Do you think the alarmists who predicted doom because of the carbon tax will shut up?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Good news! I'm still able to post -- Australia has not returned to the Stone Age. A few links:
Key points of the carbon price package
Frank Jotzo: popular tax cuts and a carbon price that just might deliver
Roger Jones
John Quiggin
Larvatus Prodeo
Gareth Renowden.
The carbon tax alarmists are now…
Here's how I would have liked to have introduced this post:
The good news is that, other than for an increasingly marginalized minority, the focus of attention on climate policy has shifted from the reality of global warming to the economic tools needed to address the problem.
Sadly, climate change…
It am Michael Mann, saying
Climate models have proven extremely skillful in predicting the warming that has already been observed and, by many measures (e.g. Arctic sea ice loss, melting of the major ice sheets) it is proceeding faster than climate models predicted...
Notice any problems with that…
At today's presidential press conference, New York Times reporter Mark Landler broke a trend that ran through the presidential campaign, a trend of silence about climate change. From the transcript:
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. In his endorsement of you a few weeks ago, Mayor Bloomberg said he was…
Willimilliwatts, it goes without saying, is both crazy and mendacious. As the UCS banner says - "Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions". That Willimilliwatts tries to imply that by joining UCS anyone or his dog becomes an accredited concerned scientist as opposed to a member of their organisation, is just normal everyday Willimilliwatts level crazy.
As with most organisations that have a sign up procedure via their website, it assumes a modicum of good faith by the applicant - something missing entirely from Willimilliwatts makeup. On the other hand I wouldn't be at all surprised if the dog were smarter than the owner.
Regarding the story, I haven't time to check now, but IIRC it was actually found that lower layers of the atmosphere were being mixed by the turbines but no extra heat was actually being created.
But once again, if Willimilliwatts can get something wrong, he will.
If he can get something wrong while attempting to damage any environmental issue, he will.
If he can get something wrong while attempting to damage any environmental issue, and make himself look stupid at the same time, happily he still will.
I see BK is now reduced to demanding evidence of the consensus for the mainstream conclusions of climate science, apparently so that he doesn't have to provide evidence-based reasons for taking positions (whether in the past or now) that are ruled out by the evidence - and hence for which demonstrating consensus is not necessary.
Perhaps now we see why BK has spent so much time complaining about "consensus". He appears rather keen to avoid arguing his positions on the evidence.
I'll leave identification of his other lies as an exercise for readers.
"I’ll leave identification of his other lies as an exercise for readers."
They're all hideously obvious. The idiot is relying on having to trawl 3000 posts and because he "rephrases" so often, you can't just grep, you have to read every entry, making it far more effort than that little cumstain is worth.
Thank you Lotharsson and chek. Yes I remember the study and associated misreporting quite well. The deniers had a field day at the time - ie the more deluded among them. Doubly whammy, the deniers figured - wind + global warming.
The research reported local warming at night in the area covered by the wind farm. It's just shifting the air/energy around a bit.
Not sure if the work has even been corroborated (I see no particular reason to doubt it) - but that's irrelevant to the point made at WUWT or in my article.
Watts has a very short fuse and isn't all that bright. Not a good combination. He's blocked me from twitter so now he doesn't see my tweets in his timeline, but I can still see his if I'm so inclined. (I"ve never bothered to 'follow' him on twitter but occasionally have a dig at his ridiculous articles via tweets.)
I agree about the cranks - that engaging them is fun sometimes but there's not a chance in hell you'd ever change their deluded minds.
I've come across some people who are impervious to irony and don't 'engage' at all. They just keep posting nonsense, ignoring the discussion going on around them and act as if they are the only person posting anything in a thread.
That doesn't mean it's not worth refuting what they write for the benefit of other people. Sometimes that's worthwhile, sometimes not.
Yep, engaging the cranks is almost never about changing the cranks' minds. That only happens once in a blue moon. It's all about the readers who might be tempted to think the cranks are making sense.
Wow,
other commenters exhibit coprolalia in defeat, but your "tell" revolves around another bodily fluid, doesn't it?
LOL...
Feeling routed, loser?
I "rephrase" "so often," do I? Nonsense. But then, losers are liars.
I use the blockquote tag as much as anyone—and follow wherever reasonable a policy of paraphrasing my victims only if their comment is too many pages back and "far more effort than [the lovely person] is worth."
I'm sure you had no trouble grepping this one:
Plenty of unique character combinations there, cretin.
But then, losers are liars.
And you exhibit the hallmarks of both.
Back to your cage "Brad", where you might consider providing honest answers to straightforward questions.
Back in your kennel.
You seem to have mixed up who is proving who a crank mike.
Hey, mike, why the anger? We're just poking fun at you deniers! So laugh!
Mike, are you taking the Mickey or are you a real live one of these?
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2012/12/denier-memes-communist-socialist.html
What the fuck is Keyes doing out of his box? Can someone email TL and get him banned if he keeps this up?
Thanks.
Don't forget Nazi.
Because they're National SOCIALISTS, therefore socialist, not right wing! IT'S IN THE NAME.
Of course, the People's REPUBLIC of China is communist because they're commies, the name has nothing to do with it.
Rightwingnuts are welded to the "No True Scotsman", just like the xtian wingnuts that have been recruited into the party line.
mike
Read Oreskes & Conway. Follow up random selections from the thousands of references provided and check for accuracy.
The case set out in Merchants of Doubt is in fact watertight. Everyone who actually bothers to check will eventually be forced to admit this. I speak as someone who approached the text sceptically.
The idea that there *isn't* an anti-environmentalist, tendency among corporations and their natural (and sponsored) allies of the political right is naive.
Are they called cranks because they're easy to wind up, or because they try to wind everyone else up?
Both work well ;-)
I believe the original (and I haven't checked!) is derived from the germanic 'krank' meaning ill, as in mentally ill. But I could be wrong.
Googling "etymology crank":
crank (n.) Look up crank at Dictionary.com
Old English *cranc, implied in crancstæf "a weaver's instrument," crencestre "female weaver, spinster," from Proto-Germanic base *krank-, and related to crincan "to bend, yield" (see crinkle, cringe). English retains the literal sense of the ancient root, while German and Dutch krank "sick," formerly "weak, small," is a figurative use.
The sense of "an eccentric person," especially one who is irrationally fixated, is first recorded 1833, said to be from the crank of a barrel organ, which makes it play the same tune over and over; but more likely a back-formation from cranky (q.v.). Meaning "methamphetamine" attested by 1989.
BBD,
Thanks for providing an island of normal human-being wholesomeness on this blog. I'll be glad to address your last comment, but in my usual, round-a-bout way, if you will be so kind as to bear with me, BBD.
Just out of curiosity, BBD, do you find the idea that there *isn't* an anti-democratic, authoritarian, make-a-greenwashed-buck/make-a-gulag tendency among the old-line, makin'-a-comeback-try bolshie-utopians within the "environmental" movement and their natural (and sponsored) allies of the brainwashed-dumb-kid and fashion-conscious, status-anxiety-obsessed, limousine-liberal, cash-in-on-the-good-eco-deals, fellow-traveller ilk to be naive? I do. Just as I expect crony-capitalists threatened by such lefty conspiracies to respond in kind and that it is naive to expect otherwise. I don't need to read Oreskes or anyone else to figure that one out.
Conspiracy is the stuff of humanity in my view, BBD--kids conspire against parents (reading comic books under the covers with a flashlight late at night, for example), parents conspire against kids (the Santa Claus conspiracy, for example) and on it goes to include lefty and righty con-artists conspiring to rip-off and oppress Joe Six-Pack. I think it naive to think otherwise.
And when I see an agit-prop tack that demonizes "conspiracy theories"--those approved by the hive excepted, of course--then I smell a rat. The test of the worth of a "conspiracy theory", for me, is the evidence offered in its support and the persuasiveness of its interpretation of that evidence--not whether it lends aid and comfort to some scam of either the right or the left or crosses or re-inforces some self-serving taboo of this, that, or another string-puller faction.
And one other thing, BBD, I don't use smarty-pants, ivory-tower logic, in the main, in devising my "estimates of the situation." Rather, I use that "coup de l'oeil" logic of the sort that has served us "little-guys" so well within those shark-infested waters in which we've been generationally forced to swim. Let me offer you an example:
Those pushing the CAGW rip-off,--those who most profess alarm at the carbon-peril-- with the rarest of exceptions, choose not to LEAD FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE when it comes to the carbon-austere lifestyle. Think: Al Gore. Think: All those carbon-piggie, party-time, taxpayer-funded, eco-conference obscenities attended by the hive's greenshirt worthies. Joe-Six-Pack's "coup de l'oiel" conclusion?--don't practice what they preach: SCAM!!
But don't take my word for it, BBD. Just pose to the hive-niks on this blog that they could do nothing better to promote their chicken-little CAGW-con than show LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE in their own, personal lifestyle, as opposed to their current, exclusive reliance on agit-prop trickery and incessant, big-bore, scare-mongering flim-flam to push their little frauds. See what reaction you get when you suggest even a really minor adjustment to the Deltoid lifestyle, but one with a big cost-and-carbon reduction pay-off, like video-conferencing all future eco-confabs. Again, see what sort of reaction you get. Fair warming: Savonarola was excommunicated and burnt at the stake.
Bah. Wikibollocks. I'll stick with my own private definition in the highest tradition of the Interwebs.
;-)
'course, your post there mike didn't mean anything, since you insist you're just joking.
mike
We were discussing Oreskes & Conway's documentation of the activities of an anti-environmentalist tendency among corporations and their natural (and sponsored) allies of the political right.
Things seem to have drifted a bit...
Mike is lonely and just looking for someone to talk to.
"At", Lord Sidcup.
Talk at.
Mike
I really should have said this first: you are implying false equivalence between climate science and environmentalism.
Basic confusion = broken argument = hot air and wasted time.
And Al Gore is fat.
I missed the latest from David Rose over the weekend. Check out the stupid:
Well, yes, it IS a myth.
However, it's very similar to the myth that the great green arkleseizure is living in David Rose's sock drawer.
I.e. it is definitely a myth, and I definitely just made that up.
BBD,
W wr dscssng rsks...tc."
Nt qt, BBD. Y wr nd r ttmptng t lmt nd cntrl th dscssn f "cnsprcy thrs" n wy tht prmts th rvvl f Lwndwsk-bgr, pg-bsh, sldrty-cll, hv-lylty-tst, gt-prp cmpgn, tht rlr fld t fly, nd 'm dng my ppty-psnt, pn-wth-n-tttd, wht's-wrng-wth-ths-hlt-dsn't-h-knw-hs-plc? bst t jm th whl dl p. t f my rnst slctd fr trth, jstc, nd th "kds", f crs.
BBD,
Yr: "y'r mplyng fls qvlnc..."
BBD, lt's gt rl. Sphstrs lk yr bv r nt gnn sll yr Lysnk-scnc f th clmt.
gn, "cp d l'l", lttl-gy lgc:
-f scnc s rlly n th grnshrts' sd, thn why rn't thy cnvncd--wht dn't thy prctc th crbn-str lfstyl thr scr-mngrng "scnc" dmnds by mplctn? Why dn't thy prvd LDRSHP BY XMPL ND FRM TH FRNT?
-f "scnc" s rlly n th lfts' crnr, thn why r th lfts mplyng hv-hck prpgndsts t dvs gt-prp cmpgns t dmnz thr crtcs wth "cnsprcy thry" smrs nstd f tlkng-p th sppsd "scnc"?
-nd thn thr's th Clmt-gt, s-wht-ths-gys-rlly-thnk-nd-sy-bhnd-t-bcks -mls.
RG: Clmt Scnc s thr cmplt scm r hs bn thrghly h-jckd by mk--bck/mk--glg scmstrs. S hv nthng t d wth th whl "clmt scnc" dl--t lst s lng s th crrnt crp f sll-t, trgh-hggr, n-yr-fc-hypcrt scntsts rmns n plc.
S, BBD, s slss-trs rn't s dmb ftr ll.
Someone needed a hug from mommy when they were young.
You know, today.
Strewth, Rose sure can crank 'em out as that headline to that propaganda piece that lord-sidcup quoted from:
But what is worth Rose is repeating the already debunked tosh in that, 'EXPLODING THE MYTHS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE' panel.
And guess who he uses to support his second piece of misdirection:
Yes. BK's pal, good ol' Roger Pielke Jr.
But of course BK doesn't deny AGW he believes it, like a child believes in Santa or an adult child believes in the Bible.
Rose must be from the same box as ol' Rush. It isn't as if he hasn't been informed.
You mean that you're against thieves:
http://deepclimate.org/2010/09/26/strange-scholarship-wegman-report/
Secret funding scams?
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-exposed-internal-document…
And liars:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/25/michaels-climate-scep…
Right? I mean you denier trolls wouldn't run a double standard, would you?
mike
Not even that, as far as I can see. Either demonstrate some understanding of what is actually written or continue to rant away to yourself.
It makes no odds to me.
# 29 lord_sidcup
I wonder if Rose actually knows that the high NH latitudes were warmer until ~6ka as a result of orbital forcing?
Always the same from the deniers though: misrepresentations that might as well be lies since the effect they have is the same.
Cat 3 US landfalls over 7 years? Fluke.
Drought decreased since mid-C20th? Now that's a lie. Discussion of the Sheffield vs Dai scrap here.
@BBD #27:
"Al Gore is fat."
According to the latest peer-reviewed paper by Wow, Lionel, Michael, Sidcup et al, their models (heh,heh, heh) indicate a definite shrinkage in Al Gore's waist-line. The problem with 'deniers' is that they are unscientific ignoramuses who have, in their idiocy, been confused by the increased bulk of his wallet brought about by his investments into 'Green firms' in receipt of buckets of dosh from his mate Obama.
Incidentally, Deltoids, how are you enjoying all this global warming in the UK - give you a nasty shiver, does it?
David Duff
Go back to the Daily Mail. You will be happier there, I think.
Hi Lionel,
how are you? I hope the A family is well and has gotten over my distasteful confusion between you and a Forest Troll.
Ah my pal, good ol' Roger Junior—"no climate sceptic"—back to his old truth-based trickery, trying to offload a steaming crock of absolute bullfact on us:
But here you wander into denialand, Lionel:
Are you denying that I deny it?
Congratulations. I don't.
(*shh*—don't tell Vince, or he'll have you up on apostasy charges.)
Er, not *quite.*
A child believes in Santa on the authority of her parents and the consensus of her peers.
An adult believes in AGW on the basis of the chemical equations describing industrial respiration, the empirically-demonstrated radio-absorptive properties of the CO2 molecule and the temperature of the Earth.
"Believing in" climate change, AGW, continental drift and gravity are examples of justified true belief, also known as "knowledge."
Hmm. You'll have to ask bill about that particular cognitive feat. Try not to call our avian acquaintance an "adult child" though—he'll either call you an "anti-religious bigot" or simply fly away in a huff.
Brad, I'm almost certain that if you keep posting outside the Brangelina thread you will be banned. TL is bound to notice eventually.
Actually, yeah, Brad - keep going; we'll see if we can't get you bounced entirely!
Incidentally, does anyone else suspect that 'mike' and BK are actually the same person?
Considering Pielke's chronic unreliability, would it be sensible to be sceptical of this statement in the absence of any direct quote of reference to primary material?
The first problem is Pielke's obvious misuse of the word "admits" - I'm not aware of the IPCC having appeared at any inquiry where questions were put to it. Pielke's use of loaded language like this is obvious political spin - and who wants political spin to cloud this subject? Not those with the truth on their side, obviously.
Or, to put it another way, Pielke's full of shit.
Hey mike,
I just asked my colleague, who is French, and she says what you've just typed there has no meaning in French.
Maybe if you deniers attended first to your education you would have fewer problems with the reality of climate change?
I suspect the sub-literate, sub-Nietzschean ranter meant 'trompe l'oeil'.
Oh hey, Brad, I must have missed it. In which comment did you publicly apologize for being openly, utterly and abjectly wrong about there being a well-funded climate denial network?
Vnc, bll
"Cp d l'l" s "lttl-gy" Frnch. Th trm fr gys wh, nlk m, rlly spk Frnch (nd Frdrck th Grt) s "cp d'l."
Thnks fr drwng th rrr t my ttntn, Vnc. nd, n, bll, ddn't mn "trmp l'l" bt d pprct yr lttl, dfs, vr-nxs, smrty-pnts ttmpt t hrn n n Vnc's "fnd".
bill @ 45
Brad doesn't have the exemplary Americanness of mike's glib, bitter bullshit,
Duffski: "According to the latest peer-reviewed paper"
More made up fantasy from duff.
"Incidentally, Deltoids, how are you enjoying all this global warming in the UK"
Not even the Victorians were parochial enough to confuse the entire earth with the UK alone.
Duffer, however, has a very small brain.
Intriguing. At a glance, WTF does 'coup d’oeil' have to do with anything? Well, it certainly indicates pretension way-outstripping ability; but we knew that already.
Rather like a completely incongruous 'lubricious', really...
Or faux-erudite "consensei" which bray has managed before.
What is it with deniers and pretend education?
Wow @#55: it's the basic pathology of denialism of all flavours. The practitioners are usually from the science-phobic end of the educational pool, mostly employable only as propagandists and solipsists-for-rent by the robber barons of capitalism or theocracy, hence the less stupid of them are usually lawyers or "neoliberal" economists. The spectrum extends from biblical creationists and their "people-of-the-one-true-book peers, via the John Birch Society and Big Tobacco to Dick Cheney and Monckton. The ones who buzz around Deltoid like Tabanids (?Talibanids) tend to be the rejects who can't find a nice warm pile of neocon think-tank to succour them. Hence the BK with the DKness, lil'mike, the Scandinavian Troll Collective etc. Mind you, lil'mike's personal pathology is particularly pathetic - it's a bit like being forcibly transported to Hogarth's cartoon of visiting Bedlam in 17 C. London. The fact that people can discuss information unconstrained by commercial gain or fear is deeply disturbing to the denialists. I rather enjoy that.
Why does little mike go on about "lysenko-science"?
Lysenko was the guy who faked his research in order to please his political masters, right?
What does mike think all this crank-blog-nonsense from incompetents like Watts, McIntyre and Pielke is all about?
Has he not read about what happened to Wegman?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/world-commentary/australia-hold…
Good article about Australia's shameless and dishonest behaviour in relation to East Timor's territorial waters.
Seems his Serene Lordship doesn't appreciate upstart interlopers.
Lysenko was the chap who sent scientists to labour camps to prevent them from doing genetic research (some he killed I believe). He was a senior bureaucrat who held back plant breeding (in particular) in the USSR for almost half a century. Deniers efforts are pitful compared to Lysenko. They don't have the clout. (But not for want of trying - eg Inhofe wanting to jail climate scientists to prevent them from doing research. The ATI, the Auditor and various anti-science bloggers trying to slow or stop research by tying up scientists in paperwork responding to frivolous FOI requests etc etc)
Ah, so a better comparison for Lysenko would be Virginia Attorney-General Ken Cuccinelli who uses his government position and government resources to attempt to criminalise honest scientists whose work he opposes on political grounds.
Remember what happened to Charles Monnett when he wrote his honest and considered opinion on the effects of unprecedented ice melt on polar bear populations?
http://www.ktoo.org/2013/02/19/agency-declines-to-continue-research-inv…
John Cook has an article about the Recursive Fury paper at Huffington Post, where conspiracy theorists add comments to the article that reinforce the findings of the paper.
http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/21/gji.ggt029.full…
New peer reviewed paper in Geophysical Journal International.
Summary:
The last interglacial stage (LIG; ca. 130–115 ka) provides a relatively recent example of a world with both poles characterized by greater-than-Holocene temperatures similar to those expected later in this century under a range of greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Previous analyses inferred that LIG mean global sea level (GSL) peaked 6–9 m higher than today. Here, we extend our earlier work to perform a probabilistic assessment of sea level variability within the LIG highstand. Using the terminology for probability employed in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports, we find it extremely likely (95 per cent probability) that the palaeo-sea level record allows resolution of at least two intra-LIG sea level peaks and likely (67 per cent probability) that the magnitude of low-to-high swings exceeded 4 m. Moreover, it is likely that there was a period during the LIG in which GSL rose at a 1000-yr average rate exceeding 3 m kyr−1, but unlikely (33 per cent probability) that the rate exceeded 7 m kyr−1 and extremely unlikely (5 per cent probability) that it exceeded 11 m kyr−1. These rate estimates can provide insight into rates of Greenland and/or Antarctic melt under climate conditions partially analogous to those expected in the 21st century.
Lotharsson: ..."oh what fun it is to ride in a one horse (?race) open (?-access, peer reviewed article) sleigh (?self-sustaining, "skeptic" slaying meme)!". Jingle bells, indeed.
Chubby: No, we will not translate this into kinderspeil for you.
Chebbie: congratulations, you found a paper! And?...
I have a suspicion that Lewandowsky et al. and collaborators are just screwing with the denialists for fun (and academic profit) now. They've realised they can re-demonstrate the paper's conclusions at will at practically any media outlet with reasonable amounts of traffic and are running an office pool on how many conspiratorial comments will turn up at each new location, meanwhile mining the results for a 3rd level recursion paper which will itself generate data for a 4th...
;-) ;-)
This one's for the silly Duffer:
Alaskan community faces supply problems due to unusual warm weather:
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/early-ice-road-melt-threatens-cut…
Early ice road melt threatens to cut off Alberta's Arctic
Interesting paper Chameleon - during the LIG, there was a period during which sea level rise exceeded 3mm/year, and sea level peaked at 6m-9m above today's level.
We're already getting the 3mm+/year sea level rise - does this mean we're headed for a 6m sea level rise?
Here's a thought - maybe we should stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere to try to prevent that from happening - what do you think?
Bill and rhwombat?
Aren't you interested in reading and discussing some of the latest published peer reviewed research re climate and SLR?
I thought I should at least give you a chance to read it before it was discussed.
I seriously thought it would be more rewarding and informative than rehashing Lewandowsky theories about 'deniers'.
Perhaps not?
Fossil Fuel proponents suffer $5billion failure in Alaska oil drilling this year:
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/swift-reaction-shell-suspends-201…
Meanwhile....
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Renewable-Energy-is-a…
AND, it isn't necessary to persecute government scientists such as Charles Monnett in order to build wind farms, as the US Government in cahoots with Shell did to get the Alaskan drilling under way.
Let's not forget, it was Shell that was successfully sued by the survivors of its campaign of human rights violations against protesters at its environmental mess in Nigeria:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/08/nigeria-usa
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/opinion/justice-under-the-law-of-nati…
Fossil fuel companies support dictatorships, start wars, cause uprisings and civil wars:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/shell-on-trial-1690616…
Less of the cheap and boring debating tactics, please, Chebbie. Those of use who do context understand that the wombat and I are wondering what you think should be concluded based on this paper. Given your bizarre misinterpretation of something as basic and primitive as a Delingpole 'article' virtually anything might be anticipated!
Chubby: so where's your discussion of the Kopp paper? Could it be that you can't escape the Lewandowsky trap.
Well, I just tried discussing it Chameleon, but apparently you have no intelligent opinion to offer on the subject.
OK Vince,
Can I assume that you have read it?
Your comments all seem to relate to CO2 and then links to reports on fossil fuel companies.
You have also linked to reports that wind power is cheaper than coal power and gas.
This paper does not link to that type of information nor reference that type of information.
This paper finds that during the last interglacial, global sea levels likely rose more than twice as fast as the present rate, to more than 6-8 meters higher than the present. The authors, using updated data and using probablities, find that the maximum 1000-year-average rate of sea level rise during the last interglacial could have exceeded 6 mm/yr.
I'm unclear why you think your links are an attempt to discuss this particular paper?
I note that Bill and rhwombat are far more interested making dismissive comments about me, rather than the paper.
Maybe you would all prefer to wait until RC or SKS or Tamino or Rabbet or maybe even Lewandowsky have reviewed it? Or perhaps Jonova or WUWT etc?
I have no idea if they have reviewed it or not.
I just read the paper.
It's not pretending to be anything other than what it is.
A more recent study of SL data.
Some of the results are not disimilar to the recent Church et al paper.
( please note I said not disimilar and I avoided saying anything like 'confirmed')
This excellent article from Media Lens (UK) is for anti-science acolytes like chameleon who think the scientific community should pay undue attention to a few peer-reviewed articles downplaying AGW whilst ignoring many hundreds of times more articles that support it:
http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/721…
And here's the clincher:
"When significant parts of the corporate media are openly embracing and indeed pushing climate 'scepticism', is there any meaningful justification for this in the climate science? No. Geochemist James Lawrence Powell recently conducted an exhaustive study of the peer-reviewed literature on climate science. Going back over 20 years, his search yielded 13,950 scientific papers. Of these, only 24 'clearly rejected global warming or endorsed a cause other than carbon dioxide emissions for the observed warming of 0.8 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era.'
So: 24 studies out of 13,950. That is 0.0017%. In other words, chammy is telling the scientific community that we don't pay enough attention to 0.0017% of published papers, or that we ought to. What I have found, given the huge number of AGW denial sites on the internet is quite the reverse: far too much attention is paid to a miniscule number of contrarian studies.
Moreover, since most denier sites on the internet are operated by non-scientists, its hardly surprising that these pundits don't know a thing about climate science and are camouflaging their own personal political agendas under the banner of 'sound science'.
Chammy, give it a rest, will you? You are beating a drum out of pure and utter ignorance of how science works and of the massive overwhelming consensus amongst researchers in the field.
Chameleon says,
I don't know what planet you are on, Chameleon, but my comment on this paper
was not about CO2
was not about fossil fuel companies
was not about wind power
but
was about sea level.
Here is my comment, again:
I'll make two observations about your comment:
1/ You don't discuss its findings in any way shape or form.
2/ You compare it with Church et al. Bizarre. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Church et al. Nothing at all.
oh
except
It's about "sea level".
I notice you came very clear to making a true statement for once:
I'll fix it for you:
Oops, what I meant was:
Oh, and Chameleon, when you say,
Big
Fat
Liar
Vince,
She may or may not have read it but she sure does not understand it...
I'd say Chameleon got her latest talking point from the execrable crank-blog
"The Hockey Shtick"
Let's see what lies they tell about it:
A new paper published in Geophysical Journal International finds that during the last interglacial, global sea levels rose more than twice as fast as the present rate,
FALSE
to more than 8 meters higher than the present.
FALSE
According to the authors, the maximum 1000-year-average rate of sea level rise during the last interglacial exceeded 6 mm/yr,
FALSE
which is double the rate claimed by the IPCC of 3.1 mm/yr, and 5 times the rate claimed by NOAA of ~ 1.2 mm/yr.
irrelevant and meaningless distraction
The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed studies demonstrating there is nothing unusual,
FALSE
unnatural,
LOGICAL FALLACY NUMERO UNO
or unprecedented
FALSE
regarding current sea level rise, and that there is no evidence of a human influence on sea levels.
FALSE
Don't you get sick of getting your misinformation from liars?
Jeff, "Reading" necessarily means "understanding".
You can give me a paper in Serbian and I can "read" it.
It would be a lie for to say I had read it, however, as I doubt I would understand one word in 50.
Chameleon's failure to make any sort of intelligent comment on the paper, coupled with her bizarre comment about Church et al, indicates she has not read it.
Maybe she could start by telling us how it relates to Church et al, because I'm totally lost on that one?
JeffH and Vince?
WTF?
Do you want to discuss the paper or do you want to invent an argument with me?
Who the hell is Hockey Shtick Vince?
It must be yet another effing blog that I don't read?
WTF?
And Vince?
Which part of this comment was not about CO2?????
"...maybe we should stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere to try to prevent that from happening – what do you think? "
That was your actual discussion question wasn't it?
The discussion is about sea level - why is it you still haven't offered any comment on the paper you mentioned?
What is it about that paper that you think makes it relate to Church et al?
And if it wasn't the execrable crank blog, "The Hockey Schtick", then I'm sure you won't mind telling us where exactly, this paper was brought to your attention?
Well, not really false, since the range is 6-9m.
It's rather like saying CO2 climate sensitivity is over 4C per doubling.
What is obvious is that the above statement would have chubbie and all the other deniers SCREAMING "ALARMIST!!!".
Yet their blogroll stain says the similar statement and it's all fine and lovely.
Actually, I have it - Chameleon has a subscription to, "Geophysical Journal International", and avidly reads every page of every edition the minute it is published.
Naturally, she also has subscriptions to the 100-odd other important Geoscience, Physics, and Biology-related science journals, and unlike real scientists, who struggle to keep within 6 months of being up to date just in at least 50% of papers in their own field, Chameleon manages to read every science paper within a week of its publication.
Exactly, the finding is a range of likelihoods, therefore the abominable liar who writes the "Hockey Schtick" crank blog, when he states that the paper asserts,
he is lying.
What is it about deniers and their aversion to honesty?
And if you have to lie to support whatever point you are trying to make, that indicates that you are unable to find any factual position on which to base your argument, indicating your position is not based on fact, ie, it is false.
‘Coup d’oeil‘ doesn't have anything to do with "little guys" - it means "a stroke of the eye", or more freely "at a glance". It favourably describes the ability to see important but non-obvious features that others miss. Pretty much the exact opposite of what he apparently meant. mike was so busy type-type-typing, he didn't stop to check what he was wittering about.
Stick to rabid strings of hyphenated neologisms, goose - at least they are amusingly original (faintly), mon petit gars.
chameleon
# 63 # 70 # 76 etc
Kopp et al. (2013) examines rates of sea level change during the last interglacial which it terms the LIG and I will call the Eemian because that is standard terminology and more memorable than yet another TLA (three letter acronym).
The Eemian interglacial was warmer than the present (Holocene) interglacial*, but not by much. From Kopp et al. (2013), hereafter K13:
Despite this modest difference in GAT - within expected warming based on conservative estimates of ECS - global average sea levels rose *at least* 5m, with many estimates (including those of K13) suggesting MSL highstand was >6m.
What exactly is your point? Because if you are simply waving the Eemian about and saying 'look mum, it wasn't CO2' then you are *missing* the point. The Eeminan is an imperfect analogue for the Holocene, but still suggestive of what can happen if GAT rises by ~2C. The change in summer high latitude insolation that triggered the Eemian deglaciation took thousands of years. Modern anthropogenic forcing seems very likely to produce an equivalent change in GAT within a century. I would suggest considering this carefully before re-reading K13.
***
* Earth's orbital eccentricity varies on a ~400ka cycle. Eccentricity modulates the effects of axial precession (~23ka cycle arising from the 'wobble' in the axis of rotation). The effect is strongly felt in hemispheric seasonal variation in insolation - summers get more (or less) sun, with the variation becoming increasingly pronounced at high latitude.
# 92 FrankD
Thank you. That was my interpretation too. But I am no francophone.
Vince?
I did comment on the paper.
WTF are you claiming at comment @ comment # 88?
Do you want to discuss the paper or do you just want to argue about effing nothing at all?
Maybe you do need to wait for the 'academic pissing contest' between RC et al and WUWT et al?
Just remember Vince that I am not a regular reader of any of them :-)
chameleon
The *point* of K13 is that there appears to have been considerable variability (~4m) in MSL *within* the Eemian, presumably as a result of orbital forcing. Which is to say, if GAT rises *during* an interglacial, then considerable SLR occurs additional to that associated with the deglaciation phase. The final sentence of K13 sounds a cautionary but properly caveated note:
Perhaps that is the point you missed?
No, chubby didn't miss it. Chubby hadn't been told about it.
Never read the paper, see.
I suspect "meaning" is of secondary importance to the Deniers.
Pollution is their primary mission.
Chameleon actually is giving me the giggles again:
Where?
You can't even explain why you thinkn it has something to do with Church et al. Why is that?
Ah, a bit subtle, was I?
Let me rephrase it: the idea that you detect and read any science paper of any description without having been led to it by a crank blog is an idea to which I would ascribe an infinitesimally small chance of likelihood.
No, less than infinitesimal.
No, not even that.
Vince?
I repeat.
Do you want to dicuss the paper or do you want to just invent an argument with me?
If you just want to invent an argument with me, I'm not really interested.
This is a mess:
Pre-coffee. Apologies.
chameleon
As should be very obvious, I would be happy to discuss K13 with you (especially now my brain has started working properly). So why are you ignoring my comments?
Chameleon,
I've already repeated 2, or was it 3? times now -
- you've made no comment on the paper you referenced
- you haven't explained why you think it relates to Church et al.
But, invited to comment and explain, you have now posted 5 times without either commenting or explaining.
Why is that?
What is your comment?
What is your explanation?
Can you even answer the very simple question, how was this paper brought to your attention?
Chubby is just doing a Joan.
Chameleon,
What I want to know is where do you find these denier papers? You clearly glean them from some source, and not from the primary literature. Methinks you do this by visiting denier blogs, and not from the Web of Science or Scopus. Given that there are only a very small number of these studies, why don't you link to some of the 13,950 pro-AGW papers and ask to discuss them?
I really don't have the time for this kind of pseudo-academic wankery I am afraid.
A denier paper?
It says that the acceleration of sea level rise can exceed the accelerated rate we are currently seeing, and that the sea level rise corresponding to that accelerated rate is in the region of 6-9m.
The IPCC is predicting 1m.
Clearly this is an alarmist paper of the 1st degree!!!!
Kopp et al. (2013):
Oh, I see - so we have at least 1,000 years to figure out how to reduce the human population by 85% so that the land remaining after a 9m rise in sea level will support us.
So we don't need to spend money on cheap energy from wind power, we can continue to fuck up the environment by spending our money on the more expensive fossil fuel energy sources, or the insanely highly-expensive nuclear option for boiling water to make electricity.
Sounds perfectly sensible to me.
chameleon
I see no assessment of K13's conclusions. I have quoted the final sentence of K13 again above (# 7).
What is your assessment of the conclusions in K13?
Chameleon's hiding out on the other thread, seeing as she hasn't got anything intelligent to say about this paper.
Is that what he does?
I musty say, I've never understood what anything on the Jonas thread was about - his grasp of the language is clearly worse than my 9-year-old's, which never helps either.
(At least Chameleon writes as well as a 12-year-old).
(A 12-year-old with a brain injury, that is).
We can continue this tomorrow folks.
I live in NSW Australia. I need my beauty sleep :-)
B4 I go however,
JeffH?
Why are you calling a peer reviewed paper a 'denier paper'?
I find that an incredibly odd comment.
Also? What do you mean by where I found it?
I linked it up thread.
That's where I found it.
chameleon
I hope you do better than today.
Gee: all rested up so tomorrow we can do non sequiturs...
BBD?
If you genuinely want to discuss this paper tomorrow, you could try avoiding the sneering. It might help :-)
chameleon
Stuff your false victimhood.
See you tomorrow.
...and Passive Aggressive 101.
While we're all holding our breath awaiting the return of the Golden One -
Chubbie crowed earlier "Unlike Bernard, I don't post here all night".
Yet this is posting from chubbie who is only going to bed now, at somewhere between 4AM and 7AM.
But lying from a denier like chubby? Not unexpected.
bill
See Vaks et al. (2013).
# 19 wow
In the interests of accuracy and fair representation, chameleon accused *me* of posting all night. Unfortunately, chameleon (not given to analytical reasoning) forgets that the world is not Australia, nor Australia the world.
I am in the UK ;-)
To be fair, Duffer has the same problem with the UK cf The World.
It seems to be a denier thing.
Chammy,
Why do you insist on discussing one published study downplaying the human fingerprint when there are some 14,000 that support the theory? Let's see you go through some of the massive literature in support of AGW before we discuss a paltry few that don't.
Oh! You mean, all that global warming is for the common people outside the UK!
Well, it's not good enough, I WANT my share of global warming! Warming is GOOD, freezing is BAD.
So, Deltoids, when the hell is going to start warming?
All you're doing is demonstrating that deniers don't ever learn, Duffer.
No, is the answer to your allegation.
"Warming is GOOD, freezing is BAD."
Pop into your oven and turn it on.
Jeff Harvey
I wouldn't say that K13 'downplays the human fingerprint' [of AGW] at all. The authors specifically state that the Eemian [LIG in their terminology] is not a direct analogue for the Holocene, and are careful in their wording:
I think that the Hockey Schtick blog (almost certainly where chameleon got this from) *misrepresents* K13. We should be careful not to be influenced by this. Perhaps it's worth repeating the final sentence of K13 once more, as it counters the misrepresentation the author of THS blog neatly:
Oh, if chubby ever turns up with a different location for her source other than the HokeySchtick, check the wayback machine for when this second source got it.
I reckon you#ll find it was a too late to be chubby's source.
Calumny seems to have been born with a head chock-full of denier memes. Or maybe they appear to her in dreams or visions. Because she doesn't do denier blogs, not no way not ever, no sir, not no how, not in a million years, God strike her dead, Lawdy no, not her.
Apparently, she considers that position believable.
Or that those who accept the science of AGW are total fools born yesterday.
Given the aversion of deniers to honesty, I've made a decision which is most likely.
Word has come to me from the minor threads that a palindromic putz wrote:
Citation please, liar.
Since just about the only thing you've never pretended to be is educated, may I suggest going to college, where you may be exposed to such life-changing realities as the 2nd declension of Latin nouns (winklevoss, pl. winklevi), and who knows—even the 4th declension (consensus, pl. consensus)?
Meanwhile I'm pretty sure I've adhered to the Englished-down inflection (consensuses, or if you're a molecular biologist, consensi). Google corroborates that "consensei" is a figment of your dyslexia.
You really have nothing but contempt for private property, do you, Bray.
Hy Dltds!
Fr brf mmnt n tm hld th fnd mprssn tht FrnkD ws smthng mr thn ths blg's typcl hv-tdy, n-n-th-rp-ff, plyng-dmb-whn-t's-cnvnnt, mmmy's-lttl-vr-chvr mmbr-n-gd-stndng f th Dltd, Brn-dd, Bbb-pd Brthrhd. n rrr n my prt.
Sffrng n "SS" (nt-Smrtypnts Syndrm) ttck, FrnkD, wllflly n mgns, mks t tht h cn't rlt th cncpt f "cp d'l" t th "lttl-gy" (hs cmmnt #92 n th prvs pg). Wll, FrnkD, lt m hlp y t, l' sprt.
Th Wk ntry fr "cp d'l" s gd smmry f th cncpt n th mltry cntxt. Hwvr, ll f th dscssns f th trm, n th Wk rtcl, sffr, n my hmbl pnn, frm n xclsv pplctn f th cncpt t "gnrlshp".
Rthr, th "cp d'l" fclty--th blty t nstntly, t glnc, sz p cmplx, cnfsng sttns, n whch vlbl ntl s lmtd, bt mmdt dcsn-mkng nd ctn s nvrthlss rqrd--s ftr f mltry ldrshp frm th fr-tm ldr-lvl n p.
nd nc ntrdcd t th "cp d'l" cncpt (rlly lrnng "nm" fr smthng hd prvsly ntd), rlzd tht ths wsm "lttl-gys" f my hmbl rgns ('m stll f th "lttl-gy" clss, ncdntlly--rthr nlk Dltd's mny stts-nxty-rddn, nscr-nrd prvns tryng dsprtly t dsgs thr slf-htng, prl/ptty-brgs rgns), whm dmrd nd dptd s rl-mdls s yth, sd xctly tht "cp d'l" lgc t rnt thmslvs mdst th hstlrs, scms, nd cns tht bst dly lf t tht lvl f scty. (Crsly, hv nvr mt smrty-pnts, crdntls-flshng, mmm's-by, whny-snt, cn't-gt--dt, zts-n'-bgrs-cntrc, gk-bll tnr-prkr wh cld d "cp d'l" fr sht.)
t ts mst bsc, thn, th "lttl gy" vrsn f "cp d'l" s n blty t sttly ct thrgh th "bllsht" whn ndr th sslt f tl-mrktr; hgh-prssr sd-cr slsmn; lf-nsrnc hstlr; pltc-hck; r, vn, sm tmc-brn, vry-twr-slck, prst, d-s--sy-nt-s--d, gd-dls-fr-m-bt-nt-fr-y, grnshrt shystr, wth frsh, hgh-crbn swll stll drppng frm hs flshy, hypcrt, fll-prfssr, trgh-dptd sck-snt, rnnn' hs C2-spw, "nk-nk" rfc nd bsy lyng hs scr-mngrng, "crbn-tx"/crbn-strty ptch n y.
Gt th d nw, FrnkD? nd, h by th wy, Dltds, whn y gys gt rnd t ctlly blvng n yr wn hstl (nt mch chnc f tht, knw) nd ctlly dpt lw-crbn lfstyls fr yrslvs (y mght strt wth smthng smpl lk vd-cnfrncng ths bqts, wst-f-tm, ttl-bndggl, crbn-Chrnbyl c-cnfbs f yrs) wk m p. mn, lk, th "lttl-gy" s mghtly mprssd by LDRSHP FRM TH FRNT ND BY PRSNL XMPL, y knw. thrws, Dltds, th lttl-gy's "cp d'l" stmt f th sttn whn dlng wth sm drkd-p, ss-hl wh dmnds th "lttl-gy" d th "rght thng fr th kds" bt dsn't prctc wht h prchs--y mght b srprsd t lrn--s BLLSHTTR! Y knw, lk FrnkD.
'course, you're only succeeding in displaying the vapid vitriol of deniers (and their double-standard on same).
mike
This constant strawmanning about personal carbon footprints is a bore.
1/ You *assume* that all or most climate scientists and Deltoid commenters are acting in bad faith - big footprints; no personal effort to reduce same. But you do not have this information.
2/ You ignore the *core* issue which is the emissions profile of nations which is determined by the amount of coal used in the national energy mix, and by infrastructural efficiencies.
3/ Growing from that are the emissions trajectories of nations, which are predicated on their current stage of industrial development, population change, rates of urbanisation, existing and planned coal-fired capacity vs gas, nuclear, renewable capacity, and planned infrastructural energy efficiency, be it retrofit or new build.
FFS stop foaming at the mouth and have a sensible conversation. You are giving me a headache.
"FFS stop foaming at the mouth and have a sensible conversation"
He can't.
It's all he's got.
"You are giving me a headache."
This only encourages them. Since you hurt their feelings (pointed out when they are wrong), they want to hurt you.
# 30 Brad Keyes
If you keep this up, eventually our host will notice that you have breached your restraining order and you will be banned outright. I'm fairly sure TL doesn't look in very often, but that's the point - keep this up and you *will* get spotted out of your cage eventually, and that, I suspect, will be that.
Mind you, if you were looking for an exit mechanism which would allow you to escape the mess you are in here apparently involuntarily... ah. Perhaps now it makes sense.
Nah, he wants the martyrdom.
I say let him have it.
wow
If only they did it the old-fashioned way. With a stake, and bundles of firewood.
BBD,
Yr: "Bt y hv n prsnl nfrmtn."
Y knw, BBD, y knd hv pnt thr. . K., lt m tk lttl srvy:
!. ll ths Dltds nd thr "clmt scntsts" wth crrnt "crbn ftprnt" tht s "sstnbl", f dptd s th nrm fr ll f rth's crrnt nd prjctd ppltn, dntfy yrslf. Pls ls dscrb, n sm dtl, yr nsprng, lw-crbn lvng nd wrkng crcmstncs, f y wld b s knd. 'll ssm, f crs, f gt n rspnss-- mn crdbl rspnss--tht y Dltds r jst bnch f crp-t, crbn-hgg hypcrts.
nd, h by th wy, "clmt hwks" f Dltd-lnd, BBD's "prsnl ffrt t rdc crbn" dsn't ct t. Shv yr tkn, slf-rgrdng, crbn-rdctn gstrs, Dltds! thr y wlk-th-wlk nd lv th xmplry, "sstnbl" lw-crbn lfstyl y prch r y dn't--nd f y dn't tht jst mks y tw-fcd bnch f rp-ff, crbn-strty cn-rtsts, wh prbbly fncy yrslvs s cnnssrs f fr-fr, stnk-bmb chss, mprtd t ppllng crbn-xpns.
2. ls, ll ths Dltds nd "clmt scntsts" wh rfs t ttnd ny c-cnfbs, n ny thr mnnr thn thrgh vd-cnfrncng--bcs f yr cncrn tht th bscn crbn-ftprnt f sch drks-gn-wld, prty-tm, txpyr-rpff, bng-bng blw-ts mprl th "kds"--pls stnd-p nd b cntd by nm! Hmnty pprcts yr prncpld stnd nd y dsrv pblc rcgntn fr yr LDRSHP FRM TH FRNT ND BY PRSNL XMPL n bhlf f mnknd.
Rdy t cpy, c-wrrrs: Ww (Ww s Mm; Mm s Ww)? Chk? FrnkD? bll? BrnrdJ? ndy? thrs? nd, f crs, y BBD?--whn y'v rcvrd frm tht nsty mgrn f yrs, mn.
Stll wtng, gys...(crckts)
mike
Thought you'd carry on ranting about strawman (1). Wow appears to be right: you haven't got anything else, have you?
Prove me wrong by attempting a serious discussion of the major issues - which I notice you ignored completely:
2/ You ignore the *core* issue which is the emissions profile of nations which is determined by the amount of coal used in the national energy mix, and by infrastructural efficiencies.
3/ Growing from that are the emissions trajectories of nations, which are predicated on their current stage of industrial development, population change, rates of urbanisation, existing and planned coal-fired capacity vs gas, nuclear, renewable capacity, and planned infrastructural energy efficiency, be it retrofit or new build.
mike
I've already discussed my modest attempts to keep my carbon footprint low. Once at JC's and once, more recently here. If you actually care, you can hunt down the recent comment here yourself.
Arguing that we should all suffer for the good of mankind is a stupid, even ludicrous strawman.
Arguing that a handful of scientists attending conferences means that they are hypocrites and/or AGW is a scam is stupid.
May the vowels desert you.
No, he's arguing that EVERYONE ELSE should all suffer for the good of mankind.
He'll keep going as long as even one person uses up any carbon.
Oddly enough, he's the sort of opinionated toerag that proclaims that he should do nothing "because China will just increase their output" as if there were some sort of "correct" production of CO2 and everyone wants to keep that value.
Which, oddly enough again, is a strawman this type of fool trots out when they have nothing better to do with respect to global temperatures.
In case you are too lazy to keep track of your conversations or too stupid to conduct the required search, the Deltoid comment you need is here.
# 43 @ mike, obviously
# 42 - yes. Same spiel at JC's.
BBD,
Lt's kp ths ll smpl-lk nd t th "lttl-gy", "cp d'l" lvl f dscrs, BDD. . K.?
Y gys rn't wllng t prctc wht y prch. Rght? Y gys wllw n yr C2-spw, crbn pg-t, sncr gd dls. Rght? Bt--lt's s nw--y mk--grn-wshd-bck/mk--glg, bld-sckng, slth-bckt lfty-prsts wnt t cm ftr my chp-gs, my bb-mgnt mnstr-trck, nd my mdst, czy, dtchd, sngl-fmly bd. Rght? Wll, BBD, cll BLLSHT! BCK FF Y MTHR-FRCKR, C-RTRD, HV-BZ, RP-FF HYPCRTS!
S, BBD, 'm cpbl f "srs" dscssn. mn, lk, rlly "srs" dscssn--nt prtnd-"srs"-dscssn tht s, n rlty, jst wst-f-my-tm, grnshrt snw-jb rsmblng nthng s mch s n nnyng, pstrng tl-mrktr ptch ll drssd-p n smrty-pnts flm-flm.
n th thr hnd, ht m p, BBD, wth sm LDRSHP FRM TH FRNT ND BY XMPL nd y'll prbbly hv m nd mny nthr "lttl-gy" tng t f yr hnd (ftr w chck thngs t, f crs).
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
then
Wrong.
Wrong.
Liar.
... and yawn.
BBD,
Gv m brk, gy! Y ct fw stntts, slf-cngrtltry, crbn-rdctn "scrfcs" (bt y vn gv p cnnd-spnch fr Lnt) y'v md whl rtnng, n n-yr-fc, crbn--g-g, C2-spw lfstyl tht wld mbrrss Rmn mprr (nd dn't mn Mrcs rls). nd 'm sppsd t mprssd by tht? mn, lk, s ll tht rzzl-dzzl , frlss-crbn-phb "strt-crd", y mprbbly clm, sppsd t wn frm m nd thrs prmssn fr y t snk s "lttl-gys" nt dsprt, lw-crbn pnry (whl, jst myb, y mk fw bcks/glgs n th dl). Ft chnc, BBD! nlss, f crs, w s y nd yr hv-bz pls gng frst.
BBD, dn't y s hw rdcls y lk ptchng ths tkn, ncnsqntl, crbn-rdctn gstrs f yrs s sm srt f prf f yr gng-h cmmtmnt t th grnshrt-cs. Slf-wrnss, BBD. mn, lk, tsd th "c-bbbl" y nhbt th whl wrld sn't sm grp-thnk spprt-grp fr trnsprntly phny-blny, nvr-hypcrt prtnsns, y knw. mn, lk, s nrml ppl cn s thrgh ll yr B. S., BBD--n prblm. Thnk bt t.
n lst thng, BBD, s njyd yr lst f ths h-s-prcs, rlly nrs, tghn'-t-t-bg-tm crbn-scrfcs y'v md, nd ll, bt, thn, t my vry dp dsppntmnt, whn lkd, n trn, fr yr lst f ths hgh-crbn, lfstyl prps y'v dcdd t rtn, cldn't fnd t--fncy tht!. S, BBD, cld y prtty-pls prvd tht lst, gn, BBD?--lng wth ll ths gd rsns why rlly spcl gy lk y, BBD, wh s fthflly spts th hv's prty-ln nd srvs s sch snppy mdl fr ll th ltst n hv-fshns dsrvs ll ths rtnd, hgh-crbn tys nd plsrs f yrs. 'll bkmrk th lst, dn't wrry, BBD.
li'll mike - how long have you been deluding yourself that you're "normal people"?
mike
No. Please click the link to the comment referenced at # 43. Please re-read all recent comments above wrt STRAW MAN ARGUMENTATION by yourself.
This with specific reference to points (2) and (3) at # 34 and # 40.
You are making a poor fist of this.
As you are proving resistant to reason, this is a straw-man argument:
The *core* issues do not demand privation. Hair shirts are not mandatory. That is a purely contrarian (inactivist) construct (aka straw-man).
The serious discussion centres on (2) and (3) serially ignored by you above.
Are you capable of upping your game or am I going to be forced to write you off as a foaming crank?
mike
What 'high-carbon toys and pleasures'? An energy-efficient computer? An old-school mobile phone? A few clothes (quality over quantity), worn for years? I suppose books are probably the greatest indulgence. Okay. Too many books. Call the headsman.
"See, BBD, I’m capable of a “serious” discussion. I mean, like, a really “serious” discussion–not a pretend-”serious”-discussion that is, in reality, just a waste-of-my-time, greenshirt snow-job resembling nothing so much as an annoying, pestering tele-marketer pitch all dressed-up in smarty-pants flim-flam"
The Mike writes this vacuous bunch of shit which totally undermines his claim. He's had to resort to the same kinds of smears coming from the pseudo-fascist far right corporate funded advocacy groups; calling scientists and environmentalists everything bad under the sun and linking them with ex-communists. This has been part of the anti-environmental repertoire ever since the Berlin Wall came down (see Rowell, 'Green Backlash', 1996).
The guy is a nut best left to his own sordid devices.
Hello again Jeff
It's a funny thing - some might call it an irrational prejudice - but when I see the term 'greenshirt' I immediately think the worst of the author.
Earlier, I described mike's use of this and related language as false equivalence, but 'vacuous bunch of shit' would do equally well.
This is why I suggested to mike upthread that he ups his game and engages at a serious level. He never has before (elsewhere) but hope springs eternal.
BBD,
Yr: #52
I can see there's been a misunderstanding--and I take responsibility. I mean "toys and pleasures" in the broadest sense and if you, BBD, want to provide a list that is responsive to my request, please do so in this form, as a start:
--what is the square footage of your familiy's accomodations and work-spaces, if any? And how does that work out in terms of sq ft/full-time resident?
--what is the nature of your climate controls (e. g. do you use Air Conditioning/Heating for your abode)? Indeed, what are the powered devices used in your home, in total, by all of its permanent residents--fridge, stove, stereos, video-games, etc?.
--what foodstuffs do you consume that are not produced within a 50 mile radius of your home?
--what travel by fossil-fuel conveyances do you and/or your family undertake?
--what goods do you and your immediate family own that are imported and your estimate of the carbon-expense of their importation?
--what services do you and your immediate family consume and their carbon-footprint
--what are your and your family's hobbies and entertainments and their carbon footprint (and yeah, I mean, like, takin' the kids to play soccer even).
Again, a responsive answer to the above would provide me a meaningful understanding of your carbon-reduction ardor--and detect any "fudging" of the issue by claiming your own, possibly very limited carbon consumption, while excluding from mention a "family" lifestyle that is high-roller and carbon pig-out in character.
I anticipate that my above inquiries will provoke a certain outrage (they would me, if the situation were reversed), but you've put yourself, on record, BBD, as LEADING FROM THE FRONT AND PERSONAL EXAMPLE in matters of carbon-reduction, and, on that basis, I just want to inquire a little bit further before I go gently into that good, Agenda-21 compliant, rabbit-hutch hell, you and your hive-bozo buddies have planned for me, on the basis of your hive-hero say-so.
And please don't misunderstand, BBD, I don't begrudge you a materially prosperous lifestyle--just don't come after mine. Cheap gas. Cheap utilities. Detached family-home with some yard for the kids. A gas-guzzler with sex-appeal. That's all us "little-guys" are lookin' for, BBD. And, you can, in turn, keep all your fancy-pants imported wines and cheeses and trips to see real-live polar-bears in the wild and your special "party-funds", set-aside for your after-hours, eco-conference bacchanales- (as long as you don't fund your good-deals with taxpayer dollars ripped-off from the "little guy", that is) and the like. At least, as far as I'm concerned.
mike
No, I have not. Ever. Disagree? Demonstrate by quotation.
You continue to ignore the core issues:
2/ The emissions profile of nations is determined by the amount of coal used in the national energy mix, and by infrastructural efficiencies or lack thereof.
3/ The emissions trajectory of nations is predicated on their current stage of industrial development, population change, rates of urbanisation, existing and planned coal-fired capacity vs gas, nuclear, renewable capacity, and planned infrastructural energy efficiency, be it retrofit or new build.
4/ Strawman argumentation has nothing to do with (2) and (3).
Li'll mike, do you really think (you remember what thinking is, right?) that a walking, meme-spouting, fuck-witted, denier-greatest-hits troll is relevant to anything? Anywhere?
You'd do a good sorry-Monckton-can't-be-here-but-here's-li'll mike-and-his-full-blown-ignorance routine-at-a-Heartland-gig-providing-you-agreed-to-suck-Joe-Bast's-cock-if you-carefully-check-the-rider, but otherwise you're somebody else's second-hand-collect-your-coat-and-leave-your-visitor's tag-at-reception-on-the-way-out clownshoes.
But what kind of life is that? Yours, presumably.
BBD,
Yr: "N, hv nt."
Wll, BBD, f "nt" thn wht ws th pnt f yr hgh-ddgn strn-rprmnd drctd my wy bt ll yr prvsly-rprtd crbn-rdctns tht, y fnd, ddn't chrsh n my mmry prprly. r, wht ws th pnt f tht bg-scn "Wht hgh crbn tys nd plsrs?" ndgntn-bgr qp f yrs, n tht p-thrd cmmnt f yrs, tht ls ncldd yr pltry, pr-l'l-l'-lw-crbn-m nvntry f yr hrmt's-cll, gd-lttl-grnshrt, lw-crbn gdgtry?--by th wy, BBD, spclly lkd tht ptght, Mr. c-Prtn-Fghts-C2 , "nrgy-ffcnt cmptr" prt f yr rff. Gd stff!
Bt, . K., BBD, y sy nn f tht ws ntndd t rprsnt yrslf s prgn f crbn-rdctn nd n thrttv crbn-rdctn dvct wh lds by xmpl (nt tkn gstrs). . K., BBD, 'll cncd, pr y sy-s, tht y'r rght, thn, nd 'm wrng. Y r nt nd d nt cnsdr yrslf t b smn wrthy f mltn whn t cms t mttrs f lw-crbn lfstyl. ndd, plgz fr my rlr mstk n th mttr. Hppy nw?
S, gss, BBD, 'll jst hv t sttl fr y s slf-cknwldgd, crbn-hgg, sfl-tl hypcrt trgtng th lttl gy wth yr hv-pprvd mk--bck/mk--glg crbn-rdctn dvccy whl sprng bth yrslf nd yr hv-bz pls ny mnngfl crbn-rdctn brdn. Whtvr wrks, gy.
That's li'll mike - the claim-to-know know-nothing.
The pride of denialism in its self-revealed glory.
mike
My point was that you were misrepresenting me and indulging in straw-man argumentation. As you continue to do with clunking lack of subtlety.
Come on mike. You once said 'poetaster'. You can do better than this.
Duff asks, "Where's the warming"?
Silly Duffer, did you miss this, which I posted yesterday:
mike
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
I've been arguing about arguments on Deltoid. Pointing out flaws and inconsistencies and misrepresentations and, occasionally, scientific references.
Where you get your characterisation of me from is a mystery.
Disagree? Demonstrate by specific quotation.
Vince Whirlwind
Perhaps Duff is confused by the cold weather in Blighty. Blighty is not the world, after all.
Shall we have some fun with WfT ;-)
He should have a look at the UAH satellite data. UAH (Spencer & Christy) recently reported that *globally*, January 2013 was the second-warmest January in the entire satellite record, with a 0.506C positive anomaly over the UAH 1981 - 2010 baseline. Across the whole record, only January 2010 was warmer, but it came at the the peak of the strong 2010 El Niño.
There is no El Niño now yet here's UAH TLT with January 2013 right up there, leading from the front. Weird, eh?
Jan 2013 really is leading from the front. Only *six* months since 1979 were warmer. All occurred either during the 1998 'super' El Niño or the strong El Niño of 2010 - but there is no El Niño now.
Never mind, reasons Duff. Get a bloody grip. It's chilly in Blighty, and be damned to Johnny Foreigner and his El-Whatsits.
***
Months warmer than January 2013, UAH TLT:
1998.08 0.651 Feb ('Super' El Niño)
1998.25 0.662 Apr ('Super' El Niño)
1998.33 0.562 May ('Super' El Niño)
2010 0.581 Jan (Strong El Niño)
2010.08 0.542 Feb (Strong El Niño)
2010.17 0.577 Mar (Strong El Niño)
Months equal to Jan 2013, UAH TLT:
1998.42 0.506 Jun ('Super' El Niño)
Ah, but Duffer's immune to the step change in progress as Steve Goddard has farted all across the blogosphere about the 'record growth in Arctic sea ice, so in Duffer's view there's 'nothing amiss'. Any flooding in the UK later this year as all that evaporated water rains out will be due to 'bad town planning decisions' - anything but climate change.
Of course what Stevie doen't tell the drooling Duffer ignorati is that his 'record growth' in thin, easily melted come summer first year ice is still below the 1979-2001 baseline average for the time of year. Mainly because he knows that Duffer et al are too stupid to understand simple graphs anyway and wilfully have no conception of the consequences for weather in the northern hemisphere.
Because as long as his Bar-B-Q is rusting in his garage and news reports refer only to Johnny Foreigners and "Brads" and Jonases and Alders (ineffectively) argue otherwise', Duffer and his toy soldiers see no reason to be alarmed.
Yep; a deacde and a half later we've now reached a situation where 'average' conditions are pretty-well equivalent to the super el Nino - a 1/200 year event, IIRC - of 1998.
This is touted as evidence of 'cooling.'
Sadly, I'm beginning to believe that The Stupid is truly the most powerful force in human affairs.
Only for stupid people, bill.
By the end of the year Tony Abbott will be the Prime Minister. Stupid is everywhere.
JeffH @# 23 and BBD @#27,
Good morning from NSW Australia.
JeffH,
I am not insisting any such thing, nor do I think that this study DOWNPLAYS the human fingerprint.
This study is just attempting to gain some perspective on SL with updated data.
BBD, I did not find this study at the Hockey Shtick site, nor was I influenced by it (as I didn't read it)
I have however now visited the hockey schtik for the first time this morning and I agree that my summary of the paper is not disimilar to the summary there although (unlike the summary there) I have not credited the paper with any other conclusions other than what the paper concludes.
I'm not surprised that my outline is a bit similar considering that it was the SAME paper that was being outlined.
I also noticed at the Brad K thread, BBD, that you wanted to sneer a little at Kopp?
Here is a rundown of his quals and experience:
http://www.bobkopp.net/
I do not see any reason to sneer at this person BBD?
Also, Vince is asking why I mentioned the Church et al Paper?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1
This peer reviewed paper also finds that 20th century SL is not exhibiting anything out of the ordinary but does go further than the Kopp et al paper and concludes thus:
The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing. Semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century.
So if anything, I suppose the Church et al paper would fit more into JeffH's idea of a 'denier paper' (??????) than the Kopp et al paper.
But John Church, Neil White etc are also well qualified people.
http://www.csiro.au/en/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Marine--Atmosph…
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_about_us.html#white
However, unlike JeffH ,I don't believe these papers are attempting to do anything other than objectively study SL with updated data sets.
The more recent peer reviewed published research (and I don't think it has anything to do with numbers of papers JeffH) is indicating that recent SLR is not unprecedented.
My prediction for Duffer's considered response:
Yeah, but where's the warming
That's what I thought - you don't know the difference between the 20th Century and the Eemian.
Kopp says nothing about 20th Century sea level rise.
Church says nothing about sea level rise being "out of the ordinary".
So, we have a precedent for a 6m to 9m sea level rise.
The IPCC is telling us 1m is on its way.
Do you think the IPCC are underestimating the scale of the problem, again?
I think that's what Chameleon's trying to tell us - we now have a precedent for what happens when sea level rise accelerates to over 3mm/year - a 9-metre sea level rise.
Chameleon is predicting a 9-metre sea level rise.
And they call the IPCC, "Alarmist".
Vince?????
"Church says nothing about sea level rise being “out of the ordinary”.
From Church et al:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1
The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing. Semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century.
and VINCE?
"Kopp says nothing about 20th Century sea level rise."
From Kopp et al:
http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/21/gji.ggt029.full…
Previous analyses inferred that LIG mean global sea level (GSL) peaked 6–9 m higher than today. Here, we extend our earlier work to perform a probabilistic assessment of sea level variability within the LIG highstand. Using the terminology for probability employed in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports, we find it extremely likely (95 per cent probability) that the palaeo-sea level record allows resolution of at least two intra-LIG sea level peaks and likely (67 per cent probability) that the magnitude of low-to-high swings exceeded 4 m. Moreover, it is likely that there was a period during the LIG in which GSL rose at a 1000-yr average rate exceeding 3 m kyr−1, but unlikely (33 per cent probability) that the rate exceeded 7 m kyr−1 and extremely unlikely (5 per cent probability) that it exceeded 11 m kyr−1. These rate estimates can provide insight into rates of Greenland and/or Antarctic melt under climate conditions partially analogous to those expected in the 21st century.
So, Australia's just had its hottest summer ever, and this with no El Niño:
http://theconversation.edu.au/hot-summer-yes-the-hottest-12505
Perhaps the Denialati here would care to explain how many (more) record hot years are necessary before global warming can no longer be denied...
Just to follow up on my last post, the previous summer heat record occurred during the 97-98 'super' El Niño - in fact 6 of the 8 previous records were during El Niño years.
I wonder what the next few El Niño will bring to Australia...?
BJ?
You do realise that these figs only take into account since the start of satellite recordings don't you?
Chameleon (once more!) repeats claims about "Church et al." (which is actually Gregory et al.) that were widely circulated in certain circles including The Australian. Those claims were rapidly debunked on publication, including a post about the paper that pointed to this article explaining why one cannot infer sea level acceleration rates by fitting a quadratic to the data. There was even a rare correction in The Australian that quoted Church himself:
Chameleon repeats the debunked claims a month or two after the corrections were pointed out to her. Either she can't take on board new information (entirely plausible, given her record) or hopes no-one will notice that she's repeating claims shown to be false.
This has to be one of the most brain-dead silliest - one of the most profoundly ignorant - things I've ever had the misfortune to witness on Deltoid.
Have you even read the reports on the 2012/2013 Australian summer, and to which data records the Bureau of Meteorology referred?!
Or are you trying to tell us that the first meteorological satellite was launched and operational by 1910 - one hundred and three years ago?
Seriously, Chameleon, whichever state school system was responsible for your lack of education should be hit up for your parents' share of the taxes that went in to not teaching you basic comprehension skills.
BJ,
The hottest official records for OZ and the southern hemisphere was in 1960 and there were also hotter ones than 2012/13 in 1939 and 1896.
There were also equally hot late summers/early autumns in the 1950's and 1980's
The coldest record in the northern hemisphere however is dated 2013.
Another day, another load of BK cobblers.
Brad narrowly defines "peer review" to eliminate the most important part of the process - hey, I thought he claimed to have a superior understanding of how science works?! - and then attacks the Lewandowsky strawman of his own creation as (oh, the irony!) "incoherent". This leads BK to appear to argue that certain improvements to the scientific method are superfluous, or at a minimum "not necessary" - a rather odd claim given merely what we know about psychology and things like "confirmation bias", let alone the occasional episode of deliberate mendacity and any of dozens of other issues that peer review strongly mitigates. BK even cites Feynman without any sign of understanding that Feynman would be all for (the full process of) peer review because trying not to fool oneself is nowhere near sufficient to routinely succeed at not fooling oneself, and the full peer review process does a much better job of meeting that goal.
Ironically this constitutes part of "defending [what passes for] the scientific method" in his mind. Dunning and Kruger are calling BK and they'd like to book a timeslot for an extended chat...
(Taking a wider perspective it is no longer amazing how much verbiage he can generate whilst not answering straightforward questions about the genesis of his beliefs with respect to various scientific propositions.)
An article on more research on Rossby waves.
Duff could profitably note this part (but past evidence indicates that he probably won't because this has been pointed out multiple times before):
This Watching The Deniers article looks at the conspiracy theories propagated by Malcolm Roberts, the Project Leader for The Galileo Movement. (Might be useful reading for those who don't understand references to conspiracy theories put forth in certain "skeptic" circles about "banking families".)
Don't forget to click through to the linked article by Graham Redfearn (which points out there are 19 appendices(!) one of them running to 135 pages - it's all a fraud to establish global socialist governance by international bankers who in the past "enabled and drove communism"- who knew the bankers were such capitalist communist pigs? ;-) ).
This loon has also sent letters to PM Gillard, Climate Change Minister Greg Combet and Shadow Minister for Broadband and Communications Malcolm Turnbull demanding they resign from parliament immediately. He has also sent "lawful notices" demanding that various journalists withdraw any past claims about CO2 damaging the climate.
In response to the report, the Galileo Movement has distanced itself but Alan Jones has apparently "fawned over" Roberts and his work - and the response from SMH journalist Ben Cubby is quite appropriate.
It's also well worth reading to the end sections of the Watching The Deniers article:
"Banking families" - yep - it's all coming out.....
LaRouche.
To be fair - Alan Jones may just be way too dim to have read the subtext there.
So...you agree they say nothing about current sea level acceleration being "out of the ordinary", then?
So...you agree that Kopp says nothing about 20th century sea level rise?
It's nice to see you admit that your assertions were wrong, thanks.
So nice to see Chameleon finally doing her homework, reading her sources, and admitting they don't say anything like what she said they say.
I think we've turned a corner here - Chameleon is obviously approaching her education in good faith. She isn't afraid of learning new things and admitting that they prove her previously held beliefs were wrong.
Good for you, Chameleon!
Oh dear, ocean acidity looks like it could be worse than the scientists' conservative predictions:
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20132702-24102.html
Two questions Chameleon.
1) Where are your references to primary sources?
2) How is it, in your bizarre model of the universe, that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology does not understand its own databases when it says that the summer ending yesterday was the hottest on record?
Seriously, you're crackers. Bat-shit crazy. Read the Bureau's own report on the summer just ending*. They specifically mention the 103-year period, and interestingly it appears that the reporting on the radio today was wrong when it said that the previous record was the 97-98 ‘super’ El Niño - the BoM's page shows that the previous record was in fact +1.23° C anomaly of the summer of 1982–83, compared to the 1961–1990 mean. This summer's anomaly was 1.44° C...
[*Proud financial supporter of WebCite]
Vince?
What do you think these refer to?
From the gregory et al (thanks Lotharsson) paper:
" but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century."
and then these?
From the Kopp et al paper:
Previous analyses inferred that LIG mean global sea level (GSL) peaked 6–9 m higher than today.
These rate estimates can provide insight into rates of Greenland and/or Antarctic melt under climate conditions partially analogous to those expected in the 21st century.
Hmmmm?
I think they do indeed refer to the 20th century after all and they do indeed point out it is highly likely that curent SL and SLR has occured B4.
But it's OK Vince,
I'm not really all that interested in arguing with you over what you think I think the paper says or doesn't say or whatever.
Maybe you need to wait for your hero non climatologists Lewandowsky and Cook to guide you on what is right and wrong about these particular studies?
Because according to your comments at the Brad K thread, Lewandowsky is always right and/or never wrong about matters climate.
;-)
I'm sure Kopp and White and Church etc are all waiting with baited breath for that summation
:-)
Good grief! Chameleon - even after having it pointed out - still thinks "21" is the same (century) as "20".
There's simply no point discussing science with her.
For want of placing the URL between the quotation marks...
...Bureau's own report on the summer just ending.
Dammit!
The Bureau's own report on the summer just ending.
Are you sure about that?
according to your comments at the Brad K thread, Lewandowsky is always right and/or never wrong about matters climate.
He is right until somebody manages to show where he is wrong.
Where was he wrong, Chameleon?
The (energy giant) EDF's PR suicide thing that Monbiot has been touting is interesting.
There's nowt to stop you signing on folks.
(I know several of the people involved in the Gunns case, including TWS's rather brilliant 'bush lawyer'. There's good advice on that site for those challenging large corp.s with buckets of cash to shell out on lawyers. 'Be careful, not silent' indeed!)
Remember: the banking families are all "Jewish". Even if they're not.
It really IS another Neo-Nazi dogwhistle to claim the bankers are doing this.
Bray's reasons for posting are simple narcissism.
His distraught postings when nobody was playing in his jail thread prove that all he craves is attention.
I suspect it wouldn't take very long for BK to get very bored if no-one paid any attention to his meanderings. (It certainly worked for sunspot.)
If there's one dubious benefit the BK carnival has had here it's that his thread has bumped the Jonas thread to the back burner. ;-)
Yeah, I was hoping somebody would terminate Jonah.
Thank god for Brad coming along.
Funny how all these deniers are all idiots, though - how come not one of them can explain why their fringe belief (low sensitivity/underestimated solar forcings/climate science as a global conspiracy/sea level rise as a figment of humanity's collective imagination/etc...) can't do so without telling lie after lie?
No, I think all that would happen is that Bray would petulantly post again and again to any and all threads in order to garner attention until banned, then go elsewhere and cry for attention because they'd been treated so mean.
Wow, I think we should try that experiment :-)
He certainly dons a martyr's cape over his banning at Lewandowsky's for repeatedly violating the commenting terms & conditions (I was *censored* I tells you, *censored*!) so it wouldn't surprise me if he did exactly what you said.
Why not just do it? Seriously, nothing you could do to Brad could possibly equal the narcissistic injury of ignoring him.
He's just rehashing run-of-the-mill Denialist chum-nuggets in a self-satisfied stylee anyway, so what's there to lose?
bill, what annoys the self-centred little prick even more is talking about him (not to him) especially on other threads.
“Brad’s” always good for a round of Crank Bingo.
So far we’ve had:
1) You people are losing the argument
2) Fantasising his interpretation of science as synonymous with Feynman’s and superior to the professionals here.
3) Reliance on crank sources, never primary literature
4) Unable to admit error even when shown it.
5) A sucker for false equivalence.
… and probably a bunch more that isn’t worth the effort researching over in his swamp.
But feel free to add any others that spring readily to mind.
Just head your post “Brad Crank Bingo”.
Well he's recently gone back to asserting that replication of papers in science is pointless, since unless YOU YOURSELF replicate EVERY science assertion used in a paper, you're merely taking the word of authority from someone else and this, in his view, is untenable.
Of course, it doesn't stop him doing just that, as long as it's a crank he's taking the authority from. It seems the amount of people who disregard the ravings is the "proof" of accuracy.
Truly deniers are a breed apart.
Pity they keep shitting in the gene pool.
Bray is no longer even bothering to appear rational.
" [Brad] certainly dons a martyr’s cape over his banning at Lewandowsky’s
Pfft.
Quote me ever lamenting my expulsion from that paradise, liar. Ever."
The general approach is, "I'm not a scientist, so I am ideally placed to assess what they say and to determine that they have no idea what they are talking about."
Andrew Bolt did a beauty earlier this week - he took a report about the trend towards more droughts - some assessment that said by 2050 droughts would be 15%-30% more frequent - and then triumphantly pointed at record rainfall in Queensland for Jan 2013, "scientists proven wrong!".
Complete fucking retard.
Rainfall in 2013 somehow disproves trend projected long-term to 2050.
And they have no idea just how idiotically retarded they are - they genuinely believe they have personal insights that set them above the multiple-phds they are pooh-poohing.
"Rainfall in 2013 somehow disproves trend projected long-term to 2050."
It also demonstrates how incompetent McIntyre is.
If he were competent at it, he'd be telling them how and why they get it wrong.
But he doesn't.
Therefore he's not competent in his own specialist field.
This goes for others totally lacking in self-awareness of their intellectual limitations, such as the devious Steve McIntyre, the simpl-minded bombast, Anthony Watts, and the bitter harpy Judith Curry.
For some reason they have developed a self-belief that immunises them to auto-criticism in the face of any superior knowledge they may become exposed to.
I can't wait to see if Lewandowsky is clever enough to find a next level for his monumentally successful troll-trolling effort.
I tried, not sure he published all my comments - pretty sure I pointed out that "data from 2013 can't possibly disprove a long-term trend to 2050" and that comment got moderated, although he seems to have let through a good 3 or 4 other comments where I've tried to set his cheer-squad of retards straight.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…
Crank Bingo, courtesy of Wow in #5:
6) "I never said that!"
Wow, weirldy, on another thread where he was repeating the "Met confirmed 16 years of no warming" fabrication by that Delingpole idiot, he seems to have allowed this comment of mine through:
I sometimes wonder if Andrew Bolt will ever realise he's wrong and get with the program - I say that because otherwise, I very much agree with Bolt's tilting at various sacred cows, which he used to be very good at until he got diverted by Tea Party spastics.
"that", of course, being nothing he was accused of saying in the first place.
Do deniers think it actually works?
I can understand doing this to the home crowd on denier blogs, since everyone there wants the science to be wrong and any method found is acceptable, but nobody here is taken in by it.
Leo Hickman has an excellent article on 'sceptic' efforts to game blog awards. Take a look at some of the nominations for the 'Best' 'Science' or Technology catogory:
australianclimatemadness.com
bishop-hill.net
chiefio.wordpress.com
climateaudit.org
climatedepot.com
drroyspencer.com
joannenova.com.au
judithcurry.com
motls.blogspot.com
notrickszone.com
stevengoddard.wordpress.com
tallbloke.wordpress.com
wattsupwiththat.com
Some of those are must be obscure even on the denier-sphere, and how can a site - motls - that is so badly designed it makes your eyes hurt be nominated for a blog award?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/mar/01/climate-sceptics…
And there you have, yet again, deniers making up what someone else said so as to claim something nefarious.
In this particular case, asserting that ballot stuffing shouldn't be allowed that Leo said meant that denier blogs should be banned.
Fair enough, deniers flock to Graun and circle-jerk each other up over their fantasy world, so not *entirely* wasted, in so far as it ensures no denier strays from the pack.
But it doesn't work on anyone in the least bit attentive.
Hey, here's an idea!
If it so upsets and frightens you when I comment in this thread, then don't lie about me in this thread, you idiots.
Vince, you lied that,
The dishonesty of your comment practically advertises itself with its absence of actual quotation, but just to remove any doubt that you're a liar, let me clarify for our readers that all I did was repeat Huxley's famous dictum that the improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such, and that for him, skepticism is the highest of duties and blind faith the one unpardonable sin! It's hardly my fault Vince so grotesquely misunderstood these words—I had no idea his ignorance of the history of science was so encyclopaedic that he'd fail to recognise such an immortal saying (which, like so many of the best lines, tells us something we'd always known but had never quite found les mots justes for).
Lotharsson, you lied that,
and when I pointed out that I’ve never done so, rather than admit being caught out in a lie, you had the shameless lameness to try to convert the situation into a geriatric parlour game:
Newsflash, grandma:
if you accuse me of saying something I never said, you’d better expect a fist full of I never said that in your lying gums.
Stop lying, idiots.
Fuck off back to your own thread Brad. It's piss-poor manners to be in breach of the terms of your restraining order.
He doesn't even know what's going on. He lives entirely in his make-believe world.
Seriously broken.
Bray, what you claim you never said nobody else claimed you said.
Therefore nobody here is lying.
Your brain is damaged.
Chameleon
No, that's a complete fabrication. Don't lie about what I write. I've got a low enough opinion of you as it is.
Right - back to Kopp et al. (2013):
This modest difference in GAT between Eemian and Holocene is within conservative estimates of ECS to 2 x CO2.
The Eemian is not a direct analogue for the Holocene under sharply increasing CO2 forcing. It is an example of past SLR response to a slightly warmer climate than the Holocene. The late Eemian MSL highstand was *at least* 5m above Holocene MSL. K13:
Are you with me so far? Small increase in GAT = >5m increase in MSL.
K13 is NOT a paper about C20th/C21st SLR. It is a paleoclimate study of the rates of change in MSL during the Eemian.
The tripe you culled from the Hockey Schtick liar - who fooled you blind - can be ignored. The take-away from K13 wrt future SLR under GHG forcing is that substantial SLR can occur *within* an interglacial. Rapid SLR is not solely a feature of the deglaciation phase when the major NH ice sheets and the Antarctic cap experience maximum melt rates. K13:
Emphasis added to aid comprehension.
lord_sidcup # 13
Good piece by LH there; thanks for the link. Nice to see another example of widespread, calculated dishonesty by the so-called 'sceptics'.
Did you notice that SkS asked to be *withdrawn* from the Best Science shortlist because of the cheating going on?
Says it all, really.
Nope. What Wow already said, BK.
You have a propensity to paraphrase what people said into a strawman, and then project "lying" onto others on that basis - and you may have a faulty memory about what you have said to boot. (It can be so hard to keep it all straight when you're more interested in ducking and weaving than being straightforward, can't it?)
You're not fooling anyone here but chameleon and mike, and that should give you pause - but probably won't.
Lotharsson
Perhaps we shouldn't encourage BK to breach the terms of his restraining order by addressing him directly here?
If, as is probable, he is trying to get himself banned as an exit strategy that will allow him subsequently to claim that he was winning and is a martyr, we shouldn't assist him.
It's too bad that Keyes has a short attention span and doesn't read all of an article he chooses to mangle.
Here is the total of what Huxley said, note that it says the exact opposite of what Keyes tries to tell us he said. That is just complete disregard for facts, honesty and decency, lying to your audience is a despicable tactic and should be one of the primary reasons for banning of a commenter..
Note the final two sentences, they explain the difference between deniers like Keyes (faith) and real scientists (verification by experiment and observation).
"If, as is probable, he is trying to get himself banned as an exit strategy that will allow him subsequently to claim that he was winning and is a martyr, we shouldn’t assist him."
I see no reason why we should care if we assist him or not. We DEFINITELY aren't helping him claim that he is winning, and that isn't going to change if he gets banned either.
And since we are talking ABOUT him, not TO him, we have no more reason to post on his jail thread than he has the requirement to ONLY post on Michael Mann's blog when talking ABOUT Michael Mann (or any of the other real scientists he's denigrated).
Note, he still insists he is winning, even though he isn't.
Even if we never did anything that made him decide to violate his terms of access and get permabanned, he would still decide, if he wished to, that he was winning and is a martyr.
wow
I long ago suggested we should just stop talking to him. I see this has come up again and I endorse the idea wholeheartedly. He will hate it, and it will put a stop to his nonsense but *he won't be able to claim martyrdom*.
Shall we resolve to give it a go?
In fairness to BK, we can similarly resolve not to talk about him on this or other threads. Just... leave him to it.
It's a moot concern.
He's repeatedly dishonestly portrayed his ban from Lewandowsky's site and falsely claimed to be "winning" on any number of points here - never mind the number of times he has falsely accused other commenters here of lying even after repeated rebuttals. I don't expect him to change his ways if and when he gets banned from Deltoid - and anyone who bothers to check those kinds of claims by perusing his thread here will probably conclude he's full of it, especially since Tim will leave a comment as he closes BK's thread explaining exactly why he was banned.
"I long ago suggested we should just stop talking to him."
Which causes him to rush about screaming on other threads because he demands attention.
Note: if it works or is expected to work, this is no different than Tim just banning the twat, except it requires everyone else to do work and lets Tim pretend he's a Free Speecher.
Pretty cowardly IMO.
After all, it is abundantly obvious that the man is sunk in denial and quite unreachable. He's turned away from reason. I believe we've all seen absolute demonstration of this now. So let's talk about soup recipes or that oddly warm January, or how to skin a cat or anything, really, so long as it isn't you-know-who in the basement, howling and sloshing about in the cess of denial.
Yep, works for me. I've been thinking much the same the last couple of days as he's looping over his talking points and his style of unintentional comedy doesn't benefit from replaying the joke, and I simply can't see him decide to start having a good faith discussion after all this time.
So...soup recipes? I'm partial to rasam and sambar myself, but couldn't create one if my life depended on it ;-)
However, the only source of utility is the illustration of the inward-spiralling idiocy of the standard unshakeable denier that he displays.
Talking about him is not talking to him and no more requires us to post on his jail walls than his slating of Lewandowski requires he post on his blog rather than here.
Wow # 29
Come on, you've done astonishing things here. I've never seen endurance like it. You have nothing left to do. TL may be being a little more hands-off than we would prefer, but it's his blog... what can one do?
Unless of course you enjoy talking to BK? I have done, but the novelty has worn off. And he is, as we know, unreachable. Denial protected by intellectual arrogance. It's a nasty pathology, denial. Nasty.
# 31 Lotharsson
I noticed that you were more absent than not, and secretly envied your resolve. I still had a bit to get through with patient X, but I think I'm about done now. As you say, recursive is boring.
I'm sure you could make a passable rasam if you had a crack at it ;-)
"but it’s his blog… what can one do?"
All the work.
Which when that load is carried by a dozen or more regular posters is rather more a lapse in Tim's integrity to allow than if it were only one or two, which is more a different way of apportioning approximately the same strait effort.
But a score or more is rather more shirking from one whose blog it is than can be accommodated with "well, it's his, innit", and becomes "yes, it is. Which is why he bears responsibility".
Wow
I'm much too recent a visitor here to be able to comment on this. I leave the matter for the long-term regulars and TL.
Speaking as a scientist with more than 20 years of experience in my field of research, I find it sad that the internet is the final refuge of so many deluded souls anxious to downplay the human fingerprint on the environment. Deltoid has its fair share of academic wannabes who appear to suggest the blogging is an adequate substitute for a university education in the relevant fields. These people (we all know who they are but let's repeat them for clarity: Brad, Chameleon, Spangled Drongo, Jonas, Mike, Olaus, GSW, Karen, Sunspot, Betula, PentaxZ and more) stay in the shadows because their wafer-thin arguments would be shot down in a fraction of a second were they to venture into an academic venue - a university, research center, conference, workshop etc. - where these issues are studied, debated, argued and discussed.
I've been away in Sri Lanka for the past three weeks, but on cursorily going over the various threads in Deltoid when I returned, the same pattern emerges over and over: people with no expertise whateoever in any scientific field wade in here thinking they have pearls of scientific wisdom to impart. They also write as if the field of climate science doesn't exist outside of blogs. They haven't read more than a very small number of studies, and most of these are cited because they are the minuscule number of papers that downplay AGW and have gone viral on denier blogs. The most important thing is that their world views are not shaped by being insiders but on being outsiders.They consistently misquote esteemed scientists like Huxley and Feynman to give the impression that, were they alive, these scientists would side with those who downplay AGW and other anthropogenic threats to the environment. This is despicable, but nothing is beyond the anti-science brigade. Given that most of them are inveterate liars, anything and anyone is fair game. As a colleague once told me, he wouldn't debate a climate change denier for the simple reason that they will lie through their teeth (as they have nothing to lose by doing so) whereas the scientist they debate would see their cautious honesty work against them.
One shoudl read Andrew Rowell's quirte excellent 1996 book (as relevant today as it was then) "Green Backlash" as it details all of the sordid tactics used by anti-environmentalists - and AGW deniers fall firmly in thios fold - against their opponents.
Jff Hrvy,
Yr: "...dldd sls nxs t dwnply th hmn fngrprnt n th nvrnmnt..." nd "'v bn wy n Sr Lnk fr th pst thr wks..."
S Jff, m nmd "dldd sl" n yr lst. bdg f hnr, f crs.
S Jff, gvn, lk, y knw, tht "hmn fngrprnt n nvrnmnt" clp-trp f yrs, nd ll, tht s bssss yr wrry-wrt, "mkn' --bck-ff-th-dl, "n-dldd" sl, jst wht th "frck" d y thnk y'v bn dng tkn' fssl-fld, frst-wrld-ccmdtns-nd-mnts-ncldd , lttl, crbn pg-t jnt t Sr Lnk, nywy? Wht's th dl, gy?
mn, lk, Jff, f yr plltn-pgg, t-my-C2-spw-y-psnt-nbds!, h-s-rgnt trp t Sr Lnk ws fr "scntfc" prpss, thn why ddn't y jst dpnd n Sr Lnk's rsdnt scntsts fr th fld wrk nd skp yr whl nvrnmnt-nsltng trp? r, Jff, f y ddn't thnk th Sr Lnkn "lcls" p t th tsk nd n nd f "Bwn" Jff's cntrl-frk vrsght, thn why ddn't y jst s vd-cnfrncng nd n-st, vd p-lnks t srvl thr wrk? nd, y knw, lk, Jff, thrgh th sm md, cnvy yr whtby-knws-bst, crck-th-whp crrctns f thr shddy wrk nd nsr t s brght p t tht hgh-stndrd, frst st by Dr. Mnnt's drwnd plr-br srvy, tht hs bcm yr dscpln's pnt-f-rfrnc fr qlty-cntrl vr snc?
Cld t b, Jff, tht y r jst lctrng, slf-rghts, hypcrt crp-t, wh cld cr lss bt crbn-"plltn"--t lst whn t cms t yr wn tnrd-trgh, crbn-swn gd dls? Cld tht b t, Jff? r, jst myb, t cld b tht y dn't vn blv ll th B. S. y pddl nd tk mlcs, cyncl, bttr-thn-y-hlt-dlts, smrty-pnts hstlr's plsr n flng vryn wth bnch f scncy-sndng flm-flm s y rp-ff th "lttl-gy" txpyr? m n t nythng thr wth tht lst ttlly ff-th-wll, crzy, rrtnl, "cnsprcy thry", plckd-frm-thn-r, thnkn'-t-ld, jst-syn', dl spcltn f mn, Jff?
r, myb, Jff, y wr n Sr Lnkn t fght th chld sx-slvry ndstry thr. mn, lk, th Wk ntry fr "Prstttn f chldrn" rprts 40,000 chldrn r prstttd n Sr Lnk. f tht's t, Jff, tk vrythng bck, sd bv, nd jn wth my Dltd brthrn n ppldng nd dmrng th mprtnt wrk y r nggd n t nd th vl f Wstrn pdphls pryng n thrd-wrld chldrn.
And where is dear Chameleon? After her hilarious attempts to conceal that she hadn't read/understood K13 I was looking forward to continuing our 'conversation'.
If you so see this chammy, look upthread to # 19. RSVP!
Jeff Harvey,
Still savoring your last guy. This one caught my eye:
"...academic venue...university, research center, conference, workshop, etc"
I mean, like, Jeff, the above sounds like the list of planet-killing delicacies on the 5-star menu of the "Carbon Eco-Piggie Cafe". I mean, like, the mind reels at the thought of all that CO2-spew you guys throw off incessantly jetting from one greenshirt gab-fest to another.
So, Jeff, don't you think you and your lefty hive-bozo pals need to do your part to eliminate all that "human fingerprint on the environment" business that you guys, personally, contribute? You know, like, don't you think you guys should just stay home and video-conference all those buncha-losers, boondoggle, CO2-Chernobyl enviro-conferences of yours and thereby keep your sleaze-ball, greasy finger-prints off Gaia (though the raddled trollop probably likes all the feel-up attention) and either firmly attached to the fingertips of your dirty-fingernail, roving trough-claspers or, at least, confined to the immediate vicinity of your wanker work-outs?
Huh, guy?
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wade;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
Yeah, BBD, but mike's has bett\er metre....
Yes, the Jonas-killing thread has been through enough iterations of lie/strawman/astonishingly dim assertion/crank quotes for me.
Mike, you are about as witty as a bad dose of the clap. Why don't you get a life, you sad, pathetic little human being? All of this 'lefty', 'greenshirt', etc. ad nauseum bullshit. Really. Man, you are one twisted dude.
Let's hope Tim cottons on to your pathetic drivel Mike and that you end up in the sin-bin along with Tim Curtin. As I said, you are one twisted, bitter fruitcake.
Oh, and by the way, Mike Mr. self-righteous know-nothing, the local term for Sri Lankans to describe caucasians is 'Suddha'. Bwana is some sort of racist term that westerners use as jargon for Africans to describe caucasians. Trust you to invoke that.
Brad is dull.
mike is just sick
Speaking of the far-reaches of the loonasphere, this WTD systematic take-down of the distasteful and disturbing origins of Galileo Malcolm Roberts bizarre assault on the CSIRO is intriguing.
And genuinely repulsive.
Scratch a Denier - and, let's not forget, this 'movement' boasts the likes of Roberts, Monckton and Delingpole at its apex - and this is the darkness you reach.
And further to lord-sidcup upthread - only the other day I was reading an earnest discussion among the fanboys over at Jo Nova's about how she might get (a well-deserved) 'best Science Blog', but, you know, they were up against stiff competition like Watts and Tallbloke...
You could not make it up!
Also, isn't it interesting that supposedly the first-round of Lewandowsky's online survey was gamed by the evil Warmist hordes in order to make Deniers look like idiots, and yet it appears we can't even be arsed to rig the results of the Webbies... you see, conspirators see conspiracies everywhere...
The awards are just a big pile of shite anyway. Like mike. Watts has the best Science blog like McDonalds is the best restaurant and the Twilight Saga is the greatest set of movies ever made...
Does anyone know the correct term for animals that can change their skin colour?
Fiddling around with chro- mim- poik- isn't getting me anywhere.
Chameleons, obviously, but other lizards IIRC and certain cephalopods. Doubtless others.
Is there a word for this facility?
@ 43
Philistine dog!
@41
Shoot from the hip much, tiger?
Leo Hickman on Deniers gaming the Bloggies. Yep, that's about the level we are talking here.
And, how apt a comparison: One Direction would be mike's favourite band, surely?
Oh, and BBD - no, I don't think there is a general category name for animals that can change their skin-colour to match their surroundings (or not!).
Bit of a surprise, really.
@ Bill
It is, isn't it?
mike,
from my always-civil disagreements with Jeff Harvey the impression I get is that you're accusing the wrong climate "believer" of hypocrisy.
I could be wrong, but for all his many human failings, Jeff does seem to have the courage of his convictions.
Unlike the legion of poseurs and poseuses who wear climate angst as an ideological accessory, Jeff doesn't (to my knowledge) make gratuitous trips by air, live in the lap of luxury or otherwise "betray" his belief system—however misguided you and I may consider that system.
And your digression into the subject of third-world sex tourism wasn't edifying.
Unless I'm missing some relevant rhetorical history between Jeff and yourself, that stuff was really uncalled-for.
With all due respect, mike, while I generally find your comments interesting, in your latest exchanges with Jeff I reckon you lost the plot somewhere. Time to relax, recalibrate your targeting system and take out the righteous anger on those who deserve it much more than Jeff.
Good doco linked here :
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/hot-planet-great-fre…
In case folks here are interested and haven't yet seen.
(Haven't read comments yet so sorry if this has already been noted / linked.)
Getting lonely in solitary there, Brad? ;-)
This is one of mike's pet themes; previously he's worked himself into a fine old lather, to such an extent that some - no-one here, certainly - might begin to think 'methinks thou dost...'
'Interesting'? Phhht! If you want to see yourself as some kind of peer with this scatalogical obsessive that's definitely your problem.
Then again, I seem to recall that you were praising the egregious ranter Tucci78 as being somehow the equal of the anti-religious bigot and war-criminal Hitchens...
Brd,
Yr: "nlss 'm mssng sm rhtrcl hstry btwn Jff nd yrslf..."
Y r. nd 'm stsfd wth my cmmnts, vn f y r nt, Brd. Bt thnk y fr yr fdbck, rgrdlss.
Bt lt m nt, Brd, s n wh ws fmsly tggd n ths blg s "...hvng n prblm wth ppl thrtnng t rp clmt scntsts' fmls" (nt by Jff nd lt m dd tht tht scrrls, ttlly nfndd ccstn dd nt prvk th slghtst pp f prtst frm my dr Dltds), tht chld-rp (.k.. pdphl) sms t b srprsngly "snstv" sbjct mng crtn f th nvrnmntlly cnscs--xcpt, f crs, whn t cn b hkd p t n ff-th-wll prpgnd ptch (rpng fmls ntls rpng chldrn) ntndd t smr "dnrs".
nd dn't ndrstnd why, Brd. Lk t tht Wk ntry ndr "Prstttn f chldrn" nd s th tns f thsnds f kds wh r frcd t t spnd thr chldhd n hllsh brthls ctrng t Wstrn pdphls n nmbrs sffcnt t spprt wrld-wd "ndstry", yr-n-nd-yr-t, wth tht mny chld vctms.
n thng w ll shld gr n, t wld sm t m, s tht ths ds, sx-slvry xplttn f chldrn shld nd. Hck! Lt m g t n lmb hr--'ll vn sggst tht svng tns f thsnds f kds frm dly gng-rps s mr mprtnt mttr thn vn--sttng dwn?--svng fw fckng Plr Brs! (prdn my Frnch).
nd n tht rgrd, 'm sck nd trd f ths vrs, hgh-prfl c-cnfbs sttng p shp, n my txpyr dm, n lcls ntrs fr thr tlrnc f pdphls r, wrs, ntrs dstntns fr pdphl sx-trsts. Wht n th hll s th N (nd thr s-clld prstgs nstttns) dng ptrnzng sch Stnc-pts wth ts cnfrnc bsnss? 'm ll rs fr th xplntn frm whmvr. nd scrw th "dfctn" crpl.
nd lt m dd tht 'm ls jst lttl rkd tht mst ntrst n spprssng th sx-slvry f chldrn s cnfnd t fmnsts wh typclly pprch th ss frm th stndpnt f th sffrng f grls--wth lttl r n ntrst n th cmprbl sffrng f bys. gn, dn't ndrstnd th tqtt hr.
S, Brd, Jff's lttl trp t Sr Lnk llwd m t slp n psky rmndr t Dltd's "btfl ppl" tht thr r mttrs t prs mr wrth n's whl thn prmtng mk--bck/mk--glg grnshrt hstls. S s m!
. K. Dltds, w'v ll bn rnd th mlbrry-bsh n ths pdphl bsnss bfr. knw ll th "Tks n t knw n!" psh-bck hwlng tht rpts frm th sl sspcts hr n ths blg whn th sbjct s rsd. S g t t, pls, s knw y wll, bt 'v hd my lttl sy nd hv n ntrst n nggng wth Dltd-lnd n ths sbjct frthr, vn f dd brng t p n th frst plc.
BBD @# 19
This is the comment I referred to.
I apologise if I have misinterpreted it.
BBD
February 28, 2013
Oh chameleon, my dear…? Kopp et al?
To me, it looked like that comment was being dismissive of Kopp et al?
Perhaps you actually meant to be dismissive of me (and not Kopp) considering this comment of yours at #19:
???
No, that’s a complete fabrication. Don’t lie about what I write. I’ve got a low enough opinion of you as it is.
Either way BBD, I don't regard that as a particularly good way to foster a discussion about this new paper. I actually don't really care about your opinion of me BBD, why would I?
I thought you wanted to discuss the paper....not your opinion of me?
And I am not sure on what specific grounds you're being so argumentative with me about the Kopp et al paper?
I didn't find it at the hockey schtik (until you mentioned it had been discussed there I don't believe I have ever read anything at the hockey schtik).
I also don't particularly disagree with anything you have said about the actual content and/or conclusions of the actual research.
My comments about any references to the 20th and/or 21st century were in response to Vince not to the paper.
I am once again a bit disappointed in you BBD.
You do ask quite reasonable questions sometimes.
Unfortunately however, it seems if you don't get the answers you expect and/or if you are asked qualifying questions (before an answer is provided) you like to just launch into rather abusive, personal, pseudo psychological/political attacks.
I can only conclude from that behaviour that you aren't actually interested in a civil discussion, you're only interested in trying to prove that something is amiss and dreadfully personally wrong with whoever you have questioned.
Sorry if that sounds harsh but that's how it appears to me at the moment.
I merely linked up some of the latest research on SLR, partly to steer away from having to read more about Lotharsson's apparent worship of Lewandowsky.
I am astounded that JeffH called it a 'denier paper' and that you and Vince and Lotharsson got all tetchy because I linked it and made some general outline comments about it.
Why so tectchy?
Yep, top mate you have there, Brad. What do you think this sleazy little fellow is implying? Why does it leap so readily to his mind?
I mean, seriously - mike, you are an appalling little shit. There is no excuse for you, you sad, sorry wretched little well of ugliness. All you can do is blight the lives of others. It's too much to hope that you'd ever have the decency to simply leave after this sordid episode - because decency is what you lack in spades - but that is what you should do.
And if any of your fellow travellers weren't snivelling little tribalist cowards they'd do the same.
...they'd tell you you should do the same.
I expect that the fact that your tactics (a) don't achieve your goal and (b) aren't necessary to achieve your goal never crossed your mind at the time, given that you posted it anyway. ;-)
Your famous lack of comprehension once more allows you to claim reasons not in evidence - and ignore the reasons that are, and blithely sweep right past the errors that you repeat even after repeated corrections.
What's good enough for Lewandowski doesn't meet the standards of John Cook?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/friday-funny-john-cooks-withdrawa…
;-)
Let me guess, more unfunny, amateurishly drawn crap by Josh? A run-of-the-mill illustrator who would otherwise be illustrating colonic health pamphlets? Another classic example of the anti-science crowd's elevation and adulation of palpable mediocrities?
Who cares?
Why SkS left the bloggies. Precisely because of the undeserved promotion of the utterly third-rate by dreary little zealots who resent real success and have nothing better to do with their lives. I'd imagine drooling little cyber-Orc Olap has done his duty many times over...
Bill, are you feeling OK?
"I’ll even suggest that saving tens of thousands of kids from daily gang-rapes is a more important matter than even–sitting down?–saving a few fucking Polar Bears!"
What an unbelieveably naive and insidiously stupid remark. Mike writes as if these two things are correlated; as if protecting children in the third world from western pedophile predators means that Polar Bears have to be sacrificed. As if protecting the environment upon which we all depend has to be traded off against eliminating perverts from traveling to developing countries.
I don;t even know where to begin dismantling this illogical spew. In fact, I won't even try. I think the reader should be left to themselves to read it for what it is.
So, Olap, whose sad little barrow did you push - Watts? Jo Nova? Tallbloke?
You people cannot see yourselves from the outside at all, can you?
In the whole wide world of Science online -some of which is actually excellent - this misbegotten horde of monomaniac apparatchiks manages to foist a risible gaggle of ideologues upon us all; did you seriously think that everyone-who's-not-a-freakin'-nutcase-already wouldn't draw he only conceivable conclusion?
You really are the barbarians.
Sorry to hear that you are ill Bill.
Certainly we're all sick of you.
What you have to remember aboiut Olap, is he's somebody else's dog who's lost his owner. And thinks tenth rate cartoonists are worth recommending. Sad, but that's his life.
"as if protecting children in the third world from western pedophile predators means that Polar Bears have to be sacrificed."
Maybe mike is saying unless we kill off the polar bears, he's going to continue buying little slave boys from Africa to bum.
Olap, how come you turn up some empty words with no point at all to them?
reptile @ 58
Here's my conclusion:
You lied about not finding K13 at the Hockey Schtick
You haven't read it and don't have a *clue* what it is about
You *thought* there was some denialist mileage in it because the liar at the Hockey Schtick conned you and you are too lazy/scientifically illiterate to check for yourself
You made a tit out of yourself here and got nailed for it.
Spare us the passive-aggressive whining. You have acted in bad faith and blind ignorance and got badly caught out. You know it; I know it; everybody else knows it.
Next time, RTFR or I'll rip you another one.
Its not a denier paper Chammy - its that the deniers are distorting the paper to derive their own pre-determined conclusions. That's what deniers do. And by deniers I mean the climate change denial blogs, since few of them have any scientific bonafides...
I wonder if we are witnessing the birth of a new denier meme: "AGW is refuted because the Eemian."
;-)
Joe Romm points out that rational people have tended to reverse the famous 5 stages of grief -
Again, by the end of the year we are going to have a Tony Abbott government - elected by sullen children who want everything, but neither want to pay for it nor be made aware of its true cost - dominated by Tea-Partyite cadre who live in the epistemic bubble and dismiss the notion that there's even an 'outside' to engage with.
Australia will go into Stupid reverse - not just on climate, but on the entire vast expanse of issues where reality and Neocon ideology conflict - and nobody will believe it's possible to go forward again until the shit has really hit the fan and they're contemplating casting lots for who ends up as Soylent Green.
In which case 'forward' will be ugly indeed, and the shits that barracked us into the disaster, whether that be the forthcoming Cabinet or the dim-bulb foot-soldiers that haunt this blog, will be doing their unseemly damnedest, sans shame, to ensure that it's not them who suffers the consequences.
Because doing their unseemly damnedest to further the religion of Me!Me!Me! is what they do...
So the Australian public have no problems with obeying a US led coup to replace your legally elected government?
You know that Wikileaks showed how the USA discussed how to remove Gillard and get a more US-friendly man in power, right?
So after that, you're going to do of your own free will what they tried to get done behind your backs???
The really frightening thing is Bill, that it's only the old that are fooling themselves. The young, or at least some of them - and I'm referring to the under 30s who will bear the brunt of today's inaction - are already aware of what's coming down the line.
My son, a microbiology student and a keen gamer since he was 11 (had his own 'mods' website at age 12) have - like the Pentagon - 'wargamed' the future and fouind that if we can make it through to c. 2200 AD we (humanity) may be OK to continue on.
There's just ane awkward period of about 75 years to get through where we (humanity) need to be able to do five things at once on a planetery scale but can only afford to do about two at a time.
Even shooting the bastards pretending otherwise at present in pursuit of an illusory personal gain would amount an unaffordable waste of energy and materials.
On average the kind of people who think Alan Jones knows what he's talking about with respect to climate science tend to think Wikileaks is some sort of nefarious left-wing plot.
And then there is the Australian cohort of "low information" voters ...
Re bill's #76, over the last year or two I've gone past the denial phase into stage 6, whatever that is. I don't think humanity will deal with the situation without suffering very significant detrimental impacts that would be entirely avoidable if collectively we showed reasonable intelligence and foresight - but collectively we haven't yet and most probably won't.
I also think that the recriminations when the situation becomes bad enough for almost everyone to stop denying the consequences will be severe and will be thoroughly misdirected.
A handy accompaniment to the Rational Discussion Flowchart here -
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-falla…
but collectively we haven’t yet and most probably won’t.
That doesn't even bear thinking about Lotharsson, by which I of course mean we must. There's no question about losing this civilisation, because after a collapse there's no coming back.
All our near-surface resources have been used up so there's not even the chance of an Iron Age Pt 2 or industrial revolution redux on any meaningful scale, and it'll take the oceans centuries to recover enough to be amenable to lo-tech exploitation.
Consequences indeed, 'Alarmist' is too mild a word.
garbage is a resource
gomi no sensei
garbage is a resource
Aparently that's been gamed too, but is extremely subject to the law of diminishing returns.
Speaking of garbage, surely we have some sort of record for the number of sharks jumped here? Lord Christopher Monckton, self-anointed voice of the silent, broken millions.
I kid you not.
h/t HT
With denialists as with Republican legislators, a useful rule of thumb is: it's always projection.
The returns - even factoring in the comedy - have been diminishing for some time now (and I had a long "discussion" with him at Lewandowsky's so I'd already gone over some of the ground he tries to claim). And while it can be fine for a while - everyone has to have a hobby ;-) - I have more interesting things to do now.
All you have to do is ... stop ... reading, let alone responding (here or over there). There's no need to look at what he subsequently writes because the information content is almost zero given that you could predict the bulk of it from what you already know.
More on the Lord of the Shark Jumpers. The first quotation is so surreal and bellicose it's like he's actually some situationist performance piece.
And yet don't they just lap it all up over at Nova's?
(Plus I've realised I went to school with the VC at UTAS!)
Ah, I see 'mike' has been disemvowelled.
Could not have happened to a more deserving bloke!
Tim asks: Do you think the alarmists who predicted doom because of the carbon tax will shut up?
Maybe they will go even further and start calling for regulations to cut CO2?
bll,
Yr. 90
Fck y!
Ww, wht rtrt! Dd y thnk f t ll by yrself, r dd mmm hlp y?
bll,
Yr 93
Fck y, Mmmy-Fckr!
All obsessives are boring, mike.
@ 94
... and good luck in your abuse field.
Jeesus, you deniers have to get a sense of humour and laugh it off.
Andy,
Yr 96
I may be mis-reading the situation, here, Andy, ol' buddy, but I gotta say that those serial, dumb-ass, borderline-scary-dude-inflected, suspect-stalker-dork, one-line-weirdo comments of yours are beginning to come across kinda creepy-like, and all--you know what I mean, Andy? Anything I should know about you, Andy, ol' sport?
"Abuse" you say, Andy? Hmm...you know, Andy, that's got me sorta thinkin' that maybe a peon, like me, sassing back to some one or another of my hive-betters, like, you know, disturbs the hive's sense of "Platonic" orderliness, and all. You know, like, us expendable, useless-eater hoi-polloi are, ideally, like, you know, just supposed to know our place, tug at our forelocks, bite our tongues and take it, and all. Defer reflexively to the hive's nomenklatura, and all. That sort of thing, I'm thinkin' Andy. And when one of us serfs doesn't seem to be going along with "the program", then our back-chat is termed--in Philosopher King parlance-- "abuse", right, Andy? Am I on to something here, Andy?
And my thoughts are kinda runnin' along the above lines 'cuz, Andy, I don't see you much interested in the true "abuse" hurled incessantly at "deniers" by this blog's greenshirt hive-worthies, and all. You know, Andy, us uppity helots notice little things like that.
But I could be wrong, Andy.
"But I could be wrong, Andy."
Only one word is incorrect there. "could". Change it to "will".
JeffH @#37,
I wonder if you realise that your complaint can be repeated accross a number of professions and academic disciplines not just science?
Maybe what you're really complaining about is a loss of trust or 'social licence'?
Perhaps a better question to ask is why is this happening?
Are you sure you're pointing your finger at the right culprits?
Better yet: is it happening.
Or is it just in an echo chamber you hear many voices when actually it's only one?
65% of USians think that AGW is a problem that needs to be dealt with.
But in the echo chamber of the deniers, the support for action is minuscule.
Wow,
Yr: 99 on the previous pg.
"Only one word is incorrect there. 'could.' Change it to 'will'."
Help me out here, Wow. What is this "will" deal about. Either I "am" wrong or I "am not" wrong. Right? I mean, like, how does "But I will be wrong" work, Wow? I don't get it.
mike, you should see about getting a sense of humour.
You will be wrong, mike.
You will be wrong.
mike: "I don’t get it."
Yes, we know.
And you never will.
O. K. Wow,
Thanks, I guess, for your mutliple fun-and-games responses.
Keyes, [1]
lord_sidcup wrt:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/february-2013-open-thread/co…
SkS has pulled its plug out of that nonsense Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies quite rightly.
Lest anybody be in any doubt about the bad faith displayed by the likes of Nova/Codling then here is another eye opener as Lord Monckton Threatens Climate Scientists, Again with the Monckton's nauseating letter being posted up at that aforementioned blog, which is in turn nauseating.
@ 98
I'm alive tonight to speak about the prophets and the geeks in mile aroma interride where the pool dogs send their missions. Maybe you could aim to enjoy some of our free steel wind in the engine room - it doesn't have a resentful default.
"Perhaps a better question to ask is why is this happening?
Are you sure you’re pointing your finger at the right culprits?"
Oh, I am certainly pointing my finger at the proper culprits alright. the corporate media, right wing think tanks and web logs - and, underlying this, the corporations themselves, and an entire culture of profit-driven overconsumption - are far and away the primary culprits. They prey on public naivete as well as the desperate desire most people have to believe that they are not a part of the problem.
Andy,
Yr: No. 10
O. K., Andy, I'm beginning to get the feel for your schtick. I can see appreciation of it is an "acquired" taste and, I must confess, I'm beginning to "cotton" to it.
There's an interesting gent with the handle "willard", who frequently comments at Dr. Curry's blog. And willard's comments have some qualities in common with yours--cryptic and over my head. In one of my rare ham-handed tries at that sense-of-humor "thingie", that Wow seems to be urging on me lately, I described willard's comments as seemingly the work of a "Krell" (reference to an old sci-fi flick) Ascended Master.
I think, Andy, you're probably my second encounter with the Krell-elect. I'm honored. But, fair warning, Andy, I'm wily enough not to engage Krell Ascended Masters on terrain of their choosing and with weapons of their choice--I know my limitations.
Your last? Reminds me of some poems--"Symbolist", I think they were called--my High-School, French teacher once assigned us ungrateful barbarians to read. To say the least, I didn't "get" the poems (my laughable ineptitude in French undoubtedly contributing), but I did learn, to my surprise, that one could enjoy a poem without "getting" it. Kinda reminds me of your last.
And I'm further glad that you've been so kind, Andy, as to toss a comment my humble way with multiple lines. I mean, like, who am I to judge a Krell Ascended Master, and all, but, still, IMHO, Andy, your one-liners just do not do your "art" justice.
Ready to copy.
Lionel:
ZOMG!
Congratulations are in order, simple.
You believalists have invented a totally new way of lying!
Let me get this straight. Just by openly, honestly and patiently declining to answer questions
— you've already answered multiple times
— which became boring about ten iterations ago
— with whose answer only a handful of people you find increasingly obnoxious and disturbing are preoccupied
— for which you've got better things to do with your limited time than provide the "references required"
— you're not paid to answer
and / or
— you're not qualified to answer,
you now render yourself fair game for characterization as a liar?!
This changes everything. No joke: you and your collaborators deserve a Nobel for this.
Ah. That clichéd thin line between genius and debilitating social paranoia.
You think, because you assumed, that addressing you through the collective ‘A family’ was meant to be an insult. Why?!
Hey Deltoids!
I can see I'm losing vowels at the "cyclic" rate. So, I'm getting the message. Yep! time for me to gather up my grieving, orphan consonants and take my "act" elsewhere, it appears.
Wish me luck, guys!
Back in your kennel, rabid dog.
"Brad" #13 could have just said. "Lionel, because I'm incapable of a straightforward, honest, defensible answer"
But no, instead we're subjected to nigh on 200 words of self-pitying "Brad" spiel.
Why the fuck is Brad still posting on the open thread?
Here's a suggestion. Let's self-police:
Lionel:
answer the questions put to you … You lie by evasion, simple.
ZOMG!
Congratulations are in order, simple.
You believalists have invented a totally new way of lying!
Let me get this straight. Just by openly, honestly and patiently declining to answer questions
— you’ve already answered multiple times
— which became boring about ten iterations ago
— with whose answer only a handful of people you find increasingly obnoxious and disturbing are preoccupied
— for which you’ve got better things to do with your limited time than provide the “references required”
— you’re not paid to answer
and / or
— you’re not qualified to answer,
you now render yourself fair game for characterization as a liar?!
This changes everything. No joke: you and your collaborators deserve a Nobel for this.
You are too abrasive to deserve being addressed by your first [name, "Brad"], this [sic] especially as you think, because you assumed, that addressing me through the collective ‘A family’ would be an insult
Ah. That clichéd thin line between genius and debilitating social paranoia.
You think, because you assumed, that addressing you through the collective ‘A family’ was meant to be an insult. Why?!
Jeff's still foaming about the Elders. Hilarious! He knows.... :-) While in the real world:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/02/mikes-agu-trick/#more-17336
;-)
Oh dear, yet more empty insinuation from Olap. I guess since he doesn't have anything to actually say, he has to resort to insinuation.
Anything concrete can be dismantled so easily...
Olap doesn't recognise that McIntyre's a paranoid always on the verge (but never actually) about to uncover something.
It's a tired act after all these years, but the peanut gallery have short attention spans.
Obviously climate science is a commie scam to overthrow capitalism and facilitate the establishment of a new world order run on good socialist principles.
How can I have been so blind?!
I've been working on my two (shoe) box climate model and my latest findings indicate that the astonishingly warm January may have been the result of absorption/re-radiation of thermal IR by black helicopters.
Funny how the warmists want to talk about El Niño. You've got to watch the pea under the thimble with these guys.
;-)
Obviously, during the daytime, the black helicopters are blue helicopters. 'else you'd be able to see them!
Ha! The 'real world' to a nincompoop like Olaus is Climate Fraudit. A denier blog. Here's a guy whose science education probably ended in grade 5 telling us he can tell real science from fake science.
Olaus, go back to the Jonas thread where you can cheer on your hero. Without him you are even more intellectually bankrupt than normal.
Fools !
Without life giving tar sand, where would you get your newspapers ?
# 22 Wow
Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they aren't there. It's the same as the post-1970 warming. *We know* it wasn't CO2 and *we know* that government-funded 'climate science' is blind to teh truth because it's a scam.
There is a mystery forcing at work there too and it's *real*.
See how Russell Seitz tries to hijack the thread with his crazy theories about a semiotic carbon cycle. It's *nothing to do with CO2*. This is how I know that I am close to teh truth.
Actually Russell, that is really funny. Good going ...er ...<dude, as I believe they say nowadays!
Australian Climate Commission release report:
"The Angry Summer".
http://climatecommission.gov.au/report/the-angry-summer/
"Climate on steroids".
@ 14
God luck mike!
Back in your lonely boxxie wox there, little Braddie.
See this as friendly advice.
I, for one, would be more than happy to see you bounced altogether - yes, poppet; tyranny! diddums! - and each time you step outside it becomes just that bit more likely.
JeffH @ 11?
You were pointing your finger at 'academic wannabes' and people who hide in the shadows in your earlier comment.
Now it sounds like you believe in some type of conspiracy that is being run by corporations.
I would like to know your definition of 'academic wannabes'.
It read as if you were complaining that 'scientists' have been demonised and they have lost the 'trust' of ghe general population.
You also seem to have missed the main point of my comment.
If I substitued 'agriculture' or 'manufacturing' or 'mining' as 3 examples (all have science & technology arms) they would be making largely similar complaints to yours
I should probably add medicine and/or health to those 3 above.
Also, I did mean to re ask the question in the light of my original comment.
Why is 'social licence' being lost so rapidly?
Bill earlier highlighted the likely demise of the Labor govt later this year.
Is that part of the symptoms/causes of loss of trust/social licence?
This is a great graph which provides a highly impacting visual interpretation of the progress of ice loss in the Arctic:
http://haveland.com/share/arctic-death-spiral-1979-201301.png
Prize awarded for anybody who can spot the "recovery"...
What's Chameleon twittering on about?
Chameleon, we established you had no idea what that paper on Eemian sea levels was on about.
I find it hard to believe that you could even imagine yourself successfully participating in an intelligent discussion on the public's trust in science following the deluge of well-funded professional anti-science PR propagated around the world's mass media since the 1960s.
You could read the excellent, "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes if you're interested, though.
In less than four hours!
With all the contemplation and comprehension that timespan suggests!
Maybe they could read half each ;)
Can't say I've followed McIntyre's latest theory about Mann - following McIntyre's largely quixotic obsessions in great detail is generally a waste of time - but if you can access this Facebook photo Mann appears to be addressing something McIntyre (and Watts?) recently wrote, which is probably what Olaus was referring to complete with his trademark fake winkey.
According to Mann, in the real world, McIntyre is wrong in almost every claim he made in this matter and has invented a conspiracy theory to go with those falsehoods - and according to the first comment, McIntyre is also wrong what Oreskes said as part of that theory.
Go read for yourself, especially if you're inclined to take McIntyre's claims at face value.
And while you're at it, go to Mann's Facebook Timeline page and read the response to Joanne Nova's post about Monckton's recent claims that Mann fabricated the "hockey stick" and had given up suing Tim Ball for calling the graph "scientific fraud":
Yes, Chebbie, please do equal the feat of reading MoD in less than 4 hours. As it flies past in a soothingly incomprehensible blur perhaps you'll also be unable to 'recall' anything regarding the subject of the entire last chapter, and, who knows, you may even stoop to febrile, grotesque claims of 'anti-semitism' in an attempt to cover up your abject lack of comprehension?...
I follow Michael Mann on Facebook and Twitter - well worth keeping up with him, as he is the butt of all this attention.
Yep, McIntyre sure does appear to have let his feet have both barrels... ;-)
Pardon Bill?
What on earth are you and Vince saying re MoD?
Did you read it in 4 hours?
Does MoD contain information about racial vilification?
?????
Maybe you're confusing me with someone else?
Neither of you have done a very good job of promoting it to me BTW.
Odin on a stick. You're truly so dense you'd make osmium blush.
For someone who tries to hang off every one of Keyes' words you seem to miss the most basic of his statements. It was Keyes who claimed to read Merchants of Doubt in less than four hours - is it that you don't actually read his words as closely as you like to pretend? You wouldn't be agreeing with him simply because he's at odds with the best science on climatological change, and its consequences... would you?!
Surely not...
Speaking of Keyes, several people have already pointed out how he's recently been sneaking away from his naughty corner whilst Tim Lambert's not been looking. It seems that he seeks attention elsewhere now that the Bangelina thread has been depopulated as folk tire of the Keyes schtick.
Hmmm... of which condition does Brad's behaviour remind one?
It's possibly because a rather large % of the comments at this thread are about the BradK thread BJ.
I should have realised that was what was happening again.
Now that you mention it, I do recall a trade of insults over the time taken to read MoD.
I actually thought that Bill and Vince were trying to recommend a book to me.
That explains why they did a bloody awful job of it.
BTW BJ?
Did you get my answer to your question at the BK thread?
Absolutely not.
Those who do context - and (irony) my point is that's not you! - had already worked that out.
And I haven't done a very good job of promoting it to someone who still maintains, steadfastly - and, indeed, heroically - in the face of mere evidence and reason, that James Delingpole said something he very clearly did not? Oh woe betide me; now I shall sob myself to sleep!
Bernard J - to avoid the 'N' word perhaps we could talk about "Jonas' Syndrome"
@Lotharsson #38
I went to climateaudit and found it as dense as usual and full of mangled conspiracist ideation.
McIntyre has had 3 months to stew over his latest conspiracy theory. On other occasions he's jumped straight into concocting paranoid conspiracies (the world conspired against him by banning him from the internet via his IP address).
He's weird. No other word for it. He railed at Lewandowsky while providing some good fodder for Recursive Furies. He managed to acquire and bury the AScott survey (a la Lewandowsky) of conspiracy theorists and free marketers at WUWT. Parlly because he doesn't know how to analyse the data (as shown in his crazy series of articles about Lewandowsky). Mostly probably mainly because he hasn't figured out how to ignore all the responses from conspiracy theorists without coming across as a dishonest fool.
Obsessive, paranoid and serial harasser of climate scientists.
Mann exposed him nicely - and did an excellent take down of batty Nova.
Should of course be Most probably mainly - and even that's a bit awkward :D
I should add, the sum total of McIntyres' latest conspiracy is that at one point in his presentation, Mann used an illustration from a 2008 publication.
You've gotta laugh. McIntyre has spent numerous hours fretting over diagrams from more than twenty years ago (superseded/developed/confirmed by many more recent studies). Then complains about someone else using a graphic illustration from 2008.
Whilst we're on about McIntyre, I seem to recall someone reporting that he seemed to be following Mann around at a conference with what appeared to be a very ... single-minded? ... focus. One has to suspect that it was at the AGU conference that forms the context for McIntyre's latest conspiracy theory...
Could it be Graves syndrome?
You know, uncharitable people - no-one here, certainly - might think Brad keeps posting forlorn little items onto his thread in order to ensure it doesn't completely disappear fro the 'Recent Comments' list... ;-)
Chameleon outdoes herself:
I've said one thing about the excellent "Merchants of Doubt":
And you have come back twice now, claiming,:
Are you able to explain why I've done a bad job at promoting it to you? Calling it "excellent"?
Sounds to me like you are scared of the idea of reading a non-picture-book and/or of reading something that exposes the cranks, crooks, frauds and liars from whom you get your climate information.
Why don't you read it and get back to us with what you think?
What, you mean like sunspot used to? ;-)
One might also speculate what he will do when the remaining regulars get tired of responding to him, assuming that actually happens. The Jonas thread was active a lot longer than I imagined it would be.
Ah, but, Vince, if people like you and I recommend a book, well... Guilt By Association, and all that.
I certainly recommend that everybody who takes an interest in the climate debate and the history of our responses to the environment should actually read Merchants of Doubt.
Chammy creates the usual strawmen:
"Now it sounds like you believe in some type of conspiracy that is being run by corporations"
There's nothing conspiratorial about it. Its just a simple fact. Huge sums of money are being invested into the anti-AGW slush fund by a suite of industries who see legislation aimed at curbing fossil fuel use as a threat to the way that they do business. Hence their funding of think tanks, weblogs, public relations firms and astroturf groups with public outreach.
If you don't think this is happening, then you are even dumber than I thought. And that is saying a lot.
chamelon
Read all about it!
Then get MOD out of your local library and improve your topic knowledge still further. Two years hard work with climate textbooks and you'll be about up to basic speed. Then, at last, we might start to get somewhere.
Remember that a hallmark of pathological denial is the extreme reluctance (outright blanket refusal, really) of sufferers to even look at evidence which challenges their hermetic but comforting fantasy state.
Brad has been placed in moderation because of repeated violations of the rules.
Of course the reason why Bray posts here is merely because nobody plays with him on his thread to keep him visible.
He has to make sure people see him, else he'd have to face the fact he's irrelevant.
“Now it sounds like you believe in some type of conspiracy that is being run by corporations”
So what would you call hidden payments to hundreds of blogs and commentators whose only remit is to deny the climate science?
That was interesting - for a moment there, Braddie, you were only three posts away from being the only commenter in the recent list.
You really, really need this, don't you, poppet?
Now, back in your box.
SkS appears to be down - has anyone else found the same?
SkS is down at present, bill.
This link Down for everyone or just me is worth bookmarking for checking such eventualities in the future.
Don’t mind me, everyone—I’m not really here, as BBD says when he’s pretending not to be somewhere he promised he wouldn’t be.
bill:
Ah, but, Vince, if people like you and I recommend a book, well… Guilt By Association, and all that.
Er, except that the book has bipartisan recommendation—see the main thread.
But even if it didn’t, you have no right to project your fondness for the genetic fallacy onto Chameleon.
Unlike adherents to a certain scientific proto-hypothesis which shall go unnamed, Chameleon (in common with me) goes out of her way to read and understand the other side’s views.
So I’d like to emphasise to Chameleon: Oreskes’ book provides an excellent window into their ideation.
Everybody:
If you’d like to agree/disagree with my book recommendation, please don’t hesitate to shift over to the appropriate venue.
But let’s not get into an argument here—I’m trying to minimize my visits to the minor threads, because I know how my presence upsets and frightens some of the littler deltoids. Just watch: all I’ve done is poke my head in, but they’ll be off their feed for 2 hours and nervously chattering about bradbradbrad. Naptime will be a nightmare!
I think it would be much healthier to let them develop a life of their own with interests outside Brad, hence my resolution to stick to my thread unless intervention is truly needed elsewhere (e.g. if some particularly-obsessed player-hater keeps libellously hating on me or someone I like).
Catch y’all sometime someplace else.
Thanks Chek!
Keyes, to paraphrase an old chestnut, it's better to shut up and be thought a narcissist than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
Now, back to the naughty corner with you.
Another blog which you may not have heard about is 'Lack of Environment' where this excellent post The nonsense of “Sustainable Growth” highlighting, well, what it says on the tin.
It is worth following links to Nick Reeves' original article and also his earlier THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF MOTHER EARTH.
This rather than wasting time trying to get blood out of the stone that is Keyes who is simply in it for stirring people up.
Very close call there fore Bray, he nearly lost all relevance in his eyes.
Not one post on the "recent discussion"?? No wonder he had to post outside his kennel...
Speaking of losing relevance - is that Jonas I see popping-up on his thread in the recent list?
Just when you think their arguments couldn't get worse...
Power bills will go up much less the more wind power we invest in:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/04/decarbonisation-targe…
@71,that's a great argument, especially when backed up by a round of poo throwing led by Brandon Shollenburger. Cutting edge science from the Bloggies nominees!
Food production continues its march towards corporatisation:
Farmer buys grain.
Farmer plants grain.
(Farmer has no contract whatsoever with Monsanto)
Monsanto sues for breach of patent.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/20/us-supreme-court-mons…
Not sure if anyone saw this epic from a couple of weeks ago - Hotspot found by [Jo] Nova - she just didn't realise it.
I remember pointing out that her own posts showed the hotspot a few years ago and I'm sure I wasn't even the first to do so.
Lotharsson --- Interesting thread, thank you. Amazing how many fail to understand basic physics.
Vince at #74.
It's a worry that 90% of soy farms are using Monsanto seed. They've effectively contaminated most of the seed bank in the USA, so that anyone who seeks to use non-patented varieties would find it almost impossible to buy stock without Roundup-Ready seed in the mix.
I'm surprised that this monopolisation of a whole species' genetic legacy via the agency of contamination, which by the way was "guaranteed" to be preventable, doesn't seem to break any laws.
...and somehow, even more remarkably, it manages not to be a grotesque distortion of free trade requiring urgent correction!
So Vince and BJ?
You have confused me.
Are you pro agriculture or anti agriculture?
So Chamois?
You have confused me.
Have you missed the point because you're stupid, or are you just unable to parse ordinary English?
chubby, you've conmfused me.
Are you pro-free market or anti free market?
Yes, Chebbie, you've confused me too: you say you live in a regional centre, but you're pro big agribusiness, rather than landholders?
There are now to good posts over at Tamino's that Willard Watts fans should read:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/cherry-picking-is-childs-play/
Fact-Checking the Cherry-Pickers: Anthony Watts Edition.
Watts & Monckton always good for a laugh except too may duffers get taken in and politicians use this sort of crap to cover their activities:
Oh, and, have you heard the one about an Australian mining mogul (not Hard-Heart) paying out for a full sized working replica of Titanic?
"Are you pro agriculture or anti agriculture?"
Pro what?!?!?! If I am correct, chammy seems to intimate that those opposed to the corporate takeover of food production and hence the human food chain are possibly 'anti-agriculture'. That's like saying those opposed to ginormous hydro-electric projects which devastate communities downriver as well as huge expanses of natural ecosystems are 'anti-water'.
Essentially its the old gambit that those who oppose environmentally destructive technologies are 'anti-progress' and hence 'anti-human'. This comes straight out of the Wise Use/corporate public relations handbook. Trust chammy to bring it up.
Lionel A
Yeah, that's a great example of how letting the rich keep it all - and grab some of yours for good measure - ultimately benefits the whole community.
And Chebbie is merely a blousy reactionary for all seasons.
Oh, and please do read Tamino's latest. Watts 'horizontal highlighter' is hilarious.
Also, perhaps any of our regular 'skeptics' would like to identify the '16 year pause in warming' the Earth has supposedly experienced in Watt's own chart?
What, nobody?
From now on I suggest that anytime one of these fools drops that noxious little thought-virus into a thread, they should be referred to this chart - one of their own, after all - and be asked to identify it.
Trust chammy to bring it up.
As far as I can determine, Calumny's sole purpose is to act as a weathervane for what the stupids are being fed.
It's a shit job for a piece of shit, but hey, somebody has to do it.
I'm pro-agriculture, obviously, as I am against farmers being sued by a megacorporation with whom they have no contract on account of that corporation's product being allowed to contaminate the food supply.
Chameleon.
Your husband must have been drunk when he met and married you.
Seriously, do you really need an explanation for my comment and Vince's?!
Or do you disagree with the principle that a farmer should have the right to plant seeds and grow crops without being stood over by a multinational holding out for a share of the profits? Given the ubiquitousness of Monsanto's GE soy across the US market, and the tragically easy manner in which such seed contaminates sowing stocks, it will soon be effectively impossible for soy farmers to source open-pollinated/non-patented seed that does not contain material originating from Monsanto. That's a very neat trick for co-opting a whole industry, even when many parts of that industry want no part of the co-opter's influence.
It strikes me that I could do the same. I could patent, say, a GE wheat variety, and sell it in the grain market. Of course, my trials would have shown that it is impossible for my variety to trespass beyond the confines of approved growing areas, so it would be self-evident that anyone growing it without a license was stealing my property. Given the sympathy that Monsanto has from regulators, if seeds from my strain just 'happened' to find their way into the crops and the sowing stocks of major wheat farmers who want nothing to do with my variety, all I'd need to do it to power up my lawyers - et voila! - and I'm raking in the fat from a whole sector.
Of course, to you that might sound like extortion, like stand-over tactics. Or it might not - you've repeatedly demonstrated such an embarrassingly lack of cognitive process that it would surprise me to find that you have no issue with a company privatising public commons by the expedient of overly-protected patents.
... it would not surprise me to find that you have no issue with a company privatising public commons...
Bernard, I think her husband enjoys taking photos of sea walls.
Hy Brnrd J.!
Yr: "Yr hsbnd mst hv bn drnk whn h mt nd mrrd y. "--ddrssd t chmln.
knw bd d t y Dltd-brnd, lw-lf, bttm-fdr, c-dgnrt lmpn-shttds, bt, BJ, yr bv cmmnt t chmln nlctbly drws m bck nt ths blg's grp-stnk, snkr-td nd fltr-td, css-pt dpths.
Lt m jst pt my thghts n thr smplst frm, BJ--y dn't rt cmmnt lk yr bv, l' bddy. ndrstnd tht, ss-hl?!!
S, BJ, jst whr d y cm ff ddrssng wmn--nd spclly n, lk chmln, wh hs bn nflngly cvl n hr cmmntry--wth lngg lk yr lst? Y'r sppsdly n "dctd" mn, BJ--t lst, y wr nc ddrssd s "Dr." n ths blg nd s tk t y hld sch ttl. nd, yt, y s lngg lk yr lst, BJ?--y, BJ, sppsdly ldng "lght" f th clmt-scnc "ntllgnts", nd ll? Jz...wht cntmptbl, swnsh, nmnly, bsv, mthr-fckr lt y r, BJ!
n th thr hnd, BJ, y wnt t "slp" smn rnd, vrblly?-- sggst y drct yr ht-sht-wnnb "lp" n my drctn, l' sprt! 'm p fr t, gy!
nd jst fr Dltd-lnd's gnrl nf--fck yr mmmy's-lttl-ptty-mth-ct-p!, pck-ttck, mn-wn, smrt-mth, ll-mth ct-clls frm th sd-lns, spclly n ths n, Dltds! Ths s btwn BJ nd m! nd my "trgt fxtn" xclds yr crtns, tnrd-trd, vlgrn dstrctns--gt t, hv-bzs?!!
"I know I bid adieu to you Deltoid-brand, low-life, bottom-feeder, eco-degenerate lumpen-shittoids"
Then honor your words and GO. You are a complete idiot.
Hey Deltoids!
A bit awkward to say "bye-bye" to all and then show back up the next day or so, I know. But my little "farewell" decision was mine to make and, the blog-master permitting, mine to unmake.
At the same time, after a spell of reflection--to include an episode of pounding on my forehead with the edge of my fist while intoning "Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!"--I've recovered my resolve to put "daylight" between myself and Deltoid-land. I mean, like, the last thing I want in my life is a tit-for-tat chit-chat with BernadJ. So, BJ, you get to claim the"bragging-rights"--I'm the one who quit the "field of honor."
Sorry for my back-sliding lapse, prompted by BernardJ's irk-provoding comment to Chameleon, Deltoids.
Have fun, guys
This time, absent some compelling reason, I'm outta here for good.
May the road rise with you, and the wind be always at your back.
'May the road rise to meet you...' that Irish Blessing is a knockout to sing.
BJ?
Your rather sexist and/or misogynist comment only reveals flaws in your character and your judgement, not my husband's character or judgement.
Hmmm, sexist eh?
Calumny, I'm still not convinced you're not "Brad's" sock here to make him look more 'intelligent' (however that's meant to work).
Your partisan behaviour is a strong clue to such.
Chubby, you don't seem to have managed to explain if you're pro free market or anti free market.
Is it that you don't know?
"Your rather sexist and/or misogynist comment"
Nope, not sexist or misogynist.
Insulting someone isn't sexist or misogynist merely because the person insulted is a woman.
To assert so is misandrist.
Chammy,
Answer the responses - if you can....
Do you think those opposing corporate takeover of the human food chain are 'anti-agriculture'? You made this half-witted comment earlier, which is further evidence that your arguments appear to be made for the sole purpose of disagreeing with most of the contributors to Deltoid. The pro- or anti-agriculture comment was, let's be honest, plainly DUMB. If you want to be taken seriously, you really need to think before you write in here.
Chameleon.
Like others here I doubt that you are female - it's highly unusual for females to troll as you do.
It's also peculiar for females to engage in blatant displays of ignorance as do you, and it's very odd for females to make comments about reserving sexual favours, as you did recently. If you choose to comment on such matters do not be surprised that others will comment on it: I would have made the same comment if you admitted to being a married male, and I'm sure that in that case your umbrage and Mike's would have been non-existent.
If you really are female I do not resile from making that comment, because as Wow points out it's not one based on sexism. It simply an observation that you raise such ridiculously incorrect 'facts' and flawed understandings of science that the average sober adult human (of either gender) would be rather dissuaded from paddling in your (shallow) end of the gene pool.
Which brings me back to the point in my previous post. Do you really think that it's OK for a multinational company to use the flaws of patent law in order to game agricultural seed supplies to the extent that farmers effectively no longer have the freedom to store and use their own seed stock for replanting?
Where's the March Open Thread?
An interesting point being made about the destructive idiots like Chameleon and Brad:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-blog-around-the-clock/2013/01/28/…
I really think a blog run by somebody who mercilessly deleted anything completely stupid (like mike's crap - completely useless, it should be deleted out of hand) would be good. Chameleon's stuff is OK the first time you see it - she illustrates the gullibility of the stupids taken in by News' agenda - but as soon as she starts repeating herself or diverting the discussion, she should also be mercilessly deleted. As for Brad - he has his own thread with 3000+ comments, and yet in all that thread I don't believe Brad said a single substantive thing except for his erroneous assertion that sensitivity was 1.5. SO what's the point of letting his comments stand? You just clog up your blog with junk, dissuading genuine commenters from engaging. And something tells me this is in fact the tactic of the astroturfers.
And let's just remember the kind of operation the likes of Brad is engaged in:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-UPDATED-The-HB-Gary-Em…
I seriously think obvious astroturfers should be deleted out of hand, their IPs permanently blocked.
We could also suggest that all Chameleon's contributions undergo some form of peer-review process, perhaps similar to that adopted here:
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-…
mike, did you notice that no-one gave a shit - at all - the first time you announced you were going to flounce a couple of days back? You are a waste of space. Zero.
Chebbie seems to have just enough brain to have realised she's made a fool of herself, and is hovering accordingly waiting for the imbecility to have passed!
Otherwise, again: please explain how Monsanto's shameless monopoly rent-seeking is 'agriculture'.
There is a lot of activity in the GM debate concerning Mark Lynas who proudly boasted that he had converted from anti-GMO activist into a GM promoter. He made a speech in Oxford a couple of months ago where he admitted his conversion. He claimed that the reason he changed views was that he was persuaded by the science of GMO technology. Nothing could be further from the truth.
http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3…
What he claimed to be science was in fact nothing more than the myths put out by the GM PR machine and its accompanying "scientists", who are no more than GM shills, from the Science Media Centre.
These myths and science based responses to them can be found here:
http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_an…
A couple of the more easily challenged myths are the ones that claim GMO's have reduced pesticide use and increased yields. Neither are true.
He was interviewed by Chris Mooney recently where he repeated most of these myths and included a few new ones. Near the end of the interview he made the ridiculous claim that European farming was so inefficient that they were importing food from Brazil. This is utter nonsense. What is being imported from Brazil, Argentina and other South American countries is animal feed and oils for bio-fuels.
I put Mark Lynas in the same category as Bjorn Lomborg. I think both changed their career paths because they found a new one which was much more lucrative from a financial point of view and had nothing to do with science.
Now *here* is something cool:
http://www.caltech.edu/content/window-europas-ocean-lies-right-surface
I wonder how many epistemologists it took to get to this stage of our knowledge about Europa's chemical composition?
Something fairly close to zero, I suspect.
Vince, I suspect that your suspicion has a likelihood of accuracy extremely close to 100%.
Speaking of, I notice from the "Recent comments" box that there's still a bit of traffic in that cesspit. Is Keyes' still struggling to understand why his behaviour indicates excessive narcissism? I agree with previous sentiment that he's best left to his own devices, with just the regular and spectacularly vacuous affirmations from trolls such as Chameleon to keep him satisfied.
Lynas is a real disappointment, I exchanged ideas with him during the height of the Lomborg-period a decade ago, and he was a good guy then, However, given his views on GM crops and on Diamond's arguments with respect to Easter Island, as well as other areas, in recent years it seems like he's just become another post-Lomborg technophile.
It seem like the fast-track to prominence is to claim to be an environmentalist and then to support the morons who are doing their best to destroy the biosphere for profit.
I started wondering about Mark Lynas when he tweeted a recommendation for Matt Ridley's BS Wired article last year:
https://twitter.com/search?q=%22mark%20Lynas%22%20wired&src=typd
BJ et al?
So what aspects of agriculture do you support?
I don't believe there is a 'free market' in agriculture. Way too much subsidising going on in most countries.
I'm a female rural Australian (despite your inability to believe that) so I tend to support Australian family farmers.
They are among the most efficient farmers in the world.
And no I don't think it's OK for the patent laws to be misused to game farmers.
My earlier question was sparked by reading a culmination of links supplied here.
Many of them point the finger at farming.
And BJ,
I was not impressed with your silly sexist insult and even less impressed by your poor attempt at justifying poor behaviour.
As I said earlier, it reveals more about you than anything else.
Your opinion of my husband or me has nothing to do with anything of any consequence.
I don't believe we know each other in the real world.
You can't even believe that I am female.
"I don’t believe there is a ‘free market’ in agriculture."
You still aren't answering the question:
Are you pro or anti free market?
(PS the internet is full of lardy hairy blokes pretending to be 16 year old blonde schoolgirls. Merely asserting you're a girl is no proof)
Chameleon.
I support agriculture by advocting for a climate that is at least sometimes anmenable to seasons of production. Climate change is going to be a big game-changer in the coming decades, and in many parts of Australia (and the world) not for the better. Given that future generations of farmers will be working without cheap (and one day, even available) oil, the last thing that primary producers need is for the fundmental milieu of their production environment to be FUBARed.
Disbelieving this won't prevent it from happening.
And Chameleon, it wasn't a sexist comment. It was an intelligentist one. If you concentrate sufficiently, you might even one day understand why this is so.
It's so cute when they try and 'talk' like real people. But there's always that curious, almost itemised, stunted quality about it whenever they do.
Chameleon says,
On the surface, this kind of distortion appears unfair and promotes inefficiency.
However, when you're talking about a 1st-world economy where the value of primary produce is vanishingly small, the concept of food security comes into play.
I am very interested in food security. The Yanks take it seriously, hence their massive subsidies and large, thriving agricultural sector. Here, we don't take it seriously enough, with the result that much of our primary production has been lost or turned over to destructive corporate activities involving cotton and so forth, and country towns have become ghost towns while our urban population is at a disturbingly high proportion of our total population.
For the same reason, we should be very interested in Monsanto's efforts to present the contamination of our food species with their genetically-altered garbage as a fait accompli resulting from legislative absence and government inaction.
And Bernard, I really don't think lack of oil will ever become an issue: establishment costs included, wind power is now cheaper per KWh than coal power. The transition away from fossil fuel will happen especially quickly in the rural sector where everybody has plenty of room to plonk in a dozen or so wind turbines. Imagine a farming sector freed from the yoke of the energy sector? All the more reason to keep Monsanto out.
Bernard, 3,500 comments in and Brad is no closer to explaining how he forms his mistaken opinions, no closer to admitting being wrong, nor of displaying any evidence of absorbing any of the tutoring he has been receiving.
Complete waste of space.
At least with Chameleon you get the feeling that the occasional word is getting through and making a very small change to her perception of the issues on which she has previously acquired so much misinformation.
Sadly, she still appears to be largely guided by her instant fantasies:
I'll put my hand up to "one link pointing the finger at Monsanto", but I must have missed this "culmination of many links pointing the finger at farming". Too lazy to analyse this thread in detail but suspect it's a complete fantasy.
I’ll put my hand up to “one link pointing the finger at Monsanto“, but I must have missed this “culmination of many links pointing the finger at farming“. Too lazy to analyse this thread in detail but suspect it’s a complete fantasy
Almost completely bolloxed AI would be my guess Vince..
Too busy, Vince, too busy.
Lionel A and JeffH and BJ have also supplied OP's and reports that do indeed demonise agriculture.
Your last was more about Monsanto and sedd patents.
Interestingly, I agree with your comment re the reasons behind agricultural subsides, but similarly to your monsanto example, the legislation does get used inappropriately.
Wow's question re 'free market' and agriculture is a nonsense and he clearly does not understand that it doesn't and will probably never happen in the global agricultural market, precicely because of your point re food security.
BJ has resorted to preaching doom & gloom re agriculture which is just a little bit akin to 'biting the hand that feeds you'.
And Vince, I was never attempting to be contrary or unreasonable, thankyou for recognising that could be the case.
Sorry Chameleon, but even though you have toned it down a lot, your early contributions to this thread were completely unreasonable.
It is completely unreasonable to target Flannery for personal abuse due to his position as climate commissioner. It's not his fault climate change is a reality. It's not his fault that the general public, misled by the public media, cannot comprehend the science and must have it translated for them.
OK, Chebbie; why did you make no response to Brad's comments such as this one (notice that I even pointed it out to you immediately below it) or this one or this one?.
(That last is followed by 'Anyway thanks for raising the tone Jeff.')
Further, I'll bet you simply pretend not to have read this comment and store no memory whatsoever that the above ever happened.
Pots/kettles.
You also have zero evidence for 'pointing at farming', and still haven't explained how anyone could confuse an attack on industrial/chemical monopolists Monsanto with being 'anti-agriculture'.
Also, Chebbie, Vince is right - your arrival here with its silly and uninformed attack on Flannery, and your perverse refusal to admit a simple and undeniable error of fact regarding Delingpole's 'confirmation' of your 'fleeting fancy' has set the tone for everyone's response to you.
Unsurprisingly.
As has your persistent support for wind-up merchants and blatant trolls.
I'm sure where you live 'everyone knows' that what you say about Flannery is 'true', but the point is that it isn't, and you - and far-too-many of your rural comrades - are letting your reactionary instincts sleepwalk yourselves into a disaster.
That goes close to being the stupidest thing I've read for a long time.
If the facts point to serious upcoming issues for agriculture, pointing them out and advocating for strategies to avoid them is the very opposite of "biting the hand that feeds you". Worse still, denying that the issues exist and advocating for policies that will lead to those issues constitutes "biting the hand that feeds you".
Lotharsson,
that reads like circular semantic nonsense.
Most of the time, farmers need less legislative/ bureaucratic red tape: not more.
Extra legislation/policy/red tape actually disadvantages genuine farmers and creates advantages for corporate farming and companies like Monsanto.
Bill,
I have not read MoD, nor have I met the lady, seen her interviewed etc.
I therefore have not commented.
Obviously you and BradK disagree about the content and the message.
If you want my totally objective opinion about your disagreement, I would only be able to say that you have both probably made some valid and invalid conclusions about MoD and each other (including your respective reading abilities)
Tim Flannery is a different case as I have met him, I have watched numerous interviews, I have read one of his books and I have watched several of his 2 men docos.
I quite like him but I do not necessarily agree with several of his ideologies and his politics.
He is human and no more infallible or above reproach than someone like Humlum or Marohasy (examples of 2 scientists I have mentioned as well).
Neither do I think deliberately arguing with me via personal and rude comments does anything to advance a civil debate about political science issues.
You are clearly not happy that the latest polling is not good news for the Labor Party.
There may need to be some soul searching about the PR methodology and the engagement of the electorate perhaps?
Calling people names and implying they're stupid and gullible is not generally a successful engagement strategy.
'Elitism' and related behaviour has never been a succesful strategy in Australia.
Then I suggest you try and improve your comprehension to (say) year 10 high school level. Or ask a high school student to help you.
Worse still: your reference to "legislation/policy/red tape" etc. doesn't appear to connect in any way with the comment of yours that I was responding to, let alone to the comment by BJ that you were responding to when you wrote it. aybe there's a connection in your head, but if so you haven't bothered sharing it with the rest of us.
Milquetoast 'balanced' babble.
And you hardly need to have read MoD to determine if Brad's comments regarding Oreskes' appearance are offensive, do you?Pffft!...
This kind of tawdry evasiveness neither fools - nor endears you to - anyone here.
Also, if you and your cronies choose to be dense - to see yourselves as smarter than the CSIRO, fer Chrissakes! - that is not anyone's fault other than your own.
I am heartily sick and tired of this passive-aggressive 'maybe if you were nicer to me I wouldn't choose to believe what's convenient for me' crap.
In 20 years time the likes of you will still doubtlessly be holding us responsible for your own stupidities - by then, of course, the joke won't only be on you, it'll be on everyone, including plenty of poor blameless bastards - and species - that never had an opportunity to employ their education and wealth to act in the face of what they knew was coming.
Frankly, this sickens me.
You have a few problems there, Chameleon:
1/ Marohasy may have once been a scientist, but she since accepted a paid gig writing politically-motivated PR for the IPA. Calling her a scientists would seem to be inaccurate.
2/ Red tape disdvantaging farmers: where would farmers down the Murray be if there wasn't red tape holding the cotton-farming land-pirates in check? Where would they be if there wasn't red tape preventing paper mills from dropping bleach in the rivers? Where would they be of there wasn't red tape aimed at keeping an eye on prickly pear?
I've never met Tim Flannery, but I have read his books. "Throwim way leg", in particular, because its final chapter showed me that Tim Flannery is a man of integrity, courage and convictions who isn't prone to turning a blind eye to evil when he sees it, which doesn't make him a natural supporter of the ALP.
Vince.
That's been the case for a while now according to several groups, and its been encouraging to see.
The issue is that agriculture in many Australian contexts requires periodic energy-dense inputs, and translating renewable energy into that level of density will still be costly. Getting renewable energy in a portable and dense form as we are currently used to with petroleum-based products, at volumes comparable to contemporary usage, involves much added processing, and that attracts added expense.
It's thermodynamics. We've partied hard by collapsing 200-300 million years of fossil energy accumulation into 200-300 years of energy release, and that level of mean per capita energy slurping (and it's attendant environmental destruction) will not automatically be replaced with renewably-sourced energy.
It'll require significant restructuring of our society and its industries if our grandchildren are to live in a secure society, with the agricultural, transport, and power opportunites that we take for granted now, and that's even without the looming spectre of climate change that will manifest over the coming decades.
As to Brad and his never-ending autobiography, you're a more stubborn man than I, Vince! I closed that tab a few days ago, thoroughly sick of the fact that he can't actually put forward a scientific case for his personal stance that climate change is not a problem for humans and the rest of the biosphere. Kudos for your persistence!
Chameleon said:
<blockquoteLionel A and JeffH and BJ have also supplied OP’s and reports that do indeed demonise agriculture.
and wonders why people regard her as having the intelligence of a turnip, and cannot help but comment about it...
I'll type this slowly Chameleon, so that you aren't left behind.
I strongly support agriculture. I should, as I am establishing several agricultural enterprises myself - an off-shoot of a decade and a half of an ever-growing project to grow most of my own food.
I strongly support individuals and local communities and their right to grow/produce their own primary products. I also strongly support the need for this to be done sustainably.
And as I posted previously, I strongly support the right of future generations to be able to farm in a climate that is amenable to such activity.
Did you understand this? Or were the words I used to long for you to comprehend?
Now, answer the question that has been asked by several people here - do you really think that it’s OK for a multinational company to use the flaws of patent law in order to game agricultural seed supplies to the extent that farmers effectively no longer have the freedom to store and use their own seed stock for replanting?
And I'll add that I, dear Chebbie, work in Landcare, which enables me to understand that not all bucolic opinion is as retrograde as your own.
Fortunately.
I already answered that question BJ.
The answer is no.
Bill,
good for you for working in landcare.
I do too.
Vince,
Marohasy is a scientist as well as being involved in other pusuits and projects.
Flannery is multi skilled and involved in more than one endeavour as well.
SO?
If this article is correct it's that:
- and more:
Current agricultural methods simply cannot continue on a global scale forever - maybe not even until the end of the century.
The grammar and vocabulary used by chameleon have altered recently on this thread, eg # 21 and # 26. There is real inconsistency here with the 'simpler' tone of many earlier comments.
I call sock.
I believe you'll find the socks being hubby and wife of the chubby team.
The pair tag-team on here.
Wow
After watching the show for several weeks now, I'm profoundly suspicious. But of course one can prove nothing.
There's not actual *evidence* that certain commenters are gaming the system. Acting in bad faith.
Seriously?
It doesn't perhaps occur to you to discuss the actual message rather than forever attempting to shoot the messenger does it?
Good grief BBD.
Your imagination is running away with you.
Do you also waste brain time worrying about things that go bump in the night?
That inference is completely and hilariously absurd as well as being totally baseless.
You need to follow some earlier advice and get out more.
Indeed. Shields are down to 20%.
Oh, we've been trying to entice Brad Keyes to discuss science for over a month, but he simply keeps slip-sliding away. Keyes doesn't actually want to discuss science, because it would bring him to the scarey place in his head where he is not the king of the world.
And I still don't believe that you're female Chameleon. Your usage is wrong. And as BBD and others are pointing out your style is changing too, and both usage and style are inconsistent with your little sentence-to-a-paragraph quirk. There's also that little tag-team appraoch to subject matter that dissonates.
Shouls we pull down your bloomers and check Chameleon? Or is it Keyesmeleon?
For example, which alter is being channelled with:
chameleon
I've tried for weeks to discuss specifics with you and BK. Without success. You are both entirely evasive. If you want to discuss specifics, why have you yet to respond to # 69 on the Brad thread?
You have surpassed your namesake. You are transparent.
"Marohasy is a scientist"
Chammy forgot to insert the word 'mediocre' before 'scientist'...
Chammy's posts get more puerile by the minute. She writes this: "Way too much subsidising going on in most countries"
Most countries? You mean IN THE NORTH. At least be correct in your simpleton remarks. Countries in the poor south don't have the collective power to stand up against the developed juggernauts, so we dump our own heavily subsidized agricultural products on them whilst refusing to let them protect their own markets. This is how the hair-trigger global economy works, Chammy. Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. This explains why so many farmers have been forced off their land in poor countries like Haiti and Honduras and into cities where they work for companies like Nike and Disney in sweatshops for 2 dollars a day.
Its clear to me, Chammy, that your knowledge of the world is pathetically thin. I let most of your kindergarten level crap go by but some of it is just so egregiously simple that I have to respond.
@ 39 see # 43 and # 80 on Brangelina thread.
Get on with it chammy.
New study in Science covered in the Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-world-is-ho…
From the article:
"
The world is now warmer than at almost any time since the end of the last ice age and, on present trends, will continue to reach a record high for the entire period since the dawn of civilisation, a study has found.
A reconstruction of global temperatures going back 11,300 years, which covers the historical period from the founding of the first ancient cities to the space age, has concluded the biggest and most rapid change in the climate has occurred in the past century.
Scientists found that the warm period following the end of last ice age, called the Holocene, peaked about 5,000 years ago when the world began to get cooler. However, this cooling went into a dramatic and sudden reversal about a century ago when global temperatures shot up to levels not seen for thousands of years, the scientists found.
The study, published in the journal Science, further undermines the frequent argument put forward by climate “sceptics” that global temperatures now are no higher than they were in previous centuries, long before the increase in industrial emissions of carbon dioxide".
Debate over. Time to move on.
10ka of GHG forcing.
Whooooosh!
The 11.2ka temperature reconstruction from Marcott et al. (2013) is impressive.
Here it is!
Demonise agriculture, Moi?
Where, EXACTLY?
The Marcott et al. reconstruction really does put things into perspective. Here we are, matching or surpassing the highest temperatures of the Holocene Climatic Optimum thousands of years after the waning of precessional forcing.
This really is the Hockey Stick to end them all. ;-)
New Scientist.
So, ~5.5ka of gradual *overall* cooling as the HCO fades away, then bang! Welcome to the Anthropocene.
Ah, I was about to bring in Marcott et al.
Face it guys, 'the hockey stick is broken' is broken. If this isn't the hottest period since the dawn of civilization it soon will be!
You'll be astonished to learn that Andrew Montford - the Sticky Bishop - has wasted his life! Just like all his acolytes... yes, I do mean you, wastrels!...
Also, I'm calling QED on this prediction above -
If there are any objections to Bernard's latest, please refer her back to it.
We also await evidence of Agricultural Demons with considerable interest. About as likely as providing evidence for Spring-heeled Jack, I'll forecast...
Chebbie, what do you imagine you are achieving here? If I hold that deniers are inclined both to the dim and to the dishonest, how does your behaviour affect my contention, would you say?
Or was the Demonic claim merely a 'fleeting fancy', Chebbie? ;-)