January 2013 Open Thread

Australia makes into 2013 in good shape despite the carbon tax. How can this be?

More like this

EMERGENCY - EMERGENCY!

Come on, chaps, buckle down, you're needed - for once! Alaska, home of the hottest bear hunter in the world, is freezing! You climate scientologists used to point at Alaska as a living proof of your warming theory but since the turn of the millennium temperatures have dropped around 2.5 degrees! Ships are stuck in the Bering Sea and the poor old Alaskans are facing a winter of 50 degrees below!

So come on, altogether now, start pumping out some more carbon - no, Chek, not that sort of carbon - do behave!

By David Duff (not verified) on 02 Jan 2013 #permalink

So Duffer your 'news' is AGW isn't warm everywhere and ... Alaska gets cold in winter. And you need an ex-regional news weatherman to tell you that and send you off on your rounds.

It's almost impossible to tell who's the more pathetic - you for needing the likes of him, or him for needing the likes of you.

"Come on, chaps, buckle down, you’re needed – for once! Alaska, home of the hottest bear hunter in the world"

Oh dear.

If you mean Palin, to be a bear hunter you need to be able to shoot one of them.

And to be hot, you need to be actually very attractive.

PS NEWS SHOCKER: WINTER.

Did David just use evidence of Alaska's changing climate as an argument that climate change is not real, or did I just miss something?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 02 Jan 2013 #permalink

Quite so, Vince, but the question is, which way is it changing? Apparently colder and if it goes on MDS (My Darling Sarah) will have to wear TWO pairs of Long Johns and that will quite ruin her allure!

By David Duff (not verified) on 02 Jan 2013 #permalink

Note three things about Duffs article:

1. It was written by some far right tabloid rag.

2. Nowhere do the authors dispute AGW. In fact, they argue that the regional effects on Alaska are due to factors independent of AGW.

3. Note how the Arctic coastline is still warming significantly. That important caveat was omitted by the author of this right wing crap.

As an aside: I don't see Duff trying to wind up everyone here with his "how cold its been in the UK" this winter. Probably because since mid-December the country has had near record high temperatures. Even tomorrow in northern Scotland the thermometer is expected to top 10 C. Just another nail in Piers Corbyn's "we are into a little ice age" bilge again.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 Jan 2013 #permalink

I think Duff only read the headline, not the actual article.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 02 Jan 2013 #permalink

Tut, tut, Jeff, already you've broken your New Year resolution to try harder at fact-checking!

1: I have no idea of the politics of the newspaper concerned but the story originated from the Alaska Climate Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks so presumably they are a bunch of climate scientologists like you lot here.

2: I didn't say anything about AGW, all I did was call for aid and assistance in what is obviously a, er, severe anomaly!

3: No, the writer pointed out that one, just one, of the 20 measuring sites actually showed much warmer figures than the rest and that it was situated on the arctic coast. Must brush up on your reading, too, Jeff - or try Specsavers!

As for the UK, stick around, kiddo, you ain't seen nuttin' yet - January and February await!

By David Duff (not verified) on 02 Jan 2013 #permalink

I see - Duff is labouring under the simplistic notion that climate change due to increased greenhouse gas means everywhere must get hotter.
Anywhere that gets colder is therefore an "anomaly".

Here's something for you to consider, Duff: people who do science by conducting research and publishing the results of their studies have an understanding of the issues that they are considering which is at least 1,000,000 x more comprehensive as compared to random idiots on the internet.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 02 Jan 2013 #permalink

all I did was call for aid and assistance in what is obviously a, er, severe anomaly

Try reading your article, numpty:

Researchers blame the Decadal Oscillation, an ocean phenomenon that brought chillier surface water temperatures toward Alaska. ...

One effect of the oscillation is to weaken the Aleutian Low -- a storm-breeding center known for spitting out winter tempests that help regulate weather in the Lower 48. With that low-pressure center above the Aleutians weakened, polar storms raking Alaska from the north linger longer.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 02 Jan 2013 #permalink

Why hasn't anyone attempted to answer the posed question which IMHO is largely economically and politically based?
Australia makes into 2013 in good shape despite the carbon tax. How can this be?

By Chameleon (not verified) on 02 Jan 2013 #permalink

"Australia makes into 2013 in good shape despite the carbon tax. How can this be?"

Because carbon taxes don't cause economic meltdown, unlike the fevered alarmist predictions of deniers over it.

"Quite so, Vince, but the question is, which way is it changing?"

Pointless query.

Ask "what is going on".

So Wow?
Have carbon taxes created a 'statistically demonstrable' economic or political 'benifit' for Australia?
Maybe Australia is in some sort of reasonable economic shape because it is quite a lucky country and our successive governements (from both major camps) have demonstrated better fiscal management than others in places like countries in the EU where they are suffering from the GFC?
Or maybe we're lucky because we have very good mining and agricultural sectors in Australia that return a decent GDP and that somewhat offset the impacts of the GFC in Australia?
Maybe it's because we weren't as silly as the US who allowed a debt crises to develop by over leveraging capital assets?
I'm sure we could all think of many other reasons why Australia is in better economic shape than other countries around the world in 2013.
And maybe Wow, 'carbon taxes' have very little or perhaps even nothing to do with that?
I agree that the : 'the fevered alarmist predictions' were a nonsense.
Our economy is much tougher than that (thankfully).
I also suspect the: 'the fevered alarmist predictions' that politics and the media have highlighted about C or D AGW are also often nonsensical.
In both cases it appears that the 'sky is not falling in' as all alarmists in all political camps have been 'predicting'.
'Fevered alarmist predictions' are not just the MO of those you seem to enjoy calling 'deniers' IMHO.

By Chameleon (not verified) on 02 Jan 2013 #permalink

So Chameleon, despite being unable to find a single published article by Jeff Harvey using Google, and despite having made two grand exits from this blog thus far, is still making claims that rest on the conclusions of climate science - heck, the observations - being very wrong.

News at 11.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 02 Jan 2013 #permalink

Must brush up on your reading, too, Jeff – or try Specsavers!

What a clown.

So Lotharsson?
Do you think carbon taxes are the reason Australia is in good shape?
The observation has zip to do with my googling prowess.

By chameleon (not verified) on 02 Jan 2013 #permalink

“In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit.”

Not statistically significant (at the 95% confidence level).

Do you think carbon taxes are the reason Australia is in good shape?

No.

This has been another edition of short answers to stupid questions.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 02 Jan 2013 #permalink

So Lotharsson?
Why has this stupid question been posted?
Australia makes into 2013 in good shape despite the carbon tax. How can this be?
Isn't the answer totally irrelevant to the carbon tax?
I will also note it isn't the best example of good grammar that I have ever seen.
Of course that's not important or relevant either.

By Chameleon (not verified) on 02 Jan 2013 #permalink

Why has this stupid question been posted?

I was saying that it was your question that was stupid.

Some history may help. Abbott, Alan Jones and co vehemently alleged that the carbon tax would ruin the economy in very short order. The question you refer to:

Australia makes into 2013 in good shape despite the carbon tax. How can this be?

...is not stupid. It is a sarcastic response to Abbott and co's foolish or mendacious claim (which was clearly dodgy when they made it) and its even more clearly evident falsehood now that we've had the carbon tax for a while.

You appear to be attempting to invert this question, which is foolish because:

a) No-one here has argued the question you are putting to people.
b) The question you are asking isn't even implied by "the carbon tax didn't ruin the economy" - because there are multiple pre-existing factors, as you have pointed out.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

Isn’t the answer totally irrelevant to the carbon tax?

The question is primarily about the alleged vs actual impact of the carbon tax, not about the factors that underpin the economy.

And with that understanding in place, one good answer is "As predicted by people with actual knowledge about these things, the carbon tax has had a fairly minimal effect".

A shorter and better answer is "Because Abbott and co. were either completely incompetent or were telling porkies - you decide".

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

Gee, I take a day or two to finish off some work and when I come back there's one idiot on this thread maintaining that if it's cold in Homer Alaska then the globe can't be warming, and another on the other thread maintaining that if the ocean hasn't reason at some cherry-picked beacon in Homer Alaska, then the global oceans can't be rising!

Oh, and, on both, the other idiot who - despite self-generated claims to the contrary - hasn't gone away, can't Google, and doesn't understand the meaning of 'quote marks' - even when applied to really 'intelligent' people like itself, one wonders? - and still won't go away.

It's one big Festival of the Obtuse. The last-named idiot is even manages to feel that little bit superior with every exposed deficiency!

How much of Denial is an ASD, do you reckon?

So it is therefore about politics?
Yet this blog claims it is a science blog.

By chameleon (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

Yet this blog claims it is a science blog.

Will the bad thinking never end?!

I've heard a little rumour that there is a new concept of the politics surrounding and/or referencing science. There's also apparently the concept of the media coverage of science.

You might have heard of them too, since you've spent most of your time here promoting your own opinion about how politicians and the media "abuse" science by being all hyper-alarmist and what not.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

Lotharsson,
you can obfuscate all you want but the question at this post is clearly a 'political' question and also an 'economic' question that referenced the 'carbon (02) tax'.
I will also reiterate that the fact that Australia has reached 2013 in reasonable shape has very little to do with the 'carbon tax'.
I have no more patience with the Alan Jones' of this world than you have.
But I will predict that you will no doubt let me know that there is something totally wrong with that observation.

By chameleon (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

What is it with trolls and comprehension?

...you can obfuscate all you want...

I'm not obfuscating. I'm continuing my iteration through all the plausible communication strategies I can imagine to see if there's one that you won't misunderstand.

So firstly, this blog is about distorted media coverage (and by extension) political abuse of science (although I'm not sure if it's as easy to find that out as it used to be since the migration to the ScienceBlogs platform). Thus the question you refer to is exactly on topic for the blog.

Secondly the question you refer to in the post is a rhetorical one - which is why no-one has bothered to answer it. Most readers "get" it already, and no-one from Abbott's worldview has even bothered to attempt to justify his claims (which suggests they are particularly risible, since they try to defend all sorts of other bullshit).

Thirdly, I (and probably everyone here) agrees with you that the question is about the (no scare quotes needed) political abuse of both science and economics with respect to the carbon tax. However it's not purely a political question any more than it's purely scientific or purely economic - it exists at the intersection of all three.

Fourthly I (and probably everyone else here) agree with you that the health of the Australian economy has little to do with the carbon tax. But the rhetorical question wasn't addressed to the causes of economic health. It was addressed to the carbon tax scaremongering that said it would bring savage and almost immediate ill health to the economy.

Questions about alleged causes of (missing) ill health are not questions about causes of health.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

What is it with trolls and comprehension?

Well, it's a good way of maintaining plausible deniability - at least in your own head. Most other people tend to see through it.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chameleon, allow me to help. This site is a climate *'scientology'* site, not a science site! They have "a cause", you see.

By David Duff (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

"Chameleon, allow me to help. This site is a climate *’scientology’* site, not a science site! They have “a cause”, you see"

Hey Duff, how could you of all people tell the difference? You are completely and utterly scientifically illiterate. Every one of your posts reeks quite literally of vacuous ignorance.

As for Chameleon, she thinks the US debt was "allowed a to develop by over leveraging capital assets"

No, the US debt is in part because the country is a plutocracy, or as John Perkins more appropriately calls a corporatocracy, in which the countries assets are largely appropriated by the rich. They also profit by also expropriating foregin capital (in other words looting) whilst the ravages of debt are thrown onto the poor and middle classes. Disaster capitalism, the Washingtron Consensus, free market absolutism, call it what you like, but in the end its nakedly predatory capitalism. And it lies at the heart of masny of the world's most pressing economic, social and environmental problems.

You are appropriualtye named, chameleon. A reptile of many colors. You wear your right wing libertarian heart on your sleeves. You clearly appear to believe that the costs of economic activities on society and the environment - including the combusiton of fossil fuels - should forever remain externalized. Thank heaven that this form of dinosaurian neoclassical economic ideology is slolwy disappearing, albeti not nearly fast enough. If the true cost oif burning fossil fuels was internalized in cost-price scenarios, then we'd be switching off our addiction to oil and natural gas a helluva lot faster than we have thus far.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

"So it is therefore about politics?"

You asked a question.

It was answered.

You didn't like the answer.

So you complain about it being answered on a blog that you asked it.

Why?

And here is somebody worth listening to providing the clues as to what will happen when the fat lady sings.

Take note Duff of faux bonhomie and all the other members if the ignoratti club, every one of which eventually shows their true colours including those flying a false flag to begin with.

Duff, you have an open discussion elsewhere here the avoidance of which demonstrates your continuing bad faith. Will you too soon also have your own sandbox? A sandpit being about your level of intellectual and social development. Had a hard time as a pongo did you?

"Have carbon taxes created a ‘statistically demonstrable’ economic or political ‘benifit’ for Australia?"

On the economy, it's too early to tell.

Politically, indeed it has: it's shown up the alarmist denier cadre up for the hysterical fools they are.

And why the sudden interest in "statisically demonstrable" when you've given statistically demonstrable such short shrift before?

None of your claims have been demonstrable and you've never once bothered with statistics. I take it that you will not be bothering with demonstrably proven claims in the future, thought. That effort isn't what the Gish Galloper wants to put into their ravings.

Maybe Australia is doing well because of the carbon tax.

The shamefulone shows its lack of literacy competence once again:

but the question at this post is clearly a ‘political’ question and also an ‘economic’ question that referenced the ‘carbon (02) tax’.

Wrong again, it was a "rhetorical question":

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point and without the expectation of a reply.[1] The question is used as a rhetorical device, posed for the sake of encouraging its listener to consider a message or viewpoint. Though these are technically questions, they do not always require a question mark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

The ignorance of the trolls on this site is getting worse and worse.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

"The ignorance of the trolls on this site is getting worse and worse."

As the facts build up, they have to ignore more and more.

It's simply maths.

Hey, Olap, you still haven't answered how you would determine a trend!

Olap, instead of fapping your flagpole why don't you get an education so you'd be able to answer very simple questions?

Or is "how would you go about measuring temperature" too hard for you?

Yes David D,
I got that figured out fairly early on .
Like the AJ's they complain about, these 'fevered alarmists' with their attendant name calling, are way too easy to wind up!
They succeed in shooting themselves in the proverbial because they focus on arguing academic semantics, name calling and shooting messengers.
Just like AJ does.
I now realise the person who sent me here to view a rational discussion was actually being sarcastic when he used 'rational'.
Maybe he should have used those 'scare quote' thingies with the attendant google description and I would have caught the sarcasm?
But it's OK, after the initial shock, I have found this site highly entertaining.
The academic snobbery is truly and ironically hilarious.
I love how the argument re the posted question has developed.
Apparently because it was posed as a sarcastic rhetorical question (like doh!) it therefore simply can't be a stupid question and that proves absolutely that I am telling lies and/or I have seriously defective comprehension issues.
Sorry deltoids, unless you're trying to add fuel to the political fire, it may be a rhetorical question but it is still a nonsense question that is definitely political in nature.
It is just as silly and irrational and demeaning as the comments from the people you complain about, such as AJ.
Unless you people at deltoid believe that the Australian carbon tax is somehow going to change the changeable weather and save us all from SLR etcetera then the carbon tax has no economic value to Australia other than being yet another tax and the present Govt pretending they're doing something.
It appears that it has no political value either if we're to take any notice of the polls.
Australia can of course handle it economically, but seriously, what actual good is it going to achieve and what has it got to do with science?
And because these people love to predict stuff, I will have a go at predicting.
With much arguing of academic semantics we will all be informed that I have problems with my thinking based on the evidence of my comments past, present and projected future.
If I have managed to make a grammar, expression, internet usage or spelling error then of course it will prove exactly how incompetent and misinformed I am. :-)
And maybe, someone will try to guess that I am a previous commenter in disguise, even though I have explained how I came to be commenting here.
And apart from cutting and pasting isolated sentences, not much dealing with the content or the main point.

By chameleon (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chameleon, it can be explained much, much more simply than that. You're a fuckwit who believes in invisible underwater volcanoes, and rationalists don't.

All your perceived problems stem from your own fuckwittedness, and expecting help from El Duffo merely compounds your difficulties in adapting to the modern era where science and stuff like electricity (and the requirement to have the first clue what you're doing) make life such a trial for you.

Or postdictively,
they could hurl expletives and insults.
I shouldn't wind you up chek but you make it so very tempting.
How does one 'believe' in underwater volcanoes?
Where did I mention underwater volcanoes?
If I didn't 'believe' in underwater volcanoes does that mean they wouldn't exist or did you mean that they are just a belief and they don't exist?

By chameleon (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

Petri dish:

thanks to it the hiatus continues

That would be the hiatus in Roy's "for entertainment purposes only" polynomial curve fit.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

So, given this, we now all understand that Chammy is a manipulative and not-very-bright troll who still doesn't get - and is apparently not capable of getting - that we're not obliged to follow her in her bizarre riff on the content of an obviously ironic question, or her absurd strawman attack on the use such a 'political' question on a 'science' blog?

(Frankly, this long-winded and sketchy defence of her own stupidity appears to be a classic narcissistic 'see, I'm never wrong' rationalization.)

It is simply a waste of time responding to this person.

chameleon is also a non-paragraph-spacing troll.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

"they could hurl expletives and insults."

What? Insults like

‘fevered alarmists’

'academic snobbery'

Right?

PS you seem to be able to miss reading lots of things.

Politically, Australia has gained a lot here with the FACT that the alarmist propoganda of Bolt and the denialists is false and that these people are incompetent to govern.

This will ensure that the country remain a leader on managing reality and show they are immune to the blandishments of the "easy fix" merchants of doubt.

Ummmm Wow?
I got that 'fevered alarmists' from you.
Not acceptable?

By chameleon (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

Nope, you used it.

Aparently you don't read your own posts.

So sad to see someone abusing the brain in their head because they don't like where reason leads them.

The academic snobbery is truly and ironically hilarious.

It is indeed, especially when some of our commenters cite unspecified "academic science qualifications" not only for themselves but for their husbands in an apparent attempt to get people to stop worrying about their unsubstantiated claims and learn to start loving their particular brand of bullshit.

Oh, wait...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

I take it back chameleon, the imaginary volcanoes routine was janama's schtick, another troll who metastasized on this site at roughly the same time as you. And well, one troll gets to be much like another after a while Perhaps it's the asinine qualities that manifest themselves so similarly.

But whatever the case, imaginary volcaoes wasn't you on this occasion. No, you're the one who discusses climate science blogs with your hairdresser. However could anyone forget that?

Sorry Wow,
I definitely used it after you did.
Go back and see for youself.
Or maybe Bill can cleverly re link you back a few posts?
Amusingly I actually agreed it was an apt term for the AJ types.

By chameleon (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

So chek?
I'm still fascinated with your statement.
How does one 'believe' in imaginary volcanoes?
Also chek, I was discussing the behaviour on this blog with my hairdresser, who is actually a very nice person, a very good hairdresser and very successfully running her own business.
She was as shocked as I was by the rude behaviour and further commented that if she treated people like that she would have no customers.

By chameleon (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

Apparently because it was posed as a sarcastic rhetorical question (like doh!) it therefore simply can’t be a stupid question and that proves absolutely that I am telling lies and/or I have seriously defective comprehension issues.

No, you have serious comprehension issues because evidence shows that you are in approximately the bottom 5% of commenters here with respect to comprehension of other people.

And that evidence includes the quote I just included. I don't think anyone said the OP can't be a stupid question because it is rhetorical. (That would be a stupid claim! Of course rhetorical questions can be stupid, but they can also be not-stupid.)

What they said was that you didn't comprehend it was a rhetorical question or a sarcastic one, and that once the (long term) context which informs it is understood then it is clearly not a stupid question. But of course you reiterate your claim by branding it "stupid and irrational" again.

Oh, wait:

...it may be a rhetorical question but it is still a nonsense question that is definitely political in nature. It is just as silly and irrational and demeaning as the comments from the people you complain about

Yep, more evidence!

You are not only lacking in comprehension, but you fail at logic as well. Either that, or you are simply operating from a private definition of "nonsense" - as you appear to be when you use the word "academic". (That may explain your possession of "academic science credentials" and your almost complete lack of understanding of how science proceeds. While we're at it you also appear to have a private definition of "leaving".)

And then you - despite allegedly having no time for "AJ" - move almost precisely on to AJ and Tony Abbott's carbon tax bashing lines - complete with an ignorant but convenient conflation of climate with weather. Colour me surprised!

But the icing on the cake is the massive laugh at your claim that people here are "not much dealing with the content or the main point" of your comments. Is your private definition of "dealing with" "uncritically accepting", because I'm seeing an awful lot of critically unaccepting dealing with going on.

Better trolls please.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

I definitely used it after you did.

Yep, but instead of applying it to AJ and TA who were running around telling the country the carbon tax would roon the economy like overnight like, you apply it to people who are relying on climate science (where earlier projections have been pretty well borne out by, you know, that fevered and alarming actual evidence).

Which means that "using it after Wow did" misses the point.

Again.

(And you'll probably miss the point of this comment too.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

She was as shocked as I was by the rude behaviour and further commented that if she treated people like that she would have no customers.

The stupid never stops! Can you name another blog that's cruising along at the rate of this one at the moment in the comments and commenters stakes?

So, in terms of the business it's in, this blog is a resounding success. People - you included - come here for the rudeness! If you can't hack it just go elsewhere, as you keep promising you will.

You're like the vicar who is so appalled by the 'naughty' movie that he has to watch it 9 times...

People – you included – come here for the rudeness!

(And many others come for the debunking of pseudo-scientific bulldust, regardless of "tone".)

I would have urged you not to give the blog's secret sauce recipe away, but with the quality of trolls we get I don't think that would make any difference ;-)

Can you name another blog that’s cruising along at the rate of this one at the moment in the comments and commenters stakes?

And this one used to have a lot more traffic when Tim had more time to keep the posts flowing.

Speaking of an intolerance for bullshit that reliably sets off tone trolls as a recipe for blog success there's also the iconic Pharyngula. Perhaps chameleon should wander over there and venture an opinion that Young Earth Creationism is, like, a totally equally valid presentation of the biological and palaeontological data, and see what happens.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

Lotharsson - yes, that would be a popcorn moment!

How does one ‘believe’ in imaginary volcanoes?

Like the claims that this article debunks.

Ever thought of using Google, or visiting one of the common references sites for actual climate science?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

And since there's every chance you'll miss it otherwise, click the "Intermediate" tab for specific discussion of underwater volcanoes.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 03 Jan 2013 #permalink

Listen up, people! I know how your totally anonymous and tedious lives would be utterly empty without something to worry about and I sense the alarm in your tone at the increasingly difficult to ignore evidence that the globe is not going to melt like an ice cream on a summer beach - heh, first let's have a summer! - so I bring you glad tidings. Here it is:

'2012 DA14'

What? You mean you have never heard of it? I thought you people worried about our planet! Let me tell you that '2012 DA14' is a lump of God's detritus, - nobody has taught Him to be eco-friendly and pick up His rubbish - about 150 feet across with a weight of about 130,000 metric tons and it will only just miss us by a paltry, well, paltry in astronomical terms, 21,500 miles. You can rely on these figures because they have been produced by proper scientists not climate scientologists! If it hit, it would have roughly the same effect as a 2.4 megaton bomb, so not the end of the world, then, but still . . . Also, God being a right litter-lout, there are plenty more to come.

Anyway, as it is the weekend I have a little game for you to play so as to keep what passes for your minds off worrying. Were such a thing to hit our planet, where would you most like it to impact? My choice is where-ever they hold the next IPCC meeting.

By David Duff (not verified) on 04 Jan 2013 #permalink

Toxic Dill Posts Pointless Drivel Shock.

Duff posting violent fantasies again? Yawn.

(Probably doesn't realise that it says more about him than anyone reading him.)

Better trolls please.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 04 Jan 2013 #permalink

Dr Roy Spencer's latest blog entry talks about the greenhouse effect. I'm nt going into the details here. What does astound me reading these blogs is that there is no shortage of 'skeptics' weighing in with their pet ideas in the comment section. Drs Spencer and Curry attract some the most amazing collection of crank commenters in the blogosphere. I don't how they do not just pull their hair out in frustration at the certainty of some of these weird science-free speculators. I know I can only handle reading a couple of pages a year.

By Anthony David (not verified) on 04 Jan 2013 #permalink

Anthony, yep, it's gotten so bad one can't be a "respectable" skeptic any more ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 04 Jan 2013 #permalink

On ocean acidification here is a new post that underlines one of our worries Frequently Asked Questions About Ocean Acidification.

Come on, educate yourselves SD, colour-shifter, B4PM, Duffer, and also consider this when the fat lady sings.

If you are not just a little worried then you ain't going to be at all prepared and will be amongst the extinct - killed by stupid.

Where are we going in Britain? What happens when all our water sources are compromised by toxic waste (from industry and detribalised rubbish tips, and sewage as our infrastructure is overwhelmed by the rising waters and this is not including SLR. Where will our food come from. I sense the return of ration books er long. But of course all our mendacious triumvirate can do is to 'not mention these elephants in the room' because they want the plebs to remain ignorant, focused on their shiny toys and fashion fads whilst the PTB create their hidey holes and stock them with supplies. Why do you thing Gates & Co. are filling Svalbard with seeds of the non GM type. The latter being of no f***ing use without the fertilisers made from oil. The pharmaceutical industry also is reliant on feed stocks from oil for much of their production.

Duffer you are either very thick and don't realise the enormity of the developing scenarios or are as mendacious as the PTB with you faux bonhomie and pretend dismissives.

Duffer just thinks that he won't be affected by those problems.

If he is, you can bet he'd be screaming for retribution and government handouts. And likely blaming "environazis" for the problem.

FYI, the guy is a divorced (well no suprise there. probably didn't get his dinner ready in time and called her a nazi baby-killing econazi out to perform geneting experiments on cats) owner of a Science Fiction (so no suprise there either) bookshop in Glasgow.

Unless you people at deltoid believe that the Australian carbon tax is somehow going to change the changeable weather and save us all from SLR etcetera then the carbon tax has no economic value to Australia.

A little late on I know, but I can't help but notice Chameleon resorts to illogic and/or economic illiteracy to try to win the argument. A carbon tax could have no effect on weather or SLR and still have economic value to Australia. Hint: Name a type of market failure beginning with "E"?

It appears that it has no political value either if we’re to take any notice of the polls.

Oh dear, there's another one. When in doubt, fall back on the classics - post hoc ergo propter hoc, eh? The polls show most people are indifferent to the carbon price now its in place, so suggesting its responsible for Labor's poor standing in two-party preferred polling is simply gross stupidity.

Lukewarmers seem to have been infected by the illogic of the deniers. It does nothing for their figleaf of credibility. Tip for Chameleon: thinking more and posting less might make you seem smarter than you currently appear to be.

A link to Jo "First They Come for the Gold Bars' Nova only serves to remind us that you should be back in your box.

OK, I know my brain's probably melted after a single day of 45C here (no records broken if it's only a day or two) but does anyone understand why people keep bringing up references to Nova and the other obvious cranks? I half get it that some people might think that WTFUWT is just another view of really sciencey stuff from a "different" standpoint, along with some journalists in predictable news outlets.

When it comes to the clearly obsessive cranks though, I cannot see how people cannot see the problem here. Or perhaps my brain just broke in anticipation of too many 37C+ days in this coming week.

...I cannot see how people cannot see the problem here.

Not seeing the problem is a lot easier if you're also an obsessive crank, or suffer from a massive dose of confirmation bias coupled with a strong pinch of gullibility.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 06 Jan 2013 #permalink

@Adelady
Always eager to be of service to a lady perhaps this will cool you down, or chill you out, perhaps: from AP Press:

"China Meteorological Administration on Friday said the national average was -3.8 degrees Celsius (25 degrees Fahrenheit) since late November, the coldest in nearly three decades.
The average temperature in northeast China dipped to -15.3 degrees C (4.5 degrees F), the coldest in 43 years, and dropped to a 42-year low of -7.4 degrees C (18.7 degrees F) in northern China.
In some areas - northeastern China, eastern Inner Mongolia, and north part of far-western Xinjiang province - the low has hit -40 degrees C (-40 degrees F), the administration said."

And Reuters reports:

"Bitter cold has even frozen the sea in Laizhou Bay on the coast of Shandong province in the east, stranding nearly 1,000 ships, the China Daily newspaper reported.

Zheng Dong, chief meteorologist at the Yantai Marine Environment Monitoring Center under the State Oceanic Administration, told the paper that the area under ice in Laizhou Bay was 291 square km this week."

Blimey! All that ice! Perhaps it floated down from the arctic!!

And Rutgers University reports the highest snow cover in the N. Hemisphere for the month of December since the mid-'60s.

Now, my dear, (he said whilst anxiously fanning her) are you feeling cooler?

By David Duff (not verified) on 06 Jan 2013 #permalink

OH, NO, SAY IT AIN'T SO!

The Met Office - yes, THE MET OFFICE!! - have revised their global temperature forecast DOWN - yes, that's DOWN as in DO... oh hell, you know what I mean.

But the good news is that at least we can now all agree on one of two simple propositions:
a) The Met Office 'scientologists' are still using the same bit of seaweed they've been using for 20 years, or,
b) Global temperatures ARE likely to fall over the next few years - despite CO2 increasing like crazy.

See, togetherness - nice, isn't it?

By David Duff (not verified) on 06 Jan 2013 #permalink

Ah! Look. Another squirrel from Duff:

OH, NO, SAY IT AIN’T SO!

The Met Office – yes, THE MET OFFICE!! – have revised their global temperature forecast DOWN – yes, that’s DOWN as in DO… oh hell, you know what I mean.

You are really full of it ain't you. Here is what the Met Office have:

Met Office 2013 annual global temperature forecast

2012 is currently ranked the 9th warmest year on record. The global average temperature for 2012 falls well within the range predicted by the Met Office for 2012 of between 0.34 °C and 0.62 °C, with a most likely value of 0.48 °C above the long term average. This is consistent with the Met Office forecast statement that 2012 was expected to be warmer than 2011, but not as warm as the record year of 2010.

How many warmest years have there been in the last twelve years Duff?

Furthermore you nasty example of flippant insensitivity you have run away from evidence presented to you here , which shows you for what you are, a mendacious little troll.

Seems like Duffski wants to complain if the say it's high and complain if they say it's too low. And ignore when it's exactly right.

Therefore any complaints or whines he makes are entirely because he's started from "I want to complain" and tried to work out how to do it.

"The Met Office – yes, THE MET OFFICE!! – have revised their global temperature forecast DOWN – yes, that’s DOWN as in DO… oh hell, you know what I mean."

Indeed we do.

You agree that AGW is real and happening.

Lionel et al, would this be the same Met Office who 'forecast' BBQ summers which, if one doesn't arrive soon my own BBQ will dissolve in rust; and is this the same Met Office who warned of droughts earlier in 2012?

Quick, chaps, new seaweed required urgently!

Anyway, as you lot place such faith in them I'm telling you that they have, er, re-adjusted their forecasts of global, er, warming DOWN by nearly 0.4 of a degree for the next 5 years.

In the meantime, third world CO2 continues to pour forth in ever greater amounts and yet still we have no signs of the catastrophe you promised us!

By David Duff (not verified) on 06 Jan 2013 #permalink

Duffer the puffer lies again. The MET forecast for 2013 is for a global anomaly range (1961-1990) of between 0.43C and 0.71C. Average that and you get 0.57C. Plot than onto the HadCrut4 data and 2013 could be in for a record warm year.

It's all explained by Gareth at Hot Topic:

http://hot-topic.co.nz/a-new-world-record/

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 06 Jan 2013 #permalink

"Lionel et al, would this be the same Met Office who ‘forecast’ BBQ summers"

Ah, I see you only read the Daily Mail, Duffski. I bet you think there really is a 70ft waterfall in the Met Office's new building!

No, the Met Office did NOT forecast BBQ summers. They forecast slightly less rain.

It was a news journalist who put "BBW Summer" in there.

I believe that their tale that the Cray supercomputers were called "The Cray Twins" was also completely made up.

Remember, Ian, Duffski can't do sums unless they can be done on the eleven fingers he has. =)

"and is this the same Met Office who warned of droughts earlier in 2012?"

Which we had.

And Duffer, seeing as you are avoiding the points about Antarctic and ice take note of this: Slip Slidin' Away - Ice sheets and sea level in a warming world.

Duff are you as dim as a TOC-H lamp or simply mendacious and like winding us up here? Is this how you get your kicks? If so you are a very sick man and need to seek professional help.

Don't forget though Lionel, if it wasn't for bored, pig-ignorant pensioners catching up on what they should have been doing in their teens, (but without the sex'n'drugs'n'rock'n'roll, obviously) there wouldn't be sheep like Duffer whose only concern is sticking it to 'authority', even when that authority is warning them about climate change, or wearing seatbelts or whatever.

It's no accident that all the denierwebs cater to the same dull demographic.

Duff is a pompous, ignorant buffoon. Why engage with him?

Not sure I understand Duff's point:
- for 2012, the Met office prediction was actually bang-on. 9th warmest year on record. Not exactly "cooling" is it.
- for 2013, the Met office predicts .09 degrees higher than 2012. Not exactly a prediction for any "cooling" is it.

I suppose he's just living in a fantasy land where he can make assertions that bear no relation to reality and doesn't think there is anything exceptionable about this. Sane people will obviously disagree with his approach.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 06 Jan 2013 #permalink

It’s no accident that all the denierwebs cater to the same dull demographic.

It is amazing how many of our trolls fit that age profile.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 06 Jan 2013 #permalink

"but without the sex’n'drugs’n'rock’n'roll, obviously"

Eh? What? Sex’n'drugs’n'rock’n'roll? Where was that going on then and why didn't anyone tell me?

As for your beloved Met Office:

"On 23rd March, they predicted “The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier than average conditions for April/May/June as a whole, and also slightly favours April being the driest of the 3 months.”
RESULT – RAINFALL TOTALS WERE 176%, 94% AND 203% OF NORMAL IN APRIL, MAY AND JUNE RESPECTIVELY.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/p/i/A3-layout-precip-AMJ.pdf

On 24th August, their forecast for September “weakly favours below normal values”.
RESULT – RAINFALL WAS 117% OF NORMAL IN SEPTEMBER.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/i/e/A3-plots-precip-SON.pdf

On 21st September, they said “For UK-averaged rainfall the predicted probabilities favour below normal rainfall during October. For the period October-November-December as a whole the range of forecasts also favours lower than average rainfall”
RESULT – RAINFALL WAS 101% OF NORMAL IN OCTOBER.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/h/g/A3-plots-precip-OND.pdf

On 24th October, they forecast “Predictions for UK-mean precipitation for both November and the November-December-January period are similar to climatology”
RESULT – RAINFALL WAS 111% OF NORMAL IN NOVEMBER.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/6/A3-plots-precip-NDJ.pdf

And on 20th November, “Predictions for UK-mean precipitation for December show a slight shift towards below-normal values – consistent with negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions”
RESULT – RAINFALL WAS 150% OF NORMAL IN DECEMBER.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/j/i/A3_plots-precip-DJF.pdf
................................................................
So come on chaps, let's have a whip round and buy them a new bunch of seaweed.

By David Duff (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

Yes, we KNOW you don't understand words if they're used in big sentences, Duffski.

However, it's good to know that you agree with the Met Office on everything.

So the Met Office are running at 360/365ths (about 98%) accuracy according to you, Duffski.

That's pretty damn good.

You mean forecast errors of +76%, -6%, +103%, +17%, +1%, +11%, +50% are "pretty damn good".

No wonder you lot couldn't run a whelk stall!

By David Duff (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

And Duff,

your tedious tendentious droppings are like those of a stalled whelk, never going anywhere except in circles.

What a boor you are. Room 101 for you, best ignored.

Come off it Duff. It is obvious from the phrasing that there is a high degree of uncertainty attached to the 3 month weather forecasts. It states at the foot of the 3 month forecasts:

The outlook should not be used in isolation but should be used with shorter-range and more detailed (30-day, 15-day and 1 to 5-day) forecasts and warnings...

It is noticable that the 30-day forecasts are better than the 3 month, but the phrasing still indicates a lot of uncertainty. Do you seriously beleive it is possible to forecast rainfall 30 days ahead and get the percentage of normal rainfall bang on?

When it comes to forecasts how did 'your team' do? John McLean:

it is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956 or even earlier..

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

Duff. Tosser. Next.

#lord_sidcup, that would only be of use to someone who wanted to learn something.

Duffski doesn't need to learn anything. If he thinks it might be true, IT IS TRUE!!!

Just checked WUWT for my daily giggle - Duff copies and pastes WUWT shock!! Really, he's just like a little wind-up clockwork mouse.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

Wrong again, Duff.

He means you don't understand big concepts like "probability", "weakly favours", "slightly favours" - and you've cut-and-pasted some cherry-picked forecasts without a clue that your conclusions would require far more analysis than you've provided.

In other words, the same old same old from you.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

Hurrah! M' Lord Sidcup and I agree, yes " there is a high degree of uncertainty attached to the 3 month weather forecasts".

So why do you lot keep telling me you know, definitely, absolutely and completely, honest, guv, on me muvver's eyes, what the climate will be in 5, 10, 30 years.

By David Duff (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

Duff still doesn't understand the difference between starting conditions and boundary conditions.

Or, more bluntly, between weather and climate.

Hey Duff, last year a very large proportion of Australia experienced above average mean temperatures, especially during winter and at night. This week there's a blanket of heat covering the continent that has wrought untold damage directly (mature trees have lost all their leaves in my UK-like climate, and many orchardists had summer stone-fruit literally cooked on the branches) and through devastating bushfire. By your logic this proves global warming...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

Duffer, two words already known to you and used by you in your previous post: 'weather' and 'climate'.

Read the definitions and then see if understanding dawns. As a hint, we in the UK have a temperate maritime climate, regardless of the rainfall figures.

"Really, he’s just like a little wind-up clockwork mouse."

He has no will of his own.

It's too much effort for him to actually think independently, so he finds a messiah to follow that says what he likes to hear, and blindly repeats whatever they say at the moment.

"So why do you lot keep telling me you know ... what the climate will be in 5, 10, 30 years."

Because the climate predictions are not for the summer but for the climate.

Why do you lot keep making up strawmen?

So, now that Duff is back from his irrelevant excursion into rainfall predictions, perhaps he can attend to what I posted prior to that excursion:

Duff claims there is cooling. Duff claims the Met is "revising its temperature projections downwards".

– for 2012, the Met office prediction was bang-on. 9th warmest year on record. Not exactly “cooling” is it.
– for 2013, the Met office predicts .09 degrees higher than 2012. Not exactly a prediction for any “cooling” is it.

And meanwhile, as mentioned above, John McLean (etc...) predicted 2012 would be the coolest year since the 1950s.
Obviously, John McLean (and his fans) were completely and utterly wrong. As usual.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

So, the Met Office can't predict weather, ie, 'BBQ summers', soaking wet droughts, etc, a few months ahead but it can predict climate conditions decades ahead!

Gosh, you 'climate scientologists' believe anything, don't you? But somehow you seem reluctant to believe that they have revised *their* global temperature forecast through to 2018 by nearly 0.5 of a degree DOWN! And that's despite all that EXTRA CO2! Have they got this one right, I ask? I doubt it, their forecasts are only fit for tearing up and hanging in those outside bogs the Aussies tend to go in for!

Oh, and by the way, whilst Australia fries in the middle of its summer, China and Russia are frozen solid and there has been greater snow cover this December than for absolute yonks!

Global warming? Do me a favour!

By David Duff (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

"So, the Met Office can’t predict weather ie, ‘BBQ summers’"

Reading isn't something you do, is it duffski.

The Met Office didn't predict a BBQ summer.

I think you've demonstrated long enough your inability to cogitate or listen to anything you don't like to hear, duffer.

In my opinion you need to be given your own thread where you can post crap without getting it in real conversations.

"China and Russia are frozen solid and there has been greater snow cover this December than for absolute yonks!"

..whilst Europe as far as Moscow has basked in way above average temperatures for weeks and the central US will have record warm temperatures this week...

but heck, that's weather and its fickle. Climate is not. You seem to expect that climate warming means linear, consistent short- and long-term change. In your muddled thinking, this each month of the year must be warmer than the same month of the previous year and so on forever more for climate change to be proven. This is a non-brainer.

Duff, you are an old fool. You still have no clue about separating weather from climate, do you? One is stochastic, the other deterministic, if various parameters are taken into account. Thus is is of course much easier to elucidate long-term climate patterns than short-medium term weather trends. That it doesn't register with you is really embarrassing. Glad I don't encounter guys like you at science conferences. You insist on self-humiliation.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

Just for you, Wow:

"A "barbecue summer" – from no less an authority than the Met Office itself.
Yesterday, though, the Met Office conceded what Britons have seen with their own eyes over the last few weeks: apart from a fortnight in June, the summer has been more soggy than sizzling. And it's not likely to get much better in August, a prediction that will disappoint, if not entirely surprise, millions of "staycationers" who booked a holiday in the UK to enjoy the sunshine and beat the recession."

And before you snuffle and grunt allow me to give you the source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/29/summer-weather-forecast-rain-h…
Yes, indeed, little 'Georgie Moonbat's' paper of choice!

Of course, you may be confused, a normal state for you, I guess, by the *following* summer when an independent forecaster repeated the same mistake:
"Thankfully, the company doing the predicting is not the much-criticised Met Office, but the little-known Positive Weather Solutions (PWS), who unlike their larger rival correctly predicted both last year's washout summer and the big winter freeze from which we have only recently emerged."
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/15759/barbecue-summer-forecast-not-me…

So they're all crap! They couldn't spell 'chaos' let alone understand it!

By David Duff (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

Hmmmm,
maybe Wow is a 'undercover denialist' whose mission is to make vitriolic comments to make the other side of the political debate look untenable?
His style of commenting would certainly turn off anyone who this site would call a 'luke warmer'.
And I know I shouldn't wind you up but you make it far too tempting.

By chameleon (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

Jeff H,
perhaps you may need to explain to the politicians and/or their employees such as Tim Flannery that weather and climate are not the same thing?
While you're at it, the ABC as well as much of the rest of the media need some help.
Only yesterday, the ABC was loudly claiming that the current heat wave and the bushfires in TAS were caused by AGW.
By your own definition above, that would just be weather wouldn't it?
Heat waves are not uncommon or indicative of anything alarming at this time of the year.
They are bloody uncomfortable however if you have no relief from the heat.
If accompanied by hot winds it is also not uncommon that fires will happen.
That is also unpleasant and dangerous, but not indicative of AGW.
They're really not doing you any favours.
BTW,
the 'trends' in the modelling are represented as linear and are interpreted that way.
I agree that climate/weather is anything but linear, however that is not the way it has been represented to the public.

By chameleon (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

Only yesterday, the ABC was loudly claiming that the current heat wave and the bushfires in TAS were caused by AGW.
By your own definition above, that would just be weather wouldn’t it?

No, you cretin; that AGW is a causal factor in the increase of extreme weather events is not the same as the tautology "extreme weather events are weather".

Or rather I should say that the two aren't mutually exclusive.

I agree that climate/weather is anything but linear, however that is not the way it has been represented to the public.

So so many lies from the denier (including the absurd lie that she's not a denier).

We're now confronting the exact same perversity as on the other thread. AGW provides a higher baseline, therefore the probability of extreme heat-related events increases dramatically, and cold events diminish accordingly.

As has, demonstrably, happened. For example here for the US. (And to an almost ludicrous extent of late!)

Nitpicking about 100% individual attribution is a denialist strawman, though it's clearly often the result of pure incomprehension; in a very real sense, we are most frequently arguing with people who have never truly grasped the concept of an average, let alone a trend...

And Duff is off again on his tangent about weather predictions.

The thing Duff studiously avoids is this, the global temperature prediction was bang on.

Somehow, the accurate global temperature prediction is being confused with inaccurate local rainfall predictions.

Is Duff stupid? No, this is simply dishonesty.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

In fact, if the innaccuracy of weather predictions is increasing, that would be yet another indicator of climate change.

So Duff's crap about weather prediction being increasingly innaccurate actually proves climate change is proceeding at an accelerating rate.

Hoist with his own petard.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

'Lukewarmers' one encounters online are almost invariably Deniers who like to project an aura of profound wisdom and being above the fray.

It's crap. Chammy's a classic example - record prolonged heat not indicative of AGW? That's actually funny. A sky blanketed in a copper-gold haze may not prove there's a bushfire, but only an utter fool would not treat it as being 'indicative' of one!

And then there's siding with every perversity of a clearly obnoxious and equally clearly wrong crank. They all do it, and then announce 'oh, I didn't say I agreed with X, I just feel you should respond to X's points.' Yes, this is the same stunt BFPM is pulling. And he and Chammy both genuinely appear to believe this makes them clever.

But, ultimately, it's a form of cowardice. They want to crow with the deniers when they imagine they're 'winning', and disown them the moment that victory turns to ashes. As they all do.

There are 2 groups of 'extremist' partisans. One maintains 2+2=4. The other holds the answer to be 5. Some rather silly people - and a good proportion of the appallingly poor 'he said / she said' media - feel the answer must be 4.5.

If you don't think this is a fair analogy - and, I'll add, self-proclaimed lukewarmer answers really range between about 4.6 and 5.4 - please tell us the position of every academy of science and major scientific institution in this matter.

As opposed to, say, a handful of scientists tied to libertarian thinktanks - or the Cornwall Alliance! - and a truckload of grotesque, comic-opera shouty buffoons a la Monckton, Morana, and Delingpole.

Spin it how you like; you're claiming the answer is 4.5, secretly believe it's 5, and don't have the courage to be open about either.

Only yesterday, the ABC was loudly claiming that the current heat wave and the bushfires in TAS were caused by AGW.
By your own definition above, that would just be weather wouldn’t it?

The heat wave is weather, without global climate change it probably would not have been as bad. Are you really this obtuse or are you just having fun at our expense?

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

Without global climate change it probably would not have been as bad?
As bad as what Richard and compared to what Richard?
Haven't there been 'badder' heatwaves than this one? Well before AC02 levels were deemed to have got dangerously high and tipped us over a dangerous tipping point globally? (above 350ppm of GHGs or CO2 equivalent?)

By chameleon (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

And before you snuffle and grunt allow me to give you the source

A newspaper article about the summer 2009 predictions written in 2009? You are utterly desperate.

And that's without your iron determination NOT to understand that climate is far easier to predict than the specific weather generated by that climate - especially over timescales more than a couple weeks, such as your "to 2018".

You deserve your own thread because all you do is crap out the same debunked memes time after time.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

Without global climate change it probably would not have been as bad?
As bad as what

As bad as it would have been without AGW, moron.

compared to what

Compared to what it would have been without AGW, cretin.

Deniers, too stupid to grasp counterfactuals.

cham, do you agree that the climate in Africa is hotter than the climate in Canada?

"His style of commenting would certainly turn off anyone who this site would call a ‘luke warmer’"

Aaaaw.

Resorting to tone trolling, cham?

Can't deal with the facts, so go off on a tangent?

Really, you're not a lukewarmer, you're a troll and a denier.

Simple as that.

As bad as what Richard and compared to what Richard?

Really?!

This is almost the most extreme miscomprehension you've tried on to date - and that's saying something!

Without AGW it wouldn't have been as bad as it is. It's not a difficult concept, just like "storm surges wouldn't have been as bad if Sea Level Rise hadn't given them a higher baseline to add to".

Your implied argument is as bad as someone arguing that the fact that their car is NOT going as fast as it has ever gone means that the hill they are currently driving down is NOT contributing to their current speed. Any high school physics student can see the folly of that - as can many people who haven't studied any physics at all.

Your argument is also statistically illiterate. We have a signal of interest - the climate trend due to anthropogenic forcing - and noise on top - which can be roughly described as "natural variation" and "weather". You can't validly argue that "the signal isn't there unless there's a new record every day" - but that's where your argument leads to.

You should also be reading something like bill's link to coverage of the marked change in ratio of high temperature to low temperature records across the globe over the last few decades. That points out that we are seeing exactly what we expect in the records if there's an underlying warming signal with noise on top. But you prefer not to educate yourself! After all if you were successful you might see the folly of arguing "it's not the absolute worst event in history" and trying to imply from that that AGW has not contributed to it.

I am curious though. What exactly are these academic science credentials you touted a while back? They don't seem to have helped you reach the point where you can do basic scientific or statistical thinking - many high school students are far more competent.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

"“A “barbecue summer” – from no less an authority than the Met Office itself."

Incorrect.

You never even read that link.

"Positive Weather Solutions (PWS)"

Check up on the site.

It's one person with stock footage pretending to be their members of staff.

I.e. it's a scam to get money for no work. Read about them here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/jan/26/weather…

The Bureau of Meteorology have added extra colours to their temperature scale for next week's forecast to cover 54°C

The full forecast is here.

So Lotharsson,
Seeing as we were discussing this part of Jeff H's comment:
'but heck, that’s weather and its fickle. Climate is not. You seem to expect that climate warming means linear, consistent short- and long-term change. In your muddled thinking, this each month of the year must be warmer than the same month of the previous year and so on forever more for climate change to be proven. This is a non-brainer.'

And I actually agreed with that. Climate is anything but linear.
I then commented that the ABC and others claiming that the current heatwave is attributable to AGW was not really doing the climate/weather misconception any favours.
It is clearly a 'weather' event is it not?
Just the opposite to the weather that David D had commented on.
I found Simon's 'probably' comment rather incongruous.
Are you defending the ABC's comment or Simon's comment?
Or are you just wanting to argue with me?

By chameleon (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

The climate, clearly warming, affects every weather event. We understand this by stating that heat waves are more likely.

And it will become much, much worse...

By David B. Benson (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

Is Duff stupid? No, this is simply dishonesty.

Actually it's both, and they feed each other.

Hoist with his own petard.

Hoist by his own petard.

Without AGW it wouldn’t have been as bad as it is.

Argh ... right! Chammy's questions were so stupid that I supposed them to be slightly less stupid and got it backwards.

Oops, as my own link establishes, Vince is right and I am wrong ... it's "with", not "by". How appropriate, though, that it's a pun for Duff being blown up by his own fart.

In your muddled thinking

And of course Chammy display yet more of the same in her idiotic response.

Or are you just wanting to argue with me?

No, we would prefer that you weren't a moron.

Are you defending the ABC’s comment

Which comment is that? All we have is your comment:

the ABC was loudly claiming that the current heat wave and the bushfires in TAS were caused by AGW.

but you aren't a reliable reporter ... you get what other people say all muddled up by passing it through your mush-for-brains.

So therefore Ianam are you supporting Simon's 'probably' comment?
You're right that things are getting muddled, but not because of what the ABC said yesterday.

By chameleon (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

And I actually agreed with that. Climate is anything but linear.

I doubt you understand what "linear" is, or maybe you don't understand "climate".

Jeff was saying that climate is the baseline, the long term slow-moving signal (which you seem to be referring "linear" although that's NOT what Jeff was saying) - but the weather is the much more volatile short term movements on top - what Jeff explicitly said were NOT "linear".

So you seem to have completely DISAGREED with that, and not realised it. In your use of the word "linear", climate is highly "linear" and weather is "anything but linear".

(But I wouldn't describe it that way - we know the climate system can also undergo rapid non-linear changes and move to a new regime from whence moving back to the old one is quite difficult.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

It is clearly a ‘weather’ event is it not?

Of course.

But that doesn't mean it's got nothing to do with climate. Climate is the baseline on which weather rides.

Just like sea level is the baseline on which tides and storm surges ride.

Just like a warming trend is the baseline signal on which ups and downs of weather ride.

Alternatively: climate generates weather, or climate defines how many dots are on each side of the dice which are thrown to see what weather you get. The changing climate has loaded the dice.

Changing the climate changes the distribution of weather you get.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

Lotharsson,
Who said that weather has nothing to do with climate?
My point was that Simon semed to think that one weather event was indicative of AGW.
Jeff H had clearly pointed out that it makes no sense do that albiet from the opposite weather perpective.
I agree that is the case and pointed out that maybe the media and politicians and govt employees need that explained to them.
In this instance it was the ABC yesterday.
Somehow, that then turned into you arguing with me.
ABOUT WHAT?????
I most certainly did not claim that the weather has nothing to do with climate because that would be a really stupid thing to say.
Actually the only one who has raised it that way is you.

By chameleon (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

You’re right that things are getting muddled, but not because of what the ABC said yesterday.

That right there is an example of your immensely stupid muddling. What did the ABC say? A direct quote please, not an impression from an imbecile (you).

So you seem to have completely DISAGREED with that, and not realised it.

Quite so: Jeff said that climate isn't fickle and Chammy, being the lazy careless imbecile she is, completely misunderstood what he wrote.

But that doesn’t mean it’s got nothing to do with climate.

As I noted, that AGW is a causal factor in the increase of extreme weather events is not mutually exclusive with the tautology that an extreme weather event is a weather event. But Chammy will continue to indulge in her false dichotomies indefinitely because ... well, because she's stupid, and too Dunning-Krugerishly arrogant to bother to follow a counterargument.

My point was that Simon semed to think that one weather event was indicative of AGW.

It only seems that way to A CRETIN. Saying that a weather event is probably worse than it would have been without AGW is not to say that it is "indicative" of AGW -- that interpretation is retarded, stupid and lazy ... the behavior of a jackass moron troll too effing lazy to bother to read or understand what anyone says.

AGW is an established fact, so we don't need individual extreme weather events to "indicate" it. But one thing that is indicative of AGW is the increased frequency of extreme weather events. The current weather event is just one data point that is "indicative" of such an increase. Ah, but why am I trying to explain this to AN IMBECILE who gets everything wrong at every opportunity.

My point was that Simon semed to think that one weather event was indicative of AGW.

I don't know this "Simon" you are referring to, as there are none posting on this thread.

Given your extensive history of misunderstanding people, perhaps you could, you know, do the widely performed simple courtesy of actually quoting the quote you are referring to - and then we can see if Simon actually thought what you think he seemed to think?

And to make sure we're all on the same page please define "indicative" as you are using it/as you think other people are using it.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile. Chameleon = stupid retarded lazy uncomprehending imbecile.

Really, why bother with her?

I don’t know this “Simon” you are referring to, as there are none posting on this thread.

Rational inference indicates that she means Richard Simons, who wrote

The heat wave is weather, without global climate change it probably would not have been as bad.

Which of course is not a claim that "the heat wave is indicative of global climate change". He also wrote:

Are you really this obtuse or are you just having fun at our expense?

I'm firmly convinced that it's the former. While Chammy is a lazy troll who readily misinterprets what people say and willfully evades and avoids anything that might challenge her beliefs, she is also a genuinely stupid person.

Which of course is not a claim that “the heat wave is indicative of global climate change”.

Sorry, I was being erroneously charitable to Chammy ... her actual misrepresentation of what Richard wrote is far worse; she claimed that he seems to think that

one weather event [is] indicative of AGW

Pardon my immense disgust at people like her.

As bad as what Richard and compared to what Richard?

Would you prefer me to say 'as hot as it has been recently'? Does that clarify it sufficiently for you? Or are you suggesting that the current Australian heatwave is beneficial?

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

Richard, as Loth pointed out, Chammy's question is immensely stupid. You wrote

The heat wave is weather, without global climate change it probably would not have been as bad.

Obviously you meant "as bad as it is".

I made my previous comment before I'd read anyone else's response. Thanks, folk.

My point was that Simon semed to think that one weather event was indicative of AGW.

Assuming you are trying to refer to me, the suggestion that I think that one weather event can be indicative of climate change is complete and utter claptrap. By what tortuous 'thinking' process did you arrive at such a stupid conclusion?

While Chammy is a lazy troll who readily misinterprets what people say and willfully evades and avoids anything that might challenge her beliefs, she is also a genuinely stupid person.

I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt for a while, then for a few weeks I was hoping she could learn, but for the last couple of weeks it's become clear that she's both dishonest and incapable of altering her views no matter what the evidence.

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

my apologies Richard,
I remembered you by your sirname.
No disrespect intended.
Other than that folks, the moment, Zzzzzzzzzz for the rest.
:-(

By chameleon (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

OK, so chameleon was thinking of Richard Simons, who said the precise opposite of what she claimed. Not only stupid, disingenuous, illogical, incoherent and arguably dishonest - but so lazy she couldn't be bothered to scroll up a couple of pages to see the name of the commenter she was allegedly responding to.

Chameleon by now has a track record almost as reliable as sunspot - at getting it horribly horribly wrong. As with sunspot, one would do very very well betting against any claim she makes without providing unimpeachable evidence.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

I remembered you by your sirname. [sic]

Remembering his name isn't necessary, cretin, since it's right here on the page, just above his comment that you also didn't remember and couldn't be bothered to read before characterizing it.

No disrespect intended.

That's like getting drunk, going out and driving, and killing a bunch of people, and then going "oh, sorry, I didn't intend that". It's your despicable behavior that produces the offensive result, you shitstain on humanity.

I have such a low opinion of sunspot that my view of chameleon makes her relatively a saint.

Ianam, I reckon chameleon is working hard to change your relative assessment.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

my apologies Richard,
I remembered you by your sirname.
No disrespect intended.

I don't care about that - you aren't the first to get my names switched. What I do care about is that you completely misrepresented my views. But I don't expect you to have the honesty or grace to apologize for that.

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

Not being funny guys, but Chameleon's retarded and illiterate gibberish *really* doesn't warrant the frequency of replies some of you are according it.

We've established it hasn't the slightest idea about the basics of any of the sciences, and that it appears incapable accepting let alone remedying that fact, so most of these replies are a waste of space.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

@Vince

I've said that repeatedly about all the debates with the trolls here. I've admonished people for being neurotic ... a trait that I have been expressing the last couple of days in full glory. I've quit before ... I hope to do so again.

Of course, nothing here is as neurotic as stu and chek continuing, year after year, to argue with Jonas about hands moving boxes and such.

Inaman, I see that your tourette's syndrome has not abated.

I note that some of the cranks in here are pushing the "bush fires are caused by CC' meme, ummmm.........people light fires, lightning lights fires, hot weather helps them burn you idiots !

Oh....and down in Tasmania the fires have been fanned by barnturds little arms furiously spinning around while he screams the sky is falling. lol

Karen, just letting you know it's now 2013, since your Korsakoffs seems to be advancing of late.

Another good instance of the syndrome is this intriguing claim that 'cranks' - meaning, against the odds, persons other than yourself, we gather - are maintaining that 'bushfires are caused by cc', because, you see, that's not really true, now, is it?

We do have a muppet claiming that the ABC was claiming that, but she's nearly as terminally bewildered as you are, love.

Really, it must be terrible to feel your mind slipping away. Feel free to pop back in occasionally and we'll all cheer along your brave attempts at coherence, eh?

Shorter Karen: "I swung at my strawman, missed, and crapped my pants".

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

au contraire Bill!
It was over 47deg here yesterday and we were inside under our evil RC air conditioner to escape the heat.
We had the TV on 24 ABC news for some noise.
It was most definitely claimed by 24 ABC news on several occasions between 2pm and 5pm on Monday Jan 7th that this current heatwave and the fires in TAS were caused by AGW.
I repeat that this type of nonsense does no favours to anyone who is interested in and/or trying to make sense of AGW! NONE!

By chameleon (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

For those (Duff, Karen, she-of-many-colours, B4PM, SD, GWS, OP) who cannot understand the connection between climate and weather, and climate change and more extreme weather her is a primer which includes the well know quote, and if you are new to it think about it very carefully:

Deke Arndt, Climate Monitoring Branch Chief, NCDC: Climate kind of trains the boxer, but weather throws the punches. And what climate will do is help train weather to throw certain punches more often. We’ll see these as extreme precip events, extreme droughts.

State of the Climate in 2009 and all indicators have grown more unequivocal since.

There really is no excuse for continued stupid on this for those who persist in nay saying APGW and all its effects are either wilfully ignorant or mendacious.

Weather throws the punches?
:-)
Chuckle.
Maybe you need to rethink your PR?

By chameleon (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chameleon’s retarded and illiterate gibberish *really* doesn’t warrant the frequency of replies some of you are according it.

Yeah, but everyone's gotta have a hobby ;-) One of mine that I indulge in in waves and then leave for a while is slapping down trollish stupidity.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

Hi chameleon, coming here is like looking through a little window into a padded room :)

Weather throws the punches?
:-)
Chuckle.
Maybe you need to rethink your PR?

And you moan about people swearing at you.

Sorry but you lost any moral high-ground long ago as your cloak of impartial information seeking slipped.

You are now stark naked and it ain't a pretty sight and with this last remark have lost any right to be treated with respect. You are simply another nasty mendacious little troll.

Shorter Karen: "I'm not mad, everybody else is".

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chameleon and Karen will end up BFF ... how sweet.

Ohhh my gawd Lyin nell, you are an idiot ! Not long ago you were blathering on about climate being changed by humans cutting down trees and starting agriculture, now tree are getting planted and your still whining, get a grip man !

"The report estimated that ozone from wood-based energy to meet the European Union's 2020 goal would cause nearly 1,400 premature deaths a year, costing society $7.1bn. The European plan would also would reduce the annual value of wheat and maize production by $1.5bn since ozone impairs crop growth, the study added."

What a load of shite !!!

Chammy, love, you're a stuck-up, pretentious bore. Piss off.

"Hi chameleon, coming here is like looking through a little window into a padded room"

Yeh... and you're in the room Karen, along with like-minded idiots.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

Oh perfect, just perfect! A favourite quote from this, er distinguished 'climate scientologist' site:
"Climate kind of trains the boxer, but weather throws the punches. And what climate will do is help train weather to throw certain punches more often."

Oh my giddy aunt! How could anyone say that with a straight face? If you lot are relying on that as your best deep thinking, you're away with the fairies!

But as we are on the subject of quotes, here's another from a very great scientist indeed:
"It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong."

You 'climate scientologists' proposed, and keep proposing, that CO2 causes global warming. The amount of CO2, courtesy of China, India, et al, keeps growing exponentially and yet ... and yet ... global temperatures barely move and even the Met Office has been forced to cut its forecast temperatures for the next five years. But still you hold hands and cry in unison, "I believe! I believe!"

I hope you and Tom Cruise are very happy together!

By David Duff (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

Tell me, is the weather in Dubai different from the weather in Anchorage?

If so, how do you know?

And how would you describe the different weather?

Duffer: "and yet … global temperatures barely move"

There's your problem - whoever is feeding you disinformation is lying to you. Average global temperatures keep on rising - but you'll have already forgotten the record arctic melt this year, and the late season superstorm and hurricanes hitting the US North Eaast, won't you? Like a good wattminded goldfish.

"Oh my giddy aunt! How could anyone say that with a straight face?"

Easily.

Apparently you don't know what analogy means.

READ A BOOK.

" My point was that Simon semed to think that one weather event was indicative of AGW."

in·dic·a·tive
/inˈdikətiv/
Adjective
Serving as a sign or indication of something.
Noun
A verb in the indicative mood.
Synonyms
indicatory

If you ask for proof of AGW, then that event will be indicative of AGW.

Too bad Karen its all melting away now...check out temperatures in the central USA this week.

Also, since when is snowfall any kind of evidence that it isn't warming? Indeed, temperatures across much of the NH in December were well above normal - and the snow fell as heavy, wet stuff. Madison WI had a record 33 cm fall late in the monthwith a temperature steady at +1 C - meaning it wasn't 'dry' snow. But, as I said, snow fall is not an indicator of below average temperatures; it indicates an increase in the prevalnce of low pressure and lift due to advancing warm air overriding cold air.

You are such an ignoramus. But then again, I have yet to see one climate change denier on Deltoid who knows much about anything, let alone science. You are instead driven by your own profound stupidity.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

Yup, another common problem with deniers (because of the moron effect), is that every year they are flummoxed by the onset of Winter.

Their failure to grasp is not just limited to languages but to their own life experiences.

Does it ever - I mean like EVER - occur to you numpties that for a record amount of precipitation to get up there into the atmosphere, there must have been a record amount of warming to vapourise all that water in the first place before it could fall?

Or do simple organisms like you just think, snow -durrrr no AGW?

Hi Jeffery, central USA this week, how about right now, Nebraska, - 11C and 1 C in Texas, yeah a real scorcher, hehe

Brrrrrrrr, looks mighty cold in Canada also.

How about the average over Australia beating the record for the hottest average Aus temps? 40.6C.

And Canada? Cold? In winter?

That would be the climate, wouldn't it?

Karen, what do you mean by "mighty cold in Canada"?

So what.

Chek all of the recent floods have not been as large as they have in the past when the climate was cooler, your evaporation theory just evaporated.

Q, do you still wet your pants ? Or you just can't recall any prior debates on flood level's ? The warmers lost :) again

Perhaps you can suggest some other as yet unknown mechanism for hoisting water into the atmosphere then Karen?

Average global temperatures keep on rising...

...and a heck of a lot of heat energy is going into warming the ocean, including the deeper parts.

Focusing purely on surface temperatures is a great way to mislead the gullible. (Yes, I'm looking at you, Duff.)

Speaking of gullible, here's Karen:

...all of the recent floods have not been as large as they have in the past when the climate was cooler, your evaporation theory just evaporated.

Er, no.

The evaporation link is that warmer water evaporates more easily and warmer air holds more water vapour.

Do you deliberately make fallacious arguments or does it just come naturally?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

Possibly chek didn't think that there were floods before he exited a birth canal ? Only a recent event eh, hehehe

There has always been evaporation little cheky, even before you were born dear.........

Lotharsson, could you be so kind and inform me as to any flood in the last 10 years in Australia that has beaten previous known flood records ?

How will that tell you if there's been more flooding, karen?

And so, gradually, craftily, muttered out the side of the mouth, the truth emerges. A whole gang of 'climate scientologist' prelates have just issued a paper in which they try to work out the differential between solar influences, man-made influences and just general natural variability noise as prime cause of (so-called) global warming:

"We use simulation output from 20 climate models participating in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. This multimodel archive provides estimates of the signal pattern in response to combined anthropogenic and natural external forcing (the finger- print) and the noise of internally generated variability. Using these estimates, we calculate signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios to quantify the strength of the fingerprint in the observations relative to fingerprint strength in natural climate noise."

Well, did you spot it? Didja? Didja? I don't suppose the unsophisticated kiddies here did, so I will explain.
Your cult leaders carefully and with malice aforethought lumped solar influences in with anthropological influences so as not to differentiate between them.

Now I wonder why they did that?

By David Duff (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

"A whole gang of ‘climate scientologist’ prelates have just issued a paper in which they try to work out the differential between solar influences"

It may be news to YOU idiots, but it's old hat to people who actually inform themselves of reality.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_first_assess…

2.3 Other Radiative Forcing Agents
2.3.1 Solar Radiation
2.3.1.1 Variability due to orbital changes
2.3.1.2 Variability due to changes total in solar
irradiance
2.3.2 Direct Aerosol Effects
2.3.3 Indirect Aerosol Effects
2.3.4 Surface Characteristics

"Now I wonder why they did that?"

Because idiots like you never read the IPCC as a matter of faith.

Don't know what planet Karen's on... temperature tomorrow in Lincoln, Nebraska is going to be 10 C; some 8 C above normal. Snow doesn't last very long at that temeprature; Texas is a mighy big state, dopey, so saying its 1 C means nix. And, as I said, snow is not an indicator of cold or at least below normal temperatures.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

"You mean forecast errors of +76%, ..."

Nope, I mean their forecasts were wrong on 5 out of 365 days.

98% accuracy in forcasting.

The individual forcast isn't "76% wrong" since they didn't give a 76% chance of the event happening as predicted.

It's not just that you don't want to understand, it's that you can't.

Heck, by your "maths", the Met Office error would be less than I said!

76% of one day
6% of one day
103% of one day
17% of one day
1% of one day
11% of one day

total: 2.11 day-errors. Out of 365 possible in one year: 0.6% error. Accuracy 99.4%.

"There has always been evaporation"

I believe this latest troll tail-chase goes back to your own "a December record for Northern hemisphere snow cover"

So as Lotharsson kindly pointed out in what were possibly not infantile enough baby steps especially for you, AGW > warmer oceans + warmer air > more evaporation > more precipitation.

And as the complete morons are fond of saying, that's how those lying scientists s'plain how warming makes things colder. But then there's no talking to complete morons, eh Karen?

It was 43 degrees where I was - on the coast - on Saturday.

And tonight - back inland, where I belong - we are shrouded in cooled volatilised combustion products. Smells like burnt grass, which is reassuring, but the wind is pretty wild, the temp has been in the high 30s as the sun sets for days now, and it's all a bit nasty really.

The increased rainfall of the last 3 or so years has allowed a lot of growth. (We even had the tops of hills green for months at a time, including in summer). The pounding heat over the last few weeks has turned all this growth into fuel. It's currently pretty ugly.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

@Duff - I might be wrong here, but I think you and your chums have got the wrong end of the stick again and are confusing natural external forcings (part of the signal) and natural internal variability (AKA the 'noise'). Reasonable to lump together anthropogenic and natural forcings if the point of your study is to distinguish these from the natural noise of the climate system, no?

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

...in what were possibly not infantile enough baby steps especially for you...

I don't think sufficiently infantile steps exist for some people ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

Duff is heroically clocking-in with yet more unbelievably embarrassing paid-for PR-gibberish.

And people bother responding with more than a one-lioner...

He's not even bothering to pretend to being an honest correspondent - it's all just bald-faced PR-gibberish, as supplied by the fuckwits running this disinformation campaign, which is only still operational in about 6 countries in the world.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

Lord_sidcup, you are not wrong on both accounts (1. what the scientists were doing, 2. Duff & Co got the wrong end of the stick again).

Duff,

What does the term multimodel mean to you?

Here are some clues.

Perhaps you should digest this too (one clue):

Importance of carbon dioxide physiological forcing to future climate change
Abstract

An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration influences climate both directly through its radiative effect (i.e., trapping longwave radiation) and indirectly through its physiological effect (i.e., reducing transpiration of land plants). Here we compare the climate response to radiative and physiological effects of increased CO2 using the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) coupled Community Land and Community Atmosphere Model. In response to a doubling of CO2, the radiative effect of CO2 causes mean surface air temperature over land to increase by 2.86 ± 0.02 K (± 1 standard error), whereas the physiological effects of CO2 on land plants alone causes air temperature over land to increase by 0.42 ± 0.02 K. Combined, these two effects cause a land surface warming of 3.33 ± 0.03 K. The radiative effect of doubling CO2 increases global runoff by 5.2 ± 0.6%, primarily by increasing precipitation over the continents. The physiological effect increases runoff by 8.4 ± 0.6%, primarily by diminishing evapotranspiration from the continents. Combined, these two effects cause a 14.9 ± 0.7% increase in runoff. Relative humidity remains roughly constant in response to CO2-radiative forcing, whereas relative humidity over land decreases in response to CO2-physiological forcing as a result of reduced plant transpiration. Our study points to an emerging consensus that the physiological effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 on land plants will increase global warming beyond that caused by the radiative effects of CO2.

Duff quoted a short passage and avoided the rest of the article.

Now I wonder why he did that?

Through ignorance or mendacity?

Duff the good little Cardinal Puffer (aka Bishop sHill) and aren't the shills blowing this one for all its worth, its rattling around the deniersphere like clinkers in their pants.. They are clearly running out of straws.

"Don’t know what planet Karen’s on… temperature tomorrow in Lincoln, Nebraska is going to be 10 C; some 8 C above normal"

Aha, I get it, now weather suddenly fits the cAGW shoe. But only if it's warm weather, eh? Some mild weather in Nebraska is due to climate change, but bad ass cold in Russia is only weather, correct?

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/04-01-2013/123380-global_wa…

Pentax cites Pravda. How appropriate.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

Well, sirup, it seems like the easterns, asians, africans and south americans are the people with their common sense intact, in contrast to the fucked up western "civilization" with its abundance of cAGW mongering so called "scientists".

Well, sirup, it seems like the easterns, asians, africans and south americans are the people with their common sense intact, in contrast to the fucked up western “civilization” with its abundance of cAGW mongering so called “scientists” will eventually save the world.

Did man-made CO2 cause recent global warming?

If 'Yes', then why would you conflate it with other possible natural causes, thus hiding it?

I repeat, just for your benefit, from the pens of Ben Santer, Susan Solomon, Tom Wigley, Julie Arblaster and Peter Stott et al:

"We use simulation output from 20 climate models participating in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. This multimodel archive provides estimates of the signal pattern in response to COMBINED anthropogenic AND natural external forcing (the finger- print) and the noise of internally generated variability. Using these estimates, we calculate signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios to quantify the strength of the fingerprint in the observations relative to fingerprint strength in natural climate noise."
[My emphasis]

By David Duff (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

Duffer, out of his depth scrastches his arse and says: "If ‘Yes’, then why would you conflate it with other possible natural causes, thus hiding it?"

And lo and behold his conspiracy loaded question is answered quite clearly by some of the world's leading scientists: "Using these estimates, we calculate signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios to quantify the strength of the fingerprint in the observations relative to fingerprint strength in natural climate noise.”

Yes of course you don't understand a word of it Duffer. You rely on retards like Watts for information.

The guy who wrote the Pravda article is a complete nutter. One should check out his web page. IMO he comes off as a psycho. PentaxZ is in good company. Read also some of the comments from readers - comedy stuff like 'Obama is a communist' and AGW is a global plot from, of all people, the 'intellectual elites'.

Sad to see complete intellectually bankrupt morons like PentaxZ and Duff spreading their gospel of ignorance on Deltoid. Who they are preaching to God only knows, because anybody with a sliver of brain tissue will realize what utter fanatics they are.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

@Duff - You are simply confused. You don't understand the purpose of that study. You have allowed yourself to be spoon-fed a crank's version of the paper.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

You have allowed yourself to be spoon-fed a crank’s version of the paper.

And despite the careful spoon feeding assistance, he still dribbles pap all over himself.

Sad.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

Duff with more drongo drops:

...COMBINED anthropogenic AND natural external forcing...

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that it is good practice to separate out the two types of forcing otherwise how would we know the proportion from the former?

If an aircraft is being flown off a carrier in order to be able to calculate a safe load level one needs to know the speed of wind over the deck (natural [1]) and the acceleration of the aircraft factored with available deck length (anthropogenic).

[1] Complicating factor if a catapult was being used. Which part would that be assigned to Duff, natural or anthropogenic?

BTW that is an analogy.

If you don't understand then look up stuff
but best to avoid Cardinal Puff
Also don't bother with WUW that
'cause then you would look a right old pratt.

Oh, But then you do already
from behaving just like Nova's teddy.
And consulting offerings from that TallBloke
will reinforce that your credibility's broke.

"Why is it so difficult for you to understand that it is good practice to separate out the two types of forcing otherwise how would we know the proportion from the former?"

Hell, isn't their eternal problem how the AR4 can say "very likely most of the warming in the latter half of the 20th Century is from anthropogenic causes"?

To make that statement is to SAY that there are natural forces and how big they are compared to anthropogenic ones is what they did to arrive at that conclusion.

"Did man-made CO2 cause recent global warming?

If ‘Yes’, then why would you conflate it with other possible natural causes, thus hiding it?"

We wouldn't.

YOU might.

"Aha, I get it, now weather suddenly fits the cAGW shoe. But only if it’s warm weather, eh?"

No, you don't (surprise, surprise) get it.

If you come along with "It's cold here!" and claim this disproves any warming, then YOUR claim is rebutted by "It's warm here".

Nobody other than you deniers are babbling on about weather in spot locations proving anything about climate trends.

"Did man-made CO2 cause recent global warming?"

No.

“Did man-made CO2 cause recent global warming?”

Yes.

pentaxZ

“Did man-made CO2 cause recent global warming?”

No.
Explain, with back up valid evidence, in your own words.

I take it you mean fat panties here needs to explain the "No" response they have, right?

Never going to happen.

Ever.

Doing so NEVER works out for the liars and Panties here knows they're talking shit.

Well yes Karen,
and I think the little window looks into the 'virtually unprecedented' world of a tribe that is heavily into 'ritual intellectual humiliation'.

By chameleon (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

Is that idiot Mack here?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chamy thinks Karen makes some good points. What shards of credibility she had left went down the drain on that note.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chameleon, you don't come here for the hunting, do you?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

Also Karen,
I looks like it's the square window, you know, the one that many seem to have trouble seeing outside of?
And just for Wow's benefit, that is known as developing a theme via literary devices.
If you don't get it, follow your own advice and read a book!

By chameleon (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

Regarding Chammy, should Incomprehension ever become an Olympic event, she might do Australia proud.

Other than that; who cares?

I care, because it is allowed to vote, and that vote, taken together with many others just like it, results in the rag-tag collection of fools and crooks we have currently running this country.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

No Lotharsson,
I understand that you simply CANNOT accept or believe anything I write, but I have explained how I came accross this site.
However, I must confess that I have become a little addicted to paying visits here.
So I guess in one way you are correct, I have probably STAYED for a bit of hunting.
Many of you make it far too amusing and far too tempting to wind you up.
chuckle :-)
Don't get too over excited however, as I'm sure that Tim is delighted that he has a new visitor for his 'ritual intellectual humiliation' tribe.
But with much tongue in cheek folks, I seriously do suspect that Wow is employed by 'the other tribe' as an undercover agent.
His mission is to make you look pathetic by spraying vitriol and arguing that black is white and white is black and THAT WOW IS RIGHT!!!!!!
AND EVERYBODY ELSE who doesn't BELIIIIEEEEEEEVVVVVE in (I'm not sure anymore?) is whatever expletive (even with a misogynist after taste) he can dredge up in about 4 to 5 gattling gun, vitriolic comments.
It is hilarious reading and somewhat addictive I do have to confess.
I also love the MO here where everybody answers each others questions. It cracks me up.
And JeffH, I actually think Karen's 'analogy' was an absolute cracker!
It was humourous without dredging up something as henious as paedophilia.
Unlike the 'oh so untouchable' ABC who are still claiming today that this current heatwave is 'virtually unprecedented' and making a huge political fuss over something that is clearly just a common SE Australian heatwave and clearly just weather!
There are people who live out here and not that old (but that is of course a relative term so let's say at least 30 years old) that know beyond any doubt that there is nothing unprecedented about this heatwave. We've had much worse ones and hotter ones before for fox ache!!!!
And even though some of us are academics, it isn't actually necessary to have academic qualifications to understand that.

By chameleon (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

True, but 'twas ever thus, unfortunately. The entire country will most-likely be in the grip of Stupid by this time next year... The Dunning-Kruger effect appears to apply at the scale of electorates. But what can you do?

Chammy: Tinkle tinkle, blather blather, giggle, SHOUT, smiley smiley. What an extraordinarily toxic dill you are!

And, careful: your dreary suburban mendacity is showing...

So I guess in one way you are correct, I have probably STAYED for a bit of hunting.

Ever reliable, you are.

The hunting reference is to a rude joke that was mentioned in comments a couple of days ago. It's about a bear hunter who is eventually asked "You don't really come here for the hunting, do you?"

It's a roundabout way of indicating that you're in the tribe you're pointing at and laughing about. Or to put it another way, those who are "into" "ritual intellectual humiliation" here are those who seek out ways to have it directed at themselves, because no-one is making them come here and proudly display their stupidities.

I predict that even after explaining the joke-as-analogy, you still won't grok it.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

"And just for Wow’s benefit, that is known as developing a theme via literary devices."

The theme has to have some positive intent to it to develop, cham.

Yours have no positive reason. It's all a game of smoke and mirrors so that you say nothing but mean "you're wrong" without ever saying how you got there.

Because that would mean learning if you're actually the wrong one here. And for opinionated redneck blowhards like yourself, that will NEVER do.

"Liberals and leftist hippies be right?!?!?! NOT ON MY WATCH"

But I don’t expect you [Chameleon] to have the honesty or grace to apologize for that.

Well, Chameleon, I was right, wasn't I?

And JeffH, I actually think Karen’s ‘analogy’ was an absolute cracker!

Analogy? I can't find where Karen made any kind of analogy. Is this another of those words with your own private definition?

But with much tongue in cheek folks, I seriously do suspect . . .

So are you being serious or do you have your tongue in cheek, i.e. are joking? The confusion in your mind must be a continual source of wonder to you. With every day that passes, you come across as dottier than the previous day (as well as reinforcing the impression of being a dishonest coward).

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chameleon says the australian heatwave is nothing special, BOM says:

‘‘The current heatwave – in terms of its duration, its intensity and its extent – is now unprecedented in our records,’’ the Bureau of Meteorology’s manager of climate monitoring and prediction, David Jones, said.
‘‘Clearly, the climate system is responding to the background warming trend. Everything that happens in the climate system now is taking place on a planet which is a degree hotter than it used to be.’’
As the warming trend increases over coming years, record-breaking heat will become more and more common, Dr Jones said.
‘‘We know that global climate doesn’t respond monotonically – it does go up and down with natural variation. That’s why some years are hotter than others because of a range of factors. But we’re getting many more hot records than we’re getting cold records. That’s not an issue that is explained away by natural variation.’

Who to believe? BOM or an anonymous troll, I know who I'd pick.

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/get-used-to-recordb…

But, but, unprecedented events happen all the time! ;-)

Well John,
To coin a wowism.
They're wrong.
Maybe their records have gone missing?
If they would like to come out here, which is nowhere near suburbia BTW, there are plenty of long term temp records compiled by generational family businesses.
It is also not the first time BoM has been mistaken BTW.
My caveat however is that we do find their work and information very useful.
Unlike you however, we have learnt to take some of their PR with a very large grain of salt.

By chameleon (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

And Richard!
Settle petal :-)
I apologised for the misnomer as it was a genuine mistake.
What is it that you believe I should apologise for?
3 or 4 gattling gun comments jumped all over the misnomer.

By chameleon (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chameleon, those records you mention were all caused by the UHI effect and are therefore unreliable.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

I have a photo of a thermometer near a steam engine to prove it.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

BoM records on the other hand, show:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?gr…
a 30% increase in hot nights, which have as you can clearly see here,
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?gr…
increased by over 1 degree since 1960.
While,
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?gr…
shows a 50% reduction in frost nights.

More revealingly, though, is the >5% increase in length of the growing season,
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?gr…

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

People who *genuinely* live away from suburbia and on the land are perfectly aware of changes to growing seasons, although North American farmers have seen this far more than our shave so far. South Australian farmers on the other hand have seen land become unexploitable due to climate change in the last 25 years.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

My caveat however is that we do find their work and information very useful.
Unlike you however, we have learnt to take some of their PR with a very large grain of salt.

PR?! Good God! The intolerable aura of smugness with this one is overwhelming! Being patronised by pondlife!...

I repeat - I found a picture of Chammy.

Well, dear reader, you have a clear choice. You can take the word of ageing arrogant, allegedly semi-bucolic fantasists, or the BoM. I'll give you a tip - only idiots don't choose the latter...

"South Australian farmers on the other hand have seen land become unexploitable due to climate change in the last 25 years."

Oh I dunno, vince. When my husband was working in the lower Flinders area a few years ago, there were still people trying to grow crops on land that was on the wrong side of the original Goyder's line. They just turned them in or left them as soil conditioner when they wouldn't grow past ankle height. If they got past knee height they'd cut them and sell as animal fodder.

Another couple of decades of this and Goyder's line will be in the northern Adelaide suburbs.

According to my reading a few years ago, the line had migrated southwards by about 20km(?) at that stage.

Of course, nobody was saying that particular localised example of climate change was a result of any global event.

However from what I've read, global climate change-related increased rainfall is likely to happen far away to the north (already 50% increases in annual average in some places in WA & NT) and SA is likely to continue getting drier and drier, unfortunately.

At least they have the best-producing windfarms in the country.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

And, of course, we might have hoped to gain a bit of badly-needed extra water in the north of the state when any increased rainfall across the tropics descended via the Cooper and the Diamantina, but with the party of The Stupid in charge in QLD we live in imminent fear of the announcement of mass irrigation harvesting.

And best not mention the Murray Darling...

"Explain, with back up valid evidence, in your own words."

Why should I? You cAGW mongers claim that your dear CO2 hypothesis is valid, ergo you have to prove it valid. So far no one has ever succeeded. And no, arm waving, computer games and straight lines isn't valid evidence. Has never been, will never be.

Shorter pentaxZ
"you will never convince me with facts"

Currently we really are in the process of conducting a giant social experiment where the chaff is gradually winnowed out and only the purest remain - the Dumbest of the Dumb.

I hope you all live long enough to suffer the direct consequences of your own imperturbable imbecility, whether that be overwhelming climatic events, or the related displeasure of your neighbours.

I apologised for the misnomer as it was a genuine mistake.
What is it that you believe I should apologise for?

Considering I wrote "I don’t care about that – you aren’t the first to get my names switched." it is unlikely, isn't it? The immediately following few words, "What I do care about is that you completely misrepresented my views" would probably give an astute reader what is known as 'a clue'.

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 08 Jan 2013 #permalink

HMMMMM?
Very interesting.
I went along to the Jennifer Marohasy site that you have been referring to.
BTW, whoever said I was 'like' her, after reading up about Jennifer Marohasy, I'm very flattered.
Of course I do know of her as she has been rather outspoken about the silly bi partisan nonsense that has developed around that hopeless water act 2007 and the MDBP.
She is particularly appalled that no one has the courage to tackle the real problems that have developed around the bottom of the system.
I also notice that she is 'published' in science journals although it is obviously not her main goal in life.
Anyway, this guy named Robert has accessed the records and commented thus:
We’re in drought here on the midcoast. It’s worse than somebody-or-other thought! It’s unprecedented in the entire record after 2007. It’s the worst dry spell of any year ending in a 1 and a 3 since 1913. Jan 1 was the driest day of 2013, just nudging out Jan 2. The heat is without precedent in 2013, yet, apart from joining and participating in his local fire brigade, Tony Abbott has done nothing about it today. What a misogynist. I hope John McTernan alerts the ABC about this latest Abbott scandal.

By the way, for those interested in climate extremes, and drought in particular, our region’s driest recorded January was in 1900…but wait! There’s more!

Our driest Feb was in 1939. Our driest March was in 1922. Our driest April was in 1896. Our driest May was in 1957. Our driest June was in 1883. Our driest July was in 1951. Our driest August was in 1919. Our driest September was in 1907. Our driest October was in 1908. Our driest November was in 1926. Our driest December was in 1938.

Our driest year? 1902.

Oh, and every single monthly record for heat was set between 1910 and 1919, except that of August, which was hottest in in 1946.

This was not a local freak which somehow extended over many decades. All of this reflects the half century of rain deficit in much of Australia following the Fed drought. For fire, of course, it’s possible that nothing in world history matches Black Thursday, Victoria, 1851, but the period after the Fed drought, while not free of flood and the usual Australian reverses, was problematic climate change in reality.

For real world climate change, you need real world solutions. Instead, we have extensive plans to waste water, energy, food, infrastructure and money…and we fund this nonsense by gouging more and more of the very coal we are not supposed to use.

Are there any adults left out there? Hello? Adults?
And later thus:
By the way, I’m writing from the middle of the Australian scrub. After five champion years of growth, it’s a huge piece of luck that the conditions are not nearly as bad as 19 years ago.
And later Thus:
If any of our country’s professional advisers are saying “unprecedented”, tell them they are outrageous frauds – and be glad it is not you who is peddling such an obvious and easily exposed lie. And don’t give these climate hucksters oxygen by quoting them, especially the arch-polluter Garnaut.

If you want to go along and see for yourself he also explains where he sourced the data.
Funnily enough it was at the BoM link via the Elders site.
Funnily enough, these records also match long term temp and rainfall records from generational businesses in my area as well.
And just in case you missed it before, there is nothing suburban about my life or my lifestyle.
I don't even live in a town.

By chameleon (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

The AGW propagandists in Australia were silent all year, then we get a bit of hot weather, as usual in summer, and the wailing begin's WAH WAH WAH lol, just because we get a few warm days the talking heads use it in a similar manner that Hanson did when he had the air conditioners turned off during his speech to congress, disgusting. Of coarse there are some people who are totally suckered in by the PR campaign, this site is littered with them.

Some perspective..........

"Large areas of northern and eastern Australia had cooler than normal minima in 2012. In fact,

For the year as a whole, minimum temperatures were 0.28 °C below average. Minima were below average across much of northern and central Australia as well as New South Wales west of the Great Divide. A large part of this area recorded minima in the lowest decile. … Winter ranked as the third-coolest on record nationally for minimum temperatures (0.91 °C below average), and coolest for the Northern Territory, while autumn (0.93 °C below average) was the fourth-coolest nationally."

http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/category/temperature/

http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/

While I'm at it I'd like mention this nutter alarmist,

Anna Rose of "I can change your mind about climate"

This from her bio, "She became a climate change campaigner after her grandparent’s farm in North Western NSW was affected by the Drought, and Anna connected the dots to climate change."

Hahahaha, her grandparent’s farm in North Western NSW is smack bang in central Australia, in the Desert !!

This silly girl thinks that Climate Change has caused dry conditions at her grandparent’s farm in North Western NSW !!!!!! Could someone PLEASE give this idiot a history lesson ?

These are the type of people that are trying to convince the general public that CO2 is 100% the reason why the planet has been warming, even though it hasn't warmed for 15 years, and David has so generously reminded you all that CO2 has not receded but has in fact multiplied with no obvious warming in conjunction with it.

The less Chammy has to say, the more words she uses to say it.

Meanwhile in a shock to their regular readers who were preparing for a new ice age, the WSJ reported that

The lower 48 U.S. states experienced the warmest year on record in 2012, shattering the previous mark set in 1998 by one degree Fahrenheit, government scientists said Tuesday.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873239368045782298222777603…

Of course the reference to "government" scientists is code for the regular readers to don tinfoil hats.

The climate denier nutters are particularly active today - and the next full moon is not until the 25th. Perhaps the yawning chasm between their beliefs and climate reality is sending them into a frenzy.

What is it that you believe I should apologise for?

He (and others) stated it several times.

3 or 4 gattling gun comments jumped all over the misnomer.

No, you lying sack of shit ... the complaint is that you blatantly misrepresented what he wrote.

Oh, why do I bother? These assholes are so predictable ... they will never admit to anything.

Inaman you are such a drama queen !

But the problem is Mike H,
Who do we believe?
BoM? or BoM?
Because they all come from BoM.
Maybe they forgot to mention in this latest release that they didn't use all their records?

By chameleon (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

Richard?
Do you mean your 'probably' comment?
That wasn't what you meant to say?
It's OK, some others from the 'ritual intellectual humiliation' tribe here rewrote it for you.
You can relax.
Apparently what you wrote wasn't what you meant to write and someone rewrote it for you.

By chameleon (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

BTW,
I also noticed people at the Marohasy site can manage to discuss content and contrary politics without the need to swear at each other.
I do so hope that ianam and wow don't speak to real people in their real lives in this manner.
They would find it rather hard to maintain good relationships.
But maybe they only hang around with people of totally like mind and haven't needed to learn how to discuss politics and weather and such like with others who may not share their views?

By chameleon (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

bill "And best not mention the Murray Darling…"

I remember during the drought we were at a party in the mid-North, nowhere near the Murray, and the hosts were talking about visiting relatives in NSW. On a fruit block. With open irrigation ditches!! They were horrified. More so because the rellies didn't know why they thought this was so awful. SA irrigators had been installing drip irrigation for over a decade by then, and every time you see vineyards being set up, the drippers are there before the vines are planted.

I've since come to the conclusion that it's just as well Federation removed the individual states' defence forces. If SA still had its own, I'm pretty sure a few rogue sappers might have done some real damage to various "projects" upstream.

Chammy, your hubris is beyond reckoning. Never have I encountered such a self-satisfied, self-deluding fool. Remember these words, because one day, should you live long enough, you're going to wish you had listened to them...

I love this comment from Captain Stupid himself, Warren Truss head of the National Party and stand-in leader of the opposition.

''Indeed I guess there'll be more CO2 emissions from these fires than there will be from coal-fired power stations for decades,''

It is certainly true that burning Australia's eucalypt forest releases vast amounts of CO2 although the Cap'n is exaggerating a tad.

But what is his argument? CO2 cannot be bad if is also emitted from bushfires? Tell me it is not so - how does this turkey stand and talk at the same time?

Bill,
right back at you sweetie pie :-)
But of course because I haven't actually 'encountered' you anywhere except on this site my opinion of you holds no more weight in your life than yours does in mine.
It also is entirely irrelevant to matters under discussion.
But heh! If you get a kick out of judging people on so little evidence, then good luck to you.
Some of your accusations and judgements of my lifestyle are at least affording me some amusement.

By chameleon (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

Mike H?
Was that your attempt at using a rhetorical question?

By chameleon (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

Do you really imagine, à la Watts, that if only a large enough gang of doughty old true-blue, salt-of-the-earth (reactionary) types go back through their local-records, then AGW, that hoary monster spawned by those evil social!st city-slickers, will go away?

Wow, and those records are from the BoM, are they, and so they prove that the BoM's statements about the national climate, assembled as they are by the merely competent based on all the other frickin' records in the country are wrong?

It is impossible to satirise you people.

Are you aware of the fate of Watt's 'surface stations' project, a mob-sourcing* exercise based on remarkably similar set of assumptions. Blew up in his face. Just like his clarion endorsement of the BEST project when he thought the result was (wink, wink) a sure thing from the start.

Turns out the people who know what they're doing are the people who know what they're doing. And, HINT: you're not one of them.

Whatever your hairdresser might think.

Of course, Watts' learned nothing from it, and becomes just that little bit more marginalised every day. He has disappeared into what conservatism's own internal critics refer to as 'the epistemic bubble', which you're so lost in the importunate realities of the outside world can barely hope to register above the honeyed din of self-congratulation.

And, yeah, Marohasy's work on the Murray for the IPA was little short of brilliant. Certainly, you'd think so.

*it's like crowd-sourcing, only much denser and more angry...

The less Chammy has to say, the more words she uses to say it.

Aye.

Compensation tactic ;-)

She also appears to be doing the standard denialist "my location indicates national/global averages", and "some amateur dataset I heard about trumps scientific datasets".

Better trolls please.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

That wasn’t what you meant to say?

Not just dumb and gullible, but deliberately trying to provoke offense by doubling down after having her interpretation comprehensively rebutted.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

Was that your attempt at using a rhetorical question?

The wrong is strong in this one.

(And she's still wrong about leaving for the third (or are we up to the fourth?) time. She's really not here for the hunting!)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

She's here so she can flounce off and go to her team mates and tell them all tales of drunkenness and cruel tea.

Then after satiating herself on the groupwank comiserations, come back here so she can do it all again.

She's not here for us, she's here so she can be a victim for the rest of the denial crowd.

Bill,
1) Where did I mention Watts?
2) Who is 'you people'?

By chameleon (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

Ummmm?
Wow?
On what evidence would you be basing that?

By chameleon (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

"“Explain, with back up valid evidence, in your own words.”

Why should I?"

Why then did you tell everyone that CO2 from human activities did not cause warming?

"On what evidence would you be basing that?"

On the evidence of your appearance on this thread.

"Why should I?”

You cAGW denial mongers claim that your dear CO2 hypothesis is valid, ergo you have to prove it valid.

"To coin a wowism."

Don't you mean a pantiesism?

Remember "No"? All that was gotten from panties and an INSISTENCE that "No" is all that's needed.

Oh, that's right, you won't see what you'd prefer not to.

"1) Where did I mention Watts?"
Where did he claim you mentioned Watts?

"2) Who is ‘you people’?"

You and your fellow idiots.

This public information broadcast for the terminally stupid has been brought to you free of charge because you're too fucking stupid to know what it's worth.

Jeff Harvey
January 8, 2013

"Don’t know what planet Karen’s on… temperature tomorrow in Lincoln, Nebraska is going to be 10 C; some 8 C above normal. "

Well it's now tomorrow Jeffery, ummm.....let me see ummm....... Lincoln, Nebraska, oh there it is Jeffery,

cue: drum roll..................... minus 2 C

And that means what about AGW, karen dear?

Nothing wow darling :)

But it does mean that Jeffery still can't read his tealeaves. lol

"Nothing wow darling"

Good.

Remember that.

"But it does mean that Jeffery still can’t read his tealeaves."

It also means you can't read a thermometer.

cue: drum roll………………… minus 2 C

...and it's the middle of the night in Nebraska right now. It's particularly stupid to interpret Jeff's comment as referring to the overnight minimum.

You clearly aren't here for the hunting either.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

So you concur, congratulations.

Uh.. Karen.. can you read?

http://www.weather.com/weather/today/USNE0283

9 C today expected in Lincoln; more remarkable is that record high temperatures are expected in Ontarion through Friday - a whopping 12 C in Windsor, and even 8 C in Algonquin Park some 14 C above normal... remarkable. As recently as the 1980s, the temperature in southern Ontarion rarely rose above 0 C for the entire month of January, and if it di, to 2 or 3 c; temperatures of 10 C or higher were an impossibility. The climate ius changing for sure.

Moreover, a recent report now shows that some migrant birds - harriers, chiffchaffs, spoonbills, white storks and others - are now remaining in central Europe during the winter. In the Netherlands, marsh harriers now overwinter on some of the islands. This is remarkable in the extreme. Seasonal and latitudinal shifts in species distributions are proof positive that it is warming and warming rapidly.

Karen hasn't got a clue.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

Sad when we can't even get a half-decent troll.

The normal nightime minimum in Lincoln NE is - 11 C. So its - 2 in the middle of the night, + 9 C above normal.
Game, set and match.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

"Karen.. can you read?"

Just about, but clearly doesn't understand what max and min temperatures are.

hehehe, you never would have worked it out Jeffery without Lotharson's tip off.

I did tell you what temperature it was there last night Jeffery, and 24 hrs later I told you again, lol

Anyway, my runes have indicated an Arctic blast heading that way, maybe next week :)

Where did all the little birdies go in the MWP ?

The Moron and Me: A short, cautionary play.

Act One: Scene One: Tim's Place.

ME:

"Do you really imagine, à la Watts, that if only a large enough gang of doughty old true-blue, salt-of-the-earth (reactionary) types... [etc.]

Are you aware of the fate of Watts' ‘surface stations’ project, a mob-sourcing exercise based on remarkably similar set of assumptions[?]"

MORON:

1) Where did I mention Watts?

I repeat, your incomprehension is truly breathtaking. You stand at the very summit of the art. You even stand out among your peers, a group devoted to taking incomprehension to a whole new level.

In your case it doesn't even appear to be willful.

Incidentally, the italicized section above is the answer to '2) "Who is ‘you people’?"

But you didn't know that already.

Ah, blockquote fail. In the interests of spelling-it-all-out the italicized section referred to is this bit; 'your peers, a group devoted to taking incomprehension to a whole new level'.

Karen, have you ever sustained a serious blow to the head?

I see that BirdBrainBill's multiple personality disorder is kicking in again,

So I take it we have to assume your condition is innate, rather than the result of brain injury? Tragic.

Karenb, your posturing and stupidity know few bounds. All you do is drag the discussion into the benthos. Time waster. Scientific illiterate.Willfully ignorant. All apply to you in equal measure.

You and Chameleon belong with Maharosey and Nova. They would appreciate the rank simplistic level of your comments. What I found from reading the appalling Pravda article and comments that your brother in ignorance, PentaxZ, linkied, is how many complete lunatics there are out there. Some of the comments on the Pravda link are so utterly appalling that its a wonder the people making them can walk in a straight line and chew gum at the same time. Stuff Like Obama is a communist, C02 isn't a greenhouse gas, and AGW is a global plot orchestrated by the intellectual illuminati to control entire nation states.

Seems like you belong with them. Well done.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

No matter what time I look through the window into the padded room there you are BirdBrainBill, hehe that says quite a bit about your boring, mundane and sad existence, try to be a happy fat incontinent old fairy dear :)

Sad when we can’t even get a half-decent troll.

I'd settle for quarter-decent, but we're not even getting that these days.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

Where did the trolls with at least half a brain go??

you never would have worked it out Jeffery without Lotharson’s tip off.

That's a particularly moronic claim about Jeff.

Let's face it, you come here because you want to be on the receiving end of ritual intellectual humiliation, right?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

"Where did the trolls with at least half a brain go??"

They were smart enough to know they were beaten.

"hehehe, you never would have worked it out Jeffery without Lotharson’s tip off"

So you admit you knew you were talking bollocks.

Add to that you knew you weren't saying anything pertinent to AGW. Add to that you lie with no compunction and no end.

What, precisely, is your purpose here?

"So you concur, congratulations."

Uh, where did they say they concurred?

And tell me, when did day become night?

Jeffery dear, have you forgotten again !

Our only disagreement is, "what has caused the temperature's to climb over the past century"

You keep confusing weather with climate, and any little localized hot weather you scream CO2 is the culprit.

So, karen has given more proof that it is a warming planet but thinks that this is somehow proof of it being colder than normal because karenmackspot doesn't know what night time is.

Doesn't know what winter is.

Doesn't know what snow is.

Doesn't know what ice is.

Doesn't know why they are here.

Doesn't know arse from elbow.

You keep confusing weather with climate, karen.

Where did he say it was climate?

You are the only one here pretending that weather and climate are swappable.

"any little localized hot weather you scream CO2 is the culprit."

So Lincoln (which you claimed was cold) is now a warm spot?

try to be a happy fat incontinent old fairy dear

Well, of course, people like you would give anyone the shits!

However, just for the sake of drawing out just what a repellent bunch of troglodytes you lot really are, shall we assume that the addition of 'fairy' to my list of failures is bog-standard mouth-breather homophobia?

Chammy will doubtlessly be along in a moment to tell us this was 'witty'. But maybe not: she certainly conveniently failed to notice SD's (those initials!) obnoxious rantings.

“Explain, with back up valid evidence, in your own words.”

Why should I? You cAGW mongers claim that your dear CO2 hypothesis is valid, ergo you have to prove it valid. So far no one has ever succeeded.

Ah! As predicted you Pentax avoid the question and keep your head up seventh rock from the sun.

And with that you too have qualified as a member of The Wendy Club .

Jeffery dear, here is another peer reviewed paper for you :)

1 January 2013

Annually resolved temperature reconstructions from a late Pliocene–early Pleistocene polar forest on Bylot Island, Canada

"Mean annual temperatures determined in this study average − 3.4 ± 3.8 °C, which is 11.4 ± 4.4 °C warmer than present-day Bylot Island (− 14.8 ± 2.2 °C). June–July temperatures average 13.5 ± 1.1 °C, approximately 12.6 ± 1.6 °C warmer than present-day"

Where did the little birdies go when they got so hot ?

"So far no one has ever succeeded."

Nope.

Roy Spencer thinks CO2 is a GHG.

Surfacestations shows the temperature data collection is solid.

BEST shows that the increase is genuine statistically.

What you mean is that you've refused to listen.

Why is proving it to you required for it to be real?

"Where did the little birdies go when they got so hot ?"

For a bath in water.

Lets add "Doesn't know biology".

And still something else that doesn't say anything about AGW from KMS.

Carbon dioxide concentration during the mid Pliocene has been estimated at around 400 ppmv

400 ppmv eh wow, good boy for picking that up :)

So why is the temperature so low there now ?

394.39ppm now wow http://co2now.org/

So why is the temperature so low there now ?

You could find out, if you actually cared to.

You don't.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

All of the following now fully qualified for The Wendy Club:

chameleon
PentaxZ
Karen
Bolt4PM
David Duff
Olaus Petri
GSW
janam
spnangled drongo
Jonas N
A N Other

for it matters not how much evidence is placed in front of them they always behave as if they want, '...one evidence...', just like that original Wendy.

This is not surprising because the avoid studying that presented which will demand a level of critical thinking which is beyond them. They are truly too ignorant to understand how ignorant they are, there is no fox for this condition all we can do is try to stop its spread. And this is why we keep up with presentation of facts, facts which lead the Wendys to indulge in repeated 'intellectual humiliation as one of them put it.

"So why is the temperature so low there now ?"

Don't you know????

That's hilarious!

Karen,

Before you make an idiot of yourself again, you should read the authors entire PhD:

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/Theses/CsankAdamPhD11.pdf

Effectively, like most deniers, you are twisting his research to suit your own agenda. Here's what it states at the very beginning:

"The high sensitivity of high latitudes to global climate changes is the stimulus for the study of ancient Arctic ecosystems under greenhouse conditions. With an increasing
number of studies, including the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) report highlighting Pliocene climate as key example for the study of Earth system sensitivity to higher levels of atmospheric CO2, the need for accurate proxy records for
this period is crucial"

As I and others have stated before, its not what conditions were like in various ecosystems before, but the rate of time it took them to get there. If the Arctic was much warmer than it is now, it didn't get that way in 100 years. It took thousands of years for the kinds of changes that are occurring today to be manifested. Getting the importance of scale through the skulls of the Dunning-Kruger army is virtually impossible when the brains of deniers are laden with inherent political biases. Essentially, what you, PentaxZ and others do here is read coutnless denier blogs, ostensibly set up and run by non-scientists, and cut-and-paste their distortions of empirical and theoretical studies up here as 'evidence' to support your denial.

The kinds of changes occurring and predicted are unprecedented IN SCALE in perhaps many millions of years. They are occurring on huge systems in the blink of an evolutionary and geological eye. Against this background are all kinds of other anthropogenic changes across the biosphere, which make the already immense challenges for biodiversity to respond more daunting. We are living in the Anthropocene, that is for sure. The current rate of warming, in combination with habitat loss, species invasions, draining and eutrophication of freshwater systems will have a huge negative impact on biodiversity.

Its just too bad that you are so bloody stupid that you cannot understand even the basics. I have met primary school students with more basic scientific acument than you, Karen.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

400 ppmv eh wow, good boy for picking that up :)

So why is the temperature so low there now ?

394.39ppm now wow http://co2now.org/

OK Karen, another dose of intellectual humiliation for you.

Muddled thinking here for a start, 'low there now'.

'Low'where Karen? Your statement does not stand alone as making sense.

Whatever the answer is to do with equilibrium and I will leave you to explain the meaning of that, if you can. Or will you dodge this too?

Since Karen's actually asking why the temperature "there" is "so low now", she seems to had admitted that it's going to rise over time - and by a lot.

Ooops.

(But sunspot was ever the reliable clown troll).

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

At least, if they wish to claim otherwise, they need to show why it won't.

After all, the proof of future temperature rises is that it has happened before. If they want to say it isn't going to happen this time, then they have to show why it won't.

Captain Stupid himself, Warren Truss head of the National Party

Unlike the Liberal Party which is nearly evenly split between conspiracy theorists and otherwise, the National Party would be pretty much hard-line conspiracy theorist.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

This is incredible. Kind of vanquishes PentaxZ’s “warming stopped in 1996″.

Aye Jeff,

There has been so much going on in the last twelve months and last twelve years to kill this particular 'no-warming in XX years' meme but unfortunately we can always trust the media to miss many essential points when reporting about this, my emphasis:

case in point is David Shukman's (again - a serial offender but not in the same vein as Rose, Delingpole et. al.) limp effort just yesterday on the BBC News 1800 GMT slot:

An apparent stand still in global temperature is used by critics of efforts to tackle climate change as evidence that the threat has been exaggerated.

Climate scientists at the Met Office and other centres are involved in intense research to try to understand what is happening over the most recent period.

The most obvious explanation is natural variability - the cycles of changes in solar activity and the movements and temperatures of the oceans..

Doh! There is no standstill in global temperatures, apparent or real and so natural variability and solar activity are red herrings.

Of course this is the stuff that Duff has been crowing about of late.

I know that I for one have emailed the BBC after earlier Shukman efforts and suggested that they check with such as SkS before completing hackery such as this.

But of course, in the back of my mind is the government's (UK) push towards fracking, and reducing the attraction of wind power whilst sending out warnings about shortages of power by 2015. Thus I guess the BBC is being held to ransom with threats of repealing their license fee rights.

How the BBC can endorse such sloppy writing whilst at the same time produce such stunning documentaries as the new Africa by Attenborough is amazing.

Of course the take home point for the Duffer's (and the other members of The Wendy Club) is this:

It says that the average temperature is likely to rise by 0.43 C by 2017 - as opposed to an earlier forecast that suggested a warming of 0.54C.

Note that this does not mean that warming is seen as stopped, it is not warming as fast as was estimated by just 0.11 C. Also, a warming of 0.43 C over five years is still fast by the geological time scale and furthermore warming could increase faster than this. Reality about climate and warming has had a recent history full of surprises. At least for those not attuned to the methods and findings of scientists in the various fields.

What is the betting that Monckton during his attempt to bolster the machinations of the equally wacky 'Rise Up Party' in Oz will lean on such as this Shukman piece?

Bill,
if nothing else you are entirely predictable.
If you want to convince anyone about the alarming state of affairs re ACO2, a very poor attempt to 'ritually intellectually humiliate' them and an even worse attempt to make totally unsubstantiated statements about a 'peer group' is not helping your cause.
Also, on a scale of rude and obnoxious, you and ianam and Wow score a much higher grade than Spangled D.
This is supposed ti be a discussion about weather/climate/SL and the surrounding politics.
Typically (from what I've seen so far) you are only interested in trying to outline what you see as personality disorders and question people's motives based on where you think they come from and/or who they work for.
Of course you have every right to ponder these things but it is not achieving anything other than making me laugh at you for being an insufferable snob.
Do you think you belong to an elite 'peer group' Bill?

By chameleon (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

Lionel A,
note that this also indicates that the hypothesised correlation with ACO2 increases, let alone simple natural increases in CO2 is not playing out in reality.
The signal you are so desperately trying to find is being drowned out in all the other 'noise'.
This indicates that the modelling and the AGW theory are 'not settled'.

By chameleon (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

"This is supposed ti be a discussion about weather/climate/SL and the surrounding politics."

That, however, isn't why you're here, is it.

You're not here to discuss anything, you're here to berate and ignore anything inconvenient.

And meanwhile you were the one slagging off all and sundry here in your first three posts! Another inconvenient fact you ignored.

"This indicates that the modelling and the AGW theory are ‘not settled’."

Instead of claiming this, how about proving it?

Come on, you DO have the figures for that, right? Otherwise you'd have been talking complete and known bullshit, and you wouldn't be here for that, would you?

Yep, Spangly believes brown people are way too numerous, and are liars - 'the truth is not in them' - who do so in order to get his money.

And I'm rude, to you. That's about 'equal', isn't it? Smiley, Smiley.

You see, one tires of fools very rapidly, and egregious fools all the more so.

And the other thing is, this is the pack you're running with now. Congratulations - you're a Wing-Nut!

note that this also indicates that the hypothesised correlation with ACO2 increases, let alone simple natural increases in CO2 is not playing out in reality.
The signal you are so desperately trying to find is being drowned out in all the other ‘noise’.
This indicates that the modelling and the AGW theory are ‘not settled’.

ce n'est pas le déni

Yep, she's getting the language down pat; 'simple natural increases in CO2' and 'not settled'. What do we reckon - Jo Nova's?

"What do we reckon – Jo Nova’s?"

They're all so inbred and incestuous it's impossible to tell.

"The signal you are so desperately trying to find is being drowned out in all the other ‘noise’"

No its not if you understand the importance of temporal scales. Heck, Chammy, you once said that you have a scientific background then you write this utter tosh. Like other deniers, you expect the relationship between atmospheric C02 concentrations and climate patterns to be short term and virtually instantaneous. Large scale systems do not work that way. There are lags that can take years to manifest themselves.

In 1994, Tilman and May wrote a very important paper which was published in Nature (where I used to be an Associate Editor, by the way). The paper discussed the 'extinction debt' and the authors argued that the destruction of natural habitats in North America decades or even centuries ago were still rippling through systems today. This is hard for the so-called environmental optimists (deniers is a far more appropriate term in light of the scientific evidence and prevailing opinion) to reconcile. They seem to think that the loos of habitat area 'y' must, by some law of human logic, mean the virtually immediate loss of species 'a-x'. When temporal lags are mentioned in cause-and-effect relationships for largely deterministic processes, they tilt their heads like Nipper the dog and claim to be 'in the dark'. In other words, well-established scientific reasoning does not resonate with them. They do not understand the concepts of relaxation times in species demographics or critical thresholds in genetic viability of declining populations. They think that the number of extant species in the Mata Atlantica forests in Brazil a few years after the forests were largely cleared is a good indicator of the future, when we now know that most of the extinctions or species left teetering on the edge of extinction took up to 50 years or more after the event to be fully manifested. The same can be said for climate - the patterns being realized now are probably to a large extent based on the burning of fossil fuels up to decades ago, whilst the more recent and current effects have yet to be realized. This is because the system operates over immense spatial scales leading to the temporal lags I discuss above.

Since deniers do not understand important differences between stochastic and more deterministic processes they invariably go back to square one, denying the fact that large scale anthropogenic changes in landscapes or in the composition of the atmosphere are characterized by lags in the realization of effects.

I also find it almost impossible to fathom why people cannot get their heads around the fact that humans are by now a global force that can influence a huge array of natural cycles and processes. Humans certainly have affected biogeochemical cycles that operate over large scales, as well as the hydrological cycle. Our species co-opts 40-50% of net primary production and over 50% of net freshwater flows. Humans are the driver behind an extinction spasm in which the extinction rate is some 100-1000 times higher than natural 'background' rates, and certainly many times higher than the rate at which new species are evolving. We have adopted a slash-and-burn approach to the biosphere, and by now its obvious we are living in the Anthropocene. Yet many vainly cling to the notion that our species cannot force climate, and that human ingenuity can overcome any number of assaults we inflict across the biosphere. Its time we woke up to reality: at no time in human history has our species been in more of a collision with the natural world then we are now. Climate change is just one - albeit a very important - symptom.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

I expect no such thing Jeff Harvey,
what tosh (to use your terminology)
Where did I say what I expect?
What I pointed out was that the figs posted could also indicate.
Wow, for someone who thinks he is so smart, your 'prove it' question is a spectacularly stupid question.
How does one prove or disprove anything if it is 'not settled'.
If you believe it is 'settled' Wow then the onus of proof is acyually on your shoulders.
Where is the 'undeniable' proof that ACO2, as distinct from other forms of CO2 is driving dangerous or catstrophic global warming.
Despite your hand waving and hyperbole, it appears that the original hypothesis is not playing out in reality.
Nowhere have I claimed that CO2 does nothing or has no influence.
Nowhere have I 'denied' that we currently have a climate anymore than I have 'denied' that climate has an observable propensity to change.
I do claim however that the science is far from 'settled'.
Can you prove it is settled Wow?

By chameleon (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

Blather, gurgle, *pop!*...

"What I pointed out was that the figs posted could also indicate."

You didn't finish your.

A was missed out on the end.

"How does one prove or disprove anything if it is ‘not settled’."

It happened before, dufus.

Permian. 400ppm. Much warmer.

Today: 400ppm. Getting warmer with more warming to come.

"After all, the proof of future temperature rises is that it has happened before. If they want to say it isn’t going to happen this time, then they have to show why it won’t."

You don't read too good, do you, cham.

"If you believe it is ‘settled’ Wow then the onus of proof is acyually on your shoulders."

It's already BEEN proven.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Go there.

Read something.

"Nowhere have I claimed that CO2 does nothing or has no influence."

Yes you did.

note that this also indicates that the hypothesised correlation with ACO2 increases, let alone simple natural increases in CO2 is not playing out in reality.

Good grief - that's wrong on so many levels! It's a Comprehension Fail AND a Logic Fail all wrapped up in a big ball of Denial Fail.

The hypothesis is NOT that they are "correlated", nor is it about "ACO2".

The hypothesis, which is heavily supported by actual data showing actual playing out in reality that you deny, is that more CO2 in the atmosphere leads to a warmer planet than would otherwise be. It's a hypothesis of a causal relationship which is not established by "correlation". (Heck, even if you go looking for a correlation, it's NOT between surface temperature and CO2. The CO2 forcing is approximately logarithmic, and warming occurs at places other than the surface too. And even THEN you have to account for the effects occurring on multiple different timescales ...)

The signal you are so desperately trying to find is being drowned out in all the other ‘noise’.

Utter bullshit - and at odds with your previous statement!

You now argue that the correlation you seem to think mainstream climate science is based upon is not there because of other factors simultaneously at work. But you could only expect to see a signal if you remove the influence of other factors first in your data which you haven't done!

Which version of you wins when you argue with yourself? Are you COMPLETELY scientifically incompetent, alleged "academic science credentials" notwithstanding, or do you entirely abandon any pretense at scientific integrity in order to reach conclusions that you prefer?

Note - heck, everyone else has because it's your modus operandi - that you don't provide any evidence for your claim, and that even the evidence you cite by implication, the 'this' of your comment, is that provided by Lionel which is evidence against your claim. If only you were as as scientifically literate as the average high school physics student you might understand that.

Here's a little graph of evidence for you. I predict that rather than demonstrating that the evidence supports your claim, you will once more attempt to drown out the signal of the graph and its underlying evidence with noisy fallacious argument.

Here's another one which shows the impact of removing just two of the known natural sources of variability which you allege is "drowning out the signal". Instead of demonstrating why one should deny what is in front of one's eyes and claim there is evidently no signal in that graph, you will once more attempt to drown out the evidence with more noise.

And those graphs don't account for the massive ongoing warming of the oceans which is currently the largest signal of them all.

Your comment shows that you don't even know what the evidence is, and that, contrary to your claims, it's you who are trying to drown out the clearly evident signal by covering your ears and noisily chanting the mantras of incompetent hacks who are in desperate denial.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

“Nowhere have I claimed that CO2 does nothing or has no influence.”

Where had anyone said you'd claimed this, cham?

note that this also indicates that the hypothesised correlation with ACO2 increases, let alone simple natural increases in CO2 is not playing out in reality.
The signal you are so desperately trying to find is being drowned out in all the other ‘noise’.
This indicates that the modelling and the AGW theory are ‘not settled’.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong/Strawman.

And here's a timely video from SkS.

Further discussion here. I've posted this separately as I'd like to increase the chances of the video actually being watched by certain parties

Chammy offered the same sort of nonsense when she first arrived here on Dec 18:

It is becoming increasingly evident that ‘real time’ data does not support the hypothesis that ACO2 is a powerful agent in climate change and/or SL variation.

Since then she has not offered a single piece of evidence to support it. It seems that she believes it based entirely on what her hairdresser has told her.

That's a pretty good video, bill.

(I predict either pointed ignoring or a lot more verbal noise from certain parties ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

Since then she has not offered a single piece of evidence to support it.

She's been offered plenty of opportunities to provide that evidence, but she plays the game (as pointed out by someone earlier) of only ever offering claims that are either definitionally vague or unsupported by evidence.

I don't think she has a scientific bone in her body, "academic science credentials" or not. The hairdresser theory remains difficult to rule out, although cutting and pasting things she doesn't actually understand from pseudoscience sites is still a strong contender.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chameleon, here's another graph to ponder - check out Figure 2.

Is this another example where noise is overwhelming the signal?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

More from the Unsettled Science Bureau.

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

"Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.)

“If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study."

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclim…

CO2 will soon be relegated to "a minor player" in CC. lol

CO2 will soon be relegated to “a minor player” in CC.

Your misinformed fantasies and fallacies are not particularly interesting. lol

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

I might add Lotharsson,

From the report [page 7]:
“Ongoing discussion of the role of solar variations in the early 20th century has given rise to the unfounded conjecture that the observed increase in temperature in the last half century could also be due to changes in TSI rather than to anthropogenic influences”

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

HE HE HE UNFOUNDED !!

They'll work it out, lol

Yes, indeed, as the evidence pretty clearly shows otherwise. Not sure that such unfounded conjecture rises to the level of highly amusing though.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chameleon, Karen here is a living embodiment of desperately seeking signal in noise. She's just certain that the signal is there and the scientists will eventually find it and it will be so large that they'll realise their understanding of CO2's effects was somehow horribly mistaken and it really wasn't contributing very much after all because it was the Sun wot dun it and all of those lab measurements and stuff of CO2's characteristics were irrelevant.

Or something.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

What is Karen the krank on about? The quote is clear enough but for the brain-dead Karen, let us add the next sentence from page 8.

Ongoing discussion of the role of solar variations in the early 20th century has given rise to the unfounded conjecture that the observed increase in temperature in the last half century could also be due to changes in TSI rather than to anthropogenic influences.

The IPCC Fourth Assessment and the recent National Research Council report on climate choices agree that there is no substantive scientific evidence that solar variability is the cause of climate change in the last 50 years.

Does Karen even understand that the unfounded conjecture is her own?

....but there are a couple of cranks who predicted 2012 would be the coldest year since 1956 who say that sun spots are what's causing it.

Why would you trust scientists, when you could believe cranks who lie about having a PhD, instead?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

Does Karen even understand that the unfounded conjecture is her own?

No.

This has been another edition...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

I still think it's Korsakoff's. Only the other day she thought it was still 2011...

Also, have you noticed that the Karen persona and the Olaus persona appear increasingly to be merging?

JeffH,
I have had a few moments to read your post more thoroughly while waiting for a delayed plane.
The base of your argument is that humans affect environment and if there were no humans or maybe way less humans or maybe if humans had developed differently, then the planet and the climate would be different.
Well how incredibly profound of you!
Or maybe:
Who'da thunk?
Or maybe one of my son's favourite latest sayings:
Thankyou Captain Obvious!
Of course humans affect their environment Jeff H.
That is actually entirely natural human behaviour.
To argue it would be different or better if it wasn't for human habitation is just a tad unrealistic (and possibly just a tad misanthropic) don't you think?
Further, unless you hold with some crank theory that humans are not a natural species on earth and were flown in from somewhere else, then humans are a part of the global environment too.
It seems pretty obvious that homo sapiens are one of the more successful species on planet earth. They even have complex societies where people can study science and do PhDs and be editors for scientific publications among other things.
So Jeff H
What's your solution to this conundrum?
I would respectfully suggest you remember that there is a significant percentage of humanity who are far more concerned about where their next meal is coming from than anything much else.
I would also suggest there is a significant percentage of humanity who consume far less of earth's natural resources than you do and would love to have your privileges and your advantages.
BTW, most of your post is only focusing on negative.
I agree that humanity is far from perfect. Our history is littered with some powerfully stupid and irresponsible behaviour.
However, it is also full of powerfully clever and responsible behaviour.

By chameleon (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

And the rest of you rabbitting on about cranks!
Maybe you need to talk to the PR depts and the AGW celebrities like Tim Flannery and that Prof from WA (Lewandowsky ?) and even some of your 'climate scientists' like Joelle Gergis?
And please think about talking to some of those insufferable snobs on the ABC.
They have very seriously over stated your case with such gems like 'snow will be a fleeting fancy in Australia by 2012'.
I could continue with thousands of other gems.
Unfortunately for you, they are the ones who get all the attention and they are not doing you any favours.

By chameleon (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

What’s your solution to this conundrum?

Uh, behave differently?

I would also suggest there is a significant percentage of humanity who consume far less of earth’s natural resources than you do and would love to have your privileges and your advantages.

Al Gore is fat!

Chameleon: " ‘snow will be a fleeting fancy in Australia by 2012′."

Do you have a reference for that one? I'd love to know who is that stupid.

"I could continue with thousands of other gems."
So long as you realise that any inability to properly reference these "gems" rather detracts from the entertainment.

Anyway, *personally*-speaking, I don't believe in individuals consuming less, I believe in ensuring there are far fewer individuals doing the consuming, thus bringing consumption under control, so that I can continue to consume at a reasonable level.

In the absence of any genuine political will to engage in a largescale culling of the over-populous humans who plague the planet, we will need to sterilise as many as possible as soon as possible.

For starters, anybody on any form of welfare should be sterilised - no way should you be breeding if you are living off taxpayer charity.
Criminals should be sterilised, no questions asked.
In countries where the standard of living is below the global average, everybody should be sterilised - if they can't get their shit together, humanity just doesn't need them.
Stupid people shouldn't be breeding either, they just clog up the internet with their poorly-written moronicisms.
We need to be aiming for a 85% reduction in world population within a generation, so a hell of a lot of people will need to be stopped from breeding.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 09 Jan 2013 #permalink

snow will be a fleeting fancy in Australia by 2012

That's it; I'm claiming victory in Denier Chum Bingo!

Who actually said this? Commenter 'Debbie' at Jo Nova's!

She claims it was Flannery, and we'll await any actual proof of that with little anticipation and much amusement.

This answers the question I was asking above.

And I suspect we have another ID for Chammy. 'Debbie' seems right somehow, don't you think?

Oh, and the comment above hers is -

Gees I hope we get a really good downpour in the Warragamba catchment, and the new spillway is forced into action. (that’s one massive spillway !!)

Watch Flannery’s little house float out to sea, with him in it, hopefully :-)

So, not a bunch of Redneck yokels, then?

Also, have you noticed that the Karen persona and the Olaus persona appear increasingly to be merging?

Shhhhh, they haven't noticed you've noticed ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

Well how incredibly profound of you!

Considering that there are still people turning up and arguing that "ACO2" might not be contributing to the kinds of changes mentioned - yourself included - that's kinda profound (at least for them). Or at least it will be once you realise that you're apparently arguing against your self.

The rest of your comment is the usual unfocused attempt at sowing red herrings and ignoring the points made...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

Only for you Lothar ;-) : http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclim…

"There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), ”The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet."

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chameleon predictably writes a mind-numbingly simplistic response to my last posting. Her reply assumes that humans are essentially exempt from the laws of nature; that whatever damage wed do to complex adaptive systems won't rebound on us simply because we are the 'pinnacle' of evolution; apart from the rest of the animal and plant kingdoms, and therefore immune from the consequences of our collective actions.

I have dealt with this kind of garbage so many times in my career that I have lost count. She also actually correctly identifies a major challenge for our species (in a kindergarten-level sort of way), in that grinding poverty and hunger are major obstacles. What she doesn't say - and this point applies to pretty well the whole of the anti-environmnental community and the climate change deniers as well - is what social, economic and political factors underpin these human problems. Unfettered corporate capitalism, free market absolutism, the 'Washington Consensus', call it what you like, but powerful political and corporate elites in the north have never taken social justice and poverty eradication seriously, simply because it conflicts with their own short-term agendas of capital repatriation and profit maximization. This salient little point rarely seeps from the lips of the deniers, because many of them are on the far end of the political right and support the same agendas that drive environmental destruction and retain poverty in the south. Oh, they won't say that - people like Morano, Nova and Maharosey, uber-right wingers, constantly bleat about how much actions to deal with climate change and other environmental threats will harm the poor, except that they are lying. Lying through their teeth. They represent a totally opposite constituency, the privileged few, but of course they cannot and will not ever admit to that, because it doesn't score points. I'm sure Morano backs the extreme right wing of the Republican Party (the 'Tea-Party movement), with its constant beating of the war drum and desire to eliminate social programs and health care. They are a bunch of hypocrites, in that that they couldn't give a toss about aiding the poor in the south and reducing the poverty gap.

And here we have our new contributor, Chameleon, wading in here with her sandbox-level discourse. There is a solid connect between anthropogenic change and human welfare. As humans lay waste to massive tracts of nature, we are essentially shooting ourselves in the foot. Humans are utterly reliant on a range of conditions that emerge from natural systems, in the form of what are known colloquially as 'ecosystem services'. I have said thus so many times here and by now it has become tiresome. But Chammy clearly doesn't know anything at all about the link between human well being and ecosystem services. I am sure she's never heard of the 2006 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which concluded that humans have seriously degraded 60% of critical ecological services that sustain human civilization. These services effectively permit humans to exist and persist. Supporting services do not carry prices in economic scenarios and are therefore totally under-appreciated. Water purification, mitigation of floods and droughts, maintenance of soil fertility, pest control nutrient cycling, seed dispersal, pollination, et al. These are just some of the myriad of supporting services that freely are provided by natural systems and the species and populations that make them up, and they are worth literally trillions of dollars to the global economy every year - certainly more than the combined GDP of all nations on Earth (Costanza et al., 1997; Nature). We know that the human assault on natural systems is reducing the capacity of nature to sustain mankind, and yet our understanding of how complex adaptive systems evolve, assemble and function is still in its relative infancy. What we are doing at the global scale right now is to conduct an experiment with no replications on systems that sustain us and for which there are few or no technological substitutes.

Against this background we have the ignoranti (Chameleon has applied to join their ranks) who, with their limited knowledge base, expound pure and utter bullshit.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

Petric, as far as I've read none of the ways that "solar activity can make itself felt" have a long term trend that strongly contributed to recent warming, or suggest that CO2 doesn't have the kind of impact that is easily measured in a lab and via satellite.

I'm sure you and others think otherwise, but your track record at misinterpretation is substantial and impressive.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

s/Petric/Petri/

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

... wading in here with her sandbox-level discourse...

Sandbox as in feline ablution box? Sounds about right to me.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

“I could continue with thousands of other gems.”

What's the opposite of perls before swine?

I think we can call your "factoids" "nuggets" rather than "gems".

Little nuggets of brown steamy stuff.

"CO2 will soon be relegated to “a minor player” in CC."

And the science showing this is what, exactly?

I note that cham hasn't managed to find an instance where someone claimed she had claimed zero or no influence from CO2 on climate.

I think this amply demonstrates that she asks in order to demand work off others and knows her bullshit is indefensible.

The thing that would be amusing (if it weren't so grim) about Chameleon's predictable progression through the pantheon of denialist tropes finally reaching the pearl-clutching "But won't you think of the poor?!" is that the poor will be (and are already) some of the earliest to be affected and the most severely affected by climate change impacts.

That particular gambit is one of the most disingenuous and cynical in their "arsenal".

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

...she asks in order to demand work off others...

Yes.

NONE of them do their homework, but they all demand that you do theirs as well.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

I suspect chameleon really is Debbie from Jo Nova's, and this whole 'new to the debate and open-minded to-the-point-of-my-brains-falling-out' thing was a sham from the get-go.

Follow the link back to the 'Tim Flannery says snow will be a fleeting fancy by 2012, oh yes he did!' comment I provided above, then scroll back through the posts using the Ctrl+F window to find her comments.

Yes, I know it's unpleasant.

The prim/bustling/fussy manner is identical, as are many of the tropes.

'Debbie' is, you'll be astonished to learn, a died-in-the-wool anti-green zealot in her natural environment.

Also amusing: Petri and Karen approvingly citing a nasa.gov website report of a bunch of climate scientists. You know, that bunch who are totally corrupt and fraudulent and only in it to get rich off the sweet sweet government cash?

Consistency ain't their strong point.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

Not consistency.

Thinking.

If they could think, they would be able to think their way through to the inconsistency and avoid it.

But thinking is more effort than they can manage and don't consider it useful in any case: thinking can only be an impediment to making confident statements.

...Follow the link back to the ‘Tim Flannery says snow will be a fleeting fancy by 2012, oh yes he did!’ comment I provided above...

In which she agrees with (IIRC) the abject lie that Flannery said that Warragamba (I assume from the context) would never fill again, apparently not understanding the conditional part and the time scale part of conditional statements about likely future occurrences.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

Lionel A,
note that this also indicates that the hypothesised correlation with ACO2 increases, let alone simple natural increases in CO2 is not playing out in reality.

chameleon-Debbie, WTF are you on about? You have just missed your litter tray deary.

Try again in parse-able English.

Aargh!

Lionel A,
note that this also indicates that the hypothesised correlation with ACO2 increases, let alone simple natural increases in CO2 is not playing out in reality.

chameleon-Debbie, WTF are you on about? You have just missed your litter tray deary.

Try again in parse-able English.

Chameleon said of me:

Apparently what you wrote wasn’t what you meant to write and someone rewrote it for you.

Yes. It was you. But I'm no longer interested in playing your silly little games where you refuse to admit you were being dishonest.

Despite your hand waving and hyperbole, it appears that the original hypothesis is not playing out in reality.

Which original hypothesis? As always, you phrase things so vaguely that, whatever interpretation is made, you can deny them later. Are you referring to Arrhenius' 1896 prediction that a doubling of CO2 would result in an increase in Earth's temperature of 5-6C? That one seems to be well on the way to being realized. If not that, then which?

Of course humans affect their environment Jeff H.
That is actually entirely natural human behaviour.

Ah! So you are phrasing it so that in future you can use the fall-back position of 'I never said that people are not the cause of all the CO2 production that is resulting in the devastating climate change we are going through'. Typical of your dishonesty.

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

The Delinpole troll strikes again this time in the Daily Fail, H/T The Rabett. At a guess this is Duff's paper of choice:

Recall up-thread I wrote this:

Of course the take home point for the Duffer’s (and the other members of The Wendy Club) is this:

It says that the average temperature is likely to rise by 0.43 C by 2017 – as opposed to an earlier forecast that suggested a warming of 0.54C.

Note that this does not mean that warming is seen as stopped, it is not warming as fast as was estimated by just 0.11 C. Also, a warming of 0.43 C over five years is still fast by the geological time scale and furthermore warming could increase faster than this. Reality about climate and warming has had a recent history full of surprises. At least for those not attuned to the methods and findings of scientists in the various fields.

and sure enough here comes one of those lying little sycophant story makers with his usual serving of half truth and downright lies for his only excuse could be dyspraxia when as caption to an image we find:

The Met Office confirmed in a press release earlier this week that no more global warming is expected till at least 2017

, and the Duffers believe it.

Did Delingpole cut his teeth on The Magic Roundabout I wonder?

Duff and Delingpole, and also other members of The Wendy Club, the game had changed, you are now the prey in this battle for ecological survival as scientists and others recognise your droppings for what they are - 'bad faith' which is what chameleon has displayed coming in here under a false flag. Unfortunately we are so familiar with the BS phrases so beloved of denier blogs and the Delingpoles that your true nature is quickly unmasked and by yourself at that..

:-) :-) :-)
Chuckle
Anti environmental community?
Climate change deniers?
American TEA Party?
That's hilarious!
So Jeff H?
If you percieve that people are 'right wing' (whatever that actually means) and don't share your views about man's inhumanity to man, that automatically means they are 'anti' the environment?
Seriously?
BTW, folks it was Tim Flannery who said 'fleeting fancy'. That was a good guess.
Finally guessed right about a person.
But I am not jonova or jennifer marohasy or karen or debbie or suburban or any of the other guesses.
I know it's impossible to believe but I am genuinely a new commenter.
I guess that's why it's so easy for all of you to try and play like schoolyard bullies or in this case I guess we would need to call it 'cyber bullies'?

By chameleon (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

No chameleon, I am just saying that your reply to my last post yesterday was about as deep as a puddle. You made a frankly absurd point about 'noise' drowning out the anthropogenic signal on short-term climate patterns without appearing to understand anything about scale and temporal lag effects. Predictably, you glossed over that part of my posting and went off on some diatribe about me supposedly hating humanity (pure tripe) and then stating the obvious: that humans have changed the surface of the biosphere (well, gee, smarty pants, that is an understatement). Nothing in there about the extent of change or of the consequences for us down the road - again, another indication that you don't have much of a clue about the field of environmental science. That's brazenly obvious.

Then you make the obvious point about the plight on billions whose minds are literally wasting away without any kind of analysis exactly why that is, except some snarky witless remarks about how lucky we overfed over-consumptive northerners (I'll include OZ in there) are. No comment on the fact that there is no interest whatsoever on the part of those with power and privilege to address social injustice, poverty and malnutrition. Ever hear of George Kennan or Smedley Butler, Chammy? What about Henry Kissinger;s infamous Memo 200, in which western agendas were laid bare?

I have said it many times but its worth repeating: the solutions to the planet's environmental problems are locked up in politics. But the politics means ensuring the 'unpeople's' of the world - the poor in other words - have social and economic justice. But western corporate/government planners are only interested in maintaining the status quo. That entails the subjugation of other countries assets, nullification of alternatives to the current nakedly predatory capitalism and outright expansionism. Its just too bad that those most vehemently opposing any kinds of government regulations to deal with climate change and other environmental threats loathe any form of government regulation, and wish to eviscerate public constraints in the pursuit of private profit. Hence why so much money is sloshing around the think tanks, corporate lobbyists, PR industries and astroturf groups in an attempt to ensure that the wealth remains concentrated and that corporations can operate outside of public control.

Given how green chammy is behind the ears, its worth noting how many of the climate change deniers have also been very much involved in downplaying other environmental threats. Morano wrote an appalling piece some years ago about why the Amazon rainforest was not threatened. It was the usual anti-scientific bilge.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

Not 'deep' enough?
Seriously?
Did you miss the word ' basic'?
Sometimes JeffH, things are just basically bleeding obvious.
It has nothing whatsover to do with wings oranything else.
It's basically bleedingly obvious that the planet would be different (though not necessarily better) if there was no human impact.
No need for a 'deep and meaningful' to understand that.

By chameleon (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

I know it’s impossible to believe but I am genuinely a new commenter.

Bullshit.

You're seriously going to tell us that you are not the author of this, for instance?

It definitely appears the modelling that has used ACO2 ‘forcings’ was incorrect.
Also don’t forget the mantra was it was going down unnaturally in the 70′s.
Looks like ‘natural’ has no interest in conforming to stat projections.
Looks like that human signal is being totally swamped by the real drivers of global climate/weather.

Let's compare it to -

note that this also indicates that the hypothesised correlation with ACO2 increases, let alone simple natural increases in CO2 is not playing out in reality.
The signal you are so desperately trying to find is being drowned out in all the other ‘noise’.
This indicates that the modelling and the AGW theory are ‘not settled’.

'ACO2'? The same bizarre single-line spacings? 'Swamped' and 'drowned out'? The same telegraphic style and obtuse sentences?

Interesting, isn't it, that you chose 'impossible' to believe, rather than the usual 'hard'? This is a Freudian error; because you know it must indeed be impossible - rather than merely difficult - to believe simply because it isn't true.

Seriously; what're the odds that there are two fussy little Dunning-Krugerites online who both make this identical - and ludicrously false - claim? -

BTW, folks it was Tim Flannery who said ‘fleeting fancy’

More bullshit. Try googling 'Tim Flannery fleeting fancy' - there's only one reference available to him ever having said this, and it's you, Debbie, at Jo Nova's.

The pathology is deep in this one.

And here's another epic comprehension fail:

BTW, folks it was Tim Flannery who said ‘fleeting fancy’. That was a good guess.
Finally guessed right about a person.

Not a guess, remember? Google the terms, and the only, single, solitary reference is to you at Jo Nova's, claiming to be quoting Flannery? Is this really so very hard to understand? Well, yes, in your case, but others here are a trifle quicker on the uptake.

And 'finally guessed right about a person' is, almost certainly, a poor liar's pathetic, defensive bluff, don't you think? ;-) (I have added a smiley here. This shows I'm being witty. Chuckle.)

Finally, you cannot keep turning up in a place where absolutely no-one wants you to be, play the abrasive dill, and then claim to be a victim of 'bullying'.

Well, you are, of course, but this is because, like so many of your tribe, you have 'issues'

I know it’s impossible to believe but I am genuinely a new commenter.

It's not hard to believe. It's just that the cut-and-paste clones are so hard to tell apart.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

...it was Tim Flannery who said ‘fleeting fancy’.

So you'll be able to provide a full citation with context, right?

It's not that I don't believe ... er, no, I take that back. It's that I don't believe anything you claim without providing the evidence. Why? Because almost every single interpretation you've made of other people's words here - where they are fresh in other people's memories and easy to check - has been somewhere between wrong and blatantly dishonest (and I'm struggling to remember you owning up to any of them). You are not participating in this blog in "good faith" and you aren't even making a pretense of doing so.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

It’s basically bleedingly obvious that the planet would be different (though not necessarily better) if there was no human impact.

It's "basically bleedingly obvious" that this is nowhere near a fair summary of Jeff's points - and that you either don't want to address them, or that they went over your very limited level of understanding.

But that's par for the course with you.

While we're at it, you might want to refrain from using words like "misanthropic" when you clearly don't understand what they mean.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

Finally, you cannot keep turning up in a place where absolutely no-one wants you to be, play the abrasive dill, and then claim to be a victim of ‘bullying’.

Technically she can, but that just means she's wrong about one more thing. And really, why start being right now after all the careful investment in cultivating a reliably mistaken persona? ;-)

Besides, she's clearly not here for the hunting - for whatever personal reasons she has, the ritual intellectual abuse and appropriate responses to abrasive dillity seem to be keenly sought after.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

Well then Bill,
it looks like Debbie at Jonova's must think similarly to me?
I have read a couple of Jonova posts in the last few months when they have been recommended.
My favourite commenter there is definitely Tony from Oz.
He outlines practical application and has his feet firmly planted on the ground.
I also often find myself nodding at comments from Rereke (?) who points out the hopeless PR that surrounds this issue.
I do however agree that some people who comment there are just as politically biased as your tribe.

By chameleon (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

"it looks like Debbie at Jonova’s must think similarly to me?"

And writes similarly to you.

And I believe you mean "doesn't think". No actual intelligence seems to be forthcoming from "either" of you.

You quack, waddle and swim like one, but claim "I'm no duck!".

And I know I'm just winding you up Wow and I probably shouldn't do it.
But did you notice that you stridently claimed I claimed something and then asked who claimed I claimed it a few posts later?
Hint: it was to do with CO2. And it finished with you claiming:
Yes you did!
And just so we're perfectly clear Lotharsson:
Who was it who introduced the delightful term 'ritual intellectual humiliation'?
Hint: It was straight after a fairly lengthy lecture about poor use of terminology and how that indicates all sorts of personality and comprehension disorders.
And JeffH,
I didn't notice 'political science' when I read up about you.
Does that mean I should or shouldn't take notice of your comments in regard to politics and political history?
Are you a recognised and professional, PhD ,highly published, university employed, expert on political history and/or political science?
And no doubt this will set off another string of amusing and ritual intellectual abuse from the 'ritual intellectual humiliation' tribe.
And you can relax Bill, it is starting to get a bit boring so I will probably go sooner rather than later despite the fact that I have found this site a little bit addictive, for all the wrong reasons.
And if you want to find out where I have ever commented before wouldn't you just google chameleon?
But if it is so important to you, I have commented at a few MSM sites in relation to some opinion pieces but only very rarely.
I'm not sure Google could help you as it has been 'rarely' and I actually don't really care because I don't see why you think it's so relevant and/or important?

By chameleon (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

Yep, bill, Delingpole is an odious propagandist.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

"Yep, bill, Delingpole is an odious propagandist."

And not a very good one, in that his lies and distortions are easily found out. But then again, his demographic are true believers who don't bother with fact checking or anything that involves any intellectual effort.

... just so we’re perfectly clear Lotharsson...

You are not, and have not been, perfectly clear - at almost any time on this blog.

Who was it who introduced the delightful term ‘ritual intellectual humiliation’?

Unlike your interpretation of it, it wasn't about the people handing it out. It was about people like you who seem to be seeking it rather than seeking to have a rational discussion, because they continue to post the most abject tosh even after they have been corrected.

Just as you've been corrected on what I meant by it in the past.

It is recursively ironic that you continue to insist it applies differently than intended.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

Does that mean I should or shouldn’t take notice of your comments in regard to politics and political history?

You haven't taken notice of anyone who's appropriately qualified in the past, so why start now?

Consistency. (Or as Wow generalises it: thinking.)

Not your strong suit.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

...it is starting to get a bit boring so I will probably go sooner rather than later...

Flounce number four is a pretty half-hearted effort.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

Still waiting on that citation with full context for the Flannery quote.

Anyone wanna take bets that chameleon can't come up with it?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

And you can relax Bill, it is starting to get a bit boring I have been found-out so I will probably go sooner rather than later despite the fact that I have found this site a little bit addictive, for all the wrong reasons.

Before you go, a linky to the quote of Flannery's where he said ‘snow will be a fleeting fancy in Australia by 2012′, please.

Yes, well, that will be hard... Tell you what, how's about you never comment here again, unless and until you can provide one? Only fair...

Charles' Pierce's Idiot America is a classic I'd recommend to anyone. Well, anyone who isn't one, anyway!...

Chameleon said:

Despite your hand waving and hyperbole, it appears that the original hypothesis is not playing out in reality.

To which I responded:

Which original hypothesis? As always, you phrase things so vaguely that, whatever interpretation is made, you can deny them later. Are you referring to Arrhenius’ 1896 prediction that a doubling of CO2 would result in an increase in Earth’s temperature of 5-6C? That one seems to be well on the way to being realized. If not that, then which?

Chameleon: I'd appreciate an answer, though I do realize it is probably is more of a commitment than you'd like to make.

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

Bill,
I remember seeing him say it on the TV.
It may have been on some current affairs program or News program in either 2006 or 2007. I remember it because of the clever 'fleeting fancy' alliterative term.
He is quite clever with language.
I also remember him quite recently pointing out that people in Western Sydney were going to get crankier in traffic jams because of AGW.
I also remember thinking what AGW had to do with traffic jams, especially since most cars have ACs.

By chameleon (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

I remember seeing him say it on the TV.

So...no citation.

Called it!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

Goddard is perennially confused, and confused about being confused, even after his baseline confusion is explained to him by people who know what they are talking about.

I don't imagine the latest screed will prove any different, but it would explain why Karen would think he "makes a few valid points".

Also, it's best not to use big words you don't understand like "astroturfers". By definition they can't get "sucked into it".

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chameleon - your claim regarding Flannery is thus debunked. The earliest reference available on the internet to Tim Flannery being associated with the phrase "fleeting fancy" was December 6 2012, where somebody by the name of "Debbie" has posted this invention of hers on the kook-website run by Joanne Codling.

I recommend you show more scepticism of anything you read before repeating it, *especially* anything you read on blogs run by screaming nutters the likes of Joanne Codling.

I don't know whether your associating Flannery with traffic jams and climate change is a similar invention or not, but let me describe to you an experience had last Saturday: I was driving up a steep, windy pass to get over the Great Dividing Range. The ambient temperature outside my car was 43 degrees Celsius. I counted 15 broken-down cars as I travelled up the pass. Many had broken down in very dangerous narrow sections. Large vehicles has trouble negotiating these obstructions, and and traffic in both directions was frequently required to stop and wait while traffic ahead cleared those obstructions.

Now, considering Western Sydney has an above-average population of violent and selfish retarded criminal savages, it stands to reason that any weather conditions that create the need for inter-individual co-operation will result in friction and violence.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery in 2007:

Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused “a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas” and made the soil too hot, “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems … “.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr_5Iv9_OGY

a few other hilarious quotes here http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…

You see, Chebbie, if Flannery ever had said anything of the sort giggling lobotomites such as Karen would regurgitate this little chum nugget at the mere mention of his name - witness the automatic pavlovian 'Brisbane's dams empty forever' response above.

Bolt and The Australian would never, ever shut up about it. James Delingpole would have worked his little Dad's Army reincarnation of the SA into a frenzied lather about it.

It would, in short, be a trope as dear to your collective hearts as 'the hockey stick is broken', a response as knee-jerk as the reminder that Rajendra Pachauri is 'merely' a railway engineer, an article of faith rivaling the surreal notion that the mere pittances doled out by the wealthiest corporations in the world can never hope to outdo the pernicious influence of the nearly limitless $billions in research grants aimed squarely at advancing the cause of Social!sm.

But, as it is, there's only one person who claims any such recollection of this perfect, pure, unsurpassable 'gem'. You.

So; particularly given the repeated contextual and comprehension difficulties demonstrated by you on this site, Ockham's Razor pares us down to but a single explanation: it didn't happen.

Also; once upon a time I was a humble weekend cabbie for several years. You know FA about being stuck in traffic in summer.

Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains...

I suspect not.

Here's an interview with Flannery where he makes the (indeed) questionable claim that "even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems".

Note that Brisbane is NOT MENTIONED. The context of the interview according to the interviewer is "the bush", not cities - heck, it's the "Landline" program which is about the bush. Is there another interview where he used the same words, but about Brisbane?

And when Flannery makes that quote it's about "some areas of Australia", and - despite being somewhat ill-advised - he refers to the phenomenon of reduced rainfall translating into much reduced dam inflows - in the bush (from context). Here's a fuller quote so that you can see the bit that Karen didn't want you to read (my emphasis):

So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.

I haven't watched Karen's YouTube video of The Bolt Report. I wonder if it is the interview reported on here, where Flannery is verballed to his face by Andrew Bolt in 2007.

Note how even Bolt's website's transcript of the interview apparently lies by leaving out bits!

And then note how Bolt provides probabilistic statements that he says that Flannery made, and then blatantly misinterprets them as if they were not probabilistic. And claims Flannery said things that he did not say. Why can't denialists make their case without blatant misinterpretation - which in Bolt's case rises to the level of a whole series of lies?

It's true that Flannery hasn't always got it right, but he's got it much more right than Bolt and co and any of his cut-and-paste acolytes who turn here. And much of the furore about what he said on the denialist front is based - just like our resident trolls - on misinterpreting or misquoting what he said.

Andrew Bolt is a very unreliable source - and that's without noting that his transcript lies by omission.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

Ockham’s Razor pares us down to but a single explanation: it didn’t happen.

And also: either Debbie is chameleon, the two of them apparently being the only two in the whole wide world to have "remembered" a remarkable quote online that even Andrew Bolt hasn't doctored, ...

...or chameleon is even more of a cut-and-paste bot than previously thought.

My money's on the former, but the latter can't be ruled out.

And it was awfully handy of Karen to illustrate that Bolt is the dog that didn't bark on this "quote". Thanks, Karen!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

"I remember seeing him say it on the TV."

The null hypothesis would say this never happened.

Prove your claim or withdraw it.

"But did you notice that you stridently claimed I claimed something and then asked who claimed I claimed it a few posts later?
Hint: it was to do with CO2. And it finished with you claiming:
Yes you did!"

So now you don' t understand time, either.

Or you're saying you can see into the future (but don't understand English enough to know what "tense" means).

You claimed it BEFORE I said "Yes you did!".

So since the ONLY example you have for someone having claimed you claimed it, is AFTER you whined about people having claimed you claimed it, YOU LIED.

This is not a shock to anyone here.

But thanks for falling for the bait. If you hadn't been dim enough to think you had an answer, you would, as you have every other time, avoided answering it or giving any evidence.

Since you ARE dim enough to think it, you answered and therefore proved you had no case.

'Listen, you guys, da game is up, come out widja hands in da air!'

Sorry, chaps, not too sure how to break the news but, well, it's all over. You see, NASA - yes, NASA, spiritual home to James Hansen and Michael Mann, that NASA - convened a great 'Conference of the Experts' and now they have issued their report and, oh Lordy, Lordy, they have admitted that solar energy might well play a part in earth climate. Even worse, there's hardly a mention of CO2!

The only real and relevant debate concerning global warming/cooling is whether or not, or by how much, the sun affects our climate. So, no longer 'Warmers' vs, 'Deniers', instead, the only argument in town is 'Warmers' vs. 'Warmers'. What does it feel like to be irrelevant?

Still, there is some good news. It means that 'Chameleon', Karen and I don't really need to bother with you any more.

By David Duff (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

In my drooling excitement and pleasure that should have read:

"the only argument in town is 'Deniers' vs. 'Deniers'!

Sorry, it's my age, you know!

By David Duff (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

"What does it feel like to be irrelevant?"

You're the expert, you tell me.

Seeing as you can neither read nor comprehend and insist on getting your crank version of information from crank disinformation sites after being warned repeatedly, you don't get to be any more irrelevant than that.

You might also want to acquaint yourself with the IPCC reports, and see what they actually say regarding solar activity, rather than the crank fantasy version of them you have jammed between your ears.

And as you well know, I am not one to rub broken glass into fresh wounds but:

"The New York Times will close its environment desk in the next few weeks and assign its seven reporters and two editors to other departments. The positions of environment editor and deputy environment editor are being eliminated. No decision has been made about the fate of the Green Blog, which is edited from the environment desk."

WHAT? The NYT? Splitters!

By David Duff (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

Guess people where Duff found out this little slice of garbage...

Any guesses?

Yup! WUWT! Well, that's a shock. Anthony Watt's fantasy non-science blog. Seems Duff spends a lot of is time in there, sad old git. This piece of bilge was pasted up by Watt's on January 9, and of course the REAL report says nothing about downplaying AGW and the C02 component. That's Watts doing what he does best - misinterpreting it in order to bolster his own narrow views. Note also how its hardly even resonating around the denialosphere, let alone mainstream outlets. That's because it doesn't say anything to downplay AGW.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

Jeff, it goes without saying that Duffer would never bother with registering and getting the actual report free from NASA - not when he can have it "interpreted" into denierspeak for him by his spiritual leader Watts.

Ah, not too up in the way of Big Organisation politics are you, Jeff. Imagine if the Vatican had decided that, yes, perhaps, on consideration, there was something in all that atheism, would you expect a public announcement? Well, yes, you would because you are a naïf, but the rest of us can spot a big shift however well they try to disguise it.

And "y'all" (as they say 'over there') should read the fast and furious argument now raging in the comments at WAWT with some heavyweight scientific hard-hitters going at it hammer and tongs. Proper science, that is, not like the la-la-land we find here where you all join hands and chant!

By David Duff (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

Olaus Petri posts a link and small passage from a NASA webpage that he thinks (or wants others to think) claims a big link between global temps and solar variation, when in fact the page says explicitly:

"In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example.

Caspar Amman of NCAR noted in the report that "When Earth's radiative balance is altered, as in the case of a change in solar cycle forcing, not all locations are affected equally. The equatorial central Pacific is generally cooler, the runoff from rivers in Peru is reduced, and drier conditions affect the western USA."

Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. "If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal." This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years."

Epic Fail, yet again.

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

This gives you an indication of how literally far-out in loonyville Duff is. On one of his comments, he wrote this about Obama:

"I still cannot quite believe that the American people ignored me and voted in that Marxist-socialist".

'Nuff said. A president who receives over a billion dollars from the corporate lobby, much of it from banks like Goldman-Sachs, who has overseen an increase in the distribution and concentration of wealth to the rich,who is waging more wars abroad at the behest of 'empire' and the military industrial state, and who was vetted by corporate lobbysts long before he got within a sniff of the White House. To Duff, he's a 'Marxist-Socialist'.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but one thing's for sure. One cursory look through 'Duff and Nonsense' and Duff's views on climate change begin to make more and more sense.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

Reading above I see that Duff made the same ignorant claim. Sorry Duff, the NASA Conference you mentioned concluded that solar variation has very limited affect on the temperature signal.

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

Duff continued....

"Proper science, that is, not like the la-la-land we find here"

Duff, you would'nt know proper science if it bit you in the face. Given the loony quality of your other views it baffles me why you even venture into anything other than pure fantasy...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

"And “y’all” (as they say ‘over there’) should read the fast and furious argument now raging in the comments at WAWT with some heavyweight scientific hard-hitters going at it hammer and tongs."

You poor, stupid fuckwit.
A Watts Punch and Judy show by the ignorant for the ignorant (Courtney'n'Ball???) does not constitute "heavyweight scientific hard-hitters", except in your vacuously empty head.

So Duff what is WAWT?

Weak As Wet Tissue perhaps.

There are now signs that Duff is clinically depressed. Not surprising for one who's faux bonhomie laced with wishful thinking gets thrown straight back in his face.

He accuses us of joining hands and chanting.whilst using terms like 'la la land'. Wonderful!

BTW You have avoided answering a number of direct questions that were put to you in the wake of each of your other fallacious, mendacious statements here. The casual reader should ask themselves why this is?

Duff is all Puff as pointed out before for he cannot get the hang of gathering valid information:

If you don’t understand then look up stuff
but best to avoid Cardinal Puff
Also don’t bother with WUW that
’cause then you would look a right old pratt.

Oh, But then you do already
from behaving just like Nova’s teddy.
And consulting offerings from that TallBloke
will reinforce that your credibility’s broke.

So you see he does now look like a right old pratt, again.

Still, he could find a job as Delingpole's coaster.

Hi Lionel - is that you with the credit in Pat Martin's new book? The can't have been too many Lionel A's on the Ark!

chek
Yep! That is I.

Photo's too. Also in

'Phoenix Squadron' by Rowland White

and

'Phantom from the Cockpit' by Peter Caygill.

It's almost as if Duff thinks he needs to give his approval to whatever pap WUWT is serving before we all realise it's crap. David, we knew it already, OK?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

I love the argument:
"If it's not Googleable then it didn't happen".
Is that the same as if it isn't on the news then it isn't important?
However, because I do remember the time frame of the 'traffic jams' comment I was able to find that one for you.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-14/heatwaves-bushfires-predicted-to-…
I also remember Bob Brown claiming on TV that the QLD mining companies should be made to pay for the floods in QLD because it's their fault that we get extreme weather events (or something similar)
And there is also a delightful clip of Tim Flannery talking to the BBC re a 'global organism' that I have seen a couple of times.
My point to you lot was that the 'celebrities of AGW' and some of the Govt employees and politicians and some of the insufferable snobs at the ABC are seriously over stating your case and over intellectualising the issue and therefore not doing any of you any favours.
The latest 'media releases' from BoM (which have therefore come via their PR people) are yet another example of your problem.
But go ahead and defend them if you wish.

By chameleon (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

And whadya know?
Delingpole draws attention to the same snow comment made by Tim Flannery in this article.
(It's OK I know you hate Delingpole and I actually don't like his style either)
However, he also refers to the no snow by 2012 comment.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100194951/global-warm…
Here:
"And by "not a snowball's chance in hell", I mean, that the likelihood of such a thing occurring is now roughly on a par with Elvis being discovered alive and well and living in Bolivia and ready to rush record a new album just in time for Christmas. (Cue: a stampede to the record stores by Michael Mann, Al Gore, the Prince of Wales, Tim Flannery, and the rest of the climate fool gang)."
To be honest with you I preferred Tim Flannery's turn of phrase 'fleeting fancy' than Delingpole's interpretation.

By chameleon (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

I love the argument:
“If it’s not Googleable then it didn’t happen”.

That's because you can't rebut "a quote that easily turned into denialist propaganda would have been promoted all around the denialosphere". (Ironically you then provide a link to a quote which is easily found with Google - without even bringing "timeframes" into it.)

At your link the video has expired but the print story includes:

Chief climate commissioner Tim Flannery says some of the negative impacts of warmer weather in Sydney's west are not immediately obvious.

"What happens when we get these very, very hot days is that elderly people and the very young particularly are vulnerable and people get a little bit confused because they're heat stressed," he said.

"People get angry as well, particularly if you're sitting in a traffic jam and it's stinking hot outside."

Apparently this is "...seriously over stating your case and over intellectualising the issue...". However, in order to accurately make this judgement you'd have to be competent to judge the case, and as you have helpfully demonstrated with copious evidence at this blog, you aren't competent to do so.

Feel free to try and explain why you think this example is "seriously overstating the case", but in order to do so you'll have to have your first serious attempt to ground your case in the best scientific conclusions from examining all the evidence. Are you up for it? (I predict not.)

But go ahead and defend them if you wish.

Your own attempted defences of the people engaged in massively understating the scientific case for concern are not evident here. Ever wondered why your concerns are so one-sided?

Nah, I guess not. For the record, none of us wonder why you don't either. We've already got a very good idea.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

It’s OK I know you hate Delingpole and I actually don’t like his style either

Bullshit.

And I don't hate him. I hate his corrosive influence on the public discourse due to blatantly misrepresenting the facts, even after he's been explicitly given the correct ones.

He's a liar, as demonstrated by earlier posts on this site and any number of other blogs - including that from the Bureau of Meteorology - pointing out his lies. (Heck, his very first sentence contains at least one lie!)

The fact that you (a) think that citing him is credible and (b) can't find a less unreliable source for your claims is very telling - and not just that you are extremely gullible when someone tells you what you want to hear.

Delingpole draws attention to the same snow comment made by Tim Flannery in this article.

And whadya know? You are deep into clown trolling territory, because that claim, easily checked using your own link, is self-evidently false. In that article:

- "Flannery" is only mentioned in the sarcastic comment you quoted
- "2012" never appears in the body of the article.
- "snow" in any form only appears in the "snowball's chance in hell" comment.
- The "snowball's chance in hell" comment was written by Delingpole to sarcastically communicate his personal estimate from deep personal ignorance of the likelihood of his first sentence's strawman occurring. Even the liar Delingpole did not claim Flannery said what you claim he said.

You aren't even competent at basic English comprehension - which is relevant when you claim to have accurately remembered a quote from 5 or 6 years ago that no-one else seems to have remembered - let alone at comprehending scientific English, never mind judging whether someone is overstating a scientific case or not!

You don't just have zero credibility when you make factual claims, you have way less than zero, like Delingpole! It's far more reliable to assume that anything you or he claim without providing solid evidence is wrong, than it is to assume it is right.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

Abstract

We evaluate to what extent the temperature rise in the past 100 years was a trend or a natural fluctuation and analyze 2249 worldwide monthly temperature records from GISS (NASA) with the 100-year period covering 1906-2005 and the two 50-year periods from 1906 to 1955 and 1956 to 2005. No global records are applied. The data document a strong urban heat island effect (UHI) and a warming with increasing station elevation. For the period 1906-2005, we evaluate a global warming of 0.58°C as the mean for all records. This decreases to 0.41°C if restricted to stations with a population of less than 1000 and below 800 meter above sea level. About a quarter of all the records for the 100-year period show a fall in temperatures. Our hypothesis for the analysis is, as generally in the papers concerned with long-term persistence of temperature records, that the observed temperature records are a combination of long-term correlated records with an additional trend, which is caused for instance by anthropogenic CO2, the UHI or other forcings. We apply the detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA) and evaluate Hurst exponents between 0.6 and 0.65 for the majority of stations, which is in excellent agreement with the literature and use a method only recently published, which is based on DFA, synthetic records and Monte Carlo simulation. As a result, the probabilities that the observed temperature series are natural have values roughly between 40% and 90%, depending on the stations characteristics and the periods considered. "Natural" means that we do not have within a defined confidence interval a definitely positive anthropogenic contribution and, therefore, only a marginal anthropogenic contribution cannot be excluded.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011IJMPC..22.1139L

Oh gawdddd, Loth your pestiferous perverse piffling is, yawwwnnnn boring !

Lotharsson,
I suspect it may have much more to do with the fact that there are several key electoral seats in Western Sydney.
Did it also perhaps cross your mind that people who live in places like say Broome in WA or Darwin in NT or FNQLD or any of the other areas in Australia that don't have Syndey's mostly temperate climate may have scoffed at this comment?
And as I originally said:
Why wouldn't they use their air conditioners?
Don't most drivers in Western Sydney have air conditioners in their cars?

By chameleon (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

Delingpole is a toxic extremist. Matt Ridley is as competent at Climate Science as he is at running banks.

And that piece doesn't back you up in the slightest. You really have the most appalling comprehension skills of anyone I've ever encountered.

It didn't happen. Deal with it.

In summary, Chameleon,
- Flannery said nothing about snow being a "fleeting fancy", you made it up
- Delingpole said nothing about Flannery saying "fleeting fancy", you made it up
- Flannery pointed out that excessive heat makes people cranky, which is true.
- Flannery was talking about increased heat in Western Sydney, which is a real-world observation.

Meanwhile, unable to back up your assertions with any logic or evidence, you've fired another random-looking comment into the mix:
- Flannery said something about a "global organism"
Please, can you go ahead and share with us your understanding of this concept that Flannery was discussing. What does it mean?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chameleon:

I suspect it may have much more to do with the fact that there are several key electoral seats in Western Sydney.

Can you develop this idea? Because I can't even begin to imagine a relevant train of logic that links Flannery talking about heat and key electoral seats.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

Nice work, Karen. You've managed to find one of the handful of papers that claim human influence, despite our instruments showing distinct changes in back radiation and TOA radiation characteristics, is minimal!

And that paper is so influential that it's only been cited 3 times, and each time by one of its authors. (That's more or less the science equivalent of toilet paper. The paper was used as chum for denialist blogs, and that's about it.)

Its lead author is - you guessed it - an emeritus professor of physics who is - self admittedly - not a climate scientist, but nevertheless argues it was the sun wot did it.

So, even disregarding any questions of whether the paper has any merit or not, at best you have a handful of papers making a claim that is up against thousands that say it's balderdash.

Bet I know which set you're going with!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

Did it also perhaps cross your mind that people who live in places like say Broome in WA or Darwin in NT or FNQLD or any of the other areas in Australia that don’t have Syndey’s mostly temperate climate may have scoffed at this comment?

Since Flannery was talking about these "very hot days" and you reckon the people of Broome and Darwin pooh pooh the very concept that it could possibly be an issue in Western Sydney, the record highs in Broome and Darwin must be a lot higher than Western Sydney, right?

Oh, wait...Darwin's record high is 38.9C, Broome's is 44.8 degrees and Penrith's record high is - WTF? 46.0C!

Oops.

(And how about those legendary multiple hour traffic jams in Broome, eh?)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

Well yes Vince,
I suspect I could also find that one but it will take me some time to remember where I originally saw it.
I promise I will link it when I remember from whence it came.
I'm nearly certain it was a BBC interview if you'd like to try and see if it's googleable for yourself.
No takers on Bob Brown's little gem on the media during the QLD floods?
And did anyone catch that Tim Flannery's comment re the traffic jams in Western Sydney were 'scoffable attable' if you don't happen to to live in the mostly temperate climate of Sydney?
Just so we're clear here deltoids. I am taking a shot at the pathetic PR that surrounds this issue. Both sides of this polarised political debate are as bad as each other.
Most of us 'ordinary folk' who don't live in the rarified air of academia land or in the world of PR political spin are getting rather bloody sick of it.
Genuinely good work by genuinely good people is being shamelessly abused and misused.

By chameleon (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

Even Richard Tol, who has been somewhat skeptical with respect to certain aspects of AGW, thinks Karen’s citation is a crap paper (and he more or less calls out Judith Curry for falling for it).

Here’s just one example of a glaring flaw:

Unfortunately, fluctuation analysis does not work on trending variables. Therefore, LLE use DETRENDED fluctuation analysis. That is, they first fit a polynomial of order two to the data, remove this trend, and study the deviations from the trend.

Having removed the trend from their data, LLE cannot answer the question: What caused the warming? They eliminated from their analysis the very thing in which they are interested.

And this is the VERY SAME FLAW that McLean, Carter and de Freitas relied on to get their “result”, and which still other contrarian papers that claim all of mainstream climate science is deeply mistaken have made.

And here’s another example of a huge flaw:

LLE then estimate the Hurst exponent. The paper omits information on the adequacy of the statistical fit. No indication is given on the precision of the estimates.

Here’s another:

Crucially, LLE use the 20th century record to define natural variability. That is, they use the observations of the 20th century to assess whether or not the 20th century was natural or otherwise. This is tautological.

LLE do not test the hypothesis of “natural variation” against any other possible explanation of the warming of the 20th century.

And there’s even more.

And as Tol dryly observes about LLE's followup effort:

Oddly, Lüdecke omits carbon dioxide.

They apparently haven't even run CO2 through those analytical tests to show that their claims about the sun are a stronger explanation under their own methodology than CO2.

It’s not surprising it hasn’t changed any minds – it doesn’t even reach the bar of surviving initial scrutiny, let alone undermining a huge amount of work that says their central claim is incorrect.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

Genuinely good work by genuinely good people is being shamelessly abused and misused.

You can say that again. About time you stopped (the abuse and misuse).

I am taking a shot at the pathetic PR that surrounds this issue.

Your naive lack of self-knowledge is almost charming.

If you were actually taking a "shot at the pathetic PR" you wouldn't be studiously avoiding taking a shot at the distortions from one "side" which consists of people spouting positions that you appear to agree with.

Both sides of this polarised political debate are as bad as each other.

There certainly are rhetorical excesses by politicians on both sides, but the level of excesses are not even close to being "as bad as each other".

But we already know you aren't equipped to judge this because you are almost completely gullible when it comes to someone telling you what you want to hear about the science. And we also know that won't stop you sharing your ill-formed judgements...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Jan 2013 #permalink

Karen, you failed to explain what it is you understand is the meaning of Flannery's "global organism".

How about carrying through with something first before skating off to your next semi-formed thought.

Explain what Flannery's "Global organism" is.

Then we can discuss whether the idea has merit.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink

As for Bob Brown - he is clearly referring to the idea that we should wind back on costs externalised by carbon-emitting industries.

This is basic, sound, economics.

While I may not be a fan of the communists and other idiots that now run the Greens, Bob Brown was very solid - it was he was going around the country 20 years ago warning that if we failed to invest in renewable technologies, other countries would end up with the export markets for wind turbines and solar plants instead of us. Which is exactly what has happened.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink

twirlybird you are as ditzy as Lotharpiffle, lol

I meant Debbie.

Remind us, Karen, how did John McLean's "2012 will be the coldest year since 1956" prediction work out?
And has he finished that PhD yet? You know, the PhD he used to pad his CV with before it was pointed out he hadn't in fact ever been awarded one?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink

Genuinely good work by genuinely good people is being shamelessly abused and misused.

As you demonstrated when you twice failed to explain what you meant by the 'original hypothesis', you have, at best, only the woolliest conception of the physics behind global climate change. A blog post with sketchy details of the methods was judged by you to have a good description of the procedures. It is clear that you are incompetent to judge the general worth of a paper or the validity of its conclusions. The 'genuinely good work' that is being 'shamelessly abused' is being abused by the likes of Delingpole, Watts, Monkton and the rest of their gang.

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink

Just so we’re clear here deltoids. I am taking a shot at the pathetic PR that surrounds this issue. Both sides of this polarised political debate are as bad as each other.
Most of us ‘ordinary folk’ who don’t live in the rarified air of academia land or in the world of PR political spin are getting rather bloody sick of it.

A link please to your trolling at Denialist sites.

No? Well, that's that BS out the way.

The only other problem is you have no idea what you're talking about.

Which does indeed make you pretty 'ordinary', I suppose ; thank God science is not determined by the 'commonsense' of those who imagine themselves the 'salt of the earth'.

Unfortunately elections are. This century we'll get to find out just where that'll lead us...

Meanwhile, back in the real world, 2 key reports are released simultaneously:

One; the Climate Commission's:

Heatwave exacerbated by climate change: Climate Commission

A new report from the Federal Government’s Climate Commission says the heatwave and bushfires that have affected Australia this week have been exacerbated by global warming.

Two, the US Federal Advisory Committee's -

Climate change is already affecting the American people. Certain types of weather events have become more frequent and/or intense, including heat waves, heavy downpours, and, in some regions, floods and droughts. Sea level is rising, oceans are becoming more acidic, and glaciers and arctic sea ice are melting. These changes are part of the pattern of global climate change, which is primarily driven by human activity.

One thing I can forecast with 100% accuracy: a conspiracist brain-snap is imminent! Man the loons!...

THE WORLD IS COOLING

Yeah, right.

Would Piers be a mate of McLean's, by chance?

" Both sides of this polarised political debate are as bad as each other"

Well, there you go. Chammy makes this absurd remark.

Essentially what she is saying is that on one side you have cautious scientists who argue over probability in determining their estimates of AGW and its effects;

On the other side you have a bunch of liars who cherry pick like crazy, and who exhibit little or no caution is saying that AGW is 'bunk'. Many of these liars are on the corporate payroll, either directly or indirectly.

And our drama queen here is saying that both sides are as bad as each other. All this shows is that she hasn't delved into the science or the underlying economics/politics of the issue more than a micrometer. Its this kind of pontificating that fully explains why Dunning-Kruger's paper is such a bonafide classic. People who know diddly-squat think that by perusing a few denier blogs they become instant experts in fields of scientific endeavor. Remember Chammy saying early on that she and her husband had 'backgrounds in science'? This nugget was 'dropped' into the thread to give the impression that she knew what she was talking about. In reality, as her subsequent posts have shown, it means a great big nix.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink

Would Piers be a mate of McLean’s, by chance?

Fellow denialist but arguably far kookier, and legendary (in his own mind) long range weather forecaster based on his secret method which includes something to do with solar magnetic cycles influencing the weather by modulating the moon's orbit, or something. However he allegedly lost a fair bit of money doing so, and didn't forecast too well recently either.

He apparently was one of the denialist in the propaganda piece "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and (as Wiki links to) apparently claimed in 1999:

CO2 has never driven, does not drive and never will drive weather or climate. Global warming is over and it never was anything to do with CO2. CO2 is still rising but the world is now cooling and will continue to do so.

Since then we had the warmest decade in the instrumental record - despite ENSO spending a lot of time in the cool phase and the sun trending a little on the cool side too, IIRC.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink

BTW bill, McLean predicted that for 2011 (and I'm unaware of him doing it for 2012).

Karen, any guesses on how well it turned out? You could go to McLean's original prediction and see if he assessed his accuracy after the year ended.

Interestingly if you do, not only has McLean not done so, but (IIRC) the bunch of comments that used to be on that post have disappeared.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink

And McLean apparently still hasn't written the blog post for his blog that he promised at the end of 2011.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink

16/04/12:

The coldest or near coldest May for 100 years in Central and East parts with a record run of bitter Northerly winds. Snow at times especially on high ground in NE / East. Spring put in reverse. Confidence of E / SE England mean temps: Coldest in 100yrs 80%; In 5 coldest in 100 years 90%

01/06/12

We did NOT forecast THE coldest May for 100 years.

Priceless! That's going in the scrapbook, along with 'we never said it wasn't warming'.

Yeah, I spend a bit of time at Hot Topic, and McLean, Leyland and the rest of the gang at the NZC"S"C's forecasting history get's taken out for a spin fairly regularly!

This one really does crack me up. I'm sure we all await that post with bated breath.

" those who imagine themselves the ‘salt of the earth’."

Doesn't salt in the earth stop anything growing?

Yep, and that's getting to be a problem in some places where sea levels are rising...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink

"I love the argument:
“If it’s not Googleable then it didn’t happen”."

Given that you've time and time again put words in people's mouths that never were said EVEN HERE ON THIS VERY THREAD, you need to prove your assertions with genuine links to independent sources.

If you think that it is not possible to get a link and that this means it MUST be correct, then here's a complete lack of a link to prove AGW is true.

Not just an issue of sea-levels. In the course of my work I recently saw some appalling saline groundwater scalding along the Murray. One hopes that some of the extensive flow-management measures currently being put in place will ameliorate these sorts of problems, but increasing temperatures and evaporation ain't likely to help...

While we're on this:

I love the argument:
“If it’s not Googleable then it didn’t happen”

But (of course!) that wasn't the argument.

The argument was if an individual with a highly visible public role on a contentious issue who is known to be subject to strong scrutiny by a whole bunch of people with media and blog megaphones is claimed to have said something that said megaphone-wielders would pounce on...

...and it's not Googleable...

THEN it didn't happen.

Meanwhile chameleon, back to your claims that Delingpole quotes Flannery supporting your memory. Have you caught on yet that you (irony of ironies) completely and utterly misrepresented what Delingpole wrote, which did NOT include a Flannery quote?

And we're still waiting for you to rethink "scoffability" once you "catch" that Penrith in Western Sydney gets much hotter than Darwin, and even hotter than Broome.

And more seriously you still owe Richard Simons (a) an apology for putting words into his mouth and (b) a definition of "original hypothesis".

And...I'm sure there's plenty more homework for you on this thread too. Funny how you never get around to doing it and instead Gish your way onto the next piece of bulldust.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink

I just Googled 'Prince Charles proclaimed Adjunct Supreme Emperor of Saxony, Silesia and Pomerania'.

Doesn't appear to have happened.

The idea that anyone who could cite that (ludicrous) article by (the contemptible) Delingpole claiming that it supported her confabulation re Flannery could also maintain that bother her comprehension and her commitment to veracity were the equal of anyone's is truly bizarre.

The sum total of connections it contains is Flannery's name and the word 'snow'.

And yet she even manages to give us -

However, he [Delingpole] also refers to the no snow by 2012 comment.
Here: [utterly irrelevant quotation']

To be honest with you I preferred Tim Flannery’s turn of phrase ‘fleeting fancy’ than Delingpole’s interpretation.

And while we're on the interpreter of interpretations, an insight into the character and motivation of the charming Delingpole can be gained from the closing paragraphs -

The bad news is that it's not going to make the blindest bit of difference. As I show in Watermelons, this was never really a debate about science but is, and always has been, about ideology.

Lots of people are buying this funny, feisty, fact-rich work for their loved ones for Christmas. As the author I strongly recommend that you do the same – but don't take my word for it, take Matt Ridley's.

Do not be deceived by his sometimes flippant and always highly readable prose. This is a serious and significant book.

You can buy it here.

Isn't he lucky he's won himself an audience of the most patent suckers?

D'oh! 'both her', 3rd para.

And more seriously you still owe Richard Simons (a) an apology for putting words into his mouth and (b) a definition of “original hypothesis”.

Lotharrson: I'm sure we both realise that getting either is just as likely as her finding a genuine quote of Flannery's that supports her claims. I'm still hoping that she'll eventually recognise that claims made here need to be supported but I think she's well on the way to becoming a member of the troll collective.

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink

Yep, but I think she started out already there, Richard!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink

:-) :-) :-)
Chuckle.
No offense deltoids but I haven't noticed apologies being part of the MO here.
Jeff H. You must be joking!
If it was just cautious scientists on 'one side' then it wouldn't be an issue.
The truth is that on 'both sides' we have hand waving, attention seeking, zealot, extremist and highly political people who are polarising this issue and almost guarranteeing that nothing sensible will be achieved.
The 'misuse and abuse' is a direct result of the politics hovering around the issue.

By chameleon (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink

And BTW, they're using statistics as they're preferred weapon.

By chameleon (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink

THEIR! sorry, wrong there they're their!

By chameleon (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chameleon, you have quite a few things outstanding to attend to, including,
- apologise for spreading fake Flannery quotes
- explain what Flannery's "global organism" is
- explain what Flannery's "heat talk" has to do with elections

What seems to be happening is that you post something, it is debunked, and you ignore the issue.and then immediately post your next bit of fact-free garbage.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chebbie, the fussy little fabulist, is perhaps the most extreme Dunning-Krugerite we have yet encountered, lost in a world of invented interpretations, invented quotations, and invented events; she then chides others with a patronising air ('Chuckle') for failing to understand the nuances of the puppet show that plays out in her head, this being the only 'reality' she knows.

Chammy,

Your views have not a scintilla of depth - hence why you exemplify the Dunning-Kruger effect. Essentially, you glean your opinions from a few blogs - not from reading the peer-reviewed literature or by visiting the web sites of the scientists doing the actual research. Please prove to me in the science where James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, ben Saner and many other esteemed researchers are 'hand-waving'. The answer is that you can't. The reason you write such piffle is that you don't read the primary literature. That's clear.

Using your inane logic, we just might as well say that in any field of environmental science with policy-related implications that both sides are 'hand-waving'. Take my field, ecology. There are those like Morano, Nova, etc., with no pedigree whatsoever who claim that the loss of biodiversity is exaggerated and that therefore the problem is minor, This contrasts with the views of most scientists, based on a pesky little thing called the empirical evidence, which suggests quite dramatically otherwise. But you'd need to be up on the literature to fully understand the strength of this evidence and of the broad consensus amongst experts in field in support of it.

Like many deniers (or, at the very least, pseudo-deniers), you base your views clearly on a very limited knowledge of the field or of the primary literature. So, in lieu of this, you visit blogs. Here you see an ostensible battleground, something akin to a mud wrestling match, in which a lot of opinions are thrown about. Form that you glean that both sides are as bad as one another. But if you got off your lazy butt and went to a conference or a workshop, you'd see that the prevailing view amongst the scientists is that the issue is not at all controversial - humans are the primary agent forcing the current climate changes. The major doubts lie in the extent of warming and the consequences for the natural and material economies. The so-called hand waving is virtually non-existant because deniers are few and far between in the scientific ranks. That is why they are forced to convene shindigs every so often through libertarian think tanks and why these are attended (and lectures are presented) by many non-scientists.

The bottom line is that your posts are clueless. Every line you write reeks of simplicity. There's virtually no evidence that you understand how science works.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink

OOPs - my bad - Ben SANTER!

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chameleon:
we have hand waving, attention seeking, zealot, extremist and highly political people who are polarising this issue and almost guarranteeing that nothing sensible will be achieved.

You *do* realise this "nothing achieved" is in fact the stated objective of the Heartland Institute, as revealed by documents obtained last year?

So on the one hand we have scientists carefully gathering data and analysing it, and on the other hand we have non-expert nutters like Jo Nova and Anthony Watts accepting money from the extremists you mention in order to confuse people, confuse the issues, and ensure nothing is achieved for their political purposes?

And where do you go to get your "information"?
The scientists, or the political nutters?
Didn't they teach you about "bad choices" at school?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink