Phew, looks the carbon tax has not returned Australia to the Stone Age.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Good news! I'm still able to post -- Australia has not returned to the Stone Age. A few links:
Key points of the carbon price package
Frank Jotzo: popular tax cuts and a carbon price that just might deliver
Roger Jones
John Quiggin
Larvatus Prodeo
Gareth Renowden.
The carbon tax alarmists are now…
Despite carbon tax, Australia is still not in the Stone Age.
Gravity Probe B reports its first results at the APS meeting...
...and the winner is: Albert Einstein.
General Relativity is consistent at the 1% level, at least for geodetic precession...
Phew, that was worth the wait.
Frame dragging measurements are still not confirmed due to unexpected…
Still here. It seems the carbon tax has not destroyed the Australian economy. Phew!
Oops, missed this from the GWPF a few days ago;
http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/6067-andrew-mckillop-whatever-ha…
Whatever Happened To Climate Change Crisis?
"In retrospect we have to ask why this mass illusion, the transition to “a new ecological society” imploded and fell off the teleprompters, off the front pages, and out of the seemingly endless TV special reports on threatened polar bears and collapsing ice cliffs. How could this all disappear so fast?"
A provocative piece and, if you lot can emerge from your comfort bunkers for awhile, worthy of some discussion here I would have thought.
What GSW thinks proves to be unerringly wide of the mark. In fact, the article is not "provocative", it is a mishmash of most denier talking point of recent years, and avoiding a better answer - that our politicians lack the will to upset people already upset about getting shafted by the 1% in the GFC and consequent, and are now just looking the other way. But what but the shallowest shallows would one expect from the GWPF's "market oracle" - seriously that's his byline.
It is not worthy of further discussion. It was not even worth my time reading it. But I read it so others wouldn't have to. Utter (and predictable waste of my time).
If Deltoid is to be infested with trolls, can they not at least be halfway decent?
Yawn, GSW. Yet another belligerent rant from someone who can't tell the difference between television and the real world. Hint: just because the media aren't in a frenzy about something doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Don't overlook that GSW once claimed Skeptical Science had stopped using peer reviewed reports and then threw a hissy fit when he learned that so many papera were being published in support of AGW they had to be condensed into a weekly post.
This man wouldn't know what was actually going on outside of the denier blogs if it came up and slapped him in the face. Which it has. Multiple times.
Of course, with the impending El Nino and Ar5 I'm sure GSW will be proven right and everything will just go away...
Wait till Monday when the run on the banks begins and the $Au goes to -.5 to the $NZ!
Dont forget, John - GSW believes a bunch of alarmist nonsense about so called "Ice Ages" having occurred in the past, apparently because he read about them in Wikipedia...
How could I forget? It's obvious scientists are fraudulently conjouring these alleged "ice ages" so they can continue suckling at the government teat.
Even if ice ages did exist, these "scientists" forget that ice is made of water and water is plant food.
"the carbon tax has not returned Australia to the Stone Age"
So it's failed already?
Sorry, couldn't resist...
Well, today I saw a cat and a dog furtively leaving a hotel together, and the pigeons were flying backwards in the sky.
Carbon tax, for sure.
On the other hand, the world now knows that sane people in Australia mean to do something about our share of polluting the planet, so maybe there will be some long-overdue action from others.
Well, as long as the alarmist climate change deniers don't convince the lay public that it's all a leftie conspiracy-fraud-scayum to make rich people poor, and to flood the world with that horrible innovative 21st century green technology...
When should we expect the climate in Australia to go back to what it was?
"We" as in those of us presently here won't see it. But "we" in the sense of wider humanity are taking the first steps to prevent an insufferable future.
Although I realise it must stick in your craw assisting those as yet unborn freeloading b*stards Betty, when there are plenty of right-wing crocodile tears to be cried over how those fascist greenies are preventing the third world owning Playstations.
Bet u r a delta-uniform-foxtrot-foxtrot-echo-romeo 2
Well what 'was' it?
Why does it need to go back?
Why should it be going back to anything?
"Much fun has been had in contrasting the Met Office’s forecasts of our weather during the past three months with what actually transpired. Its prediction on March 26 “slightly favoured drier than average conditions for April-May-June”, with April as the driest month. This forecast, the Met Office assured us, was based on “observations, several numerical models and expert judgment”. What happened, as we know, was that we have had more rain than at any time since records began in 1766, with the wettest April and June in 100 years.
What is timely to recall, however, is the admission made to MPs in March 2010 by Professor Julia Slingo, the Met Office’s chief scientist, that the “numerical models” used by the Met Office to make its short-term weather forecasts are exactly the same as those “we use for our climate prediction work”. "
Would any sane man or woman reading those Met Office quotes be anything other than a climate warming septic? Particularly if you lived in the UK, had your heating on in June and had spent the last four years watching your BBQ rust while some clever clogs tries to tell you that the globe is warming!
"There are very few things in the world that come close to being funnier than watching morons try to understand that which is beyond their comprehension"- chek
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/actualmonthly/ Not the wettest June in 100 years.
Now the Met office got it's predictions wrong... but DD got reading the observations wrong. That's a spectacular fail!
Lionel A...
Why should it be going back to anything?
To keep it from changing. Isn't that the point?
This is worth copying over from the previous open thread:
Are you sure about that Duff? Unfortunately you don’t provide us with any proof except a map which shows the opposite of what you claim. In fact, a quick change of the settings shows that the majority of the US had record high temperatures!
And look at this!
The US just had its hottest 12 month period on record!
It really is a wonder that you fail so frequently, Duff. You are a pathetic, shambling mess of a man and you only bring shame to rapidly dwindling denier population.
No, the point is to reduce emissions and contain future warming to a managable level.
Bit difficult, I know. Want me to act that out with hand puppets to help you understand better?
Almost as stupid as Curtin.
John...
John...
"No, the point is to reduce emissions and contain future warming to a managable level."
How do you know when you've reached a manageable level in relation to climate change?
John...
And yes. please reply with hand puppets
Betula..
Betula..
"How do you know when you’ve reached a manageable level in relation to climate change?"
Oh God. You don't actually understand the point of reducing carbon emissions, do you? You probably believe it's something about "cooing the planet".
The set comprising 'What Betty does not understand in relation to constraining AGW' is, um, vast, and roughly equivalent to the set 'factual information with regard to constraining AGW'. ;-)
In other words, I don't think even hand-puppets are going to cover it...
Ah, GSW troll, is not "GWPF", purveyors of the finest gish gallop denialati non science propaganda, in the land of "Teflon Cameron". I suspect under Cameron's rule of mismanagement, a minimum of 25% of the current resident population, will be wanting to move Down Under in 2020, to a warmer climate when their North Sea Oil wells run dry! Or perhaps, move eastward to Germany, in search of jobs, in the land of plentiful non carbon based clean renewable energy?
Alas, GWPF leader 'Benny the Troll Peanut', was completely roasted alive and basted in his own propaganda sauce, by one Naomi Oreskes.
GWPF, is also well known, for publishing fake science from fake experts, such as classics educated Chris or Lord of Mocking Bull.
Sadly, not even worth ones time to read and debunk, previously debunked "BS".
Surely, GSW, you can do better than an F minus, or is it Z minus? For proliferating pure unadulterated bull, from a mononeuron called Andrew McKillop. The irony being, the European Country with the highest green energy rating, is also, you guessed it, Europe's most dynamic economy.
Watt a complete dolt and bird brained clown, is Andrew "Denialati" McKillop Although calling him a brainless bird, is basically an insult to the smarter feathered variety!! He is one, who is truly deserving of the double convicted serial liar "Andrew (Denial) Bolt Propaganda Award"!
As for "jrkridea" do I detect a hint of sarcasm?
For, it is a given that our bankrupt eastern colonial friends across the Tasman Sea, run a complete Greek Style economy of borrow for today and completely ignore tomorrow! Sadly, the twin islands, shrouded in the white smog of despair and denial, is in complete econometric Tim Curtin style core meltdown and implosion. It be, rather sooner than later. Sadly, the country now has only two exports of fresh food, graduates fleeing their large unpaid student loan debts and becoming a fresh batch of slaves, shipped off westward daily to the antipodes, to serve in the new robo mine pits of Down Under.
Such is life! :)
Perhaps we could turn the question around:
Betty, what is it you imagine those who are attempting to constrain carbon emissions are attempting to achieve? Aside from Totalitarian Marxist World Government, of course.
Betula, do you know anything about "reducing risk factors?"
Say you went to the doctor for a checkup. He measures your blood pressure and says "uh oh". He does a blood test. Again, he says "Uh oh. Betty, you have elevated blood pressure and cholesterol, and you're a prime candidate for a heart attack. I don't know precisely when it will happen, nor even if you'll survive or not. But it'll most likely happen sometime if you continue down this road, and the results are unlikely to be pleasant."
He recommends immediately reducing your sodium intake, reducing your intake of fatty foods, and doing some exercise.
Do you, Betula, stand there and just say "well doc that's all a load of shite. Unless you can tell me exactly if and when I'm gonna have a heart attack, by exactly how much the above actions are going to change my cholesterol levels, exactly how many grams of arterial plaque or calcium deposits will be removed, and exactly how many years this will prolong my life, I'm not going to take any of your recommended actions."
Is that really how you would approach it? Because it's sure as hell how you seem to approach the climate debate. And the doc would just stand there as you sceptically stormed out of his office silently thinking "Oh great. Yet another pretentious wanker in my treatment room".
Mikem, bad example. Nor sodium or fatty foods are the cause of high blood pressure. Carbs are. And the evidence for cholesterol being the cause for heart attacks is nill.
Educate your self: http://www.dietdoctor.com/lchf
Well, we're not in the Stone Age, but Alan Jones still claims that global warming is a hoax, a relatively small number of protesters apparently claimed yesterday the "end of democracy" in Australia, and the article says "In Sydney, Ms Bishop said the government was trying to use climate change to hold onto power." (Note however that it doesn't provide an actual quote to that specific effect.)
I'm still wondering how Abbott can claim with a straight face that the carbon tax will roon the 'conomee when the far larger, far more impactful GST ... did not.
Vague, the predictions of the deniers failed to come about.
I guess that means Daily here will denounce them as incompetent and refuse to believe anything they say, right?
Oh, the Humanity!...
Also, I admit to not having payed a tremendous amount of attention to the whole 'the GBN* Tax is coming! the sky is falling' thing, not least because I've been voluntarily paying a Carbon Tax by forking-out for 100% wind power (for that nasty non-tariffy bit which my mighty 1kw solar system ain't pushing to net, as it were) for years (actually, I just got a letter telling me my wind tariff just fell 44% Woohoo!).
Anyway, did the compensation packages start earlier than the tax itself, or something? Or did Craig Emerson just get asked a blatantly idiotic question (by the ABC) 41 seconds into this clip?
Because people would really know where they stood on July the bloody 2nd, wouldn't they? Particularly people - always inclined to feel they're being hard-done by in the best of circumstances - stirred up by one of the most hysterical and dishonest disinformation campaigns I've ever witnessed... (not least because it's run by Deniers)...
*Great Big New
@ DarylD
"As for “jrkridea” do I detect a hint of sarcasm?"
How could you susgest such a thing. I have it on good authority from distinguished economists, nay, distiguished nobel laureates of the Chicago School that this is happening as I type.
The theory is clear on this point. (Don't look behind the curtin--oops I mean curtain)
My cardiologist says you're wrong. The main risk factors for heart disease are smoking, high blood pressure and high cholesterol.
John...
"You probably believe it’s something about “cooing the planet”."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okZA29O9ySY
But seriously, I think I see where you are going with this...
http://pigeonproject.com/2008/04/23/rich-poor-climate-change/
PentaX:
Well as somebody who has survived two, just, the second 36 hours after the first whilst medics were plumbing in a blood sampling box on my chest, I can tell you that is bollocks.
Doctor: “Uh oh. Mikem, you have elevated blood pressure and cholesterol, and you’re a prime candidate for a heart attack. I don’t know precisely when it will happen, nor even if you’ll survive or not. But it’ll most likely happen sometime if you continue down this road, and the results are unlikely to be pleasant"
Mikem: So your going to raise my rates?
Doctor: Yes, as a way to ensure you reduce your sodium intake, reducing your intake of fatty foods, and increase your exercise.
Mikem: Doc, how do you know when I've reached a manageable level of these things in relation to my health?
Doctor: Mikem, you moron, "don't you know anything about “reducing risk factors?”
Bill...
"Betty, what is it you imagine those who are attempting to constrain carbon emissions are attempting to achieve?"
Rather than use my imagination, I thought I would ask the question...
"How do you know when you’ve reached a manageable level in relation to climate change?"
But since nobody can seem to answer it, I guess it really is up to the imagination isn't it?
Rather than answer the question, you mean?
Here's an answer to yours - when we're back below 330pm CO2.
Now, where's the answer to the question you were posed?
@Betula, Bill
“Betty, what is it you imagine those who are attempting to constrain carbon emissions are attempting to achieve?”
I don't think there is any expectation that it will achieve anything. My understanding is that it was price Gillard thought worth paying to get the greens on board at the last election.
Some reports I've seen have the cost at $3-4 per week for every man, woman and child in Australia. This will not drive you antipodeans back to the stone age, but neither will it "fix" the climate at some as yet unknown "optimum". A small price for you all to pay for Gillard's noble political gesture IMO.
Can anyone remember what the calculated net effect on Global temps would be as a result of the tax? don't recall the exact figure, but think it was ~0.
Fact free trolling for your dried up old men at the GWPF, Griselda?
"I don’t think" - nobody here cares what you-the-troll do or don't "think".
"Some reports I’ve seen" - which you don't link to, most likely because they're from the usual suspects and therefore worthless.
"don’t recall the exact figure, but think it was ~0." - which, as an intial step is still far better than +05% or whatever. More nations will follow because it's the rational (look it up) thing to do given the emergency.
Lawson's stance becomes more ridiculous by the day - as does his hairstyle.
@chek
I think the numbers are about right chek. There's a clip below of Craig Emerson, Minister of Trade in the Gillard Government I think(?). He has it at $9.90 per household per week with (if you qualify) $10.10 cashback(?).
Worth a warning upfront, after a brief pause towards the end, Mr Emerson seems to experience some kind of mental episode.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hZboCxbTzHk
Lionel A...
I know we have our jousting, but I sincerely wish you a full recovery.
Lionel A...
I originally read that as you recently had two heart attacks....I don't know how long ago, but the sentiment is the same...
wow...
"Here’s an answer to yours – when we’re back below 330pm CO2."
Thanks Bill.
That's only a partial answer. What would 330 ppm do? Would it bring climate back to what it was at that time or keep it from changing from where it is? Which of course brings us full circle to my original question....
"When should we expect the climate in Australia to go back to what it was?"
wow...
"Now, where’s the answer to the question you were posed?"
You mean the one not posted by you? This one....
"Betty, what is it you imagine those who are attempting to constrain carbon emissions are attempting to achieve?"
Oh, I don't know, there is little something the U.N is desperate to fund to get them to achieve their goals. What could that be? Hmm...what was the name of that program?
Oh dear, you're video link seems to be unavailable, GSW. Still I expect if a government minister does a song & dance act live on TV, he's most likely indicating ridicule to you and yours.
Which, of course you must explain away as best you can, as "some kind of mental episode." Because the alternative would be - as with most reasonable people - he doesn't take you seriously. And who could?
damn lack of preview = - "your video link"
Betty, we are attempting to constrain the growth of CO2 in order to maintain a global ecosystem that resembles the surprisingly benign one that has nurtured out civilization to date, and certainly to avoid signigicantly dangerous warming, roughly (and conveniently) held to be beyond 2C above the pre-industrial level, though judging by current experience it's almost-certainly optimistic to assume that's actually 'safe'.
It's almost-certainly also not achievable, thanks in no small part to the efforts of people like yourself.
Following on the arguments of people like Jim Hansen, some have concluded that 'safe', if it means anything at all, most likely means a level of 350ppm, still well above pre-industrial, and already well and truly exceeded, with a trajectory taking us further and further away all the time.
Most have concluded we'll be very lucky indeed to pull up 'safely' at 450, and we'll see what we may/must do about subsequent reductions if we manage to achieve that.
Silly people might manage to interpret all this as some sort of a demand for 'cooling'.
Even sillier people argue - plenty of them inside this country itself - that we, being such a small nation, don't make any difference anyway, so we should continue to gaily lead the most carbon-extravagant lifestyles on earth. If you are so ethically blind that you can't see where that leaves us all - it's called 'the tragedy of the commons'; look it up! - I feel pity of you and contempt for your attitudes.
Now, a coherent answer to my question, please.
Yep.
Which means that it's dubious (at best) to claim that it will cost "...$3-4 per week for every man, woman and child in Australia". A large majority of the "every man, woman and child in Australia" will come out slightly ahead - even more so if they switch to more carbon efficient products.
Ah, Betty, why you dispense denialati propaganda and horse hockey without a license?
A quick check of 'Skeptical Science" "Global Warming & Climate Change Myths", debunks them all, with little effort.
Source :- http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
I award you F minus for shoddy workmanship, in building a house of straw, on quick sand foundations.
Or as Abraham Lincoln would say : “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
Epic face palm.
So pentaxZ links to an alt-health website for the "expert opinion".
Jeezus. Give me a break.....
Betty, you asked what you asked and I answered.
You don't get to ask another one and pretend it's the same.
Now, answer the bloody question.
Australian Politics: An Allegory
Last night's episode of the must-see Australian ABC program Q and A was a vignette of the fundamental propensities underpinning the major Australian political paradigms.
Not long into the program GetUp! director Simon Sheikh collapsed, falling face-down onto the desk. The Conservative Coalition was represented by Sophie Mirabella, who recoiled in horror, whilst Labor's Greg Combet dropped what he was saying and ran over to Sheikh. For Mirabella, someone else's well being appear's to be less important than her own comfort, whist Combet is prepared to step in as soon as circumstances require*.
Another astonishing instance was when the 'Liberal' Party's spin doctor Grahame Morris showed his irrationality to full colours by almost bursting into tears raging against the very existence of climate change, and the scientists who study it. The segment starts around 21:20 into the program, here. It's a triumph of blinkered, visceral ideology over unpalatable but empirically-based rationality.
In a similar vein, there were several business people who railed against the carbon price, apparently not understanding that living in a democracy and expecting governments to provide help to them, when desired, comes with the responsibilities and obligations to provide a similar right to optimal quality of life to other humans and to non-human species for centuries into the future.
This front-gate selfishness was underscored with the Business episode that followed after QandA, where Jonathan Jackson showed what a sensible business analysis would conclude, rather than what business lobbyists want to spruik simply because it attracts income from their funders.
[*For what it's worth, I don't vote foreither major party.]
Arghhh! Where did that apostrophe come from?
Loth:
Which is, after all, the point! This is one tax you can avoid, and everyone's better off if you do...
Seriously, people, there are so many easy steps to be taken here to minimise the impact of this Tax on one's life that the wailing and gnashing of teeth would appear to be little more than a kind of national narcissitic hysteria. Whatever happened to the mythical lean, laconic, egalitarian nation of my youth?
Bernard J, I started to watch Q'n'A last night (as Combet is always good value, and I thought Sheik would be interesting), but it took exactly 3 seconds of la Mirabella's annoying, grating voice and unmatched stupidity to make me turn it off (swearing).
Ah, Bernard J, gotta love the man's first and last comment in your second reference "The propaganda war has begun in earnest....................................so much smoke, people are waiting for the fire ( probably in the pants of Tony Abbottard"
Tony Abbottard link 1; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi-q0ALVzPg
Tony Abbottard on carbon tax link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12PN66IBoPs
Cheers :)
David Irving, I know exactly what you mean! It's astounding that Mirabella has responsibility for anything more significant than a paper clip. However, if you can bear it, the Mirabella performance last night was an exquisite example of lobbing petards into one's own underpants. There must have been many Liberal [sic] spin doctors wincing whenever she opened her mouth.
On the other hand, given the audience reaction, it seems that there is a sizable chunk of the Australian public who will happily hoot like howler monkeys whenever someone says something that supports their inherent ideological baises. It seems to matter not a whit that Mirabella spouts complete rubbish, as long as it's the brand of rubbish that they want to hear.
I have said it many times in the past, but I'll say it again - we must not forget that half of the country's population has less than average intelligence. I'd not be the least surprised to see that a disproportionate number vote for the Coalition... It certainly is the case in other countries, as figure 1 in 'Childhood intelligence predicts voter turnout, voting preferences, and political involvement in adulthood' shows.
The ABC had quite a good line-up of carbon tax commentary last night, with this interview with Ross Garnauton Lateline.
I've always wondered who was responsible for all the garbage tossed overboard from boats that I find at the beach. Now I know - folks like GSW.
Can anyone remember what the calculated net effect on Global ocean garbage would be as a result of my not throwing my trash overboard? don’t recall the exact figure, but think it was ~0. Well then, *toss*
Or, how soon the denialati fraternity forget the comments from Marius Kloppers, CEO of BHP Billington statement "He said Canberra needed to ''look beyond just coal'' and towards other energy sources, or pay the price."
Source The Age September 16th, 2010 :- http://www.theage.com.au/business/move-on-climate-bhp-billiton-urges-20…
Watching The Deniers: "If I could stop one heart from breaking: carbon tax greeted with gnashing of teeth, claims of witchcraft and blood oaths"
Source Link : - http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/if-i-could-stop-one-…
Cheers :)
bill:
It's not lean anymore and getting less lean as time goes by.
Chris - that was rather my point. Is it surprising that a nation that has become progressively more self-indulgent - militantly self-indulgent, at that - should also have become progressively more obese? Hardly...
It'd make Scrooge proud...
Mikem, "So pentaxZ links to an alt-health website for the “expert opinion”.
Jeezus. Give me a break….."
Says a man living in (I suppose) USA, the country which gives obesity, hypertention, diabetes and stroke a name. Hillarious.
If you choose to believe ordinary common sense is the same as alternative, your'e in for a big surprise. In Sweden roughly 25% of the population have restricted their intake of carbs. And as it turns out, the above mentioned diseases has started to decrease. So by all means, keep believing in the low fat dogma, as you believe in the cAGW.
zoot
"My cardiologist says you’re wrong. The main risk factors for heart disease are smoking, high blood pressure and high cholesterol."
Your'e really up in the blue, What causes high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, diabetes and so on? What do you feed pigs if you want fatty meat? What do you americans fead your obese cats and dogs? What do americans eat mostly, fat, proteins or carbs? What did our gatherer/hunter ancestor mostly eat? What did the indians mostly eat before the white man came along? What do the Massai, the people with the best health in the world, eat? What do the Inuit (traditionally living) eat with perfect health? Common sense, anybody?
How many drive Volvos? There's the answer...
I don't suppose Dr. Quackery Quack actually has any, like, y'know, evidence as opposed to earnest exhortations and figures pulled out of thin air. Because his past record on the science explaining AGW doesn't inspire a lot - correction, any - confidence.
Tell me Pantiesize Z, where do you stand on 'free energy' and conspiracies to withhold it? After all, that's but a micro-step away from the dastardly IPCC plot to tax you and your vital bodily fluids beyond endurance.
High sodium intake can cause high blood pressure.
Since one of the three drivers for heart disease has been admitted to be high blood pressure, the use of those three to refute the claim that high salt diets cause heart attacks is disengenuous.
check, dear, about the supposed AGW, why try to explain something that doesn't exist in the real world?
Well, about the metabolic syndrome, it's simply as this, the sales of carb has dropped, the sale of butter and other full fat products has increased. Official numbers from the swedish food administration. The previosly mentioned desieases has decreast, shows the swedish health administration. Dry numbers. Of course backed up with science. As you can find at docs page: http://www.dietdoctor.com/science
Now, why don't you explain why americans are the fattest and sickest people in the world. And why Swiss and French people are the leanest and helthiest in the western world, allthough eating big loads of animal fat?
And while all you science people are at it, how long do you estimate it would take for a species to alter its metabolic digestive system from digesting mainly animal foods to mainly carb based foods. 100 years? 1000? Perhaps 10000years? A million years? What's your best guess?
http://www.news.com.au/world/us-weather-is-what-global-warming-looks-li…
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/03/this-us-summer-is-what-global-warm…
Fox news? The denialati are in melt down!
Perhaps Pentax could also discuss average life expectancy now compared to then?
Sure, reality is much more complicated than that, but, really, that Swedish statistic was just as much pure bunk. Correlation/causality; all that.
And, God, perhaps it's because I live with a Yoga teacher and all-round righteous lifestyle enthusiast, but diet/health discussions are booooooring.
However, they make a welcome distraction when your world-view is getting caned. Seriously caned.
Don't they, Pentax?
C'mon, then, let's talk aboutthe Weather. The Ice Melt. Greenland. The fact that your side of the argument is populated with people like this. C'mon, let's hear your take on the second law, radiation propagating through a vacuum - all that!
And what you gonna do when the El Nino comes, clown? It will, you know... your pathetic cause is melting away faster than Greenland and US temperature records...
People like this meaning Tim C. Bloody lack of preview.
This put a smile on my face. The 'sceptic' debunking of Skeptical Science still has a way to go:
http://climatewiki.org.uk/Deconstructing_%22Skeptical_Science%22
Bill, i knew you "science" people would dodge the question. Well, it doesn't bother me that all americans, with the present rate, will be obese in a few decades. Not my problem. ;-)
Well, about the weather. When the weather is unusual warm, dudes like you blame it on AWG. But if a realist as much as beeps that perhaps, because there has been a couple of unusual cool and snowy winters, the climate is getting cooler, and that there has not been any warming for the last 15 years, all of you warmistas screams it's WEATHER, not climate. Double standards in favour of AGW.
Glaciers are not static, allthough you warmistas tend to think so. They have always melted or grown. So what's the big deal?
"why try to explain something that doesn’t exist in the real world?"
So are you claiming one or more of:
1) CO2 is not a GHG
2) Burning fossil fuels produces more CO2
3) Humans are burning fossil fuels
?
Isn't someone supposed to jump up and down at this point loudly proclaiming "but that's merely a prediction!"?
;-)
pentaxZ, my cardiologist still says you're wrong.
MikeH: that Fox story is quite amazing. Not just that they linked extreme weather and global warming, but that they actually NOT ended the story with a quote from Christy!
*They have always melted or grown*
Sure they have. Over many thousands of years. And even over this time frame there is usually some element of statis/equilibrium. Right now most glaciers are in rapid retreat, and well beyond rates exclusive of some major forcing.One might as well say that species distributions expand and contract in response to biotic and abiotic constraints. Of course they do.But again these processes are generated over generally large temporal scales, not over the course of one of two decades. There are enormous biotic shifts current taking place: more generations per yea of insectsr, higher survival of many species in higher latitudes or higher elevation, and quite dramatic range shifts. Holland is now home to a wide range of species with few or no records here in the 1980s. Moreover, the 'it hasn't warmed meme' has run its course: statistical significance has no bearing on ecological reality. Say the value of mean surface temperatures since 1995 is only signifciant at the 10% and not <5% level. What does that mean in the real world? Natural systems do not suddenly become static if we slip from <5% significance to 8%. Too many times I ahve read the silly brigade argue statistics without understanding what these mean to natural systems. Furthermore, many of the effects we are seeing now are based on changes that occurred before 1995. This is the result of temporal and spatial lags. The silly brigade expect temperature x to manifest itself on nature tomorrow on day y. How many times has this insidious logic got to be debunked before the deniers get sick of it and move onto some other distortion?
*They have always melted or grown*
And people have always been born or died.
But some of those births were result of rape and some of those deaths due to murder. Both activities that humans engage in and are criminal.
So, in what way does your empty statement have anything to do with AGW?
lord_sidcup@12:22: Hilarious! I especially enjoyed their "rebuttal" to the SkS post about the reliability of models:
Oh, that link is marvellous Lord Sidcup! I can't wait to see the how the fake sceptics argue both "global warming is caused by the sun" and "it's cooling".
That page is full of clashing arguments and they have to argue in favour of every single one.
Clicking on their consensus I link I see they've rebutted the argument that “over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists are convinced humans are significantly changing global temperatures” by agreeing that.... “over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists are convinced humans are significantly changing global temperatures”.
Duff logic.
Also, if no such consensus exists, how can they use that to "prove" that it's all a scam by saying "Science is not ruled by consensus"?
Oh dear. From that delusional wiki:
...one of Watts' most fervent Dunningly-Krugered lay commenters, who sees conspiracy and fraud in every corridor of science, and who is one of the more obdurate sufferers of cognitive scotoma that one could ever encounter.
Sadly, she honestly believes the garbage fed to her by the Denialati, and obviously sees nothing wrong with promoting multiple mutually-contradictory stances, as long as each stance contradicts the reason-based physics of global warming. A case in point is the inclusion on the vision statement page of that non-sequitur from the cartoonist-without-a-sense-of-humour-or-any-scientific-understanding.
If she want to leave that site as a legacy for her grandchildren, I hope that she's prepared to accept that they'll be embarrassed and humiliated that their grandmother was a screaming fruitcake who contributed to delaying action that would have helped to mitigate the serious climatic alterations that humans a inflicting on the planet.
I suspect that others from WWWT will pile on to participate, like drakes on a duck...
Bernard J. @ 2:36 am
‘Liberal’ Party’s spin doctor Grahame Morris showed his irrationality to full colours by almost bursting into tears raging against the very existence of climate change, and the scientists who study it....
Morris is another disgrace to the human race right from the get go with his allusion to 'a log called Al Gore'. His notion that the 'gurus' and by extension we are still unsure about AGW is either naked ignorance or pure dissembling and I was gratified to hear a few boos at that point. Morris probably swallows Bolt's effluent without further thought.
Jeffie dear. Would you please take off your cAGW glasses for a moment?
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/full/ngeo1481.html
What did you think you were doing tampax when linking to a paper that starts with "the Greenland ice sheets are retreating"?
zoot, of course he does. Statins is the worlds most sold "medicine". Big Pharmas golden cow.Someone mentioned "Correlation/causality". The cholesterol theory is just that, a theory. Never proven. The cholesterol hypothesis is just as notorious in the medicine science as the hockey schtick is in the climate science. Ancel Keys and Michael Mann, same same but different.
And ends with "We show that many land-terminating glaciers underwent a more rapid retreat in the 1930s than in the 2000s, whereas marine-terminating glaciers retreated more rapidly during the recent warming."
How about that, wow?
How do you guys think things are going for Brittish Met Office? They say they have the same soft ware as the IPCC and they can't predict the weather right one week ahead. Hillarious.
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews12No27.pdf
And here is something very interresting. From my point of view that is (from outside the sect).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEeaEhEwf8Q
"The cholesterol theory is just that, a theory. Never proven."
I've heard that argument before...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
"http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews12No27.pdf"
Linking to astrologer Piers Corbyn isn't going to win you any points.
So, now, Greenland is the entire planet now? What has this article got to do with the large scale retreat of glaciers world wide? All you are doing here is what the other deniers do: distort the findings of a peer-reviewed study o bolster you own narrow agenda..... Pentaxzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... sorry, I dozed off there with you incoherent rambling.
And the ability to predict weather - a highly stochastic process - has nothing to do with predicting climate, which is highly deterministic. But why say this to you? You clearly haven't been near a science class in ages.
The IPCC uses weather prediction software? Got a link for that, Pentax?
Lenny, ask Met Office. It's their claim.
Ah Jeffie. Do you mean the Himalayan glaciers? The one the railway engineer clamed was going to melt away in a few decades? Hillarious. Hahahaha.....
Pentax
“We show that many land-terminating glaciers underwent a more rapid retreat in the 1930s than in the 2000s, whereas marine-terminating glaciers retreated more rapidly during the recent warming.”
So your point is what? That temperatures increased rapidly in the 1930s, slowed, and then increased rapidly again? Hardly a revelation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_(NASA…
pentaxZ
Lookee here dumbass:
Can This Photograph of a Himalayan Glacier Persuade People That Climate Change Is Happening?
As for the claim that opened up so called 'Glaciergate' have you checked in the IPCC document concerned to discover what the hype was about? Of course not.
As opposed to ignorant imbeciles like pentaxZ ... exactly.
@Lenny
I think it's a reference to a claim that Slingo made at the HoC Inquiry. She said that Climate model projections were robust/reliable as they ran the same models twice a day for weather forecasts.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_WEIRD_WEATHER?SITE=AP&SEC…
But they got it wrong about John Christy: "a global warming skeptic" -- no, he's not that foolish, but the media can't distinguish between GW and AGW. As for foolish, though, Christy's statment "The guilty party in my view is Mother Nature." certainly is. That makes no more sense than "God did it" or "it's warm because the LIA is ending" or "opium puts people to sleep because it has virtus dormitiva".
Suzanne Goldenberg, Christian Parenti and Jeff Masters on the new climate and its exacerbation by the Republican War on Science on today's DemocracyNow!
Congratulations on noting the Greenland ice sheets are retreating Pentaxz. I wonder what is causing that retreat? Is it magic? Faries? Cholesterol?
Karen, as I recall, was most alarmed by this retreat, going as far as to call the recent loss "drastic".
May I say I'm honoured to be a 'science person'. As the Denialati's sad little empire melts away I'm noticing these Freudian errors are starting to leak out.
You can't hide, Mr. ClownMan. The Arctic extent, area, and volume are in freefall. The Greenland Melt is unprecedented. As are so many other things in the world we see around us.
And all you have is the bog-standard thickheaded gloating confusion based on your inability to distinguish between weather and climate. Nobody can predict the weather one week out - read a book on Chaos some time - but everyone here in the Southern Hemisphere knows January will be warmer than July, and everyone with a functioning intellect now knows that if you keep pumping GHGs into the atmosphere it's going to get warmer, though nobody can say precisely how much warmer January 2052 will be. And nobody claims to.
Oh, and then you have that wonderful, woefully inadequate, wiki page attempting to neatly regiment mutually-contradictory chum-nuggets - like lining up dog-turds on a pavement - cobbled together by third-rate minds with delusions of blog science, which is, what, 97% of you? And Lord frickin' Monckton. And Tony Watts, who even looks like the villainous amusement park owner unmasked at the end of every Scooby Doo cartoon, appropriately enough. And Tim Curtin, who is... Tim Curtin. I notice even the toxic avengers who hang around here know enough to stay away from that one.
And some pathetic fiasco you lot cobbled together via theft followed by grotesque abuse of content in 2009, and now you bleat that no-one will take your claims seriously! Let's face it, that was the pinnacle, the top of your arc, and it's just down, down, down from here.
Denial is what's cooling.
Admit it. To yourself. Things really aren't going well. You're all going to end up as bitter and deluded social castaways in your old age, shuffling about and muttering to yourselves about gummint conspiracies and UN stormtroopers and it was actually pretty cold last Wednesday.
Those of you who aren't there already.
Hey, who knows; maybe it's no too late to give up The Stupid?
Oh, and Josh, the Cartoonist Who Wasn't Funny.
Duff claimed "Incidentally, it is now official, this is the wettest, coolest Apr/May/Jun for absolute yonks" while linking to an NOAA map.
"It is now official" he said.
Here's what's really happening:
Tamino has published a great post exposing WUWT's hypocrisy on their outrage at being labelled "deniers":
Perhaps one of the half a dozen trolls here who believe it is cooling can go and set Anthony Watts straight.
As Bill noted on Skeptical Science, the "Deconstructing" Skeptical Science (quotation marks corrected...) wiki says:
That would be "under wraps" like an Aero bar.
I think we all look forward to the Wiki eplaining how the global warming that isn't happening is caused both by the sun and cosmic rays.
pentaxZ's Greenland piece seems to be popular with the denialati. The only reason I can see is that they're all imbeciles. Here you can see a couple of them being ripped to shreds by "science people".
An example of a PRATT.
Lucy Skywalker's wasted life.
What is it about Deniers and truly awful graphics and layouts? That thing is migraine inducing!
And, if that wasn't bad enough, it has more cartoons by Josh.
Lionel A
And your reason to call me a dumbass is?
I would say that no one claims that climate change isn't happening. On the contrary, climate is always changing. And it always will. But as a non believer in the cAGW church, we realists realise that climate change is a perfectly normal event. If humans contribute to the warming with co2 emissons, it would be impossible to even se the signal in the natural noise because of it's microscopic effect. Therefore it's just plain stupid to pay it any attention at all. Believing anything else is just redicoulus.
So, what was your point with the pictures again?
Time for a reallity check, "science" dudes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/03/more-on-the-us-heat-wave-not-so-h…
I would say that no one claims that climate change isn’t happening.
And you'd be wrong.
Listen, dumbass.
For those with memories longer than a goldfish with ADHD, we've had the whole gamut of excuses from deniers. From the Watts' /Pielke UHI fallacy to McIntyres Yamal OCD on downwards, all intent on proving it wasn't warming. And now you're rapidly running out of trenches to retreat back to.
But then nobody expects intellectual honesty - or even ability - from blanket deniers like you anyway.
So...you must have a theory or model that produces an estimate of the size of the effect. What exactly is that size, complete with your confidence intervals, and how exactly was it derived? And how does your model determine what is "noise" and what is "signal"?
"And your reason to call me a dumbass is?"
Your dumbassery.
"I would say that no one claims that climate change isn’t happening"
That there is one example.
"On the contrary, climate is always changing."
Second one.
"But as a non believer in the cAGW church, "
Third.
Basically, absolutely everything you say is dumbassery.
How is "climate always changes" proof that man isn't the cause of this one? Given there is no cAGW church, what is the meaning of not being a member?
And so on and so forth.
'Time for a reality check', followed by a link to Watts. Phhhhtt...
So, Genius, and I use that word with heavy irony, your brilliant take on Arctic and Greenland melt, then? Oh, let me guess; it's 'natural'. WTF does that even mean?
What's causing the 'natural' warming, then? Right, back to Curtinland. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? What temp would the earth be at with no CO2 in the atmosphere? Have we increased its concentration in the atmosphere by 40% over pre-industrial levels? How is that not making a difference, then?
The Sun? What's the Sun actually been doing while the temps have been climbing? Furthermore, if it's the Sun, why are upper atmosphere temps not rising? Why are nights warming more than days?
(Look, here's something short you can read on the AGW signature - we wouldn't want your lips to get sore, after all.)
If it's cosmic rays, where the hell are all the papers backing this up? How the hell can gases in the actual bloody atmosphere influencing temperature - known to be true for more than 150 years - be inherently, hand-wavingly absurd, but cosmic rays from the other side of the galaxy on the other hand... And if that's what's doing it, what's happened to the CO2 greenhouse, then?
And if none of you 'denies' there's warming, why is Watts challenging the temp record - you know, as in 'it's not really warming after all' - yet again only a few days ago?
Christ, the dishonesty, incoherence and absurdity of you people is truly extraordinary. You are a pathetic testimony to some inherent defect whereby even those with the greatest privileges in human history by way of education can voluntarily choose to be The most Stupid People ever!
You are defective, ignoble, and most of all, you are wrong.
Exactly.
Or as I analogise that particular piece of rampant stupidity:
Because my car has always accelerated and decelerated in the past, the fact that I've driven over the edge of a very large cliff is nothing to worry about. I'm sure the brakes will start working any second now. ... Any sec...
Or shorter:
Lung cancer happens to non-smokers.
Therefore smoking can never cause lung cancer.
PentaxZ isn't merely a dumbass: he is wilfully ignorant, as process almost certainly linked with his innane statements with respect to global government. Its hardly surprising that most of the crowd who Penty would call 'realists' are in fact wilfully ignorant non-scientists with far right political beliefs.
Hardly enlightened.
Is there anything in the world of pentaxZ that isn't a conspiracy?
pentaxZ @ 8:29 am
Your repeated claim that high cholesterol is not a factor in heart attacks and more specifically in my case Myocardial Infarction where heart cells die leaving one permanently incapacitated. And no by-pass surgery cannot help.
Furthermore this had nothing to do with carbohydrate intake. I was a victim of the sort of tobacco propaganda propped up by the likes of Richard Lindzen and of course my own wish to kid myself things were OK because I was having no trouble with breathing and led a very active life.
The stress of a full time job involving much driving with periods of intense physical and mental activity, teaching evening classes computer related subjects in a local college, providing logistic support for two children at university at opposite ends of the country whilst engaged on a masters course myself was another factor - often eating on the fly, but not junk food, as it were was probably a big factor too.
But then people like you can only handle one or two variables at a time.
It has been mooted that there is a connection between the increase in pirates and global warming. Well indeed there could be, and seeing the way the winds blowing, or changing in blowing that could increase. But which is the independent variable here, once other factors such as resource extraction and socio-political factors have been excluded, is it global warming and its related climate change or increase in pirates.
As for glaciers you avoided my question WRT the IPCC document concerned. So that is another strike, of many more which could be offered.
Is there anything in the world of pentaxZ that isn’t a conspiracy?
I have a hypothesis that it's what helps make a life of dull stupidity seem interesting. There's likely a whole bunch more if the surface was to be scratched.
Henry Louis Mencken:
Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
Spot on, wouldn't you say, dudes? :-)
So, not notorious at all amongst practically all relevantly qualified actual scientists, then?
Did you really mean to undermine your own case in a display of clown-trolling? And do you realise as clown-trolls go, you're seriously outclassed by some of the other regulars? Maybe you need a new vocation.
@pentaxZ
8:34 am
"Time for a reallity check, “science” dudes."
He's wrong, again. High temperature records are outnumbering low temperature records by a long way.
Yep, like the UN is coming to (a) take away your guns (b) take over your government (c) redistribute wealth for its own sake under the guise of a massive worldwide conspiracy to fake easily debunked science.
That sort of thing, you meant?
(And in local terms, "GREAT BIG NEW TAX THAT WILL 'ROON THE 'CONOMY! 'ROON IT, I SEZ!")
If you research Linus Pauling, the two times Nobel Prize winner, then you will find that PentaxZ is correct.
His research was largely covered up because the pharmaceutical companies could not patient his research findings and if his findeings were implemented they stood to lose billions in profit from their mostly ineffective drugs.
Yes, most cardiovascular drugs are pushed on the unwitting pubic backed by dodgy and falsified science, studies around the world now also show that doctors drugs kill and maim more people per year than illegal drugs.
Lionel do yourself a favor and read Pauling's research.
PentaxZ responds with a bland aphorism.
Isn't it time to ban this time-wasting Cretin? Come to think of it, wasn't The Cretin previously banished to the Jonas thread?
Jesus, Pentax, do you reckon Mencken would have had actual institutions of learning like the Academy of Science in mind, or 'my ignorance is a match fer yer fancy edjerkation any day' demagoguery from the likes of Heartland and Watts? The actual scientific method, or pseudo-populist ravings about big gummint, socialists in the weather bureaus, and UN takeovers?
You guys really cannot see yourselves from the outside at all, can you?
And Karen kindly drops by to provide further confirmation for the theory of crank-magnetism. FWIW.
So, Dark Lord, when a so called moron writes you on the nose, you start barking about banning. Is that all you got? Hey, perhaps hard moderation is the reason why the debate is so vigelant at alarmistic blogs?
Evidence.
You ain't got it.
(In fact you provide your own refutation. Again.)
And as so typical for alarmistas, you always attack the messenger instead of the actual message. You funny lot.
Given that you've provided a bunch of assertions backed by very poorly substantiated evidence, there hasn't been much actual message to attack.
Let me know when you actually have one.
""Is there anything in the world of pentaxZ that isn’t a conspiracy?"
I have a hypothesis that it’s what helps make a life of dull stupidity seem interesting. "
No, the reason is far simpler and self-obsessed.
Tampax doesn't believe the evidence. But he can't find anything wrong with it.
Given the choice of
a) being wrong
b) someone hiding the evidence that proves him right
he immediately picks (b).
"..you always attack the messenger instead of the actual message."
You don't have a message, Cretin.
The buzz word of today, "unprecedented". Unprecedented my ass.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/weather-from-before-coal-fired-power-s…
One of the less dangerous myths one comes across on the intertubes is that William Blake wrote the poem The Liar. Now, you can peruse the online indexes in a number of his complete works print publications to see whether they contain The Liar as title or "Deceiver, dissembler" as first line. But no. Not there. But I guess the scholarly writers could have forgotten one, or someone found an erstwhile lost one about 6 or 7 years or so ago! Anyway, it must be true, because someone has said Blake did so on the internet.
As to diet: we know that balanced is good (fat, carbs, protein); more pulses, fruit and veg is good; less processed foods and fizzy drinks is good. Everyone knows that, and a little bit of what you fancy won't do you any harm either (normal caveats apply). And to be fair to pentaxZ, a number of the people involved in this "low carb high fat" diet/"it's not cholesterol" have MD after their names, but then so did Dr Atkins with his diet and so did a few MDs in the MMR/autism "debate", and so do a few with regard to homeopathy, etc. But...
That LDL is one factor in the multifactor nature of heart disease is evident from studies of those unfortunates that suffer from the genetic disorder familial hypercholesterolaemia. The study of this earned a Nobel Prize for Brown and Goldstein "for their discoveries concerning the regulation of cholesterol metabolism". Drugs reduce LDL in those patients with the heterozygous form of the genetic disease and reduce incidences of early atheriosclerosis and subsequent heart attacks and strokes. But drugs are only moderately effective at best in the homozygous subjects, being unable to remove LDL and resulting in early-onset atherosclerosis and subsequent heart attacks and strokes. In these cases, LDL has to be removed by other means.
"The severe atherosclerosis that develops in these patients without any other risk factors is formal proof that high levels of plasma cholesterol can produce atherosclerosis in humans" (see their Nobel lecture).
So, anyone promoting that LDL is not a risk factor in heart disease needs to explain (with evidence): (1) why those with the heterozygous form of familial hypercholesterolaemia and no confounding factors related to "environment" suffer premature heart disease without cholesterol-lowering drugs; and (2) why those with the homozygous form and no confounding factors related to "environment" who have LDL removed do not suffer early onset atherosclerosis (and its ensuing complications) but those that don't have LDL removed do suffer from early onset atherosclerosis and subsequent heart attacks and strokes, even in young children.
[I would add that whether long-term use of statins is advisable by those who are low in the various heart disease/stroke risk factors is another issue entirely.]
And yes, research continues, because epidemiological evidence does suggest LDL is not the whole story for those without the genetic predisposition to early onset of atherosclerosis (or even with it) and ensuing life-threatening conditions (but physicians and medical researchers know that), and that research does encompass carbohydrate intake. It doesn't mean that high LDL is not a risk factor in heart disease and strokes.
Like I'd suggest the IPCC reports and primary literature with regard to climate issues, I'd also suggest trawling PubMed rather than diet-promotion sites for information on LDL and heart attack/stroke risks, whether those diet-promotion-sites' diet advice is good or not.
Ah, yes, Joanne Nova, who thinks (a la Curtin) that GHGs cool the planet, and who claims she'll fix significant errors in her work and then runs away when a simple and significant error is pointed out, and who makes a whole load of false claims and invalid inferences. When she claims something you might want to check it twice, ideally three times - and with people who actually know what they're talking about.
I mean, you have checked it thoroughly, right, pentaxZ? If she was wrong, given your shitty track record, how would you know?
I mean, you still haven't even answered my simple question about how you know any anthropogenic warming signal would be "microscopic". Would have thought that was easy, given your apparently confident claim. Or were you merely bullshitting and hoping that people wouldn't notice?
Exactly proving my point 12.05 pm, lotharsson. Nice owngoal.
P. Lewis
A very, very simple explanation for you. A low carb/ high fat diet lowers the "bad" cholesterol and rises the "good". Simple as that. And about "balanced", what's the point other than spreading the risk? We are mainly carnivores and should as such eat mainly animal food. Do you know about cows eating "balanced"? Or a lion? Or any other animal? They all eat what they are biological fitted to eat and so should we. My lab results are perfect, and guess what, I never eat any fruit, very little vegetables no starch what so ever, but meat and a lot of butter. Ain't that a bich?
Er, no. I was pointing out that your source has a well-evidenced reputation for getting it wrong, as do you, and asking you to provide some evidence that her assertions were right. I can start pointing out the false claims and unjustified inferences she makes in that article if you like, but I'm pretty sure that if I do, instead of retracting your claim that "alarmists" don't deal with the evidence and instead attack the messenger, you'll simply Gish Gallop to your next talking point.
Speaking of using the Gish Gallop as an avoidance tactic, I see you still haven't answered my question about how you know the anthropogenic effects "would be microscopic". What's the matter - you pulled that out of your arse and would really really really rather talk about something else now?
Pentax, the correct notation should be 'Joanne Nova my ass'. You apparently rely on wretched blogs for your information. No wonder your posts are so appallingly funny.
Karen, some reading for you:
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html
"And as so typical for alarmistas, you always attack the messenger instead of the actual message".
Talks about calling the kettle black. Pure and utter hypocrisy. The climate change denial crowd have long smeared individual scientists - what Michael Mann refers to as the 'Serengeti Strategy' based on the hunting habits of lions in Africa - in an effort to give the impression that if they can successfully damn a few bonafides, then (1) all scientists sharing the views of the few ostracized ones will be similarly marginalized, and (2) in an attempt to warn other scientists that they will be targeted if they speak out. Pure intimidation. Its a tradition that goes way back with far right groups, corporate lobbyists and the like and it isn't restricted to climate science. The wretched treatment dished out to Ben Santer, James Hansen and Michael Mann is a good example.
PentaxZ is on another planet...
Erm, no.
Our dentition, alimentary architecture, enzymology, and other biophysiochemical characteristics indicate that we are omnivorous. Carnivory is only a part of our evolutionary history, albeit an important recent one in terms of growing our brains and designing our hairless, marathon-adapted bodies.
However, high animal protein diets are not fantastic for humans, especially those who haven't adapted over the last several millenia to the limitations of their environments, as the Inuit, say, have. Where people survive on such it is usually in spite of the dietary composition, rather than thriving because of it.
And Pentaxz, you might be proud of your highly proteinaceous diet, but it'll harm you in the long run. Your kidneys won't appreciate the ketogenic stress, and they'll start to dissolve your skeleton as they attempt to rid the body of ketones. Your heart will be impacted, and there are a number of other sequelæ. But if you're happy to take the gamble, don't say that you weren't warned when you eventually pay the price.
"The buzz word of today, “unprecedented”"
Yes, weather events that used to happen once every 80 years now happening three times in 10 years is unprecedented.
"Unprecedented my ass."
No, we hear an awful lot from your ass.
You have a real comprehension problem, don't you pentaxZ.
That comes through loud and clear with your 'A low carb/ high fat diet lowers the “bad” cholesterol and rises the “good”' statement.
My post was not about diet (per se) but about your statements about cholesterol's role (in atherosclerosis and consequent high risk of subsequent heart attacks and strokes). High LDL is a risk factor for heart attacks and strokes!
How you get LDL down (drugs, diet, physical removal) is immaterial. If you have high LDL you have to get it down to lower the risk of developing heart disease and strokes.
Now I don't know what a low carb high fat diet does to LDL, HDL and their various measures and ratios without research. Your information may be right. I don't care, as that wasn't the issue.
I do know that such a low carb high fat diet is good for those who are of the carbohydrate-resistant type metabolism and who would have a tendency to suffer from diabetes on a higher carb diet. But without determining what type your metabolism is, it's not a good course to go down as it could lead to other problems.
If you are suited to low carb high fat, then good for you. Not everyone will be.
But it doesn't alter that high LDL is a risk factor for heart attacks and strokes. You've said it yourself.
KarenMackSpotnick @ 11:31 am
Ah! Yes. The Great Linus Pauling, and that is not sarcasm on my part. Unfortunately another very clever man who was not always right, being human, in his latter years like Freeman Dyson and Francis Collins.
He probably lost his way a little by associating with a certain Arthur B Robinson, yes this Arthur B. Robinson .
As it happens I do follow that which goes on in the biological world and am familiar with the work of Linus.
Of course you are an expert in epidemiological studies, no?
pentaxZ (with the faulty shutter) @ 1:13 pm
The only true part in that other wise load of bollocks is the last bit (emphasised).
As has been pointed out to you elsewhere the best diet is that which we each are evolved to obtain the maximum benefit and least harm from. Now this depends upon your genetic heritage, the culture of your antecedents. Thus the Inuit have evolved over the centuries to match the high fat, high protein diet.
This is why we have people with lactose or glutton intolerance. We are now a polyglot species with many cultural lines in our ancestry. I would suggest finding copies of Jared Diamond's 'The Third Chimpanzee' and 'Guns, Germs & Steel' for you to gain more perspective on this. 'Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed' would also be worth your time.
But then reasoned argument based on experience is not for you eh!
I'm very intolerant of gluttons! :-)
On the Inuits: life expectancy is lower than for other Canadians, but I'm not sure of the reason why. Might be diet linked or it might not. Probably multifactorial.
Actually, Lionel, the fun part of Pauling's association with Robinson is that the latter showed Pauling was wrong. Upon which Robinson was fired from Pauling's institute...
Pauling already was well into the vitamin-woo before aligning with Robinson, so I don't think you can blame the latter.
."A low carb/ high fat diet lowers the “bad” cholesterol and rises the “good”"
Only if your fats are mostly monounsaturated. The carbs themselves are not the issue. It also depends on your genetic background; some people simply can eat whatever they want and their cholesterol will be good, others try every combination and can't control theirs. Most people are not like either.
"We are mainly carnivores and should as such eat mainly animal food."
No we're not. Just look at our teeth - if we we're truly carnivores our teeth would not have the shape they do. We are omnivores, and while meat has certainly been an important part of the human diet for millenia, it isn't a necessary part of it. My cats are carnivores, and need animal meat to survive. I don't -though I am not a vegetarian. I could be.
"Do you know about cows eating “balanced”? Or a lion?"
Cow- obligate herbivore
Lion - obligate carnivore
We are neither (though I suspect we'd have a hard time living just on animal products).
"Or any other animal?"
Sure - look up omnivore.
"They all eat what they are biological fitted to eat and so should we."
We are not biologically fitted to eat mostly animal products.
Humans are able to live solely on vegetable products much more successfully than solely on animal products. Of course, this requires some care (we are, after all, omnivores) with ensuring nutrient balance, especially during childhood, but the converse - of achieving such balance on an animal protein-only diet - is much more fraught. And all the more so for agrarian cultures.
I have a few issues with some of the interpretations (especially in the tumour section), but the fundamental structure of the information here is a good summary for the lay person whose eyes may cross at the jargon of serious metabolic biochemistry:
http://www.rawfoodexplained.com/the-dangers-of-a-high-protein-diet/the-…
The Z-head:
Of course, the Z-heads claim there was one type of climate change that never happened, anything that looks like a hockeystick.
The denialists deny climate change allright. Any climate change that looks like a hockeystick they deny lock, stock and barrel.
pentaxZ, nobody including myself said cholesterol is always the cause of heart attacks. A HIGH level of it is a known RISK factor. I'll repeat the keywords here: HIGH, and RISK.
WTF is it with those of you who are generally anti-science that makes you continually misconstrue the context of "risk factors". Or in fact the context of anything at all. What is it that makes you so hopelessly unable to see the big picture of anything?
We get exactly the same never-ending crap over climate science too. Like the morons here who seem to think that if the planet is warming, it's not allowed to actually rain, lest heavy rain disprove global warming. I mean, WTF?
And you link to Corbyn? OMG that is hilarious. Is that the same Corbyn for whom his 2008 weather predictions were spectacularly wrong? Who says he can predict severe weather yet often fails to do so? Sure he's right sometimes, but he's also wrong sometimes. But of course when he talks about himself, he does the "psychic talks-to-the-dead" thing and only counts the hits while ignoring the misses.
What about his claimed "prediction" of the Indonesian earthquake in Bandah Aceh? If you actually read what he wrote (and few people do), he predicted a quake "in the pacific ring" with a magnitude of "6.5 or greater". So he gave himself a 1 in 3 chance of picking the correct day of such a quake by random chance alone, given that there are over 150 earthquakes of this magnitude in this huge geographical area every year! And the location didn't even have to be precise. And people think this is some sort of forecasting miracle?
Oh dear, pentaxZ, you're really doing my head in.
Um, much as I'd be happy to debate cholesterol all day - and if we're pure carnivores, dear Pentax, how do you explain our dentition? - since you insist on hanging around could you answer some of the questions, please?
Apparently you (singly and colectively) 'never said it wasn't warming'. So, is CO2 a greenhouse gas? How warm would you expect the Earth to be in its absence? If CO2 is a Greenhouse gas, could you explain the process whereby increasing its concentration in the atmosphere by over 40% fails to warm the planet? Then explain your hypothesis as to what is causing the warming you apparently don't deny? How might this be suppressing the CO2 greenhouse effect? Are there carbon sinks we don't know about? Where?
PS All - 'Glutton intolerant' - I'd buy that T-shirt!
Murdoch's " Daily Howler", continues unabated, a propaganda war on the so called Carbon Tax.
The wonders of the modern 'Internets', it allows one to fact check and rate the reliability of Murdoch Media Propaganda, as fast as his slaves shovel the "Horse Hockey" out the door.
In the interim "Hot Times" link : - http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/hot-times.html
I think pentaxZ, just like Duff, Betula, and the others of similar ilk, have become greatly confused about their global warming stance ever since the "Great Sceptical Schism of 2011", when the Berkley Earth project, supported and proclaimed by so many sceptics at the time as being the first truly independent analysis of global temperature records which was going to bust the scientific conspiracy wide open, found that the data is actually pretty accurate.
The Great Schism has split the sceptics into two distinct groups: the "OMG the conspiracy is even deeper than we thought and they've implanted mind control devices in Muller's head" group, and the "oh yeah well we always said it was actually warming, and we tried so valiantly to stop all the unfounded temperature-concocting conspiracy allegations, but heck, what can ya do?" group.
While the former group is just batshit insane, the latter group are apparently content to shift the goalposts and say "oh duh, of course it's warming, as we always maintained (truly we did), but it's just natural". But just as when they were all screaming of giant temperature-fudging conspiracies, they steadfastly refuse to provide any verifiable evidence that it's natural, or even a serious hypothesis as to what the mechanisms of this natural cause might be which hasn't already been conclusively shown to be rubbish. It's just "the vibe", I suppose.
In short: same crap, yet another different day.
It's a shame all the old comments are gone because I'd compiled a little list of every time Karenmackspot had claimed it wasn't warming.
Now Pentaxz says nobody ever said that.
Weird.
Bill, don't expect Pentaxz to respond to your challenge to prove the anthropogenic factor is so small as to be irrelevant. He has previously asserted that whatever he believed that week was so self-evidently right that there is no point in debating us.
:'(
I don't really expect Pentax to respond, nor any other Denier, for that matter.
What I do want to point out for the benefit of any lurkers is that if challenged directly to clearly state their fundamental positions they all scatter like cockroaches when the kitchen light flicks on...
They're just wreckers. Empty vessels making lots and lots of noise...
I see Bird Brain Bill and Marco completely missed the mark, the conversation was about LDL cholesterol and I mentioned Linus Pauling, typical of them to go to google in an attempt to either discredit me or Pauling, and they come up with stuff about colds and cancer, Pffffttttt. They think that because Pauling had two failures this discredits his entire life's work, I don't think that either of you two even know anything about Pauling and his magnificent work.
Lionel, I was referring to Pauling's theories and studies that suggest that LDL cholesterol is produced in response to chronic scurvy, oh I am sure that the googleheads in here can find something to debunk this also.
If remember, his studies also encompassed myocardial infarction, and....maybe flavonoid's.
anyway, good luck Lional
This just shows that KarenMackSunspot transfers onto others that which he does himself. If he had any experience with Lionel and Marco he'd know that they are both well familiar with Pauling's derailments.
And no-one needs to resort to Google to discredit you - you're so obviously ill-informed that anyone with a completed high school education could drive a truck through the holes in your arguments - blindfolded and handcuffed.
Again KMS has it arse-around. What Lionel and Marcus are saying is that Pauling's genuinely worthy life's work doesn't mean that his excursion into woo are based in credibility.
Of course, KMS wouldn't understand the difference...
Leaving those mandatory punctuation catastrophes aside, I'm sure that it wasn't very long since you googled Pauling yourself, although it doesn't surprise me that you've forgotten what you read. I know for sure that you didn't pick up anything medical from either tertiary study or from work.
The only person who might possibly believe you is you.
barnterd, you once again prove that you are a low life, most likely calymmatobacterium.
No, definitely calymmatobacterium
You know what I was saying about empty vessels?... ^
"...typical of them to go to google in an attempt to [either] discredit me....."
Wait a minute... how can you be discredited when you had no credits to begin with? From the beginning, 'Karen', your comments have been inane and without substance. So you are clearly giving yourself way too much credit for possessing any useful knowledge about anything that has been discussed thus far.
Remedy: go away.
It's so easy to tell when KarenMackSuspot is cut...
...he resorts to potty-mouth name-calling, but but with no other point.
Heh, that describes quite a lot of his posts...
Hi Jeff 'I love myself' Harvey,
I know you are sooooo smart, because you keep telling everyone.
So could you please tell me where the "one hundred year" ice volume charts are for the Arctic, Antarctic & Greenland ?
Oh, thankyou in advance Mr Wonderful :-D
Barnturd you dopey dung eater, you can't read and assimilate, I wrote "Bird Brain Bill and Marco" and you came back with "If he had any experience with Lionel and Marco" and "Again KMS has it arse-around. What Lionel and Marcus are saying"
start at the top phuckknuckle, sheeezzz what a loon you are barnterd.
It’s also so easy to tell when barnturd is cut because the germ stammers
Karen, the only thing I googled was the link to quackwatch. I am quite well aware of Pauling's woo when it comes to vitamin C. Apparently it was the wonder drug that solved everything. Too bad it isn't, and that plenty of research shows it to be at best slightly beneficial in some cases, and at worst bad for your health to take in such large amounts as he proposed.
But, and more importantly in this context, the link points out that a *pharmaceutical company* was until the 2000s the most important producer of vitamin C. The idea that the pharmaceutical industry actively tried to suppress Pauling's findings is not based in reality, but rather a common complaint of the woo industry that does not want to do proper clinical trials like the pharmaceutical industry has to do. You will find upper-woo'ers like Matthias Rath (who has co-published with Pauling) making this claim, while raking in millions from selling snake oil.
Your Tourettes playing up again?
OK, back to business; is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Has it been warming? If not, what about BEST? If so, what's causing it? If not CO2, what? What's your evidence for climate sensitivity?
Seriously, you clowns are worse than useless...
“We’re having in Argentina a series of Antarctic polar waves that has people shuddering. In Ushuaia an entire neighbourhood had to be evacuated because the cold froze water pipes and blocked natural gas valves. No heating, no cooking, streets with 2.5 metres (8 ft) of snow. In two weeks snowed more than an entire normal winter season.”
GLOWBULL WARMING JUST AINT GLOBAL.
lol
So could you please tell me where the “one hundred year” ice volume charts are for the Arctic, Antarctic & Greenland ?
Is this one of the Wattard's latest memes, like an extension of Anthony the Big Fat Mustachioed Liar's USS Skate at the North Pole photo lies? I suppose Anthony counts on those like KMS being too dumb to look up paleoclimatology and ice core records since the 1930's.
But then one could easily be forgiven for thinking Anthony's purpose was to keep his dittoheads misinformed and ignorant - a strange goal for the alleged science blog of the year.
In two weeks snowed more than an entire normal winter season
What process do you expect might have put that amount of moisture into the atmosphere in order for it to fall down again, oh moronic one?
Summer skiing Bird Brain :)
http://www.whistlerblackcomb.com/todo/summer/glacier/index.htm
http://articles.ktuu.com/2012-05-25/summer-skiing_31855083
http://www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboarding/trip_reports/index.ph…
GLOWBULL WARMING JUST AINT GLOBAL.
lol
wet chek, if you boil your kettle and snow spurts outta the spout then it's not really a kettle dear :)
and there's more..................
"Entre Ríos governor Sergio Urribarri said he had met with president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner to set out a diagnosis of the situation and plan short-to-medium term goals. He said around citrus 2,000 growers have been affected by the frosts, which impacts on 12,000 workers.
“Mindful of the social dimensions of this situation, we are committed to managing this both at the provincial level and before the national authorities with the measures necessary to partner with the sector, which is suffering from the consequences of an unheard of phenomenon for this time of year,” Urribarri was quoted as saying."
"Frosts of -5°C (23°F) hit the departments of Feliciano, Federal, Federación, Concordia and Colón on Jun. 7, 8 and 9, registering a duration of 12 cold hours.
The story reported the frosts affected 50,000 hectares of citrus fruit including oranges and mandarins, as well as lemons and grapefruit to a lesser extent.
Entre Ríos Citrus Federation president Elvio Calgaro, told the website the damage done by the frosts was “enormous” and the industry would need to work with the government to move forward.
He said on the affected land around 80% of crops were"
http://atcitrus.com/english/noticia.asp?seccion=principales&id=1138
So much for global warming. lol
"Earlier this week the Finnish Meteorological Instituted (FMI) forecasted wintry conditions that would bring snow and sleet to Finland's far north.
On Thursday night temperatures in Lapland fell below zero in many areas. The mercury fell to -0.6 degrees in Näkkäla in Enontekiö, while a reading of -0.5 degrees was recorded in Kilpisjärvi in Finland's northwestern arm.
Residents of southern Lapland also felt the chill, temperatures registered -0.5 degrees Thursday night.
On Wednesday night snow covered fells in Saariselkä in the far north. The FMI says the freak snowfall will be a passing phenomenon as conditions are due to warm up over the weekend."
http://yle.fi/uutiset/cold_snap_chills_summer_in_lapland/6199852
yeah yeah I know, the hot made it cold !
lol
C'mon, KMS - let's go through the ritual: I'm going to ask you to answer the question, and you're going to gob-up some more distracting - you hope - chum nuggets from the Deniosphere.
This is because you are an extraordinarily pathetic and dreary wretch with a scatalogical obsession who can only outsource what you attempt, badly, to pass off as 'thinking'.
You have no idea of the issues, an insignificant intellect, and you are, in short, precisely the kind of pointless, stunted outcast who is willing to derail the future of humanity in order to attempt to gratify those puerile Libertarian fantasies that are the diminished and asocial's pathetic revenge on the world.
You are like some monstrous, bloated, blighted infant sat bawling at what he imagines is the epicentre of a complex and terrifyingly un-tameable world, where your ugly, Manichean defensive delusions only end up clanging humiliatingly to the ground, and who can only despise the learned and competent for casting his own inadequacies into such striking relief.
Behold the Denier. This is what has poisoned the world...
Thankyou for your lovely compliment birdbrain, :)
On June 2, Stockholm registered its coldest June day in 84 years, with the mercury rising to a maximum of six degrees Celsius (43 Fahrenheit).
Temperatures have remained below average for the month, at just 13.3 degrees Celsius, compared with the usual 15.2 degrees, SMHI said.
For the month of June, Stockholm usually has an average of 5.3 days with temperatures above 25 degrees, but this year the high for the month was just 21.6 degrees.
That is only the second time since 1920 that the temperature has failed to hit 25 degrees in June in Sweden.
And it would seem that more rain is en route for Sweden.
"It looks like it will continue like this at least for the next two weeks," said Martin Hedberg, head meteoro"
http://www.thelocal.se/41662/20120627/
Does snow spew out of your toaster birdbrain ?
Sunshine, the only thing 'lol'ing around here is your tongue in your slack-jawed mouth...
Could you be more stupid?
KarenMackSuspot says:
Yeah, but I was referring to the fact that Lionel (July 4, 2:33 pm) and Marco (July 4, 3:19 pm) started the commentary about Pauling's failings. Bill, as far as I can tell, only mentioned cholesterol once (12:23 am 5 July) on this page, and that was to say that he wasn't bothered dwelling on the subject.
I was tidying up after you - as usual.
Just in case you didn't register the first time 'round, that's what I was doing.
Yeah, I noticed that too. That's what happens when one is talking to three year old twins in real life, and simultaneously to another, intellectual three year old online. Of course, I do my twins a disservice, because they've already been pegged as having skills two years in advance of their chronological age...
If only you could match them, KMS, and demonstrate the understanding of a five year old.
Do you put your beer in the oven birdbrain ?
"MELBOURNE is beginning to thaw after some of the coldest temperatures in almost two decades snap froze the city today.
The mercury hit just 8.5 degrees Celsius in the city at 3.11pm - the lowest maximum temperature since 1995.
Melbourne’s lowest temperature of 6.4 degrees was recorded at 2.34am.
But the clearing rain and cloud allowed the temperature to creep up to 9.9C in the following hour, making it the coldest maximum in four years.
A cocktail of sopping and windy conditions had brought the apparent temperature down to an icy 2C in the early afternoon.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/melbournes-coldest-day-in-15-…
TOWNSVILLE residents should keep rugged up, with the cold weather set to continue over the coming days.
Hughenden experienced its coldest July day in 10 years yesterday, reaching minus 2C, while Richmond reached minus 1C.
http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2012/07/05/344171_news.html
gwowbull warming lol
"Yeah, I noticed that too. That’s what happens when one is talking to three year old twins in real life, and simultaneously to another, intellectual three year old online. Of course, I do my twins a disservice, because they’ve already been pegged as having skills two years in advance of their chronological age…"
What sort of mother are you barnterd ? Those children should be well and truly tucked in for the night.
I do find it amusing when a doting mother thinks their offspring is smarter or prettier than other children, lol, most often they look like monkeys and are dumber than dogshit.
Does it run in the family barnturd ?
Poor thing, you appear to have Harveyitis, lol
OTOH Bill and Bernard, Karen McSpot is doing a fabulous job in demonstrating yer average grunt denier's .... thinking, as it were.
Do you put your beer in the oven birdbrain ?
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/story/2012-06-05/oklahoma-texas…
like, wow, wow
I suppose there is proof right there that we are still climbing out of the ice age.
"Nobody ever said it wasn't warming." - Pentaxz
One minute Karen informs us it is freezing in Argentina, Finland etc., the next Karen tells us we are climbing out of an ice age and that is why it is getting warmer. Like Pentax, Karen doesn't actually have a point and her only intent is flooding this thread with time-wasting crap.
Still, on the plus side Karen does provide us with a good archetype of the denier – angry, ill-informed, contradictory, and desperate.
Nope, we're due to go in to one, Spots.
You don't know anything about anything, do you.
You must be Henry's Cat.
Well spotted too, John. Tampax should give sunspot a good telling off.
Should be easy, just needs to turn around and walk to the next cubicle.
Or Schrödinger's Kittens for the two faces.
Kraken repeated:
Now let me see, is not the Southern Hemisphere now in winter? Furthermore why do you think global warming is linked to climate change. Are you familiar with the notion of climates and their type variation.
You see with global warming more stuff melts as the poles warm faster than elsewhere, this disrupts the normal flows in the Hadley, Polar and mid-latitude cells and by extension in the jet streams (I am using everyday terms here because I fear you will not grasp otherwise).
Also the height of the tropopause is changing with an upset in the difference of same between tropics and mid-latitudes and mid-latitudes and polar.
That more stuff at the poles is melting tends to chill the waters (WTF do you put ice in your drinks - ever heard of latent heat) whilst putting more moisture upstairs. This with the changing circulation patterns causes local climates to experience wider variations of whatever weather the climate produced.
Therein is the link now between global warming and climate change, and climate change and weather.
As Deke Andt wrote, 'Climate trains the boxer weather throws the punches', and one could add that global warming adds the steroids. The oceans could shortly follow up with the sucker punch because there has been an awful lot of heat energy building up in those oceans, lookee here.
So, constipated physically as well as mentally.
Karen, besides believing that the selective choice of some local weather is a useful proxy for climatological changes in mean global temperature, seems also to believe that the time of day in his/her/its locality is the same on the other side of the planet.
Strange, that.
As the climate changes, extreme weather isn't that extreme any more!
Last year was the 35th consecutive year since 1976 that the yearly global temperature was above average. Since 2000 we have had 11 of the 13 warmest years in 132 years and the patterns of global warming that scientists warned about – such as more droughts, sudden downpours, more widespread wildfires, volatile heat, violent storms and more frequent heatwaves – are all here now. This, say the scientists with increasing conviction, is what the early stages of global warming looks like.
So how much more extreme weather does it take for governments and individuals to act, or for the oil companies to withdraw from the Arctic, or the media to link global warming with the events now being witnessed around the world? Must the sea boil, the Seine run dry, New York flood and the London Olympics be consumed by fire before countries are shocked into taking concerted action? The reality is that even as the world experiences increasing numbers of weather-related disasters and extreme events, climate change has dropped off the rich countries' political and media agendas, and public concern is said to be waning – to the cheers of the sceptics and industry.
Source link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/04/climate-changes-ext…
Ah, to live in total ignorance, with one's head cemented in the sands of denial, as the freak weather tornado blows one's posterior away. Then and only then, the last final thought of a denialiti, will be "those evil scientists, who warned us in 1988, were right all along !"
Or, as Bill McKibben would say about these current weather extremes "But if Senator Inhofe is right, we can all relax. It looks real, but it isn’t—it’s just nature trying to compete with James Cameron. So please don’t shout fire in the global 3-D theater. Stay cool. And get a big tub of popcorn—in this epic disaster flick we’re not even close to the finale."
...Ouch..............................
The remarkable thing about this bit of dumbassery, aside from the irrelevance of his Nobel Peace Prize for trying to eliminate nuclear weapons, is that, even if all of Pauling's claims were true, it would be irrelevant because the other dumbass made claims about low carb diets, not vitamins or other components of Pauling's orthomolecular theory.
You don't remember, you fantasize. Or you conflate Pauling's own work with that of the Pauling Institute.
It's a secret that's been covered up by govmint and evil corporations (eh, what?) who would do anything to keep this under wraps ... just google it!
Hey, why do we call them dumbasses? It's such a mystery.
Stupidity and beyond!
P.S.
Does that put Karen in Australia ... or somewhere else?
KarenMackSuspot says:
Luminous Beauty has already explained it to you, but long and bitter experience indicates that you need to be told repeatedly - and even then it's extremely unlikely to take...
It was just after 8:00 pm in my time zone, and the kids were in fact getting ready for bed after having just returned from visiting their grandmother. That was why there was much distraction (duh), and as LB notes it just goes to show how completely clue-unencumbered you are.
It reminds me of how the WWWT crowd believed that the world was not warming, because they took a few photos of thermometers near air-conditioning units in the States...
This will be the denier's final refuge.
And how exactly does that work, dumbass? What are the steps, ropes, pitons, etc. that the climate uses to climb?
Dumbass might know if she lived there, rather than the Deep South.
KarenMackSunspot's mangling of time calculations really is a reflection of the climate change denialism approach to anything that involves numbers...
"...make it up, and if it suits my belief system and/or my desires, it must be true".
That's exactly right, dumbass. Global warming means that the globe is warming, not that warmth is global.
The same point applies to his fixation with the Argentinian sites, which are 30 degrees and more south of the equator.
Of course, Lapland isn't, but then it's rather close to the North pole, so cold temperatures there aren't surprising at any time of the year. Heck, as I noted in the June open thread, until the last decade or two Christmas snow was not unknown on the mountains half an hour away from where I live, and that's in a southern summer in a location not even halfway to the South Pole.
I think that KMS must have had an intellectomy at birth. Either that, or it was resorbed in an unsuccessful contest with a hydatidiform mole.
Excellent. Do keep that up!
P.S. What would Linus Pauling have thought of such a diet? Perhaps the one dumbass can explain the cause of scurvy to the other dumbass.
Perhaps the one dumbass can explain the cause of scurvy to the other dumbass.
Well having spent much time in the RN I could tell the dumbasses why. Heck, the yanks called us 'limeys', now that is a big clue.
Ah, good to see Betty/Karenmacksunspot/oldduffer and panties in a twist Z, still slugging away at the old cherry picking doublethink game of denial, spreading the usual easily debunked bull dust around.
"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."
Definition courtesy of Andrew D @ Tamino about the usual it's cooling canard or zero sum posted at "Watthasnotalotofbrains".
link: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/sum-fun/#more-5251
Such is life.
Cheers ;)
KMS (KrankMagneticServices) continues to demonstrate the theory of crank-magnetism to perfection.
Being unable to hold in mind an awareness of global timezones is noteworthy, even in the shadowy intellectual twilight that is Denial.
So, we can safely take it that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and it isn't warming.
Actually, thinking about your extraordinary dietary advice again, I have another question; do we share a common ancestor with the other apes, 'Karen'? Please do answer; I'm sure we'd all like to know.
I note a few proposals floating around that the lunar-lunar-Right faction of Denial - let's just call them the SkyDragons - has had its day and should simply be put out to pasture, quarantined into their own threads where they can vapourise at will without troubling passersby. Couldn't come soon enough, to my mind.
Barnturd J.
July 5, 4:51 pm
" It’s also so easy to tell when barnturd is cut because the germ stammers
Yeah, I noticed that too. That’s what happens when one is talking to three year old twins in real life, and simultaneously to another, intellectual three year old online. "
but then.........
Bernard J.
July 5, 4:51 pm
"t was just after 8:00 pm in my time zone, and the kids were in fact getting ready for bed after having just returned from visiting their grandmother. That was why there was much distraction (duh), and as LB notes it just goes to show how completely clue-unencumbered you are."
So barnturd either you dwell in the Indian ocean or you are lying again !
Given that you have previously stated that you live in Australia even the dumbo's in here could work out from your post time that you were not in Australia at 8.00 pm your time,
Historical Palmer Drought Indices
Palmer Drought Severity Index
June 2012
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/historical-palmers.php…
Historical Palmer Drought Indices
Palmer Drought Severity Index
June 1934
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/historical-palmers.php…
Sooooo...............numpties, why all the arm waving apocalyptic frenzy ?
Now who is going to supply me with a link to the "100 year ice volume" charts for the Arctic, Antarctica and lets not forget Greenland ?
Karen, I thought it was cooling. How could there be droughts?
little johny maybe you are correct :)
South Pole New Temperature Record
Posted: 2012-06-18
On June 11, 2012 the temperature at South Pole Station in Antarctica was -73.8°C/-100.8°F.
This broke the previous minimum temperature record of -73.3°C/-99.9°F set in 1966.
http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/news/index.php?id=41
Karen, I'm sure the people suffering from the extreme drought in the US (where over 3,000 heat records were set last month) will be heartened by a cold day in winter in Antarctica.
I missed have missed the memo that there were supposed to be no more cold days in Antarctica by 2012. How careless of me.
Isn't it funny how those deniers who claimed that cold weather during winter in the US was proof AGW was a hoax are strangely silent on all this hot weather that proves, by their own argument, it is real.
Oh, wait, no! A single cold record in Antarctica (against 3,000 heat records in the US) proved me wrong! Seriously - this goes up there with Duff's "I don't care one way or the other but ariel photographs of New Zealand 70 years ago prove no sea level rise!" for Worst Argument Ever.
Where do you live little johny ?
I live in this cold country http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest… which is a bit to the left of where berntard dwells.
As you can see there is no GLOWBULL warming here, even prior to the breathing tax :)
And look at this little johny.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/ndvi/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest…
Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)
The Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) grids and maps are derived from satellite data. The data provides an overview of the status and dynamics of vegetation across Australia, providing a measure the amount of live green vegetation. The satellite data comes from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) instruments on board the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) series of satellites that are operated by the US (http://noaasis.noaa.gov/NOAASIS/ml/avhrr.html).
See, glowbull warming isn't global. lol
oppppppssssss, I'd better fix this typo before barnturd try's to tease me again lol
"which is a bit to the RIGHT of where berntard dwells."
Again (and again and again ...) you're too stupid to understand what "global warming" means.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest…
Gee, most of Australia is cooler during a La Nina. Who said the braindead weren't useful for something?
Ah, Karenmackloop an interesting form of cherry picking you have there.
Now, let me look at my handy way back cotton candy cherry picking machine. This tells me "Amundsen Scott Station" is actually warmer than higher altitude Vostok Station, in all temperature readings. And yes, satellite data, since 1973, shows that the Antarctic continent is also warming up as well as it's northern opposite number
Surprise, surprise, in the summer midnight sun, on December 25th, 2011, Amundsen Scott station recorded an all time record high, since record keeping began in 1956/7.
You see, two can play your silly stoopid game of totally ignore the big picture!
But then again, a wise person would check the big picture of the satellite called GRACE data acquisition database. Here, we can clearly see that since 2002, both the East and West Antarctic regions, are consistently losing ice mass with accelerating trends.
link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Antarctica-absolute-temperatures-too-co…
Still afraid of the big picture , are we?
Yawn, just another boring troll doublethink episode, of much ado, about absolutely nothing ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!
Karen, why do you deny weather and reigional variations?
Also Karen, can you point me to the bit in the IPCC Ar4 that says cold wasn't supposed to exist by 2012?
Karen sounds like Joe Cambria aka "jc" "s brid" "ar" "pessimist" etc etc etc Sadly this particular character gets a bee in his bonnet about Tim Lambert every now and then and makes a ruckus at various blogs. I could be wrong but as a long time "Joe Watcher" I reckon the wording sounds familiar.
"I live in this cold country http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest…"
Gee that's funny - I, like most Australians, live in the bit that has an anomaly of +1 degree C (during a La Nina). Tell me again about no warming?
And it gets even more pronounced if you look at the annual figures: http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest…
Um, wrong again Sunspot (I'm not even going to bother with listing the other socks when your punctuation disability manifests so blatantly).
Take, for example, the time-stamp of the post where I explained to you the issue of time zones - it was "July 5, 4:51 pm". My computer's time, which is not more than a minute or so out, said 2:49 am 6 July. I know, because I checked it after I posted, just to see what the time difference was. (And yes, I am well-known for being a night-owl...)
So, work it out. If I post at "July 5, 10:07 am" by the blog's clock, what time would it be by my computer's clock?
Is this really so difficult for you to calculate?
For bonus points, can you tell us to which time zone the blog currently appears to be set?
I'm in the GMT + 10 time zone, Einstein. East coast of Australia.
You need to take off your shoes and pull your trousers down to count to 21, don't you?
Idiot.
20.5, Bernard.
Wow, I always admit to my mistakes...
You are correct.
Bernard J.
8:46 am
Wow, I always admit to my mistakes…
You have that brown stuff dripping off your chin again barnturd, no doubt your shadow propels it out the other end also.
So, KarenMackSunspot, if I post at “July 5, 10:07 am” by the blog’s clock, what time would it be by my computer’s clock?
BTW, it says 7:39 pm now...
KMS, I notice you didn't answer my question about our ancestors; if you go far enough back are they the same as the chimpanzees', or not?
I realise you cannot be the greatest loon on the net while GB still dwells thereon, but I'm beginning to think you may well be second...
Here is the post in question, what time was it barnturd
Bernard J.
July 5, 11:07 am
It’s so easy to tell when KarenMackSuspot is cut…
…he resorts to potty-mouth name-calling, but but with no other point.
Heh, that describes quite a lot of his posts…
I would like to point out that whatever the length of the appendage being used to aid in counting it will still count as an integer.
Also, one shouldn't presume that KMS is what might be considered a "normal" human form: possibilities include polydactyly and/or gender reassignment, and there may also be added misfortune from one or more accidents in which appendages have been removed.
All of these possibilities impact on how much aid KMS can obtain in counting using available digits/appendages.
The greatest misfortune, however, is being blessed with a neuron count that does not equal or exceed the total cell count of Amoeba proteus.
Actually, if KMS were an amoeba, then in theory any number of pseudopodia could be called upon, but then I doubt whether such a creature could use the extra facilities to count anyway.
KarenMackSunspot, at 10:02 am on 6 June:
Erm, the whole point of this exchange was your offence that I referred to Lionel A's and Marco's commentary on Pauling, rather than Bill and Marco, with a supplementary inability to deal with a repetition of the word 'but'.
That exchange occurred at exactly the time of day I told you, in the hour when I was putting and reputting three tired and circus-hyped children to bed (including twins, before you become confused about those numbers). I find it highly entertaining that you not only can't let go of such triviality, but that you persist in digging yourself deeper into the hole encompassing your inability to convert between time zones.
Seriously, you're looking so stupid that your only way to avoid perpetual humiliation will be to spawn a new sock... except that your language skills are so idiosyncratically illiterate that we'll pick the next incarnation too.
Oh, and do consider seeing a specialist about your coprolalia. I suspect that you're well into 'definite treatment' territory.
Just to refresh that compromised memory of your, KMS, if I post at “July 5, 10:07 am” by the blog’s clock, what time would it be by my computer’s clock?
And if I post at “July 5, 11:07 am” by the blog’s clock, what time would it be by my computer’s clock?
I'll give you a hint - my children went to bed about an hour ago...
Bernard J.
10:40 am
"And if I post at “July 5, 11:07 am” by the blog’s clock, what time would it be by my computer’s clock?"
spit it out barnturd, it wasn't 8.00pm
stop trying to twist your way out of admitting you were wrong
Well a months rainfall in a day is forecast for parts of Britain today.
Why do you think this is happening KrakenMacSpotnick?
This song was way ahead of its time, sorry about the screaming teens. I fell in love with that voice back then, enough to buy vinyl. Sad I know but in my defence I was at that silly romantic mid too late teen age. Judith Durham of Australia's 'New Seekers' had a cracking voice too.
"Why do you think this is happening KrakenMacSpotnick?"
Cosmic rays Lionel, nice song :)
Explain without woo-woo science.
Lionel there is and old saying.
"It doesn't rain then it pours"
That's not the old saying.
Seems you're incompetent far more widely than anyone ever suspected.
And the actual old saying is a non-sequitor.
I see that barnturd thinks that if she keeps her head buried in the toilet long enough then she may not have to admit that she was wrong again.
Speaking of admitting you're wrong Karen McSpot, can we get back to how the amount of moisture that fell as a record amount of snow you were braying about yesterday found its way into the atmosphere.
And no, "cosmic rays" didn't put it there.
wet chek, are you going to attempt to use your esoteric AGW voodoo nonsense to attribute to a natural weather pattern ?
I'm still waiting on the links to the 100 yr ice volume charts, I know they must be around somewhere?
Come now Karen, you had the smarts yesterday to use the kettle analogy to vaporise the water, I'm sure that even your blatant and proudly worn stupidity won't prevent extending the analogy one little baby step further.
wet chek that was a little conversation about the new alarmist thermodynamic phenomenon of hot things making other things cold, you can believe it if makes you cozy.
No, what is at issue firstly is how the water vapour got into the atmosphere - not what happened to it afterwards. We're taking teeny-tiny baby steps here, one thing at a time remember.
So - great start with you coming up with the kettle idea. Now how do you suppose that a similar process might happen in the oceans where precipitation originates from (bearing in mind that there aren't any kettles big enough)?
Well that's a shame. This morning, for the first time in many years I noticed that Deltoid had dropped off my iGoggle front page and when I popped back in to check if my fears for why this was so were well founded, I realised they were.
Do you know, I got back from the RGS conf in Edinburgh last night and over 3 days of fascinating sessions there was not one single relevant paper [yes I admit there are some weird and wonderful topics that fit under the umbrella term of geography) presented that had an AGW 'septical' tone; not one.
Guys, we've got more important things to do than argue with these clowns!
He didn't ask how google search results explain it, he asked how YOU explain it.
Why is it deniers have such trouble reading english?
I agree. But we seem to be discovering depths of Stupid hitherto unexpected.
Given your bizarre notions of a suitable human diet, KMS, I feel perfectly entitled to ask; did we evolve from a common ancestor of the other Apes?
Wow
12:23 pm
what are you talking about ?
On March 27at 9:43 am Karen the Credulous posted:
3 months on and the newspaper that first published this claim (UK denier organ The Daily Fail) retracts the story fearing a Press Complaints Commission ruling:
http://pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=Nzg5Nw
All wanted to prove, Karen, is that you are a credulous nincompoop. Job done.
12:56
Precise proof of your problem: your inability to read english.
In the past 24 hours there has been 8,790 articles published about the US heatwave, thereby proving the existence of AGW as per Karenmackspot's argument that weather is climate.
Really? This is all that you can come up with? You can't answer my simple questions, questions that a junior high school kid could ace?
How sad.
At 9:47 am 6 July I noted that my computer's time was 7:39 pm. Given that NG's clock seems to be a bit off (I set my computer to World Clock about a week ago), that means that the blog's time is 10 hours behind my time. Given that I am GMT + 10, that would indicate that the blog is currently on GMT + 0. In other words, London time.
If I post here and it says "July 5, 10:07 am", what time and date is it in my time zone?
I'll give you a clue - I'm not wrong, and you have been in every instance of comment on this matter to date.
You might as well admit that you've fucked up (as usual), KMS, otherwise you'll give yourself an aneurysm. Of course, you may already have a history of such - it could possibly explain the coprolalia.
Conspiracy Alert! Conspiracy Alert!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQI1Fvp6rBw&feature=related
"An annual lump sum payment by the super-rich is one of a host of measures including a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, currency exchanges or financial transactions proposed in a UN report that accuses wealthy nations of breaking promises to step up aid for the less fortunate."
"tax of $25 per tonne on carbon dioxide emissions would raise about $250 billion. It could be collected by national governments, but allocated to international cooperation."
That's right folks, only 2 1/2 years left to achieve the Millenium Developement Goals and spread that wealth....
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/un-calls-billionaires-tax-help-worlds-poor-211…
Betula hates the poor.
Unless they can exploit them.
Either as fodder or as emotional blackmail, whatever gets the bennies.
John,
Honest, I didn't know you were poor.
I apologise for hurting you Betula, I didn't realise you were so sensitive on being called out for your ideological and hate-based denial of science.
Shame on you, John.
You should be more like Betty and her friends and call Betty "asswipe" or similar.
"I apologise for hurting you Betula, I didn’t realise you were so sensitive on being called out for your ideological and hate-based denial of science"
I'm hurt because you're poor? No, but the fact that you believe that, and relate it to a denial of science, could be one of the reasons you are poor...tough to make it in this world with that logic.
Anyhow, what does your being poor and delusional have to do with the Millenium Developement Goals and spreading the wealth under the guise of a carbon tax? Did you read the conspiratorial article? Perhaps you should try reading it after your daily medication....
"You should be more like Betty and her friends and call Betty “asswipe” or similar"
I don't use that word Wow. Besides, you don't need wiping, you're just fine the way you are...
I see the attempt here is to distract fom this article, so I'll just post it again...
“An annual lump sum payment by the super-rich is one of a host of measures including a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, currency exchanges or financial transactions proposed in a UN report that accuses wealthy nations of breaking promises to step up aid for the less fortunate.”
“tax of $25 per tonne on carbon dioxide emissions would raise about $250 billion. It could be collected by national governments, but allocated to international cooperation.”
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/un-calls-billionaires-tax-help-worlds-poor-211…
You use worse words, Betty. And you condone their use by others of your flock.
I see the attempt here is for Betty to distract from Karen MacSpot's learning experience with a dumber-than-grade school outrage over global economics.
How come the trolls are always trying to shut down the discussion? When it's not going their way.
What is your problem with people who have plenty giving up money they'll never miss?
And we already know that those most culpable for the problem are shirking personal responsibility.
Yes, Karen (2:12 am), lets not forget Greenland. Greenland's increase or decrease depends on several factors, but for this exercise we can break these down into Surface Mass Balance changes (preciptation less runoff) and "everything else" (all other processes that affect the mass of the Greenland ice sheet).
Here is a paper with the century-scale Surface Mass Balance after: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016387.shtml
It's behind a paywall, but if you look at the images in the freely available section (so much easier than reading all those difficult words and numbers), figures 7 and 8 give the SMB over the last century: 200 km^3 per year worse than it was 100 years ago. This paper builds on a 2007 paper by noted almost-a-denier Pat Michaels, which could not escape the conclusion that "If melt trend continues, it will soon exceed any melt during the past 226 years". And guess what - it has continued! (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html see figure HTC19, about 3/4s of the way down).
Now, Karen, we know from your flapping about Svalbard that you think -1 + -1 = 0, but even someone as mathematically challenged as you can work out the other half of this equation (the "everything else"). It's quite simple to show from the data in these two links that iceberg calving etc has increase by 50% over the last century - from around 500 km^3 per year to ~750 km^3 per year.
So you have the details you wanted, for Greenland at least, what was the point of the demand again? Are you going to show us how declining surface mass balance + increased loss to icebergs = no change, like you did with your special "Svalbard maths"?
BTW - you being an expert on Arctic ice and all - whats your explanation for the current state of Arctic Sea Ice area? I mean, when it was at a 2-year high you were sure it disproved AGW. So, now its at the lowest ever for this date, that proves...?
Wow...
"You use worse words, Betty. And you condone their use by others of your flock"
I like the examples you use to back up your statement....the amount of time you spent researching all the details is nothing short of amazing.
Oh, by the way, have you spent any time researching the latest conspiracy theory?
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/un-calls-billionaires-tax-help-worlds-poor-211…
Why don't you try making some sense, Betty.
You can't ask us to do ALL your thinking. Try some for yourself.
Ah, Betula, I see you are back again to do your sniping. I'll quote part of my last comment on the previous open thread, in case you missed it.
So come on, man! Show a bit of guts instead of avoiding the issue and being perpetually snarky about others. Do you or don't you think that climate change due to human activity is taking place? Do you or don't you think that it may have harmful repercussions for society? What has prompted you to reach these conclusions? Or are you going to run away again, just to snipe again in another week or two?
But you see Richard, Betty is about avoidance, then popping up again a while later with nuggets like: "“tax of $25 per tonne on carbon dioxide emissions would raise about $250 billion. It could be collected by national governments, but allocated to international cooperation.”
Now what you have to remember is that to Betty, earning $17k a year performing his thankless task in a call centre or whatever, $250 billion sounds like more than God has in his high-yield savings account. but In actual fact, it's about a third of what the global economy was expected to spend on cosmetics in 2012:
But then, Betty and clinical paranoids like KMS are pretty much what's leftover who are susceptible to being targeted and used by the likes of Tillerson and his team.
While we're talking about denialists who won't substantiate their claims, let me repeat:
Come on, pentaxZ. You were so certain when you first said it, and you're fond of claiming you have the facts on your side and the "opposition" is merely indulging in fact-free groupthink. Should be really easy then, right? Simply point out the overwhelmingly convincing evidentiary basis for your claim...
...or should we take your silence as an admission that you can't defend it on that basis?
Those women who <a href="http://www.onewater.org/stories/story/walking_for_water_an_exhausting_j…;walk miles for water could all be corporate CEOs if they weren't so lazy.
I did and not being a dishonest sociopathic imbecile like Betula I know that it does not say or imply "under the guise of". Betula is too stupid and too dishonest to recognize that one things can have two effects. Although, given the alarmist predictions of the deniers, you would think that a carbon tax would make everything more expensive for everyone -- if, that is, you had any reason to expect consistency from them. And we have had this conversation before, so I know that Betula will not stop lying about this and that his lies won't cause us to believe a falsehood. And, of course, his whining about people creating a distraction by not responding to his stupid distraction is just more of his incessant dishonesty and hypocrisy.
It's "just plain stupid" to think otherwise because CO2 is such a small proportion of the atmosphere/Earth's mass/universe/multiverse. "To believe that small things can have big effects "is just redicoulus", you silly science person.
BTW, if anyone here has any hope for humanity, read the comments on Betula's link and then give it up.
Can anyone with some background in Physics/Chemistry/Maths come up with a single credible piece of evidence that 1. doesn't confuse "climate" with "weather" and 2. is at odds with the notion that the planet is warming because of increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? I'm asking if those who know what they're talking about can find any evidence at all that gives them pause for thought.
Shorter Betula:
1. Global warming harms the third world
2. Aid from rich countries who caused the warming is needed to minimise harm
3. Aid is wrong and poor people deserve to be poor
4. Therefore global warming is a hoax
So yes, your ideological views are directly related to your denial of science.
Unfortunately ClimateWiki's attempt at deconstructing SkS seems to have ground to a halt. Perhaps some of our house deniers can fill in the gaps? Your scientific views are certainly contradictory enough. Pentaxz can write the "it's warming but it's not us" page, Karenmackspot can write the "it's cooling" page and Betula can write nothing because he has nothing but empty jeering at science based on his ideology and, frankly, isn't capable of writing a halfway decent rebuttal to anything because he simply doesn't have the capacity or ability.
FrankD
July 6, 5:46 pm
"Yes, Karen (2:12 am), lets not forget Greenland. Greenland’s increase or decrease depends on several factors, "
Here is some info for you FrankD
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20…
That graph totally destroys the CO2 fairytale. lol
'Karen' is a Kreationist. And a SkyDragon. Why bother?
And this graph demonstrates clearly (even for the dumbo's in here) that GLOWBULL warming is not global.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20TropicsAndExtratropicsMon…
See you silly boys (and barnturd) the little intsy tinsy idy biddy tiny wee little bit of warming that you all are so petrified about http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-j… is because of the warmer weather up north
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for June +0.37 °C
PPPFFfffffffffttttttttttttttttt lol
Karen admits the climate is warming.
I wonder what is driving this change.
Plus, if you follow Karenmackpot's argument to its logical conclusion, there was no MWP because it still snowed.
"Europe is burning coal at the fastest pace since 2006, as surging imports from"...............
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-02/europe-burns-coal-fastest-s…
It looks like nobody is as scared of CO2 as you guys (and barnturd).
Maybe they are going dump that rubbish carbon tax and close the failed carbon trading markets.
Temperatures: Not That Remarkable
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/07/june-2012-u-s-temperatures-not-that…
No, nothing remarkable about the warmest non-El Nino June on record.
Seriously though, for those who can't be bothered clicking on the link, Spencer blames June on the UHI (really!) and says he's stopped answering his phone, so tired is he of all the severe weather and pesky journalists wanting answers. Wonder what's causing those extremes?
Hey Karenmackspot, any word which bit of the Ar4 said cold wouldn't exist by 2012? Or how there was a MWP and yet stil snow?
During the brief 2010 US snowstorms Karenmackspot blamed the "COLD CLIMATE" but during the intense heatwaves he blames the weather and calls 3,000 records being broken in days "unremarkable".
What a hypocrite!
My own thoughts are (and always have been) that KMS is not 'Karen Bracken'. Karen Bracken is more literate than KMS, and anyway no real female would try to feminise my identity as a means of insult. And women aren't usually as prone to coprolalia as is KMS.
Not that I mind being mistaken as a female - there's a large preponderance of females in my family, and consequently I do not have the sexist issues that plague KMS.
On the matter of the graph to which he linked at 6:48 am, 7 July, it's worth noting that amongst other dissemblances it completely omits all documentation of human-caused carbon dioxide increase. Now why would anyone do that?!
The guy is an embarrassment to denialism. If any of the other denialists here disagree, please stand up for KMS, and tell us where you think that he has actually made a defensible point. I'd love to poke at those dead remains...
Oh please, please ban the little clown.
When, when will you dimwits ever realise that a blog is like a dinner party at someone's house; you cannot burst in, tramp your muddy feet across the carpet, insult the host, insult the guests, loudly complain there's only 'f*in' rabbit food' in the buffet, pour the dregs of your hip flask of Bundaberg into the punch, then grab the TV remote control to turn up the volume on re-runs of the Dukes of Hazzard... much as I'm sure that would be a perfect evening for you.
Those interested in following up the data that poor barnturd can't find can find it at the following link.
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm
OMG barnturd, are you really a boy ?
I am so sorry for mistaking the feminine, or shall I say CATTY nature of your continual and baseless insult's, I genuinely thought that you were just being a bitch by comparing me to some man that you may of had some form of lovers tiff with.
I'm so sorry if I hurt your little feelings dear :)
My feelings are completely untouched by idiocy such as yours, except for a slighlyt bemused amusement that it is so ingrained.
You, on the other hand, are bleeding in more than one sense. As evidence, I tender your fevered potty-mouth, and your complete capitulance over your mistake about time zones.
Oh, and the small matter of your total non-understanding of the science of climate change...
I understand Karen a lot better now - she lives 150 years in the past! The latest date that could be read from GISP 2 was for 1855, before modern warming even started to become discernable! So, how does that disprove the "CO2 fairytale"exactly?
Still nice try at shifting the goal posts - as if the temperature in one location at Greenland could prove or disprove global anything. Its as stupid as Duff telling us that its cold today where he lives...
You get down through dumb to brainless to totally fucking stupid, cut a hole in the floor, and then dig down a way, and then you get to Karen.
So, Karen, why did you want a century scale record of mass loss on Greenland. Time for some Svalbard maths again?
Karen I note your penultimate idiot comment has been removed. Frankly, I think that's far too generous; it would have been perfectly just if you simply had been.
To quote someone who really knew how to dish out an insult - I have seen more intelligent creatures than you lying on their backs at the bottoms of ponds. I have seen better organized creatures than you running round farmyards with their heads cut off.
FrankD @ 11:52 am
Yep! And shaking hands with Curtin.
Well we sure saw some rain over Britain overnight with more to come in the early hours but that is as nothing to what these people have experienced.
Now what was that saying about climate, boxers, weather and punches KrakenMackSpotnick?
Take your medication Frank and then have a look at this http://www.climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm#Atmospheric%20carbon%20…
Those charts demonstrate that temperature rise does not follow a rise in CO2, but then you knew that didn't you Frank ! Are you losing much money in the carbon market ? Seems that a few in here have been suckered into that.
Lionel, did you read this little paragraph ?
"He said, quoted by the Russian RIA news agency, that the flooding was the worst in the region for 70 years but the situation should "stabilise" in the next few hours."
Lionel that bit is to inform you that it has happened before, and in all likelihood has happened many times before.
I seem to remember reading some of barnturd's post's once upon a time, yes he thought that the Queensland floods were caused by CO2, hahahaha, silly fool, lol
Bill, did it break your weeny little heart when your ex friend said that to you ?
Your such a bunch of sooky boy's, lol
KrakenMackSpotBot
Are you negligent, incompetent or complicit?
John...
1. "Global warming harms the third world"
It's harming the third world now or it will harm the third world in the future? What does "global" mean? Maybe we should call it "class warfare warming" or "descrimination warming". Why this emphasis on the "third world" John? Hmmm...
2. "Aid from rich countries who caused the warming is needed to minimise harm"
What constitutes rich? Could you please break down the percentage of warming caused by each country, state, county, and person based on their age, salary and lifestyle for me... and how much each individual owes society and how that payment is going to be distributed as a pecentage to each third world country and then each individual based on age, salary and location.... and the time frame for which this aid will ensure that these people are no longer considered poor or in danger and the framework for which this conclusion is based.
Thanks.
3. "Aid is wrong and poor people deserve to be poor"
John, here's what Chek had to say about me...."Now what you have to remember is that to Betty, earning $17k a year performing his thankless task in a call centre or whatever"
So while you attempt to insult me by assuming what I think the poor deserve, Chek attempts to insult me by assuming I'm poor and deserve it. Yet, neither of you can see that you are insulting each other through me. Classic!
4. "Therefore global warming is a hoax"
No John, you are the hoax. The unknown future consequences of Global Warming are being used as a tool by creating fear ( worst case scenarios) to help achieve the U.N's fast approaching Millenium Developement Goals. The main goal being to redistribute the worlds wealth.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/un-calls-billionaires-tax-help-worlds-poor-211…
The emphasis on third world John...
"Many development experts question the MDGs model of transferring billions of dollars directly from the wealthy nation governments to the often bureaucratic or corrupt governments in developing countries"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals#Debate_surrou…
Third World John...
"The European Union is a global player and is committed to supporting its Pacific partners in reaching the Millenium Development Goals, whilst at the same time addressing the threat of climate change, for which Pacific Islands have no direct responsibility but are the first to suffer its impact"
"In the worst case scenario, some islands could disappear due to rising sea levels"
http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/51028
Third World John...
"Climate Change: Waiting for a Catastrophic Wake-Up Call "
"This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network. Tierramérica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme and the World Bank."
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/06/climate-change-waiting-for-a-catastrophi…
Third World John...
What will it cost to reach the MDG'S?
http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/mdgassessment.pdf
The United Nations John...Millenium Developement Goals John.... World Bank John...Transfer Wealth To The Third World John...Climate Change John....The U.N'S IPCC John....Catastophies John...Third World Most Affected John....Need Money John...Rich Nations Fault John...Rich Nations Need To Pay John... Need To Act Now John...Wake Up John.....John? JOHN!
We've lost him...
Well KrakenMackSpotBot I figure it is the last two as you would fit in with the villains in these pieces:
Coal and Oil Have Their Lobbyists, but the Earth Has YOU
Humanitarian Disaster From Electricity Crisis Grows in Coalfields, As Coal Baron Entertains PGA Golf Tour, Rock Stars
Now if you do happen to be one of the blinkered little people then watch out for it could be you next. Think about that!
And whilst you are there how do you wave this away:
NBC Meteorologist On Record Heat Wave: ‘If We Did Not Have Global Warming, We Wouldn’t See This’
Ohh Lionel, sigh, they are stretching the truth over there, no one will believe that.
U.N. CONSPIRACY OVERLOAD !! DOUBLE RED ALERT!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz3jnHAXQrQ
U.N. Global Tax....hmmm I wonder why?
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/07/forget-obamatax-are-you-ready-for…
haha, Lionel I just checked the weather in Nashville 27 deg C, http://www.flightstats.com/go/Airport/weather.do?airportCode=BNA
Did you notice that the entire US infrastructure is in a bad way ? They seem to currently spend about 53% of their budget on the military, so I suppose that will continue to snuff out allot of innocent peoples lives and reduce the CO2 that you fear.
Betula, both the yanks and the UN need another tax to kill people
O, the blithe unconscious incoherence! It's a wonder our resident deniers can even feed themselves.
KarenMackSunspot, you really are a sad, ignorant, uneducable evolutionary dead-end. Only those whose Stupid is indelibly ingrained still try that one on.
If you drag your knuckles over to Skeptical Science's list of denialist canards you'll find that your claim has been addressed multiple times, notably at #47 and at #137, but also at #11, #30, #49, and #51.
As ever, I invite you to construct a cogent and defensible counter-argument if you believe that you have evidence that will rebut the laws of physics relied on by Skeptical Science.
And as ever, I know that you will fail in this task, just as you have always done in the past.
"Are you losing much money in the carbon market?"
C'mon, Karen, we can all read the subtext: "FML! I was totally wrong on Greenland, just like I was about Svalbard! Just like I am about every substantive point I try to make. Quick, time to change the topic. No one will notice.."
Big fat FAIL, Karen, we all saw it. We don't care. Every post you make just exposes you as a bigger idiot.
But I have to wonder why Karen is so persistant in the face of her own repeated failures to land a single punch - does she make herself feel better by pretending this isn't happening? Like whistling past a graveyard or something? It's got so lame, its...well...just lame.
So some honest advice - just quit while you're behind, you've become embarassing. Or, if you must post again, do make sure to tell us what you think about the annual mass loss of the Greenland ice cap rising by 750 billion tons per year over the last century. I mean, it was you who raised it...
Betty, your troll tactic of employing partial quotes is, as you correctly put it at 2.33, classic!
Firstly, $17k a year is not poor - it's about what a non-unionised service worker earns. It may be well below the average wage, but then that is a meaningless measure anyway as shown by the joke that when Bill Gates walks into a room everyones average earnings rocket up by $1 million dollars a week. And in global terms, it's definitely not 'poor'.
As usual you miss the point that your impressive sounding $250 billion isn't nearly so impressive when put in a context that can be related to. But then you know that.
Poor?
The international benchmark, for want of a better word, for absolute poverty is $2 a day or less. Once you get above that level all sorts of other considerations come into play.
Some of us might be a bit hard up, but I very much doubt that anyone here would count on any sensible definition of "poor" by international standards. I wasn't too thrilled about forking out for a new car battery yesterday, but we'll manage to feed ourselves till next pay day. Having to manage or eke out your money is a long way from being too poor to afford a decent life.
chek...
"As usual you miss the point that your impressive sounding $250 billion isn’t nearly so impressive when put in a context that can be related to. But then you know that."
So... $17k isn't a little and $250 Billion isn't a lot and I miss the point yet get the point. Got it.
Ee know thst the point of just about eerything in the world passes you by, Betty.
Hi, Betula! I see you are still sniping and still lack the courage to give your views on climate change. Don't you feel just the teeniest bit ashamed of your behaviour?
In other good news, in the US, the Federal Appeals Court, decision in regard to the EPA, has boiled nearly all the morally bankrupt faith based denialati in their own sea of fake propaganda lies.
"The judges unanimously dismissed arguments from industry that the science of global warming was not well supported and that the agency had based its judgment on unreliable studies. “This is how science works,” they wrote. “The E.P.A. is not required to reprove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.”
link: Watching the deniers : http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/this-is-how-science-…
As for the remaining few denialati, they were last seen, legless cap in hand, soliciting funds without a license for a non existent appeal!
Such is life, the science of climate changed is now legally settled, in the law courts!
Cheers :)
Arguments about what is usual are irrelevant to specific cases, and I know plenty of women with "rich" language. Anyway, speculating that KMS is Karen Bracken is just an amusement. My position has always been that those who insist that KMS must be male have not made their case.
Krasnodar.
Oh!My!God! It's Obamacare on a Global Scale!!! Look - UN Death Panels!!! Won't someone think of the children?!!
?!?!?!
Truly, the projections of these TeaPartyite mouthbreathers are astonishing...
Karen owes me one replacement irony meter.
Rather like when braindead Karen quoted:
It has happened before, and in all likelihood has happened many times before.
First, I offer my condolence's to the people in and around the area of Krasnodar who lost their lives, homes and loved ones, mother nature can be so cruel.
I went to google earth and looked up Krasnodar, the city sits directly in the path of the spillway of a large dam and the topography is almost flat.
This may well be a repeat of the same scenario of what happened in Queensland. So you all really need to wait for the water to pass before trying to blame the great demon see o two.
I see my gentle needling provoked quite a reaction in Betula, forcing him to outline his conspiritorial fantasies in detail. He's easier to bait than Karenmackspot!
How this obsessive, hateful wailing about the UN was meant to disprove my assertion that he denies science for ideological reasons I will never know!
Betula, old chum, I suggest you take off the tinfoil hat and have a bit of a liedown. It must be exhausting being as gullible, obsessive and unhappy as you
;)
His views on the science break down to "because there are unknowns it's all a UN hoax! Wealth redistribution!". Then he tries to cloak his views in irony which is ironic because he really believes it.
The more marginalised this shrinking group of shrieking, froth-mouthed conspiracy theorists become the more obsessive they get.
Betula and Karen and completly destroying their cause from within.
It's quite a spectacle!
Widespread flooding made more extreme by increased moisture in the air caused by AGW?
This should set your panicking minds at ease, the world temperature anomaly map is also put there for those who can't read.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/07/the-folly-of-blaming-the-eastern-…
I get it Karenmackspot. When there are snowstorms it is "COLD CLIMATE" and when there are heatwaves it is weather.
Your whole argument was cold weather in winter disproves AGW. By a logical extenstion, hot weather in summer proves AGW.
Nobody here is arguing that the heatwaves are proof of or "caused by" (nice strawman, Tony) global warming.
I'm just extrapolating your argument to show you how weak, hypotrical, contradictory and self-serving it is.
John: I have a pretty good idea of Betula's views on climate change, but what I want is for him to come out and say so. He won't, of course, because he has nothing to back him up but I think there is marginally more chance of engaging him than KarenMackSpot who comes across as an excitable, addled teenager. Duff I imagine as an elderly man, shuffling about in carpet slippers with his fly undone, complaining about modern times and 'who has hidden my reading glasses?'
No little Johny, I merely pointed out that the climate is not "hot" as predicted, you know, all that guff about higher lows that you were confabulating about. lol
Richard Simmons, I found your cute photo :) http://www.richardsimmonsdvds.com/0_61_320_Simmons2.jpg
No, you did not.
Hint: weather != climate.
Lotty dear, I'm always pointing out that the predictions have failed :)
FIFY.
.
FIFY some more.
Oh Lotty,
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FIFY
Hey, KMS, you figured out the time zone stuff yet? If so, are you going to admit that you were wrong?
Here is the post in question, what time was it barnturd ?
Bernard J.
July 5, 11:07 am
It’s so easy to tell when KarenMackSuspot is cut…
…he resorts to potty-mouth name-calling, but but with no other point.
Heh, that describes quite a lot of his posts…
No, you actually used the term "COLD CLIMATE" (caps yours) to describe the weather in winter and accused climate scientists of fraudulently manipulating data because there were media reports of cold weather.
By your own argument, the US is now experiencing a hot climate (as "predicted"!), therefore proving AGW. But alas, this time around it's just meaningless, meaningless "weather".
I see my gentle needling provoked quite a reaction in Little Johny
Historical Palmer Drought Indices
Palmer Drought Severity Index
June 2012
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/historical-palmers.php…
Historical Palmer Drought Indices
Palmer Drought Severity Index
June 1934
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/historical-palmers.php…
See Little Johny, there is nothing unprecedented about the summer in the US, now go back to your bedroom and play your Nintendo sweetheart :)
Little Johny when you have finished playing with your gameboy have a look at these years at the years 1902,1956, 1977, 1988 and 2002 the Historical Palmer Drought Indices
Palmer Hydrological Drought Index
for June.
I really do think it's shocking how the alarmist's scare little children with end of the world fable's.
It's all a bit like being chastised by yeast...
@bill
You suffer from recurring bouts of thrush bill?
;)
Apparently you are aware of all Internet traditions.
No, I'm just mildly allergic to the seemingly boundless garrulous ferments of the Thing That Wouldn't Shut Up (Or Make Sense.)
And I calibrated it for you with the comment that I made exactly one hour previously, when I referred to Marco and Lionel, and accidentally called Marco Marcus.
Can't you work it out Einstein Potty-Mouth?
You really don't understand, do you? You are probably further confused by thinking that the world is flat...
And to get a likely, if not accurate climate value for weather, you need to fit in a few years (wait unti the data is at least 16 years).
You see, when someone is taking events over 30 years, even though each event is "only weather", that 30-year view is climate.
So a second 60-year event in 5 years is talking climate.
A record is only weather.
barnterd you calibrated WRONG then,
Getting forgetful or lying bernturd ?
You stated on July 5, 1:21 pm
"It’s also so easy to tell when barnturd is cut because the germ stammers"
"Yeah, I noticed that too. That’s what happens when one is talking to three year old twins in real life, and simultaneously to another, intellectual three year old online "
The post where you were talking "simultaneously " was the post ......
Bernard J.
July 5, 11:07 am
It’s so easy to tell when KarenMackSuspot is cut…
…he resorts to potty-mouth name-calling, but but with no other point.
Heh, that describes quite a lot of his posts…
See the stammer berturd, here is again
"name-calling, but but with no other"
Can you work out the time now nuff nuff ?
Now lets see if you really are a man ?
KarenMackSpotBot
More reality for you to try to explain away
...what's the time, Kreationist Karen? ^
Also, what is about the kind of intellect - and I use the term in the loosest sense possible - that's called to Denial, and the remarkable inability to learn the most basic HTML code?
...and the world might be spared at least one order of dense, impenetrable gibberish!
Did any of that pile of gobshite spots put up there mske ANY sense to anyone else?
No.
This has been another edition of short answers to obvious questions ;-)
KarenMackSunspot Potty-Mouth Mysogynist.
Here's the timetable:
~7:30 pm - kids arrive with grannie, having watched several hours of circus fun
~8:00 pm - kids brushing their teeth, whilst dad points out that KMSPMM has been straightened out about Linus Pauling, and that no-one is fooled by KMSPMM's coprolalic idiocy.
~9:00 pm - kids are still giggling in bed about their circus, whilst dad is telling them to shush, and observing that another 3 year-old intellectual-equivalent throws coprolalic tanties when he's bereft of anything substantive to say.
- here and now - several days later, KMSPMM's coprolalic hissy-fit has yet to subside, and he still can't work out how to convert between time zones.
So how about it KMSPMM - can you pick a random selection of my postings and tell the thread what time they were posted, with respect to Australian Eastern Standard Time?
FWIW, I'm still not sure what point Karen thinks Karen is making about the timing of Bernard's posts - but then she appears to be employing the highly vaunted intellectual skills that lead to the kind of bogus conclusions she scatters about these pages. It takes a special depth of stupidity to fail to factor in the blatant hints pointing out that an 11:07am timestamp corresponds to (say) 9:07pm Eastern Australia (non daylight savings) time (and 8:37pm in South Australia, for example, and earlier still in Western Australia)...
Awww, Loth, you're making it too easy for KMSPMM!
Still, I like to offer bonus questions, so perhaps the coprolalic misogynist would like to explain how he calculated that I live in the middle of the Indian Ocean...
And, to cast pearls before swine, I'll offer yet another nudge - my computer currently says 10:21 pm.
Yes I muffed up the Indian ocean part but I recognised that very early on, you on the other hand were still an hour out and didn't know until I pointed it out to you, fool !
Lothy explained to the dunce it was 9:07pm, not 8:00pm
With all your dodging and twisting and failure to admit you were/are wrong you have demonstrated to all and sundry that you are not a man after all.
So much for admit when you are wrong, sshhheeeezzzz
So this is all a Pot. Kettle. Black. performance to distract from your other massive errors?
Sheesh.
BTW, feel free to point to an earlier comment where you admit that you got the "Indian Ocean" claim wrong - otherwise everyone will think you're blatantly lying about it, which would be really ironic since you made a big song and dance accusing Bernard of "dodging and twisting and failure to admit you were/are wrong", and you wouldn't want people to think that was the sort of behaviour you engage in.
Especially since you routinely engage in it with regard to climate science...
I just wondered if spots there was actually wuoting something I missed or whether it went straight from rectum to keyboard without the brain getting a word in edgeways.
John...
"I see my gentle needling provoked quite a reaction in Betula,"
My fault. I forgot that more than 9 written lines is considered a lot for you. I'll keep the comments short and then continue with a new comment so you can rest between them...
Take a break.
John...
Better?
Believe it or not I understand your situation, it's common among alarmists. Besides your short attention span and your obsession with rich vs poor, your fear of the unknown is haunting you with visions of catastrophies.
Break.
Take your time John...
Anyways, my suggestion to you is to try and break the things you read into shorter, simpler formats so you can, one, finish reading them, two, you can understand them and three, they don't seem so scary and intimidating.
Break.
Hang in there John...
As for climate change, I understand that you don't acknowlege the unknowns.... and the future is all bad. The bad future is the fault of the rich and the only way to change the future is to make sure the rich pay now.
Break.
John?
Let's try one subject at a time. Remember, one sentence at a time...
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body[1][2] first established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
Break time.
Back from your nap John?
So the IPCC was formed by two U.N. Organizations.
The WMO...
http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/weather/developmentgoals.html
Note the Millenium Developement Goals....
Quick break....
Keeping it short for you John...
And UNEP...
http://www.unep.org/mdgs/unep_and_mdg/index.asp
Note the Millenium Developement Goals...
Rest...
KrakenMack-its-the-sun-SpotBot
Watch, learn and inwardly digest.
There is a major inconsistency in Svensmark's hypothesis on GCR links to global warming, can you tell me what that is?
Poor John...
And what is the main goal of the Millenium Developement Goals? And how do they plan obtaining financing to ahieve that goal? Be careful John, this requires some thought and research...
Medication time John...go back to sleep.
Erm, no. As usual.
At time-stamp July 5, 1:21 pm I addressed your whining about me referring to Lionel A and Marco (which occurred in turn on July 5, 10:07 am), and I noted that I was "talking to three year old twins in real life". I did not go into any more detail than that, because it was completely beside the point. You, however, imagining that I was in some other time zone that where I actually was, made it a talking point.
In my very next post (July 5, 4:51 pm) after you spat the dummy about who was involved in correcting your misapprehensions about Linus Pauling, I made reference to my first post, where I mentioned Lionel and Marco, because I thought this matter the more substantive of your two whinings about my own postings. Go check - I left a whole lot of time stamps there elaborating on the Lionel/Marco thing, because I was focussing on that and not on the mere repetition of a word that apparently so got up your petty goat.
That was when my kids were getting ready for bed - 8:00 pm or thereabouts, half an hour after arriving home, and just as I said. My repetition of "but" occurred an hour later, as I was rattling my sabre at some circus-excited kids.
I am very much au fait with the time line in my own home. It's bizarre to see you try to weave an issue out of it.
I'm really not sure why you are so fixated on trying to rewrite this story, when it's apparent to any sane person what was happening in my house. Well, actually, I do have a strong suspicion...
You never, ever have any case to support anything that you say. Every piece of shite that you dump here is throughly composted and turned under by the vigilance of those of us here who do actually possess three-digit IQs. The more you flounder, the more you swear unnecessarily, and the more you make further mistake upon previous mistake upon fossilised mistake. You then try the "yeah, but.." gambit, or the "look, over there!" gambit, trying to pwn those who use your mental efforts for their own intellectual tooth-picks, and every time you get that wrong too.
You're a fool and a buffoon, KMSPMM, and normally I'd feel a pang of guilt at ridiculing one as obviously intellectually below par as you patently are, but your intransigent glorying in your own Dunningly-Krugered opinions assuages any remorse that might otherwise emerge in my conscience. Heck, I even feel some sympathy for Tim Curtin, but for you all I feel is the urge to pick you up in a doggy-poop bag and drop you in one of those handy council receptacles.
Good grief, Betula appears to be expansively doubling down on the theory that someone somewhere may wish to cite a scientific finding to motivate goals that Betula doesn't subscribe to, therefore the science simply must be bullshit.
I know most of the rest of you can spot the fatal flaw in this argument...
Lotharsson...
"Betula appears to be expansively doubling down on the theory that someone somewhere may wish to cite a scientific finding to motivate goals that Betula doesn’t subscribe to, therefore the science simply must be bullshit."
"Appears" being the key word.
"Someone somewhere" was spelled out as the United Nations...
"may wish to cite a scientific finding".... Predictions, unknowns and emphasis on worst case scenarios aren't findings.
"to motivate goals".... What bigger motivater than fear?
"that Betula doesn’t subscribe to"... I don't subscribe to the method that only people with the same ideology would overlook.
"therefore the science simply must be bullshit".....using the science to create fear or tug at heartstrings to achieve an unrelated goal is bullshit.
John, I apologize, there are more than 9 lines of content here. Go back to sleep, it was just another one of your worst case scenario nightmares.
.
.
It's almost possible that Betty is trying to make a point in his last dozen posts, or at least one that the John 'whacko' Birch society might willingly grasp and fill in the gaping gaps for themselves on his behalf.
But helping trolls to formulate what passes for thought in their empty, obstructive little heads has never been a high priority for me.
My bad, but I find it's much more productive to point and laugh at them and hold them up as a warning to kids who won't eat their greens.
BernardJ,
I felt a twinge of pity for Karen earlier on, too, which she was floundering about trying to avoid talking about Greenland.
But then I remembered something.
Those three year old twins you mention? Karen thinks its okay for her to steal from them.
Remember that and any misplaced pity will melt away.
FrankD:
Exactly. Bleeding-heart that I am I sometimes lose sight of this, and it's handy to be reminded.
I don't want riches and fame for my kids; just the chance for them to see what I've seen, and to live in a world there there are things to potentially be seen even if one never does see them.
Oh, and to have the same chance at health and survival as we've had.
Spotty, Betty, Duffer and their buddies would have us live it up like drunken sailors in port after three years at sea, all at the expense of our kids' futures, and whilst doing so pretend that it's all sustainable, just so they don't have to confront the immorality of their selfishness.
I have not an iota of sympathy for sociopaths such as that.
"My bad, but I find it’s much more productive to point and laugh at them and hold them up as a warning to kids who won’t eat their greens"
chek, your true colors are showing. You're a true testament of liberal compassion, teaching kids to point at others and laugh. Good for you.
Would you happen to be the proud parent of a vegan bully?
STOP WORRYING! I bring you good news - again - although I don't suppose I''ll receive any thanks for it.
Anyway, you can stop biting your nails over the fate of the Fimbul Ice Shelf. I know some agitated 'Warmers' told you that it was melting but it ain't! You see, what they did was 'programme' (that's posh techie-talk for make it up) some stats and apply it to the poor old Fimbul Ice Shelf and then announce a 'Shlock-Horror' story that soon there wouldn't be enough ice in it to chill your dry martini - oops, sorry, this is an Aussie site so you wouldn't know what a dry martini is given that your favourite beverage is fizzy beer.
Where was I? Oh yes, the good news is that some proper scientists, 'Norskies' as it hapens so they should know about ice, did some proper science. They drilled massive holes and then took measurements. (Taking measurements - that's a novel idea!) Also, and this was dead crafty, they fixed measuring devices on the backs of giant seals who were perfectly happy to swim around *underneath* this ice shelf sneding data back 'upstairs'. And the result was:
"Overall, according to the team, their field data shows "steady state mass balance" on the eastern Antarctic coasts - ie, that no ice is being lost from the massive shelves there. The research is published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters."
Felling better, are you? No need to thank me, just the usual in a plain brownenvelope will do!
"Spotty, Betty, Duffer and their buddies would have us live it up like drunken sailors in port after three years at sea, all at the expense of our kids’ futures."
Not sure how i am involved in this other than in someones ideological imagination, however, I didn't realize sailors were so thoughtless. And here they are selling themselves as a global force for good... Bastards!
http://www.navy.com/navy.html
Betty said: "chek, your true colors are showing. You’re a true testament of liberal compassion, teaching kids to point at others and laugh. Good for you."
Thanks Betty. World class stupidity deserves no less, and is certainly not to be encouraged or even pitied. Ridicule remains a harmless and humane social response. Some of your rightwing antecedents had rather more brutal solutions.
What's that Skippyduff?
Only the western Antarctic ice shelves are breaking up for now? And the Antarctic landmass under the ice slopes from the highlands in the east to the lowlands in the west and it's the western ice shelves that help buttress all that land ice?
Felling better, are you? No, not really, although no doubt east, west or south is all the same thing to your fuzzy little macrpod brains.
But Duffer is too stupid to try using something like this GeoMapApp to learn about topography and stuff.
But if the worst happens here Greenland Ice Sheet Melt Nearing Critical ‘Tipping Point’ then that West Antarctic Ice Shelf will become more vulnerable. Go figure why Duffer.
Actually, the Duffer has already been debunked some days ago by John Nielsen-Gammon. Do keep up, Duff!
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/06/why-the-public-is-confused-a…
The money quote:
"So Hattermann et al. (2012) agrees with Rignot et al. (2008), which agrees with Chen et al. (2009), even while the Register article presented a narrative claiming that Hattermann et al. (2012) disproved Chen et al. (2009) and disproved the sciencific consensus about mass loss in Antarctica in the process."
"Ridicule remains a harmless and humane social response"
I'm sorry Nelson, I didn't realize ridicule is what you use to fall back on. If pointing and laughing is all you have then by all means run with it. ...
Oh, and from now I will refer to you as Nelson (only less sophisticated)....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIrhVo1WA78
You're Welcome.
Ah but Betty, your incoherent baiting is only worthy of ridicule, which isn't a reserve strategy in your case, but rather all you've got.
Cont'd: "but rather all you’ve got" by way of response.
Although I believe Richard did try to get you to man up and try being coherent, but that just seemed to incite a further flurry of partially thought out phrases.
(I don't know what happened there - hitting return submitted the previous comment).
Betula is a walking talking fallacy of affirmation of the consequent, right up there with the Heartland's billboards.
There are reasonably intelligent deniers/skeptics out there. Betula/KMS/PentaxZ/Duff aren't. They are self-refuting it would be best to simply ignore them.
Nelson....
You state.. "Ah but Betty, your incoherent baiting is only worthy of ridicule"
Then, in the very next sentence, you incoherently try to bait me with Richards bait....."Although I believe Richard did try to get you to man up and try being coherent"
This where you point and laugh at yourself.
Cue chek mate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIrhVo1WA78
Nah, sorry Betty.
It seems only the likes of "Karen" can now follow your train-wreck-of- thought consciousness.
Which must be a great comfort for you.
Sorry for breaking Betula everyone. I know he is soft and can't handle gentle mockery of his fringe conspiritorial fantasies. On the plus side we see how unsettled and mentally unhinged these shrieking, shrill little shysters have become. Marginalised deniers like Betula make the truthers look sane. in comparison.
Cheer up Misery Guts. There is no UN conspiracy :)
Shorter chek and John....
We can pretend the Millenium Developement Goals don't exist if we point in the opposite direction and make a lot of noise.......Goal Deniers.
John, just how much time do you have until the nurse calls lights out?
"Appears" being your problem.
Despite repeated invitations, you have yet to specifically point out where your viewpoint differs from established science for any reason other than vague conspiracy theories. Waffling (fallaciously as it happens) that "Predictions, unknowns and emphasis on worst case scenarios aren’t [scientific] findings." is a transparent attempt to avoid grappling with the actual science.
And:
merely reiterates my point!
You haven't demonstrated that (say)tugging the heartstrings is an inappropriate response to the science which you haven't rebutted, that rebuttal being a necessary step before you can declare responses to the science to be inappropriate.
Then again, grokking this point requires favouring logic over conspiracy theorising, so I don't hold much hope that you will succeed.
Shorter Betula:
I can pretend the scientific case for concern does not exist if I point at the Millennium Development Goals and shriek some vague conspiracy theories...
Does anyone else find it ironic that Betula wails that "using the science to create fear ... to achieve an unrelated goal is bullshit" - yet uses fear of the U.N.'s goals to attempt to cast bullshit doubt on the science?
What Lotharsson said.
And simplifying a stage further, just because you, Betty, have a well-worn mule track in your mind that's worn a two feet deep rut connecting 'science' and 'leftyland', means nothing outside your shrill, internal private auditorium
Realistic alternatives are all yours for the inventing of. You just have to bear in mind that reality is frequently said to have a liberal bias, and that ideology - no matter how hard you wish otherwise - doesn't trump sciemce. Just look at the pig's ear Watts' and McIntyre and Co. make of it when they try. And I mean really try.
'Ironic'? Well, sorta... 'Moronic? Fully.
The constant chafing of reality against Denial has reduced it to the level of the detritus we are subjected to here.
Noticed the same thing Loth. Karen reckons the UN actively want to kill people, yet we are the alarmists.
Happy to be labelled a "goal denier".
In fact, I reckon Betula should take this one step further and submit an article about "goal deniers" to WUWT.
Loth, chek , John (when he wakes up) et al....
Press Conference:
"the United Nations is proposing international taxes and other innovative financing mechanisms to raise more than $400 billion annually to meet global priorities like fighting climate change and meeting the Millennium Development Goals, according to the Organization’s annual global development report"
“We are suggesting various ways to tap resources through international mechanisms, such as coordinated taxes on carbon emissions, air traffic and financial and currency transactions"
http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2012/120705_DESA.doc.htm
Of course, there wasn't really a press conference.....this is just a little gentle needling.
Betula said (July 8, 9:20 pm)
It's revealing that you think that my trying to get you to clearly state your views is "baiting". I am trying to get you to make at least a hint of a suggestion of acting in the tiniest possible way like a scientist. Are you scared that, if you stop jeering and actually give your opinions on what is happening to the climate and why, people might actually jeer back at you? Perhaps they would find holes in your arguments. Horrors! You might even have to change your views.
People like you think that you are ignored by scientists because they are scared of you. The truth is, they find your inability to learn and to present and support an argument as being beneath their contempt. Although you may affect politicians, you, KarenMackSpot, WUWT, the Curry crowd, etc have not the slightest impact on the progress of science.
Here are the eight "goals" Betula is against:
I ask again, why does Betula hate the poor? Why doesn't Betula believe children deserve eduction? Why is he against AIDS prevention?
Betula wants children to starve. Just think about how angry and hateful you must be to deny children access to healthcare, immunisation and fresh water because it clashes with your fringe ideology.
Dante is busily crafting an even lower circle for Betty.
Betty, I have submitted your name to the LA21-UN-NWO, and received the following reply:
I agree, Betula, its outrageous that someone wants to return to its rightful owners a fraction of the money you continue to steal from the third world and future generations. Outrageous!
"A Melbourne family who claim they were slugged an extra $55 "carbon tax charge" when burying a relative were told "even the dead don't escape the carbon tax".
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8496121
The carbon tax component is about 500% higher than than the cost of the diesel that the backhoe used to dig a hole, that had also already paid the carbon tax on the diesel.
That will really be a brian spin for the mathematically challenged barnturd with the 3 digit IQ of 29.2
Fuck, let me go on record as not denying but heartily approving those goals.
Has anyone told Brian about this?
Projecting again, Karen?
What's the odds Betty thinks enlightened self interest is all a commie plot?
Except that it was all a big false alarm - there is no "carbon tax on funerals":
http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-22186928/apology-over-carbon-tax-fune…
You've been suckered again, KMSPMM. Gosh, you're easy to fool - and impossible to educate.
As an aside, the Opposition climate spokesman, Greg Hunt, took the chance to say late this afternoon that "the carbon tax will follow you to the grave", even after it was explained to the public and to the scandle-addicted media that there is no funeral carbon tax. Talk about slimey dog whistling. And this from a man whose Honours thesis was on the benefit of taxing carbon pollution:
http://www.andrewleigh.com/blog/?p=621
As you like pasting linkies, KMSPMM, take a look at this:
http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/post/2011/03/07/Tony-Abbott%E2%80%99s-…
At least it is a defensible numerical analysis of something real, rather than another of your tabloid wet dreams.
Given Tony's professed religious faith, and his frequent deployment of falsehoods and disingenuities to trick the gullible (a la Karen), I really don't understand how he has time for any actual politicking - unless he treats his confessional obligations with about as much integrity as he treats the truth in his public pronouncements.
And for those who doubt that the Opposition's climate change spokesman wrote a thesis on taxing pollution, here it is:
http://www.petermartin.com.au/2011/03/why-we-need-carbon-tax-by-coaliti…
It's interesting to watch the Opposition's various members use the "but carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it's plant food", gambit when they can. I wonder how much of this is to give Hunt some breathing space?
Greg Hunt stirring hysteria, when he knows that there is no case for any - it's the last paragraph:
http://www.news.com.au/money/cost-of-living/carbon-tax-cost-added-to-fa…
Karen might also wish to look into when the carbon tax does and does not apply to diesel in case she has been fooled on that point as well.
(Oh, heck, who am I kidding! Karen doesn't care a micro-whit for being accurate. She'll sling around any old bulldust if she thinks it supports her pre-existing position.)
It's amazing that the party that goes around accusing Julia Gillard of lying tells blatant lies about Gillard lying (as she clearly was making a commitment contingent on being elected with a majority), and blatant lies about various aspects and implications of the carbon tax.
It's still more amazing that so many people eat this shit up and beg for more whilst trying to get others to eat it too.
The problem now for the Libs is the economy isn't imploding. Anyone notice anything different while shopping? I sure as hell haven't. Unscrupulous vendors will hike prices and blame the price but they'll lose out. Not Gillard's fault - whatever happened to "personal responsibility?"
The carbon tax scare campaign is a house of cards etc etc.
So what you're saying, guys, is that the GBNT has actually failed to destroy the Australian economy? Wow!
Gee, you'd almost think that if we had it a whole year and the economy still hadn't imploded that all the blood-oaths to repeal it might start looking a bit, um, daft... never mind, Tony always has WorkChoices Redux to win votes with; alleged Aussie 'Karen' would be a big fan of that one, I'm sure...
In all honesty, I really think the Coalition will be praying that Big Stupid's GFC 2.0: The Depression knocks us around hard enough to allow a supine and witless media to play the 'we've been crippled by the Carbon Tax' game on their behalf.
They will.
Lotharsson, I suspect that Abbott is of the cadre of religious people who think that the rules apply more to others than to themselves.
There's a word for that, isn't there?
"I ask again, why does Betula hate the poor? Why doesn’t Betula believe children deserve eduction? Why is he against AIDS prevention?"
You're too obvious John. Go back to sleep.
FrankD
"I agree, Betula, its outrageous that someone wants to return to its rightful owners a fraction of the money you continue to steal from the third world and future generations."
I thought it was a conspiracy?
Loth...
"Fuck, let me go on record as not denying but heartily approving those goals"
Which brings us to the issue...how do you plan on paying for them?.
Bill:
That's exactly what they'll be hoping for. Watch for confabulation of this sort whenever the influence of ailing offshore economies comes to knock on Australia's front door.
Richard...
July 8th...3:48
"I have a pretty good idea of Betula’s views on climate change"
So no need to repeat myself.
...that you're waving about an attempted distraction from the fact that you haven't even got close to laying a glove on climate science yet. Do you ever think you're going to get around to it, or is the best you can do to hope the gullible will be persuaded by your fallacious conspiracy theorising?
Betula is right - too many uncertainties. Let's triple climate science funding. More satellites! More scientists! More research grants!
You know, the worst thing about poeple like Betula is they think they wre up on events around the world when in reality, thanks to their corporate media that dumbs them down, they know virtually nothing. So they swallow the MSM lines whole.
Check out some of the UN resolutions vetoed by the United States over the past 50 years and explain to me how anyone with a scintilla of brain matter can honestly belive that the US promotes freedom, democracy and human rights in its foregn policy agendas. The UN hasn't had any teeth in 30 years, and its more recently become an instrument to be used when it support US political/corporate expansionist agendas (e.g. Libya) and to be ignored when it doesn't (e.g. Iraq).
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/geoff/UNresolutions.htm
Ever hear of Thomas Carrothers Betty? Or George Kennan? Or Thomas Meachling? Ever read the outcome of Eisenhower's report commissionedin 1958 to explain why the people in the Middle East hold such antipathy towards the US? And the outcome of the report? Ever read declassified planning documents alluding to US foreign policy agendas in South America, Asia, and Africa? Ever read Brezinski's 'The Grand Chessboard' or the Council on Foreigh Relations 'Grand Area Strategy'? What about 'Project for a New American Century' or Paul Wolfowitz's 'Defense Planning Guidance'? What do you think of Africa's leadiing economist Samir Amin's assessment of western policy agendas towards Africa? Ever read economist Patrick Bond's 'Looting Africa: The Economics of Exploitation'?... or economist Tom Athanasiou's 'Divided Plane"t: The Ecology of Rich and Poor'?
And yet you appear to have some kindergarten-level belief in thr myth of some global UN agenda to control humanity. Gosh, I though adults would have outgrown this infantile nonsense years ago, but thanks to the corporate media and the inability of people to look beyond the end of their noses many dumbwits still believe it. I have seen it expressed in Deltoid by amny of the climate change deniers, almost without exception. Forget the volumes of evidence (read Michael Klare's latest tome for an up-to-date account) showing that, thanks to continued de-regulation that began with the disastrous presidency of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the planet has become a casino in which everything, including life itself, is becoming a commodity to be bought, sold and owned. Manufacturing is pretty well dead in the US. Finito. Corporations show no allegiance to communities or countries, and whereas once there was social responsibility that has been discarded in favor of the bottom-line: profit. In 1980, the average corporate CEO in the US earned about 42 times as much as the hourly wage of the company employee. By 1990 that had increased to 85 to 1, and by 2000 a staggering 530 to 1. The median US wage has not increased in 40 years, whereas those at the top have seen their share of the nation's wealth increase by many factors. The poor in Bangladesh and Jakarta and Port eu Prince and eslewherein the third world are earming pennies an hour in sweatshops whilst the planet's ecologicla systems are being plundered to support profit margins that benefit < 10% of the population.The US economy relies on defense contracts doiled out to Halliburton, Bechtel, GE or seveal orher multinationals to which the government is beholden, whilst the only thin the US really exports now is junk and trinkets.Read Chris Hedges latest book, 'Days of Destruction, Days of Reckoning' and the ugly picture becomes manifest. And against all of this we have Betula and his sandbox-level rhetoric.
Un-be-lievable.
Jeff Harvey
I take my hat off to you for having the patience to write such a stunningly accurate and hard hitting post, when we know full well that Bet will ignore the message in it and fire back with inane drivel.
Go on Bet, prove me wrong and take up the reading matter suggested by Jeff to which you could add writing by John Pilger and Naomi Klein.
I will have a few other suggestions when I check my book shelf but in the meantime you could try here, and check out 'Vultures' Picnic' whilst there. Find a copy and read it.
We may be looked at as moving off topic WRT global warming and climate change but it is all connected if you can think about the very big picture.
WRT:
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/geoff/UNresolutions.htm
Now that is one interesting list. Bet, now you go find out the number of UN resolutions that Israel is still in violation of and then consider those US top movers and shakers who have dual nationality or at the very least conflicts of interest.
And no, I don't wish Israel to be blown away just reigned in a bit so that all those bulldozed out Palestinians can return to the land that was Treated to them. Trouble is politics on both sides have been infected by US and other Western Nation's foreign policy agendas. Besides, heat and lack of water will cause socio-political stresses the like of which we have not yet seen.
The world can do with less conflict right now as wars are so destructive and accelerate the global warming problem. But what people like you are trying to do is to delay action until social order breaks down across the world as resources are depleted and plundered by the super rich who think they are in control - they have not yet twigged that their children and grandchildren will have a dragon by the tail. When the dam bursts we will all, and I mean ALL, be in the path of the torrent unless we start taking sensible actions now and on a global scale.
Is there a human being in here somewhere?
Betula
11:42 am
You can't repeat what you've never stated. Still avoiding actually telling us your views, I see.
And for the Duffer brigade who still fail science:
Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes
More analysis here
and what it leads to here.
Boxers, climate, weather and punches - dots linked.
Jeff at 1:24 pm directly above:
I think that's "Revolt" rather than "Reckoning"?
For the curious, there's some ecommentary from Hedges her.
Crap. Misplaced an 'e'. And no, not thatsort...
Lionel A, at 2:12 pm above:
If Rinehart treats her own children like that (not getting their money until 2068?!), how are we to expect her to treat mere proles?
There's one to watch, as carefully as one would watch a rabid dog...
Bernard J
A song to go with that then
I still have 'Ride This Train' around here somewhere with that long roll call of native indian tribes.
Been making myself uncomfortable with bitter-sweet memories listening to Marianne Faithfull over the last few days after posting that last song link.
Jeff.
You might be interested in the conversation over at SkS, here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/dave-roberts-ted-talk.html
Richard...
"You can’t repeat what you’ve never stated"
Then how is it you...."have a pretty good idea of Betula’s views on climate change"
That's too easy Betty.
Let me count the times you've sniped at Skippyduff, or "Karen" or GSW or PantiesizeZ or Uncle Tom Cobbley and all his denier minions.
That would be a big fat zero, regardless of the most galloping stupidity and clinical grade paranoia they frequently display. It's not hard to work out. You're about as mysterious as Ronald McDonald, if not as sophisticated.
Salve Plebes!
Anything of interest occuring in this backwater?
;)
Just shootiin'theshit about the very apparent mental state of climate denier trolls. Tell me, when was your last episode or visit to Pope Montford's, GSW? Whichever occurred latest will do.
In fact IIRC, you were attempting to claify "Karen" MacSpot's half-comprehended ravings about Julia Slingo, as understood for you via Ridley and Montford to parrot.
@chek
Ah, still the same old chek! Paranoia personified, haven't a clue what you're on about, what's rattled your cage this time, is it something we can all share?
;)
Of course you don't know Griselda.
As you were.
@chek
Fair enough chek, always happy to engage if you need a shoulder to cry on, you know that.
;)
Yeah, whatever Griselda.
Now off back to your organ grinder, there's a good monkey.
chek...
"Let me count the times you’ve sniped at Skippyduff, or “Karen” or GSW or PantiesizeZ or Uncle Tom Cobbley and all his denier minions"
Let me count the times you have answered other peoples questions without answering the question.... here's one;
"Let me count the times you’ve sniped at Skippyduff, or “Karen” or GSW or PantiesizeZ or Uncle Tom Cobbley and all his denier minions"
Point proven, Thanks, Betty the AGW Denier.
Jeff the lying embellisher Harvey...
Please explain to me what your incessant ramblings have to do with anything I've said.
Here was my question to John , July 8th @ 2:27
"And what is the main goal of the Millenium Developement Goals? And how do they plan obtaining financing to ahieve that goal?"
Your response is to drop names of people and titles of books you are supposed to have read because you want hear yourself be impressed....yet it has nothing to do with the issue. It's all about you, with unrelated comments thrown in to make you feel smarter than you are.....classic superiority complex. Like the time you embellishing on things you saw @ Algonquin to make your trip seem more meaningful than it really was beyond the frostbite.
The closest you came to being on subject was dropping Thomas Carrothers name, who has his fingers dipped in the Millenium Developement Goals.
You rambled on about the evils of the U.S, , the MSM (who is the MSM in your view?), corporate media, Ronald Reagan, the average earning of a CEO, the poor in Bangladesh, Halliburton, Bechtel, GE and sandboxes....
None of your ramblings answer how the Millenium Developement Goals are to be financed.....
And then there's the delusional Lionel A, who's so impressed by your egotistical -incohterent - related to nothing -diatribe that he can't contain himself...
"I take my hat off to you for having the patience to write such a stunningly accurate and hard hitting post"
Put your hat back on, your bald spot is blinding.
Q: How many Betty's does it take to write a coherent sentence?
A: Nobody knows, because it's never been done.
Hasn't the weather been strange lately?
NOAA
Leaving aside Pratchett's 'Narrativium' Law - 1 in 1 million events always happen - that's a pretty tough statisitc to dismiss.
Betula @July 9, 7:16 pm
Your continual sniping and jeering at those who understand that anthropogenic climate change is taking place and will have serious effects, together with your absence of criticism of even the most stupid argument from those who say otherwise, provide what is known as 'evidence'.
Why so scared to actually state your opinion? When you go out to lop trees, if people ask you whether a specific branch should come off do you prevaricate and refuse to give an opinion, then jeer at whatever the customer decides or are you just gutless here because you feel so thoroughly out of your depth?
Betty would be out of his/her intellectual depth in a bird-bath...
SkippyDuff may well have the brain of a Macropod, but this one could be outwitted by a Hills Hoist.
Betula is incapable of rational inference or even grasping that others are capable of it. The bottom of the D-K barrel.
Don't you people get it?
The UN has admitted they want to alleviate poverty using money.
And where do they plan on getting this money?
From people with money!
Great compilation of news reports about the US heatwave from Climate Crocks.
What future catastrophes amirite
Deniers argue that any speculation of future catastrophes is just alarmist, and when they occur the warmer climate in which they happen miracuously has nothing to do with global warming.
As meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters puts it, “Thus, we should only see one more 13-month period so warm between now and 124,652 AD–assuming the climate is staying the same as it did during the past 118 years. These are ridiculously long odds, and it is highly unlikely that the extremity of the heat during the past 13 months could have occurred without a warming climate.”
Oh deary me, more evidence of a warmer past.
"An international team including scientists from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) has published a reconstruction of the climate in northern Europe over the last 2,000 years based on the information provided by tree-rings. Professor Dr. Jan Esper’s group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC. In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling.
“We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low,” says Esper. “Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today’s climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/this-is-what-global-cooling-reall…
With a cooling trend, golly.
Here is the direct link to the paper.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589…
Here is another peer reviewed paper that demonstrates that the current temperatures in the US are neither high nor uncommon.
Long-term perspective on wildfires in the western USA
"We use sedimentary charcoal accumulation rates to construct long-term variations in fire during the past 3,000 y in the American West and compare this record to independent fire-history data from historical records and fire scars. There has been a slight decline in burning over the past 3,000 y, with the lowest levels attained during the 20th century and during the Little Ice Age (LIA, ca. 1400–1700 CE [Common Era]). Prominent peaks in forest fires occurred during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (ca. 950–1250 CE) and during the 1800s.".............
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/09/1112839109
You do realise that Northern Europe is not global, right Karenmackspot?
Yes Johny, and I also realize that the US is not global. It has been a bit of a laugh watching all the hype about all the temperature records being broken there, problem is that most of them are very short records, some 12 yrs short, lol
This is an example, http://www.fox54.com/story/18920344/uahuntsville-study-on-heat-and-clim… of the alarmanistic temperature hypocrisy
Karen, thanks to that fire paper. If you had bothered to read it you would see it uses Mann's hockey stick and at no point says it was hotter in the past.
Betula, the grade school-level educated tree pruner:
What I note from your reply is that you don't know a whole lot about the unmistakable link between economics, politics and environmental destruction. True to form, you dismissed my last post without a single coherent rebuttal - instead, you refer to it as 'rambling', which of course is the standard method of dismissing material that goes over your head. You've clearly been spending too much time up birch trees or reading the New York Times or watching other corporate media drivel over in your own backyard to learn a little bit about the ways in which the world works. That's why my posts and lectures aren't aimed at people like you who have pre-determined world views and whose views are firmly locked up in profound ignorance. There are a lot of open-minded people who want to seek the truth and to better understand why our current economic system is heading for collapse, and to join efforts to pull humanity back from the brink. You just aren't one of them, so you can get lost for all I care.
Of course the point of my post was to show - and there's tons of evidence to back it up - that unfettered corporate capitalism is destroying our planet's ecological life support systems at an ever increasing rate. The Brundtland Report (1987) claimed that it was necessary to increase the world's economic output by a factor of at least 5 to lift half the planet's people out of grinding poverty. Current development goals are aiming to achieve the same noble target, only corporate and state planners in the US, UK and other developed nations fully realize that if this were to be realized, then we'd need another 3 or 4 uninhabited Earth-like planets to sustain consumption (and waste production) in the developed countries alone at current rates. So our planners pay lip service to sustainability and poverty alleviation, band in fact they do everything to ensure that capital and resource flows remain largely one-sided: from the underdeveloped south to the rich developed north. And, as I said, this is, or should be, considered hardly controversial. Yet the media, owned largely by huge corporations or dependent on them for advertising tries to give us the impression that the developed countries are doing everything in their power to help and aid the poor countries (lie #1), to promote true, bottom-up democracy (lie # 2) and to alleviate poverty (lie # 3). If you bothered to read some of the US-vetoed UN resolutions - such as those describing a range of goals such as economic justice, equity and poverty reduction, as well as ecological protection, you'd fully realize that the US is opposed to them. Why is this? because they conflict with the short-term agendas of big business, which sees the south as a huge source of resource wealth to be plundered with impunity for profit. If you had enough intelligence to understand my narrative, and to put two and two together, you'd realize that the current economic system of nakedly predatory capitalism and deregulation are the by-products of policies implemented by Reagan and Thatcher some 30 years ago, and that have been continued by successive governments. And that the consequences for the environment and for humanity are dire. You'd also realize, if you read some of the historical comments by the likes or Kennan, Carrothers, Brezinski, Kissinger and others that US foreign policy has never been aimed at promoting democracy but at doing everything in its power to promote US business interests, usually at the expense of democracy. Kissonger famoulsy said in 1975 that the US should promote de-population of third world countries because larger, wealthier populations in the third world would conflict with US economic interests on the basis that the US economy needed a large and ever increasing amount of resources from less developed nations to sustain its # 1 position. Put this into the context of Kennan's famous 1948 memo, where he wrote that the US controls 50% of the global economy with only 5% of its population, and everything should be done to maintain this disparity without threat to our national security. Or Carrothers saying that the US only promotes limited forms of top-down [elite-contolled] democracy when it is their interests to do so; when it isn't it is downplayed or ignored. Or PNAC effectively saying that no country should be able to challenge the power, prestige or priviledge of the United States, and Brezinski arguing that the US should aim to control the planet's economic heartland - meaning the oil and natural gas rich Caucasus region - in order to have ' veto power' over the global economy, or as he termed it, ' critical leverage'. Then economists like Samir Amin and Patrick Bond convincingly argue that western economic policy towards the third world has never been based on the nobel goals I already described, or in economic integration, but simply at the ' looting of resources' from poor countries.
Putting this all within in the context of climate change and other burgeoning environmental problems and it should be easy to connect the dots. Well, at least for most people. I've hardly scratched the surface of the information I present at lectures and the material I have gleaned from reading over the past 20 years. But it gives a pretty good idea of what is going on, and how the mainstream media are feeding us pap and vacuous garbage that have little to do with reality. Recent books by Greg Grandin, Chris Hedges, John Perkins, Pepe Escobar, as well as the others I have suggested lay it out in clear English. But the system ensures that their voices are drowned out by a chorus of pro-establishment pundits that supported the Iraq War, try to suggest that the Afghan occupation is a noble intervention, and leave out salient little points about the real agendas: outright expansionism, nullification of alternative models, and subjugation of other countries assets. And to link these to the looming environmental crises facing humanity.
This is a drastic departure from when you claimed that cold weather in the US disproved AGW!
Sort of tells you something about warming, doesn't it?
Karen manages to cite Alabama as support for her boo-hoo.
Tamino just happens to have a relevant post up:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/seasons-change-2/
Now, note in particular the long-term trend for summers across the USA (5th graph). How funny, Alabama happens to lie in the Midwest, the only part of the US that has *not* seen a warming trend in summer. Cherry-picking much, Karen?
Bet @ July 9, 10:48 pm
How so when you prove me right:
And insults from ignorance are of no account for they, like a boomerang, return to the excuse for a human that issues them.
So I'll ask again, 'are you negligent, incompetent or complicit'.
Another example for Days of Destruction for you Bet.
KarenMackSpot:
Have you forgotten that an implication of the Roman and Medieval periods being warmer than is generally thought is that climate is more sensitive than climatologists currently believe and therefore that we're headed for even worse trouble?
Jeff Hardly...
One thousand words without answering the question....How are the millenium Developement Goals going to be financed?.... a new global wording record!
Betula wants children to starve. Just think about how angry and hateful you must be to deny children access to healthcare, immunisation and fresh water because it clashes with your fringe ideology.
"Betula wants children to starve. Just think about how angry and hateful you must be to deny children access to healthcare, immunisation and fresh water"
Ok, I'm thinking....you left out a roof over their heads.
Nighty night John.
"How are the millenium Developement Goals going to be financed"?
That's already been proposed, but if you're looking for creative input, how about a troll tax? With a punitive element added for those trolls who could look shit up quicker than they can type their irrelevant questions, but choose not to.
"With a punitive element added for those trolls who could look shit up quicker than they can type their irrelevant questions"
Questions Irrelevant to what? A carbon tax?
Are you saying a carbon tax is irrelevant to eliminating poverty?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
*How are the millenium Developement Goals going to be financed?*
By ensuring that the rich pay their fair share instead of avoiding tax.... heck, apparently Shell won't pay a penny of tax in the US this year. That's utterly obscene.
I might also ask you is paying for the endless expansionist wars being fought to secure resources in Asia and Africa.... where does that money come from? Where did the money come from to bail out the banks when they committed massive fraud that almost bankrupted the US economy in 2008? Wake up man and get some common sense into that wooden head of yours. I know that you are pretty thick, but sheesh!
Betty:Are you saying a carbon tax is irrelevant to eliminating poverty"?
Chek: July 9, 12:18 am
"Realistic alternatives are all yours for the inventing of"
I'm not holding my breath on that one.
"Betty:Are you saying a carbon tax is irrelevant to eliminating poverty”?"
Yes, if the carbon tax is enacted for another purpose.
Now, what were the irrelevant questions you were referring to?
ROFL!
You've spent about ten thousand words avoiding clearly stating your understanding of climate science and its implications, except for (a) your obsession with the Millennium Development Goals and (b) your near constant implication that the science is corrupted - but exactly how, you cannot say.
Do you reckon you could get the massive log out of your own eye before you start pointing at tangential splinters?
(Bet you don't.)
Ooh yeah - let's have a JFGI Tax! Let's get a little back from the neural-outsourcing movement...
So...you would be just fine with a carbon tax provided it is levied to address climate change.
Right?
And...you appear to assert that climate change has and will have nothing to do with driving poverty...?
Is that right? And if so, how do you know?
If climate change (say) exacerbates poverty in some places around the world...then climate change is linked to poverty, and dealing with climate change is (unfortunately) linked to dealing with poverty. Especially if anthropogenic climate change cannot be avoided, as is the case.
Your (apparent) confident assertion of unrelatedness depends on a lack of uncertainty in understanding consequences - which is rather curious, given that you spend half your posts trying to play up uncertainty (albeit fallaciously implying that it is one-sided, given that you never seem to point out that uncertainty allows for future impacts to be much worse than the average prediction.)
Loth...
There are two "if's", one "apparent", one "(say)", one "appear" and three question marks in a comment where you "seem" so sure of yourself.
I'm convinced.
Um, Betty, he's trying to get you to understand something via logical baby-steps, which are, sadly, what's required...
Personally I think you're indeducable; I reckon I'd have more success teaching my cat to play piano...
'None so bliind', etc.
Betula, darling, if you are going to build up a conspiracy at least bother to read the source material.
The World Economic and Social Survey that is the basis of your ranting explicitly outlines the future effects of global warming on the Third World as the reason for the proposed carbon tax.
I thought you would have learned from Karenmackspot's humilating blunder above to always read the primary material.
For some reason it never says what the deniers' state it does.
In a 2010 speech in Melbourne Christopher Monckton claimed that since 2001 there had been statistically significant cooling. I wonder how that claim is working out?
Badly, as it turns out. Very very badly.
And Pentaxz claims deniers never said it was cooling!
Here you go Little Johny,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2013/plot/rss/from:19…
fixed it for you :)
Karenmanckspot, Monckton made the mistake of cherrypicking a too short time period to make a reliable estimate of warming or lack thereof.
To prove me wrong you.... make the mistake of cherrypicking a too short time period to make a reliable estimate of warming or lack thereof.
But seriously though, how long did it take you to find a dataset that gave you the result you wanted?
You must have clicked through every single option and you still failed.
"Nobody talks about" the UHI effect! This is GOLD!
hhahahahaha
Queensland Premier Campbell Newman's accidental solar boom.
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/newmans-accidental-solar-…
That's why they call him "can do" Newman
(Idiot. Or question dodger. Hard to tell the difference.)
So your actual point was...what? Or were you just hoping to avoid the questions?
My use of "apparent" is to specifically point out what you seem (to me) to be saying, rather than to assert that is what you meant. Furthermore, it was an open invitation to specify what you meant if I read you wrong.
My use of "if" in "And if so, how do you know..." is also there precisely because I'm giving you the chance to correct my reading of you if that reading is mistaken.
These are specifically there to avoid "seem[-ing] so sure of myself" about your position.
Are you really that poor at English comprehension?
But let us continue.
My use of "if" in "If climate change is linked..." was as bill said - it specifically calls out a logical induction step - but I guess it's easier to avoid the question by pretending to misunderstand that usage.
My use of "(say)" is to denote one example (implying that others probably exist). I guess that's too advanced a concept for you.
My use of "if" in "Especially if" is coupled to an expression of certainty, but it's one more "if" than you were able to count to, so perhaps you didn't ponder that.
So ... how about my questions? Or are you only good for more evasive waffle?
KMS @9:22 Am:
Plot for 30 years (which makes it climate rather than weather, right?).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1983/to:2013/plot/rss/from:19…
An aerial view of 80 years of climate-related glacier fluctuations in southeast Greenland
"Here we present a unique record that documents the frontal positions for 132 southeast Greenlandic glaciers from rediscovered historical aerial imagery beginning in the early 1930s. We combine the historical aerial images with both early and modern satellite imagery to extract frontal variations of marine- and land-terminating outlet glaciers, as well as local glaciers and ice caps, over the past 80 years. The images reveal a regional response to external forcing regardless of glacier type, terminal environment and size. Furthermore, the recent retreat was matched in its vigour during a period of warming in the 1930s with comparable increases in air temperature. We show that many land-terminating glaciers underwent a more rapid retreat in the 1930s than in the 2000s"
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/full/ngeo1481.html
And consistent with the pattern of human-caused global warming.
The broken clock finally coincides with temporal measurement.
Can Enbridge be trusted on Northern Gateway ... and Climate
Change?
Can Enbridge be trusted to build and operate the Northern Gateway oil sands pipeline in a safe and sustainable manner? Judging from today’s scathing National Transportation Safety Board report on Enbridge’s
horrendous pipeline spill in Michigan two years ago, the answer would appear to be a resounding “No”! But that’s just one of the difficult questions faced by Enbridge today.
...
[P]olicies enabling "meaningful reductions in GHG emissions" - meaningful in the sense of actually having a good chance of realizing the global 2C/450 ppm target to which all nations have agreed in principle - can not possibly be "tailored" to a Canadian economy that is becoming ever more dependent on the exploitation of fossil fuels. That is the simple, bald fact of the matter.
Of course, this remarkable confluence of misleading government and industry rhetoric is hardly a coincidence.
...
Which brings us back to the beginning. Can Enbridge - along with the rest of the oil industry and the Canadian government - be trusted to address the real implications of climate change?
Once again, the answer is obvious.
Because you haven't got an actual argument.
Shorter Karenmackspot:
I was wrong! Better change the subject!
Typical coward, unable to stand up for his own argument.
This is a cry for help. KMS has become so addled 'she' desperately needs our help to explain her motivation, her use of language, and even how she feels about cetaceans...
Ah yes but the strategy is to deny everything. Deny denial, deny denying denial, etc, etc.
Of course Chris, I just enjoy watching Karenmackspot squirm and get trapped into saying something I can repeat again and again and again and again.
If it weren't for KMS, it would be hard to imagine anyone being more stupid than Betula.
I Am Not A Moron...
"If it weren’t for KMS, it would be hard to imagine anyone being more stupid than Betula"
Ianam, I'm going to go against my better judgement and try and help you here...
The Ianam daily affirmation needs to be more positive. "I Am Not A Moron" just increases your feelings of really being a moron and It's not healthy.
Here's an example:
"The affirmation should be positive. " I feel safe" works but the affirmation " I am not scared" does the opposite of what you want. It focuses your mind on the word "scared" and increases that feeling. It is as if the word "not" didn't even exist".
"All this negative thinking, if allowed to persist, will guarantee that you fail"
http://affirmations.homestead.com/
I hope this helps.
Respecfully,
Betula
Betula is a moron.
Yep, it works.