April 2013 Open Thread

More thread.

More like this

The Thames river in London and Seine in Paris were frozen over every year.

Wrong, the Thames frooze just 24 times in the period 1400-1814. If Abdussamatov can't even get the past right, is there much hope of him being right about the future?

Credulous Karen's article also cites Jonathan Powell of Vantage Weather Services (formerly Positive Weather Solutions) - that will be this Jonathan Powell:


Its (Positive Weather Solutions) website carried photos of young women with, er, prominent credentials, who were named as the company's forecasters, and who appeared in news reports issuing its predictions. But a picture search revealed that these were remarkably busy people. One of them was also employed, under a variety of other names, as a mail order bride, a hot Russian date and a hot Ukrainian date. Another offered her services as an egg donor, a hot date, a sublet property broker in Sweden, a lawyer, an expert on snoring, eyebrow threading, safe sex, green cleaning products, spanking and air purification.

I'd thank you for the comedy Karen, but your same clown act became a bore long, long ago.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 01 Apr 2013 #permalink

Credulity is required to be a denier. Just look at their credulity to the idea that they are "skeptics".

But Karen, what are you doing spouting nonsense here? You have numerous questions to answer on the March thread.

Have you simply *run away* from those questions because you cannot - or will not - answer them?

Quick, my little Deltoids, you must act fast - NOW! You see, I warned you that you would be caught with your pants down and it has begun. Even the mighty intellectual Economist magazine has dumped you and your religion:

"OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”"

The coming religion is the new, ooops, sorry, I mean *old* religion of global freezing is back, er, not on the boiler but in the fridge:

"Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, of the St Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory, painted the Doomsday scenario saying the recent inclement weather [in Europe] simply proved we were heading towards a frozen planet. 

Dr Abdussamatov believes Earth was on an “unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop”. The last big freeze, known as the Little Ice Age, was between 1650 and 1850."

Right, hold hands and altogether now:
Weee belieeeve in the big freeeeeeeze!

By David Duff (not verified) on 01 Apr 2013 #permalink

Yup, more idiot. Do you think that if you proclaim something a religion enough times it will become accepted as one?

“OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat"

So every day has had the same temperature???

This is what you think is valid?

# 6 David Duff

But Abdussamatov is a known crank. Why should we (and why do you) place the slightest weight on his pronouncements?

Wow, belief in religion defies rationality. That doesn't make it wrong but it does make it differ fundamentally from science, er, *good* science, that is!

So, have written that let us consider the following:
Greenhouse gases soar and temperatures do not.

Question: Is the case for global warming caused by greenhouse gases strong or just, er, hot air?

By David Duff (not verified) on 01 Apr 2013 #permalink

'Abdabs' may well be a crank, er, but look about you in the Unified Church of AGW! Perhaps 'eccentric' is the politest word, don'cha think?

By David Duff (not verified) on 01 Apr 2013 #permalink


If you readily concede that Abdussamatov is a crank, why did you even mention his nonsense in the first place?

What were you thinking of? I'm puzzled.

"Wow, belief in religion defies rationality"

Indeed it does. As you demonstrate admirably.

"Greenhouse gases soar and temperatures do not."

But they are soaring. 0.6C per decade trend 2011-2012.

"Question: Is the case for global warming caused by greenhouse gases strong or just, er, hot air?"

It is strong.

Your reasoning is weak.


Question: Is the case for global warming caused by greenhouse gases strong or just, er, hot air?


"What were you thinking of? I’m puzzled."

Duffer doesn't do thinking. He just gets told what to do.

Again, note what intellectually illuminating sources our uneducated deniers glean their sources from: Karen and Duff: Daily Express; Olaus Petri: BH, WUWT, Nova etc.

Not a primary literature source in sight. But since none of these right wing-nuts reads the primary literature, and instead surround themselves in right wing propaganda, this is hardly surprising.

Duff still hasn't worked out in his addled old brain what a time lag is for a large scale system. He still thinks that 'x' amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere today must mean 'y' degrees of temperature increase tomorrow. In other words, he cannot reconcile the term 'scale'. But then again, old Duffer thinks Obama is a communist, something which takes hilarity to a whole new scale.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 Apr 2013 #permalink

David Duff

Look at the bigger picture.

GAT at the top; forcings at the bottom, coherently scaled with each other. Solar (yellow) at bottom and GHGs (smooth green line) bracket net forcings (red). The abrupt negative excursions are the result of negative forcing peaks from volcanic aerosols.

Look at the temperature response to net forcing change over the last century.

I don't know what duffer the puffer is puffing but it seems to be destroying more and more neurons and probably getting more and more illegal.

Here are data showing the rate of global temperature increase for the time periods starting with 1997, 1998 and 1999: 0.09, 0.08 and 0.12 degrees C per decade respectively. The average rate of temperature increase for the past 30 years is 0.17 degrees C per decade. It can also be seen from the linked graphic that present day global temperatures are above the long term (30 year) trend.


Only a neuronally challenged puffer of illegal substances can be so wrong with what they post.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 01 Apr 2013 #permalink

Olaus, if you have an argument, the best way to make it is by assembling words in rows called 'sentences'. These should build into logically ordered subunits called 'paragraphs' which in turn combine to form the totality of your point.

Of course cartoons and links to data visualisations are welcome, but only when connected to a pre-existing argument that we can all understand.

These sentences and paragraphs should also actually contain the meaning intended for the audience to understand.

Not just empty pasting that has no meaning to you nor anyone else.

What's even funnier is that the link at # 20 doesn't even work...

Not just empty pasting that has no meaning to you nor anyone else.

But that is OP's MO is it not.

Here is the real picture: in Figure 1M, are we below 1900 temps yet OP, tell us when we are 'till then bog off.

Also note animated GIF in right panel there which displays books that would assist your understanding. These would be a good starter for Keyes too, well on the science. The other part of his missing education is the hsitory, and reality, of the denial machine aka the septics.

As for Duff, forever barking down the up elevator.

To set the record straight, I have no opinion on whether 'Abdabs' is a crank or not because until today I had never heard of him. However, what I do think is that so-called scientists whose predictions have gone wildly off target but who still cling grimly to the wreckage of their forecasts are, shall we say, more religious than scientific.

And my quotes above came from The Economist not The Daily Express, and the former was quoting, er, Dr. James Hansen - now where have I heard that name before . . .? Anyway, for the benefit of Wow, allow me to repeat Hansen's words: "“the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.””

That would be 'flat' as in, er, flat!

Come along, little Deltoids, make the circle and altogether:
'Weee belieeeve in the big freeeeeeeze!'

By David Duff (not verified) on 01 Apr 2013 #permalink

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

Which is not a precise quote of what Hansen wrote here, and is also incomplete as you see.

Note the emphasis in the last clause. Duff, you explain what that means. Whatever 5-years is too short a time to be significant and you are pissing down the up-escalator. Ignorance or mendacity?

The Economist is another organ of partial truths and downright lies. Economists are not scientists.

"The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade"

No error bars, duffer?. Your "calculation" had no error bars? Proof you're not a scientist.

"That would be ‘flat’ as in, er, flat!"

Which would be moving as in "not flat".

Truly clueless, duffer.

David Duff

Trenberth thinks the rate at which energy is diffused *into* the ocean is a bit higher than Hansen does. Hansen suggests that aerosols may have had a larger cooling effect than previously thought. This is the essence of the scientific debate over the recent warming hiatus.

Most (>90%) of the energy that has accumulated in the climate system as a result of AGW is in the ocean. (Levitus 2012). Some of that energy is only *temporarily* sequestered and will contribute to future atmospheric warming as circulation returns it to the surface.

Nobody is suggesting that basic physics is wrong, nor that the RTEs are wrong. The standard position on AGW is the same:


a pause or break in continuity in a sequence or activity

hehehe, many of you spat the dummy about McIntyre, then sent links to Tamino's work that was really McIntyre's, lol

Gee, Rednose has gone quiet.

Zoot: ...Duff/Karen move in response to the fingers of their denier overlords up their clacker(s) at present, leaving Redarse lying pathetically empty and flaccid - like a used condom. Odious Olaus is still a non-finger stool voice, but for the Scandinavian Troll Collective, so that's not an improvement. Tabanids all.

Yeah, yeah, yeah - Nigel's the Towering Genius; the rest are just riding on his coat-tails. Is there a Denier groupthink imbecility-du-jour you've ever refused to swallow, Karen?

Grant Foster aka “Tamino

"Also for your information, the original version of this post mentioned McIntyre (and linked to his posts) extensively. But prior to posting I decided to remove that,"

The nuffie accidentally says it himself, lol

Karen, dear, remember how you couldn't explain what The Nige was puffing about in the first place - none of you could, not at all, despite being repeatedly asked to, for days on end?

And so now a bona-fide statistician has taken up the issues of the proxy dropouts that help to clarify the uptick-at-the-end-bit that Marcott and co. always said wasn't robust - and, bless him, explained himself in full detail in comprehensible English sentences .

And here you are back at your level; with your playground taunts that the leader of your gang said it first and was right all along, so there, whatever it was he said, and anyway Foster is a plauguear, plaigear, plaeu... copycat! Nyah nyah!

Then how come none of you could ever explain the issue in the first place, petal?

And also, little putz, when it comes to the uptick it makes no bloody difference because we have the actual temperature record for the 20th Century and beyond to confirm it!

You know, like BEST, a project initiated on your own side which you were all going to accept - except that it turned out they did it properly rather than using the accepted sub-rosa preconception techniques of blogscience?

Get it?

Of course you don't!

Not a single one of you mouth-breathers ever does. All the flighty chaff has been winnowed - all those weaklings who let mere facts stand in the way of a higher truth - it's only the purest grain of imbeciles and hucksters left...

So what's left (not right) about Marcott's revolutionary results, you know the ones that da Mann found spectacular? :-)

And poor wombat tries to land a punch. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 02 Apr 2013 #permalink

What's left? About 150,000 years of temperature records, lap dog.

You really don't know how to read a graph do you.

Karen #37 left this bit out:

The references to McIntyre in my original version were to his insulting tone regarding this work, but I finally decided it was better to ignore that and comment on the science.


The insults and ugly insinuations came from disinformation merchants and paranoid conspiracy theorist McIntyre . If McI said earth was round and a day later I wrote on my blog "the earth is round and this is how we know that" and proceeded to explain, McI would say I plagiarised his 'idea'.

However, I'm not averse to tossing out well-deserved insults. Here's one - though Karen will probably take it as a compliment: Karen is not just dumb she lies by omission.

There is nothing to debunk there Sou, with a bit of luck that article will go mainstream to demonstrate how low climate science has sunk.

I call Marcott etal "lipstick on a pig"

BBD offered up this http://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/holocene_temperat… the only people it convinced was the alarmist brigade, Jeff Harvey was sucked in as usual, he went into one of his filibuster rants after seeing it, you should also note that he can't actually read a temperature chart, it was the lipstick that deceived him. lol


Yep.....LIPSTICK ON A PIG.........lol lol lol

So why do you keep linking to things that have nothing to debunk in and making snide comments, spots?

It's just wasting everyone's time.

Having read McIntyre's look at Marcott, then Foster's, I've got to say McI is looking rather foolish. Then again I do seem to remember he does not understand what plagiarism is,as revealed in his attack on Ray Bradley.

Karen, have you received any kind of head injury to explain your astonishingly tangential, um, 'comprehension'?

Seriously. It's like those astonishing people that litter YouTube; the X-Factor, Lithuania's Got Talent contestants who squeal like rutting pharyngitic polecats and really, really imagine they can sing - you can see it in their precious, bewildered faces as they are gleefully torn to shreds by B-grade celebs who can at least either hold a tune or recognise one (this ritual humiliation being the Coliseum for the globalised era!)

But in your case you really appear to imagine you can think!

As an example, spots, at #1 you claim:

Abdussamatov has certainly been closer with his predictions than the IPCC

Yet nowhere in your link is any past prediction by Abdussamatov shown to have come true, it's all about his prediction of something he says is STILL IN THE FUTURE.

I think this is why Hansen has quit his job.

Werner Brozek checks the latest data for warming trends:

On all data sets below, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 4 years and 7 months to 16 years and 1 month.

1. For GISS, the slope is flat since May 2001 or 11 years, 9 months. (goes to January)

2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since March 1997 or 15 years, 11 months. (goes to January)

3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or an even 12 years. (goes to November)

4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 3 months. (goes to January)

5. For Hadsst2, the slope is flat since March 1997 or 15 years, 11 months. (goes to January)

6. For UAH, the slope is flat since July 2008 or 4 years, 7 months. (goes to January)

7. For RSS, the slope is flat since January 1997 or 16 years and 1 month. (goes to January) RSS is 193/204 or 94.6% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.

But when Brozek checks for statistically significant warming, the warming pause extends by every measure to more than 15 years:

For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years…

For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years…

For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years…

For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years…

For GISS the warming is not significant for over 17 years...

Once warmists said 15 years of no statistically significant warming invalidated their models.


Two points:

One, karen's sources are a far right wing blogger who probably denies that humans have done any harm to the environment at all and believes in unfettered, unregulated free markets;

Two, the time scales involved are, in the context of natural changes for such a huge system, profoundly small. The trouble with idiots lay deniers like our befuddled Karen here (and Duff, and Olaus, and Rednose et al) is that they think ten years is a long time. They think that 20 years is incredibly long. And for these scientifically illiterate numbskulls, 30 years must be an eternity. They just cannot comprehend the scales we are talking about here; processes that normally take centuries or even thousands of years to be borne out occurring in 50 or less. So if there is not a significant increase in GLOBAL temperatures (forget the regional data where there are many, many examples of significant rises) over a quarter of a human life span then all is well with the world.

I have debunked this shit so many times that i am sick and tired of doing it. We are talking about (at the global scale) a largely deterministic system where significant effects can only be measured over several decades. At local scales (say, covering a small section of the biosphere) we'd need even a decade or even considerably longer to measure such changes. Scientists know this; that's why such a small number spew out the kind of nonsense that is routine on blogs run by politically motivated scientific wannabes. Scientists are trained to appreciate the importance of scales and hierarchies. That's why most of us here are beating our heads against the walls with the small band of deniers. None of them - and I mean NONE - has any relevant training in or understanding of processes involving time lags or scale. The utterly vile spew that comes from karen is testament to this. She does not understand it, so predictably, like the other deniers who write in here, she ignores it. Its pure Dunning-Kruger theater. I would be derided were I to predict changes in the properties of entire biomes to abiotic factors in the space of a century. And there are hundreds of biomes across the surface of the planet. Only at the level of small-scale ecological communities can we find decade-scale effects that might be construed as significant. As we increase the spatial scale the temporal scales become lagged. Its even been suggested that changes in the properties and extent of North American ecosystems that were generated by humans as long ago as three hundred years are only now rippling through to affect the dynamics of many species and trophic interactions now.

But to those intent on pushing a pre-determined worldview, things like lags and scale don't matter. These dimwits are not trained to think in this way, but in the context of a human life-time. If temperatures globally were to increase 2-4 C even over the next 200-400 years this would exert profoundly serious effects on natural ecosystems. Such changes at the global scale normally take tens of thousands of years, given the scale of the system. If such variation was commonplace, then life would not have evolved to produce the riotous biodiversity that it has. Climate stability has been a key factor for the extent of adaptive radiation which has occurred. Stability means hundreds of human generations; not a small fraction of one or two.

Thanks heaven that the climate change debate is occurring for the most part amongst people trained to understand so many important processes. In universities and research institutions. At conferences and workshops. What I see on WUWT, Nova, BH, CA and other denier blogs is a high-school level understanding of complexity and of scale. Again, this is hardly surprising, since none of the people on these sites have any pedigree in related fields. The tragedy is that they reach an veritable army of idiots anxious to embrace their myopic view of the world.

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

My final point is this before I head off to a conference to present a lecture (ever hear of a thing called a 'conference' Karen? Know what a university is?) -

To Karen: You are full of it. By 'it' I mean ignorance. Profoundly deep, disturbing stupidity. You arguments - if one can call them that - have been so comprehensively debunked that one can only conclude that you enjoy getting hammered. You have clearly proven time and time and time again that you do not understand the terms 'complexity' and ' scale'. Until you do, then your posts will continue to be a brazen embarrassment. Go back to school and learn some basic science before wading in here with your piffle again.

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

Spots: "I think"

You didn't even manage two words before you got it all wrong.

On all data sets below, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 4 years and 7 months to 16 years and 1 month.

Do they all preclude 0.17C per decade warming (though for satellite data it ought to be about 0.15C per decade since satellites include upper air to a small fraction of their value)?

Do they?

# 44 Karen

You have dodged every single question I asked you and ignored every corrective explanation of your various misconceptions about M13. Yet here you are, prattling on as if you had won an argument.

I'm speculating that this is a mixture of mental illness and quite profound dishonesty.

See (among many others) March Open Thread:

# 67

# 68

# 70

You aren't even remotely up to this, are you Karen?

I've got a feeling you are going to suffer like Clown did.

Olaus Petri # 39

See # 54. And the rest of the corrective explanations you have ignored.

You are not up to this either. You are also likely to suffer as a consequence. You have already, a little, haven't you?


I see Brad has been talking to himself over at Eli'S after tyhe issued this challenge to the bunnies:

"So Eli the ever patient Bunny is gonna make everyone a deal. If no one replies to Brad for 24 hours, Eli will wipe the last load of Brad's comments out and throw them down the Rabett hole. Good for all posts. You can toy with him there.

Remember you have to leave it alone. OTOH if Brad sock-puppets to stop this Eli will wipe ALL of Brad's comments out"



The Thames river in London and Seine in Paris were frozen over every year.

Wrong, the Thames frooze just 24 times in the period 1400-1814.

As far as I can tell, the Seine froze over completely, or nearly so, 38 times between 1281 and 1941. I found better records for Rouen (where complete freezes are more common) than for Paris, so I've combine the totals for both cities. Generally these years line up with the years for the Thames, but continue beyond 1814 when the Thames new hydrology prevented further freezing at the City. However there is a poor correlation for the 16th century, suggesting I might have missed a few in that period.

But even adding some wiggle room for a few missing 16th century ones, "every year" is a pretty loose way to describe an event that has had an average return value of 1-in-16 years. Even at the very bottom of the LIA, this event occurred no more often than once every 5 years or so.

Amusingly, a couple of earlier freeze overs occurred during the Medieval Warm period. I guess anyone claiming that the Thames and the Seine freezing over equals a mini-ice age must be some sort of MWP-denier!

@ 37

Something else you have been lied to about!

You should always check the 'facts' you get from WTFUWT...

Tamino's reply to the egregious Mosher (who had been showing his *true colours* again):

I have repeatedly stated the truth -- that the only "acknowledgements" were of his [McIntyre's] mistaken ideas and his insulting tone. For you to claim that these were owed to him for reasons of "scholarship" is either mind-boggling stupidity (which I doubt) or nothing more than a pathetic excuse to denigrate me in a dazzling display of your ethical shortcomings.

Perhaps you and others are so keen to discredit my insights because it is now obvious that McIntyre was so clueless about the Marcott paper. Cite that.

What WTFUWT has done here is manufactured a fake controversy by dishonest means.

I keep warning you that there are people out there doing this and that - regrettably - they have fooled you with their misrepresentations.

You should be angry with them. Really very angry indeed.

# 49

Brozek's cherry-picking lacks context. See the brief discussion of hiatus at # 30.

When you have pondered the meaning of the term 'hiatus' and its likely causes in this context, consider the *temporal* context *also* missing from Brozek's post. His depiction of trends since the massive temperature spike of the 1997/8 El Nino manages to hide the dramatic step-change in global average temperature that followed. Here is the all-important bigger picture.

As always, we must mind the step or we might trip up and fall on our hiatus ;-)

Well, at least you're trying to keep your spirits up, what with all that bullshit you're having to fall back on now as "argument" in your favour.

Besides, it's ironic that you're whining about the effects of a CHANGING CLIMATE caused by humans being "proof" that climate isn't being changed...

GSW, the worse-than-we-though-global-warming is a real lobal phenomenon and worse than we thought too. ;-)

Thanks for sharing!

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 02 Apr 2013 #permalink

Heh - Marcott et al's paper really hit the nerve with you fakes septics. Just as with Lewandowsy before him, your bonehead pact leaders just can't seem to land a punch. Although they tell the flock they have. Until yet another diatribe becomes necessary in a day or two. And again after that. Meanwhile ol' Stevie doesn't yet appear to understand any of the science, dumbass number cruncher that he is..

And well done you Griselda #60 - trying to make an argument from ignorance seem valid somehow!
I'm sure the other cretins will applaud. Oh look - Olap already did. Admittedly a touch reflexively like a seal with Parkinson's, but take what you can get, eh Griselda?

Still flailing about, boys?


Yup- arguing from ignorance yet again, Wow.
It's their greatest only resource.

Yup, the denier pairings are much like beavis and butthead.

"huh huh heh huh. he said cold weather. huh huh heh"
"yeah, huh huh huh. cold. dude"

And don't forget, Beavis and Olap are their intelligentsia.

More examples of their intelligentsia at work.

A perfect melding of form and content.

Also, for those who haven't read it, Tamino/Foster has thoroughly dealt with the steaming glob of chum regurgitated above.

As usual you have no case. Whatsoever. But, also typically, you're too pole-axingly dense to know it. There never was a better stupid-magnet than this issue.


There never was a better stupid-magnet than this issue.

It's certainly a watershed. RPJ outed himself like never before.

Undeniable statement's here........

"In recent years there have been a number of cases in which high-profile papers from climate scientists turned out, on close inspection, to rely on unseemly tricks, fudges and/or misleading analyses. After they get uncovered in the blogosphere, the academic community rushes to circle the wagons an denounce any criticism as "denialism." There's denialism going on all right -- on the part of scientists who don't see that their continuing defence of these kind of practices exacts a toll on the public credibility of their field." Ross McKitrick http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/01/were-not-screwed/

The problems lie of course not the academic community as a whole but a vocal and aggressive subset, egged on by an uncritical media and a chorus of fellow travelers. Most of the community are solid scientists, who strive to do good work. But the public face of climate science is represented by the most vocal and politicized elements. RP Jr


Yep, Roger was speaking about the nutters and cranks that infest blogs like dumbtiod

Yes, those are undeniably 'statements', Koron, what of it? (Never mind the Grocer's Apostrophe!)

All you ever do here is hoik-up half-digested pap from the usual suspects. All you're proving here is that all you can do is to hoik-up... (see above.)

The fact that you pathetically seem to imagine that you've proven something by doing so only makes the whole spectacle more degrading...

Hey Billyboy, it looks like Hansen has sold his soul to the nuclear cartel. lol

Karen,Pielke Jr will have to include himself in his subset of 'most vocal and politicised elements' if he's to pull on his Honest Broker Super-suit. On a technical level,Roger's specialty does not give him particular insight into climate science or awareness of 'behavior' in the field,and his recent engagements demonstrate that his parsing skills are lacking..

Of McKittrick...he's a joke. An absolute hypocrite; as an economist and fundamentalist Christian his is a world of 'unseemly fudges' ...he has a little pulpit in a bonkers rightwing rag,from which he religiously fails to notice the muzzling and defunding of science in his own country.

And again. Karen, do you ever have any 'ideas' that are not glib slogans chummed by denier blogs?

Karen is addicted to the fleeting feeling of snark she gets when reading trash such as RP Jr.. Then her intelligence reminds her it's opinion she's snaffling up, not science. But she goes with the snark anyway, because that's what stupid invariably does.

Greenhouse gases soar and temperatures do not.

Duff tries this crap on every month or two, and someone patiently or impatiently re-explains his error to him. He's another "goldfish troll"(*), as most of them are.

(*) Apologies to goldfish - who it has been can actually remember things, all popular myths to the contrary - and in that sense they're smarter than Duff.

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

Hi guys, I have some nice news for you all :)

"NASA's Langley Research Center instruments show that the thermosphere not only received a whopping 26 billion kilowatt hours of energy from the sun during a recent burst of solar activity, but that in the upper atmospheric carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide molecules sent as much as 95% of that radiation straight back out into space.

The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS.

Already, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been in full retreat after having to concede a 17-year stall in global warming despite levels of atmopheric CO2 rising almost 40 percent in recent decades. The new SABER data now forms part of a real world double whammy against climatologists' computer models that have always been programmed to show CO2 as a warming gas."

more here..... http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discove…

Again with the chum.

What you have there is a piece of nonsense crafted to appeal to the denizens of the Epistemic Bubble created by the radical reactionary anti-science (or, more accurately, anti-reality) movement of the early 21st Century.

In the world outside the bubble the IPCC is not in 'full retreat' after making any 'concessions', as the AR5 will duly confirm, Hansen is in no way embarrassed, and this garbled piece of crap proves nothing at all, particularly with regard to the 'so-called greenhouse gas theory', which is a law of both physics and chemistry.

This is propaganda, pure and simple. It is designed by cynics fanatics for the sole purpose of manipulating moronic fanatics.

"For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space. "

“Unfortunately, there’s no practical way to harness this kind of energy,” says Mlynczak. “It’s so diffuse and out of reach high above Earth’s surface. Plus, the majority of it has been sent back into space by the action of CO2 and NO.”

"This is a new frontier in the sun-Earth connection," says Mlynczak, "and the data we’re collecting are unprecedented."


Poor dimmest Karen, run along and find out why the behavior of CO2 and NO in the the thermosphere does not 'starkly contradict the core proposition' of the GHE.

I'll have a cup of tea and a good laugh while you're checking.

If Karen had any idea what CO2, NO, and the thermosphere even were your assignment might be possible. As it is, don't expect results. It's a bit like the famous Chinese room - Karen just responds to inputs in the form of fresh chum, but has no notion of their content; her function is merely to regurgitate...

Principia Scientific International, what a hoot! The selected member biographies is a roll-call of cranks and disinformers. Have you signed up Karen?

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 03 Apr 2013 #permalink

Here's a quote that needs to be recorded for posterity:

The climate alarmist industry has some very tough questions to answer: preferably in the defendant's dock in a court of law, before a judge wearing a black cap.

James Delingpole, The Australian, 3 April 2013

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 03 Apr 2013 #permalink


Traditional anthropogenic theory of currently observed global warming states that release
of carbon dioxide into atmosphere (partially as a result of utilization of fossil fuels) leads
to an increase in atmospheric temperature because the molecules of CO
(and other
greenhouse gases) absorb the infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface. This statement
is based on the Arrhenius hypothesis, which was never verified (Arrhenius, 1896). The
proponents of this theory take into consideration only one component of heat transfer
in atmosphere, i.e., radiation. Yet, in the dense Earth’s troposphere with the pressure
> 0:2
atm, the heat from the Earth’s surface is mostly transferred
by convection
(Sorokhtin, 2001a). According to our estimates, convection accounts for 67%, water
vapor condensation in troposphere accounts for 25%, and radiation accounts for about
8% of the total heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to troposphere. Thus, convection
is the dominant process of heat transfer in troposphere, and
all the theories of Earth’s
atmospheric heating (or cooling) first of all must consider t
his process of heat (energy)–
mass redistribution in atmosphere (Sorokhtin, 2001a, 2001
b; Khilyuk and Chilingar,
2003, 2004).
When the temperature of a given mass of air increases, it expands, becomes lighter,
and rises. In turn, the denser cooler air of upper layers of troposphere descends and
replaces the warmer air of lower layers. This physical system (multiple cells of air
convection) acts in the Earth’s troposphere like a continuous surface cooler. The cooling
effect by air convection can surpass considerably the warming effect......etcetera....etcetera....etceteRA...... lol


billyboy, when you were a taxi driver did you drive any of your IPCC heros ?

I'll bet that if you did they would have been overwhelmed by your bum licking adulation and idolatry. :)

Delingpole goes the full Moncky...The Australian's troll collective in outdoes Principia Agnotologia.

Dimmest Karen...'thermosphere' dear thing...what happens waaay up there? Hint: not what happens in the troposphere. Keep your spirits up,you'll get it...well,one can only hope!

" It’s a bit like the famous Chinese room – Karen just responds to inputs in the form of fresh chum,"

More like an amoeba.

Dear Karen,

See if you can find the Thermosphere in this chart - hint, its the one with the little space shuttle and satellite in it.

This is about as stupid as your gloating about the wrong year a few months back - you do know that, don't you?

Stupid question!

"This statement is based on the Arrhenius hypothesis, which was never verified (Arrhenius, 1896)"

Wrong. He calculated the value and it was shown again and again and finally the last few myths against the hypothesis were disproved in 1956.

"The proponents of this theory take into consideration only one component of heat transfer in atmosphere, i.e., radiation."

Wrong again. Trenberth's picture shows latent and sensible heat transfers as well as condensation transfers.

"Yet, in the dense Earth’s troposphere... the heat from the Earth’s surface is mostly transferredby convection"

Wrong again. Less than 1/3. They don't know about this dude called Al Bedo.

But since there's no convection in space, how does the energy leave the system if it's supposed to be mostly convection driven?

"According to our estimates"

They've been quite wrong a lot already. You should treat their estimating capability skeptically.

"this process of heat (energy)–mass redistribution in atmosphere "

But if it stays in the atmosphere, then it doesn't leave the earth system and with new energy pouring in from the sun that means the earth will reach the fusion temperature of the materials it is made of within a few years tops.

Are these dudes REALLY REALLY YOUNG earth creationists?

Karen clearly doesn't even understand what mainstream climate science understand - or she doesn't care - which is why she's happy to regurgitate claims that climate science doesn't take into account effect X or phenomenon Y and that hypothesis Z has "never been verified", when all of those claims about climate science are easily verified to be false. (And if that's too hard for you, Karen, look up Khilyuk and Chilingar's history of claims about climate science and see how ... respected ... they are by actual scientists - and why.)

Sometimes I think being utterly and consistently wrong is just being employed as a tactic for getting attention, any type of attention...

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

This also reminds me of Curtin's 'No, actually Nitrogen and Oxygen are the real Greenhouse Gases' effort of last year.

But does Karen have any ability to discern wrongness?

BTW, that paper Karen cited argues that more CO2 means a cooler atmosphere! No, seriously, here's the entire abstract:

The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth’s atmosphere.

I'm now wondering if this is why Jo Nova told me that CO2 causes cooling in the atmosphere a few years ago and clung to that claim despite being shown the holes in the argument...

Then in the conclusion the authors undercut their own abstract.

Our estimates show that release of small amounts of carbon dioxide (several hundreds ppm), which are typical for the scope of anthropogenic emission, does not influence the global temperature of Earth’s atmosphere.

For one thing that's not a "small amount" of CO2. For another undercutting your abstract like this indicates that the paper should be treated with some skepticism. (For giggles, go look up the citations for this paper in Google Scholar. Try not to laugh. What does that tell you about how influential it was?)

And there are more reasons for skepticism, such as this absolute classic...

Even more amusingly than Karen regurgitating arrant bullshit is that Karen is apparently saying that she trusts a simple model that is in stark disagreement with measurements over scientific conclusions that are in agreement with those measurements. That provides almost "iron sun" levels of ironicness ;-)

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

"But does Karen have any ability to discern wrongness?"

Oh easily. It's actually knowing that it's wrong is here blind spot. But finding it? Champion finder of wrongness.

However, thinks it's some sort of "gotcha" proving AGW false.

Ah, yes, Karen is an almost infallible guide to Wrongness...

That K&C shite was debunked years ago. This must be classic wrongness night.

The report states that the number of record hot days in Australia has doubled since the 1960s, with the summer of 2012/2013 including the hottest summer, hottest month and hottest day on record. In a previous heatwave in southeastern Australia in 2009, Melbourne experienced three consecutive days at or above 43°C in late January, the report notes, leading to 980 heat-related deaths, three times the average mortality. Hot records are now being broken three times more often than cold records, the report found.

from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/02/climate-change-carbon-emiss…

I guess this proves we're heading in to an ice age, huh?


Sometimes I think being utterly and consistently wrong is just being employed as a tactic for getting attention, any type of attention…

Certainly there is no evidence that Karen has any interest in understanding *why* the rubbish she parrots is wrong - eg the Marcott stuff. I got no sense that she wanted to *know* about Holocene climate behaviour. So yes, perhaps she's just a shrieker.

Ah, The Usual Suspects - plus ça change! -

On March 26, 2013, a long-retired faculty member of our department, Don Easterbrook, presented his opinions on human-caused global climate change to the Washington State Senate Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee at the invitation of the committee chair Sen. Doug Ericksen, R.-Ferndale. We, the active faculty of the Geology Department at Western Washington University, express our unanimous and significant concerns regarding the views espoused by Easterbrook, who holds a doctorate in geology; they are neither scientifically valid nor supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence on the topic. We also decry the injection of such poor quality science into the public discourse regarding important policy decisions for our state's future; the chair of the committee was presented with numerous options and opportunities to invite current experts to present the best-available science on this subject, and chose instead to, apparently, appeal to a narrow partisan element with his choice of speaker.

Wow, what you need to understand is that what happens is that because Australia exports all it's carbon overseas in the form of crunchy, nutritious brown coal all the associated CO2 ends up hovering above the other continents in their Thermosphere - so called because it's what keep things hot, or cold - and once there it bounces off all the incoming solar radiation, despite being an insignificant trace gas, just as Professor Karen has so painstakingly explained.

So everyone else gets the refreshing and therapeutic ice age, and we get the tourists! Win win!

McIntyre accuses Tamino of plagiarism.
Tamino responds with more incisive analysis of Marcott et al.

McIntyre responds by hosting a soap opera for the intellectually challenged. Olap laps it up.

(What is your favourite Scandanavian soap Olaus?)

MikeH, you mispelled Tom Curtis. ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 04 Apr 2013 #permalink

Still clueless about what your links say, Olap?

So you deniers have no explanation of how AGW can be false in the face of Australia breaking all temperature records.

I guess you're not FOR a theory, only AGAINST one. That's not skepticism, children, that's being a childish arsehole.

Oh, lookie here

CO2 didn't cause Greenland to melt. :)


hehehe, not long ago a block of ice fell off Gweenland and dear little Fwanker thought that CO2 had melted through 500ft of ice to cause that, how sweet :)

He thought only cows did that, lol

woW, why did the world temperature rise from 1910 to 1940 ?

You are a cretin Karen.

The July 2012 event was triggered by an influx of unusually warm air, but that was only one factor..

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 04 Apr 2013 #permalink

Still clueless

What we expect from you. No more. No less

I see the Lewy paper has been removed.

Is this a conspiracy?

I expect Frontiers are hoping it will be quietly forgotten about.

And Cook cannot find a link to the infamous questionaire on his own blogsite, though he swears its there somewhere. Seems Tom Curtis cannot either.
Perhaps it was there and someone hacked in and removed it.
I wonder who was funding the hacker.

Talking about new soaps: ABC are starting work on
"The UEA Papers", an everyday story of simple folk.
Work for you there Wow.

Should have gone to specsavers
Should be
The UWA Papers:-)

Bloody Hell. Duff disappears, Redarse returns, Olaus oozes and Karen craps on. Whack a troll time.

Strong comeback there wombat! Recursive fury? ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 04 Apr 2013 #permalink

Gee, if the Lewandowsky paper's really retracted I guess that will restore the Arctic sea-ice and obliterate Marcott's 11 000 year record. And suck all that heat right out of the oceans...

I guess when your arses are right out of your trousers you've got to construe your dismal little 'victories' where the pretext arises.

Tamino responds with more incisive analysis of Marcott et al.

Well worth a read, that.

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

Karen's article at #13 provides evidence that warming is higher (especially in the Arctic) than the models currently expect - because "We know that these thin, low-level clouds occur frequently". I don't think she understood the implications of the evidence she was referencing...


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

"dismal little ‘victories’"

What victory, though?

"CO2 didn’t cause Greenland to melt."

Yes, warm temperatures causes ice to melt, spots. CO2 increases increases temperatures which is melting Greenland ice.

And is that link "Of course, there is more than one cause for such widespread change. We focused our study on certain kinds of low-level clouds."

So if they only looked at low level clouds' effects, then of course they could see that the effect it had had an effect.

However, it doesn't show that the effect alone was sufficient.

Poor little deniers. Always grasping at straws.

If Lewandowsky's compassionate plea on behalf of rejectionists for diminished responsibility through paranoid ideation is withdrawn,The Children of Watts can still rely on their stupidity, dishonesty and ineducability as defenses. Oh,wait...

One for Keyes to ponder over after his rant on the Rabett about death threats against climate scientists, or as Delingpole has it 'alarmists':

The Australian publishes James Delingpole’s call for climate “alarmists” to face court with power to issue death sentence.

'Shome mishtake shurley' as Connery, Sean, might say except I think he is in the denial camp.

Given Keyes' recent displays of unhinged vitriol in the Brangelina thread it seems that Keyes and Delingpole have much in common including a lack of the self awareness which would warn them about their unalloyed sense of self brilliance in all things relating to human knowledge and discourse, aka arrogance.

Spots, why did the world temperature rise from 1940 to 2010 ?

Retard trolls are retarded.

I suspect the level to which Marcott et. al. has got certain parties worked up is indicative of how powerfully it undermines their narrative.

(There's probably yet another paper in that for Lewandowsky et. al. ...)

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

Yes, I remember saying CO2 melted through 500 feet of ice, except... wait a minute... I've never said anything that stupid.

Karen is so desperate "she" has to argue against horseshit "she" "herself" made up, because responses to anything posters have said would only consist of "Oops, you're right. My bad."

What a desperate loser "she" is. And desperately uninteresting, to boot.

Our former commenter chameleon really should read that Redfearn article about Delingpole, seeing she (IIRC) is fond of repeating the fabricated claim about what Viner said.

Then again, evidence strongly suggests it wouldn't sink in.

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

Sorry, sorry, sorry, didn't mean to interrupt your prayer meeting but has anyone here seen a bit of screwed up paper signed by someone called Lewandowsky? Only it's gone missing, you see. If anyone finds it can they please return it to: "Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual Differences". There is a small reward in the form of some arctic clothing with which to combat all this global warming.

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

Karen is so desperate “she” has to argue against horseshit “she” “herself” made up, because responses to anything posters have said would only consist of “Oops, you’re right. My bad.”

So...perhaps Karen is Delingpole? Or does she merely operates from the same school of rhetoric? ;-)

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

"Sorry, sorry, sorry, didn’t mean to interrupt your prayer meeting"

We're sorry that you don't understand science.

Duff: do you think that there's some sinister reason behind the link being removed?

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 04 Apr 2013 #permalink

I have a denier in my corner of the internet that will not relent with the question of ” how much has the planet has warmed since 2000.”
Sorry for the repost.

I’m a novice but familiar with a lot of the literature. I was going to post a response from ‘skeptical science’ on global warming since 1998. It’s a good primer on the Earth’s energy budget but any other answers would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

the planet includes the oceans, freemike.

Therefore look for the heating in the oceans.

Also show them the SkS "Going down the up escalator" as to why the contention "since 2000" is a load of horseshit.

You can also, if you have the equipment, show them what happens when you heat iced water and note the temperature. See the temperature not go up as you continue to warm the ice water.

Being a denier, they're too effing stupid (either through effort or natural ability) to acknowledge what's going on here.

bit of screwed up paper signed by someone called Lewandowsky

But didn't a big mate of his called Cook also sign it?
Would you call this a Cookie Cock-up?


It is *very important* that your correspondent is made aware that "the planet" ≠ surface air temperature.

Energy accumulating in "the planet" aka "the climate system" is mostly OHC. Make sure your correspondent understands that OHC ≠ SST. It's amazing how muddled these 'sceptics' usually are over the basics.

Contrarians like to concentrate on the least-informative of the short-term trends, which of course is surface air temperature (aka global average temperature or GAT). Lots of good links in the CB article.

You may find this piece by Tamino useful too. It begins with discussion of the C20th and moves on to recent warming trends and misrepresentations of same by hacks and contrarians.

Remember, don't let the conversation be all about surface air temperatures. That's the wrong focus, which is why contrarians focus there. Just like your correspondent. Don't let the other side direct the conversation.


Lewandowsky is irrelevant to radiative physics. The problem arises from radiative physics. Therefore Lewandowsky is irrelevant to the problem.



# 38 Wow - we crossed - sorry for repeat info.

Well the latest news is that when you heat iced water you get more ice apparently.

The more explanation is provided to someone, the more stupid they become. Care to explain that paradox. Clown?

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 04 Apr 2013 #permalink

Also show them the SkS “Going down the up escalator”

SKS site seems to be unavailable at the moment.
Is that for maintenance so that he can do some more
"undated post-publication revisions of articles" perhaps.
Or perhaps the mystery hacker who might have removed "The Questionaire" has been at work again.

Care to explain that paradox.

There is an explanation of this paradox in the link I provided.
Whether this explanation is considered adequate is questionable.

Is Lordy another one who cannot read.
He should join BBD in the remedial reading group.

"Well the latest news is that when you heat iced water you get more ice apparently."

And just proven you don't understand a damn thing, duffer.

Then again, you don't want to understand anything, do you.

"Is Lordy another one who cannot read."

No, just you and your fellow deniers, duffer.

There is an explanation of this paradox in the link I provided.

I know, hence my statement "the more explanation is provided to someone, the more stupid they become". If you had said "this link is explains, but I think the explaination is questionable" I would have said "why is it questionable"

Whether this explanation is considered adequate is questionable.

Why is it questionable?

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 04 Apr 2013 #permalink


He should join BBD in the remedial reading group.

You are not allowed to make remarks like this unless you can substantiate them.

Please demonstrate by appropriate quotation, evidence that my reading comprehension is poor.

And be quick about it.

RedNoise The Clown

Lewandowsky is irrelevant to radiative physics. The problem arises from radiative physics. Therefore Lewandowsky is irrelevant to the problem.

Get it yet, fuckwit?

RedNoise The Clown

While we wait for you to demonstrate that my reading comprehension is at fault, let me drop a fact into the bottomless well of your ignorance.

Arctic sea ice loss is more than three times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain.

I just *bet* you didn't know that.

Until now, I assumed that even a fuckwit should be able to grasp that if Antarctic sea ice growth is driven by subsurface melt from the margins of the AIS then it is a further indicator of warming.

One lives and learns.

And the reason for the removal?

Twats like duffer complaining and trying to silence critics.

This article, first published by Frontiers on 18 March 2013, has been the subject of complaints.

Rednose #43

Well the latest news is that when you heat iced water you get more ice apparently.

Are you deliberately obtuse, did you take a correspondence course in stupid or were you borne that way.

Did you really not understand the mechanism being described in the main body of text. Perhaps you didn't read that far down.

I saw an item on BBC News last week about a youngster who made a fortune selling his new i-phone app' which saves time for the information stressed with busy lives by condensing headlines and presenting a list of such to keep them 'informed' (?????) on the latest developments.

Oh! Goody! Now we will have Dumb and Dumber.

Do you mean, Wow, that all I have to do is complain and that will silence you lot? Heavens to Betsy, I never thought it was that easy! Not, mind you, that I wish to persecute your religion but quite honestly all that praying and prating and chanting is exceedingly tiresome.

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

RedNoise The Clown

If you cannot back up your lies about me, you must retract them. Please do so immediately.

In future, do not lie about me in the first place or you will have to eat your lies as you are doing now.

David Duff

We don't need Lewandowski. He has nothing to say about radiative physics or emissions policy and we already know that 'sceptics' are frequently paranoid conspiracy theorists who believe in all sorts of other nonsense.

And the reason for the removal?

Someone has alleged defamation and so it is no surprise the paper has been removed whilst the legal position is checked. Whether it comes back remains to be seen. If it does come back the authors will be very grateful for all the publicity Duff et al have given the paper.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 04 Apr 2013 #permalink

"all I have to do is complain and that will silence you lot?"

Well, you've just shown you want to silence alternative opinions, duffer.

I wonder if any of the other deniers will pick up on this and be as loud decrying you for this as they were for the statement by Mann about how some paper should never have been printed.

They won't, though, because the problem wasn't about the actions, but a pretence to lambaste those telling them the truths they don't want to hear.

Rednose #45

SKS site seems to be unavailable at the moment.

Well it is up now and well and truly up-yours seeing as I sent you to that about a week ago. What's up, can't6 you read simple sentences from here.

And while you are over there check out the tricksy folk behind the Klotzback (your being a clot who is back you should feel at home) effect Part 1 and Part 2.

Knowing that you don't know how to follow links in articles here is one you should see, linked to from Part 1 as it happens Muddying the peer-reviewed literature in which you will find this, my emphasis:

The data analysis in this paper mainly concerned the trends over land, thus a key assumption for this study appears to rest solely on a personal communication from an economics professor purporting to be the results from the GISS coupled climate model. (For people who don’t know, the GISS model is the one I [Gavin Schmidt] help develop).

Now you know why I called them tricksey, just like you.

Another one who cannot read to the bottom of a simple page.

But there are other plausible explanations for Antarctic sea-ice expansion.

Paul Holland of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) stuck to his findings last year that a shift in winds linked to climate change was blowing ice away from the coast, allowing exposed water in some areas to freeze and make yet more ice.
So its questionable

If it does come back the authors will be very grateful for all the publicity Duff et al have given the paper.

I should append

.... and for all the material Duff et al have provided for the next paper.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 04 Apr 2013 #permalink

@Clown UK

Paul Holland also says (in your article):

The possibility remains that the real increase is the sum of wind-driven and melt water-driven effects, of course. That would be my best guess, with the melt water effect being the smaller of the two,

Thereby calling into question your reading comprehension skills. Except it isn't your reading skills that are questionable, its your honesty.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 04 Apr 2013 #permalink

"Thereby calling into question your reading comprehension skills"

Since we have always considered them nonexistent, I would posit that the fact duffer hasn't read or understood what he links to AGAIN has not put anything into question on that point.

The question remains why is he bothering?

Deniers seem to live lives that are themselves a non-sequitur.

Also Clown boy, you haven't explained the 'clown paradox' - the more explanation is provided, the more stupid he become.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 04 Apr 2013 #permalink


If you care to read back towards the end of the March thread, there was a too and fro, bad tempered on your part, whereby you seemed to be denying a comment, I quoted, appeared on a link that I gave. It went on for some time with you seemingly frothing at the mouth shouting liar, liar, before you apparently found the statement in question and were able to quote it back.
Hence my statements concerning your reading ability.
You also appeared to claim to be clairvoyant enabling you to know what I think, which I find amusing.

More lies from RedNose the Clown

I said back it up with quotations or fuck off. Your reading comprehension seems poor.

Paul Holland of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) stuck to his findings last year that a shift in winds linked to climate change was blowing ice away from the coast, allowing exposed water in some areas to freeze and make yet more ice.
So its questionable

What a fuckwit you are, Clown.


Well its timed out now.
The server might be busy because of the traffic you sent there..

duffer #66, do you want to try that again in english this time?

Meanwhile Buenos Aires is hit by floods.

Global warming produces climate change,
climate change produces shifts in hydrological cycle (e.g. rain, snow, hail).

I said back it up with quotations or fuck off.

You want the quotations. You find them. Shouldn't be too difficult.
Feck off yourself

RedNoise The Clown

Quotes demonstrating that my reading comprehension is poor are going to be hard to find. Apologising or vanishing from this thread would be easier options.

Oh dear RedNoise The Clown

This was not wise at all:

You want the quotations. You find them. Shouldn’t be too difficult.
Feck off yourself

Now, you can apologise, or you can fuck off. Or you can stay and I will mock your lies and your stupidity mercilessly because yet again you lied about what I said.

You miserable, mendacious little toe-rag!

We don’t need no Lewandowski.

Reminds me of the first line of some song I used to know.

"You want the quotations. You find them. Shouldn’t be too difficult."

Duffer is buying from Joan's playbook.

YOU made the assertion, duffer, YOU back it up with evidence.

If you don't need him, why did you and all your nutcase mates go apeshit over it?

RedNoise The Clown

I said you can apologise *or* fuck off. By which I meant leave the thread; disappear; depart; fuck off.

Reading comprehension problems again?

Rednose #75

Reminds me of the first line of some song I used to know.

Vaguely similar to a Stones number and I bet you don't get any either.


YOU made the assertion, duffer, YOU back it up with evidence.

He's going to have a problem with that. It may hinge on issues arising from his reading comprehension, or as lord_sidcup suggests (correctly, IMO) at # 63, the real problem is that RedNoise is a lying toe-rag. Well, lord_sidcup didn't put it quite like that, but I submit this as a demonstration of my reading comprehension working perfectly well.

# 79 I think the toe-rag has a Pink Floyd lyric in mind.

And now for something completely different.

Following a mention in 'Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future' by Ehrlich & Ehrlich (Duff-RedNose find a copy and read it) I obtained a copy of this book:

Our Stolen Future - Wiki, Our Stolen Future - Home which confirms many dots I have been joining over the years. The picture is NOT GOOD. We seem determined to drive ourselves (homo-sapiens-sapiens as we know it) extinct one way or another. The whole of humanities existence but a brief flicker in the geological history of the Earth. Look at the time 23:59:59, unless we can gain an hour back a salvage something.


I genuinely doubt HSS will become *extinct*. I simply doubt that by mid-century and thereafter global agricultural output will be capable of feeding ~9bn people. If surface warming takes off as projected (under conservative TCR/ECS estimates) and the hydrological cycle speeds up at the same time, there will be very many deaths.

Whether all this and ongoing SLR will push the infrastructure and essence of technology-dependent civilisation (think of the derivation of the word) to the limits is an open question.

BBD, we're teaching innuit how to do cost accountancy, but we're not teaching cost accountants how to survive in the frozen north.

Second time around, we could go extinct.

We aren't built to survive, we're frankly crap at defense or offense and any opportunity we have to continue is being killed off by turning those still living without civilisation into a new resource to exploit in the cities.


For me, the problem is that bold claims are hard to defend and there's no point in giving the contrarians any argumentative leeway. # 83 is easier to defend than an assertion that AGW is an existential problem for the species.

Also, everything depends on how much AGW we end up with. As we all know, this will be determined by emissions and TCR (especially TCR over the land surface), with the latter potentially modulated by carbon cycle feedbacks. These are believed more likely to become significant the higher T actually rises.

Of course an existential thread cannot be ruled out, but perhaps it makes sense at this stage to point to the threat to civilisation as currently enjoyed by the fortunate. When I say to someone, "By the time our kids are our age, the world will be a differnt place and not in a good way" it gets their attention. If instead I were to say "Our grandchildren are certainly doomed and the species is likely headed for extinction" they will tend to regard me as over-wrought, or worse, a crank.

Most people are more able to *believe* that life could get very expensive and very thin than they are in the extinction of the species. Getting them to believe that externalised costs aren't externalised at all is the best first step in avoiding the worst outcomes. Surely we should focus on what works best? Isn't this what Schneider really meant when he spoke of being honest and effective?

Contrarians invariably twist that round the other way, but we do not have to play their games for them.

"# 83 is easier to defend than an assertion that AGW is an existential problem for the species. "

It's pretty damn easy to defend. I just did it.

Agree or don't, but it won't change the fact of AGW.

Olaus Petri

It's funny how some people find the modelled under-estimate of Arctic ice loss and its effects on NH winters reassuring instead of disturbing.

You should get out more.

BBD, to a normal human being that means that the models are flawed. They can't get it rigth in any direction. :-)

Some list of good model work over at the NotrickZone? Isn't settled science (portentology) something extra? Here's the first 15 to feast on:

1. “Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, 8 Feb 2006


2. “Milder winters, drier summers: Climate study shows a need to adapt in Saxony Anhalt.”
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Press Release, 10 Jan 2010.


3. “More heat waves, no snow in the winter“ … “Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning. … Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most … there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east. …In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 2 Sept 2008.


4. “The new Germany will be characterized by dry-hot summers and warm-wet winters.“
Wilhelm Gerstengarbe and Peter Werner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), 2 March 2007


5. “Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4°C, in the Alps by up to 5°C.”Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009.


6. “In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.”
Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.


7. “The more than ‘unusually‘ warm January weather is yet ‘another extreme event’, ‘a harbinger of the winters that are ahead of us’. … The global temperature will ‘increase every year by 0.2°C’”
Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment, in Die Zeit, 15 Jan 2007


8. “Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.”
Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010

9. “We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to get warmer, also in the wintertime.”
Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010


10. “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000


11. “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
Spiegel, 1 April 2000


12. “In the northern part of the continent there likely will be some benefits in the form of reduced cold periods and higher agricultural yields. But the continued increase in temperatures will cancel off these benefits. In some regions up to 60 percent of the species could die off by 2080.”

3Sat, 26 June 2003


13. “Although the magnitude of the trends shows large variation among different models, Miller et al. (2006) find that none of the 14 models exhibits a trend towards a lower NAM index and higher arctic SLP.”
IPCC 2007 4AR, (quoted by Georg Hoffmann)


14. “Based on the rising temperature, less snow will be expected regionally. While currently 1/3 of the precipitation in the Alps falls as snow, the snow-share of precipitation by the end of the century could end up being just one sixth.”
Germanwatch, Page 7, Feb 2007


15. “Assuming there will be a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, as is projected by the year 2030. The consequences could be hotter and drier summers, and winters warmer and wetter. Such a warming will be proportionately higher at higher elevations – and especially will have a powerful impact on the glaciers of the Firn regions.”


” The ski areas that reliably have snow will shift from 1200 meters to 1500 meters elevation by the year 2050; because of the climate prognoses warmer winters have to be anticipated.”
Scinexx Wissenschaft Magazin, 26 Mar 2002

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 04 Apr 2013 #permalink

Another news bulletin. This time from the UK Met Office headed:
"Solar variability helps explain cold winters."

BBD might find it interesting.


"In years of low UV activity unusually cold air forms over the tropics in the stratosphere, about 50km up. This is balanced by more easterly flow of air over the mid latitudes - a pattern which then 'burrows' its way down to the surface, bringing easterly winds and cold winters to northern Europe."

I have it on good authority that:

"The problem arises from radiative physics"

Olap's excuse for a thought process - or rather that of the compiler of the list he's been given - goes something like 'models were wrong, therefore no AGW'.

Olap and his fellow water-carriers don't have the wit to think ahead and say well OK, where's that heat going to go once the polar ice has melted?
They don't 'do' intelligence, just repeating.

Rednoise The Clown

“In years of low UV activity unusually cold air forms over the tropics in the stratosphere, about 50km up. This is balanced by more easterly flow of air over the mid latitudes – a pattern which then ‘burrows’ its way down to the surface, bringing easterly winds and cold winters to northern Europe.”

You continue to confuse regional with global. Think of it this way: if I kick your arse, that is a regional effect. If I kick you all over, that is a global effect.

I'm surprised you haven't worked this out for yourself by now.

Let me remind you what the NRC report really does say:

The modulation of stratospheric temperatures [by EUV] is clear from observations. Climate models also take this modulation as input and have demonstrated significant perturbations on tropospheric circulations. If borne out by future studies and shown to be of sufficient magnitude, this mechanism could be an important pathway in the Sun-climate connection, particularly in terms of REGIONAL impacts. However, it is important to realize that, unlike the bottom-up mechanism [TSI], it can in itself contribute very little to GLOBAL TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS.

I've taken the unusual step of capitalising a few key words in the quote. I have done so because this quote, with bold emphasis added, has been provided for you repeatedly and you do not seem to understand what the words mean.

I hope this helps.

OP: I find it odd that none of your quotes seem to refer to the past or the present. Have you checked that the time period that they refer to? Clearly it's too early to mock the ones that refer to 2030, 2050, 2080 or the end of the century, so I wonder why you include them. It doesn't strengthen your case, in fact it looks like you didn't think about what they actually mean.

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 04 Apr 2013 #permalink

Olaus Petri

I would like to quote James Hansen to you on the subject of climate models:

[TH:] A lot of these metrics that we develop come from computer models. How should people treat the kind of info that comes from computer climate models?

[Hansen:] I think you would have to treat it with a great deal of skepticism. Because if computer models were in fact the principal basis for our concern, then you have to admit that there are still substantial uncertainties as to whether we have all the physics in there, and how accurate we have it. But, in fact, that's not the principal basis for our concern. It's the Earth's history-how the Earth responded in the past to changes in boundary conditions, such as atmospheric composition. Climate models are helpful in interpreting that data, but they're not the primary source of our understanding.

[TH:] Do you think that gets misinterpreted in the media?

[Hansen:] Oh, yeah, that's intentional. The contrarians, the deniers who prefer to continue business as usual, easily recognize that the computer models are our weak point. So they jump all over them and they try to make the people, the public, believe that that's the source of our knowledge. But, in fact, it's supplementary. It's not the basic source of knowledge. We know, for example, from looking at the Earth's history, that the last time the planet was two degrees Celsius warmer, sea level was 25 meters higher.

And we have a lot of different examples in the Earth's history of how climate has changed as the atmospheric composition has changed. So it's misleading to claim that the climate models are the primary basis of understanding.

Any time you like, we can discuss paleoclimate.

OP: the second entry in your list refers to predictions for 2025, 2055 and 2085. The third for 2021, the fourth for 2100 etc etc Does the notrickzone offer a money back guarantee, because it looks like they are tricking you into believing that they know the future?

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 04 Apr 2013 #permalink

Steady on, Turboblocke - it's not as if they can read or even understand the spam they post. That's not their job, so expecting a reasoned conversation about the details is like hoping an old-fashioned bakelite phone could explain a garbled message.

If they had the intelligence to answer the begged questions,. they wouldn't be doing what they do so willingly.

Well, when it comes to an 'anything but CO2' theory or indeed any required whacky theory, then whacky horse-faced, brain-damaged cretin Rog Tallcrank is your go-to guy.

I've no idea if the cretinisation came into effect before or after the m/c accident, but then again that's irrelevant to his current 'career' in any case. Just as I have no idea what may or may not have caused Mercury to flee Venus' orbit.

But if Tallcrank is involved you can bet your arse a wind turbine was behind it all.

Every time a Denier piously intones that 'they laughed at Galileo' we can point out 'and they laughed at Velikovsky', still do, and, crucially, always will.

"According to the mayor of Buenos Aires, Mauricio Macri, this was the 2nd heaviest rainfall in the city since records for such began in 1906." http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum…

“We need to do the same with all the waterworks that are needed in the city, in greater Buenos Aires and in the province of Buenos Aires,” Macri said, maintaining he received “no calls from the President,” and effectively reducing the solution to the matter to the federal government’s authorization for works.

Federal Planning Minister Julio De Vido slammed Macri by saying that the “municipalities in Greater Buenos Aires where works were carried out in a de-centralized manner, and that had similar rainfall to Buenos Aires City, did not have such problems.” http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/127832/ba-city-floods-leave-ch…

"The city of Buenos Aires has around three million inhabitants. More than 10% of the population has been directly affected by the recent rains, the most damaging in the last 107 years, according to the authorities. In the early hours of Tuesday morning La Reina del Plata looked like Venice and will need several days to return to normal."

"But why does Bueno Aires flood? Since its founding, the city has been growing and expanding towards the Buenos Aires conurbation. As this growth converges with streams that flow into the Río de la Plata, it channels them, the channel gets filled up and it's a lottery as to what happens next. Urban income is a temptation that is difficult to resist. For a while these channels were bearing the rain well, but as construction continued the natural absorbent surface diminished and the volume of water that began to flow through increased. You have to add to this the disappearance of green space and its substitution with cement, as well as the gentle slopes of the streams that were channelled. Finally, you have the landfills that are located on the coast of the Río de la Plata for the purpose of gaining real-estate land, which increase the length of the pipes before they can arrive at their natural drains." http://globalvoicesonline.org/2013/04/04/argentina-floods-in-buenos-air…

and this has quite a bit of info on the changed hydrology of the area http://translate.google.com.au/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=…

Lionel........... get some facts before you start spouting off and trying to flood the internet with your extremely misguided CO2 hysteria.

A simple search provided the fact that Buenos Aires had heavier rain in 1906 and the flood the other day was compounded by the dismal performance of the drainage system.

Fact: There is NO greenhouse signature to this flood, that would be only in the minds of those desperately looking for the CO2 bogyman, lol

sheeez................your a nuffie

And you're an illiterate.

Dear chek, I don't deny AGW. I'm denying that science is settled regarding climate sensivity.

Dear BBD, the list is a good example of what CAGW (and the ice age alarm in the 70s) is about: tabloid science embraced by a hord of non climate scientists lacking a critical mind set.

When science becomes abducted by ideology and political forces and removed from its proper mileu – "the lab" – it can take the form of a cult... ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 04 Apr 2013 #permalink

Pay attention ,Ollie, and you'll see people here have little time for 'tabloid science',dislike straw catastrophism projected by reflexive liars,and agree CS is not precisely known. The world is 'the lab' --has been for a long time. Try not to damage the equipment.

Maybe you can set Kaz straight about the thermosphere?

Nick, try to tell that to Jeff "Elders-of-fossil-fuel-obstruct-climate-science-even though-tere-is-no-data-supporting-it" Harvey and his minions. In any weather or odd event they see the signs of climate dispruption etc. Portentology in other words.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 05 Apr 2013 #permalink

Olap, are you saying that climate doesn't change, then? Are you denying climate as you deniers strawman it: insisting that there is no climate?

I say climate change Wow. I also say that I, unlike you, can differ between weather and climate.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 05 Apr 2013 #permalink


"I’ve taken the unusual step of capitalising a few key words in the quote"

Yes and very nice it looks now indeed.
Hate to bother you some more but could you do the same for the bit in the Met Office article which refers to
"Arctic ice loss and its effects on NH winters"

And here is a recent quote from Paul Hudson (Met Office)
concerning the latest cold winter which might be of interest.

"If so, March 2013 would turn out to be the equal coldest since way back in 1892.

With December 2010 ending up the coldest since 1890, it’s yet more anecdotal evidence that something significant seems to be happening to our climate, driven by a jet stream that continues to be forced regularly further south than normal, across all seasons.

As ever the reasons for this are not clear.

But those who study how solar activity affects the positioning of the jet stream will, perhaps, feel increasingly vindicated. "



"How Rednoise The Clown sees himself.
How we see Rednoise The Clown."

Showing off those superpowers again BBD.
Is that the royal we or does it include the rest of the cult?
Does every cult member have these superpowers or just a chosen few?

"I say climate change Wow"

You didn't answer the question, Olap.

Are you saying that there's no such thing as climate?

"I’ve taken the unusual step of capitalising a few key words in the quote"
And very nice it looks as well.
Sorry to bother you more, but could you also capitalise the bit from the Met Office Bulletin that refers to
"Arctic ice loss and its effects on NH winters"

Another, more recent comment by Paul Hudson on the unusally cold weather, may also be of interest.

"If so, March 2013 would turn out to be the equal coldest since way back in 1892.

With December 2010 ending up the coldest since 1890, it’s yet more anecdotal evidence that something significant seems to be happening to our climate, driven by a jet stream that continues to be forced regularly further south than normal, across all seasons.

As ever the reasons for this are not clear.

But those who study how solar activity affects the positioning of the jet stream will, perhaps, feel increasingly vindicated. "

Another, more recent comment by Paul Hudson on the unusally cold weather, may also be of interest.


i cut off the quote there because I don't think you know what "if" means, duffer.

Sorry Wow, I forgot that earwax is a major part of your body weight. So hear we go again: Yes there is such a thing as climate.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 05 Apr 2013 #permalink

"Yes there is such a thing as climate."

So how do you know what the climate is, Olap?

PS unless you're claiming earwax in your keyboard, the problem was you decided to answer a question other than the one that was asked.


Lionel……….. get some facts before you start spouting off and trying to flood the internet with your extremely misguided CO2 hysteria.

Think before posting, the take home point was this:

...a month's worth of rain fell in just two hours

you dipstick. A point confirmed if you manage to parse the info' at WeatherUnderground because Jeff Masters is an active scientist unlike your heroes Watts, Codling and Montford.

Of course any flooding is exacerbated by real estate development but that is not the cause, it is an effect.

I think you should investigate a book I mentioned here @ #82, it could explain why you show stunted cognitive development.



I genuinely doubt HSS will become *extinct*

I was looking at the bigger picture and over time with not only climate change induced fragmenting of species population (temperature and sea level excursions and also food source changes) but also changed reproduction and developmental factors leading to eventual species diversion with the ancestor species, us aka HSS, becoming extinct, with those divergent descendant species being something other than strictly HSS.



Lionel……….. get some facts before you start spouting off and trying to flood the internet with your extremely misguided CO2 hysteria.

Think before posting, the take home point was this:

...a month's worth of rain fell in just two hours

you dipstick. A point confirmed if you manage to parse the info' at WeatherUnderground because Jeff Masters is an active scientist unlike your heroes Watts, Codling and Montford.

Of course any flooding is exacerbated by real estate development but that is not the cause, it is an effect.

I think you should investigate a book I mentioned here @ #82, it could explain why you show stunted cognitive development.

Come on, Olap. If you know what the difference between weather and climate is, you must know how you tell what the climate is.

If you know what climate is, you must know how you determine what it is.

Or were you telling fibs with both those statements?

It is interesting that Lionel can't understand this ?

"According to the mayor of Buenos Aires, Mauricio Macri, this was the 2nd heaviest rainfall in the city since records for such began in 1906."


Did you here that Lionel ?

Do you think that the EARLIER "HEAVIER" RAIN was caused by CO2 that got trapped in Dr Who's phone box ?

Please explain your methodology used in your blustering hyperbolising bullshit in post #72

Even after you were supplied with information above that tells you that this flood was not unprecedented you try to evade the truth with this.

"Think before posting, the take home point was this:
…a month’s worth of rain fell in just two hours you dipstick. A point confirmed if you manage to parse the info’ at WeatherUnderground because Jeff Masters is an active scientist"

Your blinded by the faith Lyen Nel.

And this is just Soooooo appropriate.

"Carbonazis" :)

Karen gloating about stupidity in a comments thread. That's another Irony Meter blown, then.

Also, I'm not altogether sure you're keeping your personas properly demarcated of late...

And fuck off, incidentally.

Herr Billyboy, is the old prostate op playing up ?

"It is interesting that Lionel can’t understand this ? "

It is completely expected that you would assert that, spots.

"I was just reading the “heat makes ice” article over at nature.com"

And that was entirely expected too. Admit it, spots, you don't understand anything you read.

Karen does not know what the thermosphere is. Karen does not understand mechanisms that can produce Antarctic sea ice. Karen does not know whether the record fall in Buenos Aires fell in just two hours,or six,thirteen or twenty,so cannot usefully compare it with this months downpour. Cheerful but dim.

Spots version of "reality": “heat makes ice”
Reality: Global warming expands Antarctic sea ice

Make a snowman.

Leave it out and watch it melt.

The melting snowman both shrinks in size AND expands over the lawn.

Maybe spots has not seen snow for so long he's forgotten what it is like, just like David Viner said would happen.

# 5 Olaus

Dear chek, I don’t deny AGW. I’m denying that science is settled regarding climate sensivity.

What do you think is the most likely value for ECS to 2xCO2? Please provide supporting references to *published* studies.

Remember that Hansen quote I put up for you? Let's talk about paleoclimate.

# 12 Rednoise The Clown

No. It cannot be true. Nobody can be this stupid. Nobody. This has to be a ghastly joke, serialised over many pages of comments. Right?

Nobody capable of operating a computer could read this and quote it back to me and still confuse REGIONAL with GLOBAL.

Do you really not understand that cold spells across some REGIONS of the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE do not have much effect on GLOBAL TEMPERATURES?

Do you really not understand that Paul Hudson is discussing UK weather - a tiny REGION of the NH? Really?

How can you not have understood this:

You continue to confuse regional with global. Think of it this way: if I kick your arse, that is a regional effect. If I kick you all over, that is a global effect.

Eh? Did I use too many long words? Is that it? Is your *reading comprehension* utterly borked? Is that it?

What the fuck is wrong with your brain? If you aren't lying or taking the piss, you are quite possibly one of the stupidest people I have ever encountered. Bravo, Clown!

Very puzzled. According to Romero et al. (1968), head-shots are the correct method.

Romero and co-workers substantially developed their original ideas in later years (Romero et al. 1978; Romero et al. 1985; Romero et al. 2005) but the core findings remain unchanged: head-shots should do the trick.

Can't understand what's happening here.


Meanwhile BBD your climate eunuch friends seem to think a bit of a localized downpour was caused by gwowbull warming :)

Spots, duffer is the one thinking that weather is climate.

And it seems like Olap has run away again after being given a question he can neither answer nor deflect.

Meanwhile, spots, it seems like your fellow deniers have no clue what they're talking about. It's probably because they haven't been told what to think yet on the subject.


You are, as ever, confused. It's early days, yet, but global precipitation is increasing. See Donat et al. (2013) Updated analyses of temperature and precipitation extreme indices since the beginning of the twentieth century: The HadEX2 dataset.

From the abstract:

In this study, we present the collation and analysis of the gridded land-based dataset of indices of temperature and precipitation extremes: HadEX2. [...] Results showed widespread significant changes in temperature extremes consistent with warming, especially for those indices derived from daily minimum temperature over the whole 110 years of record but with stronger trends in more recent decades. Seasonal results showed significant warming in all seasons but more so in the colder months. Precipitation indices also showed widespread and significant trends, but the changes were much more spatially heterogeneous compared with temperature changes. However, results indicated more areas with significant increasing trends in extreme precipitation amounts, intensity, and frequency than areas with decreasing trends.

This is the anthropogenic signal in precipitation extremes slowly beginning to emerge from the weather noise.

Remember, BBD, the deniers don't know what weather or climate is, they just know that they're different.


But they're definitely different! Anthony told them so!


Isn't 'climate' the one with wiggly lines? Or maybe that was 'weather'? Or is it both but one is the purple line? Or something?

Eh, this sciencey stuff is hard work.

Whatever it is, they know it when they see it, unless they don't, in which case it isn't, unless sometime later it is.

Or isn't.

Well it was nice of you to make the various statements from the Met Office bulletin stand out, but you have not done it for the bits about.
“Arctic ice loss and its effects on NH winters”
I doubt you will find any there as this work claims to be based on the laws of Physics.

The Met Office Bulletin started with the sub heading,
"Research from the Met Office has shed new light on a link between decadal solar variability and winter climate in the UK, northern Europe and parts of America."

Which is obviously not global.

And Paul Hudson was talking about UK weather on the BBC website.
So the issue was bleeding obvious, the solar effect on the Jet Stream.

Where in my posts since linking to this Met Office bulletin have I mentioned the global effect of solar radiation.
You claim to know what people are thinking.
Use your superpowers
Put up or shut up
or do you wish to continue with this strawman argument you have constructed to avoid discussing the solar effect on the jet stream. Incidently the capitalised bits help show you as an utter plonker.

You are barking up the wrong tree. Either that or just barking.
Having this explained to you by "one of the stupidest men you have met."
Well what does that make you?

Nope, you're going to have to try again duffer because that made no sense whatsoever.

"but you have not done it for the bits about."

Is that period meant to be a colon to indicate that the next line is what you demand needs explaining?

"I doubt you will find any there as this work claims to be based on the laws of Physics."

This apparently is saying that if it is based on physics, it can't be explaining anything.

And it doesn't get any better.

Before hitting submit, don't.

"Where in my posts since linking to this Met Office bulletin have I mentioned the global effect of solar radiation."

So are you saying that the sun doesn't shine on the earth?

"The Met Office Bulletin started with the sub heading,"

So you're telling us that research is being done? Do you also want to appraise us of the toiletry practices of ursine populations?


See Donat et al. (2013) Updated analyses of temperature and precipitation extreme indices since the beginning of the twentieth century: The HadEX2 dataset.

Which I had in mind when answering Karen's continued selective tom-foolery (a bit like Keyes who's mantle has now well and truly slipped revealing the instability beneath - cue another rant in THAT thread - Keyes is way beyond Black Knight treatment), so thanks for the citation.

Trail of fossil fuel funds in repeal of North Carolina Renewable Energy Standard show some of the usual suspects such as the Kochs and Grover Norquest. It is these socio-paths who should face judgement. Also check out ALEC at SourceWatch.

This a message for Kraken, RabidNoise, Duffski, OilPool, etc.

Karen from another study :

The pattern of trends for the extremes was generally the same as that for total annual rainfall, with a change to wetter conditions in Ecuador and northern Peru and the region of southern Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and northern and central Argentina. A decrease was observed in southern Peru and southern Chile, with the latter showing significant decreases in many indices.

and that was only up to 2000.

Rednoise The Clown

When we first met, you were clowning on about the solar-climate connection, implying that TSI, not GHGs, was the major driver of climate. I pointed out that this was not the case, and that OHC and GAT *diverged* from TSI since the 1980s. Remember that? I even provided pretty pictures, prepared with my own fair hands, at no extra charge. Remember?

Then you tried to re-interpret the solar-climate connection as described in the NRC Report press release, demonstrating worryingly poor reading comprehension.

Again, I set you straight, in considerable detail, eventually resorting to extensive quotation from the actual report itself. During this exchange, it became very obvious that you had not read read the *press release* properly, let alone the actual report. It was embarrassing.

Now, at the end-game, shoved off the board by the facts, you are reduced to the usual butt-hurt whining and frankly pathetic attempts at re-writing your own commenting history.

I have repeatedly warned you that you will suffer if you push it, and now look at you. A miserable spectacle. Why do it?

It always ends the same way. I'm surprised you haven't noticed the pattern yet.

But then, you are awesomely stupid, which accounts for much but can *never* excuse your incessant dishonesty. Do you think you can fool me? Really? On the evidence so far?

Not even you can be *that* stupid.

# 45 Lionel

What beggars belief is that anyone could imagine that the hydrological cycle would just pootle along, doing it's own thing, as SSTs, LSTs and tropospheric T all rise. It's a kind of madness, as the old lyric has it. Oh no, it was 'magic'. Sorry.

As for BK, yes, he's a sick puppy. In fact he's genuinely disturbing. God only knows what he's like in real life. I can imagine him being cordially despised by colleagues.

Oh dear:

"doing its own thing"

Sorry folks.


Of course I have already linked this for you, but here it all is, once again: Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010).

Some regional NH winter effects do not offeset global GHG forcing, which will continue to increase during the C21st.

Pretty picture worth a thousand misunderstood words.

Press release for you to be confused about.


"Then you tried to re-interpret the solar-climate connection as described in the NRC Report press release, demonstrating worryingly poor reading comprehension."

No interpretation from me. All in your mind.
You know what people think after all.

You have still not provided any evidence to back up your claims I misinterpreted the NASA or Met Office Bulletins.

Thought not
Besides swapping insults I mainly posted quotes from
these bulletins. No interpretation at all.

However, there was one thing that you may find interesting
Following my posting of the link to the NASA Bulletin
I posted this:

March Thread dated 28th
Page 8
Comment #31

"To me they pose some questions that may or may not have been answered.
Does the Sun have some influence on the tracking of the Jet Stream."

Only an absolute Dipstick like you could infer from that there
was confusion of global and regional influences.
You have obviously not read my post as you were too busy
posting insults, blather, posturing, false accusations and empty threats.

You continued with this strawman argument up to #31 today
despite attempts to put you straight.

You have provided no evidence to back up your claims and accusations so
If I am the fool, you are an even bigger one.
Fuck Off

Poor debater *and* a poor loser, Clown.

Don't give up the day job!

"You have still not provided any evidence to back up your claims I misinterpreted the NASA or Met Office Bulletins."

Well, the "You have it completely wrong" is evidence you misinterpreted them, duffer.

This may not be the measure of interpretation error with deniers, rather explaining your problems with understanding anything I suppose, but it is a genuine one.

BBD slinks off stage right muttering darkley

OH YEAH..... it's Karen of the Thermosphere with another claim completely unsupported by her link. Bit of a pattern with you,dimwit. Read your f**king sources before commenting,idiot. Better still,go away.

OH YEAH...... WHOOO,YEAH..... etc.

Oh, no, not another rat leaving the sinking ship! I mean, I thought you could rely on Geoffrey Lean of 'Her Majesty's Daily Telegraph' but even he's acknowledging 'the bleedin' obvious':

"The resulting increase [in global temps due to sensitivity to CO2] has long been put at between 1.5C and 4.5C (the threefold range itself gives some idea of how little is known): the best guess has been 3C, which would be likely to have devastating effects on the climate. But the latest findings – which stretch over several papers from different, well-established scientists – suggest that the rise may be towards the lower end of that big range, possibly less than the 2C danger level."

What an unmitigated swine he is, writing about "well-established scientists" when we all know, er, don't we?, that they are charlatans in the pay of Big Oil.

And to suggest, even out of the corner of his mouth, the possibility that temps might rise by LESS THAN the dangerous level of 2c, well, words fail me! I mean, if you can't rely on big, soppy, Green tree-huggers like Geoffrey Lean then the end of the world is nigh - well, the AGW world, at any rate!

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

"Oh, no, not another rat leaving the sinking ship! "

You're leaving?

Duff's quote doesn't inspire confidence as it apparently conflates climate sensitivity with the global average temperature rise which is considered dangerous. The danger threshold isn't defined in terms of sensitivity, it's defined in terms of rise. If we double CO2 concentrations twice, and the sensitivity really is 2C, we'll ultimately reach 4C of rise.

And unless I've missed something the evidence on the side of "sensitivity might be less than 2C", even with a few recent papers, is pretty heavily outweighed by the evidence that it's 2C or more.

Worse still, 2C is the old danger threshold - newer research is suggesting a lot of bad stuff happens at more like 1C which I think we're already committed to breach - or are very close to it.

And that's before we get to the rank stupidity of implicitly touting the possibility that disaster might not strike as a reason not to worry at all. Most high school kids can point out the flaw in that "reasoning".

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

I know, the Josh missed the magic flute. But still...

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 06 Apr 2013 #permalink

Tamino reckons you, McIntyre, Watts and assorted other clowns are full of shit
"Also my opinion: if Steve McIntyre were really interested in the science rather than just killing hockey sticks, he might have applied the "differencing method" himself and discovered that the uptick is still there (but reduced in size) when the impact of proxy dropout is dealt with, whether one uses the re-calibrated ages or the original published ones.
But that would require him actually to do some science".

But then, that's already well known.

Gosh, a damning rejection of all things AGW by Geoff Lean in the Torygraph. Or is it? Let's make sure that we aren't seeing yet more evidence of reading comprehension problems.

Since certain peeps didn't understand what the words meant the first time around, here they are again. Once more, emphasis added for those with particularly poor reading comprehension (you know who you are!):

The researchers themselves are quick to emphasise that their results should not diminish attempts to combat climate change. Their research could be wrong; after all, other equally distinguished scientists have concluded that climate sensitivity is much greater. Even if it is right, their new estimates for temperature rise still range widely, and the upper end still exceeds the danger mark.

Furthermore, the actual effects of temperature rises in the real world can blow away such calculations. Sea ice in the Arctic, for example, has already shrunk to levels not expected to occur for decades – and has done so during the current slowdown in overall global temperature rises.

Besides, a broader problem remains: on present policies, atmospheric CO2 levels will not stop rising when they reach the doubling point, but go on soaring past it – meaning that the world will still reach the danger point, even if more slowly.

So while governments must urgently adopt measures to cut emissions of black carbon – mainly from diesel engines and inefficient Third World cooking stoves – they will also have to do much more to control carbon dioxide.

The new research might just give the world a much-needed breathing space. But it would be foolhardy to breathe out for long.

Hope that helps!


# 62 Lotharsson

And unless I’ve missed something the evidence on the side of “sensitivity might be less than 2C”, even with a few recent papers, is pretty heavily outweighed by the evidence that it’s 2C or more.

Oh yes. The run of dubious low estimates is getting to be a bit tiresome. Either they estimate TCR *not* ECS and the peeps get confused, or they estimate ECS from obs are are biased low by eg SST or they do it from paleo and are biased low by SSTs (Schmittner) or by equatorial SST proxy misinterpretation (MARGO; Hargreaves).

Done right (eg Hansen & Sato 2012), you get ECS/2xCO2 = ~3C.

BBD, anyone trying to leave a cult is hero. :-)

The lean but meaty "mays" and the "coulds" are welcome! ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 06 Apr 2013 #permalink

April 6, 2013 #58

OH YEAH…….. it looks like one of your arm waving CO2 propagandist writers is about to flip sides.

So oh bright star, what is this New Research that Lean managed to avoid specifying whilst writing about same?

But of course the slow down of 'temperature increases' is a moot point given the points raised here Global cooling - Is global warming still happening? Basic and Global cooling - Is global warming still happening? Intermediate.

Way past time you found out what is really happening and why. Be warned, the Telegraph is not a reliable source after all it was once Delingpole's hang out.

Try posting your claptrap at Tamino's. BTW OP Cardinal Puff is not a reliable source despite the last sentence in this Wki entry :

Montford graduated from the University of St Andrews with a degree in chemistry.[2] then became a chartered accountant.[5] In 2004 he worked with the foundation of Anglosphere, which provides editing services to publishers and other business. His focus at the company is to develop their approach to the publication of scientific literature.[6]

Now 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' was not, and is not, science, it is a book full of pseudo-facts, crank - magnetism masquerading as science and the sort of propaganda that Himmler would have been proud of.

# 69

You are a fuckwit, Olaus!

Reminds me - aren't you supposed to be getting back to us with your preferred estimate for ECS/2xCO2 and published supporting references?

Get on with it.


WRT the 'below 2C' meme, it is hard to be sure what GL was thinking of, but possible candidates include Aldrin et al. (2012) which estimates transient response; Padilla et al. (2011) which estimates transient response and Gillett et al. (2012) which... you guessed it.

As I said above, the peeps get confused and suddenly 'climate sensitivity' is 'below 2C'.

OH YEAH.... the dimwits have found Geoffrey Lean's article and misrepresented and its author it in_exactly_the_same_way.....how about that for the thug hive mind ? Taking instructions from Montford ,to the last idiot.

While there,another Montford delicacy [a serving of shit-for-brains in saliva of sycophant] over the non-similarity of Foster compared to McI. Montford having in his turn received the cue from McI's self-humiliating claim of plagiarism. Montford is one of those articulate wastrels who really make you worry for his mental frailty.

Join the Idiot Rejectionist Army, reading skills unnecessary.


I'm afraid the Geoffrey Lean article shows the kind of political incompetence that has, unfortunately, characterised much of the well-meaning scientific community throughout this debate.

The lead message here is 'even if ECS is lower than many have feared, we're still going to way overshoot the initial doubling from pre-industrial, so this isn't going to buy us much time'. Publishing this kind of polyannaism in the Telegraph, of all venues, in the hope that being seen as, what, 'reasonable'(?) might, what, swing people around(?) just represents rank incompetence.

Similarly, being somehow blithely unaware that you are debating people who only need to present the illusion of a debate to succeed - they don't have to prove their case; after all, they don't have one - represents rank incompetence. Just read the comments thread below the article (well, you don't need to, actually...)

It's not as if it's even hard to understand how messaging works: "Is AGW a threat? If so, will what I am about to do, along with the venue in which I'm choosing to do it, increase, or impair, the chance that anything of substance will be done about this threat?"

An amusing NZ Herald account of an interview with Lord Bunkum.

Hot Topic has the details of Lord Bunkum's NZ tour which is not going well.

I particularly liked this account of his Auckland Uni meeting from Rob Taylor.

He would not take questions during his presentation, but said he would be happy to answer any at the end. He also threatened to evict anyone who made a noise. This seemed to be directed at a small group of “Flat Earthers” in Medieval attire who were cheering and applauding his more egregious statements.

This resulted in a rather boring and oppressive atmosphere, as, with no audience feedback to energise him, Monckton droned on through an interminable succession of incomprehensible slides and juvenile jokes (e.g. referring to Will Steffen as “Stuffem”). Fellow denier David Evans featured in a number of slides, whilst others were crudely drawn and poorly labelled.

Things livened up at question time, however; the first to get the nod was an angry scientist who gave him a bollocking for his crude and defamatory attacks on the profession. He was followed by a gentleman who asked Monckton about one particular slide. Monckton obliged by putting it up on the screen, whereupon the questioner pointed out that the supposed photograph was actually two photographs, poorly Photoshopped together!

Applause and hilarity ensued, at which point Monckton refused to take any more questions and the meeting ended in chaos, with cries of “fraud” and “bullshit” from the student rabble at the back.

"Gosh, a damning rejection of all things AGW by Geoff Lean in the Torygraph. Or is it?"


It basically boils down to "old papers say it could be as little as 1.5. newer papers claim it is less than 2.0!"

Bill, the seeds of it are in your comment: one cannot write for idiots, so why bother? Lean can only be considered incompetent judged by a standard of messaging that he really does not need to be engaging in: avoiding even the slightest nuance just in case a dimwit decides to misinterpret it.

Is he is still blithely unaware of the cretinous rump that wilfully misrepresent? He may have decided to ignore

OK, maybe, but in The Telegraph?

Again - read the comments thread; or see above. Be interesting to know if the title was his own or a sub-Ed's. Almost certainly the latter, one suspects, given the sub-heading.

But perhaps I have been asleep? I was aware of a recent genuine debate as to whether ECS might fall somewhat below 3C - even, perhaps, as low as 2.5, and a related decrease in likelihood of any of the very high ranges - thankfully, one can only say - but this sub-2C thing has me bemused. What have I missed?

Because this is the only real debate in the game - the rest; all the recent 'Thermospheric' CO2 revisionism, the desperate nitpicking and willful misunderstanding of Marcott, and the comic inability to let go of UHI after all these years - and defeats! - is just noise. Deliberately obstructive noise...

Speaking of the numbers, Bill McKibben's 'Do the Maths' tour is coming to Australia.

(The local-dialect correction - that's the 's' addition - is a nice touch!)


I would rather be skippy than dopey, which just about describes you correctly. Or how about willfully ignorant? That might even be better.

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

.... I wish to revise my last post. BBD's comment # 71 describes Olaus perfectly.

Moreover, one wonders why such a scientifically incompetent dweeb writes into Deltoid or indeed any blog where actual science is being discussed. This doesn't phase Olaus, who only writes in here because he can hide behind his anonymous handle. He wouldn't dare tell us who he is because this would bow his cover and make him a laughing stock.

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

C'mon Skippy, I love your unscientifc jumping around anventures in the climate scare bushland. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 07 Apr 2013 #permalink

Now pay attention, you little Androids, ooops, sorry, I mean, you little Deltoids! I know you will find this hard to believe but another scientist has rubbished your religion. Of course, you will be tempted to say that he is barely qualified, a 'know nothing' probably in the pay of Big Oil but, alas, I don't think that will hold up in the case of Freeman Dyson, usually acknowledged as one of the greatest physicists of the era. And he says:

"Atmospheric CO2 may actually be improving the environment. “It’s certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation,” Dyson said. “About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it’s a real plus to burn coal and oil.”"

Heavens to Betsy, whodathunkit? He went on:

"“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.” A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.” Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during that decade.""

Fudge factor?! Oh no, tell me it ain't so! Er, but don't try telling me that Dyson is an ignoramus!

Altogether now, little Deltoids, join hands and chant:

"We belieeeeeeeeve!"

Good show!

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

Freeman Dyson, when it cones to climate, is ignorant. He has demonstrated no understanding of how the earth system works.

By Anthony David (not verified) on 07 Apr 2013 #permalink

He has demonstrated no understanding of how the earth system works.

I'd say he's demonstrated negative understanding. He proclaims things which are pretty much ruled out by the evidence, never mind his vast simplifications of complex things (like CO2 and climate's effect on agriculture), or that quote being out of sync with the latest research on clouds.

Which is all the more reason for Duff to feel he's a kindred spirit - and why (IIRC) Duff is (ironically) the one putting his hands over his ears and chanting, because he's repeating this specific bulldust after he's tried it on a couple of months ago, just like he did with another trope a couple of days ago. (Or maybe it was one of the other cut-and-paste disciples...they all sound very similar after a while.)

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

Freeman Dyson is 89 years old which is almost as old as Duffer. He has also stated that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much" - something else he has in common with the imbecile Duff.

Mikey, Mikey, I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked - such rank ageism!

And Anthony is priceless: "He has demonstrated no understanding of how the earth system works." That to the pre-eminent physicist of the age who:

"[I]n the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn.

That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.

But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said."

What was that old saying? 'Smelly brown stuff in, smelly brown stuff out'!

Cone on, Deltoids, there's still time to join the Global Freeze Network!

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

duffer, the plain matter of the facts is you're in denial and flailing about looking for something not to make you right, but to make everyone else wrong.

“[I]n the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn."

Yes, he demonstrated his ability.

Hey, you're back, Olap. Stop avoiding the question or admit that you do not know the answer.

If you know what the difference between weather and climate is, you must know how you tell what the climate is.

If you know what climate is, you must know how you determine what it is.

Or were you telling fibs with both those statements?

"That to the pre-eminent physicist of the age who:"

..is a denier like duffer.

Funny how other pre-eminent physicists who assert that AGW is real and a problem are all in it for the money, whereas one who "happens" to agree with duffer is the only one who should be listened to...

What about the pre-eminent scientist of his age, Svante Arrhenius, who calculated 6C per doubling due to the greenhouse gas effect of doubling CO2 concentrations, duffer?

Ah, yes, Wow, that would be the Svante Arrhenius who:

"About 1900, Arrhenius became involved in setting up the Nobel Institutes and the Nobel Prizes. He was elected a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1901. For the rest of his life, he would be a member of the Nobel Committee on Physics and a de facto member of the Nobel Committee on Chemistry. **He used his positions to arrange prizes for his friends** (Jacobus van't Hoff, Wilhelm Ostwald, Theodore Richards) and to attempt to deny them to his enemies (Paul Ehrlich, Walther Nernst, Dmitri Mendeleev).[1] In 1901 Arrhenius was elected to the Swedish Academy of Sciences, against strong opposition. In 1903 he became the first Swede to be awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry."

"**He used his positions to arrange prizes for his friends**"!
Oh, Wow, you are priceless but, er, I suspect your fellow Steroids, ooops, sorry, I mean Deltoids, find you rather embarrassing.

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

Duff, please don't mention to the deltoids that dear Svante also was a member of the board of Sweden's State Institute of Racial Biology.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 07 Apr 2013 #permalink

Poor old Duffer and Olap, still flailing about hoping their version of peer-pressure might do the trick. And still completely unable to understand that science and scientists are not the same thing.

It must be depressing to be that stupid.

"Ah, yes, Wow, that would be the Svante Arrhenius who:"

Doesn't agree with duffer's denial, therefore isn't actually a "pre-eminent scientist".


Olap, don't mention that you haven't actually proven you know what the difference between weather and climate is.

And don't mention that all duffer wanted was "pre-eminent scientist of his age" to be believed as a sole and accurate source of authority.

And Chek, true to form, out wows Wow with this little gem:

"science and scientists are not the same thing"

Believe me, Chek, I have studied the Unified Church of Global Warming for long enough to learn that!

And Olaus, thank you, my word, what a hero Arrhenius must be to Wow et al, on "the board of Sweden’s State Institute of Racial Biology" no less. Not, of course, that that has any bearing on his scientific abilities but it says much about his judgment on other matters.

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


The history of climate change science is well-known, and can be reviewed here. There is no corruption, no fakery, no left-Green politics and there is a great deal more to it than Arrhenius.

By engaging in a franklyt ridiculous ad hominem instead of saying anything substantive about science you simply emphasise that you have no argument.

It is, as ever, a miserable *but instructive* spectacle.

Not to mention that in his glee to condemn, Duffer andhis new sidekick Olap would probably be surprised that many prominent thinkers in the late 19th, early 20th Century were interested in the benefits of eugenics, from Churchill to Beveridge (yes, that one), Grorge Bernard Shaw, Alexander Graham Bell and many, many more. It was the brutal extermination program of the German State in the 1940s that has made the subject taboo since.

Mind you, when the cretinous calibre of denialism and its whacky belief system is examined, it may be that those early intellectuals in favour of eugenics could foresee the dangers of a world inhabited by morons in turn guided by demagogues.

Now you pay attention Duff of #87, most of us around here have been well aware of Freeman Dyson's support for the denial-o-sphere and for some time.

Dyson's opinions on this topic are of little import for he has gone the way of Edward Teller before him, astray down a path he does not fully understand, or maybe pretends not to.

A good path to enlightenment for you is Dyson Exegesis.

And OP, yes we did know of some of the beliefs of one Svante Arrhenius, don't forget that 'the past is a different country, they did things differently there', but thanks for the hook here is an article which you ignoramuses around here would find beneficial, you see it isn't all about models:

The History of Climate Science.

It is a common theme amongst deniers and delayers that they forget the huge amounts of knowledge accumulated about radiative physics.

I'll be damed, the Skippy bunch tries to look well read. :-) Not that I will argue the eugenics-point but there are plenty of that kind of creepy thinking to be found in the currents of the climate scare hype.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 07 Apr 2013 #permalink

"Believe me, Chek, I have studied the Unified Church of Global Warming for long enough to learn that!"

That's OK, duffer, you can say the URL where you studied that: www.wattsupwiththat.com

"I’ll be damed, the Skippy bunch tries to look well read"

Whereas you have no cares about the fact that you don't know what climate is.

Just to be clear, I have no objection to the study of racial biology, it's *how* you do it and *what* you do with it that matters. In fact, you could say the same thing about climatology. Alas, BIG fail in both!

And so, BBD, you can say with hand on heart that there was "no corruption, no fakery, no left-Green politics" and absolutely no "hide the decline"!

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

So why did you whine about it, duffer?

Two points:

Duff is still having to deal with the embarrassment of his calling Obama a communist. How he can write in here any more after that clearly ignorant statement is beyond me. Obama is a corporate president if ever there was one, which makes anything Duff claims to be taken with a huge bag of salt.

Rednose has had to search the internet to find some post in which a guy with the same name as me (but who looks older if I may say so) has been arrested for DUI in Maine. Considering the name Jeff Harvey is hardly rare, methinks Rednose's joke is a little flat. But give him his due. He's had to do everything he can since I exposed his inability to understand the importance of scale in the the Earth and environmental sciences. After my demolition, the idiot disappeared for a week or so, clearly licking his wounds. But then, for some weird reason, he wades back in here to spew out more bilge.

What's clear here is that not a single AGW denier has even the most basic grounding in science. Every one of them sticks their foot in their mouth with every comment. They continually confuse weather and climate. They do not understand why large scale systems exhibit deterministic properties whilst small scale systems exhibit stochastic properties. They are the equivalent of someone who claims to be an expert in taxonomy but who cannot tell a grasshopper from an elephant.

And yet they persist. In a way, its a good thing, because first time visitors with open minds visiting Deltoid who read their garbage should quickly realize that the intellectual level of many climate change deniers is benthic.

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

Thank you, Jeff - no, no, I mean it, really, thank you!

You see I do like discovering new words and "benthic" is absolutely new to me. However, on looking it up in my trusty OED and after due consideration, I would rather be described as "benthic" than as a 'floater', which good manners constrains me from applying to anyone here, much as I would like to do!

Oh, and by the way, I think I described Obama as a "Marxist" rather than a "communist". There is some evidence to support my claim (which should give you pleasure, Jeff) because America has just become the first country anywhere to comply with 1997 Kyoto protocol targets with regard to CO2 emission. Er, not because their daft Greenery laws has had any effect but simply because the US economy is failing due to Obama's Marxist policies.

So, BIG WIN for you, Jeff, and final victory will be announced when we are all back living in caves and eating bark!

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

the US economy is failing due to Obama’s Marxist policies

Care to cite which 'Marxist' policies?

Or might it be the $1.5 quadrillion in derivatives (for scale the global GDP is ~$60 trillion) borrowed from the future by those clever financial instrumental virtuosos with no hope in hell of ever paying it off with the anthropocene now upon us..

duffer, you've already shown that what you think and what is objectively there parted ways years ago.

Plimer, Monckton, Carter, Pell, Aitken and the denierbots frequenting this blog all have one thing in common. They are all carrying on from the Cold War. Having "stared down the Soviet Union", they have turned their bleary gaze on what they think are "sleeper fifth columners" working to bring Capitalism down from within. Because these warriors see every perceived threat to their lifestyle through the prism of the Cold War, they are blind to facts that do not fit with their long-gone reality. They know some pinko scientist, so every scientist is a pinko and is not to be trusted.

By Anthony David (not verified) on 07 Apr 2013 #permalink

I described Obama as a “Marxist”

Dictatorship of the proletariat, innit.

I had no idea you were that nuts, Duff.

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

# 8 Clown

Nice to see you reduced to desperate and silly behaviour like this. I have little doubt that the JH commenting here will agree.

Argument ad hominem is both a logical fallacy and a tell. It tells us that you have exactly nothing left in your magazine.

You could be right for a lot of the teabagger-level deniers we get on here, Anthony.

Hey, Olap, I see you admit you do not know what climate is.

Well Wow, you are the one constantly claiming that singular and regional events are a proof of CAGW, not me. :-)

Lets be happy about the coral reef shall we?

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 07 Apr 2013 #permalink

Well, you were the one asserting you knew the difference between climate and weather and have now shown yourself to have lied. :-P

Have you absolutely no sense of humour?
Even Jeff raised a little smile.

"Argument ad hominem is both a logical fallacy and a tell. It tells us that you have exactly nothing left in your magazine"

Whereas you have Argument ad Hominem and Strawmen in yours.

Ah, yes, "I was only kidding".

It doesn't work, duffer.

And now we learn that 'arctic amplification' (a predicted effect of AGW) is sold to the fuckwits, as selflessly exemplified by Olap here, as a 'regional effect' - therefore decoupling it entirely from the global picture.

Thus the circle is easily squared when you're a fuckwitted, right-wing ignoramus with nary an original thought to ripple across the activity-free, mill-pond like mind of the corporate-fed denier moron.

# 24 Clown

Whereas you have Argument ad Hominem and Strawmen in yours.

You are scuppered and you know it. But witter on for form's sake by all means.

# 11 David Duff

And so, BBD, you can say with hand on heart that there was “no corruption, no fakery, no left-Green politics” and absolutely no “hide the decline”!

Enough to "corrupt" a multi-disciplinary field of science? You are a conspiracy theorist!

And a fuckwit.

Denial goes completely feral.

Yep, this is a good-faith debate with honourable people who really have a case! (/sarc)

In, one notes, The Telegraph.

Delingpole, like Keyes, clearly wasn't schooled in the notion of being careful what you wish for...

Previous Deltoid subject Ridley appears once more as the subject of a recent SkS article. One of the Ridley claims examined is the one Duff(?) touted Dyson making - that more CO2 is better for agriculture, so keep on keeping on.

No doubt we'll see the same argument made again a few months, and then again a few months after that...

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

The dickhead Delingpole concedes that the climate "debate" is over politics not science.

I note that warmists are often banging on about the fact that sceptics like Christopher Booker and myself "only" have arts degrees. But actually that's our strength, not our weakness. Our intellectual training qualifies us better than any scientist – social or natural sciences – for us to understand that this is, au fond, not a scientific debate but a cultural and rhetorical one.


This argument postulated by Dyson and rehashed by Duff (essentially Curtin redux) of a C02 fertilization effect is kindergarten level science. There are far more factors that affect plant biomass than atmospheric C02 concentrations. Biotic and abiotic processes (both soil,and above-ground) are critical, as well as the plant's evolutionary history with respect to C, N and P ratios in its shoot and root tissues. Then there is the little matter of other primary and secondary metabolites, and of course interactions with consumers up the food chain, including pollinators, antagonists and natural enemies.

All of these salient facts are conveniently ignored by the army of ignoranti who are clueless when it comes to ecophysiology. Again, natural systems are characterized by decidedly non-linear dynamics and complexity. Both of these factors are beyond the understanding of those bolstering political agendas masquerading as 'sound science'.

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

"Oh, and by the way, I think I described Obama as a “Marxist” rather than a “communist”.

Big difference Duffer - given Obama's slavish support for the military-industrial complex and the billions he received from the banking and corporate sectors for his election and re-election campaigns, one can only conclude that his politics fall safely within the boundaries set by the elite establishment. He was vetted long before he came within a light year of the Oval Office by corporate lobbyists (Street, 2008), who made sure that he was no threat to them. Time you learned a little bit about the world, Duffer, instead of parroting the line laid out for you by right wing pundits.

Your comments are infantile rubbish for the most part, packaged with witless prose. I'd advise you to stick to your feeble little weblog.

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

The dickhead Delingpole concedes that the climate “debate” is over politics not science.

I noticed that. Bit of an own goal by Delingpole - and those who eagerly cite him as (what they think is) a good argument with respect to climate science.

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

Jeff, I'd stick to benthic matters if I were you and avoid political philosophy of which you have a less than commanding grasp. Here are some quotes for you to ponder upon in those few precious minutes you can spare from saving the globe:

"The surest way to destroy a nation is to debauch its currency": The dollar has dropped 20% in value against a basket of currencies in the last 10 years. Currently the US government owes the world $16 trill. By the time Obama leaves it will be $20 trill.

"Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state": Anyone for Obamacare?

"One of the basic conditions for the victory of socialism is the arming of the workers (Communist) and the disarming of the bourgeoisie (the middle class)." Gun control legislation?

"...first ascertain exactly the position of the various capitalists, then control them, influence them by restricting or enlarging, facilitating or hindering their credits, and finally they can entirely determine their fate." And you think the banks control Obama?!!! Do me a favour, the Fed Reserve can switch the money printing services on or off!

"We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us." Read the US press recently, Jeff? Or listened to their TV networks, to say nothing of "un-named spokesmen" in the White House.

"The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." Obama wants to raise taxes, and printing money = inflation.

Jeff, when you've saved the world, read up on Saul Alinsky, Obama and his cohorts were brought up on him!

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

I award 4 tinfoil hats to the Duffer's latest contribution. I would have given an extra hat if he had mentioned the birth certificate.

Duff, can you point to the specific clauses in the gun control legislation that would allow guns to stay in the hands of the workers and out of the hands of the bourgeoisie?

When you are done with that, could you please tell me how Obama controls the Fed? Last time I checked, it does not need presidential approval for any actions it takes, nor does it take orders from the president.

Rednose appears to be commenting under Duff's nym. Whatever happened to the avuncular old tosspot with the gravy stains on his cardigan? Has Rednose bumped off the memsahib as well? Is it still snowing in Bristol (epicentre of the new ice age)?

Marco, who appoints the Fed Governor?

The point, dear Marco, is first to disarm the bourgeoisie. After that he has a multiplicity of government security agencies all armed to the teeth.

And, Mike, what birth certificate, I haven't seen it, have you?

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

Yep, faulty persona control strikes again.

Usual boring bubblehead paranoiac blather, sans the faux bonhomie / used-car salesman patter, which is a minor relief. It's impossible to debate this industrial grade, NRA-level Stupid - nought one can do, really, but scoff briefly and ignore.

I'm with Noam Chomsky: the CIA is one of the world's most prominent Marxist organizations: they've just reverse-engineered the analysis to assure the other side wins.

Watching idiots bandy about terms they have not the slightest grasp of is never edifying.


"They are all carrying on from the Cold War. Having “stared down the Soviet Union”"

You might be onto something there.
Its always puzzled me as to what happened to those little groups of unwashed, bearded Socialist Workers, Trotskyists and the like, you used to see huddled around their posters proclaiming the benefits of "The Soviet System" and the imminent downfall of The West.
Where are they today?

Duffer, who appointed the last Fed Governor?

Ah dear God. Delingtool strikes again and a nation hangs it head in shame. Next, somebody will mention The Corbyn and I will have to go to my study and shoot meself.

I literally couldn't finish it, and you know how hot I am on RTFR. But I couldn't. There are limits.

I am amazed that even litter tray liner like the Torygraph allows this swivel-eyed ranting to appear under its banner. WTF? One day, this shite will come back to haunt them. Editorial blind-spot.

..what happened to those little groups of unwashed, bearded Socialist Workers, Trotskyists and the like..

Piers Corbyn is now lauded by AGW deniers.

Does anyone know, does Corbyn still consider himself a Marxist?

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

# 48



@ Wow #45:

"Bernanke was confirmed for a second term as chairman on January 28, 2010, after being re-nominated by President Barack Obama."

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

Uh, we were talking about the Feds, FBI, not the federal bank.


On February 1, 2006, President Bush appointed Bernanke to a fourteen-year term as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and to a four-year term as Chairman.

(but the federal bank can't arrest people, so can't be used to oppress the populace)


Whoops. Thought you were speaking metaphorically.

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

Duff, the Board of Governors is not the sole group that makes the decisions at the Federal Reserve. And while Obama reaffirmed Bernanke's position as chairman, he did not elect him to the Board of Governors.

Lien Nell, @ #50 here is the (toilet) paper


[1] Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) is the greatest accumulation of precipitation for a given duration meteorologically possible for an area. Climate change effects on PMP are analyzed, in particular, maximization of moisture and persistent upward motion, using both climate model simulations and conceptual models of relevant meteorological systems. Climate model simulations indicate a substantial future increase in mean and maximum water vapor concentrations. For the RCP8.5 scenario, the changes in maximum values for the continental United States are approximately 20–30% by 2071–2100. The magnitudes of the maximum water vapor changes follow temperature changes with an approximate Clausius-Clapeyron relationship. Model-simulated changes in maximum vertical and horizontal winds are too small to offset water vapor changes. Thus, our conclusion is that the most scientifically sound projection is that PMP values will increase in the future due to higher levels of atmospheric moisture content and consequent higher levels of moisture transport into storms.


"climate model simulations"

"conceptual models"


and...drum roll......... "Thus, our conclusion is that the most scientifically sound projection is that PMP (new buzz word. lol) values will increase in the future due to higher levels of atmospheric moisture content and consequent higher levels of moisture transport into storms."

hehehehe, it only seems like yesterday that we were told repeatably that "it was never going to rain again" LOL,

It now appears that a really really really really smart carbonazi had a nano second of brilliance recently.

der, maybe if it gedz hodder dare mite b mor vap a rashun,

derrrrrrrr, dat mite mene mor wane ?

meanwhile...................as planet earth emerges (naturally) from THE LITTLE ICE AGE many many the marxist cult of carbonazi's are desperately twisting and turning their pathetic tales of doom and gloom in an effort to convince the sheeple that weather is climate. :)

Yes, "der, mabe if it gedz" is about your level of comprehension.


Interesting link, though "Sourcewatch" seems a little paranoid seeing conspiracies all over the place.

"The Institute of Ideas (IoI) is a successor project to Living Marxism and an intellectual home of the LM group. A flagwaver for the political network's libertarian agenda, the organisation has been described by critics as "media-friendly Tory extremists." "
Not sure if IDS and Theresa May fit into LM and the cause of international socialism.

Anyway. What happened to Smithy?

One wonders why Karen here isn't a world reknowned scientist with hundreds of publications and thousands of citatiosn when he/she/it routinely dispenses out opinions on what classifies as 'good' or 'bad' science.

Instead, Karne has no scientific crednetials, has never published a paper in any format in any scientific journal, he/she/it has never attended a conference or workshop where these issues are discussed and debated.

Instead, Karen is a grade A schmuck. Best ignored.

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

as planet earth emerges (naturally) from THE LITTLE ICE AGE

So just how does a planet 'naturally emerge' from an LIA event, Karen?

(OT) Margaret Thatcher 1925-2013

By Birger Johansson (not verified) on 08 Apr 2013 #permalink

Duff you blithering old fool,

Who wrote Obamacare? The bloody Heritage Foundation, with support for the pharamceutical and insurance companies, that's who. Obama is no more itnerested in social health care than was Kerry before him.

Gun control? You actually think the gutless Democrats are actuially interested in this? Seriously? And you think that those who advocate some minor limits on gun ownership and assault weapons are socialists?

You are as daft as a loon. Obama is well embedded in the corporate state. An integral part of the link between industry and the Pentagon. Richard Nixon was to the left of Obama politically; even Barry Goldwater, for heaven's sake, was probably not far off on the political spectrum from the current Obama administration.

As I said before, the corporate-political establishment in the US realized that Bush and the neocons wore their political ideologies on their sleeves, and hence they needed to put an acceptable apparently 'liberal' face on a new leader who would, in reality, be no threat to their interests. Obama was the perfect individual. Liberalism is dead in America. Chris Hedges has written about this extensively but what is now in place is a supine Democratic Party which is essentially indistinguishable from the Republicans. In the 1960s and 1970s the democrats hasd a little spine, but that's been lost since the 1980s and the rush to embrace absolute free markets and the attendant predatory capitalism which now characterizes US domestic and foreign policy. John Perkins has written about this as well in his books; the best critiques of Obama come from Paul Street, however.

I won't waste any more of my valuable time on this grade-school posturing of Duff. His post in response to mine was basal.

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


Why wouldn't precipitation increase if OHC, SST, LST and tropospheric T increase?

Please explain why the hypothesis is wrong. Please provide your explanation for what effects you think warming will have on the hydrological cycle and why.

Take note that previously Jeffery has spouted off that if someone doesn't believe the CO2 fairytale then they are politically motivated.

GO FIGURE THAT !!!!!!!!!!

...three things from Karen's graph:

1. It reveals a definite downward global trend;
2. Its lumps all global data into one and does not show regional anomalies;
3. It says nothing about ice thickness, which is certainly in freefall.

What did I say about the 'thing' (Karen) above? It all stands. Not a scientific qualification in sight but he/she/it thinks it knows more than the experts. Dunning-Kruger personified.

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

BBD I am sure that you are one those climate "bots" I have heard about, a computer generated reply numptie :)

Note that Karen, (the thing) claims, without a single scientific qualification, that there is a "C02 fairytale".

This view, of course, is totally at odds with most expert opinion and with the empirical evidence. Karen's scientific bonafides wouldn't reach up to the sole of my shoe, yet he/she/it think that he/she/it is somethng of an expert.

A bonafide idiot, more like, with delusions of grandeur (Dunning-Kruger redux).

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


Radiative physics isn't politically motivated.

Denial of radiative physics frequently *is* politically motivated.

And now, for your thoughts on # 65...

re: 66, yeah, you're lying. Again.

Global sea ice has been above the 1979-2008 average FOR 50 DAYS

..and your preferred disinformers are correctly certain that you'll be satisfied with that, because you're too dim to know the difference between area and volume and the longevity of first year ice when the melt season starts.

In the same way that you'd be satisfied with a gold plated trinket rather than a solid gold one. The area of gold's the same, innit?

Too dim for words, like the 'naturally emerging from LIA bollocks - as if the Earth just flew through a 'cold area' of space or whatever asinine mechanisms morons imagine within their pointy little heads. Because 'naturally' it's not something you'd ever bother to research, is it Karen?

"Global sea ice has been above the 1979-2008 average FOR 50 DAYS"

Nope. There has been far far less sea ice than ever before.

Spreading your butter more thinly doesn't mean you have more butter.

Take note that in post # 67 Jeffery thinks "regional anomalies" are climate. lol

this guy tells us he is the climate god. hahaha

take not that spots still hasn't managed to answer 65.

nor show any proof of their assertions.

spots merely states. accuracy is expendable in the fight against rationality.

You guys are looking pretty dumb right now, lol

no, spots, you're looking in the webcam again.

Karen, why haven't you explained your reasoning yet?

Why wouldn’t precipitation increase if OHC, SST, LST and tropospheric T increase?

Please explain why the hypothesis is wrong. Please provide your explanation for what effects you think warming will have on the hydrological cycle and why.

These are reasonable questions, so I am at a loss to explain your bizarre 'response' above:

BBD I am sure that you are one those climate “bots” I have heard about, a computer generated reply numptie

Unless of course it is a crude attempt to avoid answering the *actual questions* that I asked.

Could that bit it, Karen?

"You guys are looking pretty dumb right now, lol"

Look in the mirror, thing...

And yes, regional patterns are indeed 'climate' if the temporal scale is sufficient.

You are really a scientifically illiterate moron..

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

"Spreading your butter more thinly doesn’t mean you have more butter."

No, but you have a bigger shiny yellow patch, keeping radiation from the bread underneath, to continue along this food analogy.
Time for lunch.

Listen Dumbo, the warmists were the ones that said it wasn't "gunna rain again".

It doesn't rain and then it pours............

nothing new about that numptie

I award 4 tinfoil hats to the Duffer’s latest contribution.


The weak attempt to garner the extra hat is discounted for being submitted after the buzzer. A protest has also been lodged alleging athlete substitution using a false identity which is being adjudicated as we speak...

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

"No, but you have a bigger shiny yellow patch"

Uh, winter. No sunlight, nothing to shine.

"keeping radiation from the bread underneath"

Since ice is not 100% perfectly reflective, the ice would absorb some energy and do you know what happens when you heat ice?

It melts, duffer.

And if it's spread thinly, then it doesn't take much to melt it all the way through.

Then it's all gone.

But it still doesn't mean you have more ice just because it's spread thinner. Maybe you need to take this up with spots.

You won't, since deniers never upbraid their fellow deniers, but you should.

yup, more assertion of someone else's statement from spots in #81.

Nothing new.

What a comedy tag-team - Karen and Rednose - neither of whom understands the importance of scale in Earth and climate science but who seem content to wade in here repeatedly with their kindergarten level science.

Both of these dolts are graduates of the Dunning-Kruger school of overestimating one's knowledge.

PS: Karen, or whoever the hell you are, I never claimed to be a climate scientist. But I certainly have an infinite better understanding of environmental science than you do. And your consistent inability to be able to separate stochasticism from determinism and to understand at which point one scale tips in the favor of another demolishes every point you feebly try and make here. But if you insist on making yourself a continual laughingstock, go ahead.Your posts are so simple that they are always worth a good laugh. Trouble is, you honestly think you are on top of the field.

Think again, darling.

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

Listen Dumbo, the warmists were the ones that said it wasn’t “gunna rain again”.

Translation: I can't cite anything to support the contention apart from my own obviously faulty thinking, but 'they 'said that, yes I'm certain 'they' did. And they meant everywhere too as I understood it. Take my ever-so-trustworthy word for it, dumbos.

And just when you think the stupid's bottomed out, it dives to new depths.

Karen's last post illustrates exactly what I said.

Pure, wilful ignorance. Take one data point and try to make that appear to be a general trend. He/she/it does this over and over and over again on Deltoid. I could cite hundreds of studies shwoing phenological and/or geogrpahical shifts in species activities or distributions in response to long-term warming. Karen finds a single non-peer-reviewed newspaper piece showing one outlying example and pastes it here as if this is the norm.

Gee, Karen, you make annihalating your arguments so easy. As I said, your posts are elementary school level science personified.

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

...and read the article, for heaven's sake. Marine turtles do not normally spend winters as far north as New England! The article reveals that last years record warm winter may have been responsible for these reptiles staying well north of their normal wintering waters.

Sheesh, Karen's straws are getting shorter and shorter. What a hoot.

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


# 78

Answer the questions please. Explain your reasoning.

Argument by denial and by assumption is not sufficient.

I rather suspect that karenmackspot is a genuinely paid troll and they google for links to papers to prop up on science blogs and are only looking for keywords, never actually reading up on it.

Not sure if IDS and Theresa May fit into LM and the cause of international socialism.

They don't, have never been associated with LM, nor are they AGW deniers. No idea why you mention them. Must be reading comprehension failing again.

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


I won't speculate on motive, but I know from our past exchanges that 'Karen' never reads the stuff she references - only pap from WTFUWT etc.

She is, as Jeff has repeatedly and correctly demonstrated, scientifically illiterate but I would go further: she is simply not interested in scientific evidence or rational discussion of same.

Therefore she is clearly and demonstrably a troll here. We can be certain of that.

Aye, but spots finds them and they aren't as easily seen as sourced from denier blogrolls like the shit duffer drags on here.

Hence I think the search is actually a job and resources allocated to do so.

Hence spots is paid-for shilling.

# 92

Amazing the correlation between the trolling and dodgy reading comprehension. Teh stupid, it's everywhere.

Here's where Karen got the '50 days' stuff from. And this was my first serious guess; I didn't even need Google - just went to the stinking midden that is Goddard's site and started digging down through the strata of putrefying chum.

I was thinking more the turtle thing.

Yes, that was odd...

Just her bad luck to run into Jeff Harvey with that one ;-)

You could be right but my point is that we can't demonstrate it. We can only show that she's a DK troll who doesn't even read the stuff she references.

Suggestive - but not conclusive. Such is life...

Duffer the Puffer (Magic Dragons by courtesy of Cardinal Puff maybe),

“We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.” Read the US press recently, Jeff?

You sure know how to pick them do you NOT.

NOT, have your read Delingpole's recent frothings? Maybe you could help him with more as it seems like your style.

So Karen @#57, what does it all mean, in your own words? Please use that paper for guidance only - once you have wiped your faeces off it, seeing as you are the one that projects poo, from both ends and also from your fingers. No one would want to adopt you as you are not house trained.


Heh. The crank feedshave picked up the hypothermic turtle story (this one had it yesterday). So we can *infer* that our Karen is a consumer of crank food!

*Love* the name of the crank food dispenser in question:

What Really Happened

Conspiracy theory: a truth not yet forced into view

Oh my sides!

Karen WRTthat #64 nonsense.

So tell us what this means. Don't post images without comment, are you really that much of an idiot.

Here you go for some elucidation cutting through your Monckton Bunkum :

New Video: Arctic Ice – The Death Spiral Continues.

More here:

February 2013 Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral Update.

If it were not for lurkers that maybe visiting I would not otherwise waste my time on a stupid troll like you. After all you must be stupid to think that by trying to indicate that AGW is a hoax and there is nothing to worry about you are threatening your own future by encouraging inaction. Do you get that?


So most of them grew up, probably modified their political views, tried to get proper jobs like the rest of us, and became pillars of society. Is that what you are inferring?

But where are the present day band of would be plotters, anarchists and unwashed. What is their outlet?

No, maybe you're just finding out you're supporting Marxism, duffer.

Is that what you are inferring.

I wasn't inferring anything (nor was I implying, to use the correct word). I was just pointing a few facts out to you to highlight the stupidity of your original comment.

But where are the present day band of would be plotters, anarchists and unwashed.

Hiding under your bed, I guess.

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

"nor was I implying, to use the correct word"
Quite right too.

The source you linked to has noble intentions:

"What is SourceWatch's role in increasing transparency and public scrutiny?
SourceWatch provides simple tools to attract public participation in documenting information about the people, companies, and entities attempting to shape public opinion. With the experience of the Center for Media and Democracy
(CMD) in researching and writing about spin and propaganda, CMD believes it is vital to a working democracy to increase public scrutiny and public awareness of the people and companies shaping public policy."

In practice it seems very Mcarthyistic (hope there is such a word). Also I cannot find any references to the role that unelected NGOs such as Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth etc have in the production of spin, propoganda and the lobbying process."

Also I cannot find any references to the role that unelected NGOs such as Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth etc have in the production of spin, propoganda (sic) and the lobbying process

You'd find (if you weren't so ideologically blinded by false equivalences and corporate spin) that the NGO's you mention clearly state their aims, are supported by public subscription and are open books to anyone who wants to 'investigate' them.

Neither do they funnel cash secretly through front organisations such as Donor's Choice and other underhand means intent on subverting democracy.

Of course, not being driven by a planet-raping profit motive puts them under intensely suspicion by the corporate agenda and you morons happily project that, likely without even knowing why as your unresearched, half-arsed query shows.

Note that the base line of the sea ice area plot is the daily mean 1979-2008.

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 08 Apr 2013 #permalink

Skeptical Science has an article on a recent GRL paper -
Land Surface Warming Confirmed Independently Without Land Station Data

There is so much extra time and effort being spent showing already-statistically robust data is robust. Despite these "nails", the deniers will carry on regardless, just as they did post-BEST. They are bent on protecting a particular way-of-life to the detriment of everyone, not on making scientifically coherent statements.

By Anthony David (not verified) on 08 Apr 2013 #permalink

# 7 Rednoise

Environmental NGOs operate from the basic premise that radiative physics works as advertised. The plethora of conservative 'think tanks' and vested interest lobbying essentially behaves as though it doesn't.

Nothing McCarthyite about that.

Conspiracy theory: a truth not yet forced into view


Sheesh. I was having a good afternoon here.

*headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk*

Greenpeace, WWF etc. aren't pumping out drivel that flies in the face NASA, NOAA, the Bom, the Met, NIWA, and every major scientific institution in the world.

Nor are they acting as corporate whores servicing their client - the oil industry - for ideological and/or remunerative purposes.

And they don't create huge secretive slush funds whose sole purpose is to obscure their intentions and who's actually paying for all of the above

Therefore no equivalence.

Not even the slightest.


# 12 Stu

Sorry. I know what you mean.

But Teh Stupid made me do it.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

lol, a very simple search…………….

‘Tonnes’ of dead fish found on Swedish lake, ” The lake was frozen to the bottom and the fish were trapped,” he added.” http://www.thelocal.se/47190/20130408/#

10,000 animals, including Pashmina goats, may have died due to extreme cold in India http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/296329/pinoyabroad/worldfeatures/1…

The carcasses of more than 3,000 farm animals which died when a blizzard engulfed Northern Ireland have so far been collected in a state funded disposal scheme. http://www.sott.net/article/260608-3000-dead-farm-animals-found-after-N…


Farmed salmon die at Eastern Shore aquaculture plant
Snow Island Salmon blames it on cold weather “[The fish] have cold water sores.” http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/03/03/ns-farmed-fi…

Hill farmers in Wales face one of their worst crises in 60 years as the melting snow reveals the carcasses of thousands of heavily pregnant ewes and new-born lambs.

Many animals remain buried under snow drifts, farmers have been unable to get food to starving survivors and the bitter weather forecast to continue for at least a fortnight. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/01/wales-frozen-sheep-snow

Too cold for comfort: British weather having a serious effect on wildlife http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/too-cold-for-comfort-br…

the nuffies in here only look in one direction, lol

moderation = termination at dumbtoid

4 April 2013 14:00

A LARGE number of dead seabirds have been washed up on Seafield beach as a result of the recent cold weather. http://www.fifetoday.co.uk/news/local-headlines/over-100-dead-seabirds-…

The die-off has come at the start of the first dolphin calving season in the northern Gulf since the BP blowout.

But scientists at the independent Dauphin Island Sea Lab in Alabama suggested on Thursday that unusually chilly water temperatures in the Gulf may be a key factor.

"Everyone wants to blame toxicity due to the oil spill, said Monty Graham, a senior scientist at the Dauphin Island lab. "The oil spill ... very well could have been the cause of the dolphin deaths. But the cold weather could have been the last straw for these animals."

He noted that water temperatures abruptly plunged from the upper 50s into the 40s off Dauphin Island in January, just before the first two stillborn calves found there were recovered. He said a second wave of dolphin carcasses washed ashore after temperatures dipped again. http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/what-caused-dolphin-de…

Sub-zero spring causes chaos across Europe, US http://www.rappler.com/world/24909-spring-weather-chaos-europe-us

German Wildlife Expert: The Easter Bunny Is Freezing to Death http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/hares-and-rabbits-are-fre…

oh and I plagiarized this from somewhere for chek and BBD (no, its not for you to read Jeffery, your poor little bible might burst, lol),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Feb. 2012: Europe and the Far East in the deep freeze. Coldest temperatures in Germany in 26 years; over 300 die from hypothermia and storm-caused accidents. Biggest Rome snowstorm since 1986. Three weeks of record cold in Europe: temperatures 25o C below normal; coldest February in 26 years; one of ten coldest in last 150 years. China temperatures hit -50 o C. Coldest winter in memory freezes 40% of Mongolian livestock. Temperatures down to -50 o C.

March 2012: Warm first quarter in eastern USA, but Oregon and Washington have all-time record snowfalls. Second largest ice extent on record in Bering Sea. Record cold in Tasmania, Australia. Huge snowfall in China kills 90,000 livestock and impacts 25,000 people.

April 2012: Sydney, Australia has coldest April 10th in 80 years.

May 2012: UK has coldest May in 200 years.

June 2012: Sweden has one of its coldest Junes since records began in 1789. Rare cold in New Zealand. Argentina frosts lead to agriculture crisis. Seattle has third coldest June in history.

July 2012: Emergency in Argentina due to cold; a dozen people freeze to death in Chile. Tasmania has record low temperatures.

August 2012: South Africa has snow in all 9 provinces for first time in recorded history.

September 2012: Extent of Antarctic sea ice is the largest ever recorded on Sept 12.

October 2012: Record cold grips part of Australia; earliest snow in a century. Surprise snow hits central Germany. Heavy snow catches Muscovites unprepared. For only the second time in recorded history all Austrian provinces have snow in October.

November 2012: Early cold snap kills 14 in Poland. Hurricane Sandy causes record snowfall in Appalachians. Three tourists die from cold on Great Wall of China due to early snow. Winter hits early on three continents. Record snow around USA, including Northeast. Globe seized by record cold: UK faces coldest winter in 100 years; Arctic sees record refreeze; snow in New Zealand.

December 2012: UK had coldest autumn since 1993. European deep-freeze kills hundreds. Record snow in Norway. Severe cooling grips Eastern Europe: over 600 die from cold; dozens die in Poland cold-snap. State of emergency declared in Ukraine due to huge snows; 37 dead in 24 hours. Russia faces strongest winter in decades: -50 o C temperatures; people freezing to death; over 125 dead so far; snow up to 16 feet deep. Motorists near Moscow trapped for days on highway during snowstorm – back-up extends 125 miles. State of emergency declared in Siberia; -61o F temperatures. Massive cold front grips Asia; northern India cold wave kills 25. USA has the most snow cover in ten years. Record snow in Minneapolis. December 2012 had largest Northern Hemisphere snow cover ever recorded.

January 2012: Asia gripped with record cold: hundreds dead; Bangladesh has coldest temperatures since 1960s. Russia buried under snow. Over 300 die from brutal cold in Eastern Europe. 29 die from cold in Mexico. Bermuda has record daily low temperature.

February 2013: New England snow is record. German winter temperatures are dropping at rate of 6o C per century. Alps cooling since 2000, according to peer-reviewed literature. Heaviest snowfall in a century hits Moscow. All-time low Northern Hemisphere temperature of -96o F recorded in Oymyakon, Siberia. Japan has heaviest winter snow in recorded history. Germany has darkest winter in 43 years.

March 2013: Winter 2012-’13, November-February, ranked 4th largest snow in history; #2 for Northern hemisphere. December '12 had most December snow ever. Arctic sea ice largest in a decade. UK in deep freeze: deaths from cold mounting; coldest spring since 1963; UK gas rationing as shortages mount with coldest weather in 50 years. Second coldest March in USA since 1969. Calcutta has coldest day in 100 years and record low March temperatures. Berlin has coldest March in 100 years. Germany’s coldest spring on record: late March temp of -33o C is coldest March temperature in over 100 years. Climate models fail to predict brutally cold European temperatures. Thousands of animals buried alive in Ireland by snow drifts.

Never heard of most of this? If you live in the Eastern USA, where most of our news originates, that's not surprising. It’s unlikely that most of what’s summarized above will have reached the USA’s liberal-controlled mainstream media. Record-setting cold and snow do not fit the global-warming story-line being peddled by liberal politicians and their media lapdogs. Thus, the average man-on-the-street will disbelieve these extreme-weather reports if he sees them. He still thinks we’re all going to roast and drown in rising oceans unless we pay all we have to the government.

Ohhhh........I forgot, lol

I'm such a ditzy girl, lol, CO2 makes it cold now, hehehe

Karen,outcast of the Thermosphere, thanks for that pile of....whatever.

You claim 'Tasmania has record low temperatures in July 2012'.

BOMs monthly weather summary for that month in Tassie states: "No new temperature records appear to have been set for this month" and that mean daily maximum temperature was above to very much above average for the state. Mean daily minima were average to above average.

So scratch that one,eh? Hope this is not indicative of the quality of your other infotainment....

Karen sez : November 2012: "UK faces coldest winter in 100 years"

No,whatever the breathless speculation that inspired that entry in your scrapbook, winter turned out to be a little cooler than the 1981-2010 mean, but not 'coldest in100y'.

Scratch that one.

Karen claims: "May 2012: UK has coldest May in 200 years"

Scratch that one as well: UK Met Office states: "the UK mean temperature was 0.5C above the 1971-2000 average".

Karen, c'mon. You know that an increase in the number and severity of extreme weather events of all types has been predicted as a consequence of climate change for a really, REALLY long time now. You *know* that.

(...but if everyone could lay off the sexist language, I'd appreciate it. I know this place gets all insulty, and it's fun, but anything gender-specific is out of bounds, IMO. That includes "dear").

Karen : "Sydney, April 2012, has coldest April 10th in eighty years" So? The monthly mean was 0.9C above average.

Karen: "Alps cooling since 2000,according to peer-reviewed literature"

No, a Swiss study of SNOW DEPTH trends showed that at low and medium altitudes there was some recovery in average snow depths in winter. Spring,summer and autumn remains stuffed...and no mention of temperature trends at all. Swiss glaciers continue to shrink,despite minor reversals in winter snow depth trends at altitudes lower than their accumulation zones.

You must have got that from Pierre Gosselin,eh?


Record cold in Tasmania March 2012,Karen? Yes, some sites set new records for coldest max and min for March... a few set record high March minima....while the monthly mean was 0.3C above the average. Context,sweetie.

Karen ,yep, Karen again: "Record cold grips part of Australia October 2012, earliest snow in 100 years"

....um, October is in the SH spring,and snow in the mountains is not an uncommon event. Possibly...and at best the claim is anecdotal.... the '100 years' refers to late snowfall on the northern tablelands of NSW, but this did not involve record cold temperatures for the area. Yes ,very cold for a few October days in the Victorian and NSW mountains and tablelands,some records set [though many stations did not have long records]. Likewise some October record warmth was recorded in Gippsland Victoria and in western NSW but was not deemed relevant by your source.... Victoria and NSW had above average day time temperatures,and while the cold outbreak reduced average mins, the mean temps for the month were above average.

On the whole Australia in October 2012 was well above average in mean temperature.

Is this helping you understand your world, Kaz?

D.Duff, #37:
“The surest way to destroy a nation is to debauch its currency”: The dollar has dropped 20% in value against a basket of currencies in the last 10 years. Currently the US government owes the world $16 trill. By the time Obama leaves it will be $20 trill."

Duff: Presumably, the fall in the value of the $US against the yen, DM, and even the $A, in the tens years following the Plaza Accord of 1985, proves that the socialistic presidents Reagan and Bush, Snr., who held power for most of this period, were responsible for this destruction and debauching of the USA.

Duff, #37 (again).
Oh, and Duff, if you were bothered much with history (and I suspect you are not), you would notice that the gross US debt started to shoot up in the early 1980s, under said Reagan, more under said Bush Snr., appeared to begin to level off under Clinton, then resumed its trajectory towards the stratosphere under Bush Jr. and the current incumbent. But it is a bit much to blame a Democrat president for all the accumulated sins of past Republican presidents.

Karen, weather, weather, weather, weather, weather. Funny too how you include a clip on USA weather in March 2012, which was the warmest March by far in the country's history.I see you didn't include temperatures some 20 C above normal over most of the central and east of the country in that month: Chicago experiendced 8 days over 30 C in March 2012, one more than the record for April!

Its been shown that for every cold weather record set globally since 2000, 5 warm records have been set. This ratio has ioncreased in every decade since the 1960s. This is what we call deterministic evidence that is statistically significant.

Typical of you, you brainless scientifically incompetent twerp to screw it up again.

Why do you persist in self humiliation? Go away.


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

To reiterate what I said above, Karen focuses on outliers. He/she/it (the thing) scrapes the media for articles showing a few events that he/she/it thinks counter the massive evidence for warming shown over MANY YEARS by biotic proxies.

This isn't science. Its an ignoramus making themselves look foolish. One year does not a data set make. If one goes through decades of data they find clear examples of phenological changes and distributional shifts polewards in many different taxa. Note that Karen does not refer to a single peer-reviewed study in his/her/its comments. Its all press pieces. This year has seen a cold spring in much of central Europe which can also probably be attributed to circulation patterns connected with the precipitous loss of Arctic ice. The atmosphere is being shaken and stirred by humans and the consequences are that more extreme weather events are occurring. Certainly, the area of the planet's surface experiencing extreme events at aqny time during the course of a year has increased since the 1960s by many factors, as pointed out by James Hansen last year.

Karen is just another example of a simpleton thinker who believes (a) that warming means warming everywhere, (b) that it must be linear (e.g. every year must be warmer than the one that preceded it), (c) that 10-15 years is sufficient tiem to extrapolate global trends at largely deterministic scales.

The only reason I respond to this kindergarten level discourse is that I want to ensure that naive visitors to this site don't get sucked in by Karen's childish histrionics. In any scientific arena they would be spat out and ignored. Certainly, working as a scientist none of my colleagues would take Karen's crap remotely seriously.

However, expect Karen in her desperation to post even more bullshit here. Its in keeping with deniers: the more they are humiliated, the more they turn up the volume.

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

Just as I said> look at Karen's last post. One example. One data point.

How does elevated C02 affect plant primary and secondary metabolism? How does it affect soil processes that are critical for primary production? How does it affect interafctions with AG and BG consujmers, both antagonists and mutualists?

Karen does not understand basic plant ecophysiology, except to think that C02 is a plant nutrient that, if increased, makes plants bigger and better. Forget the fact that N is not limiting in terms of plant quality; N and P are. Forget the fact that many plant allelochemicals are C or N based and thus increased uptake will lead to changes in secondary metabolites with consequences up the food chain. Forget the fact that plant productivity is clsoely tailored with soil properties, especially pathogens, as well as soil chemistry.

But Karen persists with her clown show. She actually thionks that she can debate me, a trained scientist, on matter dealing with plant biology and ecology. Heck, its only part of my main research field. I only published 15 papers in the area last year (with 522 citations of my work). Karen published 0 papers. Thats hardly unusual - she has 0 papers in her 'scientific career'. That's because - guess what - Karen has no scientific pedigree!

He/she/it is amusing.

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

Just got around to the ThinkProgress piece by Romm regarding Delingpole's recent despicable Godwin-drenched screed. Romm's piece is worth a read.

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

To reiterate what I said above, Karen focuses on WEATHER


But Olap, who doesn't know what climate is, hasn't picked up on that, despite continually preening himself on knowing what the difference between weather and climate is and pretending that I've made claims of climate using weather.

Let's play 'Source that Spam!' Straight from the Ka(re)n.

Other than that - well gee whiz; that solves everything!


Very noble sentiments, but WWF do not seem to be having such a good press here:







“It is unlikely that any other charitable organisation that depends on public support operates with such little accountability and in such secrecy as WWF…. It is easier to penetrate the CIA. And when WWF has been caught in embarrassing conducts it has engaged in damage control and cover-ups of the kind that might be expected from a company whose products have caused injury to consumers and the environment.”

To name but a few.
Possibly a bit more equivalence than you suggest.

Karen #18, the list of heat was too long to compile, no? A factor ten, about, if you just take the absolute records. Or are you still working on that list? We'll wait for it then :)

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Apr 2013 #permalink

Kirkham, who has written a book on the subject, “Elevated Carbon Dioxide: Impacts on Soil and Plant Water Relations,” used data going back to 1958.

hahaha, look at that idiot Jeffery up there singing his own praises, lol

Jeffery, do you scream like Tarzan when look at yourself in the mirror ?

hahaha, look at that idiot karenmackspot, avoiding the vapidness of its "arguments" by going off on another trollroll!

Karen, in case you were wondering, there are a LOT of studies on the effects of elevated C02 on not only the soilm but on ecological communities as well as on secondary plant metabolites.

You are such a blithering idiot that you try and give the impression that one person's views or the results of their empircial research represent the 'bottom line'.

I had a colleague who studied the effects of enhanced atmsopheric C02 on soil mycorrhiza and other biotic properties and her results painted a very different picture. And of course very little of the C02 research has explored broader ecological community-wide effects. Those that have suggest that various members of a community wil respond differently - some may benefit, some may do less well or even have reduced fitness. Gosh, its that old 'non-linear' chestnut again that your simple brain just does not comprehend.

In the field there is little doubt that some plants will grow much faster under elevated C02 regimes (C4s in particular). Many of these are early successional weeds, some of which are either highly invasive pests or else native 'outbreaking' species that thrive under anthropogenic conditions. Other mid or late successional plants may respond less positively. As a result, we will see competitive hierarchies amongst plants in a community change leading to asymmetric competition and a complete unraveling of food webs. Cronin's research has shown that the incursion of an invasive grass into a native grass community can generate extinction cascades that amplify up the food chain. Differential responses of native and invasive vegetation to C02 increases will do exactly the same thing. And Cronin's work was merely based on structural effects of invasive plants on dispersal; elevated C02 will not only affect structural aspects and thus local heterogeneity, it wil also lead to shifts if C:N:P ratios in plant root and shoot tissues, altering primary and secondary metabolites and thus affect the nutritional ecology of multitrophic interactions.Thus we wil see effects on both behavior and physiology. The end result of all of this is a crap shoot. There will be winners and losers. But its an experiment with potentially serious consequences for communities and ecosystem functions, given that these represent complex adaptive systems.

Thus anyone who broadly claims that enhancing the atmsophere with C02 will benefit nature is speaking utter rubbish. Few if any scientists, and certainly no ecologists, would make such an outrageous prediction on the back of so many uncertainties. As I have said to your brick-thick head so many times, ecological communities, systems and biomes assemble and function in decidely non-linear ways. Get that through your head, will you Karen? NON-LINEARITY! Repeat that until it sinks in.

Now, until you are capable of leaving the sandbox to debate me, my advice is to stay away. Of course, you won't. Every time I categorically humiliate your latest argument, you return with more science-fiction waffle.

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

I have to admit iot is fun smacking Karen around here, otherwise I wouldn't do it... I am working simultaneously on 7 manuscripts right now, 6 of which deal with plant-insect itneractions. Every time I read one of Karen's latest links, I have to pick myself up off the floor. The "C02 is plant food and benefits crop production and nature" canard was put to bed a couple of years ago with Tim Curtin, and yet dumb-skulls like our Karen still dredge up the odd study and try to make the results seem like 'the rule'.

But to reiterate, I am having fun shellacking her feeble little arguments. The more I do it, the more she comes back with more insults and waffle. Its an endless cycle, unfortunately.

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

Jeff Harvey #43

"Few if any scientists, and certainly no ecologists, would make such an outrageous prediction on the back of so many uncertainties."

hehe....predictions like yours ? lol

and also...........

"Thus anyone who broadly claims that enhancing the atmsophere with C02 will benefit nature is speaking utter rubbish."

Environmental Research Letters Volume 8 Number 1

James Hansen et al 2013

"We suggest that the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal, since 2000 is a basic cause of the large increase of carbon uptake by the combined terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks. One mechanism by which fossil fuel emissions increase carbon uptake is by fertilizing the biosphere via provision of nutrients essential for tissue building, especially nitrogen, which plays a critical role in controlling net primary productivity and is limited in many ecosystems"

"At first glance there seems to be some good news. First, if our interpretation of the data is correct, the surge of fossil fuel emissions, especially from coal burning, along with the increasing atmospheric CO2 level is 'fertilizing' the biosphere, and thus limiting the growth of atmospheric CO2."


Jeffery, did you hear that James has tossed his job in at NASA and is now going to grubby his mits with the noookar cabal ?

#23, Karen does not 'know' anything at all, no matter how much opportunity for learning is extended to her, but she is certain that knowing something is important, hence the lists and one-out references dragged in for 'approval'.

Nick, one day Jeff may allow you to collect the monkey sperm, lol

....there you go #23,what did I tell you? Karen thinks something must be important to her 'argument' with Jeff in this material dragged in @#45.

Karen has seen the words "'fertilizing' the biosphere",and thinks that is an unambiguous good...but she has ignored the caveat "At first glance there seems to be some good news" which is clearly connected only to "thus limiting the growth of atmospheric CO2" She has managed to inflate this clearly constrained positive facet into a claim of general benefit to nature, thus imaginarily triumphing over Jeff and placing him in imagined conflict with Jim Hansen.

You can read the triumphal chortling of a genuine idiot in her ultimate sentence. So,Magpie, no amount of appealing to a hoped for intelligence will make it appear. Karen is thick and unaware of it,and that's all there is to it.

Karen #47,shouldn't you be preparing another list or something?

Karen #47,shouldn’t you be preparing spamming another list or something?

The funniest things about Karens sources are the ads. When even the advertisers attaching to those crank sites seem to be taking the piss out of your rub-your-nose-in-it stupidity, you'd think it'd be time to re-examine what's going on there.
But no, not Karen. Unaware of it, as you say.

From the EPA:

Effects of Elevated Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Temperature on Forests
Statement of the Problem
Concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other trace gases have been increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity. By the 1980s, accumulating evidence suggested that increasing levels of these gases could produce higher global temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns. More information on how the biosphere controls atmospheric CO2 was needed to understand the Earth’s carbon cycle. Foremost, an understanding of source-sink relations between the atmosphere and the various components of the biosphere was needed. Consequently, research was undertaken to delineate the relations between atmospheric CO2 concentrations, changes in global climate drivers, and responses of the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum (EPA 1993). The science questions governing the research were:

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

Great stuphhh Jeffery :)

Are you having another epileptic fit ?

My complete link didn't work.

Here it is:


The key points are that soil N is often limiting, not C. Moreover, the effects of elevated C cannot be disentangled from elevated temperature. The two often generate antagonisms which affect primary production. And of course the effects of pollinators, herbivores, pathogens and their natural enemies up the food chain are extremely difficult to predict. My last post, which utterly demolishes everything Karen writes, makes this clear. He/she/it does not attempt to rebut a single point because he/she/it does not uinderstand what I wrote because he/she/it has no formal training in the field. So what does he/she/it express such confidence in her voodoo science? Because it fits with his/her/its political and economic views, and damn the science.

Again, our scientific understanding of the rules govering the evolution, assembly and fucntioning of ecosystems is still in its relative infancy. So many extremely complex and interrelated parameters are involved, of which concentrations of atmsopheric C02 are one. But it must be remebered that current plant biodiversity evolved in response to relatively low ambient concentrations of C02. The atmosphere has not approached 400 ppm in many, many millions of years. And of course the other point is that the current rate of change exceeds by many factors the rate of change in this gas at other times. The scale matters. But dweebs like Karen do not understand the importance of scale or of non-linear aspects.

Again, I am wasting my valuable breath on Karen's histrionics. If he/she/it were remotely congiscent of basic plant ecophysiology and of larger scale processes, they wouldn't be able to write the crap that they do. But, as we've said a million times, they vastlyu overestimate their knowledge, because they have no formal training in the field. They think they can get away with drawing vast generalzations in complex fields, whereas in academic circles they'd be laughed off the stage. And they keep coming back to be humiliated time, and tiem again.

I have said that Karen can't reach up to the sole of my shoe in science. From the posts he/she/it makes, maybe I have still raised the bar too high.

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

Note Karen's last resort: to insults.

So predictable for deniers and anti-environmentalists. Humiliated and cornered, they lash out with alacrity, devoid of any substance. What a clown.

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


I agree :)

Ooh, ooh! And again. You don't exactly 'read' widely, do you, KanSpam?

At first glance any moron who cannot interpret what must follow a phrase such as 'at first glance' is, well, a moron. It means 'superficially', referring to the kind of conclusion a complete klutz who'd be out of her intellectual depth in the cerebral paddling pool might draw.

Ha ha, lol, drool runs down chin etc..

Plus, also, here's the bit the meatbag spambots ain't chumming about -

However, increased CO2 uptake does not necessarily mean that the biosphere is healthier or that the increased carbon uptake will continue indefinitely (Matson et al 2002, Galloway et al 2002, Heimann and Reichstein 2008, Gruber and Galloway 2008). Nor does it change the basic facts about the potential magnitude of the fossil fuel carbon source (figure 6) and the long lifetime of the CO2 in the surface carbon reservoirs (atmosphere, ocean, soil, biosphere) once the fossil fuels are burned (Archer 2005). Fertilization of the biosphere affects the distribution of the fossil fuel carbon among these reservoirs, at least on the short run, but it does not alter the fact that the fossil carbon will remain in these reservoirs for millennia.

Humanity, so far, has burned only a small portion (purple area in figure 6) of total fossil fuel reserves and resources. Yet deleterious effects of warming are apparent (IPCC 2007), even though only about half of the warming due to gases now in the air has appeared, the remainder still 'in the pipeline' due to the inertia of the climate system (Hansen et al 2011). Already it seems difficult to avoid passing the 'guardrail' of no more than 2 °C global warming that was agreed in the Copenhagen Accord of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC 2010). And Hansen et al (2008), based primarily on paleoclimate data and evidence of deleterious climate impacts already at 385 ppm CO2, concluded that an appropriate initial target for CO2 was 350 ppm, which implied a global temperature limit, relative to 1880–1920 of about 1 °C. What is clear is that most of the remaining fossil fuels must be left in the ground if we are to avoid dangerous human-made interference with climate.
The principal implication of our present analysis probably relates to the Faustian bargain. Increased short-term masking of greenhouse gas warming by fossil fuel particulate and nitrogen pollution represents a 'doubling down' of the Faustian bargain, an increase in the stakes. The more we allow the Faustian debt to build, the more unmanageable the eventual consequences will be. Yet globally there are plans to build more than 1000 coal-fired power plants (Yang and Cui 2012) and plans to develop some of the dirtiest oil sources on the planet (EIA 2011). These plans should be vigorously resisted. We are already in a deep hole—it is time to stop digging.

Squashing morons is icky and tedious, but someone has to do it...

Subliterates at work: 'Hanson is an idiot'.

Indeed - I always hated that band.


Why do you never answer question arising from your own rejectionism? Most recently, I asked you the following at # 65, # 70, # 78 and # 90 but you have not responded:

Why wouldn’t precipitation increase if OHC, SST, LST and tropospheric T increase?

Please explain why the hypothesis is wrong. Please provide your explanation for what effects you think warming will have on the hydrological cycle and why.

You didn't just reject the hypothesis on emotional grounds did you? I am starting to wonder since you seem to be incapable of explaining your reasoning.

Rejecting the scientific understanding of AGW on emotional grounds is called "denial".

Either you explain your reasoning, or admit that you are simply indulging in emotive rejectionism, also known as denial.


Good tracking work there! So far we've got Karen spamming from Goddard's Midden, the Hockey***** and the crank feeds.

Not looking good for K's credibility is it?

You are a spamming, time-wasting denialist ignoramus.

Or perhaps not. Prove otherwise by answering the endlessly-dodged question repeated *yet again* at # 58.

Crank feeds...

Denialist middens...

Crank feeds...

Denialist middens...

Crank feeds...

Denialist middens...



Karen spams his own spam. Tragic.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 09 Apr 2013 #permalink

Despite Karen's little ploy @45 being immediately obvious, she has proceeded, unaware, with her pitiful self-deluding conceit of 'wedging' Jeff with Hansen... Despite being here constantly you never actually engage with others,but we know all your bold assertions are simply the questions you are too proud or scared to ask. Questions which have been answered,often with great care.And you cannot fathom any of it....

Karen, you have to stop your self-humiliation, there's nothing left of you.

That's not the answer to the questions posed above, Karen.

Looks like you are aa spamming, time-wasting denialist ignoramus after all.

Ah one, two, ah one-two-three:

Altogether now!

Crank feeds…

Denialist middens…

Crank feeds…

Denialist middens…

Crank feeds…

Denialist middens…

;-) ;-)

I am not saying anythign of the sort, you moron... you have taken whar Hansen said out of context and made it out to be what you want it to mean. As I said, the effects of C02 on primary production and ecosystem functions are likely to be non-linear. End of story.

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

BBD, I heard on the grape vine that you are one of the extremely rare cases of a climate skeptic crossing over the divide and transmogrifying into a carbonazi.

Is that true ?

Answer # 58 and I might tell you!

Karen, just another climate revisionist troll. Her #15 is enough to have her quarantined where she can breed with the bradthing.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Apr 2013 #permalink

Very odd - comment out of numerical order. # 70 was response to # 71.

But not unless you drop the Nazi references. I don't like being called a Nazi, especially not by a fuckwit like you.

cRR Kampen, Newton's 3rd Law

Law III: To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.

Crank feeds…

Denialist middens…

Crank feeds…

Denialist middens…

Crank feeds…

Denialist middens…

I name thee...


Or perhaps SpamKan? (h/t bill).

Peeps should vote...

Karen, are you still compiling that other list?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Apr 2013 #permalink

Nick, BBD - Karen at least has the intelligence to benefit from negative reinforcement training (which demonstrates she is at least an intellectual match for an insect). It was before your appearances here and it took a several-year run of blowout defeats by all comers, but eventually she learned - "engaging" equates to "having her arse handed to her". .

If she seems a little gunshy, its only to be expected - idiota probata and all that, as the discount viscount (or the bradthing) might say. I'm betting that however much you persist, she'll just ignore you and keep flinging poo at the tourists. Dodging actual arguments, that's all she's got left.

Ahum. I will send the royalties to the discount viscount :)

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Apr 2013 #permalink


Thanks for the back story - which runs much as I supposed. SpamKan is indeed an unkillable zombie: even head-shots don't work. Not to worry; all I'm really doing here is letting it know that if it irritates me I will kick its kneecap out.

As you say - conditioning.

Who can take a blog thread
fill it up with chum?
Copy/paste some BS
dump it and then run?
The SpammerKan can!
The SpammerKan can!
Yes the SpammerKan can
coz it regurgitates the junk
it doesn't even understand...

Apologies to Dricusse, Newley, and Sammy Davis.

Further apologies to Leslie Bricusse... ;-)

Bill, swingin' stuff! Though clearly Karen ain't got no feel and can't hold a melody. Drones are her thing...

BBD #58

"Please explain why the hypothesis is wrong."

eg. "Why wouldn’t precipitation increase if"

Supply a link to the post where I said your hypothesis is wrong? I would like to read what I said that has got you so sooky.

A far more fitting action would be for you to re-read (and - although this might be too much to expect - even attempt to understand) the spam you post to find out, rather than demand others wade through your own trash.

Just admit you don' t know and can't understand, spots.


Fact: There is NO greenhouse signature to this flood, that would be only in the minds of those desperately looking for the CO2 bogyman, lol

You are not in a position to be so certain - RTFR below.

Listen Dumbo, the warmists were the ones that said it wasn’t “gunna rain again”.

It doesn’t rain and then it pours…………

This is a lie. Your discourse is based on some nonsense that you misunderstood or made up.

RTFR, fuckwit.

1/. Now, why wouldn’t precipitation increase if OHC, SST, LST and tropospheric T increase? Please justify this assertion:

Fact: There is NO greenhouse signature to this flood, that would be only in the minds of those desperately looking for the CO2 bogyman, lol

2/. Please summarise the effects you think warming will have on the hydrological cycle.

Come on, SpamKan. You started this.

aha, I see what your waffling on about now BBD, your numptyness has you in a total state of confusion, poor dear.

The subject at the centre of this is "was the Buenos Aires flood caused by CO2" ?

If you had read my prior post http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/04/01/april-2013-open-thread/comme… then you also should have concluded that there is evidence of a greater flood many years ago.

At no time did I discuss evaporation rates and temperature, your barking up the wrong tree old chum (WOOF WOOF little doggy).

Sooo.......getting back to the starting point............ how could you contend that the recent Buenos Aires flood is a byproduct of CO2 ?

First, the recent flood would need to be greater than the much earlier and larger flood.

Second, even if it was a larger flood, which it wasn't, how would/could you prove that that it was caused by CO2 ?

Oh.....maybe a quick link to Tammers ?

The truly remarkable thing is that it apparently really does think it's clever. Extraordinary.

The subject at the centre of this is “was the Buenos Aires flood caused by CO2″ ?

You don't even possess the ability to frame a question logically, Spamkan. It's no wonder your understanding of the process is so poor.
The thing is, you seem to prefer it that way.

Clausius–Clapeyron relation, spots.

Read up on it.

Now prove that the weather would have been EXACTLY the same if there had been 280ppm CO2.

Karen,you do not know anything about the record 24 hr rainfall in Buenos Aires beyond that it fell in a 24 hour period one day in 1906. If that total accumulated over the full 24 hr period or even over half the day,then obviously [well,to reasonably intelligent people anyway] the hourly rate was pretty low. You don't know that that early event even produced flooding of any note. The stat was introduced by the BA mayor without any further context at a press conference.

We do know that the c 190mm falling in Buenos Aires in this recent event fell in two to three hours. And we know that La Plata [which is 40-50km SE of BA] received in that time frame 400mm...which blows the official figures out of the frame.
It's actually quite easy to associate such intense hourly rates with CC mediated changes to atmospheric water potential. The stats have been collected that show such events becoming more frequent.

"The truly remarkable thing is that it apparently really does think it’s clever. Extraordinary"

Exactly. Hence why it keeps coming back to be humiliated time and time again.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Apr 2013 #permalink

Karen, while Nick will simply repost #94 hoping perhaps this time you have someone who can actually read and read it to you - are you still compiling that list? I know it's about a dozen times the length of the other one you compiled, but you've had your time by now.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 10 Apr 2013 #permalink

You don't even read your own spam do you sunspot:

the majority of the rainfall occurred in just 2 or 3 hours.

Now try reading what Nick wrote.

Is it because you enjoy the humiliation?

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 10 Apr 2013 #permalink

The truly remarkable thing is that it apparently really does think it’s clever.

It's quite common in our regular trolls. For example, that was chameleon's foible as well. Evidence to the contrary is like heavy rain off an Argentinian duck's back...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Apr 2013 #permalink