August 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    August 24, 2014

    If you had read Nuttall you would realise that it need not take 10-30 years to role out new nuclear.

    So far nobody’s managed to get it under the time budget so far. So either that’s wrong or you two think that the engineers are a load of incompetent boobs.

    You would also appreciate that modularity is possible and a policy of rolling out a number based upon similar designs

    Nothing about the running of the designs in your ramblings here, is there.

    Because, as you’ve never bothered to realise, the immutable problem is that the problem isn’t the design but the society that doesn’t give a shit about safety if it doesn’t make profits.

    And hence every nuclear disaster, every single one touted by every Utopian as “Completely impossible to happen with the newer designs!”.

    The designs NOW being touted as safe and effective either have proven to be far more expensive, far less safe, or completely not ready for rolling out even as a testbed.

    Ask the Scandanavians.

  2. #2 Wow
    August 24, 2014

    “Why bother with backing R&D if you don’t want to use the end result?”

    ONLY YOU think that is the case, dumbass.

    But this makes it easy for you to claim mental deficiency and avoid having to produce any rational discourse showing how I may be wrong. So you just leap to it.

    Why would I support R&D if I am never for the results of it?

  3. #3 BBD
    August 24, 2014

    Wow

    Just to demonstrate that I am not immune to the potential horrors of nuclear power, I’ll freely admit that Kudankulam gives me nightmares. Obsolete design, questions over construction quality and right on the beach.

    What could possibly go wrong?

  4. #4 turboblocke
    France
    August 24, 2014

    Prossibly BBD, but given that even conventional plant are having difficulty getting planning permission and are a dubious investment, it doesn’t look good for nukes. And don’t forget the cooling water issue too.

  5. #5 BBD
    August 24, 2014

    Wow

    However, nuclear is just far too expensive, far too slow to roll out, far too limited in its allowed application (ISIS getting to run their electricity grid on nuclear? No? Then we can’t use it as a solution) and just plain dangerous when those making decisions absolve themselves of all consequences.

    That’s what I meant by geopolitically constrained. But your mention of ISIS made me reflect on the might-have-been. In a saner world, we’d be pouring money into the Middle East to finance something like DESERTEC.

    Loads of money for lots of countries that could use it (and a number that are petrodollar-bloated already). Collaboration. Mutual interest. Profits! All from renewable energy.

    It’s a quiet hope of mine that the ME and N Africa will soon wake up to what they can sell to anyone who will put in the panels and the HVDC cables and then pay rent.

  6. #6 BBD
    August 24, 2014

    turboblocke

    We can’t really use current conditions to argue against future policy under different conditions. We’ll just have to see how it plays.

  7. #7 Craig Thomas
    August 24, 2014
  8. #8 Craig Thomas
    August 25, 2014

    Lionel: “Oh! And BTW if, as we could have had, an extensive and reliable source of electrical power avoiding much of the need to import oil from the ME then ISIS may not have evolved.”

    Perhaps. I think decades of USA/Russia using Syria as a pawn in their Cold War was also a significant catalyst.

    Either way, there is nothing new under the sun:

    Mahdi Revolt
    Muhammad Ahmad, the self-proclaimed Mahdi.
    In the 1870s, a Muslim cleric named Muhammad Ahmad preached renewal of the faith and liberation of the land, and began attracting followers. Soon in open revolt against the Egyptians, Muhammad Ahmad proclaimed himself the Mahdi, the promised redeemer of the Islamic world. The then-governor of the Sudan, Raouf Pasha, sent two companies of infantry with one machine gun to arrest him. The captains of the two companies were each promised promotion if their soldiers were the ones to return the Mahdi to the governor. Both companies disembarked from the steamer that had brought them up the Nile to Abba and approached the Mahdi’s village from separate directions. Arriving simultaneously, each force began to fire blindly on the other, allowing the Mahdi’s scant followers to attack and destroy each force in turn.

    The Mahdi then began a strategic retreat to Kordofan, where he was at a greater distance from the seat of government in Khartoum. This movement, couched as a triumphal progress, incited many of the Arab tribes to rise in support of the Jihad the Mahdi had declared against the “Turkish oppressors”. Another Egyptian expedition dispatched from Fashoda was ambushed and slaughtered on the night of December 9.

    The Egyptian administration in the Sudan, now thoroughly concerned by the scale of the uprising, assembled a force of 4,000 troops under Yusef Pasha. This force approached the Mahdist gathering, whose members were poorly clothed, half starving, and armed only with sticks and stones. However, supreme overconfidence led the Egyptian army into camping within sight of the Mahdist ‘army’ without posting sentries. The Mahdi led a dawn assault on June 7 which slaughtered the army to a man. The rebels gained vast stores of arms and ammunition, military clothing and other supplies.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdist_War

    Sounds familiar, huh?

    And there there’s, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin#Acquisition_of_Syria

  9. #9 Wow
    August 25, 2014

    Obsolete design, questions over construction quality and right on the beach.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    Obsolete designs are what’s running, though. And why? Because you can make money off old designs and making a new one requires expending money

    The UK wants to put two new nukes in that both have a severe warning for flooding because of AGW raising the water line. Why? Because nukes need water.

    And the reasons for the overrun on time and budget for the Swedish (?) nuke stations are because the construction contractor is cutting corners and making the project less safe.

    That so many nuke stations have the same exact problems when EVERYONE can see what’s wrong with it, but ignore it is because there’s something systemic in fission technology or it’s just cheaper to do it badly.

  10. #10 Wow
    August 25, 2014

    “Loads of money for lots of countries that could use it”

    And the reason why fission tech is not going to be widely available is because the production of nuclear power is inherently dangerous.

    Future designs have potential, but so far past future designs haven’t lived up to the hype.

    And because we need to, as part of R&D, to test these designs in controlled and limited use is part of why nuclear CANNOT be part of the solution for our current problem.

    If humanity’s “leaders” hadn’t sat on their thumbs for 30 years MAYBE there would be something ready in time. But they didn’t bother, and most of humanity was fine with it.

    And now we don’t have 30 years to find a method that we can use globally (because it isn’t inherently dangerous) and start to deploy it.

  11. #11 Lionel A
    August 25, 2014

    Craig,

    Perhaps. I think decades of USA/Russia using Syria as a pawn in their Cold War was also a significant catalyst.

    One could also bring into this discussion of Sykes-Picot and of ‘The Balfour Agreement’ which are root causes of many issue facing the ME and in turn developed countries.

    And your mention of the ‘Mad Mahdi’ and also Fashoda brought me back to thinking about the events and issues described in a useful primer ‘The Scramble for Africa’ by Thomas Packenham. But, as is usual with historical accounts, one needs to keep perspective by consideration of ‘the winners’ writing the history and political pressure on what is stricken from the record for Packenham is also The 8th Earl of Longford.

    Fashoda of course was the scene of a showdown and face-off between British and French forces.

  12. #12 cRR Kampen
    August 25, 2014

    #83, Only a racist could sabotage history like that. Thanking Craig Thomas for re-illustrating that point so clearly.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age#Science.

    Total ignorance on European history displayed well, too. But total. Abhorrent.

  13. #13 cRR Kampen
    August 25, 2014

    Wondering what word Thomas uses for the spirit in beer, vodka et cetera :)

  14. #14 cRR Kampen
    August 25, 2014

    ISIS is as much a product of Bremer’s ‘De-ba’thification’ as of Assad’s indiscriminate bombing of e.g. Aleppo.
    In the end Lionel is right, too. Oil. The west suddenly discovered an endangered (though militia-holding) ethnic group a bit over two weeks ago, because of what is of course not said: Israel buys Kirkut oil and ISIS was in fact threatening to take this city.

  15. #15 Jeff Harvey
    August 25, 2014

    Craig also ought to realize that it was Christian zealots under Archbishop Cyril that brought down the Roman Enpire in the end and plunged the world into the Dark Ages. Thiis bunch torched the Great Museum at Alexandria precipitating the destrcution of much of accrued knowledge to that point.

    But this debate is entirely ridiculous. To suggest that Islam is a threat on par with Nazil Germany is pure insanity. As I said, the greatest threat to humanity – by far – is unregulated corporate-based capitalism and its destrcution of the environment for short-term profit. Moreover, as Mark Curtis has written (and I reiterate), extreme Islam is largely a by-product of the US-UK is NATO axis and has been used many times as a means of fighting secular nationalist regimes.

  16. #16 Lionel A
    August 25, 2014

    Wow.

    back last page you wrote:

    So I’m,100% behind R&D into nuclear power technology.

    However, nuclear is just far too expensive, far too slow to roll out, far too limited in its allowed application (ISIS getting to run their electricity grid on nuclear? No? Then we can’t use it as a solution) and just plain dangerous when those making decisions absolve themselves of all consequences.

    To which I responded:

    Why bother with backing R&D if you don’t want to use the end result? Your logic escapes me.

    with this follow up from you:

    ONLY YOU think that is the case, dumbass.

    But this makes it easy for you to claim mental deficiency…

    Pointing out your breakdown in logic is not claiming you have mental deficiency, but then this is from you who wrote, putting words into my mouth:

    Then because of his mental image of what was “probably said”, arrogantly saying “I see nothing to confess to here” comes across as complete asshatery.

    Wow! Just wow, wow wow! Straight out of Monty Python.

  17. #17 Craig Thomas
    August 26, 2014

    “cRR Kampen

    August 25, 2014
    #83, Only a racist could sabotage history like that. Thanking Craig Thomas for re-illustrating that point so clearly.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age#Science.

    Total ignorance on European history displayed well, too. But total. Abhorrent.”

    You’ve fallen for an insane revisionism: Islam certainly didn’t and does not nurture progress or knowledge.

    Virtually *all* of human achievement has occurred in the non-Islamic world. If you have a closer look at those very few examples of progressive thought that the revisionists ascribe to Islam, you will mostly find that members of colonised (and soon to be extinct) cultures being the instigators. The progress occurred *despite* Islam, not because of it.

  18. #18 Craig Thomas
    August 26, 2014

    “Craig also ought to realize that it was Christian zealots under Archbishop Cyril that brought down the Roman Enpire in the end and plunged the world into the Dark Ages. Thiis bunch torched the Great Museum at Alexandria precipitating the destrcution of much of accrued knowledge to that point.”

    Christians aren’t the issue, Jeff, but if you want to make them an issue, you’re going to have a very hard time getting past the fact that the overwhelming majority of all of human achievement has occurred in Christian societies.

    The contrast with Islamic societies is *so* stark in that respect that you have to wonder if a religion (sort-of) based on the life of a well-educated progressive socialist was always bound to result in better societies than a religion based on the life of an illiterate desert bandit.

  19. #19 Jeff Harvey
    August 26, 2014

    “…you’re going to have a very hard time getting past the fact that the overwhelming majority of all of human achievement has occurred in Christian societies”

    Bullshit. As I said, it was Christianity that precipitated the beginning of the Dark Ages, which lasted over 1000 years. Moreover, the destruction of the great library at Alexandria arguably set back humanity a thousand years or more, since pretty well all accumulated knowledge was stored there. We must also acknowledge the fact that many of the great scientific thinkers – from Galileo to Darwin – were seriously held back by Christian religious dogma. And even to the present day, we find evolutionary biologists (including myself) still having to defend what by now should be accepted as fact.

    I am not defending extreme Islam or any religion for that matter, Craig. But, as Roderick explains, you clearly have some strange obsession with Islam and this clouds any reason from you. Furthermore, as I explained earlier, extreme Islamic movements are largely a creation of western intelligence agencies. By now it should be clear that Al Queda morphed from the Mujahadeen who were supported to the tune of millions of dollars by the CIA in Afghanistan in the 1980s in fighting the Soviet Army there, in essence to create the ‘Afghan trap’ as described by one of its creators, Zbignieuw Brezinski. The US and UK have supported and continue to support jihadist movements if they are in line with western economic and political interests, in spite of the potential for blowback. And, again I reiterate the fact that when it comes to industrial-scale killing and murder ver the past century up to the present day, the west and its ‘Christian armies’ are impossible to beat.

    You somehow equate technology and our societies with civility. This is where you are seriously misguided. We may expound such rhetoric, but the truth is that behind the facade are forces that are killing, maiming and impoverishing many in the south on a massive scale. Civilization is founded on violence and mass murder. Its time you woke up to reality and took off your clearly biased blinkers.

  20. #20 Stu 2
    August 26, 2014

    I think regular Deltoids have lost the plot entirely this month!
    Why are you arguing about Islam vs Christianity?
    What about Buddhism or Hindu or numerous other religions and their various sub sects?
    Did anyone happen to notice that BoM has been asked some specific questions about specific data sets over the last week?
    How did a simple link by David Benson create such vitriol?
    I also note that there is still massive hand waving and denial about an obvious flattening of global averages in the last 10 to 15 years.
    BDD’s WFT graphs do need to be looked at. Check the increments and also change the start dates to the last 15 years, 10 years & 5 years.
    What do you see?

  21. #21 Jeff Harvey
    August 26, 2014

    “…I also note that there is still massive hand waving and denial about an obvious flattening of global averages in the last 10 to 15 years”

    Stu2, you are an idiot. How many times does one have to be told that the time scales you invoke for a largely deterministic system are too short? Each decade has been progressively warmner than the last, and that trend is likely to continue in this decade.

    AGW is a reality. We ought to be doing something about it. Thus far, we aren’t or else measures are pedantic. The hand wavers by-and-large are the climate change deniers and their corporate-profit linked agendas. You are one of the many simpletons who swallow their nonsense

  22. #22 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    August 26, 2014

    Right, you can all stop holding hands and chanting “We belieeeeeeeeeve” because I have two important locations to point out to you:

    Amberley and Rutherglen.

    Eh? Waddya mean you never heard of them? You’re all Aussie colonials, aren’t you? Oh well, alright then but this is an Aussie site so someone will have heard of Amberley and Rutherglen and the, shall we say, ‘eccentric’ manner in which the Aussie Met Office turned a hundred years of recorded *cooling* into a hundred years of *warming*. How do they do that? They deserve a place in the Magic Circle!

  23. #23 BBD
    August 26, 2014

    Stu2

    I also note that there is still massive hand waving and denial about an obvious flattening of global averages in the last 10 to 15 years.
    BDD’s WFT graphs do need to be looked at. Check the increments and also change the start dates to the last 15 years, 10 years & 5 years.
    What do you see?

    What do I see? I see a denier who has repeatedly been told that (1) the troposphere is not the climate system, (2) OHC is increasing apace, demonstrating ongoing energy imbalance, (3) ever-shortening timescales are uninformative (see Jeff, #20) and (4) the rate of surface warming is modulated by the rate of ocean heat uptake and so (5) cannot be used to determine either TCR or ECS over short time-scales.

    But despite repeated correction, I see this self-same denier repeating the same old rubbish yet again. In my book, repeating a known falsehood is called lying.

  24. #24 cRR Kampen
    August 26, 2014

    #188 “You somehow equate technology and our societies with civility. This is where you are seriously misguided. We may expound such rhetoric, but the truth is that behind the facade are forces that are killing, maiming and impoverishing many in the south on a massive scale. ”

    Hear, hear. To those who equate technological advance with civility I say ‘yeah we made WW I, WW II, we made the Shoa and slaughtered Vietnam’. Craig’s enlightenment. So he doesn’t even know how come the _chemical_ _alcohol_. Because _matrass_ in the _caravan_. _Cotton_, _coffee_, _cable_, … All arab words, poor Craig.

  25. #25 cRR Kampen
    August 26, 2014

    Aha, so there is Duff. Are we getting bonkers spillover from WUWT or wot?

  26. #26 cRR Kampen
    August 26, 2014

    #19, moving on.

  27. #27 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    August 26, 2014

    Sorry, Kampen, couldn’t you manage to find Amberley and Rutherglen? Try the Australian Met Office!

  28. #28 cRR Kampen
    August 26, 2014

    #26, togtfo.

  29. #29 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    August 26, 2014

    Ah, swallowed your biro, have you Kampen, told you not to chew it when you get upset, what will your mummy say?!

  30. #30 Jeff Harvey
    August 26, 2014

    Duff’s site (shite) is called “Duff and Nonsense”. How appropriate. Everything this right winger writes is nonsense (Remember his, “Obama is a Marxist” crapola? This flippant crap negates any serious discouse with him).

  31. #31 Jeff Harvey
    August 26, 2014

    I just made a cursory visit to Duff’s site and its more right wing and shill than ever. I seriously need a barf bag to swallow any more of his bile. A mental health warning tag should be applied to anyone venturing there.

  32. #32 BBD
    August 26, 2014

    So, Duff, some fake sceptic blogger who doesn’t understand homogenisation gets hold of two or three stations’ data – but only presents one (unnamed) station, note – and claims that the BOM is faking the warming data.

    That is:

    - an astonishing cherry-pick
    - a failure to understand why station data are homogenised
    - a failure to understand that it may change (improve accuracy) of results like this
    - just fucking stupid, really

    And guess what? The usual crowd of numpty conspiracy theorist cranks fell for it…

  33. #33 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    August 26, 2014

    So, still not sure about Amberley and Rutherglen, then? I dunno, I thought you swots were on to everything in the climate racket. I’ll give you another clue;

    A hundred years of *cooling* according to the raw data, became a hundred years of *warming* after the, er, scientists of the Aussie Met Office finished it.

    Amazing! I put it down to Fosters beer, oh, plus a dollop of self-serving ‘agit-prop’ as well!

  34. #34 BBD
    August 26, 2014

    Correction: the station data graph was Amberley minimum temperatures only.

    Duff, if you want to get a feel for what is happening to temperature trends in Australia, you don’t look at the minimum temperatures for three stations. You look at the whole country and the full temperature data from all stations. For the period September 2012 – August 2013, you would find this:

    The past 12 months have been the warmest on record for Australia. The average temperature across Australia for the period 1 September 2012 to 31 August 2013 was 22.92 °C. This is 1.11 °C above the 1961–1990 average, surpassing the previous record of +1.08 °C that occurred between February 2005 and January 2006.

    Temperatures for the calendar year to date (January to August) are also the warmest on record, at 1.13 °C above the long-term average, exceeding the figure set in August 2005, which was Australia’s warmest calendar year on record.

    The record 12-month period has been characterised by widespread heat across Australia. The average temperature has been above average over the entire continent, with no region registering below-average temperatures.

    In the past 12-month period a large number of temperature records have fallen across Australia including:

    Australia’s hottest summer day on record (7 January)
    Australia’s warmest winter day on record (31 August)
    Australia’s hottest month on record (January)
    Australia’s hottest summer on record
    Australia’s hottest January to August period on record
    Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record

  35. #35 BBD
    August 26, 2014

    A hundred years of *cooling* according to the raw data, became a hundred years of *warming* after the, er, scientists of the Aussie Met Office finished it.

    Try again.

    Amberley minimum temperatures only isn’t the same as the full min-max temperature data. You are being tricked again.

    Homogenisation is done to correct for biases. To improve the accuracy of the overall data. Why is it so implausible that the homogenised data are more accurate than the raw data which could be subject to a bias removed by the homogenisation process?

    Can you at least try to think rationally?

    And now, back to reality. Looking at all the data and at the whole country, Australia is boiling. See above. Read the words.

  36. #36 cRR Kampen
    August 26, 2014

    #28, interesting, so you told me – that would be under another nick, then. Keyes, maybe? Petri the Swedish mook? Or was that a Delingpole?

  37. #37 Lionel A
    August 26, 2014

    Duffer’s cherry picks on surface temperatures aside I wonder if he has ever considered what the increase in atmospheric moisture means for sea surface temperatures:

    Increase in Atmospheric Moisture Tied to Human Activities.

    Now I know that we have asked him about heat capacity and latent heat so why does he insist on stupid.

    Whatever, what goes up is increasingly coming down in more aggressive spurts and so we should expect more of this:

    Giant sinkhole near Cowshill ‘could keep growing’ which is in turn a part backlash from our industrial past. Cheshire, and elsewhere, could be in for surprises particularly if they start fracking.

    Duff really needs to start understanding more dots.

  38. #38 Olaus Petri
    August 26, 2014

    Fellas, I notice the ice picks are in full swing. :-) What a surprise. Who could have anticipated that a little gang of white, priviledged, male, authoritarian, haters would end up doing such things to each other?

    Give it a rest and chew on Duff’s bone instead. What’s your take?

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/whos-going-to-be-sacked-for-making-up-global-warming-at-rutherglen/

  39. #39 Lionel A
    August 26, 2014

    Olas PoorTree

    You should have been able to answer your own question if you had read the words above your inane post about an inane opinion columnist’s stirring up of the dead.

    Jerks both!

  40. #40 BBD
    August 26, 2014

    Olaus

    Give it a rest and chew on Duff’s bone instead. What’s your take?

    Very low class trolling. Read the recent comments, eg. #33 and # 34.

  41. #41 Jeff Harvey
    August 27, 2014

    I see Olaus is being hypocritical again. No group of people smears, lies and uses ad hominem attacks as much as climate change deniers and other anti-environmentalists. He’s a shining example, as well.

    Then to add insult to injury, he pastes a link to one of the worst offenders of them all. We all know that Olly is as thick as two planks and this is just another example of it.

  42. #42 Olaus Petri
    August 27, 2014

    Jeffie, always in lala-land seeing things first hand. :-)

  43. #43 Olaus Petri
    August 27, 2014

    Quiz time! Who said the following?

    “Everyone** agrees that we can’t predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy. It could be large, it could be small. We don’t know.”

  44. #44 Stu 2
    August 27, 2014

    Jeff Harvey @#40.
    The worst offender of them all?
    Do you mean Dr Jennifer Marohasy?
    How has Dr Marohasy earned such an infamous title from you?
    Who or what has she offended the worst?
    What is offensive about the information she has recently released?

  45. #45 cRR Kampen
    August 27, 2014

    #42, who gives a shit for your ignorance. Don’t answer, we know.

  46. #46 Lionel A
    August 27, 2014

    I could Bet on Oily Prat not appreciating the nuanced language of some scientists.

    I not that WUWT and or the stickey Bishop are probably pushing OP’s buttons here.

    Marohasy is like you 2Stupid, a jerk but a particularly obnoxious one as she should, and probably does, know better.

  47. #47 Lionel A
    August 27, 2014

    I could Bet on Oily Prat not appreciating the nuanced language of some scientists.

    I not that WUWT and or the stickey Bishop are probably pushing OP’s buttons here.

    Marohasy, the naughty lassie, is like you 2Stupid, a jerk but a particularly obnoxious one as she should, and probably does, know better.

  48. #48 Lionel A
    August 27, 2014

    Sorry about the double but on first send I had another of those Gateway Time out errors and didn’t realise that the post had got through.

    Whatever. I note that Sou at HotWhopper has launched into countering this Rutherglen nonsense from Morohassy & co. Indeed Nick stokes has now opened his batting on this one too.

    The climate criminals, for that is what they are by aiding and abetting the actions and interests of fossil fuel, are once again reduced to cherry picking and making false statements so as to persuade the ignorati. But these ignorati are becoming fewer as they are becoming more strident.

  49. #49 Stu 2
    August 27, 2014

    Lionel .
    You are possibly not aware that Abbot & Marohasy are researchers at UQ & are published?
    They have been devolooping ANN s to aid seasonal forecasting in QLD.
    In what way do you think she is aiding and abetting the actions and interests of fossil fuel & what has she cherry picked?

  50. #50 Lionel A
    August 27, 2014

    2Stupid,

    When somebody in an article such as the one you pointed to has to mention that ‘trick’ again, out of context as ever then I would not expect scientific honesty to come from anything MoreHassle researches. If you do then don’t expect any respect from me.

  51. #51 Lionel A
    August 27, 2014

    Now for those trying to deny that fossil fuel muddy the waters on the environmental disasters they create by buying people and organisations off should note this:

    Well, they did shut him down. After he went public about the unending life-and-death threat of continued oil drilling and channelling, LSU closed down its entire Hurricane Center (can you imagine?) and fired Professor van Heerden and fellow experts. This was just after the University received a $300,000 check from Chevron. The check was passed by a front group called “America’s Wetlands”—which lobbies for more drilling in the wetlands.

    Context here:

    Crime Scene – New Orleans.

  52. #52 BBD
    August 27, 2014

    Stu2

    <blockquote [strawman redacted] & what has she cherry picked?

    Stop trolling. This was answered in detail at #33 and #34.

  53. #53 BBD
    August 27, 2014

    Apparently, Marohasy – who has no background in climate science – self-describes as a libertarian. Case closed.

  54. #54 cRR Kampen
    August 27, 2014

    #50 – ‘Pelican Brief’ for real.

  55. #55 Lionel A
    August 27, 2014

    2Stupid:

    In what way do you think she is aiding and abetting the actions and interests of fossil fuel….

    Here you go numbskull:

    The sceptic in question is Dr Jennifer Marohasy, a long-time doubter of human-caused climate change whose research at Central Queensland University (CQU) is funded by another climate change sceptic.

    Source: Climate sceptics see a conspiracy in Australia’s record breaking heat.

    See also SourceWatch on MoreHassle and others, IPA and AEF really! This woman is not a climate scientist but one who once may have done useful work in the biological field but has since joined the Richard and Judy club, also Pat, John and Roy too should they feel left out.

  56. #56 Wow
    August 27, 2014

    In the end Lionel is right, too. Oil.

    And God.

    These people are just as convinced that God exists, talks to them, and tells them to do what they desperately want to do as any televangelist.

    They are JUST AS CONVINCED of God existing as any religious person on the street who goes to church a few times a year.

    But it;s not something polite society wants to admit to, hence they make up euphemisms:

    Sectarian
    Loyalists/Unionists
    Ethnic cleansing
    Terrorism
    Extremism.

    They are no more extreme than any other who believes in their God.

  57. #57 Wow
    August 27, 2014

    Pointing out your breakdown in logic

    Listen, dickcheeks, the only person who thinks that is my logic is YOU.

    If I wasn’t going to accept any result of R&D, why is it I’m for it?

    A question I asked you, and despite liberal quoting of me from you, you *did not quote that bit*.

    Why?

    Because the only dickhead who thinks that I would not accept any result of R&D into nuclear power is YOU, but admitting that is devastating to your “case”.

  58. #58 Wow
    August 27, 2014

    “Virtually *all* of human achievement has occurred in the non-Islamic world. ”

    Nope, most of it from Pre-Islamic Islamic world.

    Islam, like Christianity (Ask Rev Luther King), knows that rationality kills belief, and without belief, there’s no power in religion.

    In the 1300′s the Islamic World were centuries ahead of Europe. It took us three or four hundred years after the rise of Islam (and its quashing of the free thinkers that was rampant in most of Europe throughout even the Renaissance period, look at the life and times of Kepler) for us to CATCH UP.

    IF YOU EXCLUDE THE THINGS BEFORE THE C18, then “all scientific advances were from the non-islamic world”, but it would be just as true to reverse the position if you remove anything AFTER C18.

    Hence the conclusion is cherry picked and therefore invalid.

  59. #59 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    August 27, 2014

    Now this is, if you will excuse my Aussie, a ‘beaut’! Oh, how I cherish and relish it. It absolutely sums up what passes for, er, thinking at the Tabernacle. Please, please read it, then read it again and ponder . . .

    “Homogenisation is done to correct for biases. To improve the accuracy of the overall data. Why is it so implausible that the homogenised data are more accurate than the raw data which could be subject to a bias removed by the homogenisation process?”

    Simply too, too delicious for mere words! No need for me to explain it, the entire ‘warmer’ corruption is beautifully encapsulated.

  60. #60 Olaus Petri
    August 27, 2014

    Wow, yes, you and the rest of the deltoids are unscientific cultists. You nailed it.

    While in Rutherglen:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/bom-claims-rutherglen-data-was-adjusted-because-of-site-move-but-it-didnt-happen/#more-37863

  61. #61 BBD
    August 27, 2014

    Simply too, too delicious for mere words! No need for me to explain it, the entire ‘warmer’ corruption is beautifully encapsulated.

    That’s a big, fat, throbbing conspiracy theory you’ve got there, Duff. Careful.

    Try expanding your intellectual horizons. Since I wrote that, this illuminating article has appeared.

    You will be pleasantly surprised to see that it confirms – with all the necessary detail – exactly what I said. Enjoy.

  62. #62 Lionel A
    August 27, 2014

    Indeed BBD @ #60 if Duff had bothered to read before he used his Uzi again he would have been aware of that, for both Nick Stokes and Sou have put that can of worms under the spotlight.

    Whatever he dropped off again with some toodeloo got to fly sort of escape mechanism and appear again next month. He never contests the replies.

  63. #63 Lionel A
    August 27, 2014

    Listen, dickcheeks, the only person who thinks that is my logic is YOU.

    On the contrary, for all your bad mouthing you still persist in proving otherwise, I have demonstrated convincingly that it is you that wrote the words, go back and read those comments again.

    Unless of course your words don’t mean what they look to do on sight, you are using some kind of alternate language.

    Y

  64. #64 Olaus Petri
    August 27, 2014

    BBD,

    I especially liked the illuminations of Dr Bill Johnston:

    “The point being laboured, is that if the RAW data shows no statistically-detectable impacts; then they probably don’t exist.

    These changes relating to HQ, were arbitrarily applied, and it seems from step-change analysis of RAW that they were not justified. There was no move in 1912; that was when the data started. Perhaps really, you should re-run the whole blog, to reflect these important issues and biases.

    Cheers,

    Bill”

    :-)

  65. #65 Olaus Petri
    August 27, 2014

    Dr. Karoly has entered the stage as well, and it ain’t pretty, so far. I think Dr. Bill Johnston is on to something, don’t you?:

    “DAVID Karoly’s response is a contradiction. He is a well-known climate activist and editor-in-chief of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal. Independent peer-review or not, he is quoting his own stuff, which he published in the journal he edits.”

    Hmm… :-)

    And Karloy’s colleague has something to say as well:

    “GRAHAM Lloyd’s article (“Amateurs are challenging BOM warming data”, 26/8) on Jennifer Marohasy’s study of homogenised temperature records in Australia, notes a comment by my colleague David Karoly to the effect that poorly informed amateurs are at fault, and suggests they submit their re-analysis of the Bureau of Meteorology’s temperature records for peer review.

    I would prefer Karoly first offer comment on the extraordinary examples of two weather stations (Rutherglen in Victoria and Amberley in Queensland) where raw data shows annual average minimum temperatures to have a flat or slight decrease over the past 100 years, but the data shows significant increasing temperature trends after application of the BOM’s homogenisation process, a necessary step to gain estimates of continent-wide average temperature changes.

    The logical demand on any inference or projection of a data set is that it must first be consistent with the original data, and Karoly as an expert might well ask, as does Marohasy, what confidence do we have in homogenised data which fails this test?”

    I’m sure BBD and the rest of the folks in the ten can help Dr. Karoly?

  66. #66 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    August 27, 2014

    Keep digging, BBD!

    So, what the, er, strictly rigorous scientists are saying is this:
    ‘We can change the raw data because, er, well, the measuring site might, possibly, could, have been moved. Er, no, we have absolutely no indication that it was but, hell, it might have been, so we are going to change the data – UPWARDS – natch!’

    Even though the nearest official measuring site at Brisbane 50kms away also shows a cooling trend – you can see the raw data graph here:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=501945780000&dt=1&ds=0

    Of course, the data at Brisbane was also bent upwards by the Aussie Met office in THEIR graph – oh no, don’t tell me they think the tooth fairy moved that site as well!

    And let’s not forget Rutherglen either. This time there is a living breathing witness who testifies that the measuring site has never moved:
    “Retired scientist Dr Bill Johnston used to run experiments there. He, and many others, can vouch for the fact that the weather station at Rutherglen, providing data to the Bureau of Meteorology since November 1912, has never been moved.”

    And yet, another set of COOLING raw data ends up as WARMING adjusted data. Come on, guys, I enjoy a conjuring trick with the best of them – how do you do that?

  67. #68 BBD
    August 27, 2014

    Olaus ‘n’ Duff

    The facts are just a click away.

    I can’t make you read them. Only you can decide whether to exclude information necessary for evaluating the claim that BoM is engaged in a conspiracy to falsify surface temperature records. But remember, real sceptics weigh all the evidence before deciding what to believe.

  68. #69 BBD
    August 27, 2014

    You do realise that you are claiming that the BoM is engaged in a conspiracy to falsify climate data, don’t you?

    Doesn’t that strike you as, well, a bit crankish?

    Let’s consider an analogy. You are in the public bar of the Dog & Duck, and there’s someone banging on about how NASA faked the moon landings (or some other conspiracy theory involving a large, government bureaucracy). Might you not think ‘cobblers – this guy’s a crank’?

  69. #70 Stu 2
    August 27, 2014

    BBD, Lionel et al.
    Claiming that Dr Marohasy has questionable motives connected to the fossil fuel industry is no less ‘crankish’ or ‘conspiracist’ than claiming that BoM is engaged in fraud.
    The data has been homogenized.
    Dr Marohasy has not stated that homogenisation does not serve a useful purpose. She has questioned the BoM justifications for homogenisation at particular sites.
    It appears that at some of those sites, BoM has made incorrect assumptions & therefore the incremental warming is attributable to the assumptions for homogenisation and not the actual temp recordings.
    To me, this indicates human error or a simple mistake.
    It would be ‘unscientific’ to not correct the error.
    Whether Dr Marohasy is a ‘libertarian’ or a ‘sceptic’ or an ‘environmentalist’ or any other political tags that she has been given is irrelevant.

  70. #71 BBD
    August 27, 2014

    Claiming that Dr Marohasy has questionable motives connected to the fossil fuel industry is no less ‘crankish’ or ‘conspiracist’ than claiming that BoM is engaged in fraud.

    Dr Marohasy is a spokesperson for vested interests. This is easy to verify.

    Be sure to click the link to the IPA.

    Dr Marohasy has not stated that homogenisation does not serve a useful purpose. She has questioned the BoM justifications for homogenisation at particular sites.

    She is suggesting scientific misconduct with an over-arching agenda. And so are you. Which is crankish. I notice that you skipped over #68…

    To me, this indicates human error or a simple mistake.

    Please read #33 and links at #47 timely provided by Lionel A and ignored – despite nudging – since.

    Only you can fix the problem.

  71. #72 Stu 2
    August 28, 2014

    Do you mean these type of comments BBD?
    “Homogenisation is done to correct for biases. To improve the accuracy of the overall data. ”
    ” You look at the whole country and the full temperature data from all stations.”
    I’m wondering if you actually understand what is being questioned ?
    No one anywhere has claimed that homogenisation does not serve any useful purpose.
    You offering a link to a summary of Marohasy’s past employment is a case of being hoisted by your own petard BBD.
    I could link to many thousands of scientists in many thousands of different fields who have had many changes of employers for many different reasons – so what?
    Karoly, Flannery et al have altered, updated and changed their careers, qualifications and employers as well have they not?
    That is not a valid reason to dismiss anyone from any discussion about facts and figures.
    I don’t believe anyone holds a monopoly or special, unquestionable authority over weather and climate records do they?
    It does NOT change the fact that the justification for homogenisation of data at various sites may simply be INORRECT!
    It is not the actual algorithm itself that is being questioned but the JUSTIFICATION for applying it.
    If it was because the sites were moved, where’s the evidence?
    If it’s because the sites did not sufficiently match surrounding data, where’s the evidence?
    They are both acceptable reasons to homogenise. But if the sites have not been moved- then the change to the mean of the raw data is simply attributable to the incorrect assumptions for the homogenisation and nothing else.

  72. #73 Olaus Petri
    August 28, 2014

    Stu2, way over BBD’s head, I’m afraid, and especially these very complicated lines:

    “It does NOT change the fact that the justification for homogenisation of data at various sites may simply be INORRECT!
    It is not the actual algorithm itself that is being questioned but the JUSTIFICATION for applying it.
    If it was because the sites were moved, where’s the evidence?
    If it’s because the sites did not sufficiently match surrounding data, where’s the evidence?
    They are both acceptable reasons to homogenise. But if the sites have not been moved- then the change to the mean of the raw data is simply attributable to the incorrect assumptions for the homogenisation and nothing else”

    :-)

  73. #74 Olaus Petri
    August 28, 2014

    Here’s the solution/remedy for your angst BBD. Why don’t we make Jeff take a hike over there and have a look at it? He could close the case based on his “first hand” skills? :-)

  74. #75 Marco
    August 28, 2014

    Olaus, you ask the wonderful question
    “If it’s because the sites did not sufficiently match surrounding data, where’s the evidence?”

    “Wonderful”, because it is a relevant question, and you could have checked that yourself. But people like you won’t do it. Better to be “just asking question”.

    Here’s Sou who did that check:
    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/weather-in-rutherglen-with-wuwt.html

    Of course, there’s also this:
    http://moyhu.blogspot.dk/2014/08/adjustments-sometimes-warm-sometimes.html
    (one wonders why Jennifer isn’t screaming about those stations that have a downward correction…actually, no we don’t wonder about that, we know why she isn’t).

  75. #76 Olaus Petri
    August 28, 2014

    Good for Sue Marco, but why not help her answer the questions raised from Stu2 instead of somehting else?

    I think we have to call on Jeff! ;-)

  76. #77 Stu2
    August 28, 2014

    Marco.
    This is what Sou says in relation to those questions:

    “As you can see from the above, the raw records are shown as lower than the ACORN-SAT (adjusted/corrected) records for the period prior to the gap between 1959 and 1965. I’m not in a position to say why that is the case. I will say that the proper explanation is not nefarious intent. ”
    and:
    “I wasn’t able to find out why there is a five year gap in the records for Rutherglen in the first half of the 1960s. I’d have thought that researchers at the centre would have been monitoring records throughout, though its not beyond the realms of possibility that in some years the records were kept more diligently than others. ”

    Unfortunately most of the rest is either obfuscation, speculation or personal opinion.
    Let’s not forget that this piece by Sou is not a peer reviewed published document.
    I might also add that Sou is of course entitled to voice her personal opinion as is Dr Jennifer Marohasy.

    Sou appears to be answering some other question that hasn’t been asked and it appears she doesn’t know the answers to the questions that were asked.
    Here:
    If it was because the sites were moved, where’s the evidence?
    If it’s because the sites did not sufficiently match surrounding data, where’s the evidence?
    Further, if you go here:
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/the-abc-of-rutherglen/
    You will notice that Dr Marohasy is not ‘screaming’ about anything, she is simply trying to ask why BoM has applied those algorithms that do indeed alter the mean of the raw data from a slight cooling trend to a definite warming trend.
    I’m not sure why this is seen as a difficult question or a reason to personally attack Marohasy or a reason to cry ‘conspiracy theory’?
    There are many good reasons to homogenise data, so BoM should not have any problem answering those questions with a good reason.

  77. #79 Jeff Harvey
    August 28, 2014

    Stu2, FYI Jennifer Maharosey has all of the traits of a corporate shill. She’s associated with a righ wing think tank (IPA) and that says it all (or should). I guess dopes like you (and Olaus) are hurt because another one of your major sources of information bites the dust.

    And also FYI Olly, Maharosey cannot stand in the same room as me as a scientist. If I am in ‘la-la land’ then heaven knows where the hell she is. My scientific record stands on its own. No need for scientifically illiterate twerps like you to try and judge me because you have no ability to do so. You have not been near a science lecture theater in your life (not has Stu2 for that matter).

    What boggles the mind is that fact that you don’t think its possible for humanity to affect large scale processes across the biopshere. That’s depsite the fact that our species has affected the hydrological cycle, various nutrient cycles, the chemical composition of freshwater, terrestrial and marine ecosystems, extirpated a large number of species and even more genetically distinct populations, eliminated vast tracts of forest ecosystems, and had a major role in many other aspects of global change.

    Against that tapestry we have the ignoranti here somehow arguing that humans just cannot influence climate. What a bunch of idiots.

  78. #80 Jeff Harvey
    August 28, 2014

    And Olly is onto Nova, as well. How utterly pathetic.

    If the likes of Maharosey and Nova have something useful to write and contgribute, let’s see them try with the scientific literature or at a major conference where climate scientists are present. Instead, they rely on their kindergarten-level blogs aimed at the idiot brigade.

    I am tooi bloody busy preparing for my inaugural Professorship lecture in two weeks as well as a talk I am giving this afternoon to engage in sandbox level histrionics by unqualified quacks who steer well clear of the emprical literature and scientic journals. If M and N have something useful to say, let’s see them try it in the mainstream scientific jorunals or conferences and not as raw arguments on their shitty blogs. Sadly, for dupes like Stu2 and Olly, the blogs is where they gain their worldviews. They don’t reads the primary literature, and I have no intention of reading bull**** on a shill’s blog. Not now, not ever.

  79. #81 Olaus Petri
    August 28, 2014

    Are you feeling OK Jeff? :-) Besides speaking in tongue and by telling us (again) about your CV in maggotology, why don’t you set the records straight on the topics addresed?

    Your skills in observing climate change first hand could come in handy, I reckon!

    Here’s some more from Nova, please try keep up. And no one more than me what’s her to be corrected.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/abc-invites-bom-and-marohasy-to-speak-bom-decline-marohasy-accepts-but-is-cut-off/#more-38041

  80. #82 Lionel A
    August 28, 2014

    Oily Prat in #79

    Now you are being just plain obnoxious, indeed more obnoxious that usual even for you.

    What all this is about is a distraction from the reality of global warming and the resultant climate change which is becoming more obvious to sensible laymen as weather patterns shift spatially and temporally, periodicity and intensity..

    These shills that you like to cite are nothing better than illusionists, creating an illusion that science somehow is broken because, for a number of disparate reasons, data from temperature stations in Australia require homogenisation.

    Can you OP, 2 Stew or Duff explain what is going on with homogenisation, that is how it is done and why it is necessary.

    Clearly, none of you remember doing any scientific experiments which required accurate measurement of temperatures devoid of contamination by outside sources.

    What happens if whilst taking temperature records the experiment has, for some reason, to be moved to a different location? Alternatively what steps need to be taken if a boiler room is set up in an adjacent building?

    Meanwhile whilst MoreHassle, StickyBishop and others try to distract from:

    New Study Provides More Evidence That Global Warming ‘Pause’ Is A Myth

    Greenland And West Antarctic Ice Sheet Loss More Than Doubled In Last Five Years.

    Consider how much heat energy that takes to achieve.

    Jet Stream Changes Driving Extreme Weather Linked Again To Global Warming, Arctic Ice Loss.

    I could go on but that would be to over-egg.

  81. #83 Olaus Petri
    August 28, 2014

    Thanks Lionel, but why not instead stay in Rutherglen(bent) to straighten out the question marks? Jeffie’s mo(u)thfrothing and megalomania is only relevant in his own universe where he is the natural centre and able to invent reality any way he likes it.

    I’m sure you are better than that Lionel?

  82. #84 cRR Kampen
    August 28, 2014

    In the universe which is Jeffrey’s, Petris stfu.

  83. #85 FrankD
    August 28, 2014

    It appears that at some of those sites, BoM has made incorrect assumptions.

    Any minute now, Stu2 is going to tell us what data or evidence has produced this appearance of the BOM making incorrect assumptions. I look forward to hearing it.

    Hint: It’s certainly not in Marohasy’s tissue-thin speculation and conspiracy ideation.

    Absent evidence, Stu2′s musing is just JAQ’ing off, which is generally deprecated when done in public.

  84. #86 FrankD
    August 28, 2014

    Blah – html tag fail. You get the idea…

  85. #87 Stu 2
    August 28, 2014

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/the-abc-of-rutherglen/
    BTW Marco.
    Sou does not answer those questions at that link.
    She is instead speculating on the whys and wherefores.
    This piece by Sou is not peer reviewed and published anyway.
    But of course she is entitled to her opinion just as Dr Jennifer Marohasy is entitled to hers.
    The actual question is about the justification for applying the algorithm.
    There are many good reasons to homogenise.
    It should be easy to explain why it has been done.

  86. #88 Stu 2
    August 28, 2014

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Sorry Moderator.
    I mistyped my email address:

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/the-abc-of-rutherglen/
    BTW Marco.
    Sou does not answer those questions at that link.
    She is instead speculating on the whys and wherefores.
    This piece by Sou is not peer reviewed and published anyway.
    But of course she is entitled to her opinion just as Dr Jennifer Marohasy is entitled to hers.
    The actual question is about the justification for applying the algorithm.
    There are many good reasons to homogenise.
    It should be easy to explain why it has been done.

  87. #89 Jeff Harvey
    August 28, 2014

    Putrid,

    You are an ass****. And that’s my compliment of the day. You can try and belittle my qualifications all you like but they shit all over yours and those you cite here. Maggotology? What a hoot. Besides, if you did study the larval stages of Diptera, you’d get through your thick Swedish head the important ecological role they play as detritivores, decomposers, predators and pollinators. But since your knowledge of science – in any field – is benthic, then its hardly suprising that the only ripostes you can come up with are the crappy ones that you do. As it turns out, my research has nothing to do with the Diptera, and more to do with genetic variation in plant primary and secondary metabolism and how this affects multitrophic interactions. But of course, Putrid, this is way over your head.

    Again, Nova’s bonafdes aren’t up to my shoelaces. That’s why she shills on blogs. And you are an idiot. That’s why you read the shills and lap up their nonsense. As for Stu2, he’s almost as bad as you. Talking about peer-review whilst clearly also being a blog-dependent person. As I said before, the vast majority of climate change deniers are bush-league scientists. They hardly publish anything in reputable journals and instead rely on the morons who read their blogs.

    The bottom line is this: humans are forcing climate. There are consequences, many of which are nasty and unpredictable. And we ought to be doing something about it.

  88. #90 BBD
    August 28, 2014

    The usual dishonest tripe from Stu2:

    I’m wondering if you actually understand what is being questioned ?

    The integrity of BoM. I notice that you deny the blatant conspiracy theory here. You don’t even mention it. Rank intellectual dishonesty.

    You offering a link to a summary of Marohasy’s past employment is a case of being hoisted by your own petard BBD.

    No it isn’t. She’s a shill, and only an apologist for shills would leap to her defence. You should have kept your mouth shut but you are predictably too stupid to remain quiet when you should.

    It does NOT change the fact that the justification for homogenisation of data at various sites may simply be INORRECT!

    This has not been demonstrated – only the converse (see eg. link above to Nick Stokes). You are arguing from false assertion. Rank intellectual dishonesty again.

    If it was because the sites were moved, where’s the evidence?
    If it’s because the sites did not sufficiently match surrounding data, where’s the evidence?

    Oh for fuck’s sake will you read the fucking links.

    Stupid, dishonest and lazy to boot.

  89. #91 Lotharsson
    August 28, 2014

    Sigh.

    All this has happened before, and will happen again.

    The denialists will endlessly recycle their small bag of unconvincing tricks, and in doing so remain endlessly frustrated that the experts refuse to learn how to do their jobs the way the (obviously) far more competent amateurs tell them to, despite being offered copious advice on that topic for free.

  90. #92 BBD
    August 28, 2014

    Same goes for you too, Olaus. RTFL.

  91. #93 cRR Kampen
    August 28, 2014

    “I was cut-off, before I got to explain too much. ” from the link #85. Yes, at this point I was quite finished, too. But I’ll read the rest to satisfy my interest in certain disorders.

    Looks like this gal is trying what Watts tried until the silliness even became too much for climate revisionists to bear. Fortunately one BEST suffices and it is the best.

  92. #94 Lotharsson
    August 28, 2014

    IIRC the problem with Marohasy is not only that she is an obvious corporate shill with (IIRC) links to the IPA – and the IPA mislead through their teeth about climate science in a way that gives every appearance of being entirely deliberate – but that she has engaged in behaviour ranging somewhere from unsupported scientific claims to outright scientific denial in the past.

    You might want to go digging into her past claims to see if she’s been a reliable source before (implicitly or explicitly)touting her as one .

    (Or not, if your aim is not to converge to the best scientific understanding we have, but rather to muddy the waters…your call.)

  93. #95 Lotharsson
    August 28, 2014

    It does NOT change the fact that the justification for homogenisation of data at various sites may simply be INORRECT!

    Or it may simply be CORRECT!

    And I, denialist, have no way of knowing which is which because I don’t have the skills to analyse it myself!

    But I’m JAQing off over it anyway because I’m betting on the experts being wrong or being malicious! People who I reckon just have to be right tell me that’s where all the smart money is, and I haven’t lost everything yet so they may simply be CORRECT about that!

  94. #96 Lotharsson
    August 28, 2014

    Not sure if anyone posted Redfearn’s article on Marohasy’s claims here yet.

    Note the comparison graph half way down. If the BOM were trying to fudge the homogenised records to pretend there was more warming than actually occurred, it is most impressive how they also managed to fudge the other 17 records including several from satellites and the BOM’s own unhomogenised data set!

    But of course, this just means that the conspiracy grows ever more complex, doesn’t it? ;-)

  95. #97 Olaus Petri
    August 28, 2014

    Stu 2 wasn’t asking for more of your crying games BBD. I guess your permanent fetal position has somthing to do with lack of understanding.

    @Jeffie, your are the most laughable of all climate scare mongers, I’ll grant you that. Like big child. Impulse control is zero. :-)

    Anyting more unsubstantial you want to take home to Rutherglen? If not, please tell me more about your CV and the grand conspiracies growing between your ears.

  96. #98 Lotharsson
    August 28, 2014

    And this comment by LeagueOfNervousFish wins the Internetz!

    Follow the link, and first go up half a dozen comments to the one by Keith Sinclair which started the ball rolling. The first response to Keith was by zorastes which led LeagueOfNervousFish to reply.

  97. #99 Lionel A
    August 28, 2014

    Lotharsson, Yes I pointed 2stewpid to that Readfearn article at at #54 which of course our resident idiots are too eager to drop their next turd to bother diverting to read.

    I also hinted at some reasons why homogenisation may be required in #80. Maybe all the words make our resident village refugees blind. One of these was in that article:

    Dr Lisa Alexander, the chief investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, explained that in Australia it was not uncommon for temperature stations to be moved, often away from urban environments.

    I would suggest that our resident numskulls go visit a few weather recording stations over a period of time and get to grips with the methodology.

    Question for OP, 2Stu, Duff.

    What does a meteorologist mean by temperature?

  98. #100 BBD
    August 28, 2014

    Louse

    Stu 2 wasn’t asking for more of your crying games BBD. I guess your permanent fetal position has somthing to do with lack of understanding.

    Now reduced to simply making shit up.

    JFO and give us all a break from the moronic dishonesty.