the evidence suggests the Earth is flat, in spite of the peer-reviewed literature, the views of virtually the entire scientific community, and the consensus of every major scientific organization. Every major organization on Earth takes AGW as a given. I received the British Ecological Society quarterly review today and it reviews several new books that examine the ecological consequences of AGW. The best is by Eric Post, and I will buy it (Princeton university Press). In each of these reviews, AGW is accepted as a scientific fact, and its effects – real and potential – are discussed. I wonder where meathead’s narrative fits into this. As I said before, I’ve met thousands of scientists in my career and I can count those who downplay or dismiss AGW on one hand. That’s why its an utter waste of time trying to engage in a discussion with a twit like meathead – no substance, no knowledge, just puerile rants.

    I actually think meathead – who has never attended a scientific conference in his life, who doesn’t read the primary literature, who has no relevant educational background – somehow thinks that 97% of the scientific evidence and opinion is on his side. Hw does one debate this kind of ignorance? In person, it would be easy. I’d face him anywhere, anytime, at any scientific venue, and see him laughed off the stage. But on a blog?!?!?!?!? He can say whatever he likes and slip away. It’s high time to ban this twerp. He was once: to the asylum at Jonas’s place. But he slipped the leash and came back here. I for one am sick and tired of his willful ignorance.

  11. #11 BBD
    April 3, 2014

    Laugh at the idiot, then. Unless he answers a few questions in good faith:

    Eg. Olaus, if you accept the radiative physics and the paleoclimate evidence for ECS being around ~3C if not higher, then why – how – can you dismiss the potential for dangerous warming under BAU emissions scenarios?

    This is a schizophrenic position. IMO either you are lying when you claim to be of the 97% consensus or you don’t really understand what it means to subscribe to that consensus.

    Help us to understand what is going on in your head by engaging directly and answering questions intended to clarify your position.

  12. #12 GSW
    April 3, 2014

    I think someone [Lionel?] mentioned the Permian Mass Extinction earlier today. One of the best guys on this is Doug Erwin from the Smithsonian; he has a few books published and a couple of talks on youtube worth listening to,

    “8. Doug Erwin – Perspectives on Limits to Growth: Biodiversity: past, present and future”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YyLC7yYPsw

    and

    “The Mother of Mass Extinctions: How Life on Earth Nearly Ended 250 Million Years Ago”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3p_8UvWq44

    These are talks rather than documentaries. The thing I like about his “take”/style is that it’s refreshingly advocacy free.

  13. #13 BBD
    April 3, 2014

    The end-Permian extinction was caused by GHG forcing. Nobody now disputes this (except those who haven’t kept up with the paleo literature).

  14. #14 Lionel A
    April 3, 2014

    The thing I like about his “take”/style is that it’s refreshingly advocacy free.

    So what is wrong with advocating measures to avoid another huge mass extinction brought on by us. Have you any idea of the monster positive feedbacks latent in the Earth’s oceans, cryosphere and landmasses.

    What we are doing could, and probably will be, a trigger for the monster lurking as Wally Broecker understood.

    Compartmentalist thinking is not going to help us, that is for the deadbeats of the GOP.

  15. #15 Jeff Harvey
    April 3, 2014

    I suppose GSW thinks that a human-caused mass extinction event is OK, and any scientists who express concern over the consequences of it are going beyond their professional remit.

    As BBD says, the Permian extinction event was caused by massive short term changes in abiotic conditions, perhaps as a result of intense volcanism. Most importantly, the time scales being envisaged are many times slower than the massive changes being inflicted across the biosphere by humans right now. With climate change the final nail in the coffin, natural ecosystems across the biosphere also have to deal with a suite of other anthropogenic stresses. These are reducing the planet’s capacity to support humanity. What we do know is that the combined human assault is reducing a range of critical ecological services that underpin the material economy. If we continue on the current trajectory, the results are likely to be dire.

  16. #16 Jeff Harvey
    April 3, 2014

    This excellent interview and book by Elizabeth Colbert sums up the current situation:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK-4ubvbrLQ

  17. #17 Jeff Harvey
    April 3, 2014

    I meant this one, but the former one is food also:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prxeJmjxEA4

  18. #18 Jeff Harvey
    April 3, 2014

    ooops good. Its getting late.

  19. #19 BBD
    April 3, 2014

    Most importantly, the time scales being envisaged are many times slower than the massive changes being inflicted across the biosphere by humans right now.

    The error bars are narrowing down; see Burgess et al. (2014) discussion at SkS here.

  20. #20 chek
    April 3, 2014

    So Griselda, your view is that it’s the scientists’ job to describe stick by stick, curtain by chair how the house (with all of us in it) is burning down, but not to ‘advocate’ action to halt the fire.

    And yet you have no problem with billionaires ‘advocating’ business as usual by fair means and foul from their supposedly fireproof bunkers while the proverbial fire spreads.

    You don’t really think things through, do you.

  21. #21 chek
    April 3, 2014

    DiMarzio’s had them way back in the early ’80s, if not before.

    Just the regular single row screws on my pair from ’78

  22. #22 BBD
    April 4, 2014

    It was a high output DM pickup but I don’t remember what model it was. It looked like this. Both sets of poles adjustable with an alan key.

  23. #23 BBD
    April 4, 2014

    That would be Allen key.

  24. #24 Jeff Harvey
    April 4, 2014

    Great article in the Guardian puts the bile spewed out by Petri in complete perspective: the science is settled. Its time to bloody well do something.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/apr/03/ipcc-un-climate-change-perfect-storm-zombie-oil

  25. #25 cRR Kampen
    April 4, 2014

    #8 BBD “It’s so hard to tell if you are dealing with the merely clinically insane or with conscious and calculated dishonesty.”

    Easy: guilty until proven not.

  26. #26 cRR Kampen
    April 4, 2014

    Date max records just being shy from past two days, but worry not, the nights are taking over. Date record minimum temp smashed with 1.5° C difference. Tomorrow’s will be annihilated, too.

  27. #27 GSW
    April 4, 2014

    Interesting post over at WUWT for those following the Lewandowsky/sks mob activism scandal.

    “A stunning revelation from a UWA Vice Chancellor Paul Johnson over access to Lewandowsky’s poll data”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/03/a-stunning-revelation-from-a-uwa-vice-chancellor-paul-johnson-over-access-to-lewandowsky-poll-data/

    “One cannot imagine a more egregious abuse of the scientific process as we have witnessed with Lewandowsky’s vilification of climate skeptics using the journal Psychological Science as a bully pulpit.”

    They even work in a quote from Judith Curry on Michael Mann,

    “For the past decade, scientists have come to the defense of Michael Mann, somehow thinking that defending Michael Mann is fighting against the ‘war on science’ and is standing up for academic freedom. Its time to let Michael Mann sink or swim on his own. Michael Mann is having all these problems because he chooses to try to muzzle people that are critical of Mann’s science, critical of Mann’s professional and personal behavior, and critical of Mann’s behavior as revealed in the climategate emails. All this has nothing to do with defending climate science or academic freedom.”

    The Scandal continues for UWA,

    “This episode is turning into quite an ethics quagmire for UWA, I can see why Johnson would purposely violate their own policy by telling Woods that UWA won’t share the data. The data itself must be damning for them to want to protect it this much in violation of their own policy; perhaps with data even showing that some of the responses to the poll that McIntyre wants to examine came from within the University itself, creating another, more culpable conflict of interest and violation of UWA’s own research policy.”

    Worth reading in its entirety and theres a nice timeline of emails and UWA policies.

  28. #28 chek
    April 4, 2014

    Griselda, a bunch of cranks going bananas is not a ‘scandal’.
    They’re just doing what they do best.

  29. #29 Lionel A
    April 4, 2014

    Jeff @ #16

    From the video:

    ‘Because most of us live in cities isolated from the rhythms of nature…’

    Get that OP, GSW, 2Stupid & co?

    Biodiversity targets – failed
    Pollution targets failed
    A CO2 targets – failed
    Over harvesting – failed
    Economics – failed
    Equitable trading society – failed
    Future of humanity and fellow travellers on this planet – failing if not failed.

    #17

    ‘Field Notes from a Catastrophe’ is worth a look for those that have not already, another title on my bookshelf having been read at least twice.

    #24

    I wonder what Roger Pielke would make of that?

    Do you get this OP, GSW etc?

    So much ignorant opining on display from the usual suspects, this has to stop.

  30. #30 Lionel A
    April 4, 2014

    “One cannot imagine a more egregious abuse of the scientific process as we have witnessed with Lewandowsky’s WUWT & co. with vilification of climate skeptics scientists using the journal Psychological Science crank blogs and third rate media organs as a bully pulpit.”

    Fixed.

    There are the sources of the real, ‘…lies straight from the pit of hell’, Rep Paul Broun. Who is he representing, he is failing in his duties and should be removed. OF course he makes a useful example of the idiocy on display from the GOP.

  31. #31 chek
    April 4, 2014

    h/t to Bernard
    for pointing out Bob Ward’s identification of Richard Tol’s list of ‘”good news about AGW” ‘errors.
    It might be read by some that Tol was a GWPF Trojan horse inside the IPCC process, given his (Tol’s) eagerness to include his own flawed work, and throwing his toys out of his pram when his ploy was brought to light by a more careful researcher.

  32. #32 cRR Kampen
    April 4, 2014

    #27, yes, that was interesting for me in a white coat; I especially broke a jaw laughing at this whine: “… and WUWT wasn’t even asked.”, awww….

  33. #33 cRR Kampen
    April 4, 2014

    #31 chek o do I love how facts are so toxic for some : )

  34. #34 chek
    April 4, 2014

    cRR – like coyotes howling at the moon. One seriously wonders if Griselda didn’t place it here for laughs, then what?

  35. #35 Lionel A
    April 4, 2014

    For the record Bob Ward’s page at LSE:

    Errors in estimates of the aggregate economic impacts of climate change

    I smell something rather stronger than simple mistakes or oversights here.

  36. #36 Lionel A
    April 4, 2014

    It is way past time for the BBC to ditch GWPF members and allies as counter balance to climate scientists:

    MPs accuse BBC of creating ‘false balance’ on climate change with unqualified sceptics.

    And Charities Commission, WAKE UP and do your job here!

  37. #37 cRR Kampen
    April 4, 2014

    #36, victims of the floods. Re-faceblogged, thanx.

  38. #38 cRR Kampen
    April 4, 2014

    #34, exactly, like howling at the moon – and feeling where that saying comes from: a pain in the neck…

  39. #39 Jeff Harvey
    April 4, 2014

    Lionel, many thanks for your post. One has to remember that gormless gets much of his worldview from crank right wing denier blogs populated by crank right wing non-scientists.

    God only knows who he targets with his bullshit, but all I can assume is that its Olaus Meatball as he appears to be the only anti-science blogger contributing – er – contaminating here lately.

    Moreover, I read this with amusement: “Lewandowsky’s vilification of climate skeptics”, which should read: “Lewandowsky’s vilification of lying climate-change deniers”. A skeptic is someone who changes their mind as new data comes in. A denier is someone who will stick to a discredited meme even as it is sinking beneath the waves. There are very few skeptics in the climate change camp, because it is clear that most are driven by their own political agendas, and damn the science.

  40. #40 Bernard J.
    April 4, 2014
  41. #41 BBD
    April 4, 2014

    Still wittering about Lewandowsk and still no answer to my question:

    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.

    Come on, you dishonest little shits…

  42. #42 BBD
    April 4, 2014

    Great news about Tol and Bob Ward btw. Been chortling all afternoon. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

  43. #43 BBD
    April 4, 2014

    Further confirmation that the misnomered “Medival Warm Period” was largely confined to the NH: Neukom et al. (2014).

    From the press release:

    They compiled climate data from over 300 different locations and applied a range of methods to estimate Southern Hemisphere temperatures over the past 1000 years.In 99.7 percent of the results, the warmest decade of the millennium occurs after 1970.

    Surprisingly, only twice over the entire last millennium have both hemispheres simultaneously shown extreme temperatures. One of these occasions was a global cold period in the 17th century; the other one was the current warming phase, with uninterrupted global warm extremes since the 1970s.
    “The ‘Medieval Warm Period’, as identified in some European chronicles, was a regional phenomenon”, says Raphael Neukom. “At the same time, temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere were only average.”

    The researchers ascribe these large differences to so-called “internal variability”.

    Some of you may recall my insistence on this point in previous discussions with paleoclimate misrepresenters here.

    There was no global, synchronous “Medieval Warm Period” as warm as or warmer than the present. McIntyre was always wrong. All the pseudosceptic claims to the contrary were always wrong. The IPCC was in fact correct. Mann was correct.

    Predictably, Willard Tony and McIntyre are already fulminating and making false claims about errors etc.

  44. #44 Lionel A
    April 4, 2014

    This report comes out in the US:

    New Government Report Warns of ‘Cascading System Failures’ Caused By Climate Change

    and Abbott adopts this attitude:

    Anger Mounts After Australian PM Calls Climate Concerns ‘Clutter,’ Refuses To Mention Them.

    When Abbott walks into a room everybody else should leave, he stinks!

  45. #45 Jeff Harvey
    April 4, 2014

    Great post by James Powell, Bernard.

    Can’t wait to see Petri call the 99% a bogus figure – with no evidence whatsoever.

  46. #46 chek
    April 4, 2014

    McIntyre was always wrong

    Strictly speaking, McinTyres was only the crank who provided the number soup for the Barton scam, it was David Deming who claimed in his Senate Committee hearing in 2006 that “a major researcher in the area of climate change … said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

    In a subsequent interview he claimed the email (since eaten by the dog) was from anOverpeck. Of course the world is overrun with Overpecks – the Smiths have a long way to go to catch up – but the most likely would be Jonathan Overpeck, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), who denies he – or indeed anyone else – would say something so crassly stupid.

    Just a brief thumbnail glimpse, but John Mashey has tracked the saga it in all it’s murkey detail in his articles over at DeSmogblog and Deep Climate.

  47. #47 BBD
    April 4, 2014

    chek

    I remember this expose well. Lindzen cheque-kiting (TM willard) Deming’s claim:

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/17/1943/

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/10/adoration-of-the-lamb/

    … and links therein…

  48. #48 BBD
    April 4, 2014

    Since I’ve got the links up, in case anyone hasn’t seen this stuff:

    Mashey’s summary “dog astrology” Wiki talk page – a very good review comment:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion&oldid=380146816#HSI_pp.23-30.2C_421_…_dog_astrology

    Mashey on the fake argument: Lamb’s cartoon vs everything subsequent. IOW pretending that Lamb’s cartoon is The Truth and “The IPCC” is a lie…

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/08/more-use-and-abuse-of-ipcc-1990-fig-7-1c/

  49. #49 BBD
    April 4, 2014

    chek

    Got a Boss DS-1X yesterday. Only the second fuzz box I’ve ever owned (the first was made for me by a friend at school when I was about 15 and was nicked a couple of years later, probably doing me a favour on the tone front). In-between, it’s been preamp overdrive all the way, although I’m not a purist about this and happily used Peavey solid state and latterly Roland amp modelling emulations in preference to valves.

    But this Boss thing is startlingly good. Almost shockingly so. If you are ever in the market for a distortion (as opposed to overdrive) pedal, be sure to test one. It took me a couple of hours to nail down the settings but as you know, time spent fiddling around tone chasing isn’t counted in the hours of our days, so I will live that bit longer as a result. A claim to this effect is made about fishing, but it is of course, false.

  50. #50 Olaus Petri
    April 4, 2014

    Fellas, the conspiracy of climate sceptics forcing Frontier to retract Loo´s article on conspiracy theories, was a conspriacy theory. As always, in the climate scare narrative (needless to say):

    “Frontiers did not “cave in to threats”; in fact, Frontiers received no threats. The many months between publication and retraction should highlight the thoroughness and seriousness of the entire process.”

    http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812

    Or has the well funed fossil lobby bought Frontier as well? ;-)

  51. #51 Olaus Petri
    April 4, 2014

    Mr. Bicorne, what’syou take on Frontier? How much were the editors paid by the evil right wing fossil fuel lobby to lie about not having recieved any threats. :-)

    BBD and the ret of the sect may chip in as well.

  52. #52 BBD
    April 4, 2014

    Olaus

    Ahem.

    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.

  53. #53 Olaus Petri
    April 4, 2014

    BBD, who are you qouting? The Loo? :-)

    The Frontier says:

    “As a result of its investigation, which was carried out in respect of academic, ethical and legal factors, Frontiers came to the conclusion that it could not continue to carry the paper, which does not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects. Specifically, the article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics. Frontiers informed the authors of the conclusions of our investigation and worked with the authors in good faith, providing them with the opportunity of submitting a new paper for peer review that would address the issues identified and that could be published simultaneously with the retraction notice.

    The authors agreed and subsequently proposed a new paper that was substantially similar to the original paper and, crucially, did not deal adequately with the issues raised by Frontiers.”

    Well, the Loo got a second chance to polish his smelly turd grande, but it remained a smelly turd grande.

    So, how much do you think Frontier got from the evil right wing fossil fuel lobby? :-)

  54. #54 BBD
    April 4, 2014

    Just answer a simple question instead of hiding behind a fog of misdirection.

  55. #55 bill
    April 4, 2014

    Oily – just another anally-fixated crank!

    Don’t forget Aussies: Abbott’s calling for you to turn your clocks back tonight; about a century should do it…

  56. #56 Olaus Petri
    April 4, 2014

    I let you rest for the night BBD, inte the comfort of the Loo and his recursive turd.

    It never stops to amaze me how vulnerable academia is for activism, and Loo’s crap is another proof of that. Good though, that the smell from it was so too great even for the discourse climate scare church. Secularization is coming up, and soon climate scientology and portentology will be outdated, at lest in real science. :-)

  57. #57 Olaus Petri
    April 4, 2014

    Bill, so you believe that Frontiers was bought? :-)

  58. #58 bill
    April 4, 2014

    I believe you’re so (anally) fixated about this because somewhere in that sad, foetid, twisted little consciousness of yours, you know Lewandowsky nailed you.

  59. #59 BBD
    April 4, 2014

    And still avoidance:

    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.

    What ever can the matter be?

    :-)

  60. #60 chek
    April 5, 2014

    I think in themidst of Olap’s drivelling babble, he’s saying the cranks objected to being identified from their public utterances? That the content of what they published publically wasn’t incorrect, but identified the nutters too

    exactly? It’s hard to tell amongst the catch-phrase loaded rubbish that he passes off as comment. It rather looks like Olap qualifies as a Lewandowsky survey wannabee in his fervour to appear insane..

  61. #61 chek
    April 5, 2014

    BBD @ #49 – congrats, Boss gear is boss!
    I just used to use a ye olde Rangemaster treble booster with ny trusty old Les Paul, but I switched to a Strat with a Boss DF2 after my son permanently ‘borrowed’ the Gibby.
    ‘Sgt. Gibby’, as the young people apparently call what to me is a precious fucking family heirloom. If he’s lucky…

    I decided a couple of years ago to get a Boss ME-70 multi-effects really just to get some decent echo, but there’s a ton of stuff under the bonnet I haven’t really looked into. Although the standard wah tone range is a bit shit, perhaps there’s a voicing in there that that’ll match the classic Cry-Baby (whose mechanically driven pot lasted about 10 gigs or less in dusty venues, along with the tape-loop Copycat).

    This however, is what I’d like to get should the kids win the lottery and I no longer have to worry about their inheritance, ore I do, even though I don’t do it. But apparently the odds of finding a winning ticket are only slightly greater than those of buying one.

  62. #62 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    Chek

    With you on rack mounts. That’ll be the day.

  63. #63 craig thomas
    April 5, 2014

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/03/a-stunning-revelation-from-a-uwa-vice-chancellor-paul-johnson-over-access-to-lewandowsky-poll-data/

    Hilarious. I decided to contribute a bit to this thread, speculating on why Johnson may not see denying cranks access to research data as being contrary to the spirit of free access to data.

  64. #64 craig thomas
    April 5, 2014

    Incidentally, whoTF is Barry Woods?

    Apparently he is making demands of a University chancellor.

    But, whoTF is he? I can’t find anything indicating he is a real person with a genuine academic presence in the real world that would justify him hectoring a university chancellor…?

  65. #65 joni
    April 5, 2014

    Rack mounts?

    Give me a Pete Cornish custom board anytime

  66. #66 Jeff Harvey
    April 5, 2014

    Swedish meatball:

    You are soon going to be extinct. Its gratifying this week to see the immense weight of evidence of AGW is becoming so large that the usual suspects are being forced into retreat. The sheer mass of this evidence is so overwhelming that on inertia alone it will vanquish denial. My only hope is that its not too late. Shell and Exxon were forced to take desperate PR measures in a feeble attempt to ensure that we are not weaned off of fossil fuels any time soon; the corporate media did its best to blow the comments of a go-to-contrarian (Tol) out of all proportion to his actual expertise, in order to desperately give succor to the denial industry.

    As of the the decision of the journal to withdraw the paper, I already explained it a few days ago. The anti-environmental lobby is extremely well organized and funded, and they have long used SLAPPs as a means of silencing their critics. Several US multinationals have used SLAPPs to shut down grassroots opposition to their activities, and it appears that the denial juggernaut did the same here. The strategy is simple: threaten court actions that will cost the defendants more money than they can initially afford, even if the case eventually goes to court and the defendants win. Its pure bullying, which the anti-environmental lobby (including climate change deniers, as they fit snugly into the theme) has well honed over the past 20-30 years.

    But whatever vile tactics they employ, from SLAPPs to smears to other forms of intimidation, the major weak points of the denial lobby is that (1) they are small in number, irrespective as to their bottomless sacks of money, and (2) they are on the wrong side of science.

  67. #67 Olaus Petri
    April 5, 2014

    For your benefit I (again) post the relevant part of Fronteirs’ motivation for not having to do with Loo’s crap paper:

    “As a result of its investigation, which was carried out in respect of academic, ethical and legal factors, Frontiers came to the conclusion that it could not continue to carry the paper, which does not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects. Specifically, the article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics. Frontiers informed the authors of the conclusions of our investigation and worked with the authors in good faith, providing them with the opportunity of submitting a new paper for peer review that would address the issues identified and that could be published simultaneously with the retraction notice.

    The authors agreed and subsequently proposed a new paper that was substantially similar to the original paper and, crucially, did not deal adequately with the issues raised by Frontiers.”

    The fossil fuel lobby has done it again and Frontiers’ descision is another solid proof of it! :-)

    In Deltoid langue: Loo was right! :-)

  68. #68 Jeff Harvey
    April 5, 2014

    The paper is crap – in meatball’s scientifically illiterate opinion.

    Which means its a citation classic in reality. See the last post by Bernard: 2013, 10,885 articles support evidence for AGW, 2 reject it.

    This makes even Lewandowsky’s 97% look overly optimistic for the denial lobby. The fact is that the science has well and truly spoken, as has the scientific community. The fact that Tol – a conservative economist – was singled out as the sole dissenting voice out of 70 lead authors on the latest IPCC report is further evidence. Just a few weeks ago, the BBC admitted that they could not find a qualified climate scientist in the UK who downplayed AGW, so in the end they were forced to dredge up Bob Carter in Australia. I have said it many times and I will repeat it for meatball: there are very few truly qualified scientists who are AGW skeptics or deniers. That’s why we see the same people being interviewed over and over and over again. That’s why the same boring old farts dominated Poptech’s list. That’s why Curry has become the new pinup girl for denial. There are very, very few qualified climate change scientists who downplay AGW. Hence the denial lobby is forced to use economists, non-climate scientists and others on the academic fringe to support them.

    None of this is at all controversial, except in the mind of meatball, who appears to like being thrashed here ritually.

  69. #69 Olaus Petri
    April 5, 2014

    Jeff, most scientist accept the CO2-hypothesis. 97% at least. Few believe though in doom and gloom and Loo-crap.

    But then we have the representatives from non-scientists and activists like you Jeff. They believe, oh they believe so much. Tents are shaking and mouths are foaming, en masse.

    You scare mongers are like the confused yeit-scholar claiming that his research confirms the existance of the Snowman. In his own mind he knows his results and conclusions are consicered top notch scholarly work among his peers in the research field dealing with the snow and ice conditions in Himalaya.

    But his peers, they don’t believe in his conclusions wrt the Snowman’s existance. They only agree with him on one thing: that there is a lot of snow and ice in Himalaya.

    On the other hand he’s got a lot of supporters outside the ranks of “Himalaya-researcher” that are dead sure his right: At Deltiod. :-)

  70. #70 GSW
    April 5, 2014

    @Olaus

    Yes Olaus, I think the Frontiers press release was in part a response to Abrahams and Nuccitelli’s piece in the guardian.

    “Contrarians bully journal into retracting a climate psychology paper”

    Not for the first time have the sks mob been discovered to play fast and loose (aka spin) with the truth. Frontiers simply retracted the paper because it fell way short of their ethical standards and it was right for them to do so.

    I think the whole thing is starting to look bad for UWA, not just the sks advocates. UWA have decided not to release the data/metadata for the paper and it’s looking as though they’re not prepared to support it either.

  71. #71 craig thomas
    April 5, 2014

    Olaus, yes, the main problem was that the psychological subjects who have serious problems were identified in the paper.
    You have to be kind to nutters.

  72. #72 Lionel A
    April 5, 2014

    Jeff @ #66

    The strategy is simple: threaten court actions that will cost the defendants more money than they can initially afford, even if the case eventually goes to court and the defendants win. Its pure bullying…

    Indeed, and we have seen this sort of behaviour. OP would, maybe, learn something if he looked at the Justin Lancaster v Fred Singer case where Singer objected to being outed as taking advantage of a very sick and dying man, Roger Revelle, to get his signature on a paper where Fred had made included some statements with which Revelle would never have agreed.

    Here is a useful starter:

    If Richard Lindzen shows up at your door, slam it.

    more here:

    Who framed Roger? Rabett.

    Laid out in more detail and with more examples in ‘Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming’ in a chapter ‘SLAPP Science’.

    See more context here:

    The Deniers? The World Renowned Scientist Who Got Al Gore Started.

  73. #73 Olaus Petri
    April 5, 2014

    Craigh, and given the retraction these morons were most likely your kind. :-) How does that sit with you?

    You conspiratorial anti-science guys are somehting extra, that’s for sure. With Mr Bicorne in the front(iers).

  74. #74 Lionel A
    April 5, 2014

    OP studying ‘seventh rock from the sun’ from inside the rock again.

    Joe Romm has another good article up on how big money and greed are driving us to hell:

    Another Orwellian Op-Ed From Charles Koch,

    NB:

    Koch made the same exact absurd hypocritical claim in a 2012 WSJ op-ed. In response, Climate Progress’s Rebecca Leber detailed five ways Koch Industries benefits from policies it has lobbied for:

    1. Billions of dollars in oil subsidies

    2 Koch Industries has had at least $85 million in federal government contracts

    3. They’ve asked for bailouts

    4. After launching a campaign on behalf of the Keystone XL pipeline, they stand to benefit from taxpayer subsidies

    5. Koch Industries contributes millions of dollars to advance anti-environment legislation, and has been accused of outright bribery

  75. #75 chek
    April 5, 2014

    So let me get this straight – Frontier retracted their paper because it identified some loons: and at the same time the loons are howling for the data for the paper handed over to any and every web pipsqueak, which is withheld because it would identify even more loons,
    There’s no accommodating the contradictions inherent in the denier mind, without even considering those inherent to the incoherencies of fruitloops like Olap.

  76. #76 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    Unbelievable. Still the lying shits on this thread haven’t answered a simple question. Still.

    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?

    Because unless you deny this matter of fact, then Lewandowsky’s conclusions are validated.

    So answer the fucking question.

  77. #77 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    Fucking lies:

    and it’s looking as though they’re [UWA] not prepared to support it [Recursive Fury] either.

    You lying shit.

    UWA:

    Given its popularity, and given that approximately 29,300 viewers did not complain about our work, it would be a shame to deprive the public of access to this article. Because the work was conducted in Australia, I consulted with the University of Western Australia’s chief lawyer, Kim Heitman, who replied as follows:

    “I’m entirely comfortable with you publishing the paper on the UWA web site. You and the University can easily be sued for any sorts of hurt feelings or confected outrage, and I’d be quite comfortable processing such a phony legal action as an insurance matter.”

    — Kimberley Heitman, B.Juris, LLB, MACS, CT, General Counsel, University of Western Australia

    Liar.

  78. #78 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    Jeff, most scientist accept the CO2-hypothesis. 97% at least. Few believe though in doom and gloom and Loo-crap.

    Lies. Prove it. There is a mountain of public statements of concern by scientists on record. You are simply asserting a counter-factual. In simpler terms, you are lying.

  79. #79 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    joni

    Rack mounts?

    Give me a Pete Cornish custom board anytime

    Well that would be nice too ;-) Can I have a vintage Strat as well? And an old Marshall head? And a fast, shiny car and a beautiful girlfriend and absolutely piles of cash?

    Or shall I have to make do with a few scuffed old Boss stompboxes and a fevered imagination?

    ;-)

  80. #80 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    April 5, 2014

    Not sure about this. Cranks are cranks because they reject (deny) evidence and have bendy, squishy plastic minds that somehow accommodate to the cognitive dissonance.

    Bendy and squishy? I sometimes feel that I’m not only trying to nail jelly to a wall, I’m doing it in a B grade horror flick where the script has the jelly eternally reforming or self-replicating.

    I usually have to deal with the physics/ cosmology/ Einstein-was-wrong! type of cranks rather than climate denialists, but the utterly impervious to explanation and evidence style seems to be universal. The self-described original thinkers in physics seem to have much thinner skins than the utterly impervious climate crowd though.

  81. #81 Olaus Petri
    April 5, 2014

    Chek, I know you are always very unlycky when you try to think, but the Loo-paper was retracted because it smelled bad, and after Loo’s effort to clean up the mess, the smell was still there.

    There were no threats, just a poor review(er) on a very poor article, which Frontiers finally recognized. It’s as simple as that. A Conspiratorial mind shall not review the works of another conspiratorial mind.

    You are such a sorry bunch, sitting here convincing eachother that you are just paragons of some kind of middle ground in climate science. :-) Soon articles will be written about the likes of you, and in contrast to Loo’s paper, these will be based on tons of valid material.

  82. #82 Lionel A
    April 5, 2014

    And a fast, shiny car…

    Could try one of these BBD

    Wolseley 6/110 BMC Farina

    I had one of those, two toned paint, second-hand, in the early 1070s on an E plate 1967 vintage and one near the end of the run after a switch to 13″ rather than 14″ wheel hubs – much more rubber in the tyre, only Dunlop made tyres for it and at nearly £50 a pop in 73-74. 3 litre twin carbs straight six, but because of the overdrive could still turn in 35-36 mpg on a run. Mine did not have powered steering a pig in the tight in hot weather, leather upholstery, but not so heavy on tyres because of the lack of powered steering.

    The person who shot that vid’ is an idiot, did not show the picnic tables with glass wells that folded down out of the back of the front seats, maybe they were missing.

    I had a police car following me whilst driving along the A38 just SW of Exeter in the early hours of a Monday morning whilst in transit between Plymouth and Portsmouth (well Lee-on-Solent). As he drove in front and pulled me over I was wondering what I had done wrong. After the usual ‘pleasantries’ the cop asked if he could sit behind the wheel. I of course obliged only to watch him passing his hands over the controls with a broad grin and the words, ‘Ah, this takes me back, thanks for this’

  83. #83 Bernard J.
    April 5, 2014

    Craig Thomas at #63.

    Watts’ bleating that:

    …Vice Chancellor Paul Johnson’s statement of “It is not the University’s practice to accede to such requests” is a bald faced lie

    is based on a very mendacious cherry-picking of UWA’s policies on data sharing.

    Just to be clear, UWA says that data sharing may be based on any of:

    1) Restricted access
    2) Open access
    3) Researcher-mediated access
    4) Metadata Sharing
    5) Licencing
    6) Creative Commons

    (Those interested in detailed descriptions of each category should follow the link above.)

    Watts is making out that ‘Open access’ is the only option and that Paul Johnson and UWA are breaking their own data sharing policy when this is clearly not the case.

    There’s certainly a bald-faced liar in this matter, but it’s not Paul Johnson…

  84. #84 chek
    April 5, 2014

    Olap, don’t even try to argue about that which you can neither read nor understand.
    Mainly because you’re a crank who is lead and fed by cranks.

  85. #85 Olaus Petri
    April 5, 2014

    Chek, please adress your concerns with the editors of Frontiers. :-)

  86. #86 chek
    April 5, 2014

    I ain’t the one with ‘concerns’.
    That’d be you cranks.

  87. #87 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    Answer the question Olaus.

    Or are you going to persist in demonstrating that you are one of the most dishonest little shits ever to wriggle across a blog comments page?

  88. #88 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    Lionel

    I had in mind something far, far more trashy and vulgar ;-)

  89. #89 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    Olaus

    Above, you lied about what the majority of scientists believe. Earlier you ignored something I said about the scientific consensus so here it is again. It underlines just how egregious a lie you told above:

    If you accept the radiative physics and the paleoclimate evidence for ECS being around ~3C if not higher, then how can you dismiss the potential for dangerous warming under BAU emissions scenarios?

    This is schizophrenic position. IMO either you are lying when you claim to be of the 97% consensus or you don’t really understand what it means to subscribe to that consensus.

    The overwhelming majority of public statements by scientists caution that unless CO2 emissions are reduced, there will be substantial and very probably dangerous climate change.

    This is a lie:

    most scientist accept the CO2-hypothesis. 97% at least. Few believe though in doom and gloom and Loo-crap.

    You are a liar.

  90. #90 joni
    April 5, 2014

    @BBD

    I dream too… And I used to have a lovely red Tele, until my nephew stole it along with my Boss pedals and Peavey value amp.

  91. #91 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    joni

    Don’t brood. Have them hunted down by Ninja assassins. Expensive, yes, but you’ll feel much better for it.

  92. #92 Lionel A
    April 5, 2014

    BBD #88

    Those long range driving lights, as the pair down by the side of the radiator grill were something else, would light up the countryside like daylight. One could select just near side, both (or OFF of course) and they extinguished automatically when dipping. This feature caught me out about a week after getting it when having been out on an assignation I drove back and parked behind the billets pointing out over the airfield. Of course the long rangers were out having dipped for the last urban stretch. I turned off the ignition, locked the car and got my head down. The next day a colleague remarked that I had left my lights on. Puzzled, checking my keys were in my pocket, I went out to have a look. There were dim glimmers behind the glass.

    Having sorted out that problem and when my Autopress arrived I checked the lecky diagram and sure enough that is what those long rangers were supposed to do, come on again as the ignition was turned off if selected on. Police use on searches maybe, dunno?

    Oh, and I had a Motorola 8-track in mine too, Santana Abraxas as they were then known, the miles flew by.

  93. #93 Olaus Petri
    April 5, 2014

    Chek, you have a great problem with Frontiers calling the turd a turd . I’m sure the editors of Frontiers are crancs too. :-)

    Did I hear anyone mention “consirpacy ideation”? :-)

  94. #94 chek
    April 5, 2014

    Olap, you’re just mouthing third hand trash, mixed with the invention we’ve come to expect from a risible little troll, with no indication (as usual) that you know what you’re talking about. And you won’t get it from williwatts. Try again when you’ve got something.

  95. #95 GSW
    April 5, 2014

    Some more commentary on the Lew/UWA scandal over at Bishop Hill:

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/4/5/the-lew-letters.html

    “This correspondence and the failure of the university to act upon any of it suggests that the problem at UWA is not restricted to one rogue researcher. The ethical failures seem to go right to the top.”

    Indeed, the very point we’ve been making here.

  96. #96 Lionel A
    April 5, 2014

    “This correspondence GWPF and the failure of the university Charities Commission to act upon any of it suggests that the problem at UWA the dangerous propaganda emanating from this supposed Educational charity is not restricted to about one rogue researcher GWPF member. The ethical failures seem to go right to the top.”

    Fixed for the sticky bishop, aka Cardinal Puff master of puff pieces devoured so avidly by other puffs.

  97. #97 chek
    April 5, 2014

    @ joni. Yes, a Tele’s a beauty and would have a place in my Classic Collection at some point in time (along with the early 60’s issue SG-shaped Les Paul, since Lionel mentioned Santana).

    Many years ago a friend had an old, chipped, blonde original ’50’s model – and a Tele (har har) – which had a good solid feel, but as for the brand new ones, not so much.

  98. #98 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    Oooooolaaaaauuuussss!

    Questions, questions, questions. And never, not once, any answers from you.

  99. #99 chek
    April 5, 2014

    Lewandowsky et al is now firmly up there with the MBH hockey stick in terms of top crank icons. And look how often they’ve gnashed their teeth and rent their garments and hacked mail servers and falsely claimed MBH was broken.

    Congratulations Stephan – don’t let the bastards grind you down.

  100. #100 Lionel A
    April 5, 2014

    Near the end of another page, this may have come up before WRT Permian extinction but I was having trouble with the Nature site that day:

    Archaeageddon: how gas-belching microbes could have caused mass extinction

    Something our posse of ijuts don’t grasp, even the smallest of organisms can have a big effect when there are ENOUGH of them. I used to get the old argument about man being too puny to modify the planet. Sheesh, more ijuts with their heads up a dark smelly place.

Current ye@r *