January 2013 Open Thread

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

More like this

...I haven’t noticed apologies being part of the MO here.

That's because it's decidedly not the MO "here" to blatantly misrepresent or lie about what other people said.

So far it is unapologetically your MO though, and apparently you are unashamed by it.

Telling, isn't it?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink

...they’re using statistics as they’re preferred weapon.

Politicians and PR people are publishing statistical papers in the scientific literature? Who knew?!

Oh, wait...you mean the denialist echosphere trumpeting papers like Karen's last link!

Well, sure, we all knew that! The echosphere content makers are masters of using dodgy "statistics" (scare quotes intended) to bamboozle the statistically illiterate and those who don't find out whether their loud claims are undermined by the weight of all the evidence.

You being an archetypal example, thus far.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink

But I am rather curious.

If you, chameleon, assert that "statistics is [their] preferred weapon", and via context you mean inappropriate use of statistics...

...how do you know it's inappropriate?

I mean, you've shown you are easily misled by dodgy statistics, so if you're using your own judgement to claim other uses are inappropriate, ... well, they say a regular person who represents themselves in court has a fool for a client.

So how are you making a much more reliable judgement about appropriateness of statistical methods than you yourself can make?

Or is it merely the case that you're making bold claims you can't back up - again?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Jan 2013 #permalink

…how do you know it’s inappropriate?

She's probably sure she remembers hearing it on ABC TV.

And BTW, they’re using statistics as they’re preferred weapon.

I suspect that by this she means "selective use of non-representative data" exemplified by Karen's typical comment. Her own comments show that her own knowledge of the field of statistics is on a par with my own knowledge of Nenets grammar.

The truth is that on ‘both sides’ we have hand waving, attention seeking, zealot, extremist and highly political people who are polarising this issue . . .

Chameleon: Go to RealClimate or SkepticalScience and find for us just one example that fits any one of these descriptors - if you can.

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 13 Jan 2013 #permalink

Had a browse of this thread quickly and don't have anything especially pertinent to add - I wore myself out on the SLR thread. There's only so many IQ points to spare.

But I would like to offer up a serious question for discussion seeing this is an open thread. Could be a change from Debb... err Chameleon bashing.

Let's agree that it is primarily human influence that is causing such things as climate change and reduction in biodiversity etc.

Really, what CAN be done? Human civilisation as it is today depends on relatively cheap energy. It's based on a capitalist and materialist foundation. Major societies like China, India and South America are developing like crazy, delivering their peoples substantial improvements in living conditions, health and life expectancy. But in doing so they embrace Western ideals.

Watch a video of downtown in cities in such countries and it's hard to see much difference from any US or Australian city. And this level of change and growth and convergence has happened in just a couple of hundred years.

It will be exceedingly difficult to change anything substantially. Certainly not in the shorter term, and perhaps not even in the longer term.

My question for discussion then is - what do you honestly see the world being like in say 250 years? 500 years? And what mix of mitigation and adaptation is the most likely to be effective?

By Bolt for PM (not verified) on 13 Jan 2013 #permalink

So BfPM, you realise you're climbing the well worn ladder of denialism? It's not happening. No, wait, maybe it's happening but it's not really us. OK, maybe it's mostly us but it will be too hard to avoid it.

Really, what CAN be done?

My family's in my car and we're doing 110 km/h and we know the brakes are failing and there's a very sharp corner coming up, but Really, what CAN be done?

When business as usual is dangerous, you STOP doing business as usual. Researchers are saying that avoiding a 4-6C rise will be very unlikely if we keep on with business per usual, and some of them are now saying out loud in public that 4-6C will likely mean the end of global civilisation, and may reduce the carrying capacity of the earth to less than one billion humans. Adaptation is a pretty poor descriptor for what we can do to cope with that kind of challenge.

If the seriousness of the issue is understood then the scope of available options widens dramatically because the risk is very very large, and (some) people suddenly wake up and realise that their assumptions about what can't be considered are indeed negotiable. If we get that far then we can talk about what could be done.

Or we could skip to the part where people point out the economics appear to be nowhere near as bad as is often claimed, so they AREN'T the thing that is stopping serious mitigation.

Or we could skip straight to what is likely to happen - which is more delay until enough people start screaming for something to be done, and then whatever we do will be much less effective and cost several times what it would have cost to start much earlier...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 Jan 2013 #permalink

Really, what CAN be done?

While an intractable and unrepentant alliance exists between large corporations that either are, or feel themselves to be, threatened by any major challenge to BAU, and a large corps of reactionaries who refuse on principal to accept that we could be doing this to ourselves - and who have little interest in the survival of the natural world and deep-down believe, amazingly, they'll get on just fine without it - it's rather a moot point.

Of course, this situation cannot last forever, reality being not much swayed by the opinions of either boardroom psychopaths or talk-back radio mouth-breathers, and the longer this unholy convergence manages to keep on 'winning' to the satisfaction of its tiny mind, the more drastic any eventual 'solutions' will eventually have to be.

That's dramatic as in totalitarian, though with a democratic gloss in the wealthier nations(some would say that's not much different form our reality now, anyway), or just 'straight', or something even worse (these latter options reserved particularly for the not-so-wealthy nations).

I think we missed the 'reasonably democratic and reasonably non-disruptive' window about 10 years ago.

Of course, in the long run 'even worse' may well overtake us all. The tragedy is that only some of us will have deserved this.

But, of course, to sociopaths and fantasists that hardly matters; it can't happen to them, because they're unique little snowflakes beyond the reach of those calamities that befall lesser beings, and they don't really give a shit about future generations, any more than they care about the poor, hypocritical posturing notwithstanding.

And they certainly don't give a flying f*ck about any species that had the lack of foresight not to evolve into us. F*in polar bears can go f* themselves!

Since you are clearly a dues-paid member of this tribe, I don't for a moment believe this question is being posed in good-faith, and suspect that this is just a ruse to play at lofting about some Lomborgian high-minded, onanistic waffle, or argue backwards from undesirability that since the problem cannot be solved - not the least thanks to yourself - then it must surely not exist in the first place.

"And what mix of mitigation and adaptation is the most likely to be effective?"

This argument misses the point entirely. BFPM appears to believe, like many so-called deniers, that the ability of humans to persist on the planet in light of the myriad of assaults our species is inflicting on it, will depend largely on our ability to 'adapt' to these changes. But the truth is, given what most ecologists know, is that its out of our hands. Essentially (her I go again for the billionth time but for the D-K crowd it NEVER sinks in), humans are utterly dependent on a range of critical conditions that freely emerge from natural systems and for which there are few, if any technological substitutes (and even where there are, they are prohibitively expensive). These conditions are generated over variable spatial and temporal scales by infinite numbers of interactions involving large and small scale populations and individuals of species. From them we already know that services permitting humans to exist and survive are produced.

Now, as I have said many times before, many from the adaptionist school appear to think that humans are exempt from the laws of nature. They ignore the manifest consequences of climate warming, habitat destruction, eutrophication, wetland loss, invasive organisms, various forms of pollution etc. on ecosystems and the organisms that make them up. In their thinking, humans can cover much of the planet in concrete and significantly alter the chemical composition of the air and water and that somehow, through technology, we will adapt to this massive assault.

Its clear that the mainstream media is doing a piss-poor job on educating many of the masses, or else we scientists are not getting the message through ourselves, but the comment made by BFPM is one that is shared by a huge proportion of laypeople out there. They appear to think that the main values of nature are consumptive and aesthetic; that any other value in economic terms is limited or even non-exitstant.

I don't know what can be done to get across the point I am making. I've repeated this argument so many times on Deltoid alone that I am getting sick and tired of doing so. Clearly many of the nay-sayers don't read out side the 'box'. These cornucopians don't know much about systems or population ecology, and they've been so insulated in their cozy urban lives that any notion of human existence hinging on conditions emerging from nature are alien to them.

In summary, what I am saying is that humans don't have a choice. We must mitigate as much as possible, for adaptation is NOT an option, not if continue on a business-as-usual path into the mid to long-term future. The consequences of this is that Homo sapiens will be lucky to survive another century, let long 5 more centuries. The average shelf life for a species is 1 to 10 million years; for mammals perhaps slightly less. Our time for extinction will certainly come, but for me it seems to be folly that we appear to be doing everything in our power to hasten its realization in the short-term. Ultimately, if we continue along the current trajectory, we will so simplify natural systems that the services we take for granted will sputter and wither away. Once this happens, our species will go into free fall. No species depends on or utilizes more from nature than does Homo sapiens. The irony is that we will be one the earliest and biggest casualties of our own stupid actions. Nature of course will persist long after we have extinguished ourselves, but why we seem intent on going over the cliff in light of what we know are likely to be the consequences is for me one of the great mysteries of our time.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Jan 2013 #permalink

So in short, Jeff, the answer to "And what mix of mitigation and adaptation is the most likely to be effective?" is:

Approximately 100% mitigation.

(And even disregarding the profound ecological issues, most of the non-trivial primarily economic analyses say that mitigating now is cheaper - probably several times cheaper - than adapting later. In other words, they produce much the same answer.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 Jan 2013 #permalink

Lotharsson,

Agreed. Having said that, the longer we procrastinate, the more severe the costs of mitigation are likely to be. My main point is that those groups and individuals - and we know who they are - who are blocking actions to deal with the growing crisis are, in my view, (un)wittingly the drivers who appear content to see us plunge into the abyss.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Jan 2013 #permalink

Lotharsson, I may have not been clear in how I posed the question. I didn't mean what can be done as a direct question. I meant, really, what CAN be done. I cannot imagine anything can be. People just don't think that way.

The only way something will change is when there is enough of a catastrophe that most of humanity is wiped out. until then I think it's BAU at the macro level. Sure you'll see a lot of frittering around the edges, but nothing really serious.

Do you really think that Westerners will give up their standard of living? Or that the Chinas and Indias of the world will abandon their hopes of emulating the West?

Unlikely I'd say.

Jeff H - "They appear to think that the main values of nature are consumptive and aesthetic; that any other value in economic terms is limited or even non-exitstant."

I don't think people imagine anything about the values of nature - I think by and large they think only about the values necessary to continue as they do. Most people are reasonably confident that humanity is above the laws of nature. The major religions do little to dispel that view.

Of course, I have rather more confidence that humanity IS above the laws of nature...

By Bolt for PM (not verified) on 13 Jan 2013 #permalink

Actually let me restate some of that. I don't expect a catastrophe. And I don't expect BAU as it is right now forever. What I expect is more of the same in the sense that incrementally, things will change. And technology will be a major enabler of that.

By Bolt for PM (not verified) on 13 Jan 2013 #permalink

I meant, really, what CAN be done.

If you're talking about what's feasible from an engineering and infrastructure and economics perspective, there are studies that appear to be plausible at first blush that say that if we actually wanted to we could generate 100% of foreseeable global energy needs from renewable sources within 20-30 years, and it would be cheaper overall than continuing with non-renewable sources. From what I've seen, none of this requires "Westerners to give up their standard of living" or 3rd world nations to give up modernising.

There will probably be unforeseen obstacles on the way that need to be dealt with. And there are people in the industry who are quite skeptical. And these proposals would require a heck of a lot of work. But if people faced up to how serious it is they would consider a "war footing" to be appropriate, and it's astonishing what a country on a war footing can accomplish if need be, let alone an entire globe.

On the other hand, if you mean "what can be achieved whilst political and large business interests continue to overtly and covertly oppose any significant mitigation efforts", the answer may well be "merely tinkering around the edges and a little bit of incremental change - when those interests decide it will benefit them".

Taking the problem seriously means that 80% of proven fossil fuel reserves, currently valued by the market at about $20 trillion, must never be burnt - i.e. left in the ground or other uses found for it that don't end up with CO2 in the atmosphere. That's probably the most highly motivated obstacle at the moment because the businesses involved, and the politicians in their pocket, and the investment banks and super funds that own those companies all know this. They're not dumb (at least not about short to medium term $$$), they're just banking on the long term problem somehow not turning out to be as bad as anticipated (at least for them).

I have rather more confidence that humanity IS above the laws of nature...

Of course you do. And it's a particularly ignorant point of view, as Jeff has been trying to point out.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 Jan 2013 #permalink

"80% of proven fossil fuel reserves, currently valued by the market at about $20 trillion"

However, in fluffing up the value of these reserves, they don't deduct the cost of extraction. e.g. Net economic value of, say, gas shale in Europe: - ~trillion euros. Takes more money to get out than it returns in value.

"it can’t happen to them, because they’re unique little snowflakes beyond the reach of those calamities that befall lesser beings"

See this scienceblogs thread for what happens when these precious snowflakes ARE beset by the same problems:

http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/2012/11/25/becoming-one-of-them/

Also notice how the insurance companies have graded Sandy as merely a storm, therefore the deductible from claims for damage to the expensive homes by the rich and wealthy and connected people there damaged by the burricane doesn't now include hurricane deduction.

The look after each other.

Yep, there's a YouTube lecture by a self-confessed privileged white guy who points out that for people like him the privileged status, upbringing and level of resource availability turn out to be harmful if the resources go away - because they haven't had to learn the kinds of survival skills necessary for people who have had much more of a challenge in the past.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 Jan 2013 #permalink

Or as that poster at Wow's link puts it, haven't had to develop that kind of personal resilience. (And certainly haven't had to rely on the kind of systemic resilience support that's been systematically attacked by Republicans for 3+ decades - that's for those people, not people like us.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 Jan 2013 #permalink

You might want to avoid some of Wow's comments at that link though. Not the most overwhelming display of emotional intelligence.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 Jan 2013 #permalink

"Of course, I have rather more confidence that humanity IS above the laws of nature"

Well then you're a waste of space aren't you. You see, your view is based on he fact that you don' t know much about systems ecology or of the myriad of natural subsidies that permit human existence. Since you don't have much of a clue about his area, you then ignore it. Don't fret; most of the deniers I have met are also completely ignorant about the field. And they write the same kind of dumb remarks that you do.

Fact is that of course humans are not above or exempt from natural laws. If we continue with a slash-and-burn approach across the biosphere, then we are writing our own epitaph. As I see it right now, our species will go out with a whimper instead of a bang. Within 100-200 years the debt we are incurring on nature will have rebounded on human civilization, and the outlook will be grim.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Jan 2013 #permalink

Really? So it wasn't rebecca who thought it was REASONABLE to be "afraid of looking like THEM", right?

Wow, I posted over there. Take it over there if you want to discuss it.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 Jan 2013 #permalink

you posted over here too.

Yes, I wanted to make it clear here that I thought the article was pretty good, but I didn't think the same of your comments.

People know how to follow links if they are interested - and if you want to discuss my opinions of your logic in detail, best to do it on the original post.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 Jan 2013 #permalink

Regarding business as usual and its consequences, I have long thought that economists should be required to take a course in ecology, with emphasis on energy and nutrient cycling and population dynamics. Perhaps then there would be more realism in their forecasts and fewer utopian dreams.
As it is, when I look at projections I am often struck by how narrowly focussed they are whereas in real life there are many interconnections. Want to reduce fossil fuel use? Switch to biofuels. Except that most produce only marginally more fuel than is consumed in their production (and many have a negative balance) and they take land out of food production. Increase their yield by using more fertilizers? But most nitrogenous fertilizers are produced from fossil fuels, as are the extra fertilizer hoppers, etc that will be needed. Genetically modify cereals to fix their own nitrogen fertilizer? The energy required by the plant reduces yields by about 1/4 to 1/3. In the meantime, a combination of overfishing and ocean acidification is likely to reduce fish supplies.
In the meantime, utopians talk about a 'second Green Revolution' but have no idea where it might come from. They seem to think that, because to those who remember it, it came out of the blue with no advance warming, there must be something equivalent on its way. Of course, to crop scientists the 'Green Revolution' was not unexpected. However, so far as I am aware (and I hope someone can correct me on this) there is nothing remotely comparable waiting in the wings.

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 13 Jan 2013 #permalink

"Switch to biofuels. Except that most produce only marginally more fuel than is consumed in their production "

Only really true with Corn.

Beet sugars in Brazil give a very decent EROEI, and they aren't the best by a long chalk.

But the rural farmers, whilst complaining about the taxes, definitely want their slice of the pork and making it Corn based means they get to keep as much of the pork as possible.

Note that most of the corn is fed to cattle. Stuff they can't even feed to humans hidden in other foodstuffs gets turned into biofuels, so it's not actually that bad for the environment, it uses mostly the resource that would have been chucked back on the silage heap.

And I wanted to rebut your assertion.

But apparently it's not allowed. You decided, apparently.

Sod that for a game of soldiers.

Seems like a waste of effort when for a decent up-front capital investment, you can spend decades harvesting vast quantities of energy with very little recurring costs involved.

And the power produced can be stored as hydrogen for use in fuel cells.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 13 Jan 2013 #permalink

But apparently it’s not allowed. You decided, apparently.

Sheesh. That's not even a subtle pair of lies.

No-one has told you it's not allowed. I suggested you take it to the place with the appropriate context and audience but I have no power to enforce it. The only one that can do so is a moderator, and I have not claimed to be one.

... I wanted to rebut your assertion.

My assertion here was an opinion-based assessment. Good luck rebutting that! ;-)

And as you have demonstrated by commenting over there (and here!), no-one is stopping you responding to anything I wrote.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 Jan 2013 #permalink

Jeff H, my comment more refers to humanity's proven ability to adapt both itself and the environment. I am not denying that we have a cavalier approach, but over time we have consistently met and overcome natural challenges.

Regardless of my own personal beliefs, I do think it's unlikely we'll take on board some of the more large scale strategies you guys have suggested. It just doesn't fit with previous history.

My own ill-informed view is that people will adapt and that changes in things like energy mix will occur as market forces permit. Sadly, I can't see a major shift away from a free market driven global system any time soon.

You're right, Jeff H, I have no idea about systems ecology etc. But history is full of people who thought they had it sussed and then discovered that the world is infinitely more malleable and adaptable.

Anyways, call me in 2020, we can talk about the big ol' global warming scare that dissipated by 2015...

By Bolt for PM (not verified) on 14 Jan 2013 #permalink

BFPM,

Before commenting again, I suggest you read the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) or any of many books on the subject of ecosystem services: Yvonne Baskin's 'The Work of Nature' (1999) or Gretchen Daily's 'Nature's Services' (1997).

Your problem, which you completely fail to address, is that you again think that human ability to adapt to a suite of anthropogenic stresses is somehow independent of effects on our ecological life-support systems. What I am saying is that if we continue to see vital services that sustain humanity eroded, then our safety net will be rather suddenly pulled away. No amount of human ingenuity can replicate in any kind of efficient manner the work done by soil microbes, pollinators, seed dispersers, water purifiers etc. Essentially, we take these processes for granted, as if they are a 'given'; once they disappear, we don't stand a chance.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Jan 2013 #permalink

" my comment more refers to humanity’s proven ability to adapt both itself and the environment."

Dinosaurs adapted to their environment changing.

And they discovered that "extinction" is another adaption.

And care to prove our ability to adapt?

" "But apparently it’s not allowed. You decided, apparently".

Sheesh. That’s not even a subtle pair of lies."

Sheesh, don't understand "apparently"?

You posted here about my comments there.

I posted here about your comment here.

You decided I should take it there.

Where, precisely, is the lie?

" It just doesn’t fit with previous history."

You mean like the wholesale change from Steam power to Oil power in about 7 years between the two world wars?

Jeff:

What I am saying is that if we continue to see vital services that sustain humanity eroded, then our safety net will be rather suddenly pulled away. No amount of human ingenuity can replicate in any kind of efficient manner the work done by soil microbes, pollinators, seed dispersers, water purifiers etc. Essentially, we take these processes for granted, as if they are a ‘given’; once they disappear, we don’t stand a chance.

Look I wouldn't disagree with that statement, and yes I agree I have little knowledge about the subject. But do you honestly think that we really face that dire a situation?

By Bolt for PM (not verified) on 14 Jan 2013 #permalink

...but over time we have consistently met and overcome natural challenges.

There are quite a number of dead societies that disagree with you. People have written books about it.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Jan 2013 #permalink

Anyone remember the adaption to the change in the North American continent by the local population?

That's right: dying.

How about the invasion of South America?

Oh, died of new diseases. Another "lets all die" adaption.

Dolt doesn't mind it if everyone else dies as long as he doesn't have to take responsibility for what he's done or change one whit.

His comfort is far more important than the potential life of others yet born.

(PS I wonder if he's against or for abortion)

"But do you honestly think that we really face that dire a situation?"

Yes, he's said so many times.

And his specialty is biological diversity and productivity.

You, however, refuse to listen. As proven by your needing to ask that question despite the multitudinous posts stating the answer you're asking for here.

You’re right, Jeff H, I have no idea about systems ecology etc. But history is full of people who thought they had it sussed and then discovered that the world is infinitely more malleable and adaptable.

Get it Jeff? Somebody who knows virtually nothing of the subject is much more likely to derive the correct answer than somebody who does.

Perfectly logical.

How did the Mayans overcome their (man-made) natural challenges?
How did the Easter Islanders overcome their (man-made) natural challenges?

Facts? Why would you waste time on them when you could be prosecuting a fact-free irrational belief?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 14 Jan 2013 #permalink

"But do you honestly think that we really face that dire a situation?"

Check out the findings of the MEA (2006). The answer is that we are heading in that direction, yes. It is serious.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Jan 2013 #permalink

Where, precisely, is the lie?

They are where I already explained them to be. "Apparently" doesn't get you off the hook:

I did not make any decision for you. I did not apparently make any decision for you. Neither of those can logically be true because I have no power over where you choose to comment.

I did not forbid you from doing anything. I did not apparently forbid you from doing anything. Neither of those can logically be true because I have no power to constrain any of your actions.

You were not constrained in any way because I made a comment here requesting that you take it there. You were not apparently constrained in any way because I made a comment here requesting that you take it there. Neither of those can logically be true for the same reasons as above.

You, as you have amply demonstrated in the past, are entirely free to ignore requests from other commenter who are not moderators. No "apparently" qualifier is necessary on that statement either.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Jan 2013 #permalink

Well, to be fair Wow, I've never seen deltoid before I dropped by to sort you all out with your misunderstandings regarding SLR, so I haven't read Jeff H's multitudinous posts. And he's never posted at WUWT from what I can recall...

By Bolt for PM (not verified) on 14 Jan 2013 #permalink

"I did not make any decision for you."

Ah, so apparently sarcasm is unknown.

Did you not notice that I ignored your demand?

" with your misunderstandings regarding SLR"

What?

This is like a level-five projection here.

You have no clue, ADMIT you have no clue, about SLR and therefore we all of us misunderstand SLR???

" so I haven’t read Jeff H’s multitudinous posts"

You have replied to them, though.

However, thanks for admitting that you don't bother reading what you're given in answer to your "just asking questions".

It does confirm what we've suspected all along. You're not asking questions, you're making noise.

ohhh... no I thought you meant he'd posted in other threads in the past. As for SLR, well it did take a while to get you lot sorted out and on the same page but I think you've got a better grasp of the concepts now. Glad to help.

By Bolt for PM (not verified) on 14 Jan 2013 #permalink

Wow.

The idiot is strong in you, isn't it.

All we've learned is that it's taken you a few weeks and a hundred or so posts to get even the smallest fact through your skull about SLR.

"Bolt for PM
January 14, 2013

Jeff:

What I am saying is that if we contin...."

Bolt for PM later:

"so I haven’t read Jeff H’s multitudinous posts"

"And he’s never posted at WUWT from what I can recall…"

And I never will. That site is the epitome of anti-environmental denial, full of shills and other misfits.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Jan 2013 #permalink

Yes, we all thought sea level was nothing like a a billiard table.
Until Bolt came along.
Now, we all agree that the sea level is nothing like a billiard table.
Awesome work Bolt.

In the process, however, we have all also learnt that you know nothing about sea levels, nothing about ecology, nothing about physics, in fact, you appear to know nothing about everything.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 14 Jan 2013 #permalink

ohhh… no I thought you meant he’d posted in other threads in the past. As for SLR, well it did take a while to get you lot sorted out and on the same page but I think you’ve got a better grasp of the concepts now. Glad to help.

Translation: I am a complete tosser. Seriously, the thing Bolty hates most of all is being ignored.

The good thing, of course, is that folks who aren't arrogant and manipulative B-grade sociopaths can actually read what Jeff's said, thereby learning something, and there could scarcely be a better exposition than the above as to which side of this debate has the grasp on the facts regarding GMSL + R.

The Australian's latest salvo in its war on science, this time an article by Graeme Lloyd posing as a factual piece, is out:
http://tinyurl.com/bqqdhyl

The headline, "Climate Results validate Sceptics" might imply that temperature data has proven John McLean's "coldest year since 1956" correct, finally.
Not so.
What the article attached to this apparently lost and misplaced headline refers to, is the UK Met Office's temperature *projections* (not "results") and those projections predict continued warming (not "validate sceptics").

Makes you wonder what planet Graeme Lloyd is on. Then you get to this line, and all is clear:

...it will be several decades before science is able to unpack the impact of climate change from natural variability.

Yes, because the succession of hottest decades ever could so easily be confused with natural variability. Especially if the laws of physics don't apply any more and CO2 is no longer heating up the planet.

Tim Flannery has a half-hearted crack at them,
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/rising-temperature…

But you get the feeling he's just tired of The Australian's lies and looking forward to the day the organisation implodes as its UK arm did.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 14 Jan 2013 #permalink

Speaking of the Met Office's projections, they of which trolls like Delingpole and his acolytes have lately taken to claiming show that global warming has stopped or something because this year's projections are lower than those made last year, here's the graph showing the two sets of projections.

The green lines are projections made last year.

The blue lines are the updated ones.

Anyone think either the green or the blue indicate "global warming has stopped?"

Nah, didn't think so.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Jan 2013 #permalink

The online version of that Australian article Vince refers to doesn't seem to have gone through an editor. They aren't even putting any effort into it any more.

Firstly the pair of images at the top of the story include one that's a graph with curves labelled "Decadel Forecast". That's a pretty basic spelling error for a major newspaper. And the only place that Google finds that spelling is a comment on a Bishop Hill article from February ;-)

Secondly, if I recall correctly the article slavishly repeats some Delingpole pap. Early on it claims:

Global warming effectively stopped 17 years ago and, if the new forecast is accurate, that "pause" will be extended to 20 years.

Readers who look at the graph in the article (direct link) can see for themselves that claim isn't even true about surface temperatures (let alone total heat accumulation). The graph shows continuing warming since 1995/96, and the projections continue that trend. Is it any wonder the Australian didn't put a trend line on the graph? This claim can only be made with contempt for their readership.

Also, the red curve on the graph looks a little off compared to the original which had small downturns after some of the peaks, for example. And the blue curve doesn't match the Met Office version (see link in my previous comment) very well either - the initial downturn appears to have been significantly exaggerated on the Australian version, for example. And of course the Australian has "helpfully" left confidence intervals off the forecasts.

Could be fodder for another Deltoid post.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Jan 2013 #permalink

I think you'll find the article also left out some interesting bits when quoting scientists talking about the new projections. Compare the quotes in the Australian with those in the Daily Mail.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Jan 2013 #permalink

I think I can see how they've managed to froth each other up into such a state of hyperventilating excitement.

Here is last year's Decadal forecast (I think):
http://web-beta.archive.org/web/20120206093904im_/http://www.metoffice…

It seems to match the one The Australian has used.
Notice it goes to 2021?
Now check out the updated Met article:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-r…

As you can see, this is an entirely different projection, encompassing a different, and shorter, time period.

So, while the Australian has fun being retarded and comparing an obvious Apple with an obvious Orange, the question has got to be asked - should the Met not label its products better so that their purpose is clearer and to differentiate between apparently different products?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 14 Jan 2013 #permalink

In fact there it is:

"Global average temperature is expected to remain between 0.28 °C and 0.59 °C (90% confidence range) above the long-term (1971-2000) average during the period 2013-2017, with values most likely to be about 0.43 °C higher than average (see blue curves in the Figure 1 below)."

So, Graeme Lloyd thought it would be a good idea to derive inspiration from a crank-blog (Bishop Hill) and write an article comparing a 2012-2021 projection against a 2013-2017 one.

Wotta Genius.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 14 Jan 2013 #permalink

There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.

Phil Plait, whose 'Bad Astronomy' I've just run through as an audiobook (highly recommended!)

Oh dear oh dear, The Australian doubles down on dumb and dishonest with its latest effort:
http://tinyurl.com/as2xkup
"Sea rise 'not linked to warming', says report"

Which report? You may ask, is this a confabulation from the likes of Morner, or is this another exercise at misquoting a genuine scientist?

Turns out it's the latter:
The Australian says the new paper...,

...said it could not link climate change and the rate of sea level rises in the 20th century

The guy who actually did the research says,

"So sea level clearly is linked to climate change, it is clearly linked to increases in greenhouse gases, and that's actually in the paper which was quoted by The Australian. So the quote is, I'm sorry, inaccurate"

Another bit of blatant politically-motivated disinformation, and not appearing as opinion but masquerading once again as a factual news article.

Crikey explains:

The Australian has long run a sceptical line on climate change, particularly in its opinion pages. Today's story, written by environment editor Graham Lloyd, relied on a paper co-authored by Australian scientist Dr John Church. The paper apparently "said it could not link climate change and the rate of sea level rises in the 20th century".
But Church, a sea level expert with the CSIRO, told a media conference today that was not an accurate description of the paper.
"So sea level clearly is linked to climate change, it is clearly linked to increases in greenhouse gases, and that's actually in the paper which was quoted by The Australian. So the quote is, I'm sorry, inaccurate," said Church, a co-ordinating lead author with the IPCC.
While The Australian claimed the paper had found no increase in the rate of sea level rise, Church said the paper showed the rate of sea level rise had increased between the 18th and 19th centuries, and research showed a further acceleration of the rate during the 20th century.

In a telephone interview, Crikey asked the long-term chair of the IPCC Dr Rajendra Pachauri, in Tasmania for the summit, about the story.
"What is particularly important is that sane and rational voices must respond to these questions and this scepticism, and I think that should get adequate currency," said Pachauri, who in 2007 accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC. "Then people can make up their minds on their own."
He called on the media to take responsibility for the stories they run. "Unfortunately in several parts of the world, the media gives disproportionate coverage to those who take a contrarian view, even if they represent a very very small percentage of either the scientific consensus or public opinion. They get almost equal billing, and to my mind that seems a little unfair," he said.

There you have it - the antidote for The Australian? "Sane and rational".

What's the Press Complaints Commission doing about these liars, that's what I want to know.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 15 Jan 2013 #permalink

...or the Press Council even...

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 15 Jan 2013 #permalink

Vince, feel free to draw chameleon's attention to that statement about 20th century acceleration on the Sea Level Rise thread ;-)

Her latest comment there is touting the Gregory et al paper (which does actually make the claim that there's little acceleration - but does so from fitting a quadratic to the data which isn't quadratic in form).

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 15 Jan 2013 #permalink

Doesn't the Gregory et al paper fail instantly if you take a step back and check how well their garbage model fits with a much longer time span?

Or am I thinking of something else?

Either way, these sorts of papers *do* tend, upon investigation, to be based on absolutely pitifully crap models that are so bad they make Mann's original hockey stick look like the Pyramids of Giza.

Ironic that fake-skeptics spend so much time panning carefully considered models and yet instantly adopt any mickey-mouse model if it gives them the result they want to see. What a bunch of intellectual pygmies they are.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 15 Jan 2013 #permalink

Vince!
Bingo again!
Time spans!
How about geo-morphical studies that consider the last 2,000 years?
What do they show?
And I completely agree that people adopt the models that show them what they want to see.
And there are soooo many models that show soooo many different results.
Lotharsson isn't getting it.
I'm not denying any of them or particularly supporting any of them.
It's all very interesting, but none of them will be proved right or wrong until time and real data confirms them.
That Gregory et al paper went through all the proper channels and was researched by proper professional expert climate scientists from respected organisations.
Time and real data will judge that one too.
If nothing else it does confirm that academics love to argue with each other.
Like doh!

By chameleon (not verified) on 15 Jan 2013 #permalink

Of course I'm not getting "it". You're not claiming anything that can be backed up with evidence. Your speciality is vague waffle combined with a Gish Gallop in the hope that a "aw, maybe we don't know enough" stance will come off as the tiniest bit plausible.

It doesn't.

You have said precisely nothing in over a month that is both (a) a reasonable inference from ALL the evidence and (b) goes against the mainstream findings of climate science.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 15 Jan 2013 #permalink

There's no "it" to get.

That's a better way of putting it :-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 15 Jan 2013 #permalink

I've got away with words.

:-)

"If nothing else it does confirm that academics love to argue with each other"

Depends what you mean by academics. On the one hand are cautious scientists who argue over probabilities; on the other are shills who give the impression that there is no evidence whatsoever of a human fingerprint over the current warming. They do not exhibit nay doubts at all, hence why its easy for them to fool Jack public. Oh, and most of them don't publish much in the scientific literature, in contrast with scientists on the other side of the debate.

As an aside, not how the deniers are constantly shifting the goalposts to suit their agenda. In the early 1990s, warming was a ' doomsday myth' with no evidence to support it. Since then they've moved on to say that indeed it has warmed, but it's due to the sun or natural variation. More recently, they've jumped on the 'it stopped warming in 1998' canard.

Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate. This is the rallying cry of the climate change denial community. I hesitate to call them scientists with any pedigree because very few are really top scientists; most are wannabes who publish a single paper (if at all) every 5 or 10 years. Eventually, as the empirical data overwhelms them , they'll make their last stand, claiming that humans are the primary culprit but that it's too late to do anything except adapt.

In every case its business-as-usual. Against this background we have our self-professed wannabe (Chameleon) who seems to like making ridiculous comments. Go figure.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 15 Jan 2013 #permalink

No JeffH,
That was not what I said.
I said that TIME will be the judge.
One of your misconceptions is that there is an organised group of people on 'one side' called 'deniers' and apparently they 'deny' that we have a current climate that has a propensity to change.
With respect, I would suggest you read the book 'Thinking Fast and Slow' by Daniel Kahneman.
He outlines the pitfalls of causation and small samples with random results.

By chameleon (not verified) on 15 Jan 2013 #permalink

Yup, more empty homilies.

So far, every prediction of the deniers has turned out complete bollocks.

Yet somehow you haven't let the fact change your mind: it is incapable of it. Time passing will not change your mind even though it bears out every prediction by the IPCC. Because as we've seen, you've not done any different before.

Time *has* judged.

McIntyre was wrong.
Spencer was completely wrong.
Watts was very wrong.
McLean was totally and utterly wrong.
Monckton was wrong.
Moerner was wrong.
Ridley was wrong.
Plimer was wrong.
Carter was wrong.
Jo Nova and her lovely husband still think the...er..."banking families" (wink, wink) are up to no good...
The Australian now publishes bald-faced lies on a daily basis.

You have nothing left. It's all wrong.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 15 Jan 2013 #permalink

He outlines the pitfalls of causation and small samples with random results.

Priceless irony!

Even the ungrammatic typing out - you can almost see her lips moving - indicate not having a clue.

See?
There you all go again.
The many, many different permutations should not be regarded as absolutely right or wrong.
Too many unknowns.
It isn't 'settled' in other words.
Maybe we can all come back in another 10 years and figure out which particular set of permutations resembled reality with the best accuracy?
There are no shortages of them!

By chameleon (not verified) on 15 Jan 2013 #permalink

So Plimer's attempt to spread the following ideas:
- the sun has an iron core
- CO2 levels were higher in the 1940s than today

Are going to get less wrong as more time goes by?

To give one example.

Or Watts' "Surface station Project" which proved the stations he had labelled as "low quality" actually gave a lower trend than his high quality stations. His claim about low quality stations skewing the temperature record upwards is somehow going to get less wrong, according to you?

Or, you haven't actually used your brain to produce your last assertion.

You still haven't provided any evidence that any of your previous assertions are based on any facts or intelligence.

Why is Flannery's "global organism" funny, can you explain?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 15 Jan 2013 #permalink

Vince,
You are shooting yourself in the proverbial.
Everybody has theories.
Predictions may or may not be correct.
I have not claimed that one or other is right or wrong.
Theoretically, they could all have important pieces of the puzzle and they could all have major errors.
You folks seem to think someone has to be entirely right and others entirely wrong.
Realistically, you can't prove projections either way until TIME and REAL DATA judges them.
You are jumping to conclusions and 'assuming' if others question your 'certainty' then that automatically means they 'support' someone else.
That's rubbish politics and nothing to do with either science or statistics.
I find that ALL OF THE MODELS I have read are useful tools but not necessarily containing 'settled' answers.
It seems that the Gregory et al paper is presenting yet another way to view and plot the data.
I actually don't think there is anything wrong with that provided the methodology and the time frames and the underlying assumptions about particular variables are clear and reproducable.
It is just another way to look at and study a highly un coperative and variable beast we call climate.
What I'm seeing is that it's NOT settled.
There are OBVIOUSLY too many unknown relationships between all the variables.
We can certainly use all the new information as we learn more.
They were not designed to be prophetic.
It is wrong to use ANY of them that way, no matter which blog they appear on or WHO researched and/or peer reviewed them.
But no doubt some of you will once again assume that means something else entirely.
And BTW JeffH, I don't think there are any modern humans who say that humanity DOESN'T influence their ecological surroundings.
You really need to get out more.

By chameleon (not verified) on 15 Jan 2013 #permalink

Shorter chameleon:

It is impossible to really know anything. I certainly don't.

Rubbish Bill,
We are learning and understanding more.
It is actually impossible to know everything and to claim it is all 'settled' because we know everything.
The 'real scientists' know that too.
Try asking the ones who are genuinely interested in science rather than interested in protecting their predictions!

By chameleon (not verified) on 15 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chameleon, leaving aside your confusion between idiomatic expressions and proverbial ones, can you explain what it is you find useful about the Gregory et al model?

And, please, could you do it using precise language in as few lines as possible, your rambling posts are starting to hurt my brain.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 15 Jan 2013 #permalink

Here you go Vince,
Here's that clip.
I finally remembered when it was sent to me :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeNDSeknn_c
And also?
Are you saying there is nothing useful in this paper by well respected professional climate scientists from well respected organisations that was peer reviewed and published ?
But in answer to your specific question:
I thought that it was useful that they used some updated data.
Didn't you?
I posted what they concluded at the 'close of budget' earlier.
I'm spectacularly uninterested in what any of the media use as headlines, including Graeme L at the OZ and those insufferable snobs at the ABC.
I'm far more interested in the conclusions written by the actual scientists who compiled the actual report.
Aren't you?
And I'm sorry for your poor brain.
The actual message isn't all that complicated.
I just thought the MO here was to make everything as complicated and complex and 'nuanced' as possible.
I certainly didn't mean to hurt your poor brain.
Give it a little apologetic kiss from me,

By chameleon (not verified) on 15 Jan 2013 #permalink

Getting away from the remblings of Dunning-Krugerites for a moment, in the world outside the, ahem, 'skeptical' intra-cranial puppet-show, monthly heat records have increased by a factor of 5.

Of course, for some it will be impossible to know what that means; but, then again, some folks couldn't find their own arses with both hands...

Before the bleating begins, you may like to note that that's 130 years of monthly temps from 12, 000 sites provided by NASA worldwide.

One of your misconceptions is that there is an organised group of people on ‘one side’ called ‘deniers’ and apparently they ‘deny’ that we have a current climate that has a propensity to change.

Arse-backwards again, and as far as I can see NOT a misconception held by Jeff.

Denialists LOVE to argue that "climate has a propensity to change", a claim which you'll struggle to find a climate scientist disagreeing with.

Denialists do this so they can proceed to fallaciously "infer" that "therefore, recent changes aren't driven by anthropogenic factors", or when that is too obviously bollocks "therefore, recent changes might not be mostly anthropogenic" - in denial of all the work investigating how much of the recent changes were and were not anthropogenic.

And what Wow and Vince said. The question is not "do we know everything", it is "do we know enough".

On that question "Time" has already adequately judged, and it adjudges that even the climate science understanding of several decades ago has proven far more reliable than the understanding of the "skeptics". It has also judged that the prudent time to begin mitigation was some time ago.

You're merely playing the imprudent "high proofer" game (and when called out on it you deny doing so). That game is intellectually bankrupt, unscientific and foolish.

And:

You are shooting yourself in the proverbial.

...is comedy gold. So at least your efforts here haven't been entirely for naught.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 15 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chameleon's clip starts out with some ... interestingly chosen edits (and an almost conspiratorial framing via the initial caption).

Try going to about 1:00 where the "full interview" begins - but even this is clearly cut in places.

Perhaps now Chameleon can explain what she was trying to say about it?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 15 Jan 2013 #permalink

Your Honour, my client would like to point out that scientists - acknowledged global experts in both biology and forestry management - have determined that forest fires have occurred spontaneously and naturally for many hundreds and thousands - nay, millions - of years; certainly, Your Honour, for many millenia before he was even the proverbial twinkle in his doting parents' eyes, and therefore, if it pleases the court, avers that this charge of arson against him is absurd, that is, that it is both ridiculous and unscientific in the highest degree...

LOL bill :-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 15 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chameleon, you've provided a link to a clip which shows Flannery talking about a "global organism".

No sign of "fleeting fancy", and STILL no sign of any sort of explanation from you as to what "global organism" means and what we should think about it.

You criticised FLannery for something he said which you clearly haven't even begun to try understanding.

Instead, you come here and paste copious reams of sentences which contain no content that I can discern.

You haven't offerred any explanation for why you like Gregory et al, either.
Presumably whichever crank blog you visit said it is good therefore it is good and you don't understand why.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 15 Jan 2013 #permalink

Christ! The US appears to be coming apart at the seams...

A warning to the rest of us!

Maybe this has been put up before, but here's a video specifically for Chebbie and SD.

I'm not kidding guys; this is you.

Remind you of the hideous Thompsons and their "Convoy of No Consequence"?

They too where self-unaware, lawless, antisocial freaks, and didn't Jo Nova love them.

She's found another sociopath whose actions she applauds - not content with clearing 300-odd hectares of bush, he decided to thumb his nose at a court order that forbade him from clearing a further 45 acres. So he is in gaol. So Jo Nova is beside herself. Presumably the...er..."Banking Families"...are somehow to blame.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 16 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chameleon is predictable, if nothing else. Her argument is that we should wait until we go over the cliff and crash on the rocks below to confirm the effects of AGW and other environmental assaults inflicted by humanity.

I think she ought to read this sobering essay recently written by writer Chris Hedges. It won't make any impact on her uni-dimensional perspectives, but it is poignant. And relevant; it sums up the human predicament in a nutshell.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33612.htm

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 Jan 2013 #permalink

"He outlines the pitfalls of causation and small samples with random results."

'sfunny how Spanking Donkeys and Dolt don't seem to have listened to that.

From the Guardian:

In a research paper, due to be presented at a Harvard forum next month, scholar Theda Skocpol in effect accuses the DC-based environmental groups of political malpractice, saying they were blind to extreme Republican opposition to their efforts.

Get that, boys and girls?

If you didn't guess that people would be batshit crazy and work to counter that even harder, then it is YOU who are at fault for THEIR batshittiness!

Brilliant.

Obama's still acting as if they aren't entirely round the bend either. Youdathought he woulda learned by now.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 16 Jan 2013 #permalink

Vince,
You said I was lying about the 'global organism' comment because I couldn't provide evidence.
I was also told I was lying about the cranky people in Western Sydney in the traffic comment.
I haven't found the 'fleeting fancy' comment (can't remember the time frame) but I remember it clearly because I thought it was a clever use of alliteration. I did however find reference to it by Delingpole although he obviously thought his use of language was way better than Tim's.
I don't agree BTW, Tim Flannery is way better at using language devices than Delingpole.
Delingpole over uses hyperbole and I find his style abrasive.
If you don't understand what Flannery means by 'global organism' why ask me?
You keep saying I am a liar.
Why would I even bother?
I suggest you ask Tim Flannery although I thought his meaning was reasonably clear in the video. He doesn't have much of a problem communicating his ideas from what I can see.
Or maybe Lotharsson can 'nuance' it for you?

By chameleon (not verified) on 16 Jan 2013 #permalink

Vince,
You said I was lying about the ‘global organism’ comment because I couldn’t provide evidence.

Nope. Here's Vince:

Please, can you go ahead and share with us your understanding of this concept that Flannery was discussing. What does it mean?

He repeats the request several times (and you STILL haven't answered it). He does not allege that you were lying, or even that it never happened.

And since you're now actively rejecting the request by claiming it comes from "not understanding what Flannery means", you're even misrepresenting what the question asks of you.

I was also told I was lying about the cranky people in Western Sydney in the traffic comment.

Is your memory correct? Feel free to provide the quote.

I did however find reference to it by Delingpole...

False.

It was pointed out that what you claimed to be a "reference to it" was no such thing, and was obviously no such thing because it didn't even use the term "fleeting fancy". I seem to remember it was about that time you took a short leave of absence from commenting here.

You sure do have a lot of false memories. I'd get that looked at if I were you.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 16 Jan 2013 #permalink

Just to refresh your horribly faulty memory, visit page 5 of this thread and use your browser to search for my comment addressing your claim that "Delingpole draws attention to the same snow comment made by Tim Flannery in this article." You'll see that your claim is outrageously ludicrously wrong.

Then, re: Flannery's comment on Western Sydney traffic which you remember being accused of lying about, you initially referenced it on the same page (search for "I also remember him quite recently pointing out that people in Western Sydney were going to get crankier in traffic jams because of AGW.") Between where you referenced it and where you provided a link (search for "because I do remember the time frame of the ‘traffic jams’ comment I was able to find that one for you"), the only comment we find about whether or not the comment was accurate is:

I don’t know whether your associating Flannery with traffic jams and climate change is a similar invention or not...

Nope, not accusing you of lying.

And for giggles revisit my comment about the record temperature in Penrith compared to Darwin and Broome.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 16 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chameleon,

Vince,
You said I was lying about the ‘global organism’ comment because I couldn’t provide evidence.
I was also told I was lying about the cranky people in Western Sydney in the traffic comment.

Could I possibly trouble you to provide a *reference* to evidence those two assertions you've just made?

You might want to take the following multiple choice test:

Are you,

1/ A pathologiocal liar? (Somebody who believes the lies they are telling to be true?)
2/ A Chronic liar? (chronic lying in adults is often a manifestation of antisocial personality disorder, also known as sociopathy).
3/ A congenital liar?
4/ A complete idiot?

(Multiple answers are valid.)

And...eventually...could you explain why we should mock Flannery's "global organism"?
Have you taken the trouble to inform yourself what it is?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 16 Jan 2013 #permalink

Don't get me wrong, Chameleon, I think sociology is a crock at the best of times, and Flannery seemed to me to bed impinging on sociological territory with that stuff, I just want to know why *you* think it's a bad idea.

Obviously, even a smart guy like Flannery isn't always going to be right, and occasionally, people far dumber than him (like me) will have better opinions than he does.

I'm just fascinated by the idea that somebody who is evidently dumber than Tim Flannery's toenails could coherently develop a criticism of a Flannery idea that is sensible.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 17 Jan 2013 #permalink

....and you haven't done it yet, despite me prompting you 7 times now...

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 17 Jan 2013 #permalink

You folks are very funny,
And you obviously have no wish to consider or discuss what I 'think'.
You only want to play 'ritual intellectual humiliation'.
You wanted the link, I found it for you.
He most definitely rambles on about a 'global organism' with an analogy re ants does he not?
He also said that AGW will make people in Western Sydney crankier in traffic jams.
I also remember him saying that snow would be a 'fleeting fancy' by 2012.
I agree that Delingpole is 'over the top' but he most definitely also refers to that lack of snow by 2012 comment of Flannery's.
Flannery said it better than Delingpole BTW.
There are plenty of other things that Flannery has said that sound smart but have since proven to be incorrect.
Too many.
I don't 'think' he is a good choice for a 'queen ant' because he would probably have all the 'worker ants' scurrying off fixing the wrong problems.
And similarly to Lotharsson he would then 'nuance' things in an 'oh so intelligent' manner and explain that was not what he meant.

By chameleon (not verified) on 17 Jan 2013 #permalink

You wanted the link, I found it for you.

No I didn't. I never asked for this link.

You are a deluded individual.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 17 Jan 2013 #permalink

One of you did Vince,
I seem to recall it was you who continued to ask for the proof of TF discussing 'global organism'.
So if it wasn't you specifically then I apologise.
I really can't be bothered finding out who said what about the 'global organism' comment.
The point remains that TF definitely did so.

By chameleon (not verified) on 17 Jan 2013 #permalink

I also remember him saying that snow would be a ‘fleeting fancy’ by 2012.

Except, of course, that this is a confabulation.

Nobody cares if Flannery said 'global organism' except you, of course, who, being a proud, smirking ignoramus of a type only-too-common in this country, knows that such a term is inherently contemptible and automatically somehow wrong.

And more hot-weather will make Sydney drivers crankier. One shudders to imagine the suffocating banality of a mind that thinks such an straightforward observation is problematic merely because of who made it.

You accuse people of demanding things they have not demanded, and of saying things they have not said, on a routine basis. Your comprehension skills are below third-rate, and you are, in the best D-K manner, genuinely too uncomprehending to realise how strikingly bad you really are at it all.

What makes this all the more remarkable is that your embarrassing performance here is all written down above, and yet, like your fellow-travellers Alder and the Appalling Drongo, you will take a self-aggrandising, gibberish version away with you and polish it until you can only see your own beloved reflection in it.

And you obviously have no wish to consider or discuss what I ‘think’.

...says chameleon, after extensive consideration and discussion of her expression of what she thinks.

For example, there has been far too much discussion of your claim that Delingpole:

...most definitely also refers to that lack of snow by 2012 comment of Flannery’s.

There is no "equally valid interpretation" of the article you cited to support that claim. You are deluded on that front. And your apparent complete inability to see what is plainly NOT written in that article suggests that you have either a major comprehension problem, or you made a mistake and you're unwilling to climb down from your hobby horse - neither of which leads to fruitful discussion of science.

I seem to recall it was you who continued to ask for the proof of TF discussing ‘global organism’.

I've already pointed out this is not true. And as Vince has patiently pointed out several times now you were asked to explain why you thought his comments were worthy of mockery.

And you still haven't.

(Me, I reckon there's a good chance that it's because you saw a video that framed his comments as a "bizarre antiscientific rant", but didn't bother arguing why that description was apt. When we dig into what you think, you often don't seem to be able to provide a good reason for why you think it.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chameleon, try to concentrate:

Nobody asked you for a link to the "Global Organism" quote.

This is what really happened:

You came up with a "fleeting fancy" alleged-quote.
You were asked to provide a reference.
You failed to provide such a reference.

You then changed the subject to a "global organism" quote
You were asked to explain what "global organism" means and why it is wrong
You failed to provide any such explanation.

If anything I have just written is wrong, go back through the thread and find the evidence of it being wrong.

Re-read this thread - and concentrate - and it may just dawn on you that you have very poor comprehension skills, and you are frequently prone to substituting your personal inventions in place of facts.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 17 Jan 2013 #permalink

There is no “equally valid interpretation” of the article you cited to support that claim. You are deluded on that front.

Absolutely. Yet Chebbie will always recall that her ludicrous misinterpretation is correct...

When we dig into what you think, you often don’t seem to be able to provide a good reason for why you think it

In fact, evidence of any thinking whatsoever is rather sparse.

This is what I've been trying to get at - I'm no fan of sociology (to put it mildly), so I'm very prepared to entertain mockery and criticism of Flannery's "global organism", which, to me, smacks of sociology. So I was looking forward to Chameleon telling us why she thinks it's crap.
She can't.
She simply cannot provide a coherent thought on the subject.

I see hints of-
- Attention Deficit Disorder
- Borderline intellectual functioning
- Delusion
- Narcissism

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 17 Jan 2013 #permalink

Since chameleon mocked Flannery for talking about a "global organism", let's go to the rough transcript of the first 2 out of the 3 segments in the interview. If you want the video with the hokey edits at the front, somewhat conspiratorial framing and without the most definitely conspiracy theorising comments on the version chameleon provided, try the original video at The Guardian instead.

It's a bit rough, so some of the linking words may not be correct. I've also left out a couple of digressions where he backtracks on his first phrase and goes down a different expressive route. These are generally marked as "[...]". If there's anything that critically depends on the exact wording, the video is the gold standard.

There is a profound paradox, really, in our understanding of evolutionary thought, because we know that the mechanism that created the Earth as we know it and all life is evolution by natural selection which is a competitive process. It's a process whereby variation in a community, then the differential death and survival of those members brings about evolutionary change. So it's sort of a ruthless process, but paradoxically it doesn't lead to a dog-eat-dog world or a survival of the fittest world. What it has led to is an immensely cooperative world where things have co-evolved. We live in a society, for heaven's sake you know! Our bodies are miracles of cooperation and co-evolution. 10% of me isn't even me in that sense! It's bacteria and fungi and so forth that live on my skin and in my gut [that] I just couldn't survive without. So co-evolution is tremendously important, and when we understand that I think we develop a better basis for a moral philosophy, really, of life, and a philosophy that gives us hope of a sustainable future.

[cut]

If we look at how life has been shaped by evolution and what it does I think it's axiomatically true that information systems order matter, if you want, and DNA is an information system that has ordered the entire Earth. And [...] information systems tend to order things in the same way, so the sort of order that represents my body is also represented in a weaker form in ant societies, in ant colonies. And where you have individuals that cooperate to make this whole that is rather reminiscent in its function of a body, you have a super-organism. It's really a group of individuals that are knit so tightly together that they as a whole represent, or resemble in some ways, an organism. Ants do this and the glue that holds ant colonies together is simply genetic relatedness. But the most astonishing thing, really, about us is that we have formed a super-organism as well. And so for us the glue is the division of labour as well as this civilisation of ideas, common beliefs that people share. We started off 10,000 years ago as little villages, the first settlements in this growth of the super-organism. Today we're on the edge of creating a global super-organism. And that will mean there will be no outside, there is no "other", we will form a global community with a common set of beliefs, shared beliefs, that are now spreading as we see around the Internet. We can see this in the [...] revolutions in North Africa leading, we hope, to democracy in those regions. And it's tremendously important, this development, for the future of life on Earth, because for the first time, I think, this global super-organism, this global intelligence will be able to send a single strong clear signal to the Earth. What that means in a sense is that we [...] will be a regulating intelligence for the planet in the future, and I'm sure we will do what our brain does for our body which is help create stability, coordination between the parts, and lead to a stronger Gaia, if you want, a stronger Earth system.

[cut]

After that he goes on to point out this concept doesn't mean a single global government because we have plenty of examples of super-organisms that operate without one; he holds up democracy as something to be desired, and IIRC talks about the decline in generalist competence in highly interdependent systems composed of specialists, such as ant colonies and other super-organisms.

It's not a bizarre rant as chameleon's video would have you believe. It IS talking at a reasonably high level about concepts we see in biology where many specialised individuals form a composite "organism", and how they may equally apply to a global society composed of humans - and many of the commenters on her video read all sorts of bizarre interpretations into it, perhaps aided by the kind of miscomprehension chameleon has so delightfully and extensive demonstrated at Deltoid.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Jan 2013 #permalink

BTW, mocking someone for discussing "global organism" when they didn't use the term tends to make the mocker look mockworthy.

"Global super-organism" is a very different concept to "global organism". The distinction matters.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Jan 2013 #permalink

Remember that thing about people in Darwin and Broome scoffing at the idea of heat being a problem for people in Western Sydney traffic?

Right now the Lapstone weather station next door to Penrith is reporting 46.9 Celsius on Weather Underground. (Broome's record is 44C.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Jan 2013 #permalink

And if you're on the NSW Central Coast, the Peninsula (Woy Woy) station is reporting 48.4 C.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Jan 2013 #permalink

Quaker's Hill is generally considered Western Sydney if I'm not mistaken. Currently reporting 48.4 C according to Weather Underground.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Jan 2013 #permalink

My only real issue with what Flannery says in loth's quotes above is that this -

What that means in a sense is that we [...] will be a regulating intelligence for the planet in the future, and I’m sure we will do what our brain does for our body which is help create stability, coordination between the parts, and lead to a stronger Gaia, if you want, a stronger Earth system.

- may well prove to be too optimistic, precisely because the world is, sadly, full of Chebbies who automatically sneer at and denigrate what they don't understand - and this includes the natural world most of all.

Yep, I think that part is far too optimistic for those reasons - and because we still don't know anywhere near enough about how the ecosystem works to try and regulate it without triggering significant unintended consequences.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 18 Jan 2013 #permalink

Karen, don't just burst in on the grownups when you have no idea what they're talking about.

It seems as though only the bodies grew.

A huge amount of piffle up thread, lol

we still don’t know anywhere near enough about how the ecosystem works to try and regulate it without triggering significant unintended consequences.

Undoubtedly. But we need to learn fast, because, however appalling the prospect, we are now, functionally, the (small) gods of the planet. Of the old-fashioned spiteful and selfish and short-sighted variety.

The human realm having so overwhelmed the natural that virtually nowhere was remote enough not to be critically affected by - its survival thereby dependent on - our actions was essentially the point of McKibben's The End of Nature all those years ago. And it's even more obvious now.

But the problem is... [see my comment re Flannery above]

A bit of history, ignored by dumbtiods, naturally, lol

Narrative of an expedition into Central Australia, by Charles Sturt

"It appears to me that the tubes of these delicate instruments are not secured with sufficient care in the case, that the corks placed to steady them are at too great intervals, and that the elasticity of the tube is consequently too great for the weight of mercury it contains. The thermometers sent from England, graduated to 127 degrees only, were too low for the temperature into which I went, and consequently useless at times, when the temperature in the shade exceeded that number of degrees. One of them was found broken in its case, the other burst when set to try the temperature, by the over expansion of mercury in the bulb."

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/sturt/charles/s93n/chapter2.html

New York,

"The heated term was the worst and most fatal we have ever known. The death-rate trebled until it approached the ratio of a cholera epidemic; the horses died by the hundreds, so that it was impossible to remove their carcasses, and they added a genuine flavor of pestilence, and we had to distribute hundred of tons of ice from the station-houses to the people of the poorer precincts." Roosevelt, then 37 and president of New York's Board of Police Commissioners, was describing one of the most historic weeks in the city's history.

The "heated term" was an unprecedented heat wave that hit New York over ten days in August 1896. Temperatures in the 90s were accompanied by high humidity. For the duration, even at night thermometers never dropped below 70 degrees, and over the course of a week and a half the heat wave wore New Yorkers down. The eventual death-toll numbered nearly 1300 victims.

Yet the 1896 New York heat wave remains one of the most forgotten natural disasters in American history."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129127924

Hmmmmmmmm.....................................

How much sea ice was there in the Arctic in 1896 ?

Doing a spot of whistling in the dark there, soldier?

I thought, petal, that in 1896 we were still supposedly in the earlyish stages of rebounding from the little-ice age? Natural cycles and all that? Do try to keep your narratives straight! This is all rather like you not realizing what year it was only a few weeks ago...

Bawl all you like: Australia just had its most prolonged and highest-temperature heat-wave. 2012 was the warmest year in recorded US history. Estimates of how long there's been a perennial ice-pack in the Arctic 'range from 700,000 to 4 million years'. And yet the record Arctic sea-ice extent in 2012 was so small that it's likely that there will be no summer sea-ice cover some time before 2030 - perhaps sooner!

And, whaddyaknow? - it's still way down! -

Arctic sea ice extent for December 2012 remained far below average, driven by anomalously low ice conditions in the Kara, Barents, and Labrador seas. Thus far, the winter has been dominated by the negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation, bringing colder than average conditions to Scandinavia, Siberia, Alaska, and Canada.

Gee, so the cold snaps in the NH aren't an impending ice age, then?

Thanks for another own-goal, Karolaus. ;-)

(You're on our side, really, aren't you?)

But wait, wait, bill - I thought Spangled Drongo said the low summer ice volume wasn't anything to worry about because it was all refreezing?

(And don't give Karen's real game away!)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 18 Jan 2013 #permalink

Very impressive silly billy, I ponder sea ice extent in 1896 and you offer up a comparison to the average of sea ice extent for between 1979 and 2000, lol

Maybe there was no sea ice before 1979, hehe

Look here and see how thin the sea ice was in 1958 and 1959 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Skate_%28SSN-578%29

Nice work, Karen - a link to a wikipedia article that provides no data for sea ice extent.

What are you? Nuts?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 18 Jan 2013 #permalink

BirdBrainBill spat : "Bawl all you like: Australia just had its most prolonged and highest-temperature heat-wave. 2012 was the warmest year in recorded US history"

hehehe, billyboy, you wanna stop being so gullible , you need to have a look at Australian history my dear chap, here is a small collection rolled into one, it should have been called "Australian Temperatures for DUMMIES"

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailyte…

Then when you get through that polish your steamed up bi-focal's and hit this link http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records now see if you can handle this sweety, there is a drop down box with a name called "Element", do you see it honey ? There you go, drop it down and select "Maximum Temperature", :)

What are you? Nuts?

Now, that's a rhetorical question.

twirlybird does thin ice in the 1950's upset you ?

Did you really think it was never thin sometimes before satellites ?

Karen says: "If you go to the link below and plot the mean maximum temperature, going all the way back to 1858, you will find that there has been NO gwowbull warming in Sydney".

So I followed Karen's advice and went to the BOM site and found that when you compare the last 30 years (1981 to 2010) to the first 30 years (1861 to 1890) years, you find that temps for the last 30 years are 1.5C above the average for 1861-90.

Conclusion 1: Sydney has warmed, on average, by 1.5 degrees in 120 years (midpoint ot midpoint of the two datasets).

Conclusion 2: Karen is a prat. Now that has been demostrated on many threads previously, but its always worth pointing out again. I'm actually surprised Karen is posting here. I thought she was off doing an unprecendented mid-winter cruise circumnavigating Svalbard:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.0…

Readers may care to refer to the March and April 2012 threads to find out how much Karen knows about sea ice conditions (and logic)...

So it's cold in Heathrow.

So what?

Well, Wow, cold in Heathrow proves that the total heat content of the Earth is not increasing over many years.

But hot in Australia doesn't prove the opposite because we wouldn't be silly enough to believe two obviously mutually incompatible things at the same time, now, would we? Instead we can point to temperature records and argue to ourselves that probably at least once before it's been as hot in one part of Australia as it was today in some other part.

But please don't point out that it's been colder before in Heathrow. Because that's not proof that the world is warming.

Why, you ask?

It's just not.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 18 Jan 2013 #permalink

No, I want to hear KarenMackSpot say what THEY think.

Otherwise they can continue to go "Nobody is saying it's cooling!" because they refuse to say but only intimate.

Not that it's a pleasant thought to have a mantroll like KMS getting intimate.

"According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

The Independent, March 2000

Heh, heh, heh! Don'cha just love the Panto season? The guy playing 'Dame Doom' is a hoot! Anyway, must go and clear the snow off my path.

By David Duff (not verified) on 18 Jan 2013 #permalink

its panto season all year round with the denial crowd. "its behind you, science has evidence". "no its not, lalalala im not listening". repeat 40 times with ever increasing evidence. audience laugh at funny man - they all love monkton.

meanwhile, in the real world....

Aaaawwww.

Dai Duffski also wants to play "I'm an idiot, let me in here!".

Gee, David, never heard that one before. And that was in the TAR, was it?

Idiot. Next.

And, Karolaus, we dealt with your latest idiocy upthread. Record (and still current lows) in Arctic Sea Ice, dramatically meandering Jetstream due to the above, switch in Arctic oscillation, and, um, an atmosphere with at least 5% more water vapour which, when it's cold enough, falls as...?

I appreciate that due to your disability - being awake - you're incapable of learning, but since you're apparently only here to provide us with these opportunities to point out that imbecile opinions are, well, imbecilic, one does what one can...

Oh, and how's that sciencey 'audit' thing going in peer review? No?

If only the energy you lot put in to deluding yourselves could be harnessed to run all your (heavily-overused, no doubt) airconditioners...

Bill,
That INCORRECT prediction of Viner's is only 12 years old, yet you're all tying yourselves up in knots over a 20 year old prediction (not even from a proper scientist) at the Ridley post.
Have you any concept how totally incongruous that is?

By chameleon (not verified) on 18 Jan 2013 #permalink

Bill:

Now, that‘s a rhetorical question.

Dix points!

What else did Viner say,

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

- Did he predict heavy snow would return? Check!
- Did he predict it would cause chaos? Check!

Looks like he's doing better than Ridley!

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 18 Jan 2013 #permalink

Judging by the available data, it looks very much like Viner's statement was well-founded:
http://dusk2.geo.orst.edu/prosem/PDFs/preeti_seasonal_snow.pdf
P.313, Figure5., "Northern Hemisphere Winter" [Snow cover]

So, was he wrong, Duff/Chameleon, etc?
A front page picture in the Daily Mail together with a cut/paste from a nutter crank blogsite isn't data.
Find the data for the last 12 years and show us whether the trend Viner correctly pointed to has been reversed.

Come on, do something competently for a change.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 18 Jan 2013 #permalink

Vince!
Bingo!
It was definitely a rhetorical question.
Well done Vince!
Mind you it wasn't as well crafted or theatrical as Lotharsson's.
He's much better at using them than I am.
He makes them longer and imbeds the answer in a much more ritually intellectual manner :-)
Maybe that's why you didn't pick it up then.
Too intellectual perhaps?

By chameleon (not verified) on 18 Jan 2013 #permalink

BTW Vince,
Ridley was taken out of context too was he not?
Check!
Maybe you're picking on the wrong people?
I think we all could agree that the media is guilty of misrepresentation, including those insufferable snobs at the ABC.

By chameleon (not verified) on 18 Jan 2013 #permalink

Chameleon, if you promise to try to concentrate I will promise to type this very slowly...

Asking Karen, "Are you nuts?" is a rhetorical question, as identified by Bill.

This has nothing to do with your mis-use of the word rhetorical to describe what Lotharsson intended as a straight question, and which Latimer intimated was a loaded question.

Are you clear on the difference between the three?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 18 Jan 2013 #permalink

(Yes, Bill, I know...)

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 18 Jan 2013 #permalink

So it’s 23 C in Sydney

I knew Karen was slow, but this takes the cake.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 18 Jan 2013 #permalink

"Extreme weather to put strain on disaster services"

Well, if that infantile statement of "the bleedin' obvious" is an indication of the content then, thanks all the same, Bill, but I'll give it a miss.

By David Duff (not verified) on 19 Jan 2013 #permalink

But Duff, I though global warming was going to be good for the planet?
Have you changed your mind?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 19 Jan 2013 #permalink

You're a coward, old man. What do you think the 'extreme weather' being referred to is? I'll give you a hint - it ain't an impending Ice Age...

I'm starting to see what Lotharsson was on about with his "ritual intellectual humiliation".

Why on earth do they keep coming back to display ever more stupid?

I get the feeling they aren't feeling very humiliated due to neither understanding what they are told nor realising that they are stupid.

Which makes it more of a "ritual miscommunication" than anything else.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 19 Jan 2013 #permalink

Ritual miscommunication!
Bingo again Vince!
Except I think you will need some help from Lotharsson to 'nuance' that comment.
Communication is a two way street Vince.
Good communication requires people to listen to what is being said, not listen for the next spot to jump in and criticise and postulate what is therfore wrong with that person's psyche.
When you climb all over people of differing perspectives and/or people who ask questions that is better known as poor communication or in some instances as bullying.

By chameleon (not verified) on 19 Jan 2013 #permalink

Jo Nova's latest lunatic rant is about the shutting-down of the libellous "Science Fraud" website.

"This is about scientists behaving badly" she carps.

Naturally she fails to give any more of the story than is required to set her conspiracy-loons off on another round of baying at the moon.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 19 Jan 2013 #permalink

OK Chameleon - are you listening?

Please explain what it is about Flannery's "global organism" and why we should mock it.

Please acknowledge that you will go away and learn the meanings of the words, "epigram", "rhetorical" before trying to use them again.

Please acknowledge that you were wrong when you claimed somebody had asked you for a link to the "global organism".

Please acknowledge that you were wrong when you claimed somebody asserted your "Flannery/cranky drivers in Western Sydney" was made-up.

Please, no more of your rambling nonsense - instead, learn to communicate. Read what people write.

Additionally, can you please explain the meaning of the word, "bingo", both in general usage as well as in the context of your last few posts?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 19 Jan 2013 #permalink

Yes, that's a lovely bunch of cherries you have there, Duffer, did you get them from a crank-blog-site somewhere?

How was Piers Corbyn's strike rate? Still only getting "correct" predictions when he goes back to his website and retrospectively "corrects" what he had previously written?
You'd be onto behaviour like that, surely?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 19 Jan 2013 #permalink

In order to attempt to counter the intellectual equivalent of an 'algal bloom' around here, I'll also put this up. Lakes around the world are clearly in the grip of climate change.

A couple of days ago Jeff drew a comparison between creationists and climate change denialists who both think that by finding a few holes in the science they can bring down the entire structure. Thinking about it, essentially no Creationists can give a brief summary of the Theory of Evolution. I suspect the same applies to people who can't accept the reality of climate change,

Chameleon: In the late 60s, when I was an undergraduate student, our crop physiology lecturer told us that global temperatures were likely to increase as a result of human production of CO2. He gave the reasons and we all agreed it seemed plausible. What do you think was the explanation and evidence that he gave us?

My prediction: no serious attempt will be made to provide an answer. Karen et al. may like to help out - but are probably unable to do so.

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 20 Jan 2013 #permalink

I get the feeling they aren’t feeling very humiliated due to neither understanding what they are told nor realising that they are stupid.

Yep.

The use of "ritual intellectual humiliation" was intended to satirise the deep commitment to ongoing and routine stupidity by proposing that for some it was deliberately and even ritually posted in order to receive intellectual humiliation in response.

No doubt there are some commenters around the Intertoobz who are motivated thus (e.g. for some people humiliation is better than being totally ignored), but I suspect the majority of the posters of Teh Stupid genuinely think their claims are intellectually sound - or don't have much of a concept of intellectual soundness and think their opinion is as good as any other.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 Jan 2013 #permalink

Good communication requires people to listen to what is being said, ...

I can't believe you actually wrote that with a straight face.

Remind me about your claim that the Delingpole article you linked to quoted Flannery using the term "fleeting fancy" with respect to snow. I was certainly open to the claim before I read the article, but then I discovered there were just a couple of teensy weensy little problems:

1) The article does not contain the word "fleeting".
2) The article does not contain the word "fancy".

And then there are your documented myriad misinterpretations of other people's comments, and your flat out lie about what Richard Simons said.

Should you, perhaps, direct a lot more effort taking your own advice instead of handing it out?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 Jan 2013 #permalink

I can’t believe you actually wrote that with a straight face.

I'm starting to get the feeling that she dictates it through the observation window of her padded cell.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 20 Jan 2013 #permalink

Well, it's nice to get out every now and then, even if it is virtually...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 Jan 2013 #permalink

There is a BEST paper out: A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011 Richard A. Muller, Robert Rohde, Robert Jacobsen, Elizabeth Muller, Saul Perlmutter, Arthur Rosenfeld, Jonathan Wurtele, Donald Groom and Charlotte Wickham .

The results are not at all startling, it’s warming. The Stoat has some comments here: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/01/20/best-is-published/

So Curry's dropped out of the BEST team, now the results aren't going her way?

Chek,

I skimmed thru the paper, Curry was acknowedged for her help, along With Zeke Hausfather and Mosher. I don't know what that means, maybe she's still uncertain.

So 'Gore the Bore' is halfway along to losing his bet. Well, not that he actually put his money on a bet that his forecast of global temperatures would be more accurate than Prof. Armstrong's (of Pennsylvania Uni.) Armstrong reckoned there would be no, repeat, no, long term trend in global temps because having examined all the evidence supplied in various forecasts came to the conclusion they were only fit to be ripped up and hung in the 'kazi'! He left Gore to choose any of the several forecasts available five years ago which claimed various alarming increases but still Gore declined. He's quite canny with his own money, is our Al, unlike the way he is with OPM (Other People's Money) when shovelled his way by Obama in support of various crank Green schemes, so he still refused to take the wager. Perhaps he had had a chat with Paul Ehrlich, another daftie given to mad forecasts which never come true and which cost him money when he bet on them.

Anyway, Armstrong proceeded on the basis of comparing his forecast with that of the loonies who produce the IPCC forecast. Five years in and Armstrong is spot on and the IPCC are in la-la land.

Why am I not surprised?

By David Duff (not verified) on 20 Jan 2013 #permalink

"Why am I not surprised?"

Because you're a credulous fool who'll believe any crank blogpost?

"So ‘Gore the Bore’ is halfway along to losing his bet."

So he hasn't 'lost' it then.

I take it Duff hasn't taken up any of the wagers offered by Bernard J on what appear to be quite generous terms?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 Jan 2013 #permalink

Is this the same Professor Armstrong who wrote a paper on polar bears which was found to be in its entirety either wrong or misleading?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 20 Jan 2013 #permalink

BEST has published:

… solar forcing does not appear to contribute to the observed global warming of the past 250 years; the entire change can be modeled by a sum of volcanism and a single anthropogenic [human-made] proxy.

but...but...but..."The Mediaeval Warm Period".

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 20 Jan 2013 #permalink

But we have neanderthals drop by all the time!...

There will be a law against using the word "Neanderthal" in that context, if this guy's project goes ahead.

"But despite the potential birthing difficulties, Professor Church said Neanderthal children could be very intelligent and may become a craze.
"Let's say someone has a healthy, normal Neanderthal baby," he told Bloomberg Businessweek last year.
"Well, then, everyone will want to have a Neanderthal kid.
"Were they superstrong or supersmart? Who knows.
"But there's one way to find out.""

Pretty amazing.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 20 Jan 2013 #permalink

Ah, well, there's neanderthals, and then there's popular culture neanderthals, of which this is my favourite.

I have to say that this dialogue even sounds like something from a Tom Tomorrow cartoon -

“Well, then, everyone will want to have a Neanderthal kid.
“Were they superstrong or supersmart? Who knows.
“But there’s one way to find out.”"

Be a bummer if they turn out to have been super-smelly.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 20 Jan 2013 #permalink

Poop.

Buggered up the quote tag.

A pox on NG's lack of preview.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 21 Jan 2013 #permalink

Vince asks:
"Is this the same Professor Armstrong who wrote a paper on polar bears which was found to be in its entirety either wrong or misleading?"

I don't know, Vince because you failed to ad a reference but it is the same Prof. Armstrong who wrote this to Sen. Boxer in 2008:
"We found the forecasts of declining polar bear numbers contained in the government’s administrative reports were not the product of scientific forecasting methods. Given the large current population of bears and the upward trend in the population, our findings lead to the conclusion that there is no scientific basis for listing polar bears. Indeed, a reliance on evidence-based forecasting suggests that it is more likely that the polar bear population will increase rather than decrease."

And in 2012 Paul Waldie in The Globe and Mail reported:
“The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt. The Hudson Bay region, which straddles Nunavut and Manitoba, is critical because it’s considered a bellwether for how polar bears are doing elsewhere in the Arctic.”

We found the forecasts of declining polar bear numbers contained in the government’s administrative reports were not the product of scientific forecasting methods. Given the large current population of bears and the upward trend in the population, our findings lead to the conclusion that there is no scientific basis for listing polar bears. Indeed, a reliance on evidence-based forecasting suggests that it is more likely that the polar bear population will increase rather than decrease."

THAT Prof. Armstrong, Vince, now who did you have in what passes for your mind?

By David Duff (not verified) on 21 Jan 2013 #permalink

Duff means this guy, who is not a biologist and who couldn't probably tell a mole cricket from a giraffe:

http://www.desmogblog.com/scott-armstrong

This guy has a pretty wretched resume of hanging out with the wrong people. Willie Soon? Gimme a break.

Again, as I have said many times, its not the population of a species at a given point that matters but the age-structure of the population. Bears live a long time and there may be lags in the demographics of the age strcuture if challenged by some extrinsic or intrinsic environmental threat. Since the deniers and their anti-environmental buddies generally dont'know jack-s*** about ontogeny in a broader ecological framework.

Evidence suggests that bear populations are dominated by mature and older individuals. There has been less recruitment lately, and this suggests that conditions are becoming more and more sub-optimal for these habitat specialists. More importantly, a slight loss of ice might actually benefit the bears to a certain point. But beyond that point non-linear factors will kick in and the popualtion will plummet. If the trend in loss of ice continues in the Arctic, and summers become ice free in time, then no matter what the deniers say, the bears will be history. Toast. Finito. They will not persist if their ice habitat disappears seasonally.

Can you get that through your head Duff? Read and re-read if it helps you. I don't taske pretty well anything you say seriously since reading some the comedy material on your blog. Calling Obama a 'Marxist-Leninist' had to be about the kookiest of many kooky things you write. But I respond to your nonsense on ecology simply because some other gullible blogger might swallow your piffle.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 21 Jan 2013 #permalink

@ Duff

Scott Armstrong - a professor of marketing. You guys really have to dig deep to find your 'experts'. The most reliable estimates of polar bear numbers come from tagging/capture and re-capture studies. Most estimates of polar bear numbers are based on that method. Aerial surveys are an inferior means of estimating polar bear numbers. Comparing the results of an aerial survey with earlier capture/re-capture studies is probaly flawed. But hey, if it gives you the results you want to hear that is all OK by you isn't it?

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 21 Jan 2013 #permalink

Further to my previous post, here is a scientist's response to Duff's recycled denier bollox:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/04/09/scientist-responds-to-misleadin…

Amstrup said media outlets claiming the aerial survey shows an increasing population are mistaking a single point estimate for a trend. "The population size is just a number. It is a valuable number to have, but from the standpoint of population welfare, it is the trend in numbers that is critical," he wrote in an email. Because previous estimates used a different methodology, and covered a different geographic area, they cannot be easily compared to the latest figures, contrary to the media narrative. When the aerial survey is repeated in later years, it will then be able to tell us more about how the population size is changing. In the meantime, the Canadian government is expected to release its latest capture-recapture data next month.

So, in addition to a different methodology the aerial survey even covered a different geographgical area. Yet Duff thinks the results are comparable with earlier studies.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 21 Jan 2013 #permalink

One last thing to highlight from my link as it supports the point Jeff makes:

This new aerial survey does, however, include a piece of information relevant to trend. Of the 701 polar bears actually counted during the survey, only 22 (or about 3%) were yearlings. This is a very low percentage of yearlings (in Alaska during the good ice years of the 1980s, about 15% of the animals observed were yearlings). If that 3% figure is even close to the number of surviving yearlings that are out there now, it is not at all clear to me how the Hudson Bay population could be sustaining itself.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 21 Jan 2013 #permalink

One can easily believe that Duff comes here seeking to receive "ritual intellectual humiliation", but it may just be he is both logically incompetent, scientifically unskilled - and more gullible than the average goldfish.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 21 Jan 2013 #permalink

Jeff, "calm down , dear", there is nearly 4m square miles of ice in the arctic, bigger than the continental USA! And anyway, my personal poll of the seal population, and they're far more 'cuddly-wuddly' than those great, vicious, white-haired killers, finds that they are 99.999% in favour of polar bears dying out! See, there's always another side to the every argument!

By David Duff (not verified) on 21 Jan 2013 #permalink

But perhaps there is a solution ot the polar bear 'problem' - exile them to Russia!

"In the end of 2012, Russia saw extreme winter not witnessed since 1938. The coldest-ever December in Russia led to the evacuation of hundreds of people in Siberia, where temperatures fell below -50 degrees Celsius; Moscow also saw its coldest night ever for the season.

More than 90 Russians died during the cold snap, and more than 600 people were taken to hospital due to the extremely dangerous weather, which is 10 degrees below the December norm."

Blimey, this global warming is getting serious!

By David Duff (not verified) on 21 Jan 2013 #permalink

Yep, goldfish trolling.

And yes, that term is an insult to goldfish who have demonstrated an ability to learn some simple tasks. Sorry, goldfish.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 21 Jan 2013 #permalink

Winter.

Still an eternal amazement to the thicker deniers.

I think it will be impossible to find any reason for the denidiots posting as they do.

That would require reason on their behalf.

Best let them lie.

No, Wow, not just "winter" but "the worst since 1938"!

And that's despite the zillions of CO2 particles released into the atmosphere and which will lead - absolutely, definitely, no doubt about it, all our models concur and our papers are 'peer-reviewed' - to severe global warming.

Go tell it to the Russians!

By David Duff (not verified) on 21 Jan 2013 #permalink

“the worst since 1938″!

So it was colder before.

Ergo warming.

I believe the reason for mike, latte, joan, tampax and all the other stuck-up-cunts here is to ensure that there's so much shit in the water that people are turned off.

You'll note that they assiduously avoid slagging Tim off directly.

They know if they did THAT, they'd get kicked off.

However, slagging off everyone else, well, Tim doesn't really care about that, and the turdbuckets are safe pouring their toxic effluent on this blog.

Now then, Wow, you know what your mummy told
you about your temper!

And, as a matter of *fact* rather than *fancy*, I have not 'slagged off' anyone here, certainly nothing along the lines of:

"mike, latte, joan, tampax and all the other stuck-up-cunts"

Now where have I read that before . . . ?

By David Duff (not verified) on 21 Jan 2013 #permalink

Aaaw. The idiot still thinks they can think.

"Now where have I read that before . . . ?"

Wherever mike, latte, joan, tampax and all the other stuck up cunts are recognised for being the stuck up cunts they are.

And that’s despite the zillions of CO2 particles released into the atmosphere and which will lead – absolutely, definitely, no doubt about it, all our models concur and our papers are ‘peer-reviewed’ – to severe global warming."

Note to Duffer - it's global warming, not uniform warming. And with a planetary orbit ensuring ~ 6 months at each of the poles pointing at nothing but deep space and seeing no sunrise, there will always be cold air.

However, as the arctic warms and the temperature gradient decreases, the polar jet stream which normally confines that cold air within the polar regions is getting sloppy and allowing gushes of cold polar air to extend southwards - it's termed 'latitudinal shift'.

This video explains the basics quite clearly.

And just think - you won't be fooled any longer by Wattamoron et al's annual output of drivel regarding cold snaps. Unless of course you want to be.

'S funny that, chek, but in the past 30 years of dire warnings and alarums sounding off, hardly anyone mentioned all those naughty little caveats about "orbits" and "poles" and "jet streams", instead, it was all CO2 - the mass killer of our planet. No ifs, no buts, no maybes, but absolutely and definitely, on me mover's eyes, CO2 would lead to huge increases in global temperatures. So where is it?

Altogether now, "Why are we waiting . . .?

Oh, and by the way, just a friendly tip, but if the arctic is warming (slightly), the antarctic is freezing - but, heh!, that's climate for you, you can never rely on it, can you? Well, I mean, you should know, given that all your predictions were wrong!

By David Duff (not verified) on 21 Jan 2013 #permalink

The problem (for you) Duffer, is that you get selective information from crank blogs and the pop press - and then have the gall to announce you've been misinformed. The responsibility to be informed lies solely with you.

Your last paragraph illustrates my point well.

No, he SEEKS selective information from cranks. Then parades it around. Then denies he's saying anything with it.

Then blames everyone here for not understanding him.

"hardly anyone mentioned all those naughty little caveats about “orbits” and “poles” and “jet streams"

The IPCC did.

But Watts didn't.

Because WTFUWT is an alarmist site.

Duff:

zillions of CO2 particles released into the atmosphere

What are these "particles" of which you speak?

hardly anyone mentioned all those naughty little caveats about “orbits” and “poles” and “jet streams”,

That's called "argument from ignorance", Duffer, a logical fallacy employed by the stupid and the dishonest. The fact you don't know something isn't a reflection on the quality of the knowledge you don't have.

As others have point out, though, it is a reflection on the quality of the knowledge provided to you by bullshit-artist TV weatherman Anthony Watts and his crank blog WUWT.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 21 Jan 2013 #permalink

Snow? In Winter? What a topsy-turvy world we live in.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 21 Jan 2013 #permalink

his new aerial survey does, however, include a piece of information relevant to trend. Of the 701 polar bears actually counted during the survey, only 22 (or about 3%) were yearlings. This is a very low percentage of yearlings (in Alaska during the good ice years of the 1980s, about 15% of the animals observed were yearlings). If that 3% figure is even close to the number of surviving yearlings that are out there now, it is not at all clear to me how the Hudson Bay population could be sustaining itself.

These are numbers to send a chill through any population biologist.

By way of comparison, it it were to happen in a human population economists and politicians would be screaming hysterically and pulling out their hair at the sheer cataclysmic import of it all. In fact it would probably warrant a knee-jerk campaign that would make the wars on terriblism and on durgs appear to be mere mosquito swats.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 21 Jan 2013 #permalink

waving his little arms around barnturd said,

"it it were to happen in a human population economists and politicians would be screaming hysterically and pulling out their hair at the sheer cataclysmic import of it all."

hmmmmmmm.......

"A number of nations today, stretching from North Asia (Japan) through Eastern Europe, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Armenia, and into Central and Western Europe, including Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Germany, Hungary, and now Italy now face long term population decline."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline#Decline_by_nation_or_te…

“The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”

WHAT THE ?!!!

Who is this ignorant fool with his 'Denialist' talk about so-called "natural viability" and "climate forcing" slowing down and telling us that "global temperature has been flat for a decade"? Another ignoramus with none of the superlative qualifications of Bernard, Wow, Chek, Vince and Jeff et al.

Oh!

Good Lord!

I don't believe it!

It's James Hansen!

SPLITTER!

By David Duff (not verified) on 22 Jan 2013 #permalink

For God's sake, Karen, show some pity! If any of the high-minded Seekers of Truth, whose elegant prose graces these distinguished columns, were to catch a glimpse of that film - well, I wouldn't like to answer for the consequences. I mean, exploding nitwits are very, very messy!

By David Duff (not verified) on 22 Jan 2013 #permalink

Gosh, dumb and dumber are back!

The hard part is telling one from the other... :-)

"Some nice pics of the “extreme weather” event in Russia."

So if it were not a warmer world, it would have been how cold in Russia?

"That’s called “argument from ignorance”, Duffer, a logical fallacy "

But the deniers are so stupid, they think that their ignorance is overwhelming.

It is.

Just not in the way they think it is.

:-)

Hansen's conclusions come from mainstream climate science. Duff proffers them as a deviation from it.

There's none so foolish as one who is convinced he's savvy enough to see the smart people working their little conspiracies...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 22 Jan 2013 #permalink

"So, forecasters are facing a huge challenge." http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/20998895

hehehe, it doesn't matter what they say, the cultist cranks in here will BELIEVE !

The story not long ago was that there was to be cooling in the stratosphere, GULP.........its warming !!!! oh no.... the valuable glowbull worming is escaping !!!

and still no hot spot over the equator, sheeezzzz........

Never mind, move the goal posts, change the story, the suckers will believe it :)

hehehe, I still can't get snow out my waffle iron

The only challenge they face is the idiots who go "I just had to defrost my car! Global Warming doesn't exist!!!".

You know, idiots like yourself, KMS.

"The story not long ago was that there was to be cooling in the stratosphere, GULP………its warming !!!"

Your point being what, exactly?

That cooling must ALWAYS be a drop in temperature? That you're a fool?

Combine:

"thegwpf.org"

with the headline:

"hansen-admits-global-temperature-standstill-real"

And you know what you're going to get. A load of congratulatory backslapping over a mined quote that says something that *could*, by the terminally dim, be considered *possibly* in their favour.

Note how they hate Hansen and call him alarmist.

Until they think they can use him.

When I read that report, I saw we had just had the hottest La Nina ever recorded.

Only a disinformation site would be dishonest enough to call that anything but, "still warming".

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 22 Jan 2013 #permalink

As Dr. Rabet would say RTFP, most importantly the concusions:

–”We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance.”

–”[O]ur interpretation of the larger role of unforced variability in temperature change of the past decade…suggests that global temperature will rise significantly in the next few years as the tropics moves inevitably into the next El Nino phase.”

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012

The GWPF are shameless. Cherry-pick the bits of Hansen's paper that suit their purposes and re-write the bits that don't.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 22 Jan 2013 #permalink

Well, it's been confirmed.

Joanas has admitted said of himself "I don't think".

End of discussion.

Here's what Michael Mann had to say yesterday:

My view is that far more damage is likely done to the discourse on climate change by pretending that those who deny the existence of the problem are simply "skeptics" and labeling them as such (or using similar euphemisms). Doing so simply provides cover for bad faith attacks on the science, and potentially leads those in the middle (or are much more likely to be be potentially part of any meaningful progress in climate change mitigation) to stay on the sidelines rather than engage, believing that the threat has been exaggerated or overstated.

Work by Ed Maibach and others (see e.g. this piece: http://www.minnpost.com/environment/2011/11/why-arent-we-more-worried-a…) has shown that the single greatest obstacle to progress on this issue is in fact the belief by those in the middle that scientists are *not* in agreement" on the reality of the problem, despite the overwhelming consensus that actually exists.

Allowing the forces of antiscience to continue to frame themselves as "skeptics" plays right into that fallacy, and arguably does far more damage than alienating those who actively deny the science (what are often referred to as "climate change deniers") by calling them out for their denial. Yes, deniers don't like being called deniers (just as fools don't like being called fools, etc). But not calling them out for what they are is potentially a far greater threat to progress than alienating those who are (a) unlikely to change their mind and therefore (b) unlikely to actively work toward any truly meaningful mitigation efforts.

It is telling in that regard that President Obama yesterday in his Inauguration speech chose to call out those who "deny" the science of climate change despite the overwhelming evidence. This implies that his administration, his advisers and speechwriters, etc. have come to the same realization: That the continued denial of the problem by some poses a far greater threat than does offending those who are engaged in that denial, and unlikely to be part of any meaningful solution (i.e. carbon emissions regulations).

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 22 Jan 2013 #permalink

That should prove to be a rich vein of manure, john.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 23 Jan 2013 #permalink

John Byatt.

Thanks for starting a catalog of the scientific nonsense that Australian politicians have said. I'm hoping to gather some material together myself, so I'll forward it to you when I have enough.

This could be a very useful resource for those who want to remind the electorate and the media just how ignorant their parliamentarians really are...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 23 Jan 2013 #permalink

Oh, no! If even the *GERMAN* media are giving up on AGW then the game's really up! And when it's the impeccably Left-wing 'Der Spiegel' that is leading the way, then honestly, chaps, I'd switch to some other doom-laden cult a bit smartish if I were you ('which thank the Lord I'm not, sir'!)
..................................................................................
"Yesterday Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski published a piece called: Klimawandel: Forscher rätseln über Stillstand bei Erderwärmung (Climate change: scientists baffled by the stop in global warming)."
....................................................................................
Of course, you lot here aren't baffled but then again, you lot here aren't very scientific, are you?
......................................................................................
"Bojanowski writes that “The word has been out for quite some time now that the climate is developing differently than predicted earlier”. He poses the question: “How many more years of stagnation are needed before scientists rethink their predictions of future warming?”

Bojanowski adds: 15 years without warming are now behind us. The stagnation of global near-surface average temperatures shows that the uncertainties in the climate prognoses are surprisingly large. The public is now waiting with suspense to see if the next UN IPCC report, due in September, is going to discuss the warming stop.”
....................................................................................
My advice to the public is not to hold their breath. The IPCC is one of the most lucrative gravy-trains ever to get up steam and it will only ever stop trundling along with its carriages full of the gullible when the tracks freeze over!

http://notrickszone.com/2013/01/19/spiegel-ends-europes-climate-deniali…

By David Duff (not verified) on 23 Jan 2013 #permalink

Yaaaaaaaawn.

Next.

"And when it’s the impeccably Left-wing ‘Der Spiegel’"

Well, Duff lost it there. The corporate media is not left wing. It is simply an extension of corporate power. Period.Der Speigel is no exception. It is privately owned and depends on corporate advertising like the rest of the western media apparatus. One of the enduring myths of our time is that the media exhibits a left wing bias.

But then again, to repeat, this is the same guy (Duff) who on his blog claimed that Obama is a 'Marxist-Socialist'. He is to be ignored.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 23 Jan 2013 #permalink

"Oh, no! If even the *GERMAN* media are giving up on AGW then the game’s really up!"

What leads you to that conclusion?

Why is GERMANY

a) so pivotal
b) in CAPITALS

?

Or do you just not have a clue?

Or do you just not have a clue?

Bazinga!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 23 Jan 2013 #permalink

The IPCC is one of the most lucrative gravy-trains

Silly old Duffer. With an annual budget of about 7 million dollars, approx. 12 staff, and scientists providing their services on a voluntary basis, that would be very-thin-gravy.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 23 Jan 2013 #permalink

"Of course, you lot here aren’t baffled but then again, you lot here aren’t very scientific, are you?"

Of course, when someone claims "someone else is baffled", that only says what the reporter thinks.

Not what is.

But you lot aren't ever scientific, are you.

A nooz flash........

HADCRUT Numbers Out For December

"Down from 0.52C to 0.27C, a huge drop and in line with GISS figures.

Full update later today, but this drop brings temperatures back to what they were at the start of the year, when La Nina was in full swing.

They are also below levels in 2003/4 when ENSO conditions were also neutral.

With most of the NH so cold at the moment. temperatures could drop even further this month. Big changes seem to be underway, and if they carry on for the next few months, there is going to be much scratching of heads in the climate fraternity. They certainly have not seen this one coming."

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/hadcrut-numbers…

Yes, in January, the NH is in the middle of winter, KMS.

Your point..?

And in the UK the first few weeks of January were 4.5C warmer than average and therefore the average so far this month is STILL above average.

Warming.

Would that be the 1971-2000 average woW ?

So what would be the average temp there from the height of the MWP ?

Yes, in January, the SH is in the middle of summer, woW.

Your point..?

You're no good on context, either, are you, Karolaus?

Why do you suppose I said " 'skeptics' you say?"

"Yes, in January, the SH is in the middle of summer, woW."

And Australia is breaking all-time records.

Meanwhile, the UK is getting a little snow, Russia has seen worse in recorded history.

Warming.

"So what would be the average temp there from the height of the MWP ?"

You mean the height of the MWP *in the location of the UK* don't you?

Because the MWP wasn'g global.

So what would the average temp be in the height of the LIA in the UK, KMS?

Warming.

"Meanwhile Dec in the NH had a bumper crop of snow and the Antarctic ice and snow is galloping ahead."

"Bumper crop"?????

ROFLAMO!!!

No.

Absolutely not.

During WW2 there were snowdrifts in the UK that were as high as a steam locomotive.

Russia had snowdrifts much, much deeper.

This winter?

Weaksauce snow.

You really are an alarmist, aren't you, KMS.

Bumper crops ain't what they used to be...perhaps people have forgotten what they used to be - can't think why... ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 23 Jan 2013 #permalink

..the UK show no effects from the magical hothouse demon gas..

Understandable if no-one checked, but Karen's graph actually shows the most recent value is about 1 deg C above the 1981-2010 average.

Look at the photo here

Wot Karen sees - an enviromentalist with a shovel trying to hide the snow.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 23 Jan 2013 #permalink

Yeah, literally millimetres of it! The infamy!

'S'true!
It was a 55kt blizzard here on Friday night (the local yacht club lent their premises for an event and their decorative fittings are quite practical) with snow flying horizontally and looking two or three inches deep on the roads by midnight, maybe more so on the grass.

And would you believe it, by 9 o'clock Saturday morning those bloody environmentalists had cleared it all away. Is there nothing these watermelons won't stoop to?

lord-sidcup

Understandable if no-one checked, but Karen’s graph actually shows the most recent value is about 1 deg C above the 1981-2010 average.

And look at that 'lowest'. Sheesh! I remember that one well.

During the six weeks or so before Christmas 1962 I was cycling about 3 miles to work (Gloucester) every morning, six days a week for a shift starting at about 0600.

Along one considerable stretch were numerous old trees with boughs overhanging the road and before long into that period I was watching those branches very carefully with ears alert as they creaked and groaned under the increasing weight of the hoar frost as more was added day by day.

Then there was boxing day which was fun except for the fact that within a week I would be making my way down to Cornwall for my 'induction' into the RN.

Once the dotted line had been signed on, and you were in lump it or like it, the mood of those kind petty officers changed becoming as icy as the weather.

Within days we were drilling on the frozen parade ground throwing heavy lumps of wood a steel (aka SMLE .303) around with feel-less fingers.

We wondered if our upcoming expedition to Bodmin Moor, nr. Cardinham, to enjoy assault courses which included a 'death slide' by webbing belt across a water filled china clay pit, from the top of a spoil heap to a far shore, would be cancelled due to the weather.

No chance and to boot we were sent out on Dartmoor on Ten Tors trials. I suppose they were aiming to show that the Navy could achieve where the Army had failed.

At the end of this we had a reward once gaining the relative sanctuary of a navy blue pusser's bus (pusser's - pertaining to or belonging to the RN). One cold, near frozen bottle of milk 1/3rd pint for the use of, one cold boiled egg, one cheese butty (aka sandwich but with cheese not much different to the pusser's hard (soap - carbolic for the use of).

At the end of those first four weeks those who had decided they now would rather have out had the last chance of regaining civy street without penalty, but seeing as I had made it that far I decided to hang on in for the duration. A year later Scotland became the scene for mountain fun & games for a couple of years with fond memories of the Buachaille Etive Mòr in Glen Coe and was Braemar cold, Ryvoan Cairngorms too.

I would like to bring Jeff Harvey's wonderful sequence of posts on bio-diversity and extinction which I tipped into at Eli's place from a post by andrew adams where he wrote, I leave links as they fall:

There was an interesting discussion at Bart's a while back, again involving Jeff Harvey (with excellent contributions from Bernard J)

It started here

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/revkin-steig-o%e2%80…

and carried on here

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/biodiversity-extinct…

.

Thank you Jeff Harvey and especially for the links onto Guide to the Millennium Assessment Reports and other material.

I see check has already seen some of this but I will flag up other links that Jeff provided in this What Jeff Harvey reads.

This should keep me quite for a bit, so much to read, so little time left.

Thanks for the links, Lionel!

It's interesting to read Jeff's genuinely wise words and then contrast them to the disrespectful sniggering and yelpings of the DK hyenas he's subjected to when he's here...

"the disrespectful sniggering and yelpings of the DK hyenas he’s subjected to when he’s here"

God, it's so embarrassing, ain't it?. For them, I mean.

Lionel.

Thank you for reminding me about that tomfullery at Bart's.

That was indeed a breath-taking example of Dunning-Kruger arrogance. If Fuller had his way ecologists and climatologists the world over would be fired and their work replaced with his own peculiar brand of 'scientific' understanding - which is to say, that variety of Just So story-telling which would make Kipling himself envious of the imagination involved.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 23 Jan 2013 #permalink

Bernard J.

Speaking of Tomfoolery, did you see Tallbloke trot out the old canard "It's bot the greenhouse effect , it's tthe pressure wot' causing Venus to be hot" at Stoat'S. The Weasel was not impressed, and after much mocking and derision WMC put that subject off limits.

"I strongly urge the ecologists on this thread to read it – it’s a masterpiece of scientific acumen."

And it also has the same degree of legitimacy as your usual tripe barnturd. :)

And it also has the same degree of legitimacy as your usual tripe barnturd.

You're still unable to discriminate between fact and fiction I see, Karenmacksunspot.

And it seems that I'm still living rent-free in your head...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 Jan 2013 #permalink

Whodathunkit?

So, carbon emissions go up by a third but global warming disappears!

Life sure do git complicated, don't it?

By David Duff (not verified) on 24 Jan 2013 #permalink

So, carbon emissions go up by a third but global warming disappears!

So you think only CO2 warms the planet?

Life sure is simple for you simpletons, innit!

But ... but ... that's what you kept telling everyone, Wow, and that's why we have all these hideously expensive - and utterly useless - non-carbon energy schemes.

Don't tell me you were wrong!

By David Duff (not verified) on 24 Jan 2013 #permalink

Duff projects his own frequently corrected misunderstanding on to other people. Again.

News at 11.

(Better trolls, please.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 24 Jan 2013 #permalink

Oh, you mean, 'Lottie', that CO2 **doesn't** cause global warming!

By David Duff (not verified) on 24 Jan 2013 #permalink

I completely missed this from BBC Radio 4 but it looks like it might be worthwhile listening to:

Climate change - what lies beneath its widespread denial? Laurie Taylor talks to Sally Weintrobe, the editor of the first book which explores, from a multi disciplinary perspective, what the ecological crisis actually means to people. In spite of a scientific consensus, many continue to resist or ignore the message of climate communicators - but why? What are the social and emotional explanations for this reaction? They're joined by the Professor of Social Policy, Paul Hoggett.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01pzv2n

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 24 Jan 2013 #permalink

Bernard J,

Thank you for reminding me about that tomfullery at Bart’s.

Your welcome, your remarks were apposite too.

That surname, under the circumstance, just begs some foolery as Tom has demonstrated clearly that he is fullershit. Jeff Id OTOH (I seem to recall coming across this one at DesmogBlog) has nothing to fill.

No, I don't, Duff.

As I said, you project your own misunderstanding...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 24 Jan 2013 #permalink

Oh, you mean, ‘Lottie’, that CO2 **doesn’t** cause global warming!

Nope.

So you think it's either ALL CO2's fault or it's NONE of CO2's fault!

Binary thinking for someone who can't manage anything more complex than 1 or 0.

But … but … that’s what you kept telling everyone, Wow,

If that's what REALLY happened in this real world, then you'll be able to show where this happened.

Or are we to believe that I did what you say I did because you say it?

Don’t tell me, you were wrong.

I don't suppose Karen or Duffy can explain the theory and observations that prompted scientists in the 60s to anticipate global warming, either.

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 24 Jan 2013 #permalink

When measuring global climate do carbon emissions have:

a: A large effect?

b: A medium effect?

c: a tiny effect?

Jist askin'!

By David Duff (not verified) on 24 Jan 2013 #permalink

No, Richard, we can't because in the '70s they were all wetting their knickers over global freezing!

(Nudge: this might have had a teensy-weensy knock-on effect causing us to, shall we say, have our reservations when you changed your minds and began screeching about warming!)

By David Duff (not verified) on 24 Jan 2013 #permalink

When measuring global climate do carbon emissions have:

a: A large effect?

A.

No, Richard, we can’t because in the ’70s they were all wetting their knickers over global freezing!

And once again proving that you're not only inerrantly wrong, but unrepentantly wrong.

You'll make any lie that is convenient at the time, duffer.

Broecker, Wallace S. (1975). "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" Science 189: 460-64.

Gives the lie to "all".

No, Richard, we can’t because in the ’70s they were all wetting their knickers over global freezing!

I asked about the 60s. Even in the 70's, your idiotic comment applied only to a few journalists. Most scientists never doubted that global warming was coming. You've been told this many times, perhaps it will eventually penetrate the thick hide of your pomposity.

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 24 Jan 2013 #permalink

Duff's an unrepentant liar.

Better trolls, please.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 24 Jan 2013 #permalink

Duff’s an unrepentant liar.

Agreed, but what possible benefit is meant to accrue from appearing unrelentingly stupid, time after time?

Never mind the asteroid how do we get out from under this Incoming! New Report Notes 14 “Carbon Bombs” Threatening To Blow The Global Carbon Budget.

In the words of Duff. Whodathunkit?, that we should allow this to happen.

Australia, ou need to reign in that Rinehart creature and we need to make sure Cameron & Co are confronted with the truth about fracking and the effects of reducing renewable incentives.

When will these dabblers and dribblers click with the fact that as the ecology of the planet implodes so the economy will really tank.

Whodathunkit?

Certainly not Duff. Of course he may be, because of age, past caring about what happens in the near to distant future and has no offspring to worry about, probably being too stupid to manage even that.

Agreed, but what possible benefit is meant to accrue from appearing unrelentingly stupid, time after time?

It costs him nothing.

He's driven by hate.

It's not that he wants any benefit. He doesn't care. Think "Cutting off your nose to spite your face". That's Duffksi.

So, Wow tells me that carbon emissions are a *large* cause of global warming but despite them increasing by a THIRD since 1998, IPCC/HADCRUT measurements indicate a slight FALL in global temperatures - certainly no "large" increases!

Oh dear, I'm almost embarrassed for you, Wow!
...................................................................................

Richard:

"HH Lamb was one of the leading climate scientists at the time and founded the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA. In 1973 he wrote an article, “Is The Earth’s Climate Changing?”, for the UNESCO magazine, “The Courier”. [...]

For the past 25 to 30 years the Earth has been getting progressively cooler again. Around 1960 the cooling was particularly sharp. And there is by now widespread evidence of a corresponding reverse in the ranges of birds and fish and the success of crops and forest trees near the poleward and altitudinal limits.
The decline of prevailing temperatures since about 1945 appears to be the longest-continued downward trend since temperature records began."

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000748/074891eo.pdf
.............................................

In the 1960s and early 1970s, the time frame of most scientists was still retrospective, rather than prospective (Oldfield 1993). However, the revived notion of the Milankovitch theory then suddenly offered the new possibility of actual climate prediction. At that time there was relatively little emphasis on potential or actual ‘global warming’, and the idea was virtually unknown to popular consciousness. Indeed, a widespread belief at that time was that the planet was heading for a new ice age, fuelled by acceptance of the Milankovitch theory and new knowledge gained from isotope analysis of Greenland ice cores (Dansgaard et al. 1970, 1971).

Hays et al. (1976) suggested that the observed orbital-climate relationships predict that the long-term trend over the next several thousand years would be toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation. The period of global cooling since around 1940 was thought to be the first indication of a new ice age, and was seen as being accelerated by aerosols from industrial pollution blocking out sunlight. Even among some of those scientists drawing attention to contemporary increases of atmospheric CO2, a phase of significant global cooling was envisaged (e.g. Rasool and Schneider 1971).

http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndHistory%201950-1999.htm
.................................................

I could go on, Richard, but even you might have grasped the point by now!

By David Duff (not verified) on 24 Jan 2013 #permalink

despite them increasing by a THIRD since 1998, IPCC/HADCRUT measurements indicate a slight FALL in global temperatures

Surely you aren't as much of a moron as you are trying to make out?

If there is a cool day in the middle of summer, do you announce "Summer is over"?

In what alternate reality do you expect the greenhouse effect to eliminate all the other cycles and variations our climate is subject to?

This is why this kind of garbage is confined to crank blogs - it really is insanely moronic.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 24 Jan 2013 #permalink

Surely you aren’t as much of a moron as you are trying to make out?

No, he is.

It comes naturally to him. And effort is something he does his level best to avoid.

So, Wow tells me that carbon emissions are a *large* cause of global warming but despite them increasing by a THIRD since 1998

This would require a citation, Duffski.

Really?

The CO2 levels were 365.56ppmv in 1998.
They were 390.48ppm in 2011.

Now, either there was another 90-100ppm dumped in 2012, you can't do maths, or you just flat out lied.

Because 390.48/365.56 != 1.333.

I make it about 7%.

What does YOUR maths say?

Surely you aren’t as much of a moron as you are trying to make out?

Yes, he is.

See comments, prior, author: Duff.

You'll note he's now linking to Humlum's "Climate4You" site. Chameleon could tell him a thing or two about how that biases its data selection and editorial comment and uses unpublished and dodgy methodologies to (mis-)lead its readers - or she could if she had taken on board any information when that was demonstrated to her...and the info will roll off his mind like water off a duck's back if it is reiterated here.)

He should know because he's been told that fears of imminent cooling in the 1970s were a fringe scientific view at best, and were played up by the media, but he doesn't want to know. Humlum should know better as well, but he's clearly not concerned with telling a full and accurate story either.

There's always this video from 1980 demonstrating that by then global warming was a big enough concern that the US Legislatures were discussing it with scientists, and it was big enough to get Walter Cronkite's attention. (And note the warnings are all very similar to today's warnings - the science back then was much younger, but had already come to many of the core conclusions that stand today.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 24 Jan 2013 #permalink

Just for Wow:
http://www.bp.com/assets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/repor…

Before you howl that BP is "BIG OIL" and can't be trusted I would have though it was in their interest to *diminish* CO2 stats!

The emissions for the 15 years up to 1997 was 331 gigatons.
The emissions for the next 15 years to 2012 was 440gigatons

You do the math I was never much good at sums!

Anyway, despite all this CO2 belching out the effect on global warming was zilch, nada, zero, a big fat nothing! If anything global temperatures dropped slightly in the last 15 years - according to IPCC/HADCRUT stats no less.

So, mes enfants, were you right or wrong to insist that carbon emissions were a major factor in global warming?

By David Duff (not verified) on 25 Jan 2013 #permalink

You mean you trust those unconscionable criminals Pachauri and CRU to provide accurate global temperatures?? But, but, climategate!!!

(BTW you can't even read their data properly)

were a major factor in global warming?

"were the only factor in global warming"

Can you comprehend the difference Duffer?
You read one thing but understand something completely different. Is English your second language?

You do the math I was never much good at sums!

Yes, I did do the sums.

The sums are:

CO2 in 2011 is 7% higher than it was in 1998.

Not 33% higher.

At least now you're admitting that you can't do maths. Which I suppose is an improvement...

And We ALSO now know that Duffski is even MORE nuts than the YECers.

EVEN THEY would not commit to the idea that the earth is only 30 years old...

Can you comprehend the difference Duffer?

No.

To do so would devastate his ego. He'd have to admit he was wrong.

Sorry, Wow, but you asked me for a citation and I supplied it. Here it is again:
http://www.bp.com/assets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/repor…

Actually, you don't need to be a scientific statistician to see the result, just take a look at any film taken round China these days!

You claim a 7%+/- increase between '98 and '11 but provide no authority but let us cross our fingers and take that as true. Surely, according to your theory based, as you told me, that carbon emissions are a "large" part of the cause of global warming - then even on a 7% INCREASE things should have got warmer not slightly cooler!
..................................................................................

Chek places this comment in inverted commas:

“were the only factor in global warming”

Who wrote that?

You also tell me that carbon emissions are a "great" factor in the causes of global warming

By David Duff (not verified) on 25 Jan 2013 #permalink

Duffer are you sure English isn't your second language?
The phrase in inverted commas is the pertinent counterpoint to your own quote in order to demonstrate your poor grasp of meaning.

then even on a 7% INCREASE things should have got warmer not slightly cooler!

[citation needed]

Because you'll need - once again - to point to where CO2 is claimed as the sole driver of climate. Which you can't do because you have never read any primary literature or even IPCC reports. Instead you prefer to rely on your vast miscomprehension cobbled together from crank blogs like Watts' pitiful site.

"Duffer are you sure English isn’t your second language?"

I call "fourth".

"then even on a 7% INCREASE things should have got warmer not slightly cooler!"

Because that's not much change in a large factor. Changing something else 50% can easily cancel that out.

Face it, you tried a "cute game" to make out that you had something, but it's all failed.

You're now scrabbling at the dregs hoping nobody will point out the puddle of piss you're standing in where once you thought you had hope.

"“were the only factor in global warming”

Who wrote that?"

So what did you mean when you claim that CO2 is rising but tempertatures aren't?

If there were more than CO2 involved, you have your explanation.

Are you insisting that you have no clue what you're talking at any point in time?

Because that's something you keep denying when confronted with the claim, yet every time you're confronted with the evidence of your assertions and insinuations, you pretend again that you had no idea what you were talking about.

I vote that any time Duffski makes a claim, we ask him to explain what he means.

"Sorry, Wow, but you asked me for a citation and I supplied it. Here it is again:"

I asked you for a citation of

"then even on a 7% INCREASE things should have got warmer not slightly cooler!"

That link isn't citing the reason for your claim.

I also required a citation showing CO2 had increased by a THIRD between 1998 and 2011/12.

Your link doesn't do that either.

Maybe you can show precisely where it says CO2 increased by A THIRD.

HH Lamb was an extremely knowledgeable scientist but the science has moved on since his day.

Ah Yes climate4you another of those well know receptacles of donkey droppings so perhaps Duff should look here:

From The Warming Papers. David Archer, Ray Pierrehumbert. Get hold of a full copy of the book Duff.

Now can yiu grasp what has been happening to temp's over the 20th Century and why and also why some were mislead but many across the world because of the uncritical blatherings of pundits in the mainstream media.

No scientists as a group were not forecasting a new ice age.

Indeed Duff, consult William Ruddiman's Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate which will inform you on why the current situation WRT ice ages is so anomalous compared to the previous.

Now as to this current cold spell here and the retro-perspectives being broadcast about now where we are informed that the weather experience by we in the UK in early 1963. It seems that this was due to an anomalous warming in the Pacific around Hawaii which caused a sudden increase in atmospheric water vapour above the Pacific which in turn upset the ----- wait for it ---- jet stream.

Well I never. WhoDaThunkIt?.

During the to and fro with Latimer Alder elsewhere here I mention a site called Global Warming Science Global Warming Nonsense (there fixed it.

Lest there is any doubt about the status of this site just cast your eyes down the list of Links to GW (dis) Info Site in the right panel.

So for trolls around here if you source from these expect to get bounced.

Have you noticed? The chipmunk on the thread has exploded!

I'm laughing out loud.

Excellent, so we have established then that carbon emissions are **not** a main driver of global warming?

(Someone tell Wow because he reckons their effect is "large".)

Oh, and Chek, in correctly written English you place inverted commas round a word, phrase or sentence to indicate that it is a quote. But then I suspect you are a victim of our famous edukashun servis so ignorance of written English is not entirely your fault.

Wow, this might be a tad tricky for you but open the link I provided and scroll down to #65.

Open that link and scroll down to #89 which will give you world carbon emissions from 1965 to2011.

You will notice, for example, that the % **increase** between 2010 and 2011 **alone** was 3% - er, that's 3% in just one year!

How do your global temps compare?

By David Duff (not verified) on 25 Jan 2013 #permalink

It's not emissions that drive the greenhouse effect, Duffus.

Are you going to grow a brain?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 25 Jan 2013 #permalink

Good grief. Duff thinks that a 3% increase in one's weekly salary means one's accumulated net wealth just went up 3%.

And he's lecturing other people about education and "ignorance".

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 25 Jan 2013 #permalink

That's because he's an expert at uneducated and ignorance.

"It’s not emissions that drive the greenhouse effect, Duffus."

Indeed, the stupid braindead moron thinks that only fresh CO2 works.

How?

Nobody knows.

Not even duffski itself.

"Excellent, so we have established then that carbon emissions are **not** a main driver of global warming?"

No, we've established that you can't do maths.

And don't know what CO2 does.

And don't care to know either.

So all that shrieking and stamping of little feet about carbon emissions was just, er, hot air then?

By David Duff (not verified) on 26 Jan 2013 #permalink

Now Duff is speculating that his salary ain't got nuthin' at all to do with his net wealth?

Sheesh.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Jan 2013 #permalink

But, Gentlemen - I use the term loosely, of course - are we agreed that the effect of carbon emissions is minimal?

A simple 'yes' or 'no' is all that is required.

By David Duff (not verified) on 26 Jan 2013 #permalink

are we agreed that the effect of carbon emissions is minimal?

No.

Are we agreed that CO2 hasn't gone up by a third since 1998?

Now Duff is speculating that his salary ain’t got nuthin’ at all to do with his net wealth?

Remember, Duff isn't allowed money. He gets internet access and his mum buys him his food and clothes.

He's not capable of adult thought, so feel pity for him.

How long after being emitted does CO2 stop being CO2, Duffer?

So, I assume Wow speaks for all of you in agreeing that the effects of carbon emissions, not being "minimal" are therefore *important*.

Plain common-sense and observation of news reports will tell you that because of China, India and SE Asia, such emissions have increased - I will avoid an adjective lest it give 'Lottie' a funny turn!

However, requiring more in the way of 'proof' we can turn to the BP spread sheet which tells us that:
Carb Emission 2011 = 34032.7
Carb emission 1998 = 24445.2
As you do not trust my math I will leave it to you to work out but I'll give you a clue - it ain't far off a 28% increase.

But that, of course, does not include the year of 2012 which, judged by preceding years, could easily add another 1% to 5%. So you can see that an increase of roughly a third is what occurred.

What did NOT occur was an increase in global temperatures.

Please explain why!

By David Duff (not verified) on 26 Jan 2013 #permalink

what does the point you wish to make actually mean, duffer?

Tell us, when does CO2 stop being CO2 after emission?

duffski, here's another math for you:

1+2=3

It's true!

agreeing that the effects of carbon emissions, not being “minimal” are therefore *important*

Yet another goalpost shift.

Carbon emissions have "a: A large effect".

Please explain why!

After all this time, and repeated explanation, you still don't know? What makes you think the 101st explanation will succeed when the other 100 did not?

I'm not going to explain it again. Go find one of the Anthropogenic Climate Change Guide For Dummies sites and start to educate yourself. Wake me up when you've learned something.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Jan 2013 #permalink

Maybe duffer can explain why we should explain why.

As you say, it's never worked so far.

Well, Wow, I tried to avoid using the word "large" lest it embarrassed you. However, since you seem prepared to own it, then so be it. Now, however, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain why carbon emissions went up roughly a third in 15 years and temperatures did not?

Incidentally, I notice that doubts concerning the rise in emissions have faded away so perhaps my 'sums' are not too bad after all!

By David Duff (not verified) on 26 Jan 2013 #permalink

We didn't emit a third more CO2 in those 15 years, duffer.

Are the sums

(390-365)/365

too difficult for you?

Do you think that CO2 cares whether it was emitted yesterday, last year, or a million years ago?

Do you think CO2 is like your grandad and grows old?

So you think that we increased CO2 concentrations by 120ppm over the last 15 years???

Or is it that you think that all 395ppm CO2 was produced this year/last 15/what?

Duff, if your salary rises by 33% from 1998 to 2011, what is your net wealth at 2011?

Can you tell from that information alone, or do you need some other information?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Jan 2013 #permalink

I think it's long past time for Brad Keyes to have his own thread. He seemed to be agitating for it a while back by going all Godwin on us, and now he's going over some of the same ground that led him to write a small manuscript's worth consisting largely of straw bound together with prevarication at Lewandowsky's.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Jan 2013 #permalink

Sorry to bore on but still you avoid the simple question:

"Now, however, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain why carbon emissions went up roughly a third in 15 years and temperatures did not?"

Your silence is embarrassing!

By David Duff (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

David, the temperatures HAVE gone up, especially if you take into account ENSO.

This "silence" has even been published in the scientific literature, so I find it rather embarrassing to you that you didn't know this.

Your silence is embarrassing!

Wrong.

Your interpretation of suitable responses as "silence" is embarrassing.

Your persistent failure to understand the explanation for this error which you have repeated over and over again is embarrassing.

Your failure to answer my questions which might lead you to slightly greater understanding than you currently have is embarrassing.

You're not here for the hunting, are you?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Tim, see #50 please. Brad seems to be in a denialist meme firehose commenting mode which is similar to what he exhibited at Lewandowsky's, albeit a little less offensively there at first in some sort of (ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to avoid running afoul of moderation policy.

You could put him in the Jonas thread and they could endlessly congratulate each other on their unusually high perceptiveness of how things really are ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Marco, thank you, it is not often that I come across old-fashioned courtesy on this site!

However, I am assured by IPCC/HADCRUT figures and other 'warmer' giants like James Hansen, that global temps have either stalled or fallen slightly in the last 10 to 15 years. Are they wrong?

And if carbon emissions are a major forcing agent in driving temperatures up, what has gone wrong given that they have increased by nearly a third in 15 years?

By David Duff (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

@Wow, @Lotharsson, any takers for the Dead-Easy Climate-Question One-Minute Fast-Money Challenge?

Or are you as afraid of my cash as @bill on the Ridley thread?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

What if I throw in this prize on top of the check/cheque:

If you can answer the Dead-Easy One-Minute Fast-Money question, I will, to borrow a Stalinist euphemism from Lewansowsky's history-deleting factota,

"Opt to recuse myself from further participation at this venue."

?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Oh!
So that's where they went?
Why are you appealing to Tim Lotharsson?
Brad has been very obligingly playing semantics with you.
I thought you liked playing semantics?
I have a little suspicion that Tim likes seeing those big numbers on the comments.
He might be disappointed if Brad opts to rescue himself from further participation :-)

By chameleon (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

@Lotharsson,

if you wonder why Tim doesn't make your dreams come true and rid you of this turbulent commenter, here's a couple of theories:

1. Tim respects people who hold their ground, even if it's not the same ground he holds.

Don't forget, Tim is one of an elite few public supporters of climate alarm who've actually had what were crudely referred to on another thread as "nards" enough to publicly debate a high-profile denier.

2. Tim is, not to put too fine a point on it, pretty good with computers and shit, so he can essentially instantly find out what I scored when he lectured me.

Tim therefore guesses reasonably confidently that anyone stupidheaded enough to call me a stupidhead is a stupidhead.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Heya @chameleon!

Just a minor point, but I don't think it will be me who's "rescued" if I show mercy on the locals and go away.

:-)

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Hmmm?
I also notice that Wow is continuing to spray irrelevancies. He has just decided to spray at a different target.

By chameleon (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

@chameleon,

I feel the urge to wonder:

at what point do we Deniers become the "regulars" and the Affirmers become the silent readers?

lol

C'mon people, it's a really easy twenty-five bucks for anyone who knows what they're talking about on a certain climate-related topic.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

For the benefit of anyone who hasn't been watching Brad crap all over the second Ridley thread, I pointed out that we had gone over the same ground at Lewandowsky's and he had jack shit then - except attitude - and that's what he has now because he's merely reiterating the same claims. If he really wants to re-engage with my thinking he can go read my responses to him at Lewandowsky's. My comments are still there, even though Brad's aren't because he repeatedly violated comment policies. But I'm sure a smart person like Brad can work out which of my comments are responses to the reiterated claims he's now making.

I told him I was going to move on to other more profitable uses of my time, but as you can see Brad doesn't comprehend English very well when doing so would be inconvenient - but at least he's one up on chameleon on that front. (FWIW I said that after I had suggested on this thread that it was time for Brad to get his own thread - or join one of the other special commenters.)

No doubt Tim's far too smart to fall for Brad's false framing, his false claims in the comment above, or his arguments from lack of personal imagination. After all, almost all of the readers here seem to be.

And no doubt Brad will continue to try and engage on reiterated claims with similar bad faith comments. Cue baiting attempt in 3...2...1...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

I am assured by IPCC/HADCRUT figures and other ‘warmer’ giants like James Hansen, that global temps have either stalled or fallen slightly in the last 10 to 15 years

They rise and fall throughout the year, duffer.

It seems like you prefer to get your information from things other than the information available.

Why is that?

And if carbon emissions are a major forcing agent in driving temperatures up, what has gone wrong given that they have increased by nearly a third in 15 years?

They haven't.

They've gone up ~7%.

How do you think the 365ppmv got up there in the first place?

Emitted.

@chameleon:

"I also notice that Wow is continuing to spray irrelevancies. He has just decided to spray at a different target."

To be fair, @chameleon, Wow's comments really did test my intelligence. And I have to admit I failed dozens of times. By reading them.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Dai, I asked you why your think 7% is 33%. You haven't answered.

Your silence is telling.

Could you two lovebirds get a room somewhere?

Playing the soggy biscuit game on the internet is sick, you two.

@Lotharsson:

"I told him I was going to move on to other more profitable uses of my time,"

Like, say, earning $25 for a minute's work?

No?!?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

PS brad, you'd need to illustrate some intelligence.

so far all you have is memetic repetition.

"Like, say, earning $25 for a minute’s work?"

Point?

My comments are still there even though Brad's aren't?
Huh?

By chameleon (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

chubby, neither you nor Brad have evinced any sort of reliability in ANY of your diatribes against the science, the people here or anything else that passes across that blank slate you call a mind.

That you cannot argue the merits and have to concentrate on fellating each other over how smrt you both are is merely sealing the idea solid.

You've managed both to kill any purpose you had here.

@chameleon,

"My comments are still there even though Brad’s aren’t?
Huh?"

I'd be surprised if I've been disappeared. I'm sure there's an innocent explanation, Tim's NOT a contemptible coward.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

@Wow:

"so far all you [Brad] have is memetic repetition."

Wrong as ever, Wow. Psittacism is bill's Super Animal Power.

But hey, since you're clearly AT YOUR COMPUTER, you have no excuse not to volunteer for my Dead-Easy One Minute Fast Money Climate Question, do you?

C'mon, person up.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Brad, my I introduce you to chameleon, apparently your fan - and reigning Deltoid Queen of Incomprehension, long may she live?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

@Lotharsson, I don't know how much you earn in IT, so I hope I'm not insulting you, but I'm offering you $25 plus the chance to be a hero to all your friends by disappearing me from your midst, which you can't really put a price on for answering a question you wouldn't even need ONE MINUTE to type the answer to.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

“so far all you [Brad] have is memetic repetition.”

Wrong as ever, Wow. Psittacism is bill’s Super Animal Power.

Gosh, you DO seem to not care in the least that this thread:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-…

contains uncountable (as in nobody can be arsed to count how many after the first few score) examples of the same boring BS points retreaded again and again.

And not only that but YOU brought up the Lewandowsky thread where you did EXACTLY THE SAME ROUTINE.

You seem to have problems here. Here's the definition of repeated:

repeated past participle, past tense of re·peat (Verb)
Verb

Say again something one has already said.
Say again (something said or written by someone else).

Then again, when you know you've failed to pretend accuracy, like duffer, pantsize, joan, chubby and the other repeat idiots, you really throw ALL caution to the wind and ignore anything, even if they're stuffed right in your face and obvious to anyone with working eyeballs.

offering you $25 plus the chance to be a hero to all your friends by disappearing me from your midst

Lewdanowsky did the same thing.

Then what you did is trash him on this blog for it.

“Now, however, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain why carbon emissions went up roughly a third in 15 years and temperatures did not?”

Wherever you are getting your information about temperatures from is wrong, incorrect, misleading as seen from this.

Now the reasons for a recent slow down in the rate of increase, not a stop, in global average warming are varied but I can think of one explanation. Now you tell me what that is?

Don't forget that there is inertia in the system, the full warming from current levels of increased GHGs will take a decade or so to complete, but by then of course levels will likely have moved on again so that equilibrium point moves further into the future.

Now you have been told that many, many time so are you ignorant or mendacious? Whichever, you would be a waste of space here were it not for the educational opportunities that you provide, by allowing us to counter the BS you dispense, for the casual visitor here.

Thus you are unwittingly providing a valuable service. Keep going.

@Wow,

just imagine you could actually substantiate your teenage attempts at insulting me.

I'm offering you the chance on a silver platter.

If you're person enough to accept, I'll ask you an ELEMENTARY, remedially-fucking-simple, straight question about a climatey/sciencey-relevant topic you've never hesitated to hold forth rather confidently about.

What say you?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

"offering you $25 plus the chance to be a hero to all your friends by disappearing me from your midst

Lewdanowsky did the same thing.

Then what you did is trash him on this blog for it."

Yes, because the pusillanimous, Orwellian pseudo-psychologist fraud disappeared me WITHOUT first answering my Dead-Elementary One Minute Fast Money challenge.

If he'd done that, I'd have to revise my low, low opinion of him.

C'mon Wow, take advantage of me while I'm Climate Crazy and Practically Giving Money Away.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

"Now you have been told that many, many time so are you ignorant or mendacious? "

Both.

No, merely "both" is selling duffski short.

He's both ignorant, mendacious, arrogant, annoying, trolling, and many many more things that are found in all the worst people in the world.

Orwellian pseudo-psychologist fraud

My goodness. This could be a self-portrait from you.

disappeared me WITHOUT first answering my Dead-Elementary One Minute Fast Money challenge.

Sorry, what would be the point of doing that?

But you're still my favourite deltoid Lotharsson :-)
Brad has been very obliging and played 'ritual intellectual humiliation' with you.
It's been nearly as entertaining as the tennis.
Djokovich has won in 4 sets.
Murray had the courage to stay on the court even though he was a bit injured.
You on the other hand took your ball and racket and went to play on another court.
Now you're referring others to some other blog where your comments are still there but Brad's are gone.
That's not good sportsmanship Lotharsson.

By chameleon (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

"That’s not good sportsmanship Lotharsson."

No, but it's the very model of Lotharrmanship.

He's a cowardly, vacuous parody of a human being, as are ALL who fear my One Minute Dead Simple Fast Money Climate Challenge!!

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

My god, chubby's completely lost it.

I suppose all chubby wants to do is ensure that no information is ever found on this site to try to remove anyone's desire to read it.

Sabotage is all the idiots have left.

as are ALL who fear my One Minute Dead Simple Fast Money Climate Challenge!!

Hey, Bernard, here's someone who will take your challenge.

(and note, idiot-boy, we're not afraid of it. How can we be afraid of something that doesn't exist?)

@Wow:

"disappeared me WITHOUT first answering my Dead-Elementary One Minute Fast Money challenge.

Sorry, what would be the point of doing that?"

Ah, an interested customer!

Well, let me tell you the many benefits of doing that.

1. I'll make out a check PAYABLE TO WOW for $25 which you can blow on... well, knowing your lofty intellect and moral heft, I'm guessing... your next Nature subscription? A small fraction of an opera ticket? Donation to African Kids Without Enough Books?

2. I'll self-Lewandowsky. Willingly. Without a further peep.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Gosh, Duffer, how dopey are you?

You write, "But that, of course, does not include the year of 2012 which, judged by preceding years, could easily add another 1% to 5%. So you can see that an increase of roughly a third is what occurred.

What did NOT occur was an increase in global temperatures.

Please explain why!"

A: because of temporal lags in cause-and-effect relationships due to the scales involved. This means that lags between emissions and global temperatures can take 10-20-30 years to be realized or even longer. You appear to believe that today's emissions means an almost instantaneous rise in today's temperatures.

This simply is just another example of why you are so very out of your depth on even the basics, Duffer. Yet why do you persist in espousing such profound ignorance?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

No, still don't see the point of doing that.

#1 is nonexistent and you wouldn't do it anyway.
#2 is merely your pre-persecution complex kicking in because the universe dares to disagree with what you think a good universe should be doing.

Besides which, your challenge doesn't exist.

Jeff, it's not even that.

Since CO2 has only risen 7%, even though it has a LARGE effect on the global temperature, a larger percentage of another climate affecting mechanism that has a SMALLER effect on the global temperature can still make the overall change smaller or even negative for a short while.

15 years is a short while.

Not even enough to definitely get one full PDO cycle. Never mind average them out.

Brad, when offered easy money or even a free lunch, most of us aren't so stupid as to fail to factor in the costs of dealing with the distasteful dissemblers who are offering it - especially when their proven misrepresentation and outright dishonesty is relevant to their claim that they will honour the deal.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

"(and note, idiot-boy, we’re not afraid of it. How can we be afraid of something that doesn’t exist?)"

Hello? Aren't you the guy who loses sleep over:

1. The displeasure of his precious Jeebus (n. a kind of neo-Mithraditic loser on a stick) ?

2. Catastrophic global warming ?

ROFL.

Are you angry, Wow?

Good. Get angry. Use that. The Dead Easy One Minute challenge is gonna take everything you've got and more!

Hang on, no it's not. It's Dead Easy. It's Fast Money. Someone with half a brain could pass it.

The only question is:

Are you that person with half a brain?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Hell, it's damn near certain that his ONE MINUTE claim is bollocks. It's taken him hours to not even get around to asking his question.

Are you that person with half a brain?

No.

Hello? Aren’t you the guy who loses sleep over:

1. The displeasure of his precious Jeebus (n. a kind of neo-Mithraditic loser on a stick) ?

No.

I'm an atheist.

And I note that, despite all that caterwauling about me telling everyone that you think christians are, by default, always wrong, you are here doing that exact same thing again.

2. Catastrophic global warming ?

No. CAGW is something only deniers believe in.

I believe in climate science. Climate science and the activities of humans mean that the change in the climate is anthropogenic.

And I don't lose sleep about it either.

So that'll be $75.

"Hell, it’s damn near certain that his ONE MINUTE claim is bollocks. It’s taken him hours to not even get around to asking his question."

Idiot, I'll ask it to whoever sits him- or herself in the hot seat.

Step forward or be immortalised on the Internet as The Guy Who Could Have Stopped Brad At Nuremberg But Lacked The "Nards" And Six Million Believalists Were Made Fun Of Needlessly Because Wow Lacks "Nards."

(Sorry for the language—our children, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren, greatgreatgrandchildren and so on can be a bit... childish.)

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

"No.

I’m an atheist."

Oops, wrong believalist. Anyway, hopefully I got someone Angry Enough to answer a simple, straight question in 60 seconds.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

immortalised on the Internet as The Guy Who Could Have Stopped Brad At Nuremberg

Delusions of grandeur? Check.
Persecution complex? Check.
Fantasy paraded as truth? Check.
complete lack of compunction? Check.

Yup, you're a psychotic.

"So that’ll be $75."

Just for you, FINE!

Is that you manning up and volunteering? Yes? Please say yes.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Oops, wrong believalist.

Ooops, wrong.

Nah, you're quite at home with wrong, aren't you.

IPCC conspiracy? AGW a scam? Consensus proof of non-science? You're all over the place but all firmly in the wrong-land.

And you'd have thought that someone who professed to have gone to university to learn philosophy would have know what theism/gnotsticism was all about.

But no, this scabby bollock of an idiot knows only the "populist" version of the meanings of these words.

Pretty firm proof that you either never did that university course or you missed all the lectures.

I've already answered three questions.

That's $75 please.

Looks like we have a welcher, as Lotharson predicted.

Har har.

C'mon, I said I'd ask the One Minute Dead Easy Fast Money Climate Question to whoever was man enough to accept.

You haven't accepted, EVEN THOUGH I'VE OFFERED TO TREBLE THE PRIZE MONEY FOR YOU, because we're friends.

Come on, nominate yourself.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

I could have answered a fourth, but I didn't want to be missing $100 rather than merely $75.

You on the other hand took your ball and racket and went to play on another court.

No, dear.

My previous extensive time commitment writing answers to Brad's previous claims even though they were argued in rather bad faith, and which are essentially the same as his current claims, and then refusing to write them again at Brad's demand is not "taking my ball and racket and going to play on another court". Nor is it "bad sportsmanship". My refusal is pointing out that Brad already lost that game but he's trying to break the rules and have a do-over. You know, the actual bad sportsmanship indulged in by bad sports who don't like the result the first time?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

And Brat, you still didn't say what the point of this "challenge" was.

Listen, while you half-men are faffing about in the mirror, working up the minimal courage needed to answer a dead simple fast money one minute question, allow me to publish in open view, for all posterity, the fine print of the suicidally generous ground rules!

1. As I said, it's going to be a REMEDIALLY BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL question on a topic on which the average deltoid (and presumably you) routinely makes CONFIDENT assertions.

2. The answer (if you know it) can be written with LITTLE TO NO technical precision.

3. It is NOT a trick question.

4. You do NOT need to provide evidence in your answer.

If for whatever reason there's any ambiguity or borderline-ness to your answer (and there's no reason why there should be if you know what you're talking about) or if I’m cowardly, pathetic and disingenuous enough to try to hem and haw my way out of acknowledging your correctness, we can argue about all that later, off the clock.

5. I am allowing you COPIOUS time for reading and typing.

Any questions? Anything you’d like to request to sweeten the deal, or just reassure you how bona-fide dead easy this fast money will be for anyone who knows what they’re talking about?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Uhm, when a congenital liar and confirmed idiot makes claims about how they can be trusted, why should we trust them this time?

I've already ANSWERED your question.

But you're still here.

" we can argue about all that later, off the clock"

Which would require that you still be posting here.

In contravention to your blank assertion (which we have ample reason to believe is false) that you would leave.

"And Brat, you still didn’t say what the point of this “challenge” was."

Wow! (In all senses of the ejaculation!) Another interested customer!

Oh, it's the same interested customer.

Never mind—let me tell you the "point" of this special, never-to-be-repeated near-giveaway!

If you can answer the question,

1. I’ll make out a check PAYABLE TO WOW for $25—what? What am I talking about? Just for Wow, THREE TIMES THAT. Mates' rates, and all.

2. I’ll self-Lewandowsky. Willingly. Without a further peep.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Never mind—let me tell you the “point” of this special, never-to-be-repeated near-giveaway!

Nope, still not getting your point.

All you're doing is stating what you "promise" to do.

Not why you want to do it.

And it's weird that you claim "never to be repeated" when I've answered three questions you demanded an answer to before paying up and going away.

And so far neither case has occurred.

"Uhm, when a congenital liar and confirmed idiot makes claims about how they can be trusted, why should we trust them this time?"

I'm glad you asked.

You shouldn't trust me! Instead, a much better strategy would be to ACCEPT the challenge and ANSWER the elementary question, confident that (being a denialist weasel) I'll denialistically try to weasel out of the deal, thus exposing myself as a denialist weasel for all the Internet to see!

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Try this:

Leave without a peep.

” we can argue about all that later, off the clock”

Which would require that you still be posting here."

Not at all. We can do it anywhere you elect. But you will of course have the perfect legal and moral right, should you choose, to republish at this site or wherever you like, for all the world to see, my Jesuitical bad-faith weaselling-out attempts, thus providing the first known evidence that deniers really are bad people, and becoming a minor celebrity among the believalist "intelligentsia"!

Or does that prospect not interest you?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

I’ll denialistically try to weasel out of the deal, thus exposing myself as a denialist weasel for all the Internet to see!

a) We already KNOW you're a denialist weasel.
b) And breaking the deal you'll stay around and nobody gets the $25

c) it's already been answered, but you're still here, still not admitting you're a lying denialist idiot and still no dosh.

Why the hell are you spending so much time trying to get agreement to answer your questions when they've been answered and ignored many many times before and you've never once asked if you can ask a question?

Or, in Brat-speak:

Point?

@Wow, do you have kids?

I'm picturing them asking "Daddy/Mummy, can I ask you a question?"

and you replying, barely able to contain your smirk:

"Yes. Ha ha! YOU ASKED ME A QUESTION AND I ANSWERED IT! Question time over! You had your question! Lol! Lol!"

You have NOT accepted the challenge, and I have NOT asked you the One Minute Dead Simple Fast Money Climate Question.

When I said "the only question is, are you man enough to accept the challenge?" that was NOT the question.

(Sorry to spell it out as one would to, you know, a child, but that's how you're behaving, Mister Dad Humour.)

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

So far, not ONE of you brave deltoids has put his hand up.

Listen, since it was clearly unrealistic to expect the slightest courage from any of you, I'm going to make it an OPEN QUESTION.

ANYONE CAN ANSWER AND CLAIM THE PRIZE.

Ready? .... (actually, it doesn't matter if any of you lilylivered homunculi are ready...)

Set....

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Another question to answer that

a) won't shut you up
b) won't get you to pay out

"Yes. Ha ha! YOU ASKED ME A QUESTION AND I ANSWERED IT! Question time over! You had your question! Lol! Lol!”

Where?

You have NOT accepted the challenge, and I have NOT asked you the One Minute Dead Simple Fast Money Climate Question

Yes you did. It was

"Are you that person with half a brain?".

To which the answer, easy, no evidence, no need to know the science, since I have both hemispheres of my brain, "No".

But you're still here, still posting shit, still complaining, still not paying out.

And that, frankly, is why nobody else has bothered answering your question.

Because there's no point to doing so.

Bloody hell, this retard has a serious ego problem.

slightest courage

What on earth are you wibbling on about, idiot?

The Royal Marines don't test the mettle of their new recruits by asking them to answer a question.

The problem is your humongous ego that thinks that any pronouncement from you is going to be earth-shatteringly incisive and change the world forever.

Look at the bloody "Siegfried & Roy" -esqu song and dance about the entire sorry idea.

When I said “the only question is, are you man enough to accept the challenge?” that was NOT the question.

That is a question you asked.

If you meant a different one, you should have asked it.

But I guess you're running off to the rest of the call centre group to find out if anyone has a zinger they can get you to ask here.

PS: the answer to that question would be "Yes".

"The only question is:

Are you that person with half a brain?"

That certainly reads like you're saying it's your question.

Tim, the above 8 comments are what your blog looks like without me. An earnest monologue by a total wowser.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Blundering Keystone dribbled:

Tim, the above 8 comments are what your blog looks like without me. An earnest monologue by a total wowser.

Yawn.

@Lionel, yeah, tell me about it.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

@Lionel, do you reckon Wow even knows how soporific he is? I've often had cause to question his level of insight.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

I must admit, his actual question was very much a let-down.

After the bloody drum-roll before it, you'd have thought he'd gotten at least a relevant query.

Well you're in luck Wow because (as was obvious to everybody on this website but you) I HAVEN'T ASKED IT.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Here's an announcement I know many of you have been waiting for, especially Wow, even if nobody around here in the past 4 hours had the courage-of-their-convictions to accept this Challenge personally.

Therefore, out of boredom, I’m just gonna throw it open. I'll put it out there and see who first responds.

Here ya go, the free-for-all edition of the Money Where Your Mouth Is Challenge!

Now, as many of you seem to think you know, I'm a "serial denialist."

If you haven’t met me, let me give you some idea of where I am on the climate-debate spectrum.

Al Pacino (or was it Tim Ball?) once said, “Michael Mann should go straight to fucking jail!” If I were the yelling type, I think that’d be an eminently defensible viewpoint to yell.

@bill put it a bit like this, I think: “you’re a fucking anti-environmentalist serial denier!”

(Lol! No, bill, seriously—we love ya.)

With me so far? I’m what the median deltoid would call a "serial denialist”, OK?

However, the people who call us that kind of name are delusional religious fanatics who have no idea anymore what they're talking about.

How do I know this?

Because the first believalist who submits an answer to my Challenge is gonna get it wrong.

So, what is the big question/challenge/test?

Since youse are fond of telling me I’m a serial denialist,

************************************
name a “series” of (3 or more) different scientific theories that I deny.
************************************

Yes yes, I know, I put it in the imperative, not the interrogative, so save your breath if you were planning on being "smart" and saying "That's not a Dead Easy Fast Money Question, it’s a Dead East Fast Money Command!” (Yeah, I know that. Shut up.)

In view of the uncontrolled litigiousness of certain commenters, THE ALL-BINDING “FINE” PRINT is as follows:

* (Only) the first answer y’all come up with counts. Whoever of y’all nards up first is y’all’s representative, champion or what not.

(So if you know you don’t know, don’t ruin it for everyone else by guessing! Then all y’all losers will lose, like the losers y’all are! Nah, just kidding. In all seriousness, I’ve met several a good human being at deltoid, even among the true believers. They know who they are.)

* The prize is: Whoever the responder is, if they get it right, I’ll recuse myself from wasting any more time at Tim’s blog!!

* I’ll also throw in, in case anyone cares:

$75 if Wow is the answerer and gets it right. (Mates’ rates. Sorry all you non-Wows.)

$25 if anyone else answers instead and gets it right.

If you’re the Answerer…

* you can’t name theories (like “just above the ionosphere is a Unicorn Layer”), which you yourself don’t believe.

* to put it another way, you gotta name 3 theories you yourself don’t deny. Like what? Well, like continental drift. (I don’t deny that either—it’s just an example.)

* in other words, you have to be willing to publicly stand by the theories you name, just so the whole Internet can see that you actually believe in them. And then, if I say the theory is wrong, I’m a denier of it, and that’s 1 point for you!

* as implied above, you need to get 3 or more points to win the Challenge.

* you can’t win multiple points by naming *clearly related* theories or subtheories of the same theory—so for instance, there’d be no point in parsing the theory of the carcenogenicity of tobacco into component “theories,” like this...

1. smoking greatly increases the risk of carcinoma of the left lung.
2. smoking greatly increases the risk of carcinoma of the right lung.
3. smoking greatly increases the risk of never-detected carcinoma of one or both lungs which leads to a “met” in another organ.

Etc. etc.

... because a manoeuvre like that is NOT worth more than one point.

(You wouldn’t actually win any points for that example, because I agree with all of those statements. I reckon tobacco pushers should share a cell with Mann.)

* having said that, parsing a single theory into its component "theories" as in the example I've just given is fine if you need to clarify what a theory you name actually entails. (Mind you, if I don't know what the heck one of the theories you name means, I’m probably not a denier of it, am I?)

* surely you’d agree that we Denialists have a proud and rich culture, with diverse interests which oughtn’t just be stereotyped as “climate denying.” That’s reductionist and, frankly, a little offensive. There’s so much more to us as human beings than climate contrarianism! So only 1 point (total) is available for any and all climate-change-based guesses. You can think of other stuff, surely.

* you can guess more than 3 theories if you want, but don’t just randomly name a whole list of them, because if you name more than 3, you’ll LOSE 1 point for every wrong guess. (Fair, right?)

* Second last, not to put pressure on you or anything, but this is the first and best opportunity your faith-group has had to collectively nard up, as it were, and SUBSTANTIATE the idiotic tenet about "serial deniers."

* Lastly, for all the jibes I’ve aimed at you losers collectively over the last few days, the person who actually has the guts to be the answerer of the challenge will thereby earn some serious R.E.S.P.E.C.T. from me for attempting, for the first time in Internet history, to actually subsantiate the myth of “serial denialism”… whether or not I otherwise think much of said person.

In other words, I am NOT going to be a denialist meanie to whichever of y’all has the guts to try to pass the Challenge.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Godspeed, and

... Go!

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Well you’re in luck Wow because (as was obvious to everybody on this website but you) I HAVEN’T ASKED IT.

How the hell would we know???

You spent ages doing fuck all then proclaimed grandly: I will make it an open question. Ready... Steady...

Then your next post ends with a question.

Apparently you don't know what you're doing any more than the rest of us do.

"name a “series” of (3 or more) different scientific theories that I deny."

Why 3?

BK What a prolix load of bollix.

Yawn. Zzzzz.

It's a pretty pathetic question, isn't it.

CO2's effects on ocean acidification
CO2's effects on the climate
climate changes' effects on human civilisation

@Wow,

THOSE AREN"T THEORIES, they're phrases, so I'm gonna be extremely charitable and ignore that attempt.

So the challenge is STILL OPEN, everyone—and I suggest that the next person NOT be like Wow.

I suggest that the next person think before typing.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

@Wow, to help you along, a THEORY would be something like:

"THAT climate change HAS effects on human civilisation."

Is that what you meant?

I'm happy to take that as a valid attempt (right or wrong) if that's what you meant.

But as a general rule of thumb for you Wow, if you can't put it as a clause starting with "THAT", it probably isn't a theory, dude.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

@Wow, I wouldn't have thought it was possible, but in retrospect, did my examples of theories confuse you?

For instance when I called this a "theory":

"smoking greatly increases the risk of carcinoma"

I was talking about the theory THAT smoking greatly increases the risk of carcinoma.

Is this a bit clearer now?

Likewise, when I referred to "the theory of the carcenogenicity of tobacco", this was shorthand for "the theory THAT tobacco IS carcinogenic."

Making sense?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

I'm happy to help you out (and I genuinely see that there are all sorts of opportunities for misunderstanding, which doesn't make you stupid or anything like that) because the LAST thing I want is for you to lose the challenge on some silly technicality.

I want you to lose because you're hopelessly deluded when you call people "denialists."

Not because you missed some little technical nuance or rule!

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

"THOSE AREN”T THEORIES, they’re phrases"

You have to use phrases to state a theory.

Without them, you have grunts and pointing.

Which is about your level.

But one thing is for certain, you didn't fuck off like you said you would.

"I want you to lose because you’re hopelessly deluded when you call people “denialists.”"

You're hopelessly deluded.

And still here.

Y'know folks, I'd guess if invasive stinkweed could talk or type, it would come across a lot like Brad here.

“Michael Mann should go straight to fucking jail!”

Hmmm, how many degrees of separation from CEI there?

From Wow's link, Lord Stern, saying that in retrospect he underestimated the risks of a four (or even five) degree rise in his earlier report says "Do we want to play Russian roulette with two bullets or one? These risks for many people are existential."

The new president of the World Bank - an organisation that is anything but a bastion of dirty leftie pinko greenie latte drinking vegan save the whale types - said "action was needed to create a carbon market, eliminate fossil-fuel subsidies and "green" the world's 100 megacities, which are responsible for 60 to 70% of global emissions". And he wasn't talking about action over the next five years, not waiting until we get more data or more certainty.

But wait, wait...wasn't one of our resident trolls proclaiming just the other day that no-one believes there's a problem any more?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

"But one thing is for certain, you didn’t fuck off like you said you would."

Because you didn't even name three theories, Wow.

Also, I'm sorry for being so harsh on your attempt.

Attention, World Wide Web.

Whatever imperfections Wow may have as a person, he/she certainly does not suffer from a deficit of intellectual courage, as far as I can tell from the present encounter. Wow had the guts to try to answer the question, when nobody else did (or while they were still thinking—we'll never know, I guess.)

Wow, I expect you'll think I'm disingenuous here, but I really am interested in your answer, so please take a couple of minutes to REPHRASE your guesses properly, AS THEORIES, and when you do so I'll be happy to confirm/deny, in full view of the entire web, the theories you've named.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

It's not that he underestimated the risks of 4+C warming but that the risk of 2C warming was underestimated so that it became moot and therefore he should have

a) been a lot firmer and blunter about the risks
b) moved on to the risk of 4C, since a 2C rise was pretty much moot.

Hmmm, how many degrees of separation from CEI there?

I'm more concerned about the separation from reality.

Which makes his challenge all the more amusing - if he's actually in denial of a theory (to himself as well as to other), and given that he spends most of his time veering from disingenuous through outright mendacious to flat-out lying and back again, why would anyone think he would own up to being in denial?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

@chek,

"“Michael Mann should go straight to fucking jail!”"

I said this to remove any suspicion that I might be a, I dunno, faux denier or something. Just to make you utterly sure that I wasn't planning to say: "Aha! I believe all the things you people believe, I was just posing as a climate apathist for lolz!"

I really really AM on the opposite side of the climate debate.

I'm glad you don't need any further convincing on that count.

:-)

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Erk, sorry for the unclosed bold tags!

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

"why would anyone think he would own up to being in denial?"

If you name a theory I think is BS, I'm hardly going to pretend I agree with it, @Lotharsson.

Sometimes I think you don't know me at all.

*sad*

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

In comments at SkS, H. Leighton Steward, spokesperson for
the "NASA scientists" ("many of whom have Ph.D.s" - which means that some of them are definitely not research scientists!) is identified as a director of the company formerly known as Enron which famously defrauded consumers by manipulating energy markets.

And comment #14 has a link to Ridley via an argument similar to one Ridley used in the WSJ.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Yeah, Whole Foods is a pretty great store (although it's nickname of "Whole Paycheck" is well deserved), but if I still lived in the US I'd think twice about shopping there whilst that dickhead is CEO.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

If you name a theory I think is BS, I’m hardly going to pretend I agree with it, @Lotharsson.

And if you think there are three accepted scientific theories that you are in denial of, you could just name them instead of playing the Drama Queen.

And as I implied, evidence strongly suggests that asserting that you are right about something even in the face of strong counter-evidence is far more important to you than being right about it. Acknowledging you are in denial of a well accepted theory is acknowledging that you are most likely wrong, so I don't think it very likely that you would be honest about that.

Almost all of your interactions here are disingenuous and/or apparently designed to appease an overwhelming need for attention, any attention - and yet you (apparently) wonder why people aren't interesting in playing your games.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Et tu Lotharsson?

I half-thought you'd be the one with the balls to answer the challenge.

Not for the first time, I've overestimated you.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Over an hour later, none of you contemptible worms (with the exception of Wow, who doesn't know what a theory is), has the courage to answer a simple fucking question.

Having spent years calling non-catastrophists "serial deniers of science", you're now expending hundreds of words chickening out of telling me WHAT SERIES OF SCIENTIFIC IDEAS I DENY.

You people (with the exception of Wow) are sad little liars, aren't you?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

You demanded an answer to the question. No research was necessary you said.

Then you'd fuck off, you said.

But you didn't.

Did you.

Because you're a compulsive liar.

D'oh! Forgot to add the LOLZ...

Dear alarmist readers, please insert the following addenda wherever you see fit in the preceding message in which I mocked your risible religion....

:-)
:-]
:-)
:-)
;-)
:-P

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

So you're in denial about denial.

figures.

The interesting thing about the (unspecified this time round) “NASA scientists” is that the 'arguments' are the same old same old easily refuted nonsense. H. Leighton Steward must be quite the salesman, with the denier store being as threadbare as it is.

"You demanded an answer to the question."

ZOMG...

So answer it, retard!

THREE SCIENTIFIC THEORIES fitting the conditions of the challenge!

I knew you'd flail around pitifully like a victim of St Vitus' Dance, but I badly underestimated your stamina!

You guys are true dancing queens.

lol...

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

So Brat agrees (or doesn't disagree) with the science behind AGW.

Doesn't disagree with the data showing it.

Doesn't disagree with the conclusions or effects.

Has no disagreement with a consensus from evidence being scientific.

Has no disagreement with the world's science academies who have made statements on the evidence for AGW being conclusive of its reality.

Has no problem with sea level rise being a fact or a result of AGW and melting of the land ice.

Has no problem with the evidence of acidification of the oceans.

Has no problem with the increasing melt of the north polar ice, nor its ties to AGW warming.

Has no disagreement with the MWP not being global, nor the LIA being long past and recovered.

"THREE SCIENTIFIC THEORIES fitting the conditions of the challenge!"

And I answered it.

You even agreed it was answered.

But still you're here.

So, like you said, you've demonstrated to the entire internet that you're a lying denialist weasel.

I'm not a denier of science, and your decorticate seizures when asked a straight question are eloquent proof that you know you're caught.

LOL.

So this is how cults end!

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

You have no disagreement with Mann's paleoclimate reconstruction.

No grief with the Hockey Stick.

No avowed disagreement with the global climate models predictions.

No stated issue with the requirements to change the future course of AGW.

"I’m not a denier of science"

We called you, correctly, a DENIER.

Sorry, lying denialist weasel.

(it is necessary not to use just "weasel" as this is a mortal insult to weaselkind)

Sigh... I should get paid for schooling you Wow. You're really stretching the goodwill I conceded to you for having the balls, if not the brains, for the challenge.

So Brat agrees (or doesn’t disagree) with the science behind AGW.

"The science" is not a theory.

But no.

Score: -1

Doesn’t disagree with the data showing it.

I don't disagree with ANY data.

I'm not even sure it's neurologically possible to disagree with data.

You're really struggling to name a THEORY, aren't you Wow?

(Remember the rule of thumb I gratuitously gave you?)

I'll be nice and not count this particular guess.

"Doesn’t disagree with the conclusions"

Could you be a bit vaguer? Your wording isn't quite weaselly enough either.

;-)

"or effects."

Of AGW? Is that what you're struggling to say?

No, I "agree with" [?!] the effects! Which are warming of the globe, and, er, decrease in coolness of the sphere, thawing of the orb....

what else....

hmm.

Anyway, so far: -2 points.

"Has no disagreement with a consensus from evidence being scientific."

Again....

that isn't a THEORY ABOUT NATURE, IS IT, YOU IMBECILE?

ROFL!

"Has no disagreement with the world’s science academies who have made statements on the evidence for AGW being conclusive of its reality."

No, I agree that those academies. I mean, I agree that they who have made. I mean, I agree that they academies, who have made statements, are statements that the ...

ah, fuck it, you're going to have to tell me where the scientific theory is in that one.

This is one Wally about whose where I know not.

I'll even wait til you transform it into a well-formed response to the challenge before I take away a point for being wrong.

"Has no problem with sea level rise being a fact or a result of AGW and melting of the land ice."

No, I'm not aware of having such a problem.

Score: -3

"Has no problem with the evidence of acidification of the oceans."

No.

I hereby declare, in view of the entire world wide we that comfortable with all forms of evidence.

Happy?

You shouldn't be, because you just lost another point.

Score: -4

Wow, did you read THE ALL-BINDING FINE PRINT?

Do you realise that you've lost 4 points on a section of the challenge that was worth, at absolute maximum, ONE POINT?

Now THAT"S impressive.

You've already LOST 4 points in an attempt to gain ONE.

Lol.

Wow, is it really necessary to finish this humiliation of you?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

It's not necessary to apologize to the mustelidae, Wow, because they can't read what you wrote about me.

I, on the other hand, do have a metaphor I should apologize for drawing.

It was ableist, insensitive and IQ-supremacist of me to call you "a retard," and I retract it without reservation, since many retards can read and would rightly feel short-changed.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink
So Brat agrees (or doesn’t disagree) with the science behind AGW.

“The science” is not a theory.

But no.

No to you do disagree with it, or no to AGW not being a scientific theory?

Because you haven't disagreed with the science behind AGW, have you?

If so, where?

And I didn't call "the science" as the theory. I called the science behind AGW is the theory.

And therefore are you saying no to something that you don't know about?

If so, how do you know it's wrong, when you don't even know what it is?

So score: -3 to you.

I don’t disagree with ANY data.

Really?

Then you should learn about how to do an experiment and analyse the results.

Score: -4 to you.

So Brat agrees (or doesn’t disagree) with the science behind AGW.

Doesn’t disagree with the data showing it.

Doesn’t disagree with the conclusions or effects.

Being responded with:

Could you be a bit vaguer?

Score -5 to you.

And a ROFL.

that isn’t a THEORY ABOUT NATURE, IS IT, YOU IMBECILE?

Who's talking about a theory about nature?

Not me.

I'm talking about the science of AGW that you have never yet stated disagreement with any part of it.

Score -6 to you.

you’re going to have to tell me where the scientific theory is in that one.

Repeat failure to read. Score -7.

Never said that the agreement was a scientific theory.

It's a fact, not a theory.

Do you know what the difference is between facts and theories?

Apparently not.

Make that score -8 to you.

No, I’m not aware of having such a problem.

Score: -3

So I get a -1 score for saying something you agree with???

Score -9 to you.

I hereby declare, in view of the entire world wide we that comfortable with all forms of evidence.

Is that the royal "we" or the schizoid nutter multiple-personality "we"?

And again, you need to read up on how to do an experiment and draw conclusions from it.

Score -10 to you.

Wow, did you read THE ALL-BINDING FINE PRINT?

What fine print?

I'm just summing up the facts.

You have not stated disagreement or refusal to acknowledge the items listed above.

Score -11 to you.

You’ve already LOST 4 points in an attempt to gain ONE.

I'm not trying to make a scoring point, Brat.

Score -12 to you.

And one of those "lost points" is one point lost for saying something you just agreed with, so is actually 3 points lost.

Score -13 to you.

Pretty poor score. And possibly an unlucky number, too.

So Brat agrees (or doesn’t disagree) with the science behind AGW.

“The science” is not a theory.

But no.

No to you do disagree with it, or no to AGW not being a scientific theory?

Because you haven't disagreed with the science behind AGW, have you?

If so, where?

And I didn't call "the science" as the theory. I called the science behind AGW is the theory.

And therefore are you saying no to something that you don't know about?

If so, how do you know it's wrong, when you don't even know what it is?

So score: -3 to you.

I don’t disagree with ANY data.

Really?

Then you should learn about how to do an experiment and analyse the results.

Score: -4 to you.

So Brat agrees (or doesn’t disagree) with the science behind AGW.

Doesn’t disagree with the data showing it.

Doesn’t disagree with the conclusions or effects.

Being responded with:

Could you be a bit vaguer?

Score -5 to you.

And a ROFL.

that isn’t a THEORY ABOUT NATURE, IS IT, YOU IMBECILE?

Who's talking about a theory about nature?

Not me.

I'm talking about the science of AGW that you have never yet stated disagreement with any part of it.

Score -6 to you.

you’re going to have to tell me where the scientific theory is in that one.

Repeat failure to read. Score -7.

Never said that the agreement was a scientific theory.

It's a fact, not a theory.

Do you know what the difference is between facts and theories?

Apparently not.

Make that score -8 to you.

No, I’m not aware of having such a problem.

Score: -3

So I get a -1 score for saying something you agree with???

Score -9 to you.

I hereby declare, in view of the entire world wide we that comfortable with all forms of evidence.

Is that the royal "we" or the schizoid nutter multiple-personality "we"?

And again, you need to read up on how to do an experiment and draw conclusions from it.

Score -10 to you.

Wow, did you read THE ALL-BINDING FINE PRINT?

What fine print?

I'm just summing up the facts.

You have not stated disagreement or refusal to acknowledge the items listed above.

Score -11 to you.

You’ve already LOST 4 points in an attempt to gain ONE.

I'm not trying to make a scoring point, Brat.

Score -12 to you.

And one of those "lost points" is one point lost for saying something you just agreed with, so is actually 3 points lost.

Score -13 to you.

Pretty poor score. And possibly an unlucky number, too.

"No to you do disagree with it, or no to AGW not being a scientific theory?"

No to I do disagree with it. No, I don't disagree with it.

AGW IS a theory.

With which I don't disagree. So yes, it wouldn't be true to say I didn't agree with it.

That's where you lost your point.

The first one.

Before haemorrhaging another three points. Why, why didn't you listen to Tropic Thunder, Wow?

Oh, and speaking of your theory (which I can honestly say is genuinely novel, and I hope the Nobel Prize committee is reading this site) that every assertion magically implies an assertion to the contrary...

Would you mind doing another quick whine about how you're not now, nor have you ever been, a Full Retard?

Why?

Oh, no reason. Just my private amusement.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

@Wow, getting desperate now, says:

"Wow, did you read THE ALL-BINDING FINE PRINT?

What fine print?"

The fine print that followed the bit where I said "here follows THE ALL-BINDING FINE PRINT".

Or do you DENY seeing it?

Do you DENY the existence of the "ALL-BINDING FINE PRINT", which I labeled as such (i.e. as THE ALL-BINDING FINE PRINT")?

Are you in denial, poor diddum?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

And Wow, it doesn't make a third of a turd's difference whether you read the fine print following the line that said "here follows the ALL-BINDING FINE PRINT",

because even under the Full-Retard-friendly terms ABOVE the fine print, you still failed comically to get the necessary points.

(Remind me, did you even score one positive point? Did you get a single thing right?)

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

The fine print that followed the bit where I said “here follows THE ALL-BINDING FINE PRINT”

So not even you can find the fine print you put there.

"No to I do disagree with it. No, I don’t disagree with it.

AGW IS a theory.

With which I don’t disagree. So yes, it wouldn’t be true to say I didn’t agree with it.

That’s where you lost your point. "

So when I said you didn't disagree with AGW, I lost a point.

But then that means losing points means I was accurate.

So losing 4 points means accurate four times.

What necessary points?

The points I made were all the points of how you've never disagreed with the IPCC, climate science, or the evidence for AGW.

Why do I need to win points here?

If for whatever reason there’s any ambiguity or borderline-ness to your answer (and there’s no reason why there should be if you know what you’re talking about) or if I’m cowardly, pathetic and disingenuous enough to try to hem and haw my way out of acknowledging your correctness, we can argue about all that later, off the clock.

So argue off the clock.

For which I choose: nowhere.

Now shut up, lying weasel denier.

Well, Jeff had a sort of a go at answering my question as to why CO2 emissions had gone steadily up but global temps had not. His answer was:

"because of temporal lags in cause-and-effect relationships due to the scales involved. This means that lags between emissions and global temperatures can take 10-20-30 years to be realized or even longer."

Slight technical and logical problem there, Jeff. You see the **increases** in CO2 emissions have been virtually constant in their steady **increase** from 1965 = 11689.4 up to 2011 = 34032.7.

As you would be the first to say, correlation is not causation but given that global temps appeared to be constantly on the up into the '90s it would certainly justify a hard look for a definite causation. But alas, for the last 15 years temps have flattened but emissions have continued to rise.

Nothing is certain in this irritating world of ours, as you are finding out the hard way. All we can do is continue gathering the information and trying to draw some sound conclusions. I don't even mind if there are some highly speculative conclusions - just so long as they are labelled as such!

I will end - you will be relieved to see - by offering you a ray of hope. Almost certainly global temps will rise again because that, you see, is their nature - they are constantly up and down like a whore's drawers. I **suspect** - I can put it no firmer - that we are now entering a cooling period, but don't worry, that will end in due course and then we'll be back to warming.

But, please, please, next time don't make such a fuss about it.

By David Duff (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Sorry, duff, but since your maths is incapable of even simple division, your assertions have no basis in reality.

Please try using real things, not imagination.

Emitted CO2 has gone from 365ppm in 1998 to 390ppm in 2011.

That is not a one third increase.

I beg to differ Lotharsson,
by your own definition you definitely did a flounce.
You even complained to the umpire when you changed courts.
It would be like Murray moving off to another court and serving at an empty space and then claiming victory.
For Wow's edumication that was me developing an analogy by way of a simile.
BTW Lotharsson, this looks very different to your comment when I drew attention to the amount of time & energy you expend here.
You finally have an adversary who is happy to play semantics with you.
What's your problem?
BTW, cheap shot on the Climate4you info.
No evidence Lotharsson!
Just making a sneering comment is just making a sneering comment.

By chameleon (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

again, chubby, your track record of seeing what you'd like to be there rather than what is ensures your opinion on objective reality remains unreliable at best.

PS just because climate4you is a crank site, extremely easy to verify AS a crank site and indeed fairly REVELS in being a crank site, pointing this out is not a cheap shot, merely an extremely easy factual statement.

But you don't like those facts.

Just imagine them away, chubby.

Wow,
Try to actually discuss the issue rather than being totally obtuse.
One minute you make totally ridiculous assertions and the next you're nitpicking and deliberately conflating someone else's simple posts.
IOW you're only interested in being a smart alec.
I think you're doing way more to help what you would call 'deniers'.
Are you sure you're not a self employed undercover agent for 'the other side' ?

By chameleon (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink

Yes, exactly, imagine those terrible facts out of the way and all will be well with you.

Everyone else will think you're a nutter, but sanity is a one-trick pony, isn't it, whilst if you're nuts, the sky is the limit, right?

Mind you, amusing that you complain about not discussing the topic (what topic? you had none), being obtuse (yeah, professional opinion, practically) or wanting solely to be a smart alec (dear, being smarter than you IS a criminal act, isn't it, ducky).

Awww.

Go on, click your heels together and chant:

There's no place like WUWT
There's no place like WUWT
There's no place like WUWT

Goodness me Wow!
I have got you pictured all tangled up in knots in front of an overheating computer.
What on earth are you trying to say?
It is very clear that you don't like being questioned about either your comments or statements of belief.
Your use of words/phrases/assertions like 'crank site' are spectacularly meaningless unless you provide EVIDENCE.
This site also gets called a 'crank site' Wow.
That is also meaningless.
Mind you, your tendency to spray irrelevancies and invective could earn you (as in the entity Wow who comments at deltoid) the title of a 'crank blogger'.
Your assertion that
a) Climate4you REVELS in being a crank site and
b) That people chant ditties about WUWT
are both pretty crank like :-)

By chameleon (not verified) on 27 Jan 2013 #permalink