Time for more thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Time for more thread.
Time for more thread.
Time for more thread.
Time for more thread.
Advertisment
Time for more thread.
"so attack his words and not the man"
Except the only "proof" this "man" puts forward is that he's smart.
Then refutation of his proof is refutation of the man.
PS how come you're all so worried about attacking the words not the man but you STILL post bollocks without qualm about Jeff?
Oh, that's right. Rules are only for OTHER people.
Typical self-centred bigot.
El Poco Gordo:
Ah, so you're either a poe, or a rabid extreme right-wing fantasist, or uneducated, or mentally disabled.
Or some or all of the above.
Whichever, you absent of any and all credibility.
...you are absent...
Nick,
and that is precisely why I have dubbed him 'Cardinal Puff'.
Also there are echoes of 'Puff the Magic Dragon' the meaning of which was well known in 1970s and 1980s and which may explain much of the nonsense coming from that quarter. Additionally used to describe the 'Gooney Birds' (C47s a DC-3 variant) equipped with Gatling multi-barrelled cannon (canon-bishop - get it) which patrolled the skies around Formosa (TaiWan) during a Chinese confrontation and later in Vietnam.
Jeff H
The only thing you've ever managed consistently wrt to me is inventing your own 'facts', distorting whatever is said or discussed (even your own previous claims), switching the topic, and loads and loads of the most puerile childish attempted insults.
This may impress some of the crowd here (which you apparently believe is a 'science-blog'), but in the real world you would only be laughed at.
Let me repeat to you (for the umpthteenth time) what I am saying about you:
You invent your 'facts' when trying to argue a position! You just make things up merely because you want them to be true. You navigate by believing things, conjuring them up.
And real science and real scientists do not operate that way. Conducting real science is an entirely different endeavor.
And I don't think it's coincidence that you put your faith in Lewandowsky's junk to be 'science'.
It's not! It's the kind of junk activists would like to replace reality with. You seem to suffer from similar problems ...
Joan, your bestest pal doesn't like it when people play the man not the ball.
You'll make him sad.
And of course you have tracked down and studied every paper that Jeff has been involved with and also every other link to which you have been sent I suppose?
I very much doubt it.
OK. Einstein, let us see your definitions for science and description of scientific research methodology.
Fair chance, let us see if you can deliver. No links allowed, no phone a friend, in your own words only so don't do a Wegman.
'....post bollocks without qualm about Jeff?'
You must be confusing me with someone else, I said Jeff may rank among the elite.
"This may impress some of the crowd here (which you apparently believe is a ‘science-blog’), but in the real world you would only be laughed at"
Really Jonas? Says who? You? As it turns out, in the world of science I am taken VERY seriously .Hence why I get a lot of invites to many different universities, research centers and conferences, often as keynote speaker or plenary speaker.The topic I am often invited to speak on is economics, politics and environmental advocacy. I can assure you that the audiences and students to which I lecture don't ever roll over the aisle in hysterics during or after my presentations. In fact, most tend to see the world through the same lens that I do. Meaning they think that people like you and many others with similar perspectives are the deluded ones, those to be laughed at. And they tend to support the majority view that humans are altering the chemical and physical characters of the planet, as well as atmospheric properties, and that our species is indeed responsibel for most of the recent warming. What this shows is that you are living in an intellectual vacuum. You have no idea what people are thinking. You are about as arrogant and self-righteous individual that I have encoutered in my scientific caree, and that is saying a lot. Congratulations fo this (non) accolade. You've earned it.
As it turns out, the people who matter don't laugh; only idiots like you who also make up their own facts (i.e. which scientists are 'real' and which aren't; Lewandowsky's paper is 'junk' etc.). I can live with that quite easily. If my peers were not takeing me seriously, then you'd have a point. But they do take me seriously. Very seriously indeed. As they take the words of many scholars whom you routinely impugn very seriously. The fact is that I cannot tell if academics or the public at large take you serioulsy at all Jonas. That is because you are a complete unknown.A nobody. But, if Deltoid is any kind of barometer, the people who take you seriously are, for the most part, a bunch of cranks. Those who take me seriosuly arequite intelligent, thoughtful people.
The fact is that you are such a dork that its easy to counter your silly posturings. You set yourself up each and every time you metaphorically open your mouth. Your last posting is a supreme example that you don't live in the real world, and certainly not one with any academic connections. You are like an annoying fly. As I like insects, my advice is for you to buzz off.
Antartica follows solar cycles.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMCa.htm
Lionel and Wow, Thanks for the support. But be prepared for the idiot brigade (Olaus, GSW, PentaxZ) to roll in here in defense of their arrogant, pompous hero.
Jonas routinely makes things up as I said above. He just doens't appear to see it. And I'd like him to see if he can take any of my 124 papers (this far)published in the peer-reviewed literature and then find where I 'made things up'. True, he won't understand one thing about the science I do, given he has no background at all in any scientific fields, but he can certainly have a go.
I am not exactly quaking in my boots.The guy wouldn't last for a second in a lecture hall or conference room.
'...the people who take you seriously are, for the most part, a bunch of cranks.'
Hope you aren't including me in that bunch...after all the flattering things I've said about your social standing.
“Antarctica hasn’t been warming.”
And then links to a plot of Sea Surface Temperature. Antartica is a land mass. The plot that El Gordo linked to doesn't show land data.
Here's GISTEMP for Feb 2012 (Antarctic Summer)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2012&mon…
and the latest data Aug 2012 (Antarctic Winter)
Lionel A, you seem to think (and argue?) that its OK sometimes to just make things up. As long as you also keep some real facts, or not cheat everytime? If so, I disagree ..
But if you read the first sentence (above) carefully, you'll se what I am accusing Jeff of. And for said reasons, you cannot trust Jeff's account of what I have said about or to him. He invents his own facts in almost every comment, poor thing.
And if you are interested in discussing real science, you don't need my approval or definitions. There is plenty of 'weeding out' to do here long before you'd need my help. In other threads there have been discissions (with me) on a higher levels than Jeff can accomplish, but I don't remember you participating or trying to contribute ...
Wow: FYI, it is the words of Jeff I am attacking. A large portion of them is utter garbage
'Antarctica is a land mass. The plot that El Gordo linked to doesn’t show land data'.
Apologies... anyway on land it has been getting cooler.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/01/16/alfred-wegener-institute-neumayer-st…
They were you words you twerp. Now stop avoiding the questions.
The remainder of that diabolical obfuscation is totally dishonest.
Wriggle worm, wriggle.
You're beginning to sound like wow old fart.
Lionel, wich part of the words "wrt me" were too difficult to understand?
Jeff, how many comments have you so far written to (or about) me without your infantile insults? How many have you written where you have refrained from inserting your own fantasies about me? And just addressed the topic. As if you you were a mature, grown up man, with an education and a standing among other grown ups?
Maybe there have been some (I don't really remember) but at what percentage? At best ~1% I would say.
And no Jeff, I don't make things up. That's your department. Routinely! But accusing others of your own deficiencies is typical. Most funny is that you seem tho think you are not treated with sufficient reverence or civilty ...
In short: Why is is so exceedingly difficult for you to behave like you were a professional (as you claim to be)?
"“Antarctica hasn’t been warming.”
And then links to a plot of Sea Surface Temperature. "
What? You think that deniers have the intelligence to check what they've been given to post for veracity?
"Jonas routinely makes things up as I said above. He just doens’t appear to see it."
Not just Joan.
ALL of the deniers do it.
It's because they haven't got a shred of evidence, but have discovered that if they make assertions that they are easily ignored if not accompanied by a link.
However, since evidence for their latest orders haven't turned up yet, they have to point to SOMETHING. So they start pointing to denierblogs and wannabe journalists.
When those are ignored for much the same reason as the non-link-accompanied assertion, they realise they need to post to some REAL science.
However, since no such science exists, they point to something and lie about what it says.
Poptart picks up that meme and takes it screaming over the idiot event horizon.
But all the deniers do it.
It's all they have.
(And I note Elgey here isn't worried about Joan playing the man not the ball here. Guess it's only intended to be a hamstring for those on the side of truth, to slow them down while a like gets its act together...)
Jonas: since you have reappeared here, all you have done is to complain about the (imagined) failings of other people and their supposed inability to address the science. How about demonstrating your own capacity for science and actually presenting some? After all, even el gordo and Karen make some sort of attempt. As it is, you are coming across as an obsessive dolt.
El Gordo: You gave a link showing cooling at one station in Antarctica. The station director said, "Our weather data shows that the part of Antarctica where our station is located is increasingly influenced by high pressure. We have clear skies more and more often. And wherever cloud cover is missing in polar regions, heat gets radiated out and the lower air layers cool.”
This was in the article that you linked to. So what was your point in mentioning it?
BTW El Gordo, instead of having the story pre-digested for me, I then went to the original story by the Institute. Another pertinent remark is: He adds, however, that this development is a regional change and the values measured at Neumayer Station III are by no means representative for the global climate changes. “Just in the centre of Antarctica it has not become warmer. On the Antarctic Peninsula, by contrast, the average temperature has risen by up to three degrees Celsius. We also observe a similar warming in the Arctic,” says Gert König-Langlo.
Turboblocke
"You gave a link showing cooling at one station in Antarctica"
How many trees did the clown Mann use to construct the hockey stick?
Ooooh, snap!
(That's gotta hurt.)
"As it is, you are coming across as an obsessive dolt."
No kidding. Notice how, since he's crawled back here from the prikmordial ooze, Jonas has gotten bolder and is trying to derail the thread again with his blather. Pure lies froth from his mouth, such as, "He invents his own facts in almost every comment, poor thing".
Really? I made up stuff about pollinator declines and negative impacts of warming on biodiversity did I?
Liar.
And what about you, Jonas? (Made up comment # 1: People are laughing at me [Jeff]). No evidence need be procured. This Jonas 'law. (Made up comment # 2: I[Jeff] make up my own facts. Read above. Nothing I wrote in response to El Gordo was 'made up'. Its empirically based. Just because Jonas doesn't happen to agree with it (quite remarkable, given his puny knowledge base) isn't proof of his position. Moreover, I'd advise him to go to my publication list and please document all of my 'made up' facts. Go ahead, smarty pants.
Essentially, given my support for the vast majority of my peers in climate science who forcefully argue that there is strong evidence for a human fingerprint on the recent warming, by simple logic of conclusion these people, by Jonas' law, must be 'making things up' to support their position. But of course he will dispute this and say, "AHA! He's made that up!!"Not at all. It is just that his view as an outsider of how science works is very different from mine as an insider. But now expect him to accuse me of waving my CV in his face. The guy is as slippery as an eel. See Richard's point above.
I actually responded to Jonas using one of his own silly quotes: "“This may impress some of the crowd here (which you apparently believe is a ‘science-blog’), but in the real world you would only be laughed at”....
...and then he begs Lionel to believe his perspective that I am 'making things up'. I cut and pasted the quote. I asked Jonas who and what he means by the 'real world'. It certainly is not the academic world, My guess its the right wing denial blog-world. This is what Jonas means by the 'real world'. Because in the 'real world' of academia the debate over the causes of climate warming are largely agreed upon. What has yet to be fully understood is the effect of AGW on natural and manged ecosystems. That is what I and many colleagues around the world are studying. We accept AGW as proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Do I really care that a coterie of mostly pseudo-academics and right wing idealogues are bitterly opposed to the broad scientific consensus? Only insofar as they are muddying the division between causes and consequences. But this has been their strategy all along. They will never win the scientific debate, but as long as they can sow enough doubt as to the causes of the recent warming, then they will obstruct meaningful actions to deal with the oncoming crisis.
"How many trees did the clown Mann use to construct the hockey stick"
There we go. Supports my point above to a tee.
Thanks PentaxZ for this pearl of idiotic arrogance. PentaxZ is one of Jonas's biggest fans by the way. Note the ad hom levied at Michael Mann. Don't expect Jonas to bitterly denounce this. He needs all the support he can get. But the academic worldwould truly laugh at this outrageous behavior.
Jonas:
In response to this:
Were you, or were you not, accusing Jeff of making stuff up?
Hence my responses.
More wriggling from the worm.
Now I will no longer bother to trade with an obviously dishonest broker such as yourself.
From day one here, Jonarse has had nothing to say other than his tedious belief that Jeff wronged his BFF (the idiot economist/fake ecologist Lomborg) somehow by exposing the prettyboy's immense ignorance.
Despite being awarded his own megathread, I can't recall any substantive case for his natural variation schtick either from the chief or his support tribe of morons..Neither does it look like anything's changed since.
"How many trees did the clown Mann use to construct the hockey stick?"
12.
That would be twelve times the number that Elgey thought was acceptable. McIntyre didn't have a problem with around 8% of the data MBH had either. Nor did Watts find it abhorrent that only one station was used.
It seems their problem is that Mann used more than one cherry picked station to produce a graph.
Oh, and have you ever read the graph?
It lists several proxies. There's not just trees.
Epic.
Fail.
Oh, and in 1998 the count was increased to over 300 tree cores.
Since you cannot record an average of one, the average of two is possible but has indefinite (i.e. unbounded) error bars and if you are MOST generous, 300 tree cores give you around 17x the accuracy of just one.
Apparently, your problem is that the MBH paper is too statistically robust.
You really are a stuck up cnt, aren't you, tampax.
"And why did he massage the data so the MWP and LIA dissapeared?"
And why did you stop beating your wife?
I wrote this in a post above aimed at Jonas.
I will ad just one proviso to the above and that is unless you provide unequivocal and valid proof that Jeff Harvey has made stuff up as you claim.
Come on, 'let's be 'aving you', as the GIs of the old navy used to shout on the parade ground.
I have one for you Pentax, that jerk one with the dodgy aperture mechanism that is not letting any light in:
A man walks 5 miles due South, turns and walks 5 miles due East, turns again and walks 5 miles due North and arrives at the place from which he started.
What colour was the bear?
Poor PantyZ. All McIntyre's efforts and all the shill's men and Bishops can't make the Hockey Stick go away - so pretending it has and believing the self-invented denier myths about it is all that's left for those who find reality an inconvenient truth.
Look, a twat!
Typical brain-dead trolling, but that's to be expected by the teabaggers who believe that anyone who isn't selfish is evil.
So far on this page we've seen:
1) CO2 doesn't cause warming
2) It's not warming
3) Warming is good for us
4) It would hurt our economy and our freedoms to do anything about it.
All we need now is:
4) You nasty scientists didn't tell us it was warming, and
5) It's too late to do anything.
Isn't it curious how the human-caused climate change denialists can't mange to sing from the same songsheet?
..."thread", not "page"...
Occam's razor dictates that Jonarse isn't capable of understanding attribution, not that the studies don't exist.
Here's a list of papers for you Jonarse.
Now, why don't you print them out and throw handfuls of your own shit at them? Obviously pretending to read them didn't register with you the first time around, and at least you could then claim to have paid some attention to them.
"1) CO2 surley cause warming. How much?"
1.2C per doubling. We've increased CO2 to 140% over baseline, do the maths. Then the feedbacks add up to 3.2C per doubling of CO2. 140% again, do the maths.
"Not measurable at all,"
Nope, we can see a change of 0.9C easily.
"especially the AGW signal"
No, we can see a change of 0,9C easily.
"There are way greater forcings out there"
Yes, they increase the effect of CO2 from 1.2 up to 3.2 per doubling, that means an effect of nearly 2x greater effect. That means bigger.
"CO2 is mere a microscopic player in the forcing league."
Nope, it's number 2. The number one spot, being held by water vapour, which has increased 4% because of the warming brought on by CO2's blanketing effect.
"The past 15 years there has not been any warming at all"
There have been LOTS of warming during that period.
"are drawing trend lines"
Oh, you mean TREND, well, what are the error bars on your trends of zero? Do they preclude 0.17 per decade? No? Oh, then you haven't proven the models wrong yet.
"Life on earth has always thrived when it has been warmer. Always"
PETM.
Always? Oh so foolish.
"how would windmills and carbon taxes have an effect on the climater"
By reducing the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, which, since you said "if it was an issue", we would take as being an issue.
You really are quite dense, aren't you.
"See point 4."
See reply to point 4.
"Well changing ones mind is quite normal"
And since you've never changed yours, we'll call you "abbie".
Hello abbie normal.
I see some apocalypticons are still active at Deltoid fighting down the well funded fossil fuel illuminati obstructing the holy word...sorry....climate science. :-)
The Yellow Loopaper comes to mind. ;-)
It seems the slug horde has been released.
They're a little slow, but disgusting...
Dear Wow, any news from the portents front that you would like to share?
You're not able to handle the truth, dear.
Yeah,its out there, right. ;-)
The truth, that is, ;-)
The truth doesn't fit into your tiny little worldview, therefore you reject it.
That is, you can't handle the truth. Because it upsets you. Poor ickle ting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive%E2%80%93aggressive_behavior
Passive aggressive behavior can manifest itself as learned helplessness, procrastination, hostility masquerading as jokes, stubbornness, resentment, sullenness, or deliberate/repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_cult
Doomsday cult is an expression used to describe groups who believe in Apocalypticism and Millenarianism, and can refer both to groups that prophesy catastrophe and destruction, and to those that attempt to bring it about.[1] The expression was first used by sociologist John Lofland in his 1966 study of a group of Unification Church members in California, Doomsday Cult: A Study of Conversion, Proselytization, and Maintenance of Faith. A classic study of a group with cataclysmic predictions had previously been performed by Leon Festinger and other researchers, and was published in his book When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World.[2][3]
Some authors have used "doomsday cult" solely to characterize groups that have used acts of violence to harm their members and/or others, such as the salmonella poisoning of salad bars by members of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh group, and the mass murder/suicide of members of the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God group. Others have used the term to refer to groups which have made and later revised apocalyptic prophesies or predictions, such as the Church Universal and Triumphant led by Elizabeth Clare Prophet, and the initial group studied by Festinger, et al. Still others have used the term to refer to groups that have prophesied impending doom and cataclysmic events, and also carried out violent acts, such as the Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway and the mass murder/suicide of members of Jim Jones' Peoples Temple group after similar types of predictions.
Referring to his study, Festinger and later other researchers have attempted to explain the commitment of members to their associated doomsday cult, even after the prophesies of their leader have turned out to be false. Festinger explained this phenomenon as part of a coping mechanism called dissonance reduction, a form of rationalization. Members often dedicate themselves with renewed vigor to the group's cause after a failed prophesy, and rationalize with explanations such as a belief that their actions forestalled the disaster, or a belief in the leader when the date for disaster is postponed. Some researchers believe that the use of the term by the government and the news media can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which actions by authorities reinforces the apocalyptic beliefs of the group, which in turn can inspire further controversial actions. Group leaders have themselves objected to comparisons between one group and another, and parallels have been drawn between the concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy and the theory of a deviancy amplification spiral.
Aye, there IS a doomsday cult.
"If you don't cut taxes, the jobmakers will leave!"
"Obama wants to kill your grandmother in his Death Tribunals"
"If we have a carbon tax, we will be forced to live in caves!"
"All the politicians are agreeing to AGW because they want a New World Order!"
And, of course, Anders Brevik.
All that's left for you to do Jonarse, is refute them.
All.
In the literature, where your glib assertions don't cut it.
Which is exactly where we left this exact argument the last time. Now toddle off like a good troll and do so, if you can.
It of course goes without saying that I believe you never will.
P.S. Don't forget to take your baying pack of morons with you.
chek, the Slug Horde don't bay.
They ooze.
Wow
Usually you comments look as if you are trying to emulate a poorly programmed spam-bot. But @ 4:13 pm you are actually trying to engage. Congratulations!
However, already on the first point you lose the plot again:
“1) CO2 surley cause warming. How much?”
Wow answers:
"1.2C per doubling. We’ve increased CO2 to 140% over baseline, do the maths. Then the feedbacks add up to 3.2C per doubling of CO2. 140% again, do the maths."
Yes, I'm sure you've picked that up on those sites you frequent. But its not quite true. The ~1.1 °C doubling refers to calculations under the assumption 'everything else equal'. Specifically, it is based on the notion that all energytransportation is radiative.
I don't doubt or question those calculations. But the (underlying) assumption that only radiative heat transfer occurs, ie that no other mechanisms of energy transport are at play is not true for the atmospheric system.
Ignoring that fact means ignoring obvious (negative) feedback mechanisms.
In the next sentence you assert large positive feedbacks. But such have not been established (only hypothesized). Thereafter you try to attribute 0.9 °C to your previous claimed attribution. Which is plainly wrong. A major part of this maybe ~0.7 °C cannot possibly be caused by CO2.
Point is: If you want to build a large tower, you cannot cheat with the foundation. But at least you are/were now repeating the commonly used pro-AGW claims out there. Only not really knowing what part of them is valid, and at least technically, could be proffered as a viable hypothesis.
"The ~1.1 °C doubling refers to calculations under the assumption ‘everything else equal’"
If by "everything else equal" you mean "Without feedbacks" then yes.
You seem to be jumping the gun, because with the feedbacks you get 3.2C per doubling.
And if you already knew the answer, why did you ask it?
Did you have to ask daddy what the grown up said?
"Specifically, it is based on the notion that all energytransportation is radiative."
Specifically, this is wrong.
"no other mechanisms of energy transport are at play is not true for the atmospheric system. "
Which is why the grown ups who did the calculation didn't make that assumption.
"Thereafter you try to attribute 0.9 °C to your previous claimed attribution. Which is plainly wrong. A major part of this maybe ~0.7 °C cannot possibly be caused by CO2."
Did you not get an adult to do the calculation?
How many doublings is 1.4? Multiply that by 3.2 and you get a little over 0.9C.
Oh, look.
The answer has been seen IN REAL EVIDENCE.
(oh, and if you knew that the 0.9C was measured, why did you say it wasn't measurable?)
"You cannot use temperature rise prior to CO2 rise in an attempt to attribute it to CO2."
Oh, that's good. Because I didn't.
I'm always amused when the denialati claim that there's a MWP. First of all it reveals how easy they are to fool as most of the so-called evidence that shows it was global also shows that it wasn't at the same time.
Secondly they never ask what could have caused it. There is no evidence for anything that could provide a sufficiently large change in the Earth's temperature so if you believe in the MWP, then you must also believe in high climate sensitivity...
Specifically, it is based on the notion that all energytransportation is radiative
Did Jonarse really just try to assert that scientists actually think that radiation is the sole manner in which heat energy is transferred withiin a planetary atmosphere?
Either a complete bozo, or a sly liar. Although neither one is exclusive of the other.
Hey Jonas, I have a few questions for you, our resident untrained genius of all things science (no formal training required). You wrote this rather amusing line above -: "And no Jeff, I don’t make things up. That's your department".
Really?
Q1. As I have said, every academy of science on Earth has agreed that the human fingerprint on the current warming is the major forcing. As expected from someone with your innate brilliance, you summarily dismissed this by suggesting that the rank-and-file members of said organizations may have been excluded from the decision making process. Have you any evidence for this or ........ARE YOU MAKING THIS UP? [You see, your dismissal of these bodies with such a flippant wave of the hand won't win any arguments in the academic world. If this is the best you can do to downplay such an important consensus then you are very, very desperate indeed].
Q2. Above you wrote this: "This may impress some of the crowd here (which you apparently believe is a ‘science-blog’), but in the real world you would only be laughed at".
Do you have any evidence for this, or... ARE YOU MAKING THIS UP? [Note: support from your baying pack of hell-hounds does not count).
Q3. You wrote, "And real science and real scientists do not operate that way. Conducting real science is an entirely different endeavor".
Given you have very strong opinions about what and who constitutes real science (and scientists) and what or who doesn't, from exactly what scientific pedigree are you, of all people, able to pass judgement on the qualifications of scientists and what constitutes 'real science'? Do you possess some prestigious scientific qualifications that have trained you to know real from fake, but you are too humble to tell everyone here, or.... ARE YOU MAKING THIS UP?
Q4: You have come full circle to the place you began with last year, that is attacking the AR4 claim. Have you in the interim written to any of the world's leading climate scientists with you concerns about this or are you stuck in the blogosphere where you are anonymous, anything goes and... YOU CAN MAKE THINGS UP.
Q5. Some time ago you dismissed concerns about the loss of Arctic ice on tundra biota e.g. seals, Polar Bears etc. Population demographics appears to be showing a skewing towards older animals (i.e. less recruitment, lower natality) as a result of warming. This has been the subject of several studies and models. Given you clearly don't know the first thing about population or evolutionary ecology, do you draw your conclusions on sound science or... ARE YOU MAKING THIS UP? [Note: if the Arctic ice continues to retreat the bears are doomed, along with a large chunk of the regions endemics]
"What I’m really scared of are hating extremists – guys like you and Jeffie – that fully belive in doomsday, conspriacies, direct action, scape-goating, etc."
Bold words said by someone who has never checked up on the funding practices of Exxon-Mobil, Texaco-Chevron etc. Andrew Rowell (2007) investigated just 40 organizations to which Exxon-Mobil alone has donated millions of dollars since 2000. His article, entitled "Exxon's foot soldiers" is well worth a read. Leaving aside the right wing think tanks and public relations firms to which Exxon invests heavily, there are loads of astroturf organizations such as the International Policy Network (IPN) which are very influential as lobbyists. Of course their aim is to influence public policy. And they are winning, of that there is no doubt. Largely because they can take people like you, Olaus, along for the ride.
But hey, Olaus, if this doesn't fit in with your libertarian political slant, that's not my problem. Just because you refuse to read up on the topic, doesn't mean it ain't so. Clearly you don't like to read up on things that shed doubt on your political views.
Neither, Joan.
Get a grown up to help you with the difficult passages.
"Either a complete bozo, or a sly liar."
There's no slyness in his lying.
Just bare faced cheek.
"You are a fanatic religious buff, and I’m not."
I'm an atheist. You're a Randian.
"Jeffie, you sure are something extra"
At least my guitar teacher thinks so.... well, maybe my parasitoid wasps might think so too...
You call me a fanatic religious buff, on what grounds?
Hey, let me guess: you haven't got anything better to think of.
Brains: Use it or lose it, bitch.
"chek, No that’s not what I claimed"
So someone is coming on here with your name and writing stuff on here?
And everybody knows that there's no point answering your questions because you never believe ANY answers to your questions unless they are ones you like.
Joan, why do you obsess over the AR4 claim of "Very likely"?
"Wow, I ‘obsess’ about that claim because it was made"
Well, live with it.
Many claims have been made. So what.
"which claims to be the pinnable of scientific investigation about that topic."
What? The topic of "Very Likelyness"?
What is the problem with the claim that makes your knickers knot?
What if it were "Near Certainty"?
What if it were "Octopus underpants"?
How on earth does the claim change the attributes of CO2 in the atmosphere?
"belief in assertions made by commenters who cannot argue their case is not how I navigate"
Because you're always doing it?
Mind you, it would explain why you're going nowhere fast, and with a lot of pointless crying.
Come on, Joan, you're quick to demand stuff, but seem unable to tell us what point there is to it.
Don't you know?
"I call you a religious buff because you subscribe to the very same conspiracy garbage that Jeffie screams about"
First of all, that's not a definition of a religious buff.
Secondly, you didn't call me a religous buff.
Thirdly there is no conspiracy garbage in what Jeff says.
Fourth, stop smoking dope, you hippie and CONCENTRATE. If you can't even keep your story straight for five minutes, you've been on the whacky baccy for too long and rotted your brain.
"So far nada to prove your right wing illuminati crap"
That's because the proof is in your words, spouting the same neocon crap that the randians insist you kowtow to.
But the one in the cult thinks its normal.
chek, No that’s not what I claimed
It was a direct quote from you, bonehead. Directly related to your inclusion of the word 'all'. And also a rhetorical question to boot.
Look Jonarse, you're shamanesque bollocks routine might work on your flock of gullible Rovian chickens, but we're not them.
What's your point.
I didn't ask what you think my point was.
I asked what the point of your obsessing over the AR4 claim is.
Come on Joan. What is your point in demand.
Joan, a sentence that says what you wrote doesn't stop saying it because you kept blithering on.
Now, Joan, where is your answer? Or did you make demands for no reason you feel able to express at all?
No, I'm asking your point of you.
It seems you can't say.
Why is that?
Is it because it was a petulant demand by a self-obsessed idiot?
Was that your point? That there was no point to your demand and obsession?
That must have been the point, Joan. You've been unable to say what it was, which would be efficient if I've just said what the point was: no point, just wasting everyone else's time.
So is it clocking off time for the hard-working denialist soldiers? They're unable to post because they're sitting in their car going home?
I find myself suddenly brought to the conclusion that the only required responses to the flood of deniershite that constantly flows is either a simple 'so?' or 'and?'
Let them choke on their own petards of explanation, because treating them as good-faith sceptics hasn't worked, isn't working and will likely never work. Not while the web is characterised by the likes of the Scandinavian troll soviet.
Its like that born again idiot who keeps crowing about how no atheist has ever answered his question (to his satisfaction) on "Where is the proof and evidence that atheism is right?".
Asked once "Why do you need proof and evidence of the nonexistence of god?" and hung up.
No, I found it weird that you couldn't remember what you'd said.
But I'm still an atheist, you're still a neocon Rand follower and all-round idiot. And no amount of smilies will make you seem anything other than an over opinionated brat.
Olaus/Oluas, it's very clear you're a class A idiot in your own language. It's doubly clear when you try to use English. Please stop, it's embarrassing.
It seems that someone has been recruiting the Scandinavian Troll Collective plus sundry other idiots. They've all manifested synchronously - perhaps there is some phenological relationship with the annual post Arctic ice minimum...
Tim, if you're happy to consider a moderator for comments, I'll put my hand up. It might reduce the traffic here, but at least it would keep the threads cleaner.
I came to that conclusion a long time ago.
It's clearly time for a moderator to deal with trolls who violate the terms of their participation on this site, even if that is someone other than Tim.
Certain posters including yourself and the Scandinavian Collective have been banned from all threads bar their own. Basic logic dictates that the ban covers the open threads.
Then again, basic logic is sorely lacking in most of our trolls.
Or it might not. Moderating the toxic trolls may allow a return to a discussion of science which is what generally attracts people here in the first place.
"Trolls are usually off topic,"
Trolls are toxic, dumbass. Open thread or not.
"Yeah…its regional and natural."
See, this is how you're a class-A nimrod.
Man says: This is a local measure.
You then "hear" this as "it's regional and natural".
The "it's regional" is pretty hard to read into the statement, especially if you know about microclimates and so on, and if you don't, you really have no standing to make any statements about weather, records or climate.
But there's ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to get "it's natural" from it. That is entirely fromy your own anus, the only thing that comes close to an activity that could be considered thinking.
"Wind power becomes a wedge issue in the US election."
Seeing as two thirds of people approve of renewable energy being employed, this should ensure the Party Of No (Niggers), previously known as GOP, nee Republican Party, fail this hard.
If it weren't for the fact that there IS NO left wing in US politics any more, Obama wouldn't be winning either, he's busy wooing the republicans who loathe the direction the GOP is persuing (courting the nutjobs) whilst his base stop turning up. If it weren't for the obvious inability of the current PoN(N) to govern, Obama's attempts to garner Republican voters would not see him gaining enough right wing support to maintain his substantial lead.
Making wind power a wedge issue will merely ensure an Obama win.
Olaf, when reality intrudes on your delusion, maybe you'll
a) make some sense
b) be worth responding to
Well, if you'd prefer not to know how to get responses, fair enough.
It's like talking to a four year old, somtimes.
Jonas keeps throwing out accusations of all sorts but he has as yet failed to provide one specific example of Jeff 'making stuff up' about the science. So until that happens I refuse to engage personally with this shape-shifting, word twisting, devious and dishonest troll.
Jonas may think that Jeff, and others make stuff up when the highlight the inanity of his statements but then Jonas has demonstrated poor comprehension ability so often that he probably fails to comprehend the meaning of his own written words.
And no Jonas you have not noticed me much because I refuse to waste my time entering the cesspit of your own making that you have been put in because of your incessant spouting of cess which has continued in this thread.
High time that you were sent back to your own cess.
"So chek never knew if his list contained any relevant answers. Wow does not know why or how it is relevant."
That's because it's you who is obsessing over it and you can't, or rather won't, say why.
Since nobody know what the hell you're asking for or its relevance, the answers you've got are the answers you're given.
If you don't like them, then so what?
"which and how much various factors contribute to any climate change"
That answer has been given to you by chek.
IF that is the question you wanted answering, it has been answered.
Jonas,
Do you honestly think for a second you'd win a debate in a conference hall or university lecture room by claiming that the views of every Academy of Science on the planet might be controversial because they might not be based on the entire rank-and-file membership? Talk about making things up... you do so as you go along to ensure that the discussion is channeled your own way.
You know who'd be laughed at for saying that. Again, don't lecture me about making things up. And then you claim that you base an individual on the strength of their science. What an arrogant, self-righteous S.O.B. you are. Why don't you have a go at my peer-reviewed material Jonas? If you are the genius you clearly think that you are. No wonder you loathe my CV. I at least have a pretty good one. Yours is kept from discourse here except little leaks about you possessing the proper expertise. Prove it! And there' Mack having a go at me about arrogance and a superiority complex. Talk about rich....
Since when have you been an expert who is able to adjudicate on the strength of climate science? You've never admitted to anyone here what it is you do, which I have been at least honest enough to do. Where are your publications? You university lectures? You relevant degree? So you think you are expert enough to evaluate the credentials of Mann, Hansen, Trenberth et al?
Your hubris is gob-smacking in the extreme. Essentially, what I said about Jonas' law stands. If you say something, then it is supposed to be swallowed whole by all of us here. God has spoken. Thus, I raise a point about joint statements from National Academies across the globe. Cornered, you imply that the decisions may have been reached on the basis of only a few members at the top. This is a pretty remarkable assertion, and should require some form of proof from you. But you don't need to provide proof, because Godly Jonas has spoken from the mount. He has decreed that these elite bodies are undemocratic. End of story! That's it, sin't it? How your brain works?
In all of my life I have rarely encountered a specimen like you, Jonas. And that is not a complement. You are, in my opinion, sick. Certainly in need of medical attention. You remind me of the God Apollo in that Star Trek episode, " Who Mourns for Adonis".
I am asking Tim from the heart: please appoint Bernard to moderate the various threads, as he volunteered to do. There's no 'guard at the gates' and all of the undesirables are flooding back in here with their brands of hogwash. Several who were banished to their own cesspits have escaped and re-entered other threads. Like an open portal to hell, they have slithered in here to obfuscate, distort and troll. Begone with them!
Don't worry Joan, we'll manage.
"Like my “moderated” question to you earlier: "
OK, definition of insanity doing the same thing again and expecting a different outcome.
Deniers really don't have a brain in their whole darn body.
Troll infestations are worse than just dying. They generally send the average IQ into negative territory and swamp signal with noise.
No, the any science has been drowned out by you children making lotsa noise. But then 'empty vessels' and all that.
I, and others, have asked pointed questions WRT science and what happens - they are evaded.
Come on then explain the different characteristics of the poles WRT ice and how they then respond to global warming?
Explain why this matters.
Explain how the light absorption properties of gases was first investigated and how this informs us on how an increase in CO2 causes the atmosphere, and ground to warm up.
Why is water such an anomalous fluid?
Why are the properties of water so important to our understanding of the Earth's fluid systems?
You want science then start providing some.
Cue, another wibbling evasion.
The troll outbreak here is a salutary illustration of why scientists aren't found in the double digit IQ percentile and why that constituency have no impact despite the Watt's and McIntyre's and Montford's and Idso's and Pielke's best efforts. The sheer stupidity is chilling.
Bernard for moderator!
PentaxZ, that claim in the Tucson Citizen has been debunked by Menne et al 2010. Yep,years ago it was found to be bullshit. You can go now.
"Wow, again: Exactly my point!"
Yes, yes, there is no point. We get it.
What now? Yet more "That's my point" empty whining?
Nick, that there are six independent temperature sets (four terrestrial and two satellite based) which are all in agreement has passed ignorant numpties like PantyZ by.
That they think posting their stupid links persuades anybody with even a modicum of familiarity with the subject only indicates the sheer volume of readily-self-accepted stupid being peddled by the know-nothings.
when in fact the whole war is over
...and The Great Mobilised Stupid lost, as they always do and always will. I'll stake on intelligence over stupid any time when Nature is the challenger.
cracked-pentaP
When will you dullards realise that nobody is winning here as warming causes climate changes as we will increasingly discover as more people are washed away by floods and land slides, many more others succumb to drought fuelled starvation as more crops fail year on year at the same time as the seas are becoming fished out.
As ocean waters pH levels change as the waters warm more reefs will bleach. Do you understand why they do this? What changes in the coral?
Do you understand why these same reefs are very important nurseries for the hatchlings of a myriad species and why this is important?
The Holocene was the Holocene because the temperate climate was maintained by that big thermostat at the top of the world that is now vanishing at a rate not anticipated in the IPCC AR4, and not by many scientists just 10 years ago.
You do realise that most scientific dissent over the writing in that IPCC AR4 was because the Policy Makers part was too watered down such as to miss the higher end impacts which are now unfolding, do you not?
You did realise, did you not, that the part for policy makers was backed up by a vastly larger and more complex volume explaining the science base in greater detail?
And as for 'deltoidistas', easy to understand where you go for your information. Information always second, or third, hand and via some rabid filter or other.
Citing papers refers to scientific papers, taken in their entirety, and not tabloid rags BTW, or their online equivalents.
Warming and climate change is going to bite you in the arse too.
Lionel, for the rightwing nutjobs, AGW is the indication of their Holy Crusade. They are the dross of old humanity, consisting of the religious who cling to "The Old Ways" and are destitute at being sidelined when rationality is taking over. The post-war new money, who thought that all wealth was there to be taken and will never run out. And the old and broken who have nothing to look forward to in life but have been sold a dream that one day, they too will be a Rockerfella and in the loss of all other hope, fight the harder to maintain the primacy of the Rockerfellas so that they may still hope for the nirvana they've been pining toward (but not hard enough to actually work for it) for all their lives.
They MUST show science wrong. The MUST show that the wealth is still infinite and given only to the deserving (as long as they don't say anything liberal or ecological). They MUST see themselves as winning not because they want to win, but they so desperately want EVERYONE ELSE to lose.
If Wise Solomon had offered to cut the baby in half and these idiots had been the mothers, they would have preferred the child be cut up, just so that the other loses.
Having no hope, no ability and no respect, they know they can't rise.
So the only option is to bring everyone else down lower.
Pathetic. Really pathetic that apparently grown up men and women will do what you denier trolls are doing here.
Tampax, you stinking little jamrag, my advice to the bloated one goes for you too.
How long does speciation take? How quickly is Earth's temperature changing? This has been pointed out repeatedly, but you trolls never change your mind, never admit you are wrong, so I fully expect you to be asking the same question again in the future.
How about answering Lionel's questions with no evasions and no vacuous insults?
Pentax. Your google on 14,000 abandoned gave a hit debunking the myth in the third place. Did you read as far as that?
What for, olap?
And what grants you the power of absolution there?
Do tell why you feel you have to tell anyone that you forgive them for something you think they are?
Are you afraid to answer?
Again.
Why do you feel the need to tell someone you forgive them for what you think they are?
If I'm a guy who needs forgiveness, what gives you the power to give it?
You dance around the subject like a shy virgin on his first night.
OK, so what makes you want to forgive me?
Honestly.
The xtian fundie crowd ALWAYS, if they haven't managed to get anywhere, end off with a "I shall pray for you" and you deniers seem to get off on a very similar thing.
And I've never understood what you or they get out of it.
So what do you get out of saying you forgive me?
What effect does GW have on biodiversity?
Trust. El Gordo to say it blooms. A flippant remark made off the top of his head.
Its highly trait and context-dependent as well as association-specific. The contexts are based on scale (rate of change) and on a species evolved capacity to respond to this rapid change based on its own phylogentic history and on the responses of other species within a defined community/food web/trophic linkage that it interacts. If the hell-hounds were able to understand basic ecology, they'd realize that species and individuals have evolved to respond to various ecophysiological challenges within certain windows or enevelopes. Genetic variation within and between populations (mitigated by gene flow and local adaptation) enables species to respond to changing environments. But of course the optimal phenotypes are determined by trade-offs in specific traits such as growth versus reproduction, longevity and fecundity, defense and growth etc. These optimal phenotypes are traits that have evolved in response to various environmental stresses.
How will (IS) rapid warming affecting biodiversity in temperate and tundra biomes? Well, at the rate its changing in higher latitudes, its certainly challenging many species to respond not only to intrinsic (= physiological) constraints, but to the responses inflicted on other species to which they interact. As ecologist Daniel Janzen once said, the ultimate extinction is the extinction of species interactions. For every plant species that has been pushed to the brink of extinction in the tropics through deforestation, we can expect many species that rely on those plants (first order-level consumers and higher) to have disappeared along with it. Many studies in temperate biomes are showing that the recent warming, which is certainly rapid in an evolutionary sense, has changed the dynamics of two and three species interactions through species-specific responses based on seasonal phenology. Invertebrates respond to warmer winters and/or other seasons by altering their seasonal life cycles. Since many predators - both vertebrates and invertebrates - are often in co-evolved relationships with their prey/hosts, then differential responses of these species could affect the temporal aspects of their interactions and ultimately unravel food webs.
Many species are not adapted to warmer climates. They have evolved to respond to certain temperature regimes over their long evolutionary histories. Temperatures in many parts of the Arctic are some 5-10 C warmer than they were just a century ago. Ignoring the devastating effects of rapid ice loss on the regions fauna, we also have to reconcile the fact that the soil and above-ground systems are not adapted to warm regimes. Soil food webs are complex and often specific to individual plants. Conditions in the soil and the myriad of micro-organisms that inhabit the soil and play a major role in determining the (1) diversity and species complex of plant life, and (2) regulate ecosystem functions, will not just suddenly 'adapt' to the sudden incursion of temperate climate. These systems would normally take thousands of years to respond to the kinds of changes that are being inflicted in the blink of an evolutionary eye. The argument that warmer climate will allow crops to be grown further to the north is pure hogwash. Acid soils characteristic of boreal; forest ecosystems cannot suddenly be replaced by alkaline soils from temperate ecosystems to the south. Each system has its own stupendous array of soil biota that is intimately adapted to ambient abiotic conditions, and which account for the shift in broad-leaved (deciduous) forests to the south and coniferous forests to the north. We are talking about rhizosphere networks consisting of billions of microscopic bacteria, nematodes, mites, collemboles, other decomposers and nutrient cyclers as well as symbionts such as mycorrhizal fungi that are not only intimately adapted to the plants that grow there but to certain kinds of soils. In turn, the vegetation above ground relies on certain types of soil biota in a hugely complex network. There are innumerable below and above-ground feedbacks that regulate important local and systemic processes.
What's happening now is that climate regimes are shifting northwards at rates that may be far beyond the capacity of these interaction network webs to survive, let along to thrive. Its an experiment, and nothing less. Certainly at the current rate of change many people lacking the necessary expertise envisage we cannot expect plants and biomes from the south to miraculously shift many hundreds of kilometers to the north.
If we were talking about realized and predicted changes occurring over, say, 10,000 years, then we might be able to conclude that these systems could shift at the rates necessary to adapt. But in 100 years? Forget it. And let's not forget that we are asking individuals, species, populations, communities and ecosystems to respond against a canvas of many other anthropogenic stresses inflicted on nature. In addition to climate change, we have changes in the physical and chemical environment that have greatly simplified natural systems. The human approach to the biosphere over the past several hundred years has been largely a 'slash-and-burn' approach. The planet is now characterized by huge expanses of agricultural land as well as vast urban areas. Natural ecosystems have been fragmented on an immense scale. Now we are expecting nature to adaptively respond to what can appropriately be called the 'Anthropocene'. In spite of what Gordo says, we have evidence that the planet evolved the highest species and genetic diversity in fairly recent times, which when atmospheric C02 concentrations were comparatively low and conditions were fairly stable. Humans are certainly the beneficiaries of this riotous diversity, but we are squandering it as if there is no tomorrow. And the big worry amongst scientists (real ones like myself who have done the mileage, not self-taught wannabes like Jonas who have not) is not just that we are pushing complex adaptive systems toward a point beyond which they cannot just sustain themselves, but also sustain humanity. Essentially, thanks to the way markets work, the value of critical ecosystem services is externalized in pricing human capital. Therefore, we have no idea how much we can assault nature before these vital services collapse, with rebounding effects on society. I give several examples where ecosystem services have been valued after they were lost or as a result of their addition. ~The effects of a suite of human-induced stresses on nature - with rapid climate warming at the top of the list - has the real potential of devastating the services that we largely rely upon for our survival.
So what will warming do to biodiversity in the Arctic? In a nutshell, it will be catastrophic if the current predictions are anywhere close to accurate. Not just on species towards the end of food chains, but also in the soil.
In the past week we drove from Bristol to Heidelberg, and you cannot help but notice how many wind turbines there are in Europe. Supposedly Germany has over 20000 wind turbines, whereas Australia has around 1000. Germany produces over 6% of it electricity this way, Denmark over 20%!
Amazing what can be done when you put your mind to it.
It is very hard to understand when, in answer to a question about why you tell me you forgive me, you then go accusing me of what you've been telling me on the odd occasion you have been forgiving me for.
It doesn't look like you've actually forgiven me, just want more opportunities to slag me off.
Is that what you're getting out of telling someone you forgive them for what you think they are? The chance to say they are what you think they are?
It's all very passive agressive of these deniers.
The irony of these Swedish crackpot libertarian cranks projecting their sect-think upon others is lost on them.
Something's very wrong here, surely. Many, many hours have passed since I offered this list of papers for Jonarse to refute, and not a single one of them has been to date. Not even in blogland.
Does anybody else perhaps think it likely that Jonarse is a libertarian crank with a facility for rhetoric whose sole achievement in life is collecting immature, uneducated, always wrong detritus like PantyZ, Olaus/Oluas (who, lest we forget too readily, has trouble spelling his own chosen moniker correctly) and GSW and other sockpuppets banding together to support him?
If one was the sentimental type the sheer futility of the achiement alone would have one reaching for handfuls of barbiturates washed down with gallons of alcohol.
Jeff Harvey wrote in a long and informative reply:
So when cranks are under pressure ... you call on desperate old proven liar cranks for support? Good call EG, sub-Montford level admittedly, but then it's about all you've got left.
Hey, Joni , you don't have to go off-shore: in 2011-12 South Australia produced 24% of its energy from wind power - that the world's highest level, AFAIK - and, during a week of recent gales, more than 50%.
Except that, as in the case of other progressive stances, such as our formerly 5c and now 10c container deposit legislation - compare road verges around Adelaide to those around Sydney some time - or our ban on plastic shopping bags, it's somehow impossible to actually 'know' any of this stuff, in the eastern states in particular.
If you can get your head past the Nimbys and Boltard panic merchants it's amazing what can be done. But that's a big 'if' unfortunately.
And, of course, among the 'Nimbys and Boltard panic merchants' we must number not only the Scandinavian libtard nutters and the KMS collective, but alleged 'lefty' el gordo, now a devoted Quadrant reader, no doubt...
Looks like some moderation is kicking in :-)
Bill - that's cool. I did not realise SA was that progressive.
"“Bla, bla, bla, bla…..”
This kind of response is exactly WHY idiots like PentaxZ belong in their own asylum. It also illustrates why its no use trying to explain complex scientific processes to vacuous laymen. They have not been trained in fields of which complexity is an integral part of the field. They demand explanations - the explanations are given in purely scientific terms - and they are then summarily dismissed.
Why is this? Two reasons. First, as I said above, they aren't trained in the field. So they don't understand even the basics. They think they know a lot from reading a few denier blogs, but essentially they are neophytes. Second, they are camouflaging science in bolstering alternative political agendas. What should be patently clear from reading the various comments on Deltoid is that the deniers are't trained scientists in any way, shape or form, and that they rely heavily on contrarian weblogs for their world views.
My colleagues tell me that I am wasting my time with these dolts. They are probably correct. Its just that the only reason I write in here at all is to hopefully reach out to those who are not indoctrinated into believing that scientists are involved in some massive global left wing political conspiracy. I realize fully that the deniers loathe real scientists, a point that has been made to me many times both by other scientists in blogs and those I meet in my work. We are their achilles heel after all, since the public tends to generally pace a lot of trust in the conclusions of studies made by trained experts in various field.
PentaxZs flippant dismissal was therefore par for the course. I know when I wrote my response to his earlier demands for it that he wouldn't understand a word I said. But heck, if you want science, especially in my field of expertise, I will respond in kind. The deniers don't like that at all. They want to keep the debate stuck down to the lowest common denominator, dragging itself along the benthos. I have noticed that AGW deniers like Watts, Nova, and Mountford are masters at this kind kind of behavior. They steer away from complexity, and try to keep the debates stuck in the first gear.
Given that the portals to hell have been reopened in this site in the temporary absence of any proper moderation, it my advice that, until Tim returns, most of the sensible posters here refrain from engaging with the Scandinavian troll collective. Clearly they are like vultures and circle the various serious weblogs that discuss climate and environmental issues, waiting for their opportunity to scupper serious intellectual discourse. The internet is the flotsam and jetsam (with no disrespect to the band) of the denier ranks. They are excluded from halls of learning for the most part, but they try and give the impression of being intellectual heavyweights on the internet.
They aren't. Not even close.
IdiotTracker lists the 56 blog posts written by deniers in response to the Lewandowsky paper* pointing out there is a fair chance that their supporters are nutters
http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/quantifying-lewandowsky-…
* NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science
AKA lewa
IdiotTracker lists the 56 blog posts written by deniers in response to the Lewandowsky paper* pointing out there is a fair chance that their supporters are nutters
http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/quantifying-lewandowsky-…
* NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science
AKA Lewandowsky confirms the bleeding obvious.
Sorry about the double post - iPads are great reading devices - not so good for writing and posting.
What part of this sentence is hard to understand, exactly? I've even footnoted the tricky bits for you below.
Incidentally, here's someone who actually knows about integrating this stuff rather than plays the rabid doom-saying idiot on the internet. Phone him up and tell him he has it all wrong.
*i.e. an entire 12 month period. During which time the wind blew and it didn't.
**i.e just under 1/4 - and this figure will only get larger.
I'm curious as to why the trespasser Jonas N seems to have gone quiet after Chek's direction on September 21, 4:02 pm to attribution studies.
Many of which, I might add, Jonas was pointed toward last year, and which he still seems to not have read.
May the children of the next generation forgive you, Olaus, you don't deserve it, but maybe they'll be nicer than you.
Many of which, I might add, Jonas was pointed toward last year
Quite so Bernard. And to transpose Einstein's quote, the insane do the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html#CtF1BX…
OP
Citing WeUseWishfulThinking on science is about as much use as trying to use Monopoly money to pay your real world bills.
But then how can we expect children, or those not developed beyond a child like state, to understand this?
hehehehe, this Lewandowsky crackpot sure is showingthat both himself and the cult are snake oil salesmen, lol
I think even the cultists should be embarrassed by this retard. (sorry for using your middle name barnturd)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C8wVfxoPqPA
I see a bit of infighting back up the thread there :)
As MikeH's link above shows us very clearly Karenmackspot, Lewandowsky's study was helped enormously and beyond his wildest dreams by all the additional voluntary contributions provided gratis by the biggest guns of denialism.
Read and weep while reflecting that it's your own "intelligentsia" busily planting their own feet in their own mouths and nailing them there.
Good to see that I'm still living rent-free in your head USKMS.
I really do get under your skin, don't I?
And your mother would still be horrified to see that you kiss her with the same mouth that vomits forth unnecessarily frequent and inanely unimaginative profanity...
Please do us a favour and go post something over at Lewandowsky's that resembles the drivel you only ever seem to manage here. I'm sure that he'd be fascinated...
Olaus Petri.
I've been moderated on more than one occasion, and rightly so given the high standard there and the fact that I tend to sail closer to the wind than is advised for polite company. I don't mind - I'm not so high-and-mighty that I can't handle having my manners-wings clipped on occasion.
The likes of you, USKMS, Fatso, and others wouldn't even be allowed to darken the doors however, if you posted over there as you do with the twaddle you produce here.
OP dribbled:
On that occasion not specifically but tell me what are the deniers exposed by Lewandowsky denying? And yes have a look at Idiot Tracker (kudos chek) which is all about the likes of you, and your blog heroes, especially this first comment.
As for infighting Kraken, note that it was not over climate change science but you come over so ignorant and confused perhaps you failed to twig that.
OK as one of your treasured institutions would say, 'Come on you possums, 'what you gonna do about this?':
Roll up! Roll Up!...Welcome to Coal World. Gina 'noheart-darkheart' Rinehart features.
H/T Grist via DesmogBlog.
I guess therefore that the moderation of the troll collective and the Slug Horde indicates that the denialist trolls are entirely wrong, then.
This, after all, seems to be sufficient for them to claim error in others, this ought therefore to be indicative to them of their place too.
No, you members of the troll collective are pathetic. Pathetically ill informed or ideological twisted or both.
Watch the video in this post Robert Manne: How Vested Interests Defeated Climate Science
Although I do hope that we are not defeated else there is no hope of avoiding the scenarios Manne describes and note that his thoughts are based upon established science.
Manne mentions, early on Elizabeth Kolbert , . Go read her book 'Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change' and think hard about your stupid, stupid attitudes.
Coming from another 'interpreter of interpretations' I'll take that as a compliment.
funny, innit, the rotund idiot whines and whines about how the posts here are full of spite and vitriol.
Completely uncaring that his bias is tendaciously obvious.
"Lionel A, it’s not a god idea to talk about ideology when you are a watermelon"
Yup, the standard refrain of anti-environmentalists when their arguments are vanquished. Simply smear your opponents as being cassandras, watermelons, communists, anti-human, nti-progress, luddites and move on to the next smear. At the same time try and give the impression that your own views are 'sensible', 'balanced' reasonable', 'humanistic', 'responsible' etc. If one checks the names of many deregulatory lobbying astroturf groups, one finds all of these epithets crop up repeatedly. They often also include the word 'citizen', to try and give the impression that there are grassroots public movements in favor of corporate policies such as deregulation and policies that effectively benefit only the wealthiest in society. One example from many was 'Citizens for Sensible Control of Acid Rain', an organization, which, it turns out wasn't a citizen's movement at all but a corporate lobbying group set up with funds from the coal industries that was aimed at resisting regulations aimed at reducing sulphur emissions (a prime cause of acid rain) in the 1980s. Another was the 'National Wetlands Coalition', whose web site had an illustration of a duck flying over a large wetland. It turns out the NWC was set up by a public relations firm funded by a range of industries that aimed to eviscerate regulations protecting wetlands against development. These practices are known as 'aggressive mimicry' and are just two of many examples of this phenomenon. PentaxZ uses another, which is to smear environmental activists and scientists with analogies like the use of 'watermelon'. Its kindergarten level stuff, but to people who behave like primary school dropouts its hardly exceptional.
Moreover, I've experienced this puerile behavior in debates with the anti's on the political right for years. Its straight out of their handbook. Par for the course.
They certainly increase the visitor count here quite a bit.
You know how the denialist response to Lewandowsky et al proved the very finding of the paper with which the denialati were disagreeing?
Well, a denialatus called Brad Keyes is performing the same trick with Kahan et al 2012. It's astonishing to witness:
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/news.php?p=7&t=303&&n=167#2203
But Bernard, Brad Keyes denies being a denialist! He's merely basing his lack of concern on cold hard scientific evidence the fact the claim that no-one has ever provided him with any nett risk measure that he is willing to accept and that justifies concern. Because, you know, despite all the potentially really bad consequences, maybe there will be more good than bad to come out of it. Never mind that no-one can seem to come up with enough good stuff to justify the really bad stuff because he doesn't think the identified risk of really bad stuff is realistic anyway, and even if it is perhaps we haven't fully identified those good outcomes yet and things will turn out just peachy!
Brad Keyes is truly an exemplar of his tribe.
Openthreaders: I notice that the Nova site again shows the mysterious "This Account Has Been Suspended". I wanted to find an affiliation for one Jinan Cao, who is the author of a piece of dubious material posted there recently. A search at Swinburne Uni's IRIS, listed elsewhere as his employer, shows no person of that name. Anyone with any ideas?
Many of you will note that PentaxZ has asked me a completely idiotic and obvious question above. His question is if there is higher genetic and species richness in tropical biomes compared with temperate/polar biomes. The implication of hs question is clear: warmer = more diversity; therefore a warming planet creates conditions for diversity to thrive. End of story.
Or is it?
Like most self-educated anti-environmentalists and climate change deniers, PentaxZ lacks even a basic understanding of the importance of scale in any scientific field. His argument assumes that if conditions in the Northwest Territories or Siberia were similar to those in the Congo or the Amazon Basin, then we'd witness riotous diversity at a much larger geographical scale. Putting two and two together to make ten, his argument - one common amongst the ecologically illiterate - is that warming is a good thing. It benefits nature. El Gordo make a similar suggestion a couple of days ago.
Certainly, stable, warm climates provide the conditions for rapid adaptive radiation and speciation, and this accounts for the significantly higher diversity in lower latitudes. Its not quite that simple, though, as changing conditions within reasonable time frames also drive speciation through local adaption to local conditions. Gaston and colleagues have spent some years examining this conundrum.
But let's be clear here - species in various biomes around the planet have evolved over many millions of years to local conditions, based on both abiotic (i.e. climate related) and biotic (i.e. interactions with other species in the same community or food webs) conditions. Therefore, a species distribution is closely tailored to local conditions in which it forages and reproduces. This adaptation took a very long time within an evolutionary context.
Therein lies the rub. PentaxZ and his like minded thinkers cannot reconcile the concept of immensely long time scales in their simple visions of ecology, evolution and phylogeny. Their belief is that if things warm up rapidly, nature will respond positively for the most part, thereby creating a green utopia that benefits all. Certainly, were the climate to change over many million of years, then I could see where tropical climates in higher latitudes would support healthy functioning ecosystems. But I reiterate this: many millions of years. I emphasize the time scale here: millions of years would be required at the very lest to enable widespread adaptation, radiation and speciation to proceed across a global mosaic. For argument's sake, if temperate and polar regions were to experience temperatures more indicative of tropical regions, even within several thousand years, then this would generate a mass extinction spasm and the planet's biota would undergo a meltdown. The results would be a calamity. Evolution takes time, and certainly much more time than is occurring under present scenarios of human-induced global change.
A friend's family member living in Minneapolis once remarked to me during a dinner that they wished the weather in the city in winter was more like that in Florida. I responded that, under the time scales envisaged (i.e. the person meant very rapidly), were this to happen then the ecological consequences for the flora and fauna found in the state of Minnesota would be utterly disastrous. As I said above, species and communities have evolved in response to local conditions over many millions of years. This explains why most species have well-defined geographical distributions. Wilson's Phalaropes breed in the Arctic tundra. Cerulean Warblers breed in eastern deciduous forests of the U.S. and Canada. Yellow-throated Euphonias breed in moist tropical forests in central America. Each of these three species is restricted to certain ranges where conditions for survival and reproduction are optimal. I might just as well say that the distributions of the other millions of species of species that inhabit our planet are also adapted to ambient conditions in terrestrial, aquatic and below-ground environments. Temperate species have broader distributions because of conditions are far more changeable and unpredictable (i.e. seasonal) than in the tropics. But its taken millions of years for the planet's diversity to adapt to these conditions. Rapid warming will drive a large number of species to extinction. This is beyond dispute, as it will alter food web structure, and drive differing eco-physiological responses in local biota that will be beyond the capacity of many genotypes to respond.
So PentaxZ's question is a non-starter. O know exactly what he was inferring. The question revealed more about his simple mind-set than anything else. But this is hardly a revelation when debating with people who mangle science in support of alternate agendas. Be prepared for another witless response from him and/or the Scandinavian troll collective. When sound science demolishes their arguments, they are left with nothing but insults and innuendo.
Lotharsson.
Given the way that you smacked him around, I almost felt sorry for Brad Keyes.
Almost.
Well, OK, not even almost... oh alright, not even a little bit.
But you did smack him around!
Well, one major reason for the biodiversity of the tropics is that they have been a very stable climate for a million years.
I.e. stable climates increase biodiversity.
Now what happens when you have climate change..?
Jeff Harvey,
"....living in Minneapolis....wished weather...was more like that in Florida"
The climate at any latitude is determined by land-shape ( eg. hills or no hills), the prevailing wind direction and the angle the sun's rays make as they strike the ground.
The dictionary definition of "climate" is the temperature regime at any given latitude. Temperatures are determined by the angle the sun's rays make as they strike the ground. This angle is a function of latitude, the distance from the equator.
For Minneapolis to get Florida temperatures you have to shift Minneapolis down to Florida.
If there were no humans in both Minneapolis and Florida the temperatures would be exactly the same in these locations ,year in and year out, and over many centuries.
Nothing that Man has done has changed wind direction or sun angle.
Try making sense, mack (and all you other denialbots).
Maybe there'd be some point other than racking up the hit count to your posting here.
So humans have made a difference.
Didn't you get the memo that said humans couldn't possibly influence climate?
Mack,
Sorry, but what you have written is pure gibberish. You can accuse me of chest pounding arrogance andc superiority if you like, but there you go.
The remark was made on the basis fo the fact that the person in question didn't like the harsh Minneostl winters (although they sure aren't as harsh as they used to be only 50 years ago, thanks in large meausre to AGW). There's no doubt that at various intervals in the planet's history, conditions in what is now the midwestern US were very different from what they are now. They've certainly been muich warmer, but also (as during recernt ice ages) a heck of a lot colder. But they main point is that whatever changes occurred took geological time frames. Transitions took many thousands of years fro even small changes, and million and millions of years for major changes. Against this background, the biota had a chance to adapt. There are all kinds of limits on the rates at which species are able to adapt to changing environments. This depends on the rate of adaptive mutations, the ability of populations to shift their genotypes according to these mutations, and generations times. Moreover, the rate of shifts in abiotic conditionsis a critical factor. If temeprature, precipitation and other processes change too rapidly, then many species will not posses the genetic varation, or the rate of new adaptive mutuations will be too slow to spread through their populatiosn. In other words, they will be overtaken by the rate of abiotic change and dwindle to extinction. Dinosaurs clearly could not adapt to the global effects of an asteroid impact off the Yucatan Peninusal at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundry 65 million years ago. Yet we know that their extinction occurred over about 20,000 years - a blink of an evolutionary eye in real terms. Humans are altering landscapes and the physical and chemical environment in a fraction of that time. Against his rapid assault, many are arguing that nature is resilient (to a large extent it is) and that whatever we do to the palnet surface or atmosphere that nature will adapt and humans along with it.
It is not that simple. Again, the changes being inflicted by humans on the planet are more dramatic than anything the planet and its diversity has experienced in many millions oif years. And the human-mediated effects are not limited to one or two stresses but a whole potpourri of them. In combination, they are pushing systems towards points where they will be unable to sustain themsleves (and us).
PentaxZ was trying to suggest that warming will be beneficial for plants and animals because tropical regionsa have signifciantly higher levels of diversity than polar regions. But that is not the point. Species in polar and boreal regions are biologically adapted to those habitats. Through millions of years of evolution, they possess traits that enable them to thrive optimally under conditions that naturally occur in colder climates. If we transposed climates in lower latitudes to polar or even temperate regions in the time frame that PentaxZ envisions, it would be a calamity fo the flora and fauna of these biomes. It would exacerbate the mass extinction that is underway already as a result of massive habitat destruction in tropical forests.It would be just another nail in the coffin for species and ecosystems. If the predicted changes were to occur over 10,000 years at the very least, then I might suggest that nature could - just could - get through such a climate-imposed bottleneck. But one or two centuries? Forget it.
By the same argument, you could maintain that volcanoes don't change the climate, that glacier growth doesn't change the climate, that the sun can't change the climate.
All you do is claim, without proof, one thing that these do not affect (and feel free to change that factor based on whichever factor you wish to discount) and then claim ERGO!
Talking of ergo Wow I think these trolls around here have been afflicted by ergotism (ergot poisoning), certainly the display of mania and psychosis, symptoms of said condition, are clearly on display from that quarter.
Maybe they've decided that, since they're already into it up to their necks, there's little to lose by jumping up and down and splashing about. They have the hope that someone walking by will get hit by some of the splashdown.
Jeff Harvey wrote:
Another excellent post, you have considerable patience to spend so much time putting together cogent argument after cogent argument.
I think it fitting to remind these trolls of the list of topics that they need to study a list that I posted up-thread (page 4 I think). The list is not exhaustive just a start with the one of particular interest being at the bottom of the list.
On that last one I recommend the works of E.O. Wilson, W. D. Hamilton and Richard Dawkins.
Spend some time reading the latter's 'The Ancestor's Tale which should keep you quiet for a week or two, and some!
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_WatchmakerThe Blind Watchmaker (incidentally that cover displayed is that of the much thumbed edition that I have) which will provide you with many other thinking tools to deploy in further reading.
I also particularly recommend 'Climbing Mount Improbable' and 'Unweaving the Rainbow' which will help clear up other questions that may occur whilst reading elsewhere. Now I wonder if you understand the concept of phenotype - Dawkins helps out there too if only you would look.
Of course these books are just starting places with scientific sources found in the myriad of notes and bibliography of each. That is how to research and learn which you would know about if you had had any formal education above high school level but even there...'
Argh!
The Blind Watchmaker
The PBS brouhaha rumbles on:
PBS Ombudsman: NewsHour Climate Story ‘Stumbled Badly’, Use Of Non-Scientist Watts For Balance Was ‘Stunning’.
When will the troll collective realise that citing WeUseWishfulThinking is suicide for any of their vacuous arguments?
Lionel, the problem is that learning and thinking for the idiots can only lead to bad things:
1) Finding out you're wrong
2) Finding out things you don't want to know
3) Finding out there is no god making the weather
all of which are bad.
Much better to think you're right and never look to check.
I think he's doing a creditable Black Knight impression. Someone should tell him that no-one is currently holding auditions for a remake of the movie.
Lionel,
I really appreciate the support, especially considering the abuse I have taken from various quarters of the denial mob on Deltoid.
Be prepared for Jonas to respond to my last few posts with the accusation that "Jeff made it all up". Its in keeping with Jonas' law that I outlined earlier.
Another signs of a move to a more challenging environment for many of the species we depend upon and thus in turn challenging for humans too: Record Ocean Temperatures Recorded Off New England Coast.
Oh! And BTW the remains of Nadine have been dumping on the UK for the last 48 hours with one dead so far in London and people trapped in a car in Dorset.
It seems that Nadine is still lout in the Atlantic and not responsible for the intense low over the UK right now. Nadine had been forecast to possibly (this is extreme WEATHER we are talking about after all) make landfall over this last weekend.
But those warm water temps, and a range of depths, are a cause for concern and this is fairly certain to be global warming and climate change in action. 'twill certainly feed any more storms that travel up that Eastern seaboard.
Jeff, you know it already but I always appreciate your inputs.
I wouldn't let the trolls here get you down too much.
Hah! Near Freudian slip there, perhaps I should have mistyped 'Nadine is still a lout in the Atlantic..' and then we could have invited here in here to join the others in 'the troll collective'.
Excuse me crackpots, but what's the point trying to answer questions when replying is impossible and the questions are cencored? Alarmistic dogmatic logic at its peak. You really are losers big time.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9559656/Germanys-wind-power-chaos-sh…
Did you hear something?
Excuse me crackpots, but what’s the point trying to answer questions
You don't have any answers worth the photons expended in showing the screen typeface used, as you're merely a flume for channeling shite and planting denier links with no reasoning capacity of your own.
replying is impossible
It's been noticed on many, many occasions.
and the questions are cencored (sic)
Really? I very much doubt it and am more likely to think it's due to your own often displayed incompetence. I also doubt that we're missing anything of any importance, if your Boolker link is an example. What is it about old cranks that you idiots find so attractive?
You'll notice that the statistics table on this page shows figures for capacity, generation and consumption that Booker has such trouble with in distinguishing fact from an alarmist old man's fossil-fuel powered fantaies. Those will be the same fossil fuels that will run out, of course.
I'll second...er, third... that, especially since "nah, the ecosystem's nothing to worry about" is one of the most persistent happy little fantasies expressed by denialists.
Agreed - a bizarre combination of proud ignorance, hubris, insouciance and outright contempt is the defining Denier attitude towards the environment.
In fact, whenever they mention 'the environment' you can hear their lips curl! One recalls Monckton's appalling 'ickle birdies' rant and glib 'shit happens' with regard to polar bear deaths, but this attitude binds the denizens of WUWT, Bishop Hill, and Jo Nova's in particular.
Our local knuckle-draggers are no exception. They are truly the maladapted
I reckon there's another paper for Prof L in there somewhere
I'm an environmentalist Bill. I was a member of the NFAC. (Native Forest Action Council.) Set up to save our Sth Island beech tree forests from clear-fell logging.
Actually, Mack, you are more likely to be a NIMBY.
It's like the "environmentalist" who buys "green electricity" and then goes on to complain about the windturbine half a mile down the road.
No Marco I was genuinely concerned about a) the destruction and b) a loss of atmospheric CO2 removing trees. My favourite book at the time was Rush to Destruction by Graham Searle.
Intriguing. Funny crowd you're running with.
Bill: agreed. Mack claims to be an environmentalist and yet refers to links from vehemently anti-environmental web sites like Joanne Nova's. Many of the most prominent climate change deniers are also in denial over various other anthropogenic threats to the environment. Its a tangled web of deceit and denial that goes well beyond the field of climate science.
This is interesting of itself, but perhaps it will (if it hasn't already) reignite one of the LOG12 conspiracy fires.
Oh, no, remember their concern over the ickle birdies who get killed by the wagonload by those mincinc machines the greenies call "Wind Turbines"?
Or their concern over the pristine environment that would be "ruined" by the placement of those evil Wind Turbines?
They're VERY concerned about nature.
If it stops anything happening to reduce fossil fuel use, they're on it.
I also find it weird that they bandy about "I am a leftie" or "I am an environmentalist" as if this declaration is proof of their accuracy.
Given their stance on the people of the left or environmentalists who don't disagree with the IPCC, this is EXTREMELY weird.
Booker's article is complete shite but it appears to be "link of the week" for the cement heads. I have already rebutted it once today. It is based on a anti-renewables Spiegel Online article written by an obvious moron which claims that sensitive control equipment in a Hamburg aluminium plant was damaged by a milli-second voltage drop in the power supply due of course to renewables. It then goes on to claim that these "interruptions" have increased by 30% over the last 3 years. Hello stupid. If these random voltage fluctuations have always been a feature of the grid (as you would expect), why is the equipment exposed to them and why is it only affected by the 30% - and not the 70% that existed previously.
The article then claims that fast computers are sensitive to fluctuations in the grid - well smack me down - German data centres apparently run without a UPS.
This is the sort of complete bollocks that dumbbells like Booker and PentaxZ lap up.
In fact this link (in German) from the German Network Agency shows a more reliable grid in 2011 than 2006.
http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/cln_1931/DE/Sachgebiete/ElektrizitaetGa…
Speaking of denialists claiming to be environmentalists, over at Shaping Tomorrow's World Brad Keyes claims that (amongst others) Monckton is an environmentalist (in a bizarre argument that this disproves the concept that right wing and individualist/anti-regulation ideologies generate "non-alarmism" about climate).
Wonders will never cease.
He also claims Patrick Moore - presumably the former Greenpeace activist, not the astronomer - as an environmentalist, a claim I think many environmentalists will disagree with.
Monckton being 'an environmentalist' ranks right up there with Kissinger's peace-prize...
Well, drop the environ bit and you're closer to the truth of the swivel-eyed maniac.
I've never made any links to Joanna Nova nor made any comments on her site. Jeff Harvey. so try again with some other paranoid red herring. A "tangled web of deceit and denial " Better get back on the Largactil Jeff baby.
I found some animations that were put together by NASA that demonstrate the Cyclone and severe storms in the Arctic this year, these extremely windy conditions caused the sea ice there to be smashed to bits, sure did trick the alarmists lol
They think it melted :)
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003900/a003992/frames/1920x1080_1…
aaand..............here is the animation
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003900/a003992/SeaIceWwinds_fast_…
Since similar storms have happened eight times in the record of the satellite instrumentation but has never caused such a loss, please explain the difference.
And, given that it was, without the influence of the storm, already a minimum, the storm didn't CAUSE the minimum.
And could any denialist PROVE this storm CAUSED this minimum?
You know, prove that if it weren't for this storm, there would have been NO minimum.
Go on.
Dare ya.
So what happened to change your mind? Had a damascene experience did you?
No Zoot, the beech forests were saved from clearfelling and only selectively logged. The left-over sawdust was used to fill your cranial cavity.
So, Mack has time to sneer but cannot say that the storm CAUSED the sea ice decline in 2012.
Interesting...
Yeah; he saw- the Right!
But now he's so ronery.
Shorter Karen @ 11.04: They can tell me anything and I'll believe it, even if heat is the only thing known to melt ice.
OK Mack, I stand corrected. My guess is that you found about Nahle's nonsense from Jennifer Marohasy's blog. And she's as much an anti-environmentalist as Nova. No worse, no better. There's little doubt that you and other climate change deniers are dependent on web sites for much of your world views on the field. PentaxZ, Karen, Olaus et al. are all devoted to the pages of the deniers sites as well as hacks in the media like Delingpole and Booker who spew out nonsense at quite remarkable rates.
So please let us know here what blogs you get your climate science information from. Because you sure don't appear to read much of the primary peer-reviewed literature. The fact is that it doesn't matter whether you get it from Nova, Marohasy, Bishop's Hill, Milloy, Morano, WUWT or most other 'sceptic' blogs. They're pretty much all the same when it comes to issues dealing with the environment where government regulations limiting any kind of corporate activities are concerned. They all bat right and wail against the evils of government.
Take Morano. They guy used to work fro Rush Limbaugh. Twelve years ago he wrote an article, 'Amazon.con' claiming that tropical in Brazil and neighboring countries were not under threat from clear-cut logging. The piece was a mish-mash of bad science and no science. Morano ignored the loss of primary forests and of other processes - such as fire and high-grade logging practices - that rendered a far greater percentage of the Amazon forests as vastly ecologically different (read: simplified) from primary forests and had dramatically altered micro-climate regimes in much of the remaining forest, making much of it susceptible to more fires.
One of Morano's 'experts' for his pathetic piece was Patrick Moore, who has been mentioned by another climate change denier as a 'committed environmentalist'. Moore hasn't any expertise in tropical ecology, but that didn't matter for Morano who obviously found it hard to scrape up the names of forest biologists and ecologists to bolster his argument. So anyone would do, and Moore seemed a good bet, having been an adviser to the British Columbia forestry alliance (a pro-logging astrotruf group funded by the logging industry to support the clear cutting of ancient forests in the province) but once having been a senior member of Greenpeace. Moore's gibberish was abominable - in one interview he claimed that 'no family of birds, beetles or mammals has become extinct because of human activities' focusing on logging. But of course extinction is not measured at such a broad phylogenetic scale as family, but at the level of species (at the highest), sub-species or genetically distinct populations. For argument's sake, his comment is akin to saying that every wild member of the family Felidae (cats) is extinct except for the domestic tabby (Felis domesticus), therefore technically the family is still extant. Thus tigers, lions, cougars, snow leopards, leopards, margays, caracals, bobcats, lynx etc. (approx. 35 species worldwide) could be extinct but since domestic cats survive, then the family technically is not extinct. Moore was either IMHO plainly stupid, or else he was deliberately making a ridiculous assertion on the basis that many in the general public cannot tell an order from a family from a tribe from a species etc. The word 'breed' is constantly misused by TV pundits to describe a full species. Moore appeared to play to this kind of audience.
OK Jeff , you hit me with this giant diatribe which runs off me like water from a ducks back. a) due to length. b) political machinations you perceive in the blogosphere about which I don't give a monkeys. c) Yet more ramblings on about your science speciality of species damage, which you attribute to AGW. In this respect my eyes just glaze over because ,as I've said to you before, localised environmental damage is a far cry from AGW.
Straight away you began with "Nahle's nonsense" You cannot say it's nonsense until you've read it.
Heh. When it comes to Nahle, one does not need to "read" him (any further than may have occurred in the past) to understand that whatever he writes will be nonsense.
Anyone who thinks otherwise would have trouble understanding at which end of his body his arse is located.
"arses" again? ....Karen is right...you are a dirty boy Bernerd.
"whatever he writes WILL be nonsense" Yeah just block it out with all the preconception your excuse for a brain can muster.
Zip it up and put it away, Mack, you're not impressing anyone.
Of course it does because your claim to environmental fame is weak by being based upon a narrow area of investigation and ignoring bigger pictures. That is why the Maranos, Milloys, Watts', Novas, Bolts etc. appeal to the trolls that appear on here.
And I doubt very much that Jeff assigns all species loss to AGW just quite a bit of it. Land use changes, as indicated in Jeff's last post, which from the tone of your reply, you did not bother to consider in its entirety. Consider meaning a bit more than simply reading same.
And when we get into considerations of speciation one can get into very deep waters indeed.
Yep, Mack's a NIMBY.
The beech forests (Mack's "environment") were saved. No need to worry about the rest of the planet (the environment).
How are you bearing up under that NZ carbon price Mack? Is it wrecking the economy the way the Australian GBNT was going to??
*Yet more ramblings on about your science speciality of species damage, which you attribute to AGW*
I) Incorrect. You imply that I meant AGW is the main factor for declining biodiversity. I never said that. I say its one factor, and in combination with others will be broadly deleterious on biodiversity.
2) You should pay attention to what you refer as 'political machinations'. If you don't you are naive. If many of the most prominent deniers are associated with libertartian think tanks in turn funded by corporations with an axe to grind, then this IS relevant. If I am a lawyer and you pay me, I am working for you. It also suggests that the science is only a camouflage for deniers that obscures alternate agendas.
3) You clearly place a lot of stock in 'science' from a guy (Nahle) that doesn't publish in the peer-reviewed literature. Thios should raise warning flags right away, given Nahle has not been trained in climate science. Why don't many of the deniers throw their arguments out into the broader scientific arena where it would be scrutinzised by real experts in the field? The answer should be obvious. Instead, deniers are championed by right wing web logs (Maharosy, for example, is affiliated with the far right Institute of Public Affairs). If one doesn't think these affiliations influence views on science, then they must be living in an intellectual voiud.
4) Mack answered my question for me. He does appear to get much of his information from climate change denial blogs like Maharosy's (after all she's the one plugging Nahle's stuff). Too bad Mack that you've never heard of the term, 'primary literature'. So much for being an environmentalist.
*Yet more ramblings on about your science speciality of species damage, which you attribute to AGW*
Alternatively, is Mack here saying that AGW hasn't caused any damage?
Of course, you can't say anything but it's nonsense after you've read even a little bit of it. That is, if you are making a rational assessment of it.
“Straight away you began with “Nahle’s nonsense” You cannot say it’s nonsense until you’ve read it.”
We have.
It's nonsense.
If Karen likes animations about the Arctic, she will surely love this excellent video about the current state of affairs.
There is a lot to like about the video as a whole, but the animation between 0:53 and 1:53 is very illuminating.
One storm does not an ice-free Arctic make.
Thanks Frank. The video is terrifying in its implications for not only the Arctic but for the planet. Humanity seems hell-bent on self destruction.
We fought them on the beechs Zoot, and won !
Nahle ! For some reason I actually read a whole 2 pages of that stuff. Had to give up before too many neurons were sacrificed to such an unworthy cause.
FrankD. You're right. That animation is far and away the best I've seen. The pacing's exactly right and the visuals are distinct enough so that you're always sure what's going on.
Concur, the animation was excellent.
Obviously, Karen (etc...) have a point: this year's new record is a completely anomalous data point that contradicts the trend and should therefore be explained with reference to a one-off weather event.
Or not.
Let the Astute Reader be the judge....
Hey, great link MikeH!
So, when we compare facts with the crap Booker writes recycles form the Spiegel, we get:
2011 compared with 2006
- the number of operators increased by 10% (lots of new evil wind farms, probably)
- the number of users increased by <1%
- the number of low-voltage outages dropped by 11%
- the average low-voltage outage length dropped by 8%
- the number of mid-voltage outages increased by <1%
- the average mid-voltage outage length dropped by 32%
I'd say MikeH's being over-kind using the word "moron" to describe those who could spin this positive improvement in the state of the German electricity grid as being evidence of wind power forcing industry to relocate abroad.
In fact, Booker is conducting himself precisely as one of the cranks and nutjobs Swan was referring to last week.
One for the troll collective and also Tim Curtin:
Atmosphere: exploring climate science via an interactive gallery at the UK Science Museum. Also check out the 'Climate Science Info Zone' from the Intro page.
You all may learn something.
Thanks Lionel, They even have pretty pictures to go with the text.
From http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/news.php?p=9&t=436&&n=167
That seems like a reasonable thing to do when one has been demonstrated to be wrong about virtually everything ...
ianam.
I'd love to have seen the final comments that brough about Keyes' overdue demise.
Me too Bernard. In a way it's a shame they were all deleted - they stood as a monument to an interesting approach to "reasoning" and "evidence".
It's also interesting just how far off the comment numbering is on a couple of threads. Mr. Keyes certainly seemed rather motivated to argue about the LOG12 paper and certain related topics at great length...
I believing he's now assisting Messrs. Dunning and Kruger with their enquiries...
...without realising the fact ;-)
I’d love to have seen the final comments that brough about Keyes’ overdue demise.
Perhaps he became apoplectic when the "forthright" mk (whoever that is, heh heh) accidentally publicly called him a dishonest scumbag and the moderator didn't snip it. Odd, that, but a bit delicious.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/25/climate-inaction-idINDEE88O0H…
"Let's wait and see", say the "septics".
This would be the same NASA that you have previously accused of fraudulently manipulating data when you didn't like their results? That NASA?
Anybody wondering what happened to Christopher Monckton? Since his humiliating exit from the Potholer54 debate when the facts got a little hot for him and the unfortunate Nazi debacle that derailed his Australian visit, he's been applying his unique brand of mathematics to the question of whether President Obama's (whom he politely refers to as "Fu Manchu", a testament to his cracking wit) birth certificate is fake.
From Pentaxz's favourite scientific source, World Net Daily:
If anybody is wondering how he arrived at that figure, he simply invented probabilities for non-existent "errors" and multiplied them together. This resulted in, drum-roll please, a big number!
As expected with Monckton, the rest of the article contains the usual outright falsehoods we've come to expect, not least an artfully-worded description of the court case against An Inconvenient Truth in which he neglects to mention he both funded and lost the case.
I wonder what the odds are that Monckton could make such an egregious mistake? Perhaps he could calculate them for me?
;-)
I must have missed that.
Monckton teamed up with Sherrif Arpaio - he of the stripey-suited 'Oh Brother Where Art Thou' chain-gang revival - to come up with his previous earth-shaking revelation on the matter and discovered - wait for it... a scanning artifact!
Easlily replicated at home by anybody with Adobe Illustrator, a scanner, and a desire to search for disconfirming evidence.
God knows what the 'new' revelations supposedly reveal, but I'd say there's just one chance in 62.5 Quintillion that His Locquacious Lordhip has not become entirely estranged from both plot and planet...
Remind me again - this guy is one of your chief spokespeople, Deniers; so what does this make you?
John @ 3:50pm
Thanks for the Monckton reference. I just had an highly entertaining 1/2 hour reading some of the comments on the article. Those birthers are seriously brain damaged but god they are funny in a car crash sort of way. There are a few brave souls in there taking the piss - but the birthers barely even notice.
Bill, the revelation that Monckton is not, perhaps, in possession of all his marbles comes at an awkward time for the deniers.
Lewandowsky: Deniers are more likely to be conspiracy theorists!
Deniers: Lies!
Monckton: Obama is a Kenyan Muslim!
Deniers: *crickets*
Cheers Mike. They know anybody who gone and done maths and stuff is too smart to be wrong!
Anybody else notice that Monckton's article is illustrated with his pretend parliamentary portcullis? It's been a while since he's claimed to be a member of parliament - the House Of Lords took care of that - but that hasn't stopped him trying to infer it.
Lewandowsky: Deniers are more likely to be conspiracy theorists!
Lewandowsky did not say that. Sheesh, don't make the claim that the denier morons wrongly criticize him for making. Lewandowsky say that conspiracy theorists are more likely to deny science (and not specifically climate science), not the other way around.
All nine errors exaggerated the supposed climate threat. The probability that this had happened accidentally was accordingly 1 in 29 [sic], or 1 in 512, or less than 0.002.
Monckton is an innumerate imbecile (as is of course PentaxZ and anyone else nodding along with Monckton). What he has calculated is the probability of 9 errors being accidental if the chances each error being intentional is 50/50. It's an obvious fallacy of petitio/2 principii ... half assuming your conclusion ... suitable for a halfwit, if he's even that.
I don't know the context for this quote - but it would be enlightening to see Monckton's revised estimates in the light of the spectacular decline in Arctic sea ice volume well in advance of predictions, along with the faster than predicted sea level rise.
Nah, maybe not.
That just increases the number of errors.
You didn't think he drew the exaggeration from those nine errors, did you? No, he "knows" it's exaggerated and counted nine errors.
Causal link is not necessary. If your faith is strong enough.
"Monckton is an innumerate imbecile "
Though inane here will trot out the "you're lying" all the time without any description of what or how it was lied, just like pentaxZ, KMS and the slug horde.
He's happy to use the same tricks to promote things he agrees with.
An article on the new Lewandowsky et al paper at The Conversation may be of interest.
LOL! Indeed!
In case that cretin Pentaxz returns, here are a couple more howlers from the Christopher Brooker article he was recommending to us earler in the week. Booker lied about the content of a General Studies A level paper, and also confused Celsius and Fahrenheit!
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/09/christopher-booker-flunks-gener…
There are few bigger clowns on the denier circuit than Christopher Booker.
Perhaps Christopher Booker should learn to read er... um... books.
I couldn't get killfile to work here so I wrote a new one. It's a lot cruder than killfile (e.g. you have to edit the script to killfile someone or change options) and it's just for this site. I might improve it and find it a home if there's any interest, but for now it's on pastebin if anyone wants to try it: http://pastebin.com/igxmrwFf . There are instructions at the top of the file. It requires firefox and greasemonkey.
Wow is too stupid to understand that I didn't use any trick; that I explained exactly how Monckton's math is wrong, and it doesn't matter what the nine errors were (they were supposedly nine errors in "An Inconvenient Truth", as stated by Monckton in his World Net Daily article referred to by John). Wow is a dishonest and sickly creep who groundlessly accuses me of some trick here just because I likened him to teabaggers for refusing to take responsibility for his actions.
He’s happy to use the same tricks to promote things he agrees with.
It's ironic that Wow says this just after I called John to task for using Lewandowsky to attack deniers in a way not supported by Lewandowsky's actual claims. Of course it is not the first time that I have called out confirmation bias by "our side", and have ruffled a few feathers for it.
Or to put it another way: Wow is lying. And like so many, Wow makes the charge of lying the crime rather than the lying itself.
inane is under the misapprehension that I was talking about Monckton's errors.
I was talking about his.
Then again, another M.O of the denialist is segue and misdirection, as well as the aforementioned unsubstantiated claims of lies.
The face of Denial.
High Arctic Warmest in 1800 Years: ‘The Medieval Warm Period Was Not As Uniformly Warm As We Once Thought’
Alan Jones will eventually die,but it certainly will not be of shame.
Ha............ that dumb Antarctic ice, someone should go down there and teach it about CO2 induced gwobull warming !
Really............I mean who the hell does that Antarctic ice think it is to buck the trend ?
That bloody ice is making the IPCC and the whole alarmist cult look so stooopid, what is this going to do to the already failed carbon markets ?
I see that Fat Al has scooped his greedy profits and bailed out with his loot.
According to NOAA data, all time Antarctic sea ice extent record was set on Sept 22nd, 2012
Bull shit.
Talk about mouth-breather bait.
USKMS is evidence that some people simply don't have enough neurones to hold more than a few facts at a time.
USKMS's brain is full, and he can no longer learn.
Whn Alan Jones dies, it won't be a shame.
Re Alan Jones: you can take the man out of the toilet, but you can't take the toilet out of the man.
Alan Jones has admitted buying a chaff bag jacket, donated by a Woolworths executive...
Social media disaster in train on the Woolworths facebook page complete with the "Woolworths, the chaff bag people ..." graphics.
"that dumb Antarctic ice"
In the southern winter.
Deniers always seem to forget that. Maybe they think the earth is flat.
Ever watched a snowman melt? It doesn't just get smaller and thinner, it spreads out.
An Initial Assessment of Antarctic Sea Ice Extent in the CMIP5 Models
Abstract
We examine the annual cycle and trends in Antarctic sea ice extent (SIE) for 18 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 models that were run with historical forcing for the 1850s to 2005. Many of the models have an annual SIE cycle that differs markedly from that observed over the last 30 years. The majority of models have too small a SIE at the minimum in February, while several of the models have less than two thirds of the observed SIE at the September maximum. In contrast to the satellite data, which exhibits a slight increase in SIE, the mean SIE of the models over 1979 - 2005 shows a decrease in each month, with the greatest multi-model mean percentage monthly decline of 13.6% dec-1 in February and the greatest absolute loss of ice of -0.40 × 106 km2 dec-1 in September. The models have very large differences in SIE over 1860 – 2005. Most of the control runs have statistically significant trends in SIE over their full time span and all the models have a negative trend in SIE since the mid-Nineteenth Century. The negative SIE trends in most of the model runs over 1979 - 2005 are a continuation of an earlier decline, suggesting that the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00068.1?af=R&
so...................what was that about the Antarctic ?
oh yeah, you all shift the goal posts now and say its warmer in the NH now and that causes more evaporation and more sea ice in Antarctica, lol
Karen, you really are a moron.
"say its warmer in the NH now and that causes more evaporation and more sea ice in Antarctica"
It's warmer in the southern hemisphere too. That's what "Global warming" means.
Duh.
"It’s warmer in the southern hemisphere too. That’s what “Global warming” means."
Which part is warmer woo ?
Here is the 12 month temperature anomaly chart for Australia and it shows that temperatures have been cooler.
Sth America & Africa have also been cooler, haha, it also looks like El Nino is evaporating.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest…
Also known as weather. The adults here are talking about climate so go find some kids who want to talk about weather instead.
As it continues to warm Karenmackspot has only become more incoherent.
Hmmm, Detritus lives.
(Ob Pratchett ref)
Doing a spot of trolling there, Lotharsson? ;-)
Karen gives us a map of Australia. Since she likes maps, she will certainly enjoy this map of the globe - you know, as in global warming. Shows temperature anomaly for November 2011 - April 2012 (most recent available extended period - I couldn't get the full year to August).
But look at the Zonal means! A band of cold between 60-70S where Antarctic sea ice forms, and warm everywhere else, with extreme warming in the Arctic. Completely consistent with high Antarctic sea ice, low Arctic sea ice and globally warming temperatures. And just as climatologists predicted.
Of course, this has been explained to Karen several times, but she has shown in previous arguments about Svalbard and Greenland that she is utterly immune from rationale explanation of her "questions"...
Obvious trolling is obvious, and yet leaves me wondering - no one could actually believe her rubbish and I cannot imagine any satistfaction from trolling more rationale people with such slight annoyances (they simply provoke good responses for the consumption other readers, if any), so what is Karen's motivation?
I mean, I get the Swedish collective, they are truly in denial. But none of them would do the "its cold today so AGW = scam" nonsense. They take their denial seriously. But not even Karen can take Karen seriously...honestly, she provides the best arguments for AGW of anyone on the site!
Another item for KrakenMackSpot to consume:
Warming Ocean Could Start Big Shift of Antarctic Ice in which we find this section:
Note also amongst the Related Stories headings in the centre column this one:
Lasers From Space Show Thinning Of Greenland And Antarctic Ice Sheets
You were saying KrakenMackSpot...?
Karenmackspot shows a map of Australia and concludes from 12 months of data that Australia is cooling.
Well here are 40 years worth of data which show, surprise, surprise, that Australia has been warming during that period:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/trendmaps.cgi
I knew Pratchett fans would get the reference :-)
?
"In a few months, we will reach the critical point when there has been no global warming for more than half of the RSS satellite temperature record – which extends back to 1978."
Meanwhile, Woolworths seem to be getting hammered on Facebook for failing to condemn their Community & Government Relations Manager's egregious actions - which rather suggests they don't find them at odds with their relationship to the current government - or for that matter, to the community.
So, the latest inflation figures are out, and the carbon 'tax' has squibbed with respect to the roonation predicted by the Denialati:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/tame-inflation-boosts-chance-of-rate-cut…
"Squibbed" might even be an exaggeration, because it implies at least some small measure of detectability, and the inflation figures show nothing that can be attributed to the carbon price.
As long as there's a signal at the big end of town to start cleaning up their acts, it would seem that the carbon price is Only Good.
Come on trolls, tell us what you're so afraid of...
In my corner of the world there's been remarkably little (= none) commentary on the Woolworths connection with Alan Jones's egregious vomitus. Either the wick's still burning toward journalists, or Woolies has been hard at work trying to keep it quiet in the media.
Woolworths will have to hunker down though, because the social media campaign has huge and growing momentum. Even with the media's apparent reluctance to comment negatively on a favoured corporate entity, sooner or later they're going to have to speak of the hate in certain Big Businesses that dare not speak its name.
Which explains why we have just had the three hottest decades on record. No wonder you couldn't hack it on Wall St.
I see that Wow is lying again. Oh well, nature of the beast.
Meanwhile, someone called "mk" is enjoying ripping "A.Scott" to shreds in other locales.
Bernard J @ 4:17am
The reaction is building.
"Australia’s second biggest advertiser Woolworths, with an estimated annual budget of $160 million, will boycott the show."
Jones should have known he was in trouble when Bolt bailed on him.
Here is an article on Jones that is not behind a paywall. Check out the poll at the bottom.
Or the petition
http://www.change.org/alanjones
What I've seen from Woolworths on Facebook merely claims they're suspending their advertising on Jones' show - and they say that they don't routinely advertise there, or some such PR formula.
That doesn't say they're withdrawing all advertising on his show - merely delaying for a bit.
And it doesn't cover advertising on the rest of 2GB which Jones apparently owns part of. Nor does it cover other brands owned by the Woolworths conglomerate.
Their PR-speak is precisely formulated to give the impression of facts not in evidence, and I wouldn't be surprised if The Australian has uncritically helped them in that endeavour - but people on social media seem to be getting wiser to these kinds of spin.
I'd say that some of them are afraid Abbott's deeply dishonest populist scare-mongering campaign won't sweep him into government any time soon.
From this article:
MikeH.
That petition's insanely popular. In the ten minutes I watched it, it garnered over a thousand signatures.
The word is spreading.
Four thousand signatures in half an hour.
Even GetUp! can't attract signing rates like that.
And I'm sure we can make it more popular yet! Seriously; you have something better to do this afternoon?
It's about time we stopped allowing such obnoxious, poisonous old men to groom the basest dregs in our community into spittle-flecked reactionary flash-mobs ready to instantly to the bidding of the most stunted and venal elements in our society, piling on like some mindless abomination half-way between limpets and lemmings in order to clog up the works on every half-way progressive or rational idea on their behalf.
Bugger them all!
Well she does tell so many porkies that everybody knows she is a liar and I guess that this will really throw the spotlight on her prevarications.
So the publicity will be a good thing and Jones has such a big following that he might just get a bit of a holiday :)
Exactly! Yep, lets just see if we can put a bit of work in and rub the noses of suchlike dreck in it.
KarenMackSunspotPottyMouthMysoginistLook!Squirrel!
You still haven't figured out that logic thing, have you?
Nor that facts thing...
8000 signatures in an hour - still keeping up that momentum.
I've emailed dozens of friends, so hopefully I've helped the ripple...
It was at 13,000 signatures when I looked at it a few hours ago, and now it's almost at 50,000. Astonishing.
It is not like this is the first time that Jones has been offensive towards women. But there does appear to be a qualitatively different reaction this time. Journos are queuing up to have a slice of him.
This from Peter FitzSimons does not pull any punches.
"Every time you think the 2GB broadcaster Alan Jones has gone as low as he can go, he sets a new benchmark ever deeper in his now obviously bottomless barrel."
"The unspeakably vicious nastiness of it, the sheer bully-boy misogyny of saying such a thing, simply takes the breath away, even for those of us who spent fair chunks of time around the unvarnished Jones."
"It is not women who are destroying the joint. It is the volcanic bile that continues to pour from Jones."
But perhaps not when you think about it...
If you think you despise the man and what he stands for try reading the 'supporter' comments. You're in good company!
"I see that Wow is lying again."
If you were telling the truth, inane, you would be able to provide the location of these lies.
Guys, must you?
I keep telling you bill.
He started it!
I'm quite happy to ignore the idiot.
He doesn't seem to feel complete unless he manages one post slagging me off.
Wow and ianam. If you are bored as a result of Tim's sick leave, can I suggest in the interim, doing some commenting at The Conversation. 450,000 readers each month, 3,600 registered academics and researchers from 240 institutions (who write the articles but tend not to respond to the cranks).
Regular articles on climate science and energy policy that are hit by a cabal of deniers from Oz and overseas.
Here are a couple of articles from John Cook here (717 comments) or this one from today (55 comments) .
Or this one from Andrew Glikson, Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University (133 comments).
I can only speak for myself, but it's not boredom that makes me respond to inane's inane slagging me off.
Wow, you say you're "quite happy to ignore the idiot". Perhaps you can convince us of that by "walking the walk", as it were?
[break-break]
What I found intriguing about Jones' "apology" was its lack of any discernible apologetic content. He stated that his "repetition" of the comment was wrong and merited an apology...and...*crickets*....
Then he said that his dad had said that if you were going to eat crow you should do it while its hot...and...*crickets*.
Did he actually say "I'm sorry for making those remarks" or "I apologise" or any direct, active-voice statement that actually conveyed an apology? 'Cos I only heard passive-voice weasel-out that an apology was owed.
Acknowledging a debt isn't the same as paying it. Or maybe it is in Jones bubble of self-important entitlement...
"Perhaps you can convince us of that by “walking the walk”, as it were?"
No.
Why should I?
I don't START this fight, but I won't sit by and take it. Why should I?
If this was the method by which people acted, the deniers would win since there'd be no response to their idiocy as we'd all "walk the walk" as it were and ignore these posters as responding to them has no effect on them.
Wow, you first claim you are "quite happy to ignore the idiot", and then tell us now that you actually do not want to. You contradict yourself.
I am happy to ignore the idiot.
Just like you, I suspect, are quite happy to ignore Monckton et al.
When Monckton or the denier horde don't make stupid or slanderous statements, they are ignored.
Right?
It's only when they say something like "Hey, barnturd, blah blah blah you are an idiot" they are rebutted forcefully.
If they didn't come along and do it, you would happily leave them to their own devices.
You wouldn't chase them down on other blogs to slag them off and you don't START the slagging off do you?
Because you're happy to ignore them until they start it.
Just like I am with inane.
Try thinking it through.
I don’t START this fight
Repeating this lie ad nauseam won't make it true ... and no one else cares. As I said way back then, two people were being asses but only one was denying it.
MikeH: "... bored ..." You presume a lot. See my 5:11 am comment on the previous page.
If you were telling the truth, inane, you would be able to provide the location of these lies.
But the converse doesn't hold, of course ... I can point it out and you can simply deny that the lie is a lie. And so it goes. Again, lying is part of your nature ... I simply point this out as an aside when you attack me. Deny it all you want ... no one else cares about either my aside or your denial.
Now at Shaping Tomorrow's World, A. Scott responds to critique of his various claims, not so much by actually refuting them, but by repeatedly violating comment policy and earning himself a ban.
Who'd have thought you could get so much fun out of JM's reference to 'the Dog Astrology Journal'? ;-)
People like A Scott really simply cannot distinguish knowledge from opinion. To such minds their insta-pundit ignorance is the equal of your hard-won science any day. It's only democratic! Consequently, it's 'elitism' to point out stupidity and error.
Combine this faux-populism with the self-awareness, humility and decorum of an Alan Jones and you have - The Denier!
I'm kinda curious about what A.Scott said to get a red card.
As the promoter of the 'Alternative Survey' I was hoping that he'd have a longer lifespan than eventuated.
That's A.Scott promoting the ‘Alternative Survey’, not me...
With the extreme level of stupidity displayed by our resident troll infection it's necessary to clarify.
""If you were telling the truth, inane, you would be able to provide the location of these lies."
But the converse doesn’t hold, of course"
A second opportunity to point out your evidence not taken. Just another dodge.
Just like Karen, Mack, Olap et al.
As the promoter of the ‘Alternative Survey’ I was hoping that he’d have a longer lifespan than eventuated.
Yes, A.Scott, jackass though he (gender presumed) is, was a much more challenging troll and far more interesting to refute than the morons like Karen and Mack here ... or that pathetic pipsqueak on "our side" above who uses similar rhetorical tactics. I ... er, I mean "mk" ... was having so much fun with him that it really is too bad to see him go.
Of course, part of the challenge at shapingtomorrowsworld is to debate the cretins while coloring within the lines of moderation. So far I've avoided the red pen, although that is certainly because the moderator has overlooked some things. I doubt that Wow, with all his bleating, could manage it.
"or that pathetic pipsqueak on “our side”"
See, inane, you're projecting again.
You're also thinking that because you're supporting the science that anyone disagreeing with you on other matters MUST BE WRONG on it.
Why?
'cos you're a stupid cunt.
bill, what, precisely would be the point in letting inane go batshit insane because he's got a stick rectally inserted about me?
He doesn't stop just because I do.
Why?
'cos he's a nutcase.
Nothing critical I say about Wow can match his own self-inflicted wounds.
You've said nothing, inane.
Do go on.
Time for a Wow and ianam thread perhaps?
Perhaps. though I doubt he'll do any better than Chelle or Rick over at startswithabang.
I doubt he’ll do any better than Chelle or Rick over at startswithabang.
Even that is a lie. He just can't help himself. But do go on.
Googling for startswithabang + chelle leads me to this ... at least Wow is consistent.
And Wow responded
So you think she’s right, sideways?
About what?
Of course sideways said nothing of the sort. Typical Wow logic.
Here's my response to all future posts by Wow about me: "You're being intellectually dishonest." Insert as necessary; I won't bother.
"Even that is a lie."
Followed by three posts proving my point...
And inane thinks chelle has a point when she says that there is an aether because Einstein says there was on in his 1920 talk?
Or is he merely picking up any old crap like Mack et al do to "support" their anti-AGW crusade, the only difference being that inane has a raging hard-on for slagging off someone who is his intellectual and moral superior.
More response to Wow in that thread:
Michael Kelsey
SLAC National Accelerator Center
August 28, 2:58 pm
@Wow: Chelle asked some quite sensible questions, as she(?) is trying to understand published statements which have assumptions and knowledge hidden behind them (exactly the point Ethan made in this article!). It is obvious that the two of you have past history in these blogs of which I’m not aware, but at least in this case, the questions and comments are reasonable and deserve a thoughtful response.
Wow's rejoinder: "Geez, Mick. You’re another sock, aren’t you." (He did later apologize for his stupidity). and
"Well, Michael, you can help yourself to the death of intelligence by a thousand half-assed queries from that insane bitch, you’re welcome to it."
Cunts, twats, and bitches ... Wow is quite the ladie's man.
Ah, well, enough fun with Wow.
You really are no different from the denier team, are you, inane.
I bet you're willing to embrace AGW denial, faithiesm and woomancering if it will allow you to slag me off, because it's all you have in your life, right?
Pissant.
I must admit that inane's scurrying around is rather reminiscent of the deniers after the CRU hack, poring over everything looking for a "proof" of a "final nail" and proclaming "victory" at each turn.
Alan Jones is a sad bunny:
In this case the effective response to Mr Jones was not regulation … but rather the use by thousands of people of the enhanced freedom afforded them by the social media
Mr Turnbull said new media has allowed ''thousands of Australians'' to speak ''for themselves, unedited, unmediated'', and the consequences have been ''without precedent''.
''The management of 2GB have announced his show will be run henceforth without any advertisements at all. For the first time Alan will have something in common with the ABC,'' Mr Turnbull said last night in his Alfred Deakin lecture entitled Liberty in the Digital Age.
Advertisement
''Mr Jones has sought to lead 'people's revolts' for many years. But this was indeed a popular revolt against vicious and destructive public discourse … It is difficult not to believe that he is getting a dose of his own medicine …
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/jones-has-not-been-bullied…
"Mike Carlton wrote a good one over the weekend, too:
Something to know about Alan Jones - the key thing, really - is that he's not all that bright. Far from it. Despite the artfully constructed public persona, there is no powerhouse intellect there, no vast store of wisdom. He is a crackpot muddle of prejudice and ignorance.
The claim on the 2GB website that Jones is an Oxford graduate is a typical piece of deceit. He did a short teaching diploma there, not PPE at Balliol. The intellectual snobbery is a hoot."
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/prissy-shrieks-of-fea…
Remember, you only have to be a little more intelligent than someone else to seem a lot more intelligent.
Rathr damning of Alan Jones' audience...
This theme seems to crop up again and again within the climate change debates whether it is puffery from those who have had basic level science education or qualifications in some field not remotely connected with any of the aspects to do with climate science or the ecological impacts from warming.