May 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 bill
    June 3, 2014

    You astonish me! Are you sure you’re paying sufficient attention?

  2. #2 Stu 2
    June 3, 2014

    Bill @ # 100
    Yes.

  3. #3 Lionel A
    June 3, 2014

    No.

    For both faces 2Stew?

  4. #4 BBD
    June 3, 2014

    That neither proves or disproves that Australian Agriculture is a fore runner in change and innovation or that the majority of Australian farmers with a generational background in Australian farming would know that.

    But it is your assertion that that Australian Agriculture is a forerunner in change and innovation it that remains unsupported. You are the one with a problem here. You are either too stupid or too rancid with dishonesty to recognise this even now after it has been explained at least twice.

    This is an endlessly repeating pattern with you. You either comprehend virtually nothing or deliberately feign stupidity to prolong the exchange. Consequently, further interactions with you on this or any other topic are pointless.

    Please go away.

  5. #5 FrankD
    June 3, 2014

    You either comprehend virtually nothing or deliberately feign stupidity to prolong the exchange

    For several months now, when Stu2 has been asked a question he doesn’t want to answer, he simply ideates (to use his favourite word) the question he wishes he had been asked. It’s not stupid, just mendacious and repetitive. If he was stupid, it would merely be irritating. But he is worse than stupid, he’s boring.

    Stu2 could start to make amends by defending his contention that Australian Agriculture is a forerunner in change and innovation.

    But it’s dollars to doughnuts he won’t.

  6. #6 Stu 2
    June 3, 2014

    Frank D @ # 4
    I have supplied you with information via two links plus a suggestion for places to find more if you’re interested.
    The National Food Plan 2012, The Australian Farm Institute, numerous Ag Science Departments in tertiary institutions, numerous Agricultural colleges, many laboratories in various food processing industries around the country plus many other private and public entities such as State Ag Departments, VFF, NFF, NSWFA, NIC etc etc etc all have evidence that Australia is right up there with the best in the world re Agricultural production.
    The information encompasses a diverse range of food and fibre commodities, a diverse range of agricultural techniques and a diverse range of food and fibre processing for domestic and global markets.
    I am not clear what your problem is with my comment that Australia Agriculture is a forerunner?
    Are you attempting to argue that Australian Agriculture is NOT a forerunner in change and innovation?
    Or maybe I could use some popular terminology from here of late?
    Do you deny that Australia Agriculture is a forerunner in change and innovation?

  7. #7 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    June 4, 2014

    Anybody else watch that Catalyst doco on fire last night? I thought they did very well talking about the differences and similarities between Australian and USA fire conditions.

    http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4014144.htm

  8. #8 bill
    June 4, 2014

    It’s on my iView ‘to watch’ list.

  9. #9 FrankD
    June 4, 2014

    Told you he wouldn’t. Seriously, a normal person would find it easier to just answer the question than all this airy persiflage..

    But Stu2 has managed to avoid giving direct answers to simple questions for days and days and days, so there’s no reason why now would be any different.

    But Stu2 might watch and learn from this example, in response to his four questions (well, four question marks, not all of which are questions).

    I know.
    No.
    I don’t care
    No.

    Wasn’t that simple?

    If Stu2 wants to know what I think, he should read the words, they are perfectly clear to anyone with an adequate grasp of English. As is his evasion of the questions he has been asked.

    Of course, it suits Stu2’s purpose to pretend otherwise, so watch him continue to do so. Let me give him a head start:

    “Wha…? I don’t understand? Are you saying [insert incorrect and leading question of your choice]?”

  10. #10 bill
    June 4, 2014

    Recommend the Catalyst doco. Don’t expect to be cheered-up.

  11. #11 Lionel A
    June 4, 2014

    So, who were those ijits around here crowing about growing Antarctic sea ice?

    What do you make of all of this:

    New Video: Meltwater Pulse 2B and then there is Greenland:

    New Greenland Ice Melt Fuels Sea Level Rise Concerns

    with an El Nino knocking on the door to turn up the ‘stat a bit for a bit?

    Oh! Boy!

  12. #12 BBD
    June 4, 2014

    The idiots crowing about the slight positive trend in Antarctic sea ice extend don’t usually even understand the difference between sea ice and an ice sheet. So they are best ignored.

    Even those that do grasp the not-so-subtle distinction don’t understand *why* ASI extent is increasing, nor that mass loss from the WAIS is significant and rising, and that even the EAIS is now showing net mass loss.

    Nor do they understand that WAIS and some regional EAIS collapse happened before, many times, the most recent of which was the last interglacial (Eemian; MIS5e) when global average temperatures were 1 – 2C higher than the present and sea levels were ~6m or more higher than the present.

    But then, they are idiots.

  13. #13 Lotharsson
    June 5, 2014

    “Tol’s Gremlins” may permanently enter the vocabulary at this rate. He is looking to be on increasingly shaky ground with his (apparently) very sloppy attempts to knock over the Cook et al consensus study. If the critiques remain unrebutted this will damage his reputation and credibility.

    Note also the PDF linked to in that document, anonymously published, which separately seems to indicate Tol’s methodology tends to reduce the calculated consensus value no matter what data you throw at it.

  14. #14 bill
    June 5, 2014

    Tolgate!

  15. #15 Lionel A
    June 5, 2014

    Tol Tales.

  16. #16 Bernard J.
    June 5, 2014

    Ask not for whom the Tol bawls, it bawls for he…

    I think that he has actually done the world a huge service. In showing how badly he’s munged the consensus analysis, there’s an increased focus on his recent borking of the calculation of the economic benefits of warming. All of a sudden the whole Tol collective magnum opus is turning into a magnum o’ pus.

    His ability to exert influence is only going to go in one direction…

  17. #17 Bernard J.
    June 5, 2014

    Is anyone else finding that HotWhopper is apparently down?

  18. #18 Lotharsson
    June 5, 2014

    Ask not for whom the Tol bawls, it bawls for he…

    The Intertubez have been won for the day.

  19. #19 Lionel A
    June 5, 2014

    No, HotWhopper OK here, the most recent post all Tol much for Wutters perhaps.

  20. #20 Lotharsson
    June 5, 2014

    Greg Laden dubs Tol’s schtick (or adopts the term from somewhere else) “Concern Tol-ing“.

  21. #21 BBD
    June 5, 2014

    Very droll.

  22. #22 Bernard J.
    June 6, 2014

    As you were. Sou’s back up for me.

  23. #23 Lionel A
    June 6, 2014

    Tol has had his beard well and truly singed, a not unexpected result for one who has declared himself an econometrician [1] for we have seen here where that thinking can lead when it comes to climate study.

    I see that the Pielke Jr is also getting some starter time .

    [1] some say Tol has never claimed to be such but I am fairly sure to have seen, and recently, a confirmatory quote from the Tol himself.

  24. #24 bill
    June 6, 2014

    This is actually kind of wonderful, in a bang-your-head-on-the-table sort of way. Pielke isn’t claiming that it’s hard in practice to limit emissions without halting economic growth, he’s arguing that it’s logically impossible. So let’s talk about why this is stupid.

  25. #25 Lionel A
    June 6, 2014

    As Susan Anderson succinctly and aptly put it:

    The brawny promotion of we can’t do anything, so we must do nothing, seems to be Roger Pielke Jr.’s stock in trade. He does a lot of harm, being so plausible and all.

    This is not a good thing.

    .

    Just so.

  26. #26 Lionel A
    June 6, 2014

    Interesting comments on BS’s questionable internet activities in the comments at this Tol Thread:

    Richard Tol’s 97% Scientific Consensus Gremlins.

  27. #27 BBD
    June 6, 2014

    BS is notable vermin. And brass-necked with it.

  28. #28 Lotharsson
    June 7, 2014

    Tol comes out of that article Lionel posted looking really dodgy – quote mining, citing blogs posts with stolen material, trying to position a hacker who illegally obtained information as a “researcher”.

    And that’s quite apart from his dodgy methodology and his own inability to apply sanity checks or take feedback about it on board, not even feedback that pointed out his results were obviously rubbish.

    Perhaps he should consider applying the scientific method? You know, leverage sceptical self-review along with peer review to provide critique of one’s claims and see if they remain standing? ;-)

  29. #29 Lionel A
    June 7, 2014

    @ #23 I mentioned Tol claiming that he was an ‘econometrician‘ with some refuting that Tol had ever claimed to be that, well here it is in black & white :

    at Andrew Gelman’s.

    Another one bites the dust.

  30. #30 Lionel A
    June 7, 2014

    Over at Eli’s in a twitter initiated thread commenter -WheelsOC paints up Pielke Jr’s context in four links at 7/6/14 7:55 AM , where John Christy is seen to have tagged along for the ride.

  31. #31 Lionel A
    June 8, 2014

    So these seas are not rising, well doubters explain this away.

  32. #32 Lotharsson
    June 9, 2014

    A few days ago Tol doubled down at The Guardian.

  33. #33 Lionel A
    June 9, 2014

    Strewth Lotharsson, reading the comments thread at that Guardian piece by Tol, and in particular the BS from BS blew my irony meter, again, and again and again.

    It would appear that some still fail to, or refuse to, understand what ‘consensus’ means in this context. It is the same ol’ same ol’ that we got from BK with mention of failing models thrown in to prove that point.

    I now think Tol has had more rope than he can cop with but it has been arguably a useful distraction by, or for, the GWPF.

    Time to leave Tol like Captain Kidd swinging in the Wapping breeze as he becomes biltong for the corvids and as an advert for that GWPF.

  34. #34 Lotharsson
    June 9, 2014

    If I had BS and PT (may his moniker not be mentioned in fall lest he be summoned) defending me, I’d be thinking very hard about whether what I was saying was defensible.

    But maybe that’s just me.

  35. #35 Lionel A
    June 9, 2014

    It is not long into Tol’s Guardian bafflegab that you find out how confused Tol is, I mean:

    I show that the 97% consensus claim does not stand up.

    At best, Nuccitelli, John Cook and colleagues may have accidentally stumbled on the right number.

    Hang on a mo’,

    …97% claim does not stand up…

    but it is

    …the right number.

    Oh dear! Oh dear!

  36. #36 Lotharsson
    June 9, 2014

    After Tol simply reasserted his position in response to the 24 errors alleged by the SkS team (including re-alleging that a claim based on something written by one of the raters means something the rater unequivocally says is false), we have a classic comment by Margaret Hardman:

    Tol’s behaviour is becoming recursive.

    Paging Prof. Lewandowsky.

    Paging Prof. Lewandowsky.

  37. #37 Lotharsson
    June 9, 2014

    Oh, and it looks as if not even Tol’s theologian said what Tol reckons he said.

    And this is just about the most insightful comment of the thread. Go read the whole comment.

    The only rational basis for not fearing an apocalypse would be to have a civilization that is clearly sustainable – that is, a civilization which is not drawing down its natural capital in large annual increments.

Current ye@r *