December 2012 Open Thread

Despite carbon tax, Australia is still not in the Stone Age.

More like this

Good news! I'm still able to post -- Australia has not returned to the Stone Age. A few links: Key points of the carbon price package Frank Jotzo: popular tax cuts and a carbon price that just might deliver Roger Jones John Quiggin Larvatus Prodeo Gareth Renowden. The carbon tax alarmists are now…
Phew, looks the carbon tax has not returned Australia to the Stone Age.
Here's how I would have liked to have introduced this post: The good news is that, other than for an increasingly marginalized minority, the focus of attention on climate policy has shifted from the reality of global warming to the economic tools needed to address the problem. Sadly, climate change…
British Columbia's right-of-center government has just introduced a carbon tax, making it the second jurisdiction in North America, after Quebec. It's hard to believe, coming from such an administration, but perhaps this is a sign of things to come. On the other hand ... The BC tax, which will mean…

"Despite carbon tax, Australia is still not in the Stone Age."

The tagline could be a bit more up beat I think, there's an air of disappointment about it.

From the NSW Government Gazette, haven't heard Mista Rabbit or Alan Jones talking about this new tax.

Energy and Utilities Administration (Energy Contributions) Order 2012 I, the Hon. ROBYN PARKER, M.P., Minister for the Environment, with the concurrence of the Hon. CHRIS HARTCHER, M.P., Minister for Resources and Energy, and the Hon. MIKE BAIRD, M.P., Treasurer, make the following Order under section 34J of the Energy and Utilities Administration Act 1987.

This Order takes effect on the date that it is published in the New South Wales Government Gazette. Dated at Sydney, this 18th day of September 2012. ROBYN PARKER, M.P., Minister for the Environment

Explanatory Note Section 34J of the Energy and Utilities Administration Act 1987, provides that the Minister may, by Order published in the New South Wales Government Gazette, require any one or more distribution network service providers to make an annual contribution for a specified financial year to the Climate Change Fund. The purpose of this Order is to require defined distribution network service providers to make an annual contribution to the Climate Change Fund for the financial year commencing 1 July 2012.

1. Name of Order This Order is the Energy and Utilities Administration (Energy Contributions) Order 2012.

2. Commencement This Order commences on the date that it is published in the New South Wales Government Gazette.

3. Interpretation The Explanatory Note to this Order does not form part of the Order. 4. Definitions distribution network service provider means a distribution network service provider listed in column 1 of Schedule 1.

5. Annual Contribution (1) A distribution network service provider is required to make an annual contribution to the Climate Change Fund for the financial year commencing 1 July 2012. (2) The amount of the annual contribution to be paid by a distribution network service provider is as set out in column 2 of Schedule 1.

6. Time for payment The annual contribution is to be paid by instalments on or before the first day of November 2012 (being equal to one-half of the annual contribution payable), February 2013 (being equal to one-fourth of the annual contribution payable) and May 2013 (being equal to one-fourth of the annual contribution payable).

Column 1 Column 2
Distribution Network Annual Contribution
Service Provider
Ausgrid $118,000,000
Endeavour Energy $74,250,000
Essential Energy $57,750,000

By spottedquoll (not verified) on 02 Dec 2012 #permalink

Concerningly, the latest in a string of recent reportings implies that most talk in scientific circles is now about the impending 4-6° Celsius rise... 2-3° Celsius seems to be a shattered dream:

New figures give grim prognosis on climate change

Alarming new figures released overnight have some scientists worried that the door is rapidly closing on the world's ability to do anything about climate change. The data, published in Nature Climate Change, says greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to grow, and at present, global temperatures are on a course to rise by up to six degrees by the end of the century.

Listen to Andy Pittman's commentary - his subtext is one of quiet desperation and unconcealed pessimism.

And it looks grim for Australian agriculture and ecology, although in this report I suspect there is still some valiant vestige of the traditional scientific conservatism:

Big changes to agriculture in warming climate

Scientists say a four to six degree rise in average temperatures would require a complete change in the world's farming practices. However, a warming climate could be beneficial for some countries, especially those in the northern hemisphere, like Russia and Canada.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 02 Dec 2012 #permalink

Remind me again: are we in the northern hemisphere? No? So, let's see, Australian agriculture, already struggling, goes down the gurgler some time before 2100. And yet we are plagued by a disproportionate number of shouty dipstick fantasists who insist that we do nothing about it, and who simultaneously proclaim themselves 'conservatives'. Go figure!

Those whose names we have can always be gainfully put to work in the future constructing sea-walls and dykes, and enclosing irrigation ditches.

More reporting on the ever-increasing inevitability of a 4-6° Celsius increase in mean global temperature in the ABC PM's "Forecast puts spotlight on climate talks".

One thing that the rabid, racist conservative portion of Australian society should consider though is that no amount of government policy in the future is going to prevent the ever-increasing flood of refugees to the country, probably not even a heavily armed coastguard/navy:

JON BARNETT: If you had a choice though, if you could be born into the world and choose to live somewhere in 40 to 50 year's time under climate change, you'd probably choose to live in Australia, somewhere away from the immediate coastline any day of the week, ahead of living in an island in the Pacific.

Personally, I think that Barnett is being scientifically conservative in his assessment, because he makes no mention of the convergence with other profoundly serious issues such as post-Peak Oil energy crunches; serious loss of marine and terrestrial ecosystem services; future geopolitical conflict over ever-dwindling space, food and water resources; and general economic decay. With all of the above, will Australia really still be a wonderful place to live? And if is still delightful relative to other countries, can anyone actually detail just how a sufficiently functional Australian society will survive for another half a century without losing its capacity to determine who enters the country, and in what numbers?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 03 Dec 2012 #permalink

"there’s an air of disappointment about it."

Irony, git.

Alarmists like yourself insisted the Australian economy would collapse if the carbon tax were instituted.

It was instituted despite their Rita Hayworth impression and there has been no collapse.

I guess you're trying to find some hope in it all since your alarmist predictions have come to naught.

Can't discern irony from disappointment; can't discern science from pseudoscience.

Nothing new under the sun...

...except for the ever-increasing average temperature of the planet.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 03 Dec 2012 #permalink

It seems we in the UK are amongst the last to get a release of the Chasing Ice movie (14th December 2012) referred to in lord_s's linkedarticle (and recently given an added push by the viral video of the ex-Faux viewer angry at being lied to by Brilleaux Reilly :).

There seems to be a bit of chatter with the recalcitrant troll. I admire those who have the stomach for entering that dungeon.

Has he detailed yet which papers he read (and did not read) in order to come up with the claim that the IPCC simply made up its estimations of attribution?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 03 Dec 2012 #permalink

Democracy Now! is at D'oh!a this week. Don't anticipate much in the way of good news...

It seems that the seriousness of it all is starting to filter through to some media at least:

Prepare economy for climate change 'war': expert

A world specialist in the effects of climate change and fishing says Australia's fish stocks are already moving further south because of global warming. Dr Daniel Pauly is from the University of British Colombia in Canada and will be an editor on the United Nation's next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He says governments should be putting their economies on a 'war footing'.

The phenological and biogeographic aspects are elephants in the room lumbering inexorably to sit on the fiddling Neros at the negotiating table, and the blathering distractors behind them attempting to maintain the politico-economic status quo.

As an aside, the issue of moving fish ranges recalls a paper I read a few months ago:

Thermal tolerance and the global redistribution of animals. Jennifer M. Sunday, Amanda E. Bates & Nicholas K. Dulvy. Nature Climate Change , (2012)

I wonder whether the Scandinavian Troll Collective has explained yet why the biosphere has ignored their denialism and is instead agreeing lockstep with the consensus climatology...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 03 Dec 2012 #permalink

A thought for Australians reading this, because I don't know of any more appropriate sites...

Today the Reserve bank of Australia lowered the interest rate by "25 bases points"(0.25%). Joe Hockey, the Oppositions treasury 'spokesman, is wailing and gnashing his teeth about how this signifies the collapse of the Australian economy.

But hang on a moment... didn't his mob go to the 2007 election promising that interest rates would ALWAYS be lower under a Coalition government? Always, always.

Does this mean that the economy would collapse (if such is actually happening) even more under a Coalition government?

Or could it be, just possibly, that the conservatives are slightly hyping the whole issue...?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 04 Dec 2012 #permalink

Damn those automatic 'smart' quotes - an apostrophe wandered away from where it was supposed to be.

Smart, indeed.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 04 Dec 2012 #permalink

...didn’t his mob go to the 2007 election promising that interest rates would ALWAYS be lower under a Coalition government?

Hockey hopes that viewers' memories are short and their understanding of economics is worse than his.

That sounds a lot like the Abbott and Co. communications strategy on the environment.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 04 Dec 2012 #permalink

Bernard, I'm sure the Australian public will be traumatised by the prospect of any such relief on the massive mortgages they've had to take out to purchase their hyper-inflated suburban McMansions - oh, hang on, that was Hockey and Co.s beloved 'property boom', wasn't it?

If this isn't the dumbest opposition ever, it's certainly

"I wonder whether the Scandinavian Troll Collective has explained yet why the biosphere has ignored their denialism and is instead agreeing lockstep with the consensus climatology"

No, and they never will because their idol believes he alone knows more about science than the vast majority of the scientific community. The guy is a textbook case of the Dunning-Kruger effect - I am sure that psychologists would be able to write a volumetric tome on his self-righteousness and illusions.

As for having the stomach to tolerate hos nonsense, after his latest bout of nauseau-inducing hyperbole, suggesting that environmental NGOs have deeper wallets than those in the climate-change lobby,I believe its time to throw away the keys to his cell.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Dec 2012 #permalink

OOPs - I meant climate change DENIAL lobby! Shows how much the trolls in the insanity thread are affecting me...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Dec 2012 #permalink

Jeff, if you find yourself in that alley again kicking at the denialist rats and 'roaches, ask Jonas if he has been able to recall yet exactly which papers in the primary climatological literature he's read and determined do not describe the statistics of attribution. After all, he claims that there is no work that has done this, that the IPCC simply made up the figures for AR4, so he must have read a lot of papers to make this claim. I have rather a long and growing list of attribution references of my own with which to test him, but first I want to see exactly what it is that he's decided is bunkum.

I'll guarantee that he won't be able to come up with anything like a representative list, if he can actually produce a list at all.

Also, because the big scaredy-cat won't accept any of my 'wagers', invite him to enter instead into a warranty with me that the Arctic sea ice won't melt. Not a wager or a bet, but a warantee - a contract of assurance that his claims are correct, as opposed to mine, and that they won't fail or otherwise evidence unreliability. This should be palatable to him if he trusts the material on which he makes his claims.

The conditions can coincidentally be identical to the original terms I set him, or he might like to avail himself of the terms I offered Kai over at A Few Things Ill Considered (also here). Essentially he will warrant on the basis of his claims that PIOMAS sea ice volume will not drop below 2 thousand cubic km by 2017, whilst conversely I warrant on the basis of the best science that it will.

He has until Christmas to agree to a legally-binding contract, although it won't be particularly necessary because a part of the warranty will require that both he and I lodge the warranted sum with a third party a priori. The terms are in gold, which is unlikely to lose value in the future no matter the varagies of the global economy. If 15 half-ounces of gold aren't sufficiently tempting, I'll happily take whole ounces. I elect Tim Lambert to hold the gold in trust if he agrees to do so, and if not I have several another third party alternatives in mind.

Tell him the clock's ticking.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 04 Dec 2012 #permalink

There is a cracker of a post put up at SkS over the last 24 hours and this reply from John Brookes is priceless (it's a Poe BTW for those short of grey matter - we know who they are even if those concerned are oblivious to this too):

.I'm sorry, but just because you've got a lot of people agreeing, that doesn't make them right. I remain absolutely convinced that there is no greenhouse effect because it contravenes the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Now I don't really know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is, but I've hung my hat on it, and there it will stay. You can't convince me I'm wrong, because I have no idea why I'm right. So don't even try, or I'll create this great big fog of words, so that no one can see what my position is at all. And more than that, I'll get indignant and abusive. So there!

Now where have we seen this before?

Is that thread even still open?

"Is that thread even still open?"

In the words of Vir: "Ohhh, you betcha".

And now for some good news.

In June, Australia's richest woman and richest climate science denier, coal baron Gina Reinhardt spent $192 million buying shares in the Channel 10 TV network to ensure that her fave journalist, climate science denier Andrew Bolt could have his own TV show called the Bolt Report.

Unfortunately (ha, ha, ha) for Reinhardt and Blot, Australians have deserted the station in droves. Clipping your toenails, watching paint dry, you name it - they are all more popular than watching Ch 10.

According to today's The Age, the investment has cost Gina around $140 million. Lachlan Murdoch is believed to have lost a bit more than that based on the current share price.

Reinhardt is now balking at paying her share of a $230 million dollar capital raising to keep the sinking ship afloat.

She is also losing truckloads on her Fairfax investment - particularly as I cancelled my sub to The Age after another article from Heartland "house scientist", Bob Carter.

Ain't capitalism grand.

Naomi Oreskes and Michael Oppenheimer are co-authors of a paper which argues that

Over the past two decades, skeptics of the reality and significance of anthropogenic climate change have frequently accused climate scientists of “alarmism”: of over-interpreting or overreacting to evidence of human impacts on the climate system. However, the available evidence suggests that scientists have in fact been conservative in their projections of the impacts of climate change. In particular, we discuss recent studies showing that at least some of the key attributes of global warming from increased atmospheric greenhouse gases have been under-predicted, particularly in IPCC assessments of the physical science, by Working Group I.


We suggest, therefore, that scientists are biased not toward alarmism but rather the reverse: toward cautious estimates, where we define caution as erring on the side of less rather than more alarming predictions. We call this tendency “erring on the side of least drama (ESLD).” We explore some cases of ESLD at work, including predictions of Arctic ozone depletion and the possible disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet,...

lord-s - ah, yes, he's the Sultan of Shite.

Mike H

On the so called alarmism, yes I have been trying to point this out to various of the denier brigade around here for some time and was about to throw this in front of Jonas on that 'Big Pit' (Jonas digging a furking great hole) thread but have given up on him - he is beyond help and showing definite signs of insanity.

Of course most of us were aware of the true situation with the neutering of the AR4 conclusions to satisfy vested interests being the main bone of contention with those scientists who expressed non-agreement with those conclusions.

Of course this situation was picked on and, as usual distorted, by the likes of Morano and Bolt to claim that many scientists did not agree with the AR4. Half truths and more obfuscation.

What's so amusing are the slug horde's apoplexy about the IPCC conclusions being driven by politics rather than science, but COMPLETELY in denial about how that the science said "more than 95%" whilst the politics (from denier country reps) demanded it be downgraded to "90-95%".

What’s so amusing are the slug horde’s apoplexy about the IPCC conclusions being driven by politics rather than science...

Which of course is partially correct for reasons pointed out in my last post above.

If one takes the start of the first para' in AR4 Chapter 9, Frequently Asked Question 9.1 pp 696 ) we see the following where I have emphasised weasel words or phrases, which are common throughout the AR4 and in particular the Summary for Policy makers (I'll bet some of our antagonists are not even aware that AR4 and its predecessors comes in multiple parts), which were used to satisfy the delayers of the vested interests in the FFL etc. but which caused many respectable scientists considerable angst. See Stephen Schneider's 'Science as a Contact Sport' for examples.

Changes in climate extremes are expected as the climate warms in response to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases resulting from human activities, such as the use of fossil fuels. However, determining whether a specific, single extreme event is due to a specific cause, such as increasing greenhouse gases, is difficult, if not impossible, for two reasons: 1) extreme events are usually caused by a combination of factors and 2) a wide range of extreme events is a normal occurrence even in an unchanging climate. Nevertheless, analysis of the warming observed over the past century suggests that the likelihood of some extreme events, such as heat waves, has increased due to greenhouse warming, and that the likelihood of others, such as frost or extremely cold nights, has decreased. For example, a recent study estimates that human infl uences have more than doubled the risk of a very hot European summer like that of 2003.

Jonas if you are reading this take note.

Mike and Lionel.

I attended an informal presentation this evening arranged by one of the local marine scientists, and delivered to a select goup by one of Australia's highest-profile climate change researchers. I won't name him explicitly because of what I am about to say.

The focus of the talk was on modelling (and btw Jonas really is speaking from his arse), with a view to future changes. The presenter was very balanced in his discussion of 'positives' and 'negatives', and very restrained on judging the outcomes for humans given the obvious import of the graphs and tables he showed. Toward the end of his talk he said off the record that even with immediate and extreme global response commencing now mean global temperatures will rise to over 2 degrees Celcius, and probably over 2.5 degrees Celcius. He estimated that another decade or two of inaction would see at least 3.5 - 4 degrees Celcius rise by the end of the century, and that inaction beyond that would lead to temperatures peaking at 5 - 6 degrees Celcius and perhaps more beyond the end of the 21st century.

None of these numbers are a surprise to anyone with any familiarity of the science. What was telling for me was the utter certainty of the presenter of the path that climate change is going to take, and is already taking. As I said above, he made very little comment about the sequelæ and consequences of this change, beyond a practical summation of how Australian primary industry will have to adapt. He did observe at one point in passing that beyond 3 degrees Celcius increase in global mean temperature there would not likely any longer exist a globally-connected economy.

During question time I attempted to press him on how Peak Oil and geopolitical/economic would feed into the direct climate change impacts, especially with respect to the maintenance of current economic/industrial activity and social cohesion. His response was essentially an elipsis, a raising of an eyebrow, and a closing of the evening.

A reporter cherry-picking sound bites would probably have run the usual story of uncertainty the next day. The take-home message though (and it wasn't even subtext), is that we are on the absolute brink of being completely screwed. What we don't bugger up directly by heating the planet we'll probably finish off in our fight over the benign patches that escape climate change.

Very interestingly, the presenter said that we have an urgent need for David Attenborough type communciators to disseminate the science far and wide to the lay public, to business, and to government. I couldn't help but feel that he actually meant it in the past tense, but that may well simply be my own dismal pessimism (pragmatism?) interpreting his intent.

The last decade of denialist whining about "alarmism" will in the not-too-distant future be shown to be the utterly abhorent and morally-bereft ideological and vested-interest sloganeering that it is. And frankly, it will probably come to be regarded as a culpably-executed crime against humanity and against life. Indeed, given the overwhelming weight of evidence for the consensus science and against the forebodings of economic ruin if action is taken to stem warming, the only alarmists are the deniers themselves. Many folk will not look back with any hint of mercy on the denialists' complicity in trashing the only biosphere we know of in the universe.

At least the tar will be easy to apply in the future - although feathers may be in short supply.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 06 Dec 2012 #permalink

I see some portentolgists use the asylum to get back at Jonas. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 06 Dec 2012 #permalink

Oh lap dog, why are you humping the oil rig?

Because you are so pathetic Wow.

Anything else?

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 06 Dec 2012 #permalink


So because I'm pathetic, YOU are humping oil rigs.

There, in a nut (case) shell, is the logical disconnect that deniers have inculcated for so long they can no longer find the route out of their own heads.

Wow, doing well over at the "Real Science thread"? ;-)

"Deniers" says Wow, who links to papers that contradict him. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 06 Dec 2012 #permalink

Bernard J

I think you have just used a term 'the sequelæ' that has sent a few of the trolls to their favourite dictionaries.

Whatever, it is some of these that we are all concerned about I am sure and my worry is about the repressive measures that the PTB will use to corral their perceived resource needs so as to preserve 'the line'. I think that we are already seeing the early stages of this with fiscal deficit reduction in many countries being the leading edge.

These cut-backs, in so called public spending' are, in my view designed to do two things.

Firstly to reduce essential consumption with food, clothing and shelter from the elements coming first, shortly followed by access to health care and education. The latter two can be used, and are being, to further feather the nests of the PTB and of course to restrict the flow of any dissenting dialogue.

The second, and once people have little to loose it will necessarily follow, is social unrest. Indeed there are already signs of this for all but the incurably stupid. This can be used as a lever for various forms of coercion from petty fines, in withdrawal of any 'privileges' to imprisonment and then execution. Of course natural, climate related, disasters disproportionally affect the poor. Thus it is the poor who will die in drovers, either on the spot, or shot down like dogs whilst trying to evacuate, To where, who knows.

Of course some of the poor, already slaves one way or another, in fact if not by name, will be preserved to keep things ticking over.

Those amongst the hierarchy who loose their coastal property and yachts will have hedged against the worst of that.

The current 'propaganda' industry (Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Delingpole, Rose, Bolt, Marohasy, Codling etc) may survive for awhile to keep the proll's in check but once that has been achieved they will be 'retired' if not already dead, joining many others who are currently clutching the coat tails of the chosen few. Every cloud has a silver lining they say.

I do hope I am wrong about all this but how else to explain the policies of our current leadership.

"who links to papers that contradict him"

Ah, another idiot who doesn't understand.

Then again, they probably share the same brain cell, if not bedroom.

I see some portentolgists use the asylum to get back at Jonas

Why would anyone want to get back at Jonas when he is doing such a fine job of destroying himself?

Oh! And BTW here is some accurate information WRT sea levels:

Sea Level Rise: Faster than Projected

Gosh. Snow? In winter?

You really were born yesterday, weren't you Olap.

Yep, he's been evicted. And lost his UN credentials. So he won't be able to claim to be an author of AR5 then?

Has anyone ever witnessed a more striking and pathological need on the part of an individual to be the centre of attention?

And this is one of Denial's leading lights... You really can tell a lot about a movement by the people it elevates to prominence.

Ah, Olaus, I see that you've wandered away from the troll toilet again.

Could you please draw Jonas N's attention to my post of 4 December above, wherein I request that Jonas N warrants that the Arctic sea ice will not decline as I describe in the proposed contract. Tell him that I am keen to see how firmly he believes humans are not warming the planet - his preparedness to warrant will be a direct indication of this.

Also, I note from the "Recent comments" panel that there has been a lot of traffic to the troll toilet. Has Jonas yet explained what papers he read in order to determine that the IPCC made up its confidences in attribution of global warming to humans? If not, please ask him to explain why he refuses to commit his claims to testability. I am keen to have Jonas commit to documenting the depth of his of investigation of science, so that I can establish the basis on which he moved to libel many dozens of professional scientists.

Perhaps Jonas is actually more widely read than I give him credit for (although I doubt it, as he simply cannot even provide a sampling of his reading that could be tested), so I will narrow the task for the poor boy. Ask Jonas which publications by any combination of Gabriele Hegerl, Markus Huber, Phil Jones, Reto Knutti, Ben Santer, Peter Stott, and/or Francis Zwiers he has read. In particular, which of the publications by the above authors has Jonas determined do not account for the IPCC's attribution claims, and which do.

If Jonas has actually done the background reading that he claims, it should be a simple matter for him to list in annotated bibliography form the results of his reading that led to him claiming that the IPCC simply "made up" the confidences of attribution.

My guess is that he'll simply prevaricate and blather as usual about how unscientific the scientific community is, without producing a page of science himself. However, if he does produce a testable response I would be pleased to visit if someone posts here to let me know that there's something on the troll's toilet wall worth reading. And if Jonas is prepared to accept my terms of warranty, I am there with bells on.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 06 Dec 2012 #permalink

If only the Stone Age was the choice on offer. The Earth's climate was conducive then to ecological sustainability. Interesting to reflect that the reality of whether human life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" is a function of human culture. Culture is derived from values and technology which in turn emerge from evolved consciousness. A relevant question might be: Who do we think we are?

Monckton. Wottatwat.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 06 Dec 2012 #permalink


How old are you, grow up! You behave as though you were still at primary school - "Jonas isn't my friend [I'm sure he's gutted ;) ], I'm not speaking to him anymore, could somebody tell him something for me".

This pamtomime/ drama of yours may be important to you, but nobody else is particularly interested in indulging your childish behaviours. If you have something worthwhile to contribute just tell him! Rather than mope around this kindergarten thread where Jonas can't get you. Either you have a case to make or you don't.

Ah, so Olaus
and GSW
are socks on the same hand.

As if the nauseating winkies weren't sufficient evidence.


By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Dec 2012 #permalink

Preview would be really nice.

Trying again...

So Olaus
and GSW are socks on the same hand.

As if the nauseating winkies weren't sufficient evidence.

Recalcitrant idiot.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Dec 2012 #permalink


Decided to play it safe on the kindergarten thread then? fair enough. You can idulge yourself imagining all sorts of things here. Beats facing reality I suspose.


You're full of it, man. Childish behavior? What planet are you on? Planet Gumbo? Heck, your hero makes all kinds of vacuous claims, refuses to answer pretty straightforward questions, and makes things up constantly - all stuff he accuses me of doing. He seems obsessed with me, as every one of his crappy posts mentions my name. I must really get under the turd's skin.

Here's the crux: the vast majority of the scientific community agrees that humans are the main culprit for the recent warming. Check. This includes every Natiuonal Scientific Academy in every country on Earth. Check. So the onus should be on your hero to prove that this huge number of scientisrts is wrong, that the academies are wrong, and that they must be all involved in some vast conspiracy. Its Jonarse who has to prove to everyone here that these esteemed bodies and scientists are all wrong - not for anyone here to justfy where they are right.

And speaking of making things up - Jonas wants to know where the AR4 90% attribution comes from. Its really simple, but the clown appears to think this is his claim to fame. At the same time, he's constantly told everyone else in his padded cell how brilliant he is, how much more he knows than everyone else, and (more recently, and I loved this one): that he is better educated than I am.

So I asked him: PROVE IT. My educationsl background is there for anyone who wants to see it. But as soon as challenged on this and many other points, your wet dream man slides back into smear mode. He makes a claim of having a superior education but then provides no bonafides. I have asked him a million times what he does for a living. How many peer-reviewed papers he has. His other scientific credentials, And he always answers the same: bluff, bluff,, bluff, bluff, bluff, evade, evade, evade, evade, followed by smear, smear, smear, smear.

This essentially enables anyone with a smidgeon of common sense (clearly excludes you and Olaus) to see that he has no formal scientific qualifications and that his self-professed brilliance is an illusion. I have said time and again that my opinion is based on biotic proxies along with the evidence - tons of it - produced by real experts in the field of climate science for the abiotic factors. For you and Jonas, this ain't good enough. Jonas feels free to smear and dismiss some of the world's leading climate scientists from his cell as if, by saying that they arent' 'real' scientists, this elevates him into a position of authority. No wonder he drools over Lomborg. The Danish denier did the same thing in his book.

Jonarse baits and baits and baits and baits, in a desperate craving to get attention. Then he goes on and on about his brilliance in debating, with you (and occasionally your equally idiotic sidekick Olaus) cheering from the sidelines. Hundreds of studies have been pasted on his insanity thread, and in true denier fashion he ignores all of them (my guess is he's never read a single one). Instead, he retreats back to the same mantra: its up to others to prove to him where the AR4-90% figure was derived. Nothing else. End of story. I am sure the schmuck has never ever written to a single climate scientist in his miserable life. Instead, he thinks that by pounding his chest on one or two web logs, that elevates him to the status of authority.

And there are you, trying to suggest that we are all overwhelmed by Jonarse's brilliance and just can't engage the clown in his own thread. I for one am sick to death of him and his profound arrogance and ignorance. That's why I won't go there any more, despite his constant baiting.He wants attention. He clearly has a superiority complex a mile long, hence how he can summarily dismiss studies he has never read or the reputations of scientists with years of experience. In the scientific world he would be eaten alive.

The last point I will make on your hero is that he thinks in his deluded fantasies that by petulantly sticking to his shrinking island, that he wins some glorious scientific victory. Its as if what is said on the Jonarese thread on Deltoid is the final word on the subject of AGW. Certainly he seems to believe it. You appear to as well. I got news for you: the Jonas thread is not even the minutest, tiniest blip on the scientific radar. Its less than invisible. Jonas sticks here because its the only way to stoke his bloated ego. Out in the real world of universities and research institutes the guy is a complete and utter unknown. His views would be chewed up and spat out in a millisecond out there. So this is all he has, and for some strange and sick reason he seems to think as if its the United Nations Environment Program or NASA in scale. This self-hypnosis, aided and abetted by a couple of equally challenged supporters, has only made his vitriol grow and grow.

He can go to you-know-where for all I care. I have had enough of his arrogant ignorance for a lifetime. Time to move on.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Dec 2012 #permalink


"Time to move on."

Fair enough Jeff. What's you next project? Tantric flying? Crystals of Power? Give us an update when you can. Oh, and bring some evidence next time.


Sorry to disappoit you, you sad gnome.

You see, unlike your hero, I do science, The real stuff. You see, I ahve 125 papers of real science. Plus 2750 citations (416 so far in 2012 FYI). You and Jonarese?


Put up or shut up, schmuck.

By the way, we brought more than a hundred paper's worth of evidence. Just because you can't read doens't mean those studies arent'packed with evidence showing how significant the human fingerprint on climate is.

You clearly don't read the primary literature. It seems like Morano, Mountford, Nova and Watts are your window to the world of science.

Poor you.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Dec 2012 #permalink

So, why doesn't one of you clowns put up some real studies or take Bernard's bet? Because even you know you're talking complete tosh, that's why! So you make this infantile projection as a way of trying to avoid the content of hiscomment.

Why not shock us all? Or if the brandy-soaked Duffer is around, he can do it. Man up and take the bet, blowhards! C'mon - do it! You insult our intelligence by expecting us to believe that you believe the drivel you spout; it should be easy money for you, shouldn't it? So; take the money!

But you won't, will you? You bloody cowards! And it's the likes of you that are poisoning the world...

Graceless, gormless and gutless.

Thing is, slug horde, Joan's thread has gotten over 4000 entries.

Seems like you guys haven't even mastered the basics of "integers" when you claim Joan isn't being engaged on its thread.

Here's how Jonas would be introduced at an International Conference on Climate Science in Seattle or Los Angeles (his own dream scenario):

Chairman: "Ladies and gentlemen, it is my great honor to introduce to you our Plenary Speaker, who comes from Sweden. Mr. Jonas N - please excuse me for his anonymity, and for the fact he is wearing a brown paper bag over his head - is one of the world's pre-eminent experts on - well, pretty well everything - in science. His scientific pedigree is without peer. He has 0 publications in any fields, and is not employed by any research or academic institute [audience 'oohs' and 'awws' in awe]. Today, Mr. N. will tell us why the 90% attribution claim in the AR4 summary chapter of the last IPCC report is not science. Building on this, he will then go onto to argue that James Hansen, Michel Mann, Ben Santer and others aren't, as you may believe 'real scientists at all, but advocates of poor science, unlike himself. 'Finally, he will argue that, in order to appreciate sound climate science, we all need to spend more time in blogs like Climate Audit, Watts Up With That, Climate Depot and Bishop's Hill,where bonafide research is done, and to stop relying on the peer-reviewed literature. Again, let's give Mr. N a big hand and a huge welcome! (Thunderous applause).

(and closing remarks by Mr. N): and in closing, I hope that you can appreciate my take-home message, which is: the 90% figure is NOT science! That means the rest of the last IPCC report is therefore highly questionable! the hockey stick is broken! The Arctic ice loss is quite normal! The crippling heat wave which gripped the USA this year is hardly unusual! It hasn't warmed since 1998! Climate warming is not going to be a problem, folks. Trust me. I am an expert in everything. And finally, don't listen to Hansen and Mann! They aren't real scientists. Thank you for your attention.

(Audience responds with standing ovation; some delegates are wiping away tears; others are hugging each other. Jonas N waves as he departs the stage. The curtains fall).

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Dec 2012 #permalink


Fantasizing stories that play out in your head about a world where empirical evidence is not required and everything turns out how you like it, is not Science - it's a psychotic disorder, a Napolean delusion. Keeping taking the meds, I'm sure Marshal Ney will be along in a minute to reassure you and strap you in for the night.

I’m sure Marshal Ney will be along in a minute to reassure you and strap you in for the night.

Ah! The hothead that lost Bonaparte a battle or two. It seems your history education is lacking too, surprise! I could offer some suggestions to fix that but of course you won't be able to bother.

GSW, There's nothing but sound science underpinning AGW - the fantasy material you allude to comes from your side. If it comes down to every major scientific body on Earth versus you, Jonas, and few right wing pundits, then I know which side I am on. That you can't tell the difference between sound science and denial non-science says everything about your abilities.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Dec 2012 #permalink

"Fantasizing stories that play out in your head about a world where empirical evidence is not required"

And your evidence of this happening is what?

Entirely in your head.

Irony, to these blockheads, is something made of iron.


Marshal Ney did have his travails, but favoured and re-favoured by Napoloean nonetheless. Gratifying that in a comment about Jeff's "illness", the only point you take issue with is Ney's place in history.

Hey, idiot, why are you bringing up irrelevancies like Napoleon (except you admire his butt, of course, that would explain your fascination for him)?

When are you going to stop pretending to see things and see your doctor?

I am sorry GSW, but any mental illness is yours. If you had any guts you and your brainless hero would take your arguments into the scientific arena where they would be chewed up and spat out. Instead you hang out here making vacious little quips whilst refusing to read a single peer-reviewed study.

What is totally sick is that you and Jonarese try and present the so-called debate as if thousands of peer-reviewed studies and the positions of every major scientific body and organization on Earth doesn't exist. If anything shows evidence for mental sickness, its this salient fact. Earth to GSW: the scientific world isn't Deltoid. And it sure isn't the shite sites you glean for your worldview. Its in the universities and research bodies and the peer-reviewed literature that you refuse to read or acknowledge. Its in the lectures given by Hansen, Santer, Trenberth and the many other scientists who do the actual research and have the qualifications to be able to evaluate it. Not from self-righteous self-taught know-it-alls who are afraid the big world of science and take refuge in their own threads on a web log. Get that through your head, dumwit.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Dec 2012 #permalink

So "Olaus Petri" posts on this open thread, I respond, and "GSW" replies to me.

Just as KarenMackSunspot couldn't maintain multiple socks, so it is with this puppeteer.

GWOlaus SPitre.

Jonas N is most certainly no friend of mine - indeed, he is no friend of humanity nor of future biospheric amenity. However, the reason I eschew the troll toilet is simply that I said a long time ago that I wouldn't - Jonas has long demonstrated that he can't put forward anything resembling evidence or methodology, and I'm not inclined to waste my time on the likes of him.

However, if he can explain how he came to his enlightenment that the IPCC and many dozens of associated and otherwise-referenced climatologists made up the attribution confidences I might revisit. If he can clearly respond to my question above about the work of Gabriele Hegerl, Markus Huber, Phil Jones, Reto Knutti, Ben Santer, Peter Stott, and/or Francis Zwiers, I will definitely be interested.

And if he grows a grain of courage and is prepared to put money on the Arctic sea ice not melting away, I will most certainly revisit the cesspit. However, I doubt that the coward will - which is ironic, because he says that there's no evidence for human involvement in climate change, but I never saw him explain why the planet just keeps on warming. If not humans, there must be a natural forcing - but what exactly is this magical beast...?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Dec 2012 #permalink

Well said, Bernard. I've wasted much too much of my valuable time with this sordid lot.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Dec 2012 #permalink


"IPCC and many dozens of associated and otherwise-referenced climatologists made up the attribution confidences"

Which is true. Looking thru the list of rent seekers, Greenpeace and WWF activists, I had would have as much confidence in the determination of the existence of God by a show of hands at the Vatican, or Leonard Nimoy as the "Sexiest man of all time" at a Star-Trek convention (h/t Sheldon Cooper).

It's no substitute for empirical evidence. You continue to believe what you believe "sans" evidence, you would be unable to evaluate it anyway.

The more reasonable readers of this blog have come to thier senses when reading the “Real Science thread”.

Well done Jonas!

What you describe Griselda is how the campaign of intellectual sybversion as practised by Montfdord, Watts et al has worked its magic on you and your cohorts.

It doesn't work on others; you just find it comforting to assume everybody is as fully moronic as you are, and can be just as easily convinced that black is really a form of white as you have been.

"you just find it comforting to assume everybody is as fully moronic as you are"

Actually, they want to insist everyone else is MORE moronic than they are. This allows them not just able to feel "normal" but allows them to feel superior without all that hassle of actually having to do the work.

"The more reasonable readers of this blog"

Who? You and Olaus? HA!

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Dec 2012 #permalink

I notice Mr Monckton persists with his denialist favorite lie about no statistically significant warming in 16 years (failing to mention the "statistically significant" part) based on a cherry-picked and outdated data set (HadCrut3). Global warming denialist strategy comes either in the form of pointing out there has been no warming for some short period or the latest incarnation is to say there is no "statistically significant" warming for a moderately longer period (often without mentioning "statistically significant").

I predict that at some time in the future (probably continuing for several years), the denialists will say:

"There has been no (statistically significant) warming since 1998" (either mentioning "statistically significant" or failing to do so) and considering how warm 1998 was they will keep doing this for something longer than 16 years after 1998, i.e. in 2014 and beyond.

Be prepared to put up with the "no warming since 1998" meme for several years yet.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 07 Dec 2012 #permalink

The scary thing is Chris, looking at the slope of the graph, how soon what used to be extremes become the average.

Leaving aside the question of the f**kwits for a moment - and, lest there be any doubt, I refer specifically to you, Olaus, GSW, Jonas, Duffer and any other Denialist chum-monkey that might be reading this; FOaD! the lot of you - we turn to the real question of the AGU : Is The Earth F**ked?

um - the usual morons? spouting the usual crap?

can anyone else not get that interactive to work?

Click on the degree numbers to the left of the thermometer.

The Rabbett's report on the AGU fall meeting.

First, there is a clear and strong consensus supporting the main pillars of the IPCC AR4, and the USGCRP. Climate change is occurring, driven by human influences and dangerous. Action to stop carbon emissions is needed immediately.

Anyone doubting this need only go through the myriad abstracts. You might find one or two amongst the thousands that disagrees with this, but this is the clear opinion of the climate science community. Where doubts exist, they are doubts about how bad it is going to be and how fast climate change is coming.

Second, the mood of the attendees had also shifted. It was much sourer about the few in the atmospheric science community still running interference for in activism. People were being called out in private, but also in public and not just in sessions dealing with education and communication and blogging.


By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Dec 2012 #permalink

I can see that there's a high turnover on the Troll Toilet Thread.

GWOlaus SPitre.

I will repeat again, in the hope that the question was answered over there. Which publications by any combination of Gabriele Hegerl, Markus Huber, Phil Jones, Reto Knutti, Ben Santer, Peter Stott, and/or Francis Zwiers has Jonas read?

Can he document them in a list?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 08 Dec 2012 #permalink

State of play so far Bernard is that one day he admits to having read nothing, the next he's read everything and fancies himself a more brilliant scientist than anyone else. So whatever answer is given would need to be tested rather than believed.

File under another crank with mental health issues and self-aggrandising imaginings a la Monckton and Watts of the type the double digit, rank and file denialati love to attach themselves to.

Are you sure they manage double digits?

Are you sure they manage double digits?

Yes, but no more than two digits, fingers that is, for they are effectively giving the two fingered salute to all logic and rationality. They appear clinically insane.

Cue another rant about 'talking' behind their backs. Tough, it is their choice to argue based upon stupid.

These pigs do seem to like wrestling in it and I doubt there are any more casual visitors that would require their exposure as frauds for that has already been done in spades by all in that thread including, ironically, themselves. But they are too dim, or sick, to realise even that.

Time to leave them to flounder in their mud.

Thanks for the précis chek. It's nice not having to go in and dirty my boots without cause.

If you venture in again tell Jonas he really should look up those authors. They're referenced in Chapter 9, some of them are sourced for work in Appendix 9c, and the statistical attributions of human involvement in global warming are well and truly summarised in their original relevant papers. One only has to look to find...

I know that Jonas either hasn't read them, or has and is trying to pretend that the work doesn't exist, but I really, really want him to do the scientific thing and document his trail to his claims. If he does this I'll then tell him which papers cover the attribution calculations.

I'd be surprised if he hasn't actually seen any of them, but I just want him to put on the record that he believes that the work doesn't exist.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't seen any of these papers. How else could anyone make the ignorant statements that Jonas makes... unless that person is an outright conscious liar?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 08 Dec 2012 #permalink

Various AGU presentations now up at RealClimate.

WARNING: Considerable danger of learning something. Best avoid by those for whom facts and evidence constitute an unbearable threat to their ideologically constrained world-view.

Just watched quite a good video on Polar Bears from paid "Denier" Susan Crockford, adjunct Professor of Anthropology/Zoology at the University of Victoria.

Some useful background on hybridization, breeding cycles etc. The take home message is "As far as we know Polar Bears are OK, but there's a lot we don't know"

By way of commentary, the language used is more in keeping with what I would call the "Scientific Norm", clear about you know, and don't know, and what you can/can't say.

Not a scam for Polar Bear insurance as we seen expressed here from time to time. Probably why I feel more comfortable on that side of the debate.

And here's who sponsored Crockford's Polar Bear talk:

Two corporate funded denial think tanks: The International Climate Science Coalition (note the acronym which is intentionally deceptive) and Frontiers for Public Policy. Both advocate neoliberal economic programs.……

Really now, GSW. I know you are as thick as two planks, and that your science education is kindergarten level, but really? Note how quickly before the lecture the sponsorship credits flashes by as well. The aim is to give the impression that the lecture is an independent one.

File under 'garbage' .

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Dec 2012 #permalink


Thought you would be lurking somewhere. Hey, we're all grown ups and can watch the video with that in mind. I don't think there is anything controversial there and it was interesting for all that.

Nobody's stopping you hanging around with your "Beware False Prophets" placard. Feel free.

Let alone the Ludwig von Mises Institute? Give me a bloody break! What sort of 'disinterested' scientist would allow themselves to be associated with that lot?

Particularly ironic given that you lot are always rabbiting on about the politicization of science, while your 'science' is promulgated by Libtard thinktanks!

Try watching some of the AGU material, you fool. Go on, I dare you! Or just take Bernard's bet...

Thanks for the précis chek. It’s nice not having to go in and dirty my boots without cause.

If you venture in again tell Jonas he really should look up those authors. They’re referenced in Chapter 9...

BJ (I like that as that BJ Hunnicut character of MASH fame was one smart bunny too).

Wow and I have already gone to the trouble of listing most of the authors and papers referenced in AR4 Physical Science Base Chapter 9. But hey, Jonas is smart enough to know that all that work is bunk! ~

[explanation of tilde use]


Over at the Rabett's I noticed this comment:

Steve Bloom said...

It's up, Eli. The trashing of Lindzen, Christy and Spencer was amusing, but not exactly Nobel material. Otherwise, someobscure bits of history aside, I think I already knew everything in that lecture.

In which session did that happen? I am having great trouble getting a reliable feed from the YouTube AGU section right now.


From the context over at Eli's I think this must be it, watching now but may have to take a break part way through:

Tyndall Lecture: GC43I. Successful Predictions

Could be one to throw at Jonas, but of course he will find some excuse to slalom around the arguments and evidence. Yeh Jonas! I know you will hear about this and throw your toys out of the pram again after all you having looked into climate change for a dog-watch know better than two centuries of accumulating evidence.

Well, that blew up in his face; thanks Mike! And to Peter Gleick, of course.

QED really. So, GSW, got any actual evidence for your ridiculous assertions? NB: 'My narcissism and overwhelming sense of (similarly undevidenced) smug superiority' doesn't qualify.

No? Didn't think so.

PS; When it turns out we're right, what punishment do you think you deserve?

Thanks MikeH for the relevant information.

I also checked Crfockford up on the Web of Science. All I could find from her were 13 publications with 49 citations.

And GSW calls Zoology 'soft science'. In terms of Crockford's status, I will agree with that. Her talk is nonsense - one cannot extrapolate the demographics of polar bear populations simply on recent history - instead, one has to determine the status of the current populations as well as their physioloigical status. Given that they are at the terminal end of the food chain effects of sudden shifts in habitat quality will take time to find their way through the population. In other words there will be a lag, unless these changes result in instantaneous mortality. What we see happening with polar bears is a shift to an older age structure in the population (meaning birth rates are down or else juvenile mortality rates are up) combined with lower per capita fitness rates of the current adult cohort. So even though population rates are fairly stable for now, this tells us nothing about the status of individuals in the population. Certainly rapid changes in the Arctic ecosystem will make it harder for the bears to find their normal prey (seals) meaning they will store less fat with negative metabolic costs that will be reflected in future reproductive output.

The fact that Crockford argued in her polemic that Polar Bears are successful survivors of climate change, without reconciling the fact that the worst effects on the bear populations are yet to be manifested, tells me all I need to know about her 'expertise'. Its like saying to someone whose car is heading for a brick wall at high speed but has not yet impacted the wall that the driver is a great example of someone who has survived the impact - which hasn't happened yet but will.

I am sure GSW will consult his intellectual guru on the dead-end thread for his pearls of wisdom on the subject.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Dec 2012 #permalink

I notice GooSeWuh has run away back to fawn at the feet of his Glorious Leader.

Sorry, Sunshine, but you just gave as an outstanding example of your 'science' emanating from - whaddyaknow? - Libtard thinktanks. This really will not do. Papers, please, not published in E&E, or the Houston Cat Fanciers Gazette. Presentations from the AGU, perhaps? No?

You become a little more ridiculous every day, and that's now very ridiculous indeed. I'll rephrase my question from yesterday; what sanctions do you think the rest of the community is entitled to take against you lot? You have been wrong - arrogantly, systematically, and very frequently (of later years, virtually completely) dishonestly wrong - about arguably the single most important thing to get right in the history of civilization. How are you going to atone? Do you really imagine it's going to be 'no big deal'?

Um, I think someone at MJ needs to have a little rethink - or rephrasing, at any rate! - about 'Massive plankton blooms thriving 60+ miles under sea ice'. But, yeah, the entire Arctic system is in terrible trouble - and anyone fiddling the books or playing at 'squirrel' in an attempt to maintain that this might somehow not be a biiiiig problems for our snowy-white ursine friends should be ashamed of themselves...

This is a partisan book. It does not attempt to be "balanced" by adding a lie to the truth and dividing by two.

Exactly. Thanks for the link, Vince.

I am amazed as ever to see to the right the indication of the volume of recent comments sailing past on the Troll Toilet.

If Jonas is still refusing to read and consider the work of the authors I listed on the previous page, perhaps someone him instead could ask why no-one has written a rebuttal in the peer-reviewed literature, revealing that there has been no work performed to calculate the attribution confidences that he claims do not in fact exist.

I keep looking for something to that effect in Nature or in Science, but I never see it; nor do I spy any authors named Jonas N[...]. Of course, there may be the possibility that there is a conspiracy to prevent revelation of this profoundly remarkable fraud, but if so why are the likes of the Pielkes, Curry, Watts, Spencer, Lindzen, the Gravely-affected loony lordling, and many others not detailing the fraud and shouting it from the rooftops?

Perhaps it's because they're more familiar with the works of the authors I mentioned, than is Jonas N...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 11 Dec 2012 #permalink


I am not really dyslexic. Just tired!

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 11 Dec 2012 #permalink

Hi Bernard,

I am sick of the mega-troll. I try and refrain from writing into that dead-end thread but the clown baits, and baits and baits.... all whilst not having a frigging clue what he is talking about.

He has built up his tiny island refuge and the rising tide is drowning him. Its all AR4! 90%! Not science! .. when anybody could see that the 90% figure was more-or-less expected by policymakers as some kind of handle. Essentially, the 90% figure is based on the scientific foundation of the summary chapter of the 2007 IPCC report, duie in no small part to the pretty extensive scientific consensus that humans are the main forcing agent accounting for the recent warming. The only reason it wasn't 95% or more was because there were a few sceptics who had their say on the final draft. But the 90% figure IS, as Chek says time and time again, based on a a summary of the hundreds and hundreds of peer-reviewed studies in support of AGW. End of bloody story! But not for you-knbow-who.

I am sure that figure will be even stronger when the next report is published. And fully expect Jonas to come out swinging, screaming about the abuse of science and all that ad nauseum. As I said, the figure is purely to give the public and especially policymakers some kind of estimate, a handle. Nothing more, nothing less. They cannot translate words into probabilities and want a number. It is provided and the deniers like Jonas N go off on a tangent.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Dec 2012 #permalink

Thanks for the hat tip Jeff - it's much appreciated, but please remember also that many other members of our community here have said the same thing again and again and most likely better. Unfortunately to as little avail as the rest of us who still foolishly try.

I am amazed as ever to see to the right the indication of the volume of recent comments sailing past on the Troll Toilet.

Yep. And it really is time to stop feeding this know-nothing glory seeker, certainly as far as I am concerned. He is all noise and no signal despite several attempts at enlightenment. He is now down such a deep hole spinning like the TBM used here that no light can now penetrate from the surface. A biologist could use a different analogy.


Jonas it is you in the 'padded cell' and quite rightly so.

"This is a partisan book. It does not attempt to be “balanced” by adding a lie to the truth and dividing by two."

Greta line, huh?

I enjoyed it.

Lewandowsky's done some sterling work to discredit the idiots. He deserves our thanks.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 11 Dec 2012 #permalink


How can anything rival the threat of climate change?
By ABC's Jonathan Green

Resolving climate change will test most of our dominant paradigms.

In order to tackle the looming catastrophe of climate change, we must first change the way information flows. Social media can help, writes Jonathan Green.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 11 Dec 2012 #permalink

Another day, another flood of Jonas N and GSWAKAOlaus rubbing each other's groins.

Seriously, are those two still pretending that there has been no calculated attribution of human influence on global warming? Has Jonas still not ventured to reveal whether he has read the works of the half a dozen or so authors I listed on page one of this thread, authors well-known in the attribution community?

Sheesh, if the guy is so lame that he can't even review the narrowed field to which I directed him, perhaps he might manage to inform us which of the papers he has read here:

It lists a lot of the attribution papers, but by no means all of them, and it even has a proportion of them available for download, so that folk without institutional access (such as Jonas apparently is...) can read them.

If Jonas can demonstrate that none of these papers establish the attribution of warming to human emissions, I would be most intrigued indeed to hear...

As ever though, I will suggest that the reason that Jonas N doesn't explicitly state which authors he has read, or which papers don't attribute warming to humans, is that once he does so he paints himself into a corner from which he can never emerge.

I suspect that Jonas N is either paid to do what he does, or that he has some other vested or ideological interest in delaying action on climate change. One day that will bite him on the arse.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 11 Dec 2012 #permalink

A pretty sobering presentation by Professor Kevin Anderson on the likely scenarios for the coming century:

I would not waste this on the troll duo next door; great to see Chek demolishing Jonas though. Pure magic. Asking all the right questions, such as has Jonas ever once in his life written to an accredited climate scientist? No answer. means no.

The above presentation by a senior scientist is in contrast to the usual Climate Depot/Bishops Hill/WUWT crap linked to by Gormless.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Dec 2012 #permalink

Seems like a lot of junk science being spewed out by the denier trolls over on the padded cell thread.

Here is an interesting post from TEDx on how to differentiate between good science and the bad science (i.e junk) put out by the trio of stooges on that thread.

Marks of good science:

It makes claims that can be tested and verified
It has been published in a peer reviewed journal (but beware… there are some dodgy journals out there that seem credible, but aren’t.)
It is based on theories that are discussed and argued for by many experts in the field
It is backed up by experiments that have generated enough data to convince other experts of its legitimacy
Its proponents are secure enough to accept areas of doubt and need for further investigation
It does not fly in the face of the broad existing body of scientific knowledge
The proposed speaker works for a university and/or has a phD or other bona fide high level scientific qualification

Marks of bad science:

Has failed to convince many mainstream scientists of its truth
Is not based on experiments that can be reproduced by others
Contains experimental flaws or is based on data that does not convincingly corroborate the experimenter’s theoretical claims
Comes from overconfident fringe experts
Uses over-simplified interpretations of legitimate studies and may combine with imprecise, spiritual or new age vocabulary, to form new, completely untested theories.
Speaks dismissively of mainstream science
Includes some of the red flags listed in the two sections below…

(Note: I do not agree that there is no good science associated with being against GMO's. In fact there is more bad science put out by the pro-GMO scientists who are just industry shills.)

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 12 Dec 2012 #permalink

Further to Ian F's comment, I'd recommend Ben Goldacre's Bad Pharma - but, God, it's depressing!

The systematic distortion of the process of science for commercial purposes does indeed exist, particularly where industry-funded researchers either don't wish to, or are prevented by their employers from, publishing 'inconvenient' findings. Nothing currently prevents them / their employers from simply burying potentially commercially disruptive results.

Such a system quickly sorts out a cadre of 'activist/accomplice' scientists who know exactly what their employers want, and are rewarded accordingly, much as the Murdoch empire quickly selects for ideologues of a particular type, who then loudly declaim that they experience no pressure whatsover to echo Their Master's Voice...

Jonas N has made a career of making an unsubstantiated claim and milking it for as long as it takes an elephant to gestate. Even folk such as Tim "X"* Curtin would have made a testable case long before now.

Let's briefly review the things that Jonas N has ignored in the process of making this claim.

First, there is the material in Chapter 9 of the Assessment Report 4 Working Group 1. This includes referenced information in figures 9.9 and 9.10 as well as in other graphs and much of the text.

Next there are the references for Chapter 9, to which Jonas N has been repeatedly directed and queried about as to which of them he read in order to make his claim that the attribution confidence interval were made up. See, it's important to know which references Jonas read in order to make up his mind, because if he did not in fact read the material then he did no science, nor even any preparation for conducting science. When reading any peer-reviewed scientific work one will observe that it always draws with careful and extensive reference on the body of extant knowledge, in order to make its case. This is especially so and absolutely mandatory in the case of refutation work, otherwise there is no case to be made for the refutation in the first place.

Any bells ringing yet...? And all that Jonas N could come up with was:

I can’t remember from the top of my head which ones I have checked before.

Eh?! If he's so certain of his claim of conspiracy by the IPCC and dozens of its assessing scientists to commit the fraud of data fabrication, he should be able to remember what papers he read in order to come to his conclusion. But NEVER ONCE HAS JONAS N BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE THE CORPUS OF READING ON WHICH HE BASED HIS LIBELOUS CLAIM. Not once.

He continued on immediately from his previous comment to say:

The thing is that I used to follow and read references that AGW-proponents pointed me to, ascertaining that certain facts were to be found there. And almost every single time, the supposed fact, settled truth, scientific result etc was overstated (sometimes widely) by them who referred to it.

Erm, examples? Even a single example? Or half a dozen? What about a sufficiently, statistically-supported sampling of the type of papers to which he refers, that could actually make his case?

Nothing presented.

Not a thing.

Many times in the intervening period Jonas had his nose rubbed in the references of Chapter 9, but like a puppy whose nose is rubbed in the fæces that he's deposited on the carpet, the actual lesson does not sink in. The mule would rather die of thirst that drink the water to which he has been led.

So the third avenue toward educating the ineducable Jonas N was to point him toward the Appendix, and particularly 9c.. Nope, that didn't work - no response from Jonas as to how the particular papers referenced there support the attribution confidence intervals. Just denial.

Quelle surprise.

The fourth option was to ask Jonas N which of the papers of a sampling of the authors (in alphabetical order) Gabriele Hegerl, Markus Huber, Phil Jones, Reto Knutti, Ben Santer, Peter Stott, and/or Francis Zwiers he has read. These are some of the well-known researchers of attribution work.

This is basically the point at which one is pulling on the mules headstall to drag its nose underwater, but still the thing won't drink.

The fifth opportunity for Jonas N to learn would have been to speak to the authors directly, as I suggested somewhere way back in the beginning. Has Jonas N done that? To date he has demonstrated no evidence of having done so, although he may have recorded this on the Troll Toilet Thread after I eschewed further fruitless participation there. Still, I've hear no chatter on the open threads to the effect that he has made this effort.

He should have.

I did.

Over the last 18 months I've spoken to several of the authors of the AR4 attribution papers. It's one of the perks of working in an institution peopled with some of the very best scientists in the world. The work was done. The work is out there. There is much more work on the desks and the computers in the labs and offices of dozens of scientists around the world that supports it, but about which Jonas knows nothing because he refuses to do anything to substantiate his fanciful, libelous claims against people far better trained and experienced than he.

If this is all too hard for the over-stretched scientific capacity of Jonas N, perhaps he needs to be directed to small batches at a time of papers that he can analyse and critique as we watch, in order to document the basis of his claim. But that's doing it arse-about. I really want to know first what Jonas has dismissed, and why he dismissed it, because I'm sitting on stuff that I know contradicts Jonas. If he can show the reading he's done to date in order to make his claim, I'll drop in on the Troll Toilet to give him some more reading that he can deconstruct in front of us. Of course, if he's already read papers in particular that say what he claims they don't, we can go straight into the nitty-gritty of deconstructing whether or not they provide the statistical work that gave the 90% confidence figure.

Come on Jonas, put up your analysis, your evidence. So far you've presented nothing. Put up your evidence, and perhaps those less intelligent than you - folk such as the Pielkes, Curry, Watts, Spencer, Lindzen, Monckton, Plimer, Carter ad nauseum - might be able find the inspiration to write a definitive paper that explodes the whole myth of human-caused warming. Indeed, if you're correct, it's amazing that this paper has not yet been written. And note: Curry's silliness last year about "Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster” was totally and embarrassingly for her buried in the intellectual-pauper's grave that it deserved.

Come on Jonas, stop with the dodging, give up the prevarication.

What's your evidence?

[*where X = "Radium Water", "Crackers", "Acid Dropper", or any of a number of other appropriate appellations]

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Dec 2012 #permalink

Although not climate-related, the (somwhat successful) attempts by the Australian federal opposition to entrap the Speaker and bring down the government is a study in miniature of the Conservative propensity for flagrant abuse of fact in order to achieve their ideological ends.

If Justice Steve Rares' ruling is upheld at appeal, the implications for the Coalition's attack on Australian democracy and due process are profound. Like climate change denialism, its astounding how much bare-faced swill can be fed to the lay public without them so much as batting an eye.

It seems that in this country Conservatives can lie about science and attempt premeditated conspiracy to entrap, and in both cases the mainstream media is most forgiving. But if a progressive should even be hinted at doing something similar, imagine the furor - hockey sticks and attribution confidences, anyone?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Dec 2012 #permalink

Damn, Chris O'Neill, that link of yours to Roy Spencer is a truck load of crazy.

One name I noticed is a Doug Cotton. That name infects all climate related posts at that gets drowned out with a flood of denier vomit every article having a Climate Change tag

Shame he never get published in a real scientific journal .. yeah, I know :)

By Dave McRae (not verified) on 12 Dec 2012 #permalink

Many thanks for your lengthy post above, Bernard. It totally and utterly annihilates his feeble arguments during the one and a half years (a time frame Jonas writes about incessantly in recent posts) of time wastage he and his small troll army have spent here.

I have seen the strategy Jonas and other contrarians (too kind a word) use to deny, deny, deny. And that is to argue that without 100% unequivocal evidence of a process then the problem does not exist. It goes back to zero. This tired old trick has been used to dismiss a suite of contemporary environmental problems over the past 20-30 years. What is more irritating is that when the said party is pointed in the said direction of empirical evidence, they steadfastly refuse to go there, instead making fatuous demands that we must extract every single relevant sentence and stick it right under their noses. And even then they will close their eyes.

Like you, I have asked Jonas many times if he has written to or spoken with any of the scientists who contributed to Chapter 9 in IPCC 2007. He has never answered, which means a great big NO. Given his hysteria over the issue, I have asked him if he will write an article for a peer-reviewed journal in which he critiques the chapter. Again, silence, meaning NO. Instead, he thinks that by ranting and raving here, along with repeatedly telling everyone that he knows more than us, that he is somehow elevated to the status of authority. And then he goes on to say that none of us here understand the 'scientific method'.

Frankly, as one can see from my most recent posts on his thread, that I think he is something of a joke, if not a sad individual who craves attention. Why else persist here? He won't win any scientific debates by persisting on one small blog, and if he wants to make a splash with his self-assured brilliance, then the only way he will do that is to make a foray into the big world of climate science. But of course he won't do that, for the simple reason as I have said many times: his ideas will be chewed up and spat out and then end of story.

So on Deltoid he will probably remain, with his tattered ego being propped up constantly by the likes of GSW and Olaus. Its pathetic, really.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Dec 2012 #permalink

I haven't read the denier-toilet thread for a long while now, but has anyone asked Jonass to come up with his own confidence estimates re the attribution of warming to anthropogenic causes? I would have thought that that would have been the best way to pin him down, to get him to put his money where his mouth is. I mean, if the fuckwit knows everything about the scientific method _ and he claims the IPCC doesn't _ then logically he must know how to do it. That's the angle that should be used, to expose what a clueless, deluded ass he is. Using the "hard" science which he constantly boasts about, he should be able to derive his own numbers _ his own probability estimates _ and demonstrate to everyone how it's done.

Someone should ask why after more than 2 must be close to 3 years...when it comes to climate matters, there hasn't been a shred of science _ no calculations, no stats, no science...nothing. Just vaccuous blather from him and his arse-licking GSW, who I think is a physicist. How do I know? He must be, because at one stage he talked about physics and how the hand must accelerate at the same rate as the block being pushed. Myself, I know nothing about science, but it sounded impressive; the sort of insight only a very smart person, most likely a physicist, would have. And he's so modest; even adopting such a self-deprecatory moniker as Great Simpleminded Wanker. Someone should tell him, though, that there's no need to constantly kiss Jonass' arse _ even if Jonass is a legend. That's probably what he's striving for: legendary status for having the longest thread in history. It's a shame that neither he nor his lickspittles can demonstrate any science.

Bernard did the best job of eliciting the most telling responses from the fuckwits-in-residence, especially GSW. Very early on, when Bernard asked him to pick his best piece of evidence against the science of global warming, including references, out came this brilliant reply: "I'm happy for you to keep playing with yourself." OK, I confess that the brilliance of it didn't strike me at first, but it dawned on me that there must be, hidden within such a simple phrase, a cryptic and deeply meaningful sub-text. I haven't worked it out yet. Smart people do these things: they talk in riddles sometimes. Much later, Bernard also asked both of them to do their own climate sensitivity calculations. The responses were along the lines of, "what? where? how? it can't be done to within so many decimal places..." etc. Maybe they're just pretending they don't know; they don't want to show off. After all, Jonass did display some skills with Newtonian physics, mathturbations with frictional forces etc. I wonder why he's so reticent to show us some denier climate science. Shouldn't be so selfish; should show the warmist scientific community how it's done. Oh yeah, I forgot. Apparently Poptech has 700 denier papers stashed away somewhere; they like listing them, but it seems that no one is game enough to delve into them. Must be some pretty nasty stuff. This one is probably a good representative sample: .

"I haven’t read the denier-toilet thread for a long while now, but has anyone asked Jonass to come up with his own confidence estimates re the attribution of warming to anthropogenic causes?"

Yup. A couple of times.

" I would have thought that that would have been the best way to pin him down"

No, he refused to answer and Olap Dog keeps running away now he's stuck with a clear question he should be able to answer but will not ("How do you go about finding the warming trend").

Joan, remember, never actually says anything other than claim things and say "I'm smart enough to know, you aren't". Which since he doesn;t give any evidence for his smartitude, doesn't count as him waving his CV, oh no.

Apparently, though, only Joan is allowed to assert without evicence. Everyone else has to give him evidence (and moreover evidence he will accept, which by his definition doesn't exist unless it supports his claims).

Oh geez jp, I forgot all about the hand speed thing. Thanks for the laugh!

Stu, you notice that Joan didn't actually answer your question, only derided you for not knowing what out of well over 4000 posts joan has said (that hasn't subsequently been contradicted by another post they've put down).

You can't be caught out in a lie unless you actually say something.

If GSW aka Olaus Petri is a physicist I hope to goodness that he's not practicing, even as a junior high teacher in a backwater Christian School. That's how accidents happen.

As to Jonas, well I'd be curious to find out exactly what his gig is. He apparated on Deltoid after Curry's “Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster” paper was released, and in spite of the fact that it's been completely trashed as I mentioned yesterday, he steadfastly persists in pushing the meme. I strongly suspect that he is being paid, or has some other vested interest in ignoring the laws of physics.

If not, there is an extreme intellectual scotoma involved.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 13 Dec 2012 #permalink


Isn't is rich, especially when the Coalition says that the government should stop "hyperventilating", and when the Coalition themselves hyperventilated about:

boat people taking over the country
children overboard
Pauline Hanson
Craig Thomson
union "slush funds"
Slipper's non-existent sexual harrassment (that, according to Justice Rares, the Coalition's staffers and at least one member actively and with aforethought orchestrated)
global warming
the carbon tax
the budget surplus
the national broadband network
the WsMD
same-sex marriage
ad infinitum*...

The current opposition is a bunch of one-trick ponies, that can do nothing but get in the way of proper government by lying, whining and raking muck, all because they've been denied their God-given right to rule without end.

That sort of conservatism is what breeds eventual despotism.

[*Feel free people to add to the list...]

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

I don't think O'louse and GSW are the same. It might have been missed by most but I remember early in that denier-toilet thread O'louse telling GSW, "I'm at your feet". If they are one, then that 's some serious narcissism.

"The current opposition is a bunch of one-trick ponies, that can do nothing but get in the way of proper government by lying, whining and raking muck,".

It's a deliberate strategy; the same one that was adopted by the Republicans at the beginning of Obama's first term. Someone high up in the Republican hierarchy was taped saying exactly that at one of their conventions: that their goal was to be as disruptive and uncooperative at possible, and to try to bring the government down that way. The Libs here have adopted the same tactics; not acting for the betterment of the country, but lying, cheating, conniving and deceiving the more simple minded element of the population for totally self-serving reasons.

What is it with deniers and IPCC reports? So anxious to leak them prior to publication, so anxious to trash them once they are published. I can only conclude their tactic is to quote-mine and misrepresent the 'leaked' version so they can claim the published version was secretly altered by 'the conspiracy'. It is a deliberate attempt to undermine the whole process. Hopefully they will be forthrightly condemned by the scientific community and the whole ploy backfires.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

At least the SMH is reporting that the IPCC report dismisses the leak as being wrong.…

And that:

"EVIDENCE for climate change has grown stronger and it is now ''virtually certain'' that human greenhouse gas emissions trap energy that warms the planet, according to a leaked draft of the next major Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report"

So, Delingpole has egg on his face again, on a previous occasion being assisted by Sir Paul Nurse.

Delingpole has less substance than an, er um watermelon.

It’s a deliberate strategy; the same one that was adopted by the Republicans at the beginning of Obama’s first term. Someone high up in the Republican hierarchy was taped saying exactly that at one of their conventions: that their goal was to be as disruptive and uncooperative at possible,

It's worse than that; they convened senior members of both Houses to coordinate obstructionist tactics.

Start here.

Lionel, did I miss something? I thought Jonas was a Swede?

Joni, when the latest IPCC report claims with 99% certainty that the major climate forcing has now a human fingerprint, watch our egotistically bloated Swede come in here screaming that it ain't science! It ain't science! Coupled with the usual colorless lingo and various accusations levied against all of us.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

I remain profoundly bemused at the indication of the degree of Troll Toilet traffic ticking over in the 'Recent comments' panel.

I'm guessing that because no noise has been made here, Jonas has not yet been able to elucidate which portion of the attribution literature he'd read in order to make his claim that no professional climatologist has done any statistical work to calculate the confidences for human attribution of global warming. He really doesn't want to go on the record does he?

Perhaps he will first wait for Judith Curry to deliver her promised 'responses' to the unauthorised release of the AR5 draft material by Alec Rawls* - after all, Jonas started his campaign here only after the fence-sitting mother of uncertainly wrote that monumental mess about uncertainty monsters...

It's bizarre; it really is. The Chapter 9 authors note both the degree of genuine uncertainty in the science (the authors were there long before Curry and her sycophant Jonas), and they list dozens and dozens of papers referring to statistical treatments that arrive at confidences to quantify that uncertainty - in contradiction of Jonas' claims that nothing was calculated, which can only mean that he hasn't read them or that he has and that he's speaking inaccuracies (gasp!).

So, Jonas claims that it was all made up, "guessed at best". Perhaps he is confusing his claims with the heuristic aspects of scientific analysis, especially the heuristic aspect of Bayesian statistics. Perhaps Jonas is a staunch Frequentist, and doesn't go in for any of that crappy Bayesian fairy-dust assuming silliness?

Has Jonas yet confirmed whether he has contacted any of the authors that he libels? I've spoken to several, and we've discussed quite a lot of work that Jonas claims hasn't been done...

If only he had the courage to tell us what he's read that he believes doesn't actually exist...

[*Isn't it strange that she's not a reviewer herself?! I am almost so cynical as to wonder if she's using Rawls leaking as an excuse to talk about something that she couldn't under the restrictions that would be applied to her directly if she was a reviewer.]

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

Maurice Newman has a repeat op piece in The Australian again.

By Donald Oats (not verified) on 18 Dec 2012 #permalink

Maurice Newman

No doubt he still thinks having an AC makes him entitled to his own facts.

By Chris 'Neill (not verified) on 18 Dec 2012 #permalink

His career spans forty years in stockbroking and investment banking

What he says about climate science is not surprising. Only thing unusual is that he managed to get a soap box by being chairman of the ABC.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 18 Dec 2012 #permalink

And isn't that statement about his "CV" an anathema to people like Joan or Git?

I wonder what Jonas N thinks about the fact that David Frame and Dáithí Stone validate the work that was conducted leading up to AR4.

After all, if the attribution confidences were simply being "guessed at best" there should be no consilience between 2012 analysis and the analyses that were "not done" prior to 2007.

The same applies to Huber and Knutti (2011), which I note Jonas had not addressed up to the time I left him to wallow in his own excrement.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 18 Dec 2012 #permalink

Here's an interesting picture:…

If you were to drop the predicted temp from the solar cycle so that it started on the same temp as actually recorded, then looked at the difference, you'd see a gradually exponentiating temperature difference between the prediction and measurement.

An exponentiating difference caused by CO2 and its feedbacks.

It makes it pretty scary when the sun goes back to normal. Look at the difference that we get between the last measurement and what it would do if the sun were the only factor...

Interesting bit of theory here:

Anyone can lie. One need only have the requisite intention – in other words, to say something with the intention to deceive. Faking, by contrast, is an achievement. To fake things you have to take people in, yourself included. In an important sense, therefore, faking is not something that can be intended, even though it comes about through intentional actions. The liar can pretend to be shocked when his lies are exposed, but his pretence is merely a continuation of his lying strategy. The fake really is shocked when he is exposed, since he had created around himself a community of trust, of which he himself was a member.

Here’s an interesting picture:

Indeed it is. What does this show, correctly as you point out if we are worried now then when the sun comes on song again things are going to get warmer, wetter, drier, stormier and less predictable weather wise. All this without even considering permafrost melt and other sources of methane burps.

That temperatures have risen whilst solar 24 activity is muted is not what Bastardi & Co. were forecasting now is it. Perhaps this demonstrable 'inversion of Bastardi reality' should henceforward be know as the Bastardi Effect, perhaps?

OK. Continental Temperate climes get cold in mid winter.

This is a prediction of weather that is pretty darn reliable and has been known about for AGES.

So what is noteworthy about that link?

PS it says "in decades" which means it's been colder before.


Journal of Climate 2012

Greenland ice sheet mass balance reconstruction

"We find a 12% or 86 Gt y-1 increase in ice sheet accumulation rate from the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1840 to the last decade of the reconstruction. This 1840-1996 trend is 30% higher than that of 1600-2009, suggesting an accelerating accumulation rate."

Holocene temperature history at the western Greenland Ice Sheet margin reconstructed from lake sediments

"A primary objective of this study is to constrain the timing and magnitude of maximum warmth during the early to middle Holocene positive anomaly in summer insolation. Temperature reconstructions from subfossil insect (chironomid) assemblages suggest that summer temperatures were warmer than present by at least 7.1 ka (the beginning of the North Lake record; ka = thousands of years before present), and that the warmest millennia of the Holocene occurred in the study area between 6 and 4 ka. Previous studies in the Jakobshavn region have found that the local Greenland Ice Sheet margin was most retracted behind its present position between 6 and 5 ka, and here we use chironomids to estimate that local summer temperatures were 2–3 °C warmer than present during that time of minimum ice sheet extent."

lol - go on Karen, give that straw man a good pasting. And laugh maniacally while you're doing it for good measure.

Then afterwards, when you get your breath back, see if you can understand why it makes no impact on AGW.

Fresh from the quote mine:

Greenland ice sheet mass balance reconstruction

The part left behind:

Part I: net snow accumulation (1600-2009)

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 20 Dec 2012 #permalink

Oh god.

At least karen here is proving that idiocy is an equal opportunities employer.

I guess the Mack sock will apparate soon too...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 20 Dec 2012 #permalink

Meanwhile, the National Review is appealing for financial help in order to respond to Mann's lawsuit. They're doing the full-on martyr complex thing arguing that " extremists [are] going all-out to silence critics...", which seems odd when the critics are plentiful and loud.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 Dec 2012 #permalink

And the very first comment on that article basically asks why they, as an allegedly professional for-profit media organisation, is so unprofessional as to not have insurance that covers lawsuits.

The third top-level comment at the moment points out that under the kind of free-market principles National Review tends to espouse they should prefer to close their doors because they aren't profitable rather than panhandle online for donations. (But then as most of us know "wingnut welfare" supports a lot of people who are in the business of promoting free-market ideals.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 Dec 2012 #permalink

Even more coverage of the National Review's financial woes here. Check out the comments :-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 Dec 2012 #permalink

Is anyone keeping a count of the number of 'game changers' the so-called 'sceptics' have announced this week?

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 21 Dec 2012 #permalink

That would explain why the goalposts keep moving.

Not me - I blew up my counter keeping track of "final nails in the coffin of AGW".

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 21 Dec 2012 #permalink

Well here are some game changers described here: Climate 2013: Perspectives of 8 Scientists. Delayer, deniers and trolls (that means you Jonas) note each argument in turn and think about unsupportable your claims about AGW.

I have just returned from the annual symposium of the British Ecological Society held at Birmingham University, where two of my PhD students and myself presented seminars.

There were several sessions which covered global change and many lectures on climate change related effects on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Not a single one questioned the anthropogenic fingerprint. NOT ONE. Its taken as given. The BES keynote lecture was presented by Professor Johan Rockstrom, who was named 'Swede of the Year' in 2009 (and not Jonas? The mind boggles). No doubt our self-professed genius and his sidekick will claim that no 'real scientists' were there. A strange view considering that many have hundreds of publications and thousands of citations.

Rockstrom has been one of Sweden's strongest critics of the climate change denial community. In his latest book he even refers to them as deniers and outlines why they are dead wrong. His lecture was, for the most part, excellent. I have some minor quibbles with his lack of viable solutions, but the scientific content of his talk was outstanding.…

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 22 Dec 2012 #permalink


Bit more 'Good News' on the arctic front, from the Smithsonian,…

And we were talking about Polar Bears earlier, interesting article from the Pacific Standard,…

Judith Curry covers the story above also, her comment

" the transformation of some scientists into media stars and advocates, exaggeration under the guise of ‘simplification’ for the media, and the dismissal of skeptical science. Unger does a superb job of articulating the challenges to a journalist in navigating all this."


.. an d all because the denier loves blogs. Blogs are so much more comforting than actual science.

So give your denier 'Blogs' this Christmas.
In one eye and out the other, why it's almost like it was never there and can easily be read as part of a calory-controlled diet.

Warning: May contain nuts. .

Judith Curry: ” the transformation of some scientists into media stars and advocates, exaggeration under the guise of ‘simplification’ for the media, and the dismissal of skeptical science.”

Interesting irony!

Just a one word error but it's OK now.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 22 Dec 2012 #permalink


Here's the paper that the Smithsonian article was based on,…

from the abstract,

"Contrary to these expectations, our modelling of species distributions suggests that predicted climate change up to 2080 will favour most mammals presently inhabiting (sub)arctic Europe. Assuming full dispersal ability, most species will benefit from climate change, except for a few cold-climate specialists."


"The reason for the relative stability of mammalian presence might be that arctic regions have experienced large climatic shifts in the past, filtering out sensitive and range-restricted taxa."

which is an interesting hypothesis. The Irony chris is that "alarmists" see themselves as being "on the side of the science" and those sceptical as anti-science, when in fact the opposite is true (that's the irony bit). Zac Ungers piece in the Pacific Standard (above) is a fascinating tale, worth reading in its entirety - The gap between the "reality" and how they behave in front of camera's, the "advocacy", is quite striking.


The article you trump in PLoS One (where I was formerly and editor) talks only about habitat generalists and mammals. What about he much larger number of habitat specialists? For instance, plants, insects, birds? At the BES meeting, these issues were all addressed, including a keynote lecture from Chris Thomas, and, contrary to the expectations in one article in one journal that accepts 62% of all submissions, the prognosis is bleak.

The problem with people like you is that you have no formal expertise in any relevant fields, you cherry pick left, right and center, and you enter the debate with a pre-determined world view. If you'd bother to do a detailed search thorough the empirical literature you'd find that the few studies you trump are overwhelmed by many, many more already showing that food webs are being seriously affected by the rather modest level of warming so far, and that many other species are in free fall. If you insist on being willfully ignorant, then may I suggest you stick with the denier blogs.

As for Curry, she is not a biologist, and probably cannot tell a mole cricket from a giraffe.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 23 Dec 2012 #permalink

Pay attention to Jeff fellas. Once again he takes a full nelson on his favorite strawman. :-D

I'm sure the eco-tent was vibrating when Rocktröm started the service. After all, he is an agronomist by trade, ergo a climate scientist.

Merry Christmas

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 23 Dec 2012 #permalink


What straw man? You don't even know what the term means. If you want me to counter GSWs one example with dozens more, I would be more than happy to do so.

Besides, you don't need to pay attention to me, smart-ass. I argued that one should read the primary literature, which is full of studies showing that the recent warming is having serious effects on food webs and biodiversity. Its too bad that your limit to reading the empirical literature is confined to a few pieces pasted up here by your like-thinking deniers. Have you once in your life ever read the contents of a peer-reviewed journal, Olaus?

No, I thought not.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 23 Dec 2012 #permalink


Actually jeff I don't think you have any "formal" expertise in anything, certainly nothing to do with science, no "seeker after truth" you.

There is a lot of good work still being done in Climate studies, bio diversity etc- those who take a balanced view rather than shy away from publishing papers that go against the narrative- They should get more airtime in my view.

Also, Curry is not commenting on the Zac Unger story as a biologist, whatever made you think that? She's a Climate Scientist challenging how uncertainties are communicated to the public- the Amstrup tale is a good example of "when things go wrong", the balanced "private" view vs the narrative enhanced version for the media. It's all to easy to blame the media for over-doing it, but the Scientists themselves are pushing this stuff. By no stretch of the imagination is this a basis for rational debate.


Gave up on Rockström when I found out he was vice-chair of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Scare Stories - they left rational debate far behind them years ago. A good example is 3.5C by 2040 figure quoted by Tyndall's Kevin Anderson, via the IEA report, sourced from Potsdam. Ridiculous claims of ~1C/decade takes some hootspa to pass of with a straight face, but they do.

The great thing is Griselda, you will never understand why you are such a moron, even though you spout it out every other phrase.

GSW thinks he gets to say what the irony is.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 23 Dec 2012 #permalink

Jeff, I hate to challenge you but:

The problem with people like you is that you have no formal expertise in any relevant fields, you cherry pick left, right and center, and you enter the debate with a pre-determined world view.

There, that's better.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 23 Dec 2012 #permalink

Rise Up Australia party launch. Guest speaker: Christopher Mockton[sic]

Is this the first time a political party has been launched by a stand-up comedian?

By Anthony David (not verified) on 26 Dec 2012 #permalink

How odd! Not a mention of the fact that I, one of your most dearly loved commenters, has been placed under a death threat. I'm beginning to feel that perhaps you don't care for me anymore. I simply cannot believe that all you, er, 'peace 'n' love, man' types aren't horrified by Prof. Prat Cunt, ooops, sorry, I mean Prof. Parncutt and his desire to kill all AGW sceptics. I mean, obviously you're all a bunch of 'loopy-loos' over here but even so I don't think any of you are in favour of mass homicide.

Er, you aren't, are you?

By David Duff (not verified) on 26 Dec 2012 #permalink

Considering the year we have had in the UK Food Security: the first big hit from Climate Change will be to our pockets (and for all the deniers suddenly coming out of the woodwork around here - similar crops disasters are coming to a place near you soon) I doubt Monckton will be spending much time in blighted Blighty.

As for Rise Up Australia here is a lie right at the top of their page:

The Key Note Speech will be delievered by Lord Christopher Monckton, from the Lord Mockton Foundation. He is a member of the British House of Lords and is world renowned for his stand against climate change.

Do they not know about this, Lords distance themselves from climate sceptic Christopher Monckton.

Ignorance or lies, it makes little difference as it sums up their self serving agenda.

Ah! Duffer, the silly winds that blow through the blogs of talltwerp, wattshisqualification, jonovablow, etc.. I suggest that you try an alternative diet for sucking up to much from there will give you has given you indigestion as evidenced by the stench from your effluent.

Dammit! does strike no longer work here? Let's try that again.

Ah! Duffer, the silly winds that blow through the blogs of talltwerp, wattshisqualification, jonovablow, etc.. I suggest that you try an alternative diet for sucking up too much from there [strike] will give you [strike] has given you indigestion as evidenced by the stench from your effluent.

Don't forget Lionel, in Dufferworld (defined by his more usual centres of blog wisdom) the 10:10 video was merely a dry run of the plot to explode all "sceptics". And we would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't bin fer dem pesky deniers...

I'd deduce the implicit martyr complex (even on the cartoon level) helps inflate the pomposity and sense of self-importance their toybox version of science just doesn't provide them with.

... and is world renowned for his stand against climate change.

I hadn't realised that Monckton had swapped sides and was now campaigning to prevent climate change.

I'm not sure that I want him aligned with our 'side'...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 26 Dec 2012 #permalink

I hadn’t realised that Monckton had swapped sides and was now campaigning to prevent climate change.

Yes, that should have been two lies right at the top of their page.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 26 Dec 2012 #permalink

Duffster places himself in the ranks of "influential GW deniers".

Sure, David, whatever helps get you through the day... ;-)

Oh, you mean he *didn't* advocate the death penalty for AGW sceptics?

Look, chaps, I don't judge you, or your prejudices, by the some of the loonies who support you, well, at least, not so long as you repudiate them with **exactly the same vigour you repudiate me and my views**.

So come on then, all together now . . .

By David Duff (not verified) on 26 Dec 2012 #permalink

'Ello, 'ello, this silence is deafening!

By David Duff (not verified) on 26 Dec 2012 #permalink

Duffer, go have a pint or two of port, re-read the story that you've been told to make such a flap about, then come back and try again.

I mean, at first you're babbling hysterically about how someone wants "to kill all AGW sceptics", as in every man-jack of all you brave two-bit deniers, then it suddenly transforms in your bexy post into "advocating the death penalty for AGW sceptics".

These are two quite separate allegations, and you surely don't want any warmist clarifying things for you, do you?


Duffer, and all the other challenged twerps around here, if you still cannot get silly ideas out of your head here is somebody who describes things in the simplest of terms:">Sheldon Calls Out Climate Change Deniers.

There are no more straws to collect for your silly strawmen so that you can hide behind same.

Just go back to your bottle, David. Outside of your epistemic bubble no-one knows or cares.

How do you think you lot should be punished, incidentally?

Like many of your ilk,you're a mean-spirited and bigoted old shit - despite all the false-bonhomie - and I'm sure you'd love to see us thrown in gaol, as Monckton constantly advocates (while the utterly contemptible Delingpole advocates bullets when he's not describing people as pedophiles).

But you guys have been systematically and abrasively wrong - and not at all in good faith - about the single most important issue to get right currently facing civilization.

Worse, is the deliberately fostered systematic campaign of lies, hysteria and disinformation - and all in order to protect your beloved Free Market™, the joy of mean-spirited shits everywhere.

There are going to be lawsuits - just look at the Tobacco archives (many of the players on your side are the Tobacco Lobby, after all). Gutting Heartland, Marshall, and the CEI, stripping and seizing their assets, and winning huge payouts from Exxon and the Kochs is only just, but unfortunately such small victories can never hope to even begin to do anything about offsetting the damage that these dismal entities have wrought.

But, seriously, do you really imagine there are going to be no consequences of a more personal, criminal nature for some of you? You're all card-carrying members of the "clap 'em in irons / bring back flogging / throw 'em into the sea" brigade - so what's appropriate when it's your precious carcasses are on the line?

The irony is that you're actually fortunate you're not up against barbarians such as yourselves...

No, no, Check, you cheeky chappie, I have been reading the man's *own words*, well, up to a point and then I began to feel a bit ill. I gather he has taken them down now and substituted something less, er, honest! Can't be bothered to read the sanitised version, I'd rather re-read my "Collected Goebbels", I need the laughs after Prof. Prat Cunt.

But, er, sorry to mention it, and all that, but can't help noticing that you haven't yet repudiated him? Slip of the memory? Too worried about the imminent end of the world? Must be, I mean, two humanity-loving chaps like you wouldn't support a wannabe killer, would you?

By David Duff (not verified) on 26 Dec 2012 #permalink

Ah, right on cue, enter Bill, stage right, in his pantomime villain's costume to frighten all the kiddies.

Oddly enough, he does frighten me. Over 73 years I have seen his type of mouth-foamer, oh, different places, uniforms, different salutes, of course, but the same old fanaticism. Will I be first on your execution list, Bill, oh please, please, let me . . . just so I can spit in your eye when you pull the trigger!

By David Duff (not verified) on 26 Dec 2012 #permalink

Duffer - firstly, you need to tell us * what * got your bustle all akilter.

So far your versions don't reconcile. Or are you just acting all affronted because some Californian dwarf with a bad moustach told you to and you haven't the first clue about what? It seems that way from here.

But only then perhaps can it be determined what import your tale has.

Answer the question, David. What's an appropriate punishment for you lot? Is this consistent with your beliefs about punishing the transgressions of others?

I'll almost guarantee the answer to the last question is a clear 'no' even though you won't admit it.

Gee, snow in winter you say? And what's extra precipitation from 5% more moisture in a warmer atmosphere when temperatures are at about zero or below again? In those areas that snow is an annual feature, do we get more snow in relatively warmer winters, or cooler ones? And how has NH snow cover been trending, overall?

Just some questions for you to ignore.

And still none of you can bring yourselves to repudiate this man.

It says so much about you!

By David Duff (not verified) on 27 Dec 2012 #permalink

@David Duff

"Ah, right on cue, enter Bill, stage right, in his pantomime villain’s costume to frighten all the kiddies."

@The Pantomime Villain
Here on Deltoid, you all see tremendous significance to "of the moment" events, endless posts about it being a bit warmer the usual in one place, hurricanes that are barely hurricanes, somewhere where it hasn't rained as much as it usually does, others were it rained more.

Karen has just posted another example for you, it's not the event itself, it's the mental gymnastics you lot go thru that we've all come to watch.

A couple more cold links
India cold snap death toll climbs to 93

Eastern Europe deadly freeze leaves hundreds dead
"Temperatures in Russia have been 10 to 15 degrees below average, with -50C (-58F) recorded in Siberia."

Can you imagine how you lot would go on if it had been 10-15 degrees above average! Go on someone, have a go at telling us all that the conditions that caused these "events" can only happen in a "warming world", like you usually do for everything else.

Do you think it might ever be possible, just once before you die, to ever make a sensible comment Griselda?

Because as far as I can tell, nobody but nobody is interested in your malformed interpretations or misinformed opinions.

Take it over to Bishop Swill's, where that class of tripe (Winter! Cold! Therefore no AGW!!) may get the henhouse clucking for a good ten minutes. Generalised nonsense is right up their street there.

Dear Dopey David, as I explained to you right off the bat outside of the Rightospheric epistemic bubble no-one has heard of whatever incident or person you're on about.

So, back to my question; what sanctions is the community entitled to take against you lot? Or do you think liars should not be responsible for the terrible consequences of their mendacity? My well-informed guess is that the answer is 'yes' if the liars concerned amount to you or your allies. Whereas no doubt you're in favour of capital - and perhaps even corporal - punishment for other people.

Bravo, Bill, as fine a piece of dextrous skating on thin ice as I have ever seen!

So, you have absolutely no knowledge of Prof. Pratcunt, ooops, sorry again, Prof. Parncutt despite his words going so viral on the internet that he has withdrawn them and replaced them with something more, shall we say, soothing. But you, Bill, the most assiduous watcher of all things global warming failed to spot them or any reference to them. 'Sorry, officer, I didn't see nuffink!'

But then, following in all too well-defined footsteps which have been trodden on many a time and oft', you almost echo the Mad Hatter of "Systematic Musicology" by asking what "sanctions the community" is entitled to take against you Jewish filth/capitalist running dogs/AGW sceptics (delete to taste)? But you haven't quite got the guts to come right out with it, have you , Billy? I mean, you're itching to snap out orders to the firing squad but you can't quite bring yourself to pull a trigger, can you?

I should add, once again, that the moral cowardice displayed by 'the usual suspects' on this site in failing to repudiate Parncutt's original words damages your own cause as much as your own reputations.

By David Duff (not verified) on 27 Dec 2012 #permalink

Brisbane is on track to record its coldest December day in 123 years as overcast conditions continue to put a dampener on the opening week of summer.

Cloud cover and cool winds have kept things chilly in the southeast with record temperatures recorded in Stanthorpe, which recorded its lowest ever December maximum of 13 degrees.

In Brisbane not a single day this month has crept above the long-term maximum average of 29.…

Sydney, (observatory Hill) is in position to record December’s coldest average maximum temperature on record. The coldest was 22.5 in 1924 followed by 22.6 in 1934 and 22.8 in 1931 and 1960. Currently at Observatory hill the monthly average is just 21.7.…

lol….so now the greenhouse effect is trapping the cold in……….:)

Ps…Sydney’s hottest Christmas Day on record was in 1868, when the city sweltered to 39 C.

David, your hysteria is getting the better of you. Best to go back to the military dolls and trying to get Paulus' army to win this time, eh?

But you're not answering the question, are you, you mean-spirited, punitive old shit?

Also, if i ever see any reference to whatever you're on about in the world outside your little bubble, maybe then I'll bother to form an opinion about it. But your hysterical reaction does all seem rather hypocritical, given what a deeply authoritarian and punitive bunch you all are, don't you think?

Karen, when is the opening week of summer in Australia? I'll give you a hint - today is December 27th. Also, that's an article from 2011. In fact, they both are. And it wasn't. Are you the dopiest prat in the whole world, do you suppose?

Duffer, you STILL haven't gotten your story straight, so what do you expect of others? Until you can clearly state what's got your nuts in a twist, don't expect anyone else to decipher your garbled thinking.

But, Check, it's so easy, I'm surprised a scientific genius like you can't manage it. Just follow these instructions:

a: Click on Google
b: Enter the name 'Parncutt', only try and spell it better than I do.

And lo, all will be revealed and then you will rush back here and tell us that Parncutt rates, on a good day, about level with Breivik but on a bad day somewhere between Himmler and Beria. You will also tell us - er, you will, won't you? - that the AGW movement wants nothing to do with this despicable excuse for a human being.

I have every confidence - sucker that I am!

By David Duff (not verified) on 27 Dec 2012 #permalink


Well I think you have your answer David, NOT ONE of the regular alarmist commenters here, sees anything wrong in killing those who do not share their bizarre beliefs; for example the 1C/decade warming, promised to us from the Potsdam Institute of Climate Scare Stories, whilst looking at the Global temp anom and thinking WTF happened to Global Warming! The unimaginable heresy from that alone would be grounds I suppose.

Quite disturbing really, you don't need to be student of history to understand the sort of people we are dealing with here.

Duffster: Oh, you mean he *didn’t* advocate the death penalty for AGW sceptics?

No. Nor did he advocate mass homocide or place you under a death threat, or any of the other hysterical bullshit you are wittering on with. Go and read what he did advocate, silly man, and then get back to us. When you post a considered question, you might get a considered reply.

"Sceptics. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means...:"

Duffster, stop for one moment being an utter cretin, and try and rise up to at least moron level.

Google cannot tell me what you-the-person are cranking about, once your self-aroused hysteria fizzles out - only you can. So why be so coy about it? Surely it must be something to have got you so lathered up. Or does it perhaps sound just too stupid outside of your playpen?

And of course, you only need to execute one person for an infringement and all the rest follows as the definition of infringement is widened. And as for history, I don't think this lot could spell the word!

And still no repudiation!

By David Duff (not verified) on 27 Dec 2012 #permalink

Enter the name ‘Parncutt’, only try and spell it better than I do.

My word, you're a douchecanoe. "Google this thing, which won't work, because I cannot or will not spell properly".

Now, try again, Stu, and this time try not to move your lips as you do it: P-a-r-n-c-u-t-t - not to be confused with 'Pratcunt'!

See, it's easy when you know how!

By David Duff (not verified) on 27 Dec 2012 #permalink


"you only need to execute one person for an infringement and all the rest follows as the definition of infringement is widened"

Indeed David. One only need establish "in principle" that people that don't agree with you can be executed (for heresy) and then you can go full hog and install your Climate Inquisitor General. Confessions drawn out on the rack - "I confess I read articles posted at Bishop Hill, conspired with Marc Morano, and turned my central heating on in the winter", that sort of thing, you know, the hard core heretics that offend Holy Mother Climate Science.

"Duffster: Oh, you mean he *didn’t* advocate the death penalty for AGW sceptics?

No. Nor did he advocate mass homocide or place you under a death threat, or any of the other hysterical bullshit you are wittering on with."

Rather alarmist isn't he?

You'd think these deniers would be more careful about proclaiming some catastrophe wouldn't you.

As long as you can clutch your pearls and masturbate, your little self-made fantasy should bring you off in no time at all Griselda. The indignation likely just adds a little extra frisson.

AGW denier trivialises Breivik massacre

See, here's my headline for you, Duffer.

Parncutt rates, on a good day, about level with Breivik but on a bad day somewhere between Himmler and Beria.

This only says a lot about your level of onanistic hysteria. You're saying this person has actually shot masses of kids? Set up Gulags and extermination camps?

No; the only reason you'd use the outrageous - and palpably absurd - phrase 'about level with Breivik' (adding insult to injury by going on to imply that he's 'worse on a bad day') is that you're actually not much fussed about what Breivik did, given who his targets were.

Come on, Scandeniers - are you really going to let this pompous British windbag spit on the memory of your kids merely because its politically convenient?


Come on bill, even you can work this out. The gentleman in question, on his blog for a short time at least, has found what he considers to be a "good reason" for killing people, as others have done before him, you don't need anymore than that. Whether you think this is trivial or not is up to you.

Keep jerking Griselda, That fantasy's got to be enough to see you through to New Year at least, before it gets old. Mayhem! Murder! Bishop! Anthony! Gnnnnnrrrgh!

Of course everyone else can 'see it' Griselda, just not in the same light as you paranoid, fuckheaded cranks.

Now, try again, Stu, and this time try not to move your lips as you do it: P-a-r-n-c-u-t-t – not to be confused with ‘Pratcunt’!

Christ on a crutch, you are even dumber than our regular trolls. Okay, sweetheart. So I are saying I have to bother a professor of Systematic Musicology at the University of Graz simply because you cannot spell?

Or are you saying that a professor of Systematic Musicology is the person we should turn to to figure out the climate?

I am so confused. Please help me!

The gentleman in question, on his blog for a short time at least, has found what he considers to be a “good reason” for killing people, as others have done before him, you don’t need anymore than that.

Oh yes, do tell us all about the real and present danger denialist dunces are in.

Mann directs Penn State University’s Earth System Science Center. Several months ago, he arrived at his office with an armload of mail. Sitting at his desk, he tore open a hand-addressed envelope and began to pull out a letter. He watched as a small mass of white powder cascaded out of the folds and onto his fingers. Mann jerked backward, letting the letter drop and holding his breath as a tiny plume of particles wafted up, sparkling in the sunlight. He rose quickly and left the office, pulling the door shut behind him. “I went down to the restroom and washed my hands,” he says. “Then I called the police.”

Do tell, GSW. Go on.

And still no-one here repudiates him.

By David Duff (not verified) on 27 Dec 2012 #permalink

Rose, Karen had the wrong year. Look at the dates that are written into the links! Remember the 2011 excitement of 'coolest December on record' - that started on about the 9th?

And yet the objectionable Duff still refuses to repudiate his trivialization of the Breivik massacre, aided and abetted by his Scandinavian allies.

That sad old nag, the Denier Moral Outrage high-horse, collapses under the combined weight of their noxious absurdity.

Duffer: And still no-one here repudiates him.

What do you want repudiated, Duffer? Do you want us to reject his claim that he is a professor of musicology? That's on his site. That he grew up in Melbourne? That's on his site. That the moon is made of green cheese?

Oh wait, the last one doesn't appear on his site. Of course, neither do any of the statements you've attributed to him (in any version of the article), and which seems to be what you object to. So you want us to repudiate something he hasn't said?


I repudiate the idea that killing all GW sceptics is morally justified. I think its outrageous that David Duff should slanderously attribute such an idea to a person who never said such a thing. Disgraceful!

I repudiate the idea that death threats are an appropriate course of action in any circumstance. I think its outrageous that David Duff should slanderously attribute such threats to an individual who has never done anything of the sort. Disgraceful!

I repudiate David Duff's contemptible smearing of an individual availing himself of his right to free speech. Duff lying about what was said in a lame attempt to play the victim is a special kind of desperate. If Parncutt's statements are so objectionable, Duff should have no compunction about quoting him accurately, and letting him be convicted out of his own mouth. But Duff has to lie about what was said, just so he can get in a bit of alarmist squeaking.

"Breivik ... Himmler ... Beria" - Is that some sort of Triple Godwin? Hysteria much?

Send better trolls!

For the benefit of FrankD who should have gone to Specsavers:

"If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death. The sentence would then be commuted to life imprisonment if the accused admitted their mistake, demonstrated genuine regret, AND participated significantly and positively over a long period in programs to reduce the effects of GW (from jail) - using much the same means that were previously used to spread the message of denial. At the end of that process, some GW deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed. Perhaps that would be the only way to stop the rest of them. The death penalty would have been justified in terms of the enormous numbers of saved future lives."…

Don't you just love the "jury of suitably qualified scientists "?!

And how Orwellian is "The sentence would then be commuted to life imprisonment if the accused admitted their mistake, demonstrated genuine regret, AND participated significantly and positively over a long period in programs to reduce the effects of GW (from jail) - using much the same means that were previously used to spread the message of denial."?

Now, my little Deltoids, consider the above but replace the term 'GW deniers' with 'GW advocates' and suppose that it was written by me. Would you have something to say about it?

By David Duff (not verified) on 28 Dec 2012 #permalink

Yes, Dai, it says that, not what you claim it says.

Reading comprehension.

Learn it.

Good God: actual content! And this is 'worse' than Breivik, is it, you palpably phoney hysteric, you?

I don't agree with the death penalty and cannot see how a legal system can incorporate such a notion of future harms in capital cases, no matter what their likelihood or the extent of their impact. I cannot imagine any scientists wishing to participate in such an absurd 'jury'. I also don't believe there would be any deterrent effect whatsoever - the reverse, if anything.

When commenter Gingerbaker brought up similar notions a while ago here at Deltoid he was dealt with very bluntly indeed. One of my chief arguments is that the hysteric Right is far more likely to thrive in any drift to an authoritarian system of state -sponsored violence and populist - or pseudo-populist - vigilantism.

By way of confirmation of this it's notable that while the obscure comments of this Professor of Musicology from Graz are being trumpeted as a very big deal - completely disingenuously, to my mind - you've had the likes of 'we're coming for you and we're going to put you in gaol' Monckton and the odious James 'there just aren't enough bullets' Delingpole as some of your most prominent spokespeople for years without any of you batting an eyelid.

Hypocrites. That's the word.

I also do not feel in any way responsible for the opinions of this tangential figure who is hardly a significant component of the climate debate, and the only circles in which his deservedly obscure notions have been made prominent is among insincere Denier opportunists playing at being victims in the vain hope of restoring the interest the general community has lost in them since the Climategate fiasco was shown to be a disingenuous manipulation from go to whoa.

But, I repeat; you lot are generally 'bring back the birch' authoritarians of the first water - given the palpable harms you are causing, and almost all in bad faith, what do you think the community is entitled to do with you? Civil litigation is inevitable - and I trust prominent Denialist entities, including major corporations, will be effectively stripped of their assets and protections allowing directors and board members will be individually sued - but do you really imagine there will be no more direct consequences?

Delingpole's baying for blood and frantically trying to organize the witch-trials for the crime of erecting wind-turbines, fer Chrissakes - there are going to be a lot of people about in the next few decades who are going to wonder if it might not be just, after all, to simply apply your own standards of obnoxious vigilantism right back at you.

Always keen to help little 'Wow' let me just hint at what is required. The words you are looking for are: 'I utterly repudiate the notion that GW sceptics should be tried and executed'. Go on, little 'Wow', give it a try, you know you'll feel much better about yourself.

Bill is more sophisticated, well, frankly my cat is more sophisticated than little 'Wow', and thus he covers up his sort of repudiation with a ton of unnecessary verbiage. Yes, he's against the death penalty; no, he's sure no scientists would wish to be on a jury (although the history of scientists under totalitarian regimes is hardly promising!); and irrespective of anything like principle he worries more that it would be a recruiting agent for the "hysteric Right" (and all these years AGW advocates have insisted they are non-political!)

So Billy cannot bring himself to put the noose round anyone's neck but he's all for suing and thereby impoverishing any GW deniers by stripping them of their property and money. True, a difference in degree, but not one that shows Billy in a particularly strong liberal light. One senses that it would not take too much to nudge him towards, er, a final solution!

By David Duff (not verified) on 28 Dec 2012 #permalink

Don't forget the deniers complete acceptance of Glenn "Not enough knives" Beck and Jim "it's all treason" Inholfe.

So, Duffski, would you agree or disagree that a claim that the jury saw was proven with 95% confidence was "proven beyond reasonable doubt"?

You seem to know all words except what "IF" means.

Why is that?

IF you don't understand that word, how can we know that you understand ANY other?

What Duff and GSW are engaging in is an attempt at poisoning the well, as well as to construct guilt by association.

These are fallacies of logic.

This is unssurprising, as both trolls have a long and consistent history of logical fallatio.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 28 Dec 2012 #permalink

I wonder how Duff would react if we were to posit that hanging is too good for this pair: Australian Press Council Criticizes Climate Denier Columnists For ‘Highly Offensive’ Comments?

Which reminds me about another 'gate, so the glaciers are growing are they:
Eli Goes Photoshopping for the New Year
. Now if the animated GIF don't work for you, it didn't here, you can always work things mandraulically .

Whatever, Delingpole is, to use an old naval expression, all piss-and-wind, as Sir Paul Nurse once ably demonstrated. I'll leave it for you people down-under to give Bolt the appropriate 'tar-and-feathers'.

What a remarkable - and truly pathetic - last paragraph. I suspect, David, that even you aren't convinced by your own limp, slippery-slope nonsense.

And impoverishing, say, officers of the major wrecker think-tanks, board-rooms, or some members of the Murdoch Empire editorial boards? Colour me untroubled. Given the harm they've done / are doing / will continue to do, who could possibly say it was unjust? Where their toxic manipulations are going to have caused a lot of real harm - and real financial harm come to that - to a lot of people; why the hell should they remain comfortable and their assets unscathed? In any future hell they've done their part to bring about, why the hell should they not be made to both compensate for the harms they have wrought, and pay for the mitigation of further harms arising as a direct consequence?

I mean, seriously, as I keep saying, you folks are almost universally punitive authoritarians, and yet you want this kind of malignant sociopathy to get off scot-free? Hypocrites.

You turned up here with your misogynist raving ('Pratcunt' indeed!), abrasively demanding that we be outraged by something we've only ever heard of because you turned up here raving, etc.. And yet,as I've pointed out, you've been all the while cheerfully oblivious the demagogic rabble-rousing and far more influential and potentially dangerous extremism of some of your own leading lights.

And imagine if I turned up at WUWT demanding in such an abusive and hysterical fashion that the regulars condemn some obscure outrageous notion found on, say, your blog, David? Or some egregious commentary at Bishop Hill, or the odious Shub Niggurath's? How about, say, Tucci78, whose vigilantist ravings, un-nuanced by philosophical caveats or any notion of legal niceties, seem not to faze prominent 'skeptics'?

How far do you think I'd get?

You really are a silly old man. Let's also recall your toxic trivializing of the real and truly terrible crimes of Anders Breivik in the course of this sordid, insincere, and histrionic process. You really ought to be ashamed, but, sadly, we're only-too-aware you lack any such capacity.

But ... but ... Karen, that just cannot be! I mean, just over the water the Chinese, to say nothing of India, are pumping out carbon gases by the zillion trillion 'thingies' that measure carbon gas - it should be boiling in Japan, everyone says so, er, well, everyone here says so.

And another 24 hours goes by and still no-one, not one single so-called human being on this site can bring themselves to just write "I repudiate anyone who suggests that GW deniers should be arrested, tried in court and executed if found guilty."

Why am I not surprised?!

By David Duff (not verified) on 29 Dec 2012 #permalink

...well, everyone no-one here says so except Duff & Karen and hangers on.


By Lotharsson (not verified) on 29 Dec 2012 #permalink

Well now that the Duffster has actually provided the quote proving that the Professor's comments - contrary to his several claims to that effect - had nothing to do death threats against him, mass homicide or prosecuting all AGW sceptics, I will happily comply with his request:

I repudiate the irrelevant professor's stupid idea that passing death sentences against influential AGW deniers would be in any way productive or is in any way morally defensible.

Capital punishment is a daft idea, although I have no in-principle objection to people who have harmed others being held accountable for their actions in court, within the normal extent of tort law. In the event of illegal activity, then they should be held to account to the normal extent of criminal law. And that precludes capital punishment in any jurisdiction I care about.

Fortunately the professor has no more influence on climate change policy or legal processes than the Duffster, so really the issue is moot.

What is not moot is why David felt he had to exaggerate his case. If he had just stated it plainly and honestly, I would have posted the above days ago, and I'm sure others would have agreed (Bill and I seem largely on the same page). The interesting question now is, will David explicity resile from his false claims? Or will he just try to change the topic? I can't wait...

Congratulations on getting the right year this time, Karen.


Well done, Frank, you have, with great delicacy, placed a fig-leaf over the rather nasty private parts of this blog's commentariat.

So come on, Chek, Wow, Lotharsson, Bernard, Lionel et al, Frank has shown you how to be human, let us se if you can manage it, too.

By David Duff (not verified) on 29 Dec 2012 #permalink

I would like to thank David Duff for bringing to the fore this important issue concerning the need for the punishment of those promoting those calumnies which result in the death and suffering of large numbers of people not only in the future but also the recent past and now.

It is certainly something the profile of which should be raised and judging by the Internet search hits on the peccant phrase the machinery of denial is running at full tilt. Good. That Duff raises the matter here is grist to that mill.

In this manner many more will consider that an International Criminal Court should have on its statute some instrument that could be used, by making an example of a person accused and convicted of climate-forcing crimes against humanity, 'Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres', as Voltaire put it in Candide referring to the execution of Admiral John Byng for his poor performance in supporting British forces on Minorca where the strategically important Port Mahon was lost. The fact that Byng was poorly supported by the Admiralty in way of fitness of, adequate rating of, and numbers of ships is another matter.

Now having used execution as an example does not mean that I am in favour of capital punishment. Even in the old sailing RN the death penalty was a last resort except for crimes that risked the safety of the ship and all those in her (very similar in essence to the issue here) I would rather the punishment fit the crime, something along the lines of the convicted being forced to endure the conditions of those unfortunates affected by ravages caused by AGW induced climate change. It would be good to see the blowhards (see below) in the media, and other organisations, served out in similar manner.

A rising level of punishment for repeat offences after being cautioned or then later 'slapped on the wrist' would be of value. A sight of Monckton having his nose pushed to the grindstone on community service may help here, maybe walking the streets with a sandwich board proclaiming 'I am not a member of the House of Lords' would do as a start. I am sure there are other suitable encouragements that could be brought against the Moranos, Basts and Malloys with others against the Watts and Bastardis, the Roses, Delingpoles, Bolts, Marohasys, Codlings. Neither should the Inhofes, Bartons, Rohrabachers etc escape censure.

Keep it up Duff.

Alas, Lionel, I can only give you 'E' for Effort on that one. For a start, a 'calumny', a lie about a person or persons, cannot "result in the death and suffering of large numbers of people", it can only harm *reputations*. Still, I like your burgeoning literary style - "peccant", deliciously archaic! Also, I appreciate your not-so-subtle effort to refute my contention that none of you here have ever read a history book.

Of course, with the very greatest delicacy you abjure the use of the death penalty whilst remaining fairly open-minded about any other punishment considered suitable for those with *the temerity to disagree with you*. I'm surprised your history studies have not indicated to you where that sort of philosophy tends to end, after all, you don't have to go back very far! Also, I would urge you to beware what you wish for. If bringing down unconsidered hardships onto the heads of innocent people is to be 'a crime against humanity', you might wish to look harder at some of the cloud-cuckoo-land ideas propagated by various eco-warriors.

As the planet cools over the next few years, despite CO2 emissions growing ever larger, you will have plenty of time to think about it.

By David Duff (not verified) on 29 Dec 2012 #permalink

For a start, a ‘calumny’, a lie about a person or persons, cannot “result in the death and suffering of large numbers of people”, it can only harm *reputations*.

Try again, I had in mind the lies of the blowhards and once-upon-a-time scientists who besmirch the reputations of those scientists who are still engaged in science that informs us on how and why climate is changing and how they arrived at their conclusions and by doing so try to sway public opinion away from the inconvenient truth. Note how they do not do this through the scientific literature.

As the planet cools over the next few years, despite CO2 emissions growing ever larger, you will have plenty of time to think about it.

Now that is one 'cloud-cuckoo-land' idea right there. You need to be careful about who you believe.

Here are a number of correctives for your crazy ideas.

And I don't give a fig for those with the temerity to disagree with me for it is nature itself that they are trying to fool and as we have seen this last year, last ten years, the last twenty years, nature cannot be fooled. But it seems that you can with that nonsense about a planet cooling.

Go back to ogling the Daily Sport, sport.

Blowhard Trivializer of Mass-Murder in Unsubstantiated Belief Shock!

An early Happy New Year to ALL :)

even yoo barnturd :)

I see David has not backed down from his exaggerations. I wonder why he felt the need to lie to make a stronger case?

His failure to climb down from his hysteria, along with his other dribbling, suggests he believes that people who harm others should not be held accountable, if their beliefs say its okay to do so. Who's the “Breivik … Himmler … Beria” now?

" As the planet cools over the next few years,"
Still, I suppose its unreasonable to expect any logical consistency from someone prepared to make themselves that much of a hostage to fortune...

Yeah, but which year, Karen?

And, yes, Frank, the irony is that it's Duff who has revealed himself as the monster who holds the lives of those he doesn't agree with cheap. This whole ludicrous and confected outrage is one big projection promulgated by those who are themselves among the most dangerous extremists in our community. They fear others will do to them first what they yearn to do...

As the planet cools over the next few years...

Now where have I heard that before?

And how did that pan out? Must go and check...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 29 Dec 2012 #permalink

“I repudiate anyone who suggests that GW deniers should be arrested, tried in court and executed if found guilty.”

Stupid old duffer doesn't believe in the rule of law either.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 29 Dec 2012 #permalink

Yeah, but which year, Karen?

Bill FTW!

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 29 Dec 2012 #permalink

FrankD quotes me and then adds:
"” As the planet cools over the next few years,”
Still, I suppose its unreasonable to expect any logical consistency from someone prepared to make themselves that much of a hostage to fortune…"

And what have you been doing, Frank, since you stopped wearing nappies? Why, bless my soul, you have been making yourself a 'hostage to fortune', only in your case you were not too fortunate, were you? As Karen's link (see above) and almost all other indices indicate, it has been yet another ferocious winter. It is now clear to everyone who has not invested their entire adult life into forecasting global warming that there has been none, zilch, nada! I realise how difficult it is to admit error, having been wrong myself about many things, but 'man up', chaps, and tell it the way it obviously is, there has been no global warming worth a drop of sweat, your 'hockey stick' turned out to be a billiard cue, zillions of tons (or whatever) of extra CO2 pumped out by the Chinese has had little or no effect, arctic ice decreases slightly as Antarctic ice increases and those nice cuddly polar bears are still fornicating like mad (to keep warm, perhaps) as their numbers increase!
I mean, if this is global warming then it simply isn't good enough! What I want is some global **heating**!

Anyway, through gritted teeth I echo Karen's New Year good wishes to you all. You might all be crap climate scientists but you add to the gaiety of nations!

By David Duff (not verified) on 30 Dec 2012 #permalink

Yes, it wouldn't be winter without the appearance of condescending old man Duff, ghost of science past, claiming that local snow means the globe can't possibly be warming when the year is, yet again, on track to be in the top ten of warmest ever.


Duff, quick question, if there has been no global warming, what caused the record arctic ice melt?

it has been yet another ferocious winter

Where? It has been ferociously wet in Blighty, but certainly not ferociously cold - quite the opposite in fact. That bubble Duff lives in must be shrinking all the time.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 30 Dec 2012 #permalink

Read Karen's link

By David Duff (not verified) on 30 Dec 2012 #permalink

Answer my question Duff - what caused the melting of the arctic ice if it wasn't the warming you claim isn't happening because it's cold where you live in winter? Because nothing on the ridiculous webpage Karenmackspot linked to does.


The troll's link was not very interesting. Only a science-hater and denier would come up with:

The only people who claim to know what Earth's climate will do in the future are fools and lairs

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 30 Dec 2012 #permalink

I realise how difficult it is to admit error, having been wrong myself about many things, ...

Many things? I got the distinct impression you were never wrong about anything.

Where has Dai admitted he's been wrong on anything?

"it simply isn’t good enough! What I want is some global **heating**!"

Is this how the deniers will continue when there's no doubt that their past predictions are wrong and that there is a warming trend and it will continue?

Re-define global warming as "more warming than we have" and then say that this global warming doesn't exist?

Duff wanted us to read at Karen's link where lord_sidcup found

The only people who claim to know what Earth's climate will do in the future are fools and lairs...

Ah yes, you see it right there Duff, another example of the calumnies I was alluding to. On that score you were saying...?

But let us complete that statement as written:

—nature keeps its own council.

Nature does what nature does to be sure but as for keeping its own council that clearly comes from a extremely parochial view of human endeavours to understand our part in things. Of course we have never managed to counter the forces of gravity, or the ravages of plagues. We have never managed to gain any control over fire or use wind power to our advantage etc. etc. etc.

And yet, stupid ignorant people like Duff are likely to drive a Porsche into a swollen ford - from 0:30 in the video .

And here is another mark of the misery that has descended upon the country - this in my neck of the woods, although local experience is small change compared to the devastation across large swathes of the country. This is all due to the over active hydrological cycle and redirected jet stream itself a mark of the warming in the Arctic that has seen astonishing summer ice melt.

As we are now there is a distinct lack of ice around Nova Zemelya and Svalbard, try a trip to here: Arctic sea ice graphs and study somewhat.

This is all called climate change and brought on by global warming a sizeable fraction of which is due to US.

Study some other literature on weather and climate if you still cannot see the link.

And it's "nature keeps its own counsel".

It doesn't have a government, you know.

But it's weird how deniers can mouth this and still assert that "it is cooling". Really? I thought it kept its own counsel? Are you on the counsel council?

Yep, you see, it's ultimately impossible to know that the world is warming, or that the oceans are rising.

But one 'paper' published by, say, the GWPF can instantly and completely 'prove' the opposite. No uncertainties are involved. It's 'obvious'!

This kind of infantile Pavlovian reaction is a hallmark of the Denier mind. The fact that many - if not perhaps most - minds are this crude - basically reactive systems for excluding the inconvenient and reconfirming initial beliefs - (and almost-certainly always have been) generally hasn't mattered too much. But when a problem like AGW comes along...

'Commonsense' may well be common. But sensible? Not so much.

And what have you been doing, Frank, since you stopped wearing nappies? Why, bless my soul, you have been making yourself a ‘hostage to fortune’, only in your case you were not too fortunate, were you?

David can't back down from his exaggerations. Instead he simple adds projection, distraction and a little infantile spite, as expected (and even predicted, in part).

A couple of days ago it was "THREE CHEERS FOR FRANKD". But now its lame snidiness. If the Duffster were to acknowledge he was over the top with all that guff about "death threats" and "mass homicide", I'd return the gesture. I'm not expecting to have too, but perhaps David will surprise us all by doing the right thing...


John asked me a question back up there somewhere and I failed to answer it:
"what caused the melting of the arctic ice if it wasn’t the warming you claim isn’t happening because it’s cold where you live in winter?"
to which I can only ask in reply, was it what caused the Antarctic ice to grow?

By David Duff (not verified) on 31 Dec 2012 #permalink

"to which I can only ask in reply, "

So you won't answer because you can't or because you daren't?

"was it what caused the Antarctic ice to grow?"


There is a new myth circulating in the climate contrarian blogosphere and mainstream media that a figure presented in the "leaked" draft Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report shows that the planet has warmed less than previous IPCC report climate model simulations predicted. Tamino at the Open Mind blog and Skeptical Science's own Alex C have done a nice job refuting this myth. We prefer not to post material from the draft unpublished IPCC report, so refer to those links if you would like to see the figure in question.

...was it what caused the Antarctic ice to grow?

Invalid question. Why?

Firstly, because you do not differentiate between continental ice mass, including glaciers, and sea ice.

Secondly, because Antarctic Ice is not growing.

Most specifically continental ice is reducing as glacier flow increases with a spurt in acceleration each time an ice shelf collapses.

That latter is one contributor to increased sea ice, so therefore this component does not add to overall ice mass.

This is also one of the reasons why in some parts of the peripheral Antarctic sea ice has increased in area whilst in other sectors it has decreased with fluctuations in location and extent over time as seen here:

Antarctic Sea Ice 1999-2012

Here is some more:

Is Antarctica Melting?

and more general points, although answering a different, but very much related, basic question:

Part Three: Response to Goddard

So Duff it would appear that you simply repeat the idiotic mantra of others without question. I often wonder why intellectually challenged humans were called duffers you provide the answer to that question.

And still David can't bring himself to resile from his hysteria about death threats and mass homicide...

It says so much about him!

David Duff

You have run away from this thread like the disgrace that you are once again having been shown how wrong you are.

" "…was it what caused the Antarctic ice to grow?"

Secondly, because Antarctic Ice is not growing."

Heck, if you want to give the denier the benefit of trying to work out how in hells name they can be right, you'd get an answer "melting caused the Antarctic ice to grow".

And it can be seen quite easily that this is true using a warm room, if you don't mind ruining a new pat of butter.

Put the butter on a much larger flat surface.
Put the butter in the warm room (warm enough to melt butter).
Watch the butter melt.
See the butter spread over the surface.

Melting caused the butter to grow.

In spread over the flat surface.